[argyllcms] Re: Gamut question?
- From: "Yves Gauvreau" <gauvreau-yves@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 14:53:16 -0400
Thank you Goren, lots of food for thoughts in what you write. I read someone
else a few days ago who mentioned that to become an expert on any subject one
had to invest 10000 hours of work and study, so I have about 9,990 to go.
Thanks
-----Original Message-----
From: argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On ;
Behalf Of Ben Goren
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 12:32 PM
To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [argyllcms] Re: Gamut question?
On Oct 26, 2018, at 9:04 AM, Yves Gauvreau <gauvreau-yves@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I view this as an optimizing problem of obtaining the maximum printable
volume of colors from the ones captured by the camera and or in some case
I'd like to "play" in LAB mode for example, in Photoshop without constraint
or as little as possible.
With that in mind...perhaps I can help add a bit of perspective.
There are lots of directions you can go, but they really coalesce into two
general options.
The overwhelmingly popular one is to just use the tools the way everybody
typically does — and, honestly, it’s not only a perfectly fine option, it
really is the right one for most people. There’s not all that much more to
squeeze out of the tools, save for some uncommon scenarios. And, if you’re in
one of those scenarios (fine art preservation and reproduction, certain
scientific and industrial applications, select high-end commercial photography
studios, etc.), you’ll already know where the popular tools fall short and what
you need to do to go beyond.
The other option is to jump down the rabbit hole of color science. You’re not
necessarily going to get a knock-your-socks-off improvement in your final
images...but you _will_ learn all sorts of amazing and wonderful things about
human perception, optics, physics, and more. And, yes, you’ll also add some
tools to your repertoire that will improve your imaging.
So...that would be my advice. If you’re the type of person who likes to
understand the world around you, plow ahead — but with the goal of learning
what’s out there rather than unlocking some extra something-or-other in your
current tools. If you already know exactly where your current workflow falls
short (“I’m trying to match the yellows in this acrylic painting and they’re
just not coming out right” or the like), there’re good ways to address that
sort of thing. But otherwise, time spent with the camera in your hands will do
more to improve your photography than anything related to color science.
...and, of course, if your’e a student or other sort of individual with the
luxury to pursue everything, absolutely go in all directions at once!
I should add that I’m emphatically not trying to steer you away from gaining
insight into color science. There’re many lifetimes worth of stuff to learn,
and all of it will literally change your perception of the world, sometimes in
fundamental ways. I just want to make sure that, if you jump down that rabbit
hole, you do so knowing that that’s what you’re doing, and not in a futile
effort to get something you think exists but doesn’t really — or, at least,
make sure that you’re okay with pursuing those sorts of white rabbits.
Cheers,
b&
Other related posts:
