Re: Media Testing for maclife.de
Re: Media Testing for maclife.de
- Subject: Re: Media Testing for maclife.de
- From: "Mark Segal" <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 17:15:47 -0400
Andrew,
Where you say:
<<So now we have one group saying that non
proprietary camera profiles are a must, without an ounce of proof that
they are a superior solution to a free but proprietary implementation
in two well used Adobe Raw products. >>
I think you have hit the nub of the issue here, but I'm not sure what to make of your statement. Uli has presented his test evidence to the effect that from a metrology point of view, as he puts it, he is getting more accurate results than those obtained using proprietary Adobe profiles. Therefore he and some others believe that it would be in the community's interest if Adobe's raw converters could accommodate an open, transparent and malleable profiling solution. I hope I am characterizing their argument correctly. So it may not be quite correct to say he has not presented "an ounce of proof". It would appear that there are more ounces of proof "under the veil" as it were, for all who cannot read German, because the detail of his work is in German, and more often than not, "the devil is in the details". They could turn around and say that you haven't presented an ounce of technical proof supporting your position. (By the way, I'm one of those happy millions using the Adobe solution, which I find very satisfactory because I never assumed I would get accuracy out of the box from a raw converter anyhow. I start the life of every image with everything flat and zero so the image looks anodyne, and then build it to taste; but I'm quite prepared to countenance the possibility that other people have needs which could be better addressed with the kind of solution Uli is proposing.) I also found Chris Cox's intervention here unconvincing, because it was also thin on substantiation.
I agree with you that a company like Adobe is not going to undertake an expensive process of re-engineering their software in response to any wish-list and proposition which happens their way. They would never keep their heads above water running a business that way. So they need to be convinced that an idea is really worthwhile and practical to enough of their client base before adopting it. I also know that to their credit they are always on the look-out for good ideas. Colour management really is at the heart of their imaging applications, so one would think they have in interest in taking a good, hard look at what is being said in this forum generally, and in this thread especially. I think it would be constructive for Adobe to support a translation of Uli's complete article, request of him any additional information about his testing they need, then evaluate it carefully, and publish the results of their evaluation. I think this would clarify much of the discussion in a more enlightening manner than we have seen heretofore. To anticipate any cynical Adobe bashing which may arise here, let me just conclude by pointing out that in the past Adobe has not been the least bit shy about seeking out, adopting and further perfecting software solutions which were not of their original design.
Cheers,
Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: Andrew Rodney
To: Terence Wyse
Cc: 'colorsync-users?lists.apple.com' List
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2008 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: Media Testing for maclife.de
On Sep 7, 2008, at 12:04 PM, Terence Wyse wrote:
> Andrew, PMPro's Digital Camera module is available as a stand-alone
> application for $620 USD. Not sure if that includes the DC Checker
> SG chart (I think it may) but if it does not, that would only add
> about another $300, still well under $1,000.
Which is still $1000 more than free, which is the cost of the solution
to build and tune profiles for the Adobe products.
> You weren't assuming that Uli was talking about the PMPro Publish
> right (about $3,000)? Given the context of this discussion, that
> would be a stretch I would think.
He mentioned ProfileMaker Pro. The discussion of profile editing also
came up (assuming anyone would find using PMP's editor a fun way to
spend the day).
If you exclude the small group of color geeks here that might pay a
grand for these solutions, there's a big world of end users out there
who would not and would be (are) quite happy with the free solution
provided by Adobe. So now we have one group saying that non
proprietary camera profiles are a must, without an ounce of proof that
they are a superior solution to a free but proprietary implementation
in two well used Adobe Raw products. And if anyone is convinced that
they simply have to use open ICC camera profiles with even a $1000
product, fine. Do so. You have a group of Raw converters that will
support them. If end users feel that this functionality is so
important that not having the ability to support them in an Adobe Raw
converter is a deal breaker, don't use the Adobe solutions. But
someone, somewhere has yet to convince either the vast majority of
happy Adobe users or Adobe themselves that supporting ICC camera
profiles is the least bit useful. That's the bottom line here.
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
_______________________________________________
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