Re: Apple/Adobe Imaging, DAM and Workflow
Re: Apple/Adobe Imaging, DAM and Workflow
- Subject: Re: Apple/Adobe Imaging, DAM and Workflow
- From: Andrew Rodney <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 09:56:32 -0600
- Thread-topic: Apple/Adobe Imaging, DAM and Workflow
On 7/17/07 8:12 AM, "edmund ronald" wrote:
> - For printers, it is clear that canned profiles are mostly ok, when
> you have them. All my clients use third party papers and request
> profiles for these.
Agreed.
> - For screens it's sadly obvious that canned profiles are as of now
> mostly hopeless, but with one or two over-marketed exceptions
> calibrators work as sold.
No question!
> - For cameras, default calibration is good enough unless you have
> trained eyes. If you have trained eyes you will get uncomfortable with
> default renderings. We can argue about how this can be solved.
Default renderings are just a starting point. There's no one size fits all
default when you consider the huge number of different images one will
render.
> But the search for better quality in the top 5% will continue to keep
> us in the money.
Thankfully, that's very true. We still need to consider the other 95%
(especially by those who develop software products).
On 7/17/07 9:38 AM, "Nick Dunmur" wrote:
> That sums it up for me as a photographer, and for the market that I am part
> of. It is also necessary to embrace Edmund's points if one is competing on a
> professional level and always looking for a point of differentiation between
> oneself and one's competitors.
No argument there. That doesn't mean added complexity and cost to you as the
photographer automatically translates into a higher level product. But
often, it does.
Andrew Rodney
http://www.digitaldog.net/
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden