Re: maclife.de
Re: maclife.de
- Subject: Re: maclife.de
- From: John W Lund <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 13:08:16 -0700
Hello all,
First, thank you Mr. Zappe, for reporting here the interesting results of
your testing. I find it refreshing to hear from sources independent of the
corporations which dominate the commercial art market, especially if such
new information adds to the mix of knowledge & experience re: digital
imaging.
I assume you were unaware that the specific issue of whether or not ICC
profiles are generally useful with digital cameras has come up a few times
over the years on this list. And that conflicting opinions have generated a
lot of heated discussion, pro & con. Maybe this bit of history will help to
add a bit of context to the current thread...
To the point about Adobe's use of "profiles" in the ACR engine:
In the quotes below, I think Andrew is referring to Adobe's new color
rendering package, released with the DNG 1.2 spec, which includes two sets
of "profiles" (described as beta versions), which now can be embedded in
DNGs. The "Adobe Standard profiles" are camera-specific (although this is
hidden from the user - the interface always identifies this choice simply as
"Adobe Standard beta1" in LightRoom). In addition there are "Camera Matching
profiles", currently only for specific Canon & Nikon models, which are
designed to simulate the "looks" generated by the camera manufacturers'
respective software. The above is in addition to the earlier sets of camera
"profiles" provided in earlier version of the ACR architecture (ACR 4.2,
4.3, etc.).
All of this was just recently released, timed around the debut of LightRoom
v2 & ACR 4.5, as I recall. I suppose then you probably were not using these
options if they were released after you conducted your tests...
Regards,
John
JWL Images
Emeryville, CA
P.S. It might have been helpful if Adobe had chosen a different word than
"profiles" for their technology - if only to avoid confusion/conflation with
ICC profiles. Ah, well...
On 9/3/08, Uli Zappe <email@hidden> wrote:
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 19:52:47 +0200
> From: Uli Zappe <email@hidden>
> Subject: Re: maclife.de
> To: Andrew Rodney <email@hidden>
> Cc: ColorSync Mailing <email@hidden>
> Message-ID: <email@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
> Am 03.09.2008 um 17:30 schrieb Andrew Rodney:
>>> 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.
>>
>> YOU would have to know enough about the industry activity to
>> actually go to their site and download and install them!
>
> Am 03.09.2008 um 17:39 schrieb Andrew Rodney:
>>> No. I used the software Adobe provided me with, which did not
>>> include Canon specific profiles.
>>
>> Yes they did. [...] If you used a Canon or Nikon, obviously unknown
>> to you, you were using specific camera profiles under the hood.
>
>
> ????
>
> Could you please tell me which one of your two opposing statements is
> actually correct?
>
> Bye
> Uli
> ________________________________________________________
>
> Uli Zappe, Solmsstra?e 5, D-65189 Wiesbaden, Germany
> http://www.ritual.org
> Fon: +49-700-ULIZAPPE
> Fax: +49-700-ZAPPEFAX
> ________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Colorsync-users mailing list
> email@hidden
> http://lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
>
> End of Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 5, Issue 285
> ***********************************************
_______________________________________________
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