Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.image.processing > #4391

Re: ICC profile for a light box

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 8/2/2018 3:48 PM, dale wrote:
> On 8/2/2018 4:54 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
>> On 01/08/2018 01:24, Eric Stevens wrote:
>>> On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 06:01:58 -0700, Savageduck
>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jul 31, 2018, dale wrote
>>>> (in article <bfm11i.dud.17.2@news.alt.net>):
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/30/2018 9:57 PM, nospam wrote:
>>>>>> In article<bfl4oa.9ei.19.3@news.alt.net>, dale<dale@dalekelly.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> might be a nice feature for Lightroom ... compatible with some
>>>>>>> measurement instruments ... and data like viewing angle, white 
>>>>>>> point, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> lightroom has been fully colour managed since day one.
>>>>>
>>>>> there is a difference between managing color and managing appearance,
>>>>> look up CIECAM02 on wikipedia
>>>>>
>>>>> viewing environment like a light room is one variable in appearance
>>>>
>>>> What exactly do you believe is a *light room*?
>>>>
>>>> Understand that any viewing environment is going to be influenced by 
>>>> amient
>>>> light, regardless of the specific light source be it day light, or 
>>>> any type
>>>> of artificial lighting.
>>>>
>>>> What is your specific, or special purpose/interest for needing this 
>>>> specific
>>>> icc profile for a *light room* (not LR the app)?
>>>>
>>>> It doesn’t sound as though you have any interest in color management 
>>>> for
>>>> photography post processing.
>>>
>>> My impression is quite the contrary. Why else do you need color
>>> management if it is to enable the management and control of the
>>> appearance of the finished print? The process starts with the object,
>>> continues through the camera, the processing in computer (which
>>> includes the screen or monitor), on through the printer and paper and
>>> surely (and this is the subject of the OP's original post) includes
>>> the viewing environment.
>>
>> Provided that the light approximates a blackbody with a characteristic 
>> temperature then the human eye's automatic white balance does a very 
>> good job of removing the orange or blue casts that a camera will 
>> faithfully record (if it is set to record the absolute RGB image). 
>> Remember in the old days of daylight vs artificial light films?
>>
>> You cannot control the lighting environment that prints will be viewed 
>> in and some peaky LED or mercury line fluorescent lamps can mess stuff 
>> up. But if you avoid the obvious pitfalls then comparison by eye with 
>> the original object is OK under real incandescent light or sunlight.
>>
>> There are a handful of materials whose colours alter radically 
>> depending on the colour temperature of the light that they are seen in 
>> didymium glass being one such and the gemstone Alexandrite another. 
>> They are unusual in that they have a deep cut notch in their 
>> transmission spectrum in the yellow which makes their perceived (and 
>> measured) colour vary significantly with the ambient lighting 
>> characteristics.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysoberyl#Alexandrite
>>
>> Most pigments and dyes used in colour printing avoid having these 
>> characteristics to prevent a print from appearing significantly 
>> different depending on the colour temperature of the ambient light.
>>
>> You still have problems in a mixture of incandescent and daylight 
>> though if the proportions vary across the object. Compared to the 
>> subjective errors caused by well known optical illusions there is 
>> little point in obsessing about total control of everything for one 
>> particular lighting situation unless you can control the display 
>> environment precisely.
>>
> 
> you *can* control the viewing environment an image is "approved" of ...
> 
> ... WYSIWYG ...
> 
> soft proofing from monitor to print in a light box, light room, or 
> transparency on light table sometimes involving a loop ... or the 
> reverse involving scanning or camera capture
> 
> ... hard proofing more applicable to prepress...
> 
> you sound like you would rather put the emphasis on the hardware, which 
> would be "good enough color" with a standard working space like sRGB 
> which has proved out for consumer WYSIWYG as in W3C's choice
> 

there are also hoods for monitors ...

-- 
dale - https://www.dalekelly.org/
Not a professional opinion unless specified.

Back to sci.image.processing | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

ICC profile for a light box dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2018-07-25 06:02 -0400
  Re: ICC profile for a light box nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-25 07:38 -0400
    Re: ICC profile for a light box dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2018-07-25 08:33 -0400
      Re: ICC profile for a light box nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-25 11:21 -0400
        Re: ICC profile for a light box Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-07-26 12:43 +1200
    Re: ICC profile for a light box dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2018-07-30 19:44 -0400
      Re: ICC profile for a light box Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2018-07-30 17:31 -0700
        Re: ICC profile for a light box Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2018-07-30 17:33 -0700
          Re: ICC profile for a light box dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2018-07-30 21:49 -0400
            Re: ICC profile for a light box nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-30 21:57 -0400
              Re: ICC profile for a light box dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2018-07-31 05:52 -0400
                Re: ICC profile for a light box Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2018-07-31 06:01 -0700
                Re: ICC profile for a light box dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2018-07-31 09:58 -0400
                Re: ICC profile for a light box nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-31 10:06 -0400
                Re: ICC profile for a light box dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2018-07-31 10:22 -0400
                Re: ICC profile for a light box dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2018-07-31 10:30 -0400
                Re: ICC profile for a light box Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2018-07-31 07:46 -0700
                Re: ICC profile for a light box dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2018-07-31 11:59 -0400
                Re: ICC profile for a light box dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2018-07-31 20:35 -0400
                Re: ICC profile for a light box Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-08-01 12:24 +1200
                Re: ICC profile for a light box Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-08-02 09:54 +0100
                Re: ICC profile for a light box dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2018-08-02 15:48 -0400
                Re: ICC profile for a light box dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2018-08-05 14:31 -0400
            Re: ICC profile for a light box Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2018-07-30 19:07 -0700
              Re: ICC profile for a light box dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2018-07-31 05:51 -0400
        Re: ICC profile for a light box dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2018-07-30 21:45 -0400
          Re: ICC profile for a light box nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-30 21:46 -0400
            Re: ICC profile for a light box dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2018-07-31 05:52 -0400
              Re: ICC profile for a light box dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2018-07-31 07:07 -0400
            Re: ICC profile for a light box PeterN <"peter,newdelete"@deleteverizon.net> - 2018-08-02 18:28 -0400
      Re: ICC profile for a light box nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-30 21:31 -0400
        Re: ICC profile for a light box dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2018-07-30 21:47 -0400
        Re: ICC profile for a light box Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-08-01 12:28 +1200
          Re: ICC profile for a light box nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-07-31 20:59 -0400

csiph-web