Re: Colorimetric Accuracy in the Field
Re: Colorimetric Accuracy in the Field
- Subject: Re: Colorimetric Accuracy in the Field
- From: Henry Davis <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 12:54:49 -0400
Andrew wrote: " . . . And measuring two samples of say output of a
printer with a Spectrophotometer is a quite different from measuring a
sample at the scene (which isn't what one proponent of
colorimetrically accurate raw processing has done), since the
illuminant in the measuring device is often quite different from the
illuminate of the scene! You think that plays a role?"
Henry: I suspect that camera manufacturers might disagree with you
here in that they are probably very keen on understanding the response
of their camera system as it records a scene.
As an expert in profiling and color management you've insisted that
colorimetric matches aren't the purpose of profiling or a color
managed workflow.
Andrew Replied: I've never said that. Or you completely misunderstood
what I've said.
Henry replies: I recall that you made that assertion in a thread
regarding the failure of ICC profiles to produce matches to Pantone
colors that are within a printer's gamut. It may have been someone
else but I think it was you. I believe you went on to say or imply
that it wasn't ever the intent or goal for ICC profiles.
Pursuing the question in threads like this seems to always lead to
more rabbit hole reasons for dismissing the idea of Colorimetric
matching. Maybe I do misunderstand but I can't get through the
confusion without some clarification, and maybe I'm not the only one
who's confused.
Thus, colorimetric matches play an important part in evaluating your
work - no?
Andrew Replied: . . . In the example above indeed! This is vastly
different from saying a process is colorimetrically accurate without a
2nd set of measurements
Henry replies: It sounds as though you are defining colorimetric
accuracy based on close agreement in measurements. I'll go with that
- up to a point. I don't know a better way to define it with
consistency. Have you experienced a measured colorimetric accuracy of
two samples that failed to be visually accurate?
If colorimetric accuracy is so important on the one hand then why is
it that on the other hand you dismiss the pursuit of it as too
difficult or too complex?
Nobody is suggesting that this is a simple task.
Nobody is saying that the illuminant isn't a hugely important factor.
Nobody is saying that a majority of photographers have an interest in
this - at least for now.
You conclude that it's not complex if people just accept what some
people say. ? ? ? You say that people don't even understand how to
ask the proper questions. ? ? ? I'm not exactly sure what the message
is you're trying to communicate with all of that but it doesn't sound
very nice. It makes me want to apologize for testing your patience.
I get it, I get it, I get it: measuring two patches isn't the same as
shooting in the field. But I think you would have to admit that there
is a starting point for the camera in the field and that the
manufacturer probably took a few measurements and did some research
involving colorimetric matching. It would be very interesting to find
that their R&D starting point was pleasing color instead of
colorimetric. That would be a worse rabbit hole, don't you think?
Henry
_______________________________________________
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