RE: : gamma bewilderment: A history lesson
That's a harsh judgement, Edmund. I'd rather have the ICC than nothing. / Roger -----Original Message----- From: colorsync-users-bounces+graxx=videotron.ca@lists.apple.com [mailto:colorsync-users-bounces+graxx=videotron.ca@lists.apple.com] On Behalf Of edmund ronald Sent: 31 mars 2016 12:52 To: THOMAS A LIANZA <tomlianza@tomlianza.com> Cc: 'colorsync-users?lists. apple. com' List <colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> Subject: Re: : gamma bewilderment: A history lesson ICC: a sclerotic organisation obsessed by scanned imagery converted to print and controlled viewing conditions in a world where images are mostly viewed on random screens.
Roger, Modern imagery is all about computer displays, and digital capture. The base colorimetric models that are baked into the ICC approach are simply not appropriate for very high dynamic range capture (15 stops!) ,and self-luminous displays viewed under random uncontrolled conditions. Maybe the digital cinema guys will write the rules of the new world. If I were feeling really harsh, I would say that even our assumptions re. basic observer functions are being pushed to the limit by the new display tech, in particular the very peaky RGB Leds and OLed displays. It would be interesting to ask Prof Hunt what he thinks of these matters, as I believe he was party to both color TV and Ektachrome when they were being developed, and is thus very familiar with the fact that measurement and technology need to be developed in tandem. Edmund ᐧ On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 7:50 PM, Roger Breton <graxx@videotron.ca> wrote:
That's a harsh judgement, Edmund. I'd rather have the ICC than nothing.
/ Roger
-----Original Message----- From: colorsync-users-bounces+graxx=videotron.ca@lists.apple.com [mailto: colorsync-users-bounces+graxx=videotron.ca@lists.apple.com] On Behalf Of edmund ronald Sent: 31 mars 2016 12:52 To: THOMAS A LIANZA <tomlianza@tomlianza.com> Cc: 'colorsync-users?lists. apple. com' List < colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> Subject: Re: : gamma bewilderment: A history lesson
ICC: a sclerotic organisation obsessed by scanned imagery converted to print and controlled viewing conditions in a world where images are mostly viewed on random screens.
_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/edmundronald%40gmail...
This email sent to edmundronald@gmail.com
On Mar 31, 2016, at 12:37 PM, edmund ronald <edmundronald@gmail.com> wrote:
The base colorimetric models that are baked into the ICC approach are simply not appropriate for very high dynamic range capture (15 stops!)
Go on, in what way? Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
Andrew, don't bait me. Print is all about compressing the gamut to that of paper and ink, and cutting a chunk out of the DR so the image is printable. Digital photography these days is all about taking an image at night straight into the headlights of an approaching car, and having the display dazzle you :) Edmund ᐧ On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 8:47 PM, Andrew Rodney <andrew@digitaldog.net> wrote:
On Mar 31, 2016, at 12:37 PM, edmund ronald <edmundronald@gmail.com> wrote:
The base colorimetric models that are baked into the ICC approach are simply not appropriate for very high dynamic range capture (15 stops!)
Go on, in what way?
Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/ _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/edmundronald%40gmail...
This email sent to edmundronald@gmail.com
On Mar 31, 2016, at 1:10 PM, edmund ronald <edmundronald@gmail.com> wrote:
Andrew, don't bait me
Unwilling or unable?
Print is all about compressing the gamut to that of paper and ink, and cutting a chunk out of the DR so the image is printable.
So WTF has that got to do with your comments about ICC profiles IN general? IF I have a high DR image and have to make a print, the above is obvious, it therefore would appear to be the role of a single output profile to said printer.
Digital photography these days is all about taking an image at night straight into the headlights of an approaching car, and having the display dazzle you :)
It could be that, it could be a print, it could be both. Again, what's that got to do with your rant? Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
On Mar 31, 2016, at 1:10 PM, edmund ronald <edmundronald@gmail.com> wrote:
Andrew, don't bait me Print is all about compressing the gamut to that of paper and ink, and cutting a chunk out of the DR so the image is printable. Digital photography these days is all about taking an image at night straight into the headlights of an approaching car, and having the display dazzle you :)
You need to read this by Karl Lang as it's obvious that the job of a photographer is to render to the print; usually from a much higher dynamic range capture, film or otherwise: http://www.lumita.com/site_media/work/whitepapers/files/pscs3_rendering_imag... What your rant has to do with the ICC is lost on at least two of us thus far. Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
Most consumers don't render to print anymore. Most images are seen directly on monitors. ᐧ On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 9:22 PM, Andrew Rodney <andrew@digitaldog.net> wrote:
On Mar 31, 2016, at 1:10 PM, edmund ronald <edmundronald@gmail.com> wrote:
Andrew, don't bait me Print is all about compressing the gamut to that of paper and ink, and cutting a chunk out of the DR so the image is printable. Digital photography these days is all about taking an image at night straight into the headlights of an approaching car, and having the display dazzle you :)
You need to read this by Karl Lang as it's obvious that the job of a photographer is to render to the print; usually from a much higher dynamic range capture, film or otherwise:
http://www.lumita.com/site_media/work/whitepapers/files/pscs3_rendering_imag...
What your rant has to do with the ICC is lost on at least two of us thus far.
Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/ _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/edmundronald%40gmail...
This email sent to edmundronald@gmail.com
On Mar 31, 2016, at 1:30 PM, edmund ronald <edmundronald@gmail.com> wrote:
Most consumers don't render to print anymore. Most images are seen directly on monitors.
Or use ICC profiles or any color management you've ranted towards. Those that do? I guess unless you can explain your point, best ignored? Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
On Mar 31, 2016, at 11:37 AM, edmund ronald <edmundronald@gmail.com> wrote:
The base colorimetric models that are baked into the ICC approach are simply not appropriate for very high dynamic range capture (15 stops!)
Off-topic, but Iliah has done a great job at debunking the HDR myth. Even if you have a sensor that's sufficiently linear over that range, optical systems are a real limit. Much past a dozen stops, even if you're merging multiple images, and you're just doing more and more to capture the nuances of your lens flares and the camera's mirror box's internal reflections. And scenes with that much dynamic range are typically uncomfortably bright and rarely pleasant to look at. Who actually stares into the Sun when watching sunsets? Really, when it comes down to it, if you think you need more dynamic range than you get with today's DSLRs, what you _really_ need to do is find or make better light. Cheers, b&
I have the greatest respect for Iliah, but I would like to see the detail of this. There are a bunch of night street videos made nowadays by amateurs, and even pros, which show someone walking on the sidewalk below whatever lights and signage a city has to offer. One can see the features of the model clearly, but the luminous displays typically burn out - why would they not retain detail if the highlights were treated better by higher in-camera and processing DR and a high DR display? Edmund ᐧ On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 10:26 PM, Ben Goren <ben@trumpetpower.com> wrote:
On Mar 31, 2016, at 11:37 AM, edmund ronald <edmundronald@gmail.com> wrote:
The base colorimetric models that are baked into the ICC approach are simply not appropriate for very high dynamic range capture (15 stops!)
Off-topic, but Iliah has done a great job at debunking the HDR myth. Even if you have a sensor that's sufficiently linear over that range, optical systems are a real limit. Much past a dozen stops, even if you're merging multiple images, and you're just doing more and more to capture the nuances of your lens flares and the camera's mirror box's internal reflections. And scenes with that much dynamic range are typically uncomfortably bright and rarely pleasant to look at. Who actually stares into the Sun when watching sunsets?
Really, when it comes down to it, if you think you need more dynamic range than you get with today's DSLRs, what you _really_ need to do is find or make better light.
Cheers,
b& _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/edmundronald%40gmail...
This email sent to edmundronald@gmail.com
On Mar 31, 2016, at 2:44 PM, edmund ronald <edmundronald@gmail.com> wrote:
I have the greatest respect for Iliah, but I would like to see the detail of this.
And I'd like to hear the details of your rant but you suggest it's a trap. Quid pro quo; WHY should Iliah reply to someone like you, who refuses to answer a question backing up his POV? Difficult to take you seriously, but the opportunity is open for you to do so. Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
I do not refuse to answer, simply did not know I need to; and I try to avoid things that may be considered self-promotion. We are talking of linear portion of dynamic range here: http://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/Dynamic-range-fair-share-of-flare-and-glar... On Mar 31, 2016, at 4:58 PM, Andrew Rodney wrote:
On Mar 31, 2016, at 2:44 PM, edmund ronald <edmundronald@gmail.com> wrote:
I have the greatest respect for Iliah, but I would like to see the detail of this.
And I'd like to hear the details of your rant but you suggest it's a trap. Quid pro quo; WHY should Iliah reply to someone like you, who refuses to answer a question backing up his POV?
Difficult to take you seriously, but the opportunity is open for you to do so.
Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
-- Best regards, Iliah Borg LibRaw, LLC www.libraw.org www.rawdigger.com www.fastrawviewer.com
Iliah, Now I understand what you said, rather than said to be saying. Thank you very much for the reference. Best regards. Edmund On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 11:06 PM, Iliah Borg <iliah.i.borg@gmail.com> wrote:
I do not refuse to answer, simply did not know I need to; and I try to avoid things that may be considered self-promotion. We are talking of linear portion of dynamic range here:
http://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/Dynamic-range-fair-share-of-flare-and-glar...
On Mar 31, 2016, at 4:58 PM, Andrew Rodney wrote:
On Mar 31, 2016, at 2:44 PM, edmund ronald <edmundronald@gmail.com>
wrote:
I have the greatest respect for Iliah, but I would like to see the
detail
of this.
And I'd like to hear the details of your rant but you suggest it's a trap. Quid pro quo; WHY should Iliah reply to someone like you, who refuses to answer a question backing up his POV?
Difficult to take you seriously, but the opportunity is open for you to do so.
Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
-- Best regards, Iliah Borg LibRaw, LLC www.libraw.org www.rawdigger.com www.fastrawviewer.com
_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/edmundronald%40gmail...
This email sent to edmundronald@gmail.com
Ben Goren wrote:
Off-topic, but Iliah has done a great job at debunking the HDR myth. Even if you have a sensor that's sufficiently linear over that range, optical systems are a real limit. Much past a dozen stops, even if you're merging multiple images, and you're just doing more and more to capture the nuances of your lens flares and the camera's mirror box's internal reflections. And scenes with that much dynamic range are typically uncomfortably bright and rarely pleasant to look at. Who actually stares into the Sun when watching sunsets?
John McCann's book "The Art and Science of HDR Imaging" goes to great lengths to illustrate the glare issue in optical capture systems. The human eye is as limited, if not more in this respect, than any artificial image capture system. Graeme Gill.
participants (6)
-
Andrew Rodney
-
Ben Goren
-
edmund ronald
-
Graeme Gill
-
Iliah Borg
-
Roger Breton