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