Re: Colorimetric Accuracy in the Field
Re: Colorimetric Accuracy in the Field
- Subject: Re: Colorimetric Accuracy in the Field
- From: Andrew Rodney <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 11:20:24 -0600
On Jun 6, 2013, at 10:54 AM, Henry Davis <email@hidden> wrote:
> 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.
Wasn't me. I don't mess with Pantone colors a lick. Go back and check where you heard this assertion!
> Pursuing the question in threads like this seems to always lead to more rabbit hole reasons for dismissing the idea of Colorimetric matching.
No one is dismissing colorimetric matching that I've read. Some are dismissing what are claims of colorimtric matching without any colorimetry! Or when there is a match, it's not enough patches. This is the colorimeric accurac rabbit hole where basically it's colorimetric accuracy when party A says so even when no color measurements were made or presented.
> 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 have it backwards. It's up to the "colorimetric accuracy in the field" to prove their points, not for me to dismiss them since I can't because they've falied to explain the process nor the aspect of colorimetry used. I'd really love for what they are saying to be true! They just have to prove it.
> I get it, I get it, I get it: measuring two patches isn't the same as shooting in the field.
Excellent, you're making progress. I supsect you now see where actual colorimetry was used in the patch example. How about that capture in the field workflow?
> 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.
I could make that assumption but will not because I don't know it to be a fact for one let alone all camera manufacturers. If someone has facts to back that up, I'll accept it as fact. And if the manufacturer(s) did, do you think they provided that data to anyone outside their company? And if they did, do you think that having just that data set provides all that is necessary to claim color accuracy in the field?
I told you very simple way we can gauge a colorimteric match by measuring two samples. Where's the same process to back up the accurate colorimetry in the field?
> 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?
Yes and mostly no. Yes in that anyone can say the color isn't pleasing. That is subjective. No in that it doesn't matter, since it is subjective <g>. I thought Afgachrome looked like crap but there were obviously photographers who preferred it's 'pleasing colors' since the film was sold for years. The in-camera JEPG processes are different among cameras because like film, R&D is making assumptions to what they think their customers will find more pleasing then the competition.
The rabbit hole is this in the field colorimetric accurate capture where nothing in the field is measured to prove any colorimetry is in effect. So I place this into the subjective until I see proof of colorimetry used and a metric of what constitutes accurate (dE 2000 to be specific).
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