> That's only true if you are assigning a color profile, but if you convert to
> a profile that is a correction and doing it twice is likely to result in an
Only if you first assign (incorrectly) and THEN convert. If the proper
ICC profile is assigned in the first place, converting to that same
profile accomplishes nothing.
In Gimp 2.6.11, I have options set so that I always get asked what
profile to use if it doesn't matching the working space. And the
available options when it asks always include the file's embedded
profile if it's present.
> I do not agree with this. Color management, when done properly, is a good an
> useful thing and in most cases will ensure better results than not doing it.
> Especially if the source file is not sRGB which might easily be the case,
> because there are many cameras that can produce images with AdobeRGB for
I didn't say color management was bad practice. What I said was color
management was not for the OP based on the question he asked. Color
management done wrong serves no purpose other than to confuse users
and create files that are frustrating for others to work with. If you
don't know why you need color management, you shouldn't do it and
should just stick to the default (usually sRGB) throughout the entire
Also, larger colour spaces like AdobeRGB are mostly useless in 8-bit.
You just end up with a wider gamut that has broader steps between
shades (ie. banding on smooth gradients). All those cameras that have
an AdobeRGB JPG option actually generate very inferior results than
would be achieved with proper color management throughout the RAW
workflow. After seeing what my camera did to my pictures in AdobeRGB,
I learned to turn that feature off and stick to either RAW files or
Last I checked, Gimp still processes images at 8 bpp.
THE place to talk photography!
>> Frank Gore
>> THE place to talk photography!
>> gimp-user-list mailing list
> gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list mailing list