Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 13, Issue 79
Are you pretending that the capabilities don¹t exist simply because you can¹t buy a commercial tool to exercise those capabilities? That is insane.
The capabilities didn't even exist until about a year ago, and they're only available in a little-known, unpolished command-line volunteer kludge that a rather talented and dedicated (and somewhat crazy) guy whipped up for himself to try to fix a seriously broken system and was generous enough to share with the rest of the world. If you think that's a meaningful answer to Adobe's inability to do colorimetric camera input...then it's not me who's insane.
So you admit that your previous claim was wrong. ACR and DNG have the capability, even if you cannot purchase the tools that you like to use those capabilities. And you have a tool that works, even if you don’t like the way it works.
You seem to apply your misunderstandings of DNG to all Adobe products and operations (even those that don¹t deal with DNG or Camera Raw).
No; those are separate problems, also show-stoppers. At least up through non-CC versions (when I got off the crazy train), Photoshop _still_ miserably failed many of the gamma tests that, for example, Elle Stone has documented. As in, use a fuzzy paintbrush and Photoshop does the fuzzy bits without bothering to reverse the profile's gamma encoding. Maybe you can fix some of that if you know the secret magic incantation of settings hidden behind leopard warning signs...but not all, and the mere fact that such basic correct color handling isn't the default is appalling.
You are mixing multiple concepts, and apparently assuming that “image processing 101” theory applies in the real world (<sarcasm>because everyone knows "practice equals theory”</sarcasm>). In Photoshop, if you blend in a gamma 1.0 document, or turn on gamma 1.0 blending, then you will get gamma 1.0 blending. Of course, you may also see the artifacts that accumulate rapidly if you attempt to use gamma 1.0 blending in an 8 bit/channel document, which is why most people don’t do that unless they work in floating point (32 bit/channel) images.
Now, maybe Adobe is making enough money with CC subscriptions that it can afford to fix some of the broken stuff. I don't know, and, frankly, I don't care; I've long since moved on to solutions that actually work. If so, wonderful -- and you can demonstrate that it has by spending some time on Elle's site and putting together a bunch of demonstration images showing that Photoshop is finally fixed.
You have yet to point out anything that is actually broken. So there is nothing I can fix.
But that still doesn't address the chaos that is DNG profiling....
Again, you can’t blame the technology and app capability on your lack of preferred tools outside that app and technology. That’s like claiming that math doesn’t work because you don’t like your personal calculator. And you are still making broad claims based on very narrow issues (many of your own making or misunderstanding). You would be much better off asking about these issues instead of making easily disprovable claims that harm your reputation. Chris
For some reason, my initial post did not include my question: Can someone please clarify what the referenced "command-line volunteer kludge" is? Rick Gordon --------------------- On 3/16/16, 8:47 PM, Chris Cox wrote:
Are you pretending that the capabilities don¹t exist simply because you can¹t buy a commercial tool to exercise those capabilities? That is insane. The capabilities didn't even exist until about a year ago, and they're only available in a little-known, unpolished command-line volunteer kludge that a rather talented and dedicated (and somewhat crazy) guy whipped up for himself to try to fix a seriously broken system and was generous enough to share with the rest of the world. If you think that's a meaningful answer to Adobe's inability to do colorimetric camera input...then it's not me who's insane. So you admit that your previous claim was wrong. ACR and DNG have the capability, even if you cannot purchase the tools that you like to use those capabilities. And you have a tool that works, even if you don’t like the way it works.
RICK GORDON EMERALD VALLEY GRAPHICS AND CONSULTING ___________________________________________ WWW: http://www.shelterpub.com
On Mar 16, 2016, at 8:47 PM, Chris Cox <ccox@adobe.com> wrote:
So you admit that your previous claim was wrong. ACR and DNG have the capability,
ACR? No. It's useless for colorimetric copy work. It has no objective means of setting exposure nor channel balance. Indeed, those sliders may well be great for artistic expression, but they guarantee that you'll never ever even in principle get balanced channels and to-the-0.01-stop correct exposure. And ACR only supports a fixed and very small set of output spaces -- with no option to output to the camera's native space tagged with a suitable profile. And none of the supported spaces make especially good working spaces, save for sRGB for Web output, meaning you've got another color transform before you get to the data. I could keep going, but it would obviously be very bad for your blood pressure. DNG could maybe be kludged if you had a suitable non-ACR RAW developer that spoke DNG. I've heard rumors that CaptureOne might be such a tool, maybe. Anders's tool is mostly useful for those wanting to use Adobe's artistic rendering tools but with a more accurate starting point. I still wouldn't recommend it for colorimetric copy work. 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. Is your ego really that bruised to learn that a farmer needing to harvest thousands of acres of wheat isn't interested in buying your beloved Lamborghini? That he doesn't care that the Lamborghini can cross a prepared track the length of the farm in under 30 seconds but his combine harvesters take a couple days to finish the job?
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. Doing color math in a gamma-encoded space is as insane as doing a spellcheck on an uncompressed ZIP file. 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. What you've just told us is that Adobe's option is to either accept posterization of shadows or dramatically incorrect blending. And you think this is an acceptable compromise? Indeed, you yourself confirm this:
Of course, you may also see the artifacts that accumulate rapidly if you attempt to use gamma 1.0 blending in an 8 bit/channel document, which is why most people don’t do that unless they work in floating point (32 bit/channel) images.
Right. And it never occurred to anybody at Adobe to crack open a math textbook to learn how to do the proper math on gamma-encoded data, or maybe to do the blending math on the FPU and convert back to integers when done? Or maybe incorporate some code from ImageMagick, an open source project that does the same operations but doesn't suffer the same problems? After all, if Microsoft could get its original TCP/IP stack from BSD, why can'd Adobe get its color engine from similar sources?
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. It's like the Lamborghini dealer admitting that, sure, the Lambo's elapsed times suffer if the track isn't well prepped, but it's the farmer's fault for not paving the hedgerows and that's no excuse for preferring the combine harvester and thinking the Lambo is an overpriced toy. b&
participants (3)
-
Ben Goren
-
Chris Cox
-
Rick Gordon