Greg Sullivan schrieb:
Just by definition. IMHO, Graeme can easily define this with clear conscience, *BECAUSE* it is so weakly defined. Any profile vendor is free to define and implement his particular artistic interpretation of perceptual and saturation intent.Why is it that in Argyll, that the "Enhanced Saturation" intent is referred to also as "ICC Saturation", when the ICC specification (V4.2) says:
"6.2.5 Saturation intent The exact gamut mapping of the saturation intent is vendor specific and involves compromises such as trading off preservation of hue in order to preserve the vividness of pure colours."
I.e, how can Argyll refer to this as being "ICC", when this intent is so poorly defined?