why device independent color?

if you want to purpose an image to more than one output device color,
and have the output look the same

or

if you want different input device color purposed to different output
device color(s) and want the output to look the same

then

you need to convert the device colors through device independent color
space like XYZ,CIELAB,CIELUV

I remember the introduction of the sRGB standard color space

I remember speaking on Kodak's internal ICC ( http://www.color.org )
mailing list, espousing that sRGB would be an excuse NOT to make device
profiles with regard to the device independent color space(s)

I think the use of SWOP CMYK standards had a similar result

it's been almost 20 years and it seems like most cameras are using sRGB
or ProPhotoRGB as default profiles instead of getting a REAL profile
from the vendor of the hardware or making such a profile itself

people who don't consider how far an image accurately when it is
multi-purposed in device independent color

there are few vertical imaging workflows left, perhaps there you can
translate the color by matching filtration, etc.

the only place I see for sRGB and SWOP is consumer related imaging

not to say that RGB/CMY (with/without maintenance of black channel)
isn't the best working space, I just don't see it as a profile
connection space, since there are MANY RGBs, they are device dependent,
and have device dependent color, whereas XYZ,CIELAB,CIELUV are
independent of device

let me take this time to also say that the print reference medium has
been a start with ICC to tackle appearance matching instead of color
matching, ought to be more reference mediums and implementations of such
use-cases to make better workflows


--
Dale

In article , Dale
wrote:

if you want to purpose an image to more than one output device color,
and have the output look the same

or

if you want different input device color purposed to different output
device color(s) and want the output to look the same

then

you need to convert the device colors through device independent color
space like XYZ,CIELAB,CIELUV

completely wrong.

what is needed is a colour managed workflow, with the image and each
device along the way having a profile.

On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 16:52:12 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Dale
wrote:

if you want to purpose an image to more than one output device color,
and have the output look the same

or

if you want different input device color purposed to different output
device color(s) and want the output to look the same

then

you need to convert the device colors through device independent color
space like XYZ,CIELAB,CIELUV

completely wrong.

what is needed is a colour managed workflow, with the image and each
device along the way having a profile.

And how do you do that with a reference colour space, such as "XYZ,
CIELAB, CIELUV"?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

if you want to purpose an image to more than one output device color,
and have the output look the same

or

if you want different input device color purposed to different output
device color(s) and want the output to look the same

then

you need to convert the device colors through device independent color
space like XYZ,CIELAB,CIELUV

completely wrong.

what is needed is a colour managed workflow, with the image and each
device along the way having a profile.

And how do you do that with a reference colour space, such as "XYZ,
CIELAB, CIELUV"?

users do not need to convert the image.

what they need to do is use a colour managed workflow and the computer
takes care of the details.

if you choose a different printer, pick the relevant profile and
whatever conversions are necessary are done automatically.

once again, let the computer do the work.

On 01/23/2014 10:06 PM, nospam wrote:
once again, let the computer do the work.

no, let lab dudes do gamut compression math, etc., by hand, for each image

--
Dale

On 01/23/2014 04:52 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Dale
wrote:

if you want to purpose an image to more than one output device color,
and have the output look the same

or

if you want different input device color purposed to different output
device color(s) and want the output to look the same

then

you need to convert the device colors through device independent color
space like XYZ,CIELAB,CIELUV

completely wrong.

what is needed is a colour managed workflow, with the image and each
device along the way having a profile.


that's how you get the profiles

--
Dale

On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 22:06:42 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

if you want to purpose an image to more than one output device color,
and have the output look the same

or

if you want different input device color purposed to different output
device color(s) and want the output to look the same

then

you need to convert the device colors through device independent color
space like XYZ,CIELAB,CIELUV

completely wrong.

what is needed is a colour managed workflow, with the image and each
device along the way having a profile.

And how do you do that with a reference colour space, such as "XYZ,
CIELAB, CIELUV"?

users do not need to convert the image.

what they need to do is use a colour managed workflow and the computer
takes care of the details.

if you choose a different printer, pick the relevant profile and
whatever conversions are necessary are done automatically.

once again, let the computer do the work.

But the computer has to have some standards against which it can
determine the meaning of the colour profile. Otherwise its a bit like
saying to your tailor I want a 197 chest, a 132 waist and a leg of
106. At which point your tailor will say "Huh! Waddaya mean?".
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 01/24/2014 04:25 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 22:06:42 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

if you want to purpose an image to more than one output device color,
and have the output look the same

or

if you want different input device color purposed to different output
device color(s) and want the output to look the same

then

you need to convert the device colors through device independent color
space like XYZ,CIELAB,CIELUV

completely wrong.

what is needed is a colour managed workflow, with the image and each
device along the way having a profile.

And how do you do that with a reference colour space, such as "XYZ,
CIELAB, CIELUV"?

users do not need to convert the image.

what they need to do is use a colour managed workflow and the computer
takes care of the details.

if you choose a different printer, pick the relevant profile and
whatever conversions are necessary are done automatically.

once again, let the computer do the work.

But the computer has to have some standards against which it can
determine the meaning of the colour profile. Otherwise its a bit like
saying to your tailor I want a 197 chest, a 132 waist and a leg of
106. At which point your tailor will say "Huh! Waddaya mean?".


profiles are calculated to go from device space to device independent
space, or vice versa

there are other considerations ...

but sRGB or SWOP or ProPhotoRGB are NOT device independent color spaces,
they are device standard spaces with which to match by design of
equipment/media to such device standard space

like a TV and a TV Camera, or like consumer imaging nowadays

even those might want to repurpose the image outside such a chain, in
which case you need to go through a device independent space with a profile

with all the different things happening in television besides P22 and
EBU phosphor CRT display, there are LCD, LED, Plasma, OLED, maybe more,
I think sRGB is going to die, same with ProphotoRGB and like SWOP
already might have

--
Dale

In article , Dale
wrote:

once again, let the computer do the work.

no, let lab dudes do gamut compression math, etc., by hand, for each image

what lab dudes? what labs?

people process their own images on their own computers, and all they
need to do is adopt a colour managed workflow and let the computer do
the work.

there is no need to do the math by hand for each image.

In article , Dale
wrote:


what is needed is a colour managed workflow, with the image and each
device along the way having a profile.

that's how you get the profiles

no, you get the profiles by running the appropriate profiling software.

what the software does internally doesn't matter. users do not need to
understand all the math behind it to be able to use it.

what matters is does the user get what they expect, and the answer is
yes.