Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 13, Issue 79
Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 13, Issue 79
- Subject: Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 13, Issue 79
- From: Chris Cox <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 03:47:19 +0000
- Thread-topic: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 13, Issue 79
>>Are you pretending that the capabilities don¹t exist simply because you
>>can¹t buy a commercial tool to exercise those capabilities? That is
>>insane.
>
>The capabilities didn't even exist until about a year ago, and they're
>only available in a little-known, unpolished command-line volunteer
>kludge that a rather talented and dedicated (and somewhat crazy) guy
>whipped up for himself to try to fix a seriously broken system and was
>generous enough to share with the rest of the world. If you think that's
>a meaningful answer to Adobe's inability to do colorimetric camera
>input...then it's not me who's insane.
So you admit that your previous claim was wrong.
ACR and DNG have the capability, even if you cannot purchase the tools
that you like to use those capabilities.
And you have a tool that works, even if you don’t like the way it works.
>>You seem to apply your misunderstandings of DNG to all Adobe products and
>>operations (even those that don¹t deal with DNG or Camera Raw).
>
>No; those are separate problems, also show-stoppers. At least up through
>non-CC versions (when I got off the crazy train), Photoshop _still_
>miserably failed many of the gamma tests that, for example, Elle Stone
>has documented. As in, use a fuzzy paintbrush and Photoshop does the
>fuzzy bits without bothering to reverse the profile's gamma encoding.
>Maybe you can fix some of that if you know the secret magic incantation
>of settings hidden behind leopard warning signs...but not all, and the
>mere fact that such basic correct color handling isn't the default is
>appalling.
You are mixing multiple concepts, and apparently assuming that “image
processing 101” theory applies in the real world (<sarcasm>because
everyone knows "practice equals theory”</sarcasm>). In Photoshop, if you
blend in a gamma 1.0 document, or turn on gamma 1.0 blending, then you
will get gamma 1.0 blending. Of course, you may also see the artifacts
that accumulate rapidly if you attempt to use gamma 1.0 blending in an 8
bit/channel document, which is why most people don’t do that unless they
work in floating point (32 bit/channel) images.
>Now, maybe Adobe is making enough money with CC subscriptions that it can
>afford to fix some of the broken stuff. I don't know, and, frankly, I
>don't care; I've long since moved on to solutions that actually work. If
>so, wonderful -- and you can demonstrate that it has by spending some
>time on Elle's site and putting together a bunch of demonstration images
>showing that Photoshop is finally fixed.
You have yet to point out anything that is actually broken. So there is
nothing I can fix.
>But that still doesn't address the chaos that is DNG profiling....
Again, you can’t blame the technology and app capability on your lack of
preferred tools outside that app and technology.
That’s like claiming that math doesn’t work because you don’t like your
personal calculator.
And you are still making broad claims based on very narrow issues (many of
your own making or misunderstanding).
You would be much better off asking about these issues instead of making
easily disprovable claims that harm your reputation.
Chris
_______________________________________________
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