Re: maclife.de
Re: maclife.de
- Subject: Re: maclife.de
- From: Andrew Rodney <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 11:27:10 -0600
On Sep 2, 2008, at 11:01 AM, Uli Zappe wrote:
ACR/LR, nope, and its not necessary
Says who?
No, the question is, who says it IS necessary? There's a very small
and vocal group who may not even use or understand the Adobe Raw
applications who swear they just must have ICC profiles defining (or
assuming they are defining) the capture and scene specifics of the
capture. They've totally failed to convince the smart Adobe engineers,
Thomas Knoll at the top of that list, that this is necessary. And we
have tens of thousands if not more ACR/LR users happily processing
millions of images using the Adobe solution. Its up to the ICC
proponents to PROVE that the architecture is flawed or they cannot, as
the masses of users can, render images as they wish. And with the DNG
editor, advanced users have tools to build custom "proprietary
profiles" or tweak existing profiles for matching the in-camera JPEG
rendering or creating their own custom rendering looks.
I posted information about a review of camera profiling. For the
usage of camera profiles, it *is* necessary.
The Adobe and Apple products have profiles.
Of course, you might not be interested in camera profiling, but then
that's the wrong thread for you ... ;-)
I've built my share over the years with every target and software
product you can imagine. I've as yet been convinced that its useful in
anything but rare conditions like copy work. I've had no issues
producing a color appearance I desire from the tens of thousands of
Raw's I've processed in ACR/LR. Some however make it sound like the
lack of standard ICC profiles built by users in Adobe products is an
unimaginable crime perpetrated by Adobe as some kind of punishment.
Those people have yet provided an ounce of evidence that having ICC
profiles available in the Adobe products would be at all useful to the
installed base or that the current architecture is flawed.
Yep, that's trivial, but again, this is not what I referred to. It's
not about assigning a profile after the rendering, but during the
rendering, as I said: *instead* of the Adobe default profiles.
And that's possible (and has been) from day one of the Adobe Raw
toolset. What you can't do, and you've got to prove, is that
substituting the current solution with user built, ICC profiles is at
all useful to anyone but a few, vocal color geeks, most who've never
actually produced a photographic image other than a target!
OTOH, my tests showed that camera profiles that are correctly used
are definitely useful (as long as you find a clear improvement in
color reproduction "useful").
And you're defining "clear improvement in color reproduction" how?
Rendering is totally subjective. We can colorimetrically match
something like a Macbeth target, which is always useful if what you're
shooting is Macbeth targets under a fixed illuminant. The vast
majority of photographers are interested in rendering the scene as a
creative endeavor. There's nothing more "accurate" about a print of a
scene then the image on screen when you compare it to the actual scene
colorimetry itself. The DNG editor is creative tool that allows some
functionality not possible prior to its introduction using the two
profiles that from day one have been used by the Adobe Raw engine.
They are not ICC profiles, so what?
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