Andrew wrote: " . . . And measuring two samples of say output of a printer with a Spectrophotometer is a quite different from measuring a sample at the scene (which isn't what one proponent of colorimetrically accurate raw processing has done), since the illuminant in the measuring device is often quite different from the illuminate of the scene! You think that plays a role?" Henry: I suspect that camera manufacturers might disagree with you here in that they are probably very keen on understanding the response of their camera system as it records a scene.
As an expert in profiling and color management you've insisted that colorimetric matches aren't the purpose of profiling or a color managed workflow.
Andrew Replied: I've never said that. Or you completely misunderstood what I've said. Henry replies: I recall that you made that assertion in a thread regarding the failure of ICC profiles to produce matches to Pantone colors that are within a printer's gamut. It may have been someone else but I think it was you. I believe you went on to say or imply that it wasn't ever the intent or goal for ICC profiles. Pursuing the question in threads like this seems to always lead to more rabbit hole reasons for dismissing the idea of Colorimetric matching. Maybe I do misunderstand but I can't get through the confusion without some clarification, and maybe I'm not the only one who's confused.
Thus, colorimetric matches play an important part in evaluating your work - no?
Andrew Replied: . . . In the example above indeed! This is vastly different from saying a process is colorimetrically accurate without a 2nd set of measurements Henry replies: It sounds as though you are defining colorimetric accuracy based on close agreement in measurements. I'll go with that - up to a point. I don't know a better way to define it with consistency. Have you experienced a measured colorimetric accuracy of two samples that failed to be visually accurate? If colorimetric accuracy is so important on the one hand then why is it that on the other hand you dismiss the pursuit of it as too difficult or too complex? Nobody is suggesting that this is a simple task. Nobody is saying that the illuminant isn't a hugely important factor. Nobody is saying that a majority of photographers have an interest in this - at least for now. You conclude that it's not complex if people just accept what some people say. ? ? ? You say that people don't even understand how to ask the proper questions. ? ? ? I'm not exactly sure what the message is you're trying to communicate with all of that but it doesn't sound very nice. It makes me want to apologize for testing your patience. I get it, I get it, I get it: measuring two patches isn't the same as shooting in the field. But I think you would have to admit that there is a starting point for the camera in the field and that the manufacturer probably took a few measurements and did some research involving colorimetric matching. It would be very interesting to find that their R&D starting point was pleasing color instead of colorimetric. That would be a worse rabbit hole, don't you think? Henry