Re: Photoshop CS4 DeviceLink CMM Engine
Re: Photoshop CS4 DeviceLink CMM Engine
- Subject: Re: Photoshop CS4 DeviceLink CMM Engine
- From: Marco Ugolini <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:40:51 -0700
- Thread-topic: Photoshop CS4 DeviceLink CMM Engine
In a message dated 4/28/09 12:14 PM, Steve Upton wrote:
> At 11:46 AM -0700 4/28/09, Marco Ugolini wrote:
>>
>> It seems that the device link conversion feature in Photoshop CS4 is still a
>> first step, a rough introduction to the functionality, with much room for
>> improvement -- which hopefully will come.
>>
>> One question I have, though, is the following: do *all* device link profiles
>> contain precise information on the destination color space, or a copy of the
>> destination profile within them? If they don't, how would Photoshop know
>> which profile to assign post-conversion, if and when it should be made
>> capable of doing that?
>
> No, in fact *none* of them do.
Hi Steve.
I thought so, but I had to make sure I wasn't missing something.
> *none* being a qualified answer to mean that the spec doesn't allow for
> the specification / inclusion of source / destination profiles in any
> *standard, documented* way.
>
> So if the spec doesn't allow it, it can't be done (at least according to the
> spec).
>
> Proprietary solutions which combine a profile that contains private tags with
> a CMM / workflow tool that can use those tags is the only solution available
> today.
So, the only way for Photoshop to be able to assign a specific destination
profile after a DVL conversion would be after a change in the spec allows
for a destination profile tag -- and only if the DVL used in the conversion
does indeed contain such a tag, properly filled. Correct?
> As far as I see it Adobe did about as much as they could with link transforms
> that stay in the same color model.
One can only hope that future versions of Photoshop will allow for DVL
conversions *across* color modes.
> I would have liked to have seen the ability to change color models as well
> but then there would be a bunch of complaints about the destination space
> in that case.
To be fair, it's a somewhat fine point to comprehend for the non-seasoned
user of imaging technologies.
> It seems that the first place to start is to help the ICC amend the spec to
> include better meta data in the device link profiles themselves. Then we can
> take the "fight" to Adobe (which I would expect to be unnecessary as Adobe
> would probably be happy to support something that was in the ICC spec.)
Makes sense, but, even if the ICC should decide to modify the spec, it will
take time -- probably quite a bit of time -- to get done, judging from the
pace of past innovations.
> The thing I think is strangest about all of this is that the discussions are
> only coming up NOW, much more than a decade after the ICC spec supported link
> profiles.
Strange, yes, but up to this point DVLs have been used by a very small
sector of imaging professionals, and now that Photoshop is in the DVL game,
things may be just starting to get into high heat after a long low simmer.
Marco Ugolini
_______________________________________________
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