Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 13, Issue 81
Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 13, Issue 81
- Subject: Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 13, Issue 81
- From: Chris Cox <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 02:41:21 +0000
- Thread-topic: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 13, Issue 81
>I still think you owe it to yourself to examine why you're so upset at
>the thought that Adobe products, which are excellent for their designed
>purpose, aren't useful for a purpose they were never designed for.
Except that Adobe¹s products are designed for colorimetric accuracy, and
used for colorimetry rather often. Again, you are making a blanket
statement based on one aspect of the products, and even that aspect is
only based on your preferences, not the actual capabilities of the
products.
Your repeated incorrect statements are harming your reputation, and not
helping anyone else on the mailing list (and may be doing damage to the
understanding of others).
Also, have you considered asking for better controls in ACR rather than
just throwing around accusations?
>>In Photoshop, if you blend in a gamma 1.0 document,
>
>First, that the default is anything other than gamma 1.0 blending
>demonstrates that whoever wrote the code doesn't understand what gamma is
>or what it's for. It's nothing more nor less than a form of data
>compression, a more efficient use of the bits on the disk.
No, it simply confirms that you confuse theory with practice and have
little or no experience with actual practice of image processing or
digital painting.
>And then we've got the problem that gamma _is_ vital for the internal
>storage, and forcing people to use gamma 1.0 for internal storage just to
>do correct manipulation of it then opens them up to all the problems that
>gamma fixes in the first place.
That¹s why there has been an option to do blending in gamma 1.0 in
Photoshop for many, many years (without changing the document colorspace).
But, again, it really isn¹t a great idea if you are using 8 bits/channel
because it will quickly lead to quantization artifacts. In 16 bit/channel
gamma 1.0 blending may not be too bad, and in 32 bit/channel (floating
point) it is the only option.
We know how to work with gamma encodings quite well, but you are still
trying to blindly apply theory to real world practice without
understanding any of the issues involved.
Instead of accusing people with more knowledge and experience than
yourself of getting things wrong, you might want to ask WHY things are
done the way they are done, so you can learn from the knowledge and
experience of others.
>>And you are still making broad claims based on very narrow issues (many
>>of
>>your own making or misunderstanding).
>
>Sorry, but you yourself are repeatedly pointing out the critical flaws in
>Photoshop and bragging about them as if they were features, not bugs.
You have not yet pointed out a flaw in Photoshop, only your own mistakes
and misunderstandings (or confusing personal preference with capability).
The comments about not enough precision on controls in ACR could be a
feature request, but certainly not a flaw.
The limited output spaces in ACR - ok, that can also be considered a
feature request (although you already have minimally disturbed data in
PhotoPhotoRGB).
But you still seem to be going about all this in the worst possible manner.
Simply asking for the features or asking for more information would help
you far more than making obviously inaccurate statements on a public
mailing list.
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