Re: maclife.de
Re: maclife.de
- Subject: Re: maclife.de
- From: Uli Zappe <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 09:44:57 +0200
Am 03.09.2008 um 02:55 schrieb Andrew Rodney:
Then again, what's the problem here? The product uses profiles. The
product pleases most of its users base
Might well be, but not being from Adobe, I don't care about Adobe's
user base. I do care about progress in color management. That was the
perspective of my review.
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.
Look, I'm at no "camp". I wondered whether camera profiles could work.
Therefore, I conducted an expensive test and found out that
metrologically it clearly does if you use certain products. Since the
test was so expensive it's clear that it could hardly be performed by
an "ordinary user" of color management products (that's why magazines
such as Mac Life exist), which possibly explains why many users are
not aware of the advantages of such a solution and therefore don't
currently ask for one. (A quote of Steve Jobs comes to my mind who
said something along the lines that features that users are already
able to ask for aren't the interesting ones.)
As I've done with all my Mac Life color management reviews before, I
posted a short summary of my results to this list, as it seemed there
are people on this list who are interested in the results but cannot
read German. As I explained before, it's currently beyond my resources
to actually translate the complete review (10 pages with lots of
tables, diagrams and statistics). So obviously, the problem is that
you'd have to trust my English summary on this list. If you don't, I
can understand this very well, but then there's not much point in
discussing this further, because my argumentation is based on the
results of my review, of course.
Having found out that camera profiling works so well, it's only a
logical consequence to wish it be implemented in many applications.
That conclusion does not make me part of any "camp". So in the
interest of calming things down, this will be my last mail to this
topic.
And it got adopted in a HUGE way thanks to a product called
Photoshop from a company named Adobe.
Whatever their historical merits, it is my impression that today,
Adobe stands in the way of a more widespread color management
adoption. Clearly, color management will only become a standard
technology if applied on the operating system level; application
centric color management is as archaic architectonically as was the
"each word processor brings its own printer driver" approach in the
dawn of the computing age.
But with Adobe's trademark disrespect for host OS integration, they
have managed that in the heads of far too many people, color
management is still something that takes place "inside of
Photoshop" (or the Creative Suite, for that matter). This is not
something in favor of color management, and it gets worse if
proprietary technology is used. Personally, if anything, it was
Apple's color management approach in Mac OS X that brought me to the
table.
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?
Because in the age of analog photography, there was no color
management, and choosing between these two alternatives was the only
option to influence some color specifics? But what's the point here?
Analog photography was then, and color management is now.
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.
Please reread the 2 sentences you quoted. All I maintained was that
sentence 2 does not follow from sentence 1.
If you add an additional condition, as you do, of course anything can
possibly follow. If somebody has no intent to use color management,
then color management is indeed unnecessary. That's a trivial
conclusion.
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.
It's flawed because my measurements showed it to be, relatively to
what you can achieve when using individual ICC camera profiles (which,
of course, still don't deliver perfect results without any flaws). We
can argue all night about what actually makes a good image, but the
advantage of a concept such as "metrologically flawed" is that it's
well defined and trivial to check if you do your math.
Profiles by ProfileMaker are better.
Yah, better.
Yes, that's what my test showed. Obviously, with a different result, I
would argue differently here. My whole point is based on that simple,
factual result.
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.
I asked Adobe for a test version of their product; that's the usual
procedure when performing such a test. If they don't provide me with
the current version, it's their fault, not mine.
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