Selon Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> "Hal V. Engel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > it appeared to me that this approach had been rejected, or at least
> > discredited, at that time. At the very least there were sound reasons
> > put forward that called this approach into question and the only
> > arguments on the other side were that it made programming the color
> > management stuff a little easier. But I am also aware that there were
> > many involved in the earlier thread on this subject that did not seem
> > to think there was an issue with this approach.
> I don't think we rejected this part. IIRC we said that it should be
> optional and that we want to allow people to disable color management
> entirely. Anyway, whatever we decide to do is just a matter of user
> interface and doesn't affect the GEGL operators involved.
The short summary of the entire discussion is something like this:
We should allow a colour profile to be associated with an image if possible, and
only apply it (that is, change the colorspace of an image) if explicitly
requested. There will be issues with things which aren't colorspace dependent
(like the color picker) as well as copying and pasting between images, which
will cause problems, but for the moment the damage caused by these would be
less than applying color profiles on load.
However, we should have a default working colourspace, and the user should be
able to convert to that colourspace on load. This should be configurable.
There should also be an option to disable colour management altogether - in
which case, we work in the default colourspace, don't do any conversion at all,
and simply load and save the colour profile as a parasite attached to the image.
My understanding was that the solution which Alastair Robinson was working on
was to have a plug-in to apply a color profile, but also to have the idea of a
(per-image) working colourspace, and a configurable (global) display colour
profile and default working colourspace. That is, every image loaded which
doesn't have an attached profile will be assumed to be in that default
colourspace. If it has an attached profile, the user will be offered the choice
of (1) applying the profile to get to the default colorspace, (2) working in the
embedded profile's colorspace or (3) disabling color management for the image,
in which case we work in the default colorspace, but don't apply the profile.
Again, this is a synthesis of my understanding of that discussion, the archives
are the best reference for what was said, though.
Gimp-developer mailing list