Re: maclife.de
Re: maclife.de
- Subject: Re: maclife.de
- From: Andrew Rodney <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 18:55:17 -0600
On Sep 2, 2008, at 4:25 PM, Uli Zappe wrote:
Edmund didn't say "broken", he only said that it's a (admittedly:
"crying") shame that this feature is missing, to which I agreed and
agree.
Apple's situation is even more absurd as they praise ICC camera
profiles in their Aperture manual, but don't deliver in the Aperture
software ...
Crying shame, more absurd. What we have are solutions in search of a
problem (again) and pundits who would rather use alarming language
than any facts. That both of you are not Americans leads me to worry
about the Bush administration's effect on more than just its citizens
in terms of fear mongering <g>.
I think Adobe apps are flawed in many respects, many of them GUI
related, but not specifically related to color reproduction. In any
case, my main point was to refrain from authority arguments ("smart
people think X is the case").
We can discuss flaws in terms of rendering and GUI but you have to
actually present some facts first. This probably isn't the venue
however. But so far, all I've heard from your camp is emotional, non
scientific statements which make it difficult to take your points
seriously.
I use Microsoft products (and I'm on a Mac). I'm not sure what that
statement has to do with anything.
It hasn't. :-) And the same is true for your statement of "tens of
thousands if not more ACR/LR users happily processing millions of
images using the Adobe solution" which is what I wanted to point out.
Then again, what's the problem here? The product uses profiles. The
product pleases most of its users base and that base isn't screaming
for implementation of ICC based camera profiles. They want soft
proofing, far more, that's for sure (I say that by listening to a lot
of users on the various forums). Your camp hasn't as yet defined why
anyone inside of Adobe, or any of its vast majority of users should
give a damn about ICC camera profiles. ACR and LR don't have a type
tool or do 3D rendering either. You don't hear too many, (well no one)
saying this is a problem.
I have no idea why you persist so much on the status quo, repeatedly
pointing to the many people that are content with it.
So you have evidence you'd like to present to the group that the so
called status quo are not content with the fact that they don't have
access to ICC camera profiles? We're all ears. Present your statistics.
That's not the way progress is taking place. There was a time when
only a "vocal minority" used color management at all. Because of
their "vocalism" ;-), it got adopted more widely in several areas,
but not yet in the one of camera profiling, since this is even more
complicated than others.
No, it got adopted because it solved a problem. It didn't cost a lot,
that is, there's a big benefit over initial cost and these costs have
come down. So has the complexity of the solution. And it got adopted
in a HUGE way thanks to a product called Photoshop from a company
named Adobe.
Yes I can't read the text and I have no idea other than what you've
said if its scientifically accurate or not. Even so, it doesn't
have anything to do with dismissing a solution in two major, if not
the biggest selling and installed base of Raw converters on the
planet. If it ain't broken....
... don't add new features?
I suspect you've never worked as a beta or alpha tester for Adobe.
I've done both (since version 2.5 of Photoshop). They don't add
features that don't by and large, solve users problems and make the
product better. Until such a time that the pro-ICC camera profile side
can demonstrate to the team this ads anything useful to the product,
its not going to happen. So far, your camp hasn't done this. In fact,
they continue to dilute the possibility by posting to such venues
these meaningless rants about this lack of functionality using just
emotion and no science or demonstrations of their case.
I used a ColorChecker chart to create a metrologically correct
profile; I did not alter anything else.
Which by and large is really meaningless because you're assuming that
whatever rendering settings you started with are null or ideal,
neither is necessarily the case. Do you ever wonder why all those
sliders are there and why photographers want them? If you want a push
button solution, shoot JPEG.
What's more right or wrong, Velvia or Ektachrome 100?
I haven't measured their color deviations.
Deviations from what? What you think you saw? From the colorimetric
values measured at the scene? And lets say you could answer this and
we found that Velvia deviated more than Ektachrome. Explain why
photographers select and use Velvia for a specific rendering quality
more than Ekatchrome? With the exception of copy work, photography is
not about attempting to colorimetrically match the scene and express
that on a display or a print who's gamut and dynamic range isn't
anything like the original.
Is an artful photography metrologically correct? No.
But that does not mean that metrologically correct colors are
unimportant as a starting point.
Sure it does if the user doesn't have any intent for that starting
point.
If I start out with a metrologically flawed image, some of its
deviations will not be the result of creative expression, but of
accidental technological flaws. That's not my concept of art.
Its "flawed" because you say it is. In the context of the users of
both Aperture and ACR/LR, you've failed to prove its flawed.
Profiles by ProfileMaker are better.
Yah, better.
Worse how?
Color deviation as measured in delta E(1976)
Well we could start a side thread about why you didn't use DeltaE
2002...
You've used the beta profiles just supplied?
I used Lightroom 2.0 with Camera RAW 4.5
You don't know, that's clear. You should be checking into this. The
"science" is already dated.
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