On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Frank Gore <g...@projectpontiac.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 11:43 PM, David Gowers <00a...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> We don't know if their formats are crazy.
>> But they certainly appear to be undocumented. Until they are
>> documented, or someone reverse-engineers them, we are unlikely to gain
>> support for them in open-source software.
>> (OTOH, it could just be attached in the metadata. EXIF / IPTC support
>> is not complete yet.)
> ok... but why is Gimp assuming sRGB? Even if the color profile is
> attached in some bizarre non-standard manner, Gimp should detect NO
> color profile and ask me about it when I open the file. Isn't that how
> it's supposed to work? That's what other applications do, for example
Don't you think that would be very tiresome?
Most images have no ICC profile attached; in this case, sRGB is indeed
implied. Producing images that are not sRGB but have no ICC profile
attached is wrong (more precisely, it's a miscommunication, saying
that the image is sRGB when it's not. ).
I appreciate your situation of needing to correct the profile here,
OTOH, have you considered using tools like imagemagick and jpegicc to
detect the camera it came from and then attach an appropriate profile.
this would allow you to assign profiles automatically in large
batches. IMO this is much less painful all around.
BTW, I just checked the exif information on those JPEGs and both have
no EXIF information. So it does look indeed like the profile data is
stored in some custom format; there may even be no profile per se
stored, just a reference to or description of one.
Gimp-user mailing list