Re: Designers, Color Management, and Xrite , some thoughts and comments.
Re: Designers, Color Management, and Xrite , some thoughts and comments.
- Subject: Re: Designers, Color Management, and Xrite , some thoughts and comments.
- From: Uli Zappe <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 19:13:04 +0200
Am 19.04.2008 um 16:30 schrieb Andrew Rodney:
I watch video on my Mac all the time (and its calibrated to 2.2, it
doesn't look awful to me).
If this is really the case, then I don't know why you bother about
color at all. A bit too much magenta certainly does not corrupt the
visual experience as much as a 2.2 gamma for a movie that's supposed
to be 1.8.
In other words, it is essential that basic Mac functionality
remains unaffected in its
integrity if the ColorMunki is used.
That's like expecting CM will implement (among other functionality),
world piece.
Not at all. It's as simple as sticking to the premises of the host OS.
There's an OS or application issue going on here if indeed some
applications will look less than idea with a 2.2 gamma.
You could say exactly the same about Windows and gamma 1.8 (and you'd
probably find that the issue would be much more pervasive there). It's
not that gamma 2.2 is the "ideal" gamma value. I know that e.g. the
authors of "Real World Color Management" think 2.2 is "the best" from
a visual POV. Others argue 1.8 is superior, still others favor *L. The
only thing that provides the real momentum behind gamma 2.2 is that
it's the native PC value, which really is not a technical argument,
just a pragmatic one.
There's NO REASON why CM software could not be designed such that a
user could pick between 1.8 and 2.2 (or both) without ever having to
ask the user about the term Gamma.
Ooops, if this is what you mean, then we really disagree here. I would
think it's a really shallow "solution" to actually provide a gamma
option, but to avoid the name. How superficial can you get? If
something has a precise name, then label it this way instead of giving
some vague and opaque description. (Just imagine a car with a
speedometer that says "fast" instead of 120 mph ...) It's not that
"gamma" is somehow a horrific expression, is it? I think it would be a
much more unfortunate situation if every software vendor started to
invent his own fancy circumlocution, and nobody could ever be sure
what this setting does exactly, and if it is actually the same as a
different worded setting in a competitor's software.
X-Rite tried this approach with the huey, and shortly thereafter,
issued the huey Pro that went back again to the "gamma" word, for a
good reason.
Provide concise online help about gamma, and all will be fine.
I'm not suggesting X-Rite not provide an option and lock users into
one setting!
Ah, I thought you would, because that's what X-Rite was doing, and you
strongly advocated against the change that Tom reported.
I'm suggesting they failed (in just this ONE example) to move
forward in removing this question from a user who has no idea what
is being asked nor why.
AFAIK they now intend to put the gamma setting in the Preferences
panel, where it will be out of the way for the occasional user who
just works with the defaults. As long as the default for this setting
is 1.8 on the Mac (and 2.2 on the PC), I think that's a great solution
along your suggestion. More experienced Mac users who have a good
reason to use 2.2 and know what they're doing (so that they aren't
surprised to see their GUI and movies look suddenly different) can
easily switch to 2.2.
Now like it or not, the reality is that some important areas of Mac
OS X are not color managed, most
notably everything movie related and the GUI.
Then nothing here is going to fix this in terms of the X-Rite product.
Correct. As long as Apple sticks to 1.8, this is the default that has
to be respected.
Again, its like the old, stale argument
No, it's not.
from the design community in large part that they should setup
Photoshop wrong so it previews images like their
dumb web browsers instead of telling users to download Safari. Their
argument is "Only 5% of people use Safari and its dumb of us to tell
them to use it if they want to see the images properly". Well you
either care about the color or you don't. If you do, there's a
simply solution despite the market number for this browser.
Yep, and that is the very difference. Both Mac and Windows users can
choose between different browsers. But both are locked into the gamma
of their OS. The only thing a Mac user could really do is switch to
Windows because of the gamma 2.2 issue. You wouldn't propose that in
earnest, would you?
I've not suggested that, I'm suggesting they don't have to know what
gamma means nor select a value that to them is meaningless. You can
show them a stinking picture of a TV playing video next to an image
of a Photoshop icon (to make up something quickly) and ask them
which they intend to use
As long as you *also* mention gamma 1.8 and 2.2, that would be fine
with me.
There's all kinds of other equally undesired and unnecessary areas
in the UI that could have moved such users past the old color
management mindset that WAS discussed by the beta testers
Can you give an example? For my taste (as a color management
outsider!) there's *too few* options in the ColorMunki, not too many.
Actually, you hardly do anything more than click "Profile". How could
this possibly still be reduced?
From an outside POV, I agree with you that color management is not as
easy as it should be, and can be downright frustrating. But the
problem is not too many options, the problem is unexpected behavior
and inconsistencies. If everything worked reproducibly (between
different applications etc.), then a few options wouldn't heard
anybody. And this consistency problem will get *worse*, not better, if
you introduce vague terminological replacements for something like the
gamma value.
Bottom line, time will tell how the market reacts to the software.
Users are already reporting bugs, bugs that shouldn't have found
their way into a released software product.
I know, I reported several bugs myself. Unfortunately, this seems to
be the norm rather than the exception nowadays. Just think of Leopard,
which will have left beta status with 10.5.5 if we are lucky ... :-
( I don't know why everyone is obsessed with time-to-market. If
developers would take their time, and as a consequence, users could
work effectively immediately after the release, all in all a huge
amount of unproductive time would be saved ...
Bye
Uli
________________________________________________________
Uli Zappe, Solmsstraße 5, D-65189 Wiesbaden, Germany
http://www.ritual.org
Fon: +49-700-ULIZAPPE
Fax: +49-700-ZAPPEFAX
________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
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
- Prev by Date:
Re: Photographers, printers, and proofs
- Next by Date:
Re: Designers, Color Management, and Xrite , some thoughts and comments.
- Previous by thread:
Re: Designers, Color Management, and Xrite , some thoughts and comments.
- Next by thread:
Re: Designers, Color Management, and Xrite , some thoughts and comments.
- Index(es):