First hit when you google:
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 6:33 PM, Elle Stone <ellest...@ninedegreesbelow.com>
> On 02/14/2016 03:56 PM, Sven Claussner wrote:
>> @Elle: you are speaking here of the JCH color model (or space) and
>> on your website  that JAB and JCH have outdated LAB and LCH
>> (which are often considered the high end image editing color
>> Searching a while for more information about JCH I found only very few
>> information, even not on other color management and FOSS graphics devel
>> mailing lists. Only on the PXLab website  I see a short description:
>> JCH:=The CIE Color Appearance Model (1997) with viewing and scene
>> to be defined separately.
>> I'm failing to understand all its implications.
>> Can you tell us more about JCH and JAB and why you consider it to
>> be a good choice, please? What about LAB and LCH then?
> I can't tell you very much about JCH/JAB because I'm still trying to
> figure it all out myself.
> You might try plowing your way through this PDF:
> This page has links to some equations:
> This page briefly talks about color appearance models in more
> down-to-earth terms:
> An internet search on terms like Color appearance model, Mark Fairchild,
> and CIECAM02 will turn up a lot of material. None of it is easy reading.
> LAB answers the question "how far apart do colors have to be before the
> average human observer will say 'those are different colors'". The "home"
> of LAB was for use with quality control for colors in textiles, printing,
> and such. LAB wasn't designed to be used as a color space for editing, but
> it works pretty well for a lot of different editing tasks.
> A full understanding of LAB would require understanding the kinds of
> experiments that were done to map out "when is color X different enough
> from color Y to be seen as visually different?" I have no idea what kind of
> experiments were done or how the mathematical model was constructed from
> the experimental results. But the resulting equations to convert from XYZ
> to LAB and then LCH are pretty straightforward.
> Color appearance models are designed to answer a very different and much
> more complicated set of questions. They try to answer questions like "How
> to describe colors?", "Why does the appearance of one color change when
> juxtaposed next to another color?", and "Why does a surface look the same
> color even when the light shining on it changes drastically (for example
> from bright daylight to deep shade or to tungsten lighting, or even in the
> shadow side of an object)?".
> These are complicated questions, being answered using complicated research
> and complicated resulting models described by complicated sets of
> equations. Also color appearance models are a very active area of ongoing
> research, so what's considered really good today might be superceded
> My reasons for suggesting that for use in GIMP (1)LAB/LCH is good and
> (2)JAB/JCH is probably better are so simplistic that you'll all just laugh:
> 1. Bruce MacEvoy's handprint.com website on watercolor pigments switched
> from using LCH to using JCH to give paint pigment colors, and I respect
> Bruce MacEvoy as an authority on giving useable values for paint pigments:
> 2. Mark Fairchild seems to think CIECAM02 is a pretty good color apperance
> model, though again this is a field of active research, and much of what
> Mark Fairchild writes goes right over my head.
> 3. ArgyllCMS and LCMS already incorporate the equations for JAB/JCH in
> their code, as does RawTherapee, so it has to be not too difficult to code
> up for GIMP. But my (very limited) efforts to make sense of the
> ArgyllCMS/LCM/RT code have so far been unsuccessful.
> I find the LCH blend modes, color picker, and Hue-Chroma tool to be
> incredibly useful. The few people who've written to me about using my
> patched GIMP seem very enthusiastic.
> JCH apparently is more accurate than LCH for describing colors. I'm not
> sure how much difference the "more accurate" would make in the digital
> darkroom. It would be nice to be able to give JCH a try, but in the
> meantime I can't imagine going back to editing without LCH.
> Does somebody else here know more about it?
> No doubt even my short description above needs a lot of corrections!
>> Thank you in advance
>> gimp-developer-list mailing list
>> List address: firstname.lastname@example.org
>> List membership:
>> List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list
> gimp-developer-list mailing list
> List address: email@example.com
> List membership:
> List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: firstname.lastname@example.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list