Re: Media Testing for maclife.de
Re: Media Testing for maclife.de
- Subject: Re: Media Testing for maclife.de
- From: Uli Zappe <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 03:50:25 +0200
Am 07.09.2008 um 02:04 schrieb Andrew Rodney:
On the other hand, this also means that Adobe, with its
proprietary technology, still can't improve on the best Canon
factory profile, which, as you might remember, is a standard ICC
profile.
Of course I'm aware of that, and it is true for ICC profiles such
as those from Canon and ProfileMaker, as well.
So you're aware that the profiles can improve or you are aware you
stated that they can't as in your first post (again showing a bias
against non "standard" ICC profiles?)
I'm aware that profiles might be improved by editing, but I also
pointed out that this is true for ICC profiles as well.
I never stated that *profiles* "can't improve". The subject in the
first quote above was *Adobe*, and the quote refers to the fact that
of all Adobe default profiles, none is (metrologically) better than
the best Canon default profile. I tried to explain that for a test
like the one I performed, the only practically reasonable assumption
is that each vendor tries to showcase the abilities of their products
as best as they can in the default settings already, i.e. the default
settings show the best the *vendor* (i.e. Adobe) was able to deliver.
Yes, it's possible that Adobe's default settings aren't the optimum,
but the same is true for Canon and ProfileMaker. So even if *we* could
optimize Adobe's settings, it would still be an open race because then
*we*'d have to try and do the same with the Canon and ProfileMaker
profiles.
Of course it is theoretically possible that the Adobe profile settings
could be tweaked for a huge improvement, while the ProfileMaker
settings could only be tweaked for minuscule improvements. It's just
that unless there are good reasons to assume this (and I'm not aware
of any), it's not probable. And since the ProfileMaker profile starts
out with a delta E 2 advantage over the best Adobe default profile,
it's just not probable that lots of tweaking - on *both* profiles -
would result in the Adobe profile finally outstripping the
ProfileMaker profile.
That's fine. But perhaps things wouldn't need calming down if you'd
double check what you post
I do - I'm very conscious with words. (That doesn't mean I make no
mistakes, of course, especially in a language that's foreign to me.)
and keep the bias to a minimum.
Apart from my personal gripes with Adobe, that stem from different
issues and in any case never influenced any of my findings in the
matters discussed here, I really had no bias. Before I started my
measurements, I was completely unsure what would turn out to work best.
But since I invested a lot of effort in my tests and performed them as
best as I could, of course I take their results seriously. And one
result is that ProfileMaker profiles are better metrologically than
any of the default profiles, including those of Adobe, but in no way
limited to them.
If you get such a result and believe it's correct, isn't it only
natural that you'd wish that widespread applications like Lightroom
and Aperture would offer the option to use these profiles? That's all
I said. I cannot see any bias in this.
Do you see your contradictions above?
No. I hope I was able to explain why.
Do you see how it appears to indicate a disadvantage to a profile
format you appear to dislike?
It is true that I generally prefer standard over proprietary formats,
and the case discussed here is a good example why: had Adobe tried to
implement whatever they tried to achieve within the ICC standard
format, users would now have the *option* within Lightroom to choose
between Adobe and e.g. ProfileMaker profiles. As it is, they haven't.
I strongly believe that, everything else being equal, choice is always
preferable. Of course you could argue that in this case, everything
else was not equal, i.e. Adobe had good reasons to choose a
proprietary format because it allowed them to implement *additional
improvements*. And this was exactly what I had in mind when I stated
the above:
If "Adobe, with its proprietary technology, still can't improve on the
best Canon factory profile", this means that they were *not* able to
deliver *additional improvements* over the ICC format, and hence, that
their choice of a proprietary format was not justified, at least in
hindsight (Adobe might well have had good intentions).
So my reasoning is:
1. Everything else being equal, standard formats are better because
they allow choice.
2. Adobe chooses a proprietary format and explains this with
shortcomings of the ICC format (as quoted in this thread)
3. My measurements show the best results are achieved with ICC profiles.
4. from 3) follows: there are no shortcomings in ICC profiles relative
to Adobe's format.
5. from 1) and 4) follows: Adobe's choice of a proprietary format was
not the best solution
Let me point out that the profile format question was in no way the
*focus* of my review, but if we talk about it, that sums up my stance.
I cannot see any bias in the steps 2-5 of my reasoning. Step 1 is
clearly a value statement. If you want to call this a "bias", so be it
- it's a "bias" I certainly would be ready to defend.
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