On 02/12/2010 07:18 PM, Omari Stephens wrote:
> If the user with a weird monitor (wide-gamut, AdobeRGB, or other) has a
> display profile and opens an image-without-profile, what do we display?
>    We can't apply the display profile unless the image has some source
> color profile to link to the transform.

This is where I suggest we use the working space color profile, although 
always using sRGB would work too in the scope of this discussion. Yes, 
in order to display the image we need to assume a color color profile, 
but the way I think this is different from thinking about the image as 
having an implicit color profile.

> In doing so, it allows us to stop special-casing for cases where the
> image may not have a color profile.  We gain uniformity of display logic
 > and a decrease in code complexity by being able to assume the presence
 > of a color profile as an invariant.

We need special casing either way, it's just a matter of where we have 
it. With your implicit profile strategy, we need a special case in the 
export code and image property code:

   if image.color_profile_implicit()
     color_profile = null
     color_profile = image.get_color_profile()

while with my strategy it would be in the display code:

   color_profile = image.get_color_profile()
   if (color_profile == null)
     color_profile = gimp.get_working_space_color_profile()

Since we want to support working with non-color managed images it is 
more logical to handle images with no associated color profile than to 
handle images with implicit color profiles.

"Images always have an associated color profile" is by design not an 

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to