Stanley Smith wrote:
Photographers don't care-- they goose the colors later anyway to express their interpretation of a scene-- this is not new-- Ansel burned and dodged fiercely. Leave the science to the scientists. Go out and make art.
I have to chuckle at this point. This is so like the printing industry of 20 years ago (and some sections of it even today): "Why do we need these fancy shmancy device profiles ? We can just fiddle the ink ducts/roller pressure/water balance by hand to get it to match the proof print/get OK'd by the customer". That's a perfectly practical and well tested approach to getting stuff done. If you've got no other option, then by all means do that. But that doesn't mean that some other approach with a firmer foundation in science (translation "being smarter") mightn't offer some advantages in terms of being able to get where you want to go faster, more predictably, or even offering places to go that you couldn't conceive of reaching before. And when it's bundled up in a neat package of cameras + workflows that's accessible to all, it will be a "revolution" that "we should have switched to years ago" :-) Graeme Gill.