> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Photoscientia
> Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 4:41 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners
>
>
> I would add, though, th
Hi Shaf, Tony.
shAf wrote:
> Tony writes ...
>
> > On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 22:28:59 + Photoscientia
> > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >
> > > CIE L*a*b* is poorly suited to DTP applications in three main
> areas:
> >
> > The main objection to CIELAB for DTP is (AFAIK) that DTP
> > is (professio
> -Original Message-
> From: Austin Franklin [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 8:27 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners
>
> The RGB
> on your display can be set to WHATEVER you
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:01:16 - Alan Tyson ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> And we should also, perhaps, remember that different
> persons' colour perceptions (Mk1 eyeball + brain software)
> may differ
Absolutely. My right eye is about +2CC yellow compared to my right, or maybe it's
the left
ere variety is everything.
Regards,
Alan T
- Original Message -
From: Tony Sleep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 1:17 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners
> I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave
earlier : the Mk1 eyeball.
>
Tony writes ...
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 22:28:59 + Photoscientia
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > CIE L*a*b* is poorly suited to DTP applications in three main
areas:
>
> The main objection to CIELAB for DTP is (AFAIK) that DTP
> is (professionally) always done in CMYK for pre-press output
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 22:28:59 + Photoscientia
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> CIE L*a*b* is poorly suited to DTP applications in three main areas:
The main objection to CIELAB for DTP is (AFAIK) that DTP is (professionally) always
done in CMYK for pre-press output - eg Pantone is CMYK gamut
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 22:25:45 +0100 Ezio ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> It is extremely un-likely you may have a technology mean capable TODAY to
> fix a color equal to the abstract RGB value of 255-0-0.
There is no such thing. The values are whatever you assign to them.
> Also , it is
> extremel
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 20:18:41 -0800 shAf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> What color definition allows us to
> equate what PS presents for us with nature??
I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave earlier : the Mk1 eyeball.
Regards
Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portf
Frank writes ...
> > As Frank implies
> > ... there is a separate Lab defined for each illumination ...
e.g.,
> > subjects illuminated under D65 vs D50. Not a big difference,
>
> Once the eye becomes
> accommodated, it shouldn't notice a difference between the two
lightings,
> but to see th
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of shAf
> Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2001 8:19 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners
>
> As Frank implies
> ... there is a se
Tony writes ...
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 10:11:54 -0800 shAf ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
>
> > Which would imply RGB space is fixed by the display, and
> > Adobe gamma provides relative compensation.
> > Which would imply RGB space is fixed by the display, and
> > Adobe gamma provides relative com
Right on.
Hersch
At 11:06 PM 01/20/2001 +1000, you wrote:
>"Hersch Nitikman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > perfect 0-0-255. If it is the sky, then it should elicit the response that
> > it is what a sky looks like...
>
>Ultimately, if we're able to scan and print the pictures and we like the
>re
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 07:30:46 -0800 shAf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I am claiming you'll never be able to photograph an equivelent of
> RGB=255-0-0. If you do surely let the color community know :o)
I'll avoid photographing my monitor display then.
Regards
Tony Sleep
http://www.halft
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 10:11:54 -0800 shAf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Which would imply RGB space is fixed by the display, and
> Adobe gamma provides relative compensation.
> Which would imply RGB space is fixed by the display, and
> Adobe gamma provides relative compensation.
Of course, that
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 10:49:53 -0800 shAf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Color exists, and devices cannot capture all of it. For example, we
> might begin with ignoring the quality of our lenses, and skip to
> something we have day-to-day control over, and realize that certain
> films are mor
"Hersch Nitikman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> perfect 0-0-255. If it is the sky, then it should elicit the response that
> it is what a sky looks like...
Ultimately, if we're able to scan and print the pictures and we like the
results,
that's what really matters. :)
> in general, an original oi
sage -
>From: "shAf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 7:49 PM
>Subject: RE: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners
>
>
> > Tony writes ...
> >
> > > I think this debate does belong here.
Photoscientia wrote:
> L*a*b* doesn't define absolute colours anymore than RGB, the Lab
> values must be
> referred to a specific illuminating source, D65 for example.
But this is precisely what *does* make it an absolute standard. Use D65, and
you know *exactly* what you're talking about. If it
shAf wrote:
> At this point in the discussion, I am at a loss to define the fixed
> point around which all other definitions of color (color spaces,
> device gamuts) are relative. I would love to believe this is the
> CIELAB color space, but I've read there are different versions of Lab
> color
ECTED]]On Behalf Of shAf
> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 10:24 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners
>
>
> > > > shAf wrote:
> In the meantime, please define what you mean by "triad" and
> "absolute" ... examples of absolute colors please.
> shAf :o)
>
"shAf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rob writes ...
> > Can I just ask - do you mean they can't be reproduced by a
> > reflective medium like a photograph? Surely pure red *does*
> > exist in the natural world, even if it's only in the light
> > of a rainbow or a laser beam for instance?
> I am cl
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of shAf
> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 10:12 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners
>
>
> Austin
Hi Shaf, Frank, Austin, Tony et al.
Sorry about jumping into this discussion with late replies to earlier points, but
my e-mail's been on the fritz.
shAf wrote:
> Frank writes ...
>
> > And on my monitor, it DOES produce a real color,
> > because I can SEE it.
> > ...
>
> How can you sa
me !
Thanks to all the contributors ... reading and understanding is learning ...
for me .
Sincerely.
Ezio
www.lucenti.com e-photography site
- Original Message -
From: "shAf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 7:49 PM
Subje
catch this infinite perfection to make it our own possess .
Sincerely.
Ezio
www.lucenti.com e-photography site
- Original Message -
From: "shAf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 4:30 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Fw: Colo
> > > I am claiming you'll never be able to photograph an
> > equivelent of
> > > RGB=255-0-0. If you do surely let the color community know :o)
> >
> > You still don't understand that RGB triads are not absolute
> > colors, and so what you say does not make sense.
> > They can only be *mapped
> > > What color it is depends on what
> > > particular RGB device you are talking about:
>
> > Exactly. RGB is relative. There is NO Pantone exact color
> > chart for RGB.
> A fact which might challenge RGB being relative is that whenever you
> profile-to-profile, Photoshop changes the R
Tony writes ...
> I think this debate does belong here. Very few people,
> including me, understand all this stuff fully,
> yet it inescapably goes with the territory of
> film scanning.
OK then ... but let's back up a bit, and agree on some concepts.
Color exists, and devices c
Frank writes ...
> > > shAf wrote:
>
> >
> > I am claiming you'll never be able to photograph an
> equivelent of
> > RGB=255-0-0. If you do surely let the color community know :o)
>
> You still don't understand that RGB triads are not absolute
> colors, and so what you say does not make sen
Austin writes ...
> > What color it is depends on what
> > particular RGB device you are talking about:
>
> Exactly. RGB is relative. There is NO Pantone exact color
> chart for RGB.
A fact which might challenge RGB being relative is that whenever you
profile-to-profile, Photoshop chan
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of shAf
> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 7:31 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners
>
>
> > shAf wrote:
>
> I
Rob writes ...
> shAf wrote:
> >> I simply don't understand this esoteric point that
> >> 'all of the 16M colours don't exist'.
> > I mean there is a color equivelent found in the natural world
> >(anywhere, anything) for RGB=30-0-230, but not for 0-0-255
>
> Can I just ask - do you mean they can
> What color it is depends on what
> particular RGB device you are talking about:
Exactly. RGB is relative. There is NO Pantone exact color chart for RGB.
shAf wrote:
>> I simply don't understand this esoteric point that
>> 'all of the 16M colours don't exist'.
> I mean there is a color equivelent found in the natural world
>(anywhere, anything) for RGB=30-0-230, but not for 0-0-255
That's wrong. RGB is a relative system, and as such, 0,0,255 is
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:42:09 -0800 shAf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Some values are so
> useless, they are even outside Lab ... and not only can you not bring
> them into gamut, they should even be there in the first place ...
> especially if we're talking about photography.
Right, now I unde
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:29 + (GMT) I ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Since vanilla RGB is completely device dependent, you seem to be saying that the
monitor's
> output gamut is a wider space than LAB? I wouldn't be surprised by this, and it
would seem
> a valuable attribute. A monitor which
shAf wrote:
> I didn't want to believe there were "useless"
> RGB values. If anyone wants to discuss this further, please feel feel
> free to write me directly ... I certainly don't mind a discussion ...
> but much of it isn't on point for a "film scanners'" list.
I think discussion in general
shAf wrote:
>> I simply don't understand this esoteric point that
>> 'all of the 16M colours don't exist'.
> I mean there is a color equivelent found in the natural world
>(anywhere, anything) for RGB=30-0-230, but not for 0-0-255
Can I just ask - do you mean they can't be reproduced by a
reflect
On 18 Jan 2001 08:02:58 -0800 Frank Paris ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I've read from several different sources that our color perception can be
> trained and that some artists can perceived 10 million different colors. So
> 16 million colors does not *far* exceed our capabilities.
Uh, well, OK
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 07:48:10 -0800 shAf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Altho I agree 8bits is enough (barely) to provide human
> discrimination, I don't agree with any of the 16M colors being beyond
> human discrimination. Perhaps you can point to an example(?) I'm
> actually saying all of
> > Nature now includes monitor phosphors :)
> >
Naturally! :o)
shAf
albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 4:59 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners
&
62684
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 4:59 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners
>
>
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 10:02:16 -0800
Tony writes ...
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 10:02:16 -0800 shAf
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > ...
> > without regard to monitor gamut, 0-0-255 falls outside
> > the L*a*b gamut... which is the only color
> > definition defined to come even close to
> > physical reality.
>
> I think you are o
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 10:02:16 -0800 shAf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> How can you say you "see" 0,0,255 when 0,0,254 is the same color??
> ... I doubt you can start "seeing" any difference between these "pure"
> blues until 0,0,240 ... they are all the same ... especially in
> monitor space
Duh!
> -Original Message-
> From: shAf [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 6:48 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners
>
[Oostrom, Jerry] [znibh..]
> Not much of a point really.
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 15:47:39 -0800 shAf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> It was
> then when I realized what RGB pixel values are ... 16 million
> possibilities, but only some of them actually are nature's real
> colors. I dare say a big part (but not most) of RGB is out of
> nature's gamut!!.
Nat
Shaf wrote:
>Say you have a perfect camera, perfect film, and a
>perfect scanner ... and your image of a "natural" subject
>ends up in Photoshop. You will never see the pixel
>value 0-0-255 ... and in fact, there are a number of
>RGB values you'll never find.
That's good. It wouldn't do to h
ct: RE: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners
Date: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 10:41 PM
What would help me is if someone could explain what it means when it is
said
that a profile "describes" a color space. What is the form of this
description? What kind of data is actually in a profile f
From: "shAf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 12:47 AM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners
>
> Daniel writes ...
>
> > Is "physical reality" a technical term? And aren't you
t; Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 9:48 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners
>
>
> Frank writes ...
>
> > That sounds more like the limitations of a mapping algorithm than
> any
> > limitations that we might find in
Frank writes ...
> That sounds more like the limitations of a mapping algorithm than
any
> limitations that we might find in nature.
>
I suppose you could put that way. Rather, I imagine the RGB data
model ... a cube with black and white at opposite apexes, and "data
pure" red, green, blue,
On 17 Jan 2001 07:47:16 -0800 Frank Paris ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> And on my monitor, it DOES produce a real color, because I can SEE it.
> It's a bright blue. So I don't know what you mean in saying it is not a real
> color.
I think he meant that it's completely device dependent what colo
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 10:37:58 +0100 Oostrom, Jerry ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Now I just have to see if I can also see the limitations of gamut, of which
> you say they are much more apparent than granularity differences between
> color spaces used in 24/48 bit files. I have already seen some s
f Of shAf
> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 6:21 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners
>
>
> Frank writes ...
>
> > I guess now the question is, what do you mean by "nature"?
>
> Say you have a perfect c
Frank writes ...
> I guess now the question is, what do you mean by "nature"?
Say you have a perfect camera, perfect film, and a
perfect scanner ... and your image of a "natural" subject
ends up in Photoshop. You will never see the pixel
value 0-0-255 ... and in fact, there are a number
o: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners
>
>
> Is "physical reality" a technical term? And aren't you confusing color
> resolution with whatever "physical reality" is? If I grant that the
> phosphor re
17, 2001 3:48 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners
>
>
>
> Daniel writes ...
>
> > Is "physical reality" a technical term? And aren't you
> > confusing color resolution with whatever
> > &quo
Daniel writes ...
> Is "physical reality" a technical term? And aren't you
> confusing color resolution with whatever
> "physical reality" is? If I grant that the
> phosphor response of monitors is flat between 0,0,240 and
> 0,0,255, how does this impinge on whether
> that color "real?" You a
Is "physical reality" a technical term? And aren't you confusing color
resolution with whatever "physical reality" is? If I grant that the
phosphor response of monitors is flat between 0,0,240 and 0,0,255, how does
this impinge on whether that color "real?" You are conflating two issues,
so I c
Frank writes ...
> Relative to a monitor, 0,0,255 in itself is not a specific
> color, real or not.
> It depends on what the phosphors do when you feed it
> those values, ...
That goes without saying ...
> And on my monitor, it DOES produce a real color,
> because I can SEE it.
> ...
CTED]
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of shAf
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 11:33 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners
>
Thank you Tony Sleep for answering the questions.
Andrew Rodney also mailed a link to an article that itself links to another
article which confirmed my suspicions. (Thank you too, Andrew)
His link:
http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/8582.html
The other linked article states IMP that a wide
Tony writes ...
>
> A gamut comprises a subset of colours out of infinite variety. There
are colours
> outside it which are simply unavailable and cannot appear in any
image which uses it.
> ...
Just to add ... the color gamut which is described by R,G & B
pixel values, whether it be wide gam
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 11:02:30 +0100 Oostrom, Jerry ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> * Is it correct to state that a color space with accompanying limits
> to its gamut will have only a finite number of colors? Why?
A gamut comprises a subset of colours out of infinite variety. There are colours
on 1/16/01 3:02 AM, Oostrom, Jerry at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> *Is it correct to state that a color space with accompanying limits
> to its gamut will have only a finite number of colors?
Yup.
> Will a smaller gamut color space allow finer granularity to code
> colors in its gamut than w
color space) or are image files not coded in such way?
Thank you in advance,
Jerry
> -Original Message-
> From: Oostrom, Jerry [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 9:33 AM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: Fw: Co
; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 7:58 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 07:47:44 -0800 shAf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > Your question would beg another ... "Is your
In a message dated 1/11/2001 2:12:10 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > Your question would beg another ... "Is your scanner capable of a
> > larger gamut than sRGB?" If not, then your PS working color space may
> > as well be sRGB, but you don't lose anything if the scanner embeds
> > sRG
canners; Bob Shomler
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners
>
> on 1/10/01 7:54 PM, Bob Shomler at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > But if changes do expand into the larger gamut it might affect printed
> output.
>
> Taking a file in sRGB and co
on 1/11/01 5:21 PM, photoscientia at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> I find that Photoshop is quite capable of buggering up a perfectly good file
> at a single mouse click.
It's usually Photoshop users, not Photoshop that does this!
> Most of the profile changes simply seem to be gamma changes or si
Hi Rob, Shaf.
> > I think you better examine the RGB pixel values before and after a
> > profile-to-profile ...
> >
> > shAf :o)
> >
> I think...
> Profile to profile changes the file(pixel values) but changing the "so
> called colour space" or you working space should not. When it is saved it
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 07:47:44 -0800 shAf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Your question would beg another ... "Is your scanner capable of a
> larger gamut than sRGB?" If not, then your PS working color space may
> as well be sRGB, but you don't lose anything if the scanner embeds
> sRGB and you subs
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 23:17:28 + photoscientia
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> What, like a larger gamut than pixel levels from 0 to 255?
Um, well, AIUI eg R3 G192 B252 is not the same colour in AdobeRGB as it is in
sRGB, RGB values change if converted. Nor should it display or print the same
Bob writes ...
> Andrew, I'm curious if this will hold true if one performs
> color (and maybe tonal) editing operations on the file in
> the larger editing color space -- could that editing cause
> color to extend into areas present only in the larger
> space? More particularly, if one opens a
on 1/11/01 8:58 AM, Bob Shomler at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm curious if this will hold true if one performs color (and maybe tonal)
> editing operations on the file in the larger editing color space -- could that
> editing cause color to extend into areas present only in the larger space?
>
>Taking a file in sRGB and converting it to Adobe RGB isn't going to expand
>the gamut of the file. It's fixed after becoming sRGB. You can't increase
>the color gamut simply by converting into a space that can hold a larger
>number of colors.
>
>Andrew Rodney
Andrew, I'm curious if this will h
on 1/10/01 7:54 PM, Bob Shomler at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> But if changes do expand into the larger gamut it might affect printed output.
Taking a file in sRGB and converting it to Adobe RGB isn't going to expand
the gamut of the file. It's fixed after becoming sRGB. You can't increase
the co
on 1/10/01 9:42 PM, Robert E. Wright at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I think...
> Profile to profile changes the file(pixel values) but changing the "so
> called colour space" or you working space should not. When it is saved it
> will have the new profile though.
>
> If you ues the color sampler
Robert writes ...
regarding my response ...
\> > I think you better examine the RGB pixel values before and after
a
> > profile-to-profile ...
> >
> > shAf :o)
> >
> I think...
> Profile to profile changes the file(pixel values) but changing the
"so
> called colour space" or you working space sh
Bob writes ...
> >> I would think you might gain something if you perform tonal
> >> or color editing in PS: Might not results of the editing
> >> operation expand into the larger AdobeRGB gamut?
> >
> >In theory yes ... but the addition gamut would be beyond your
> >display, and you wouldn't be
- Original Message -
From: shAf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 6:31 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners
> Rob writes ...
>
> > "photoscientia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
- Original Message -
From: shAf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 6:31 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for
Scanners
> Rob writes ...> > > "photoscientia"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
>>> Your question would beg another ... "Is your scanner
>>> capable of a larger gamut than sRGB?" If not, then
>>> your PS working color space may as well be sRGB, but you
>>> don't lose anything if the scanner embeds sRGB and you
>>> subsequently convert to AdobeRGB when you open the file
>>
Rob writes ...
> "photoscientia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > My understanding is that changing the so-called colour
> space in Photoshop simply changes the embedded profile,
> > without actually making any
> > difference to the image data itself.
>
> Well, that makes perfect sense - as I under
"photoscientia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My understanding is that changing the so-called colour space in Photoshop
simply
> changes the embedded profile, without actually making any difference to
the image
> data itself.
Well, that makes perfect sense - as I understand it, the profile is simp
Hi.
> > I have an Acer Scanwit and under the scanner properties
> > in Win98se it lists an sRGB color profile as the only
> > profile associated with the scanner. My colorspace for
> > Photoshop is AdobeRGB.
Snip
> Your question would beg another ... "Is your scanner capable of a
> lar
Bob writes ...
>
> > Your question would beg another ... "Is your scanner
> capable of a
> >larger gamut than sRGB?" If not, then your PS working
> color space may
> >as well be sRGB, but you don't lose anything if the scanner embeds
> >sRGB and you subsequently convert to AdobeRGB when you
>
> Your question would beg another ... "Is your scanner capable of a
>larger gamut than sRGB?" If not, then your PS working color space may
>as well be sRGB, but you don't lose anything if the scanner embeds
>sRGB and you subsequently convert to AdobeRGB when you open the file
>(... but you
Rob writes ...
> I have an Acer Scanwit and under the scanner properties
> in Win98se it lists an sRGB color profile as the only
> profile associated with the scanner. My colorspace for
> Photoshop is AdobeRGB. Do I need associate AdobeRGb
> with the scanner or when I set AdobeRGB as my
> color
Forwarded Message
From: "Rob Dalrymple" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:18:35 -0500
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ntmail/cms(Release 5.0.4 |June 8,
2000) at 01/09/2001
11:18:40 AM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Envelope-To: [EMAIL PRO
92 matches
Mail list logo
