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: Wayne Bretl <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:51:26 -0700
Hmmm... perhaps "Adobe Products" (all of them) are designed for colorimetric accuracy, but please give examples of how they are used for colorimetry "rather often." The most common use (for digital photography) can't be an example, because the camera sensitivities are not linear transforms of the standard observer. So, are there Adobe Products (and which ones?) that are in use and special cameras that are standard-observer equivalent for these uses? Some examples, please.
Also, it is obvious in using Photoshop or Lightroom for photography that an S curve is applied - just increase the exposure slider and watch the histogram bunch up on the right. So, what is the procedure for making these products act in a linear way so that actual colorimetry is possible (given camera sensitivities are appropriate)?
Wayne Bretl
-----Original Message-----
From: colorsync-users-bounces+waynebretl=email@hidden [mailto:colorsync-users-bounces+waynebretl=email@hidden] On Behalf Of Chris Cox
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 7:41 PM
To: email@hidden
Subject: Re: 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
_______________________________________________
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