Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 5, Issue 291
Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 5, Issue 291
- Subject: Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 5, Issue 291
- From: "Mark Segal" <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 22:38:20 -0400
Thanks Chris - and I hear you.
Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Cox
To: email@hidden
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 10:02 PM
Subject: Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 5, Issue 291
But Mark, that is exactly what Adobe does.
ICC profiles would have been preferred, but they did not have the
capabilities needed.
So Adobe extended the concept of ICC profiles to include the needs of
digital camera RAW processing, released the spec, and an editor. Adobe is
continuing to work with the ICC to extend the ICC profile specification to
address the needs of camera RAW processing (and many other areas, such as
digital cinema and HDR). But changing standards takes time.
And "not an ounce of proof" would be correct, since Uli seems to be drawing
conclusions not supported by his testing.
Sorry I don't have time to spend on documentation, I'm just giving you the
facts and pointing out the problems. I'm kinda busy right now trying to
ship a product.
Chris
On 9/7/08 2:17 PM, "email@hidden"
<email@hidden> wrote:
> 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.
_______________________________________________
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