Re: rendering intents (was: In search of a D50...)
Re: rendering intents (was: In search of a D50...)
- Subject: Re: rendering intents (was: In search of a D50...)
- From: Steve Upton <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 10:45:31 -0700
On Sep 4, 2014, at 6:31 PM, Lars Borg <email@hidden> wrote:
> Steve,
>
Hi Lars,
> Sorry, no, as it would make for a poor user experience.
>
I think I might have to respectfully disagree on that one. more below
> The rendering intent selection needs to stay valid while you change the
> target profile.
> It would be very annoying and confusing if the intent field goes gray or
> changes when selecting a different profile.
Let’s think about this using an analogy:
Say I want to select a printer on my computer. When I select a desktop inkjet printer I’m presented with a popup containing the different paper sizes available. I select US letter.
Now say I select a different printer; my Dymo label printer. Should I assume that all the previous paper sizes are available? Likely not. They depend on the capabilities of the printer. Should my previous selection still be in place or should it change to a sensible default?
Available rendering intents do depend somewhat on the selected profiles.
> Would it revert to the
> original selection when a different profile is selected?
> And technically there is no such thing as an unavailable rendering intent.
> Every intent has a fallback, in case the intent lacks an explicit entry in
> the profile.
>
I do agree with you there. Technically, especially with LUT-based output profiles, the profiles tag list must contain all intents even if they all point to the same LUT internally. With matrix profiles though I honestly don’t think it’s so clear.
> Further, some users will complain that they're being denied access to
> rendering intents.:-)
But you see, that’s the exact problem I find with users, only in reverse. They complain that they’re granted access to intents that don’t exist.
I often speak of color management pitfalls and myths and one I try to mention every time to the photo crowds is that there’s no gamut mapping between working spaces. Go from ProPhoto or Adobe RGB to sRGB for web display and there’s a real risk of clipping.
Once I explain the problem I sense the ‘outrage’ in the crowd (you know these photo types, it doesn’t take that much ;-). They feel they’ve been misled by the user interface.
Perhaps there’s a UI middle ground where some selected intents, in appropriate situations, might display a small note beneath them stating that ‘relative colorimetric will be used instead’?
Not a huge problem, but worth considering.
regards,
Steve
_______________________________________________
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