>When you buy a sensor, any sensor...they measure light relative to what?
It isn't all relative except, of course, if you live in Arkansas). The
display colors are measured to be what the computer is sending it. The
problem is that monitor colors can be quite different from what the computer
is creating and placing in the file. When you profile the monitor, you are
making sure that what you see on the monitor is that in the file. The goal
is to be able to produce a print that matches the colors you saw when
editing the file. That presumes that the output device is also profiled. A
good pro lab does just that, and you can do your own printer, but tha takes
a much more expensive device and eats paper and ink.
>Here is where the source of confusion is:
> I know that people would see lightness and saturation differently in
> pictures. I realized that recently, when for the nth time I looked at
> some landscape I wanted to take a picture of with each of my eyes
> >individually. My right eye sees little darker and the colors are
> slightly more saturated. Not by much, just enough to notice. So, I was
> thinking that if there is a noticeable difference between the eyes I use,
> >there must be difference between how other people see and it might be
> more pronounced...
Boris, you are an engineer, aren't you. Don't over think things. Color
perception was a consideration well before computers and digital
photography. Much more important than the viewer's eyes is the light under
which the print is viewed. kodak used to make a print that demonstrated
this; when viewed under different light, it looked dramatically different.
We have learned to ignore these considerations. You would have to make
individual prints for each viewer. This isn't an exact science.
Bill Pearce
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|