Just in case this wasn't clear in my last message, I'll expand on
a few points. You can implement either or both of calibration and
Having systems calibrated to a common standard means that you don't
_have_ to worry about ICC profiles etc IF ALL YOU'RE DEALING WITH
IS RGB DATA IN THE COLOUR SPACE REPRESENTED BY THAT CALIBRATION.
Thus with the Gimp in its current form, calibration is important
(it's the only thing available!).
But if you want _accurate_ colour you need to implement profile
support (e.g. building on top of lcms) including dynamic conversion
from an image's colour space to the display system's profile. With
full profile support it doesn't matter what the user's system is
calibrated to (e.g. weirdarse 1.8 gamma). If an image's data is
in sRGB the colours will get converted so that what is displayed
on the screen is accurate, even though sRGB has a gamma of 2.2.
My systems are calibrated to a gamma close to 2.2, and I can view
images in "ColorMatch RGB" (which has a gamma of 1.8) with no
problems as the profile conversion takes care of that for me..
Calibration benefits the non-colour-managed applications, but with
only limited usefulness. Mac and Windows systems implement both
calibration and profiling in an attempt to serve both CM and non-CM
applications (and the calibration can help ensure the system is in
a reasonable state prior to profiling).
Full profile support is important because the colour response of
your inkjet printer, scanner, printing press, etc will probably not
match that of your calibrated system, and for accurate work you
need a profile describing the colour space of each and to convert
between them as required.
I'll shut up for now. ;)
Gimp-user mailing list