[argyllcms] Re: help with camera profile
- From: Graeme Gill <graeme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 00:20:55 +1000
Ben Goren wrote:
> And, then, suddenly, all our problems with gamut mapping and white balance
> and all the
> rest...they instantly vanish. All those calculations are already done today
> by first converting
> tagged RGB into XYZ (again, I'm oversimplifying) -- but XYZ of a print lit
> with a standard
> illuminant, not the XYZ values of the original scene...so I'm left wondering
> why we ever even
> bother with RGB in the first place.
These problems don't vanish - they are just pushed further down the pipeline.
The point
of jpg camera output is that the camera is doing the rendering into a display &
print
friendly format so that the user can do something with it without further
effort,
and as a bonus the camera manufacturer gets to impose a "look" on it to
differentiate
themselves.
Raw (or XYZ) is close to scene referred, so the white point choice, tone
compression
and gamut mapping has to be done somewhere else if you want to display or
print. If
you want to impose your own look or at least take control over the assumptions a
camera would make for you, then this is a good workflow to follow.
> Sorry for the rant...I'll shut up, now...just don't get me started on people
> who specifically
> request CMYK JPEG files....
Nothing wrong with compressing CMYK files using JPG to save space. At print
resolution
you can get away with pretty high compression. What CMYK colorpace is more of a
concern.
Graeme Gill.
Other related posts:
