Re: "Non-linear"?
Re: "Non-linear"?
- Subject: Re: "Non-linear"?
- From: Marco Ugolini <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:53:40 -0700
- Thread-topic: "Non-linear"?
In a message dated 10/9/08 10:13 AM, Mo wrote:
> So what you are telling me is that taking the existing compressed
> color space for one output is acceptable for another?
Go back and read what I wrote, and you'll see nothing of the sort.
Start from the RGB master and repurpose *that* to your desired end uses. So,
of course, no, you *don't* compress the image's colors by converting to a
color space that is smaller than what exists in the master file, and you do
not try to "re-expand" the image's gamut from there. Of course not.
You always use the *master* image, edit it to make it look the best it can,
then convert it to this or that end use (print, web, what have you). Each
final application makes the best use possible of the original file's colors
and detail.
> Well, I guess I can't argue with you if you are willing to accept less
> then optimal files and have a low expectation of the outcome.
I didn't say that either. You are having a monologue right now. <g>
> You also must understand that most people couldn't care less about file
> management, process control or color management, but they know what they
> like and don't like when they see it.
Believe me, I understand enough to ask you this: isn't it *your* job to take
the image and make it into what the client wants it to be, to the extent
that it's reasonable and feasible? Why would it be important that the client
care about file management, etc.?
Are you required to know about car mechanics when you take your car to the
shop for repair, or do you just want the car to work when you pick it up
later, for a reasonable price?
> Because of where the industry is going and everyone is now a professional
> with software in hand, lots of mistakes happen and expecting all users
> to have a common understanding of what is required for their success
> is asking far too much.
That's certainly not what I'm asking of "all users". *We* in the imaging
professions must know what we are doing, but we're certainly not here to
save the world from itself. We're here to do our work the best way we are
able to. What we can't control we must either avoid, or handle in some way
if we can't avoid it.
> Assuming they will either learn or learn the hard way is really a selfish /
> self centered approach to having better art.
"Selfish"? Who is "selfish"? We're in business: *everyone* must be somewhat
"selfish" to stay in business! What's that got to do with this?
"Art"? Most of the time customers want images that aid them in selling more
goods. "Art" is seldom the point.
> People need a road map to success and the current implementation of color
> management has had little success in trying to accomplish better art and
> educating users.
Yes, here is your old argument again, Mike, the one from a while back over
the "failure of color management". I remember now.
> Also, assuming that people will take ownership of files when the
> stakes are high is often faced with finger pointing and the software
> does no help to accomplish unsolving the mystery of where an error
> occurred.
?!
Frankly, allow me to say that this sounds a bit rambling...
> Besides that, a lot of the work I do - I have no friggen clue as to what the
> client wants, has given me, or what they want back. It's a discovery process
> for both service provider and art director and if I start with crap, it can
> only get worse from there. There is no current assurance if the profile
> represents the numbers or the appearance from when it was last captured or
> converted.
I'm sorry that you're having such a hard time. Maybe it's time to look into
a line of business that causes you less stress... <g>
> SEEMS? Again, the acceptance of old school thinking is just apauling
> to me here on this forum. Let's just all guess at what the hell to do
> with an image. That's progress intelligently planned for sure.
"Old school thinking"? How condescending of you to lump the participants in
"this forum" (which includes some of the best people around in imaging these
days) as "old school" and "appalling".
What does *that* mean? Are you the proponent of a "new school of thought"?
If so, your presentation is in need of a good editor if you wish to convince
others of anything in particular.
> I need color assurance of a color space so I can do my job better.
> People need better tools to create better art. It's not color science
> guys, it's common sense that is lacking in users as well as the
> current technology of the implementation of color manglement.
You may want to stop and take a breath, reassess what you are doing and
thinking, formulate clear ideas and questions that other people are actually
able to understand -- and then you just might start receiving some replies
and answers, at long last, besides viewing your work in a new light.
Anyway, I think I best leave this thread behind me, given how it seems both
to have run aground and to make not much sense for others besides yourself.
I have tried to add to the discussion, and I hope to have been of some help,
but I will move on now.
Marco Ugolini
_______________________________________________
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