Difference between ICC profile and color space?

The most numerous are those where multiple people along with myself, dispute, correct and prove how wrong you are.
Actually, you tend to say this a lot, but you seldom actually prove anything

If the only content in your post is to say that someone is wrong, there is no need for the post.

If you have actual information to add, then include it in the post.

If you don't want to add the information because you have previously included it, then there is no need to post. The readers here are smart. I think they have a good idea of what's going on.

 
You didn't when asked weeks ago, repeatedly by more than just Iliah. Fat chance you'll do so now. Considering what it would do to disprove your concepts in that thread (and others).
You may want to keep your facts straight. I entered this thread a few days ago.
You may want to keep your facts straight! I pointed this out. The original question which was correctly answered SIX MONTHS AGO.
If you are responding to something I said weeks ago in this thread, then you are responding to something in your imagination.
Nearly everything I respond to, from you, is a correction. I'm not the only one doing that here and elsewhere. It is a shame you can't recognize that: Your posts are often very wrong and that's why so many other's call you out.
First law on holes - when you're in one, stop digging! Your hole is super, super deep after all these months of your postings. Hopefully, between gollywop, Iliah, myself and others, lurkers will get a good, general impression about what to do when reading a Michael Fryd post that isn't based on fact and science.
Good advice. You should be careful what you accuse people of.
Mostly just accusing you of being wrong (again).
Go away from the keyboard; attempt to make an image. Far better use of everyone's time here!
You may not be aware of this, but there is no actual requirement that you include a personal attack in every post.
It was a suggestion based on the time you spend writing technical nonsense here and the images of yours I've seen. You can call it an attack because you don't seem to have the ability to learn from your peers people who obviously know far more about the subject!
 
The most numerous are those where multiple people along with myself, dispute, correct and prove how wrong you are.
Actually, you tend to say this a lot, but you seldom actually prove anything
I have lots of help. Case in point towards your silly text just here:

If the only content in your post is to say that someone is wrong, there is no need for the post.
If the only content in your post is wrong, there is no need for the post.

Your posts are often very wrong and that's why so many other's call you out.
If you have actual information to add, then include it in the post.
Been there, done that.
If you don't want to add the information because you have previously included it, then there is no need to post. The readers here are smart.
I hope they are! if so, they have their Michael Fryd BS detectors on full blast. And they are listening to the choir of people who regally call you out on your misinformation!
I think they have a good idea of what's going on.
I hope so. They people like Iliah, myself and gollywop could spend our time more constructivly than cleaning up after your mistaken posts.

I'm out of here MF, as continuing to point out your textual shortcomings can service no further purpose, you're in that hole deep!
 
Do you really want or need me to go over the post you made yesterday, six months LATE that was wrong and that Iliah has already called you out for? What a waste of more of my valuable time! You'll just ignore the corrections.
No. I have no need for you to dissect that post.

However, if you feel you must respond, I would prefer that you actually respond to the statements I made, rather than generic attacks against my person.
You cite no particular facts to back up your opinions, other than vague references that are not substantiated.
There are probably a hundred posts archived here where I and other's have called you out, corrected you and got the same response from you: a total lack of learning the facts presented to you. Your only goal here is to keep posting silliness until the thread count hits 149 then it gets locked down.

FACTS: text written 6 months ago that were technically correct were posted AND the OP thanked some of us for those posts. He's long gone thankfully and now has seen enough posts from me and other's to understand he like others, should ignore your 6 month late misinformation (really want to go there again?). Game over. Go make an image or find some political forum to argue within. Your arms are way to short to box with dog, Iliah or gollywop!
You make a very good point that the only new information in your post was a personal attack. If the issues have have already been raised and discussed, and you have nothing further to add, then there is no need for you to post.

You are entitled to your opinion, but let's not try to pretend that there is some sort of factual basis to your rants.
The facts are factual. :-O
While I appreciate your willingness to provide further evidence of your methods, I think you have proved my point.
I think I did; don't listen to any text from Michael Fryd which has a photographic, technical subject with anything but a grain of salt, ask for but do not expect to see any evidence. Just like the raw file you were unable to provide.
Yes. You have made it clear that this is a personal for you.

However, the public forums are really not the best place for you to vent your personal fetishes.

There is no need to continue personal attacks.
There is no need to continue writing nonsense. By now, I suspect only you and maybe Chuck2 believe any of it.
Then there is no need for you to ever respond to anything I write.

Trust your feelings. There is no need to respond to my posts.
 
The most numerous are those where multiple people along with myself, dispute, correct and prove how wrong you are.
Actually, you tend to say this a lot, but you seldom actually prove anything
I have lots of help. Case in point towards your silly text just here:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58214802
You may benefit from moving away from the derogatory opinions and stick to facts.

The post you link to is someone else disputing a statement I didn't make.

 
Do you really want or need me to go over the post you made yesterday, six months LATE that was wrong and that Iliah has already called you out for? What a waste of more of my valuable time! You'll just ignore the corrections.
No. I have no need for you to dissect that post.
Good, it would be rather embarrassing once again for you. Iliah got the word in so pointless to subject you to more corrections when the OP is long gone, lurkers have summed you up by now (or never will) and you're just conducting a vortex of textual masturbation to get us to the eventual 149 post lock.
Then there is no need for you to ever respond to anything I write.
Stop writing technical nonsense and I'll have no reason. Your posts are often very wrong and that's why so many other's call you out.
Trust your feelings. There is no need to respond to my posts.
Ditto to you sir.
 
Do you really want or need me to go over the post you made yesterday, six months LATE that was wrong and that Iliah has already called you out for? What a waste of more of my valuable time! You'll just ignore the corrections.
No. I have no need for you to dissect that post.
Good, it would be rather embarrassing once again for you. Iliah got the word in so pointless to subject you to more corrections when the OP is long gone, lurkers have summed you up by now (or never will) and you're just conducting a vortex of textual masturbation to get us to the eventual 149 post lock.
Thanks for the smile. You used a lot of words without actually saying anything.
 
Do you really want or need me to go over the post you made yesterday, six months LATE that was wrong and that Iliah has already called you out for? What a waste of more of my valuable time! You'll just ignore the corrections.
No. I have no need for you to dissect that post.
Good, it would be rather embarrassing once again for you. Iliah got the word in so pointless to subject you to more corrections when the OP is long gone, lurkers have summed you up by now (or never will) and you're just conducting a vortex of textual masturbation to get us to the eventual 149 post lock.
Thanks for the smile. You used a lot of words without actually saying anything.
I've somewhat suspected for awhile now that English might be a 2nd language for you.

Here's another smile to make your day, :-) Byby

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net
 
Last edited:
An ICC profile tells us about a particular device. It tells us the range of colors (gamut) the device can reproduce, and how to get these colors.
Input devices do not have gamuts,
True, but short and perhaps confusing to beginners. I found this MUCH longer explanation:
http://www.color-image.com/2012/08/a-digital-camera-does-not-have-a-color-gamut/

Better?
Yes. But I was replying to Iliah, who just said, "Input devices do not have gamuts, [SIC]" w/o explanation.
He didn't have to add any explanation for some who already understand this topic.

IF you didn't understand this vial concept of color management and color spaces, you can always ask those of us that do know, what's going on.

Is this concept, that input/capture devices do not have gamuts clear?
 
It would be SO simple for you, Iliah, or DigiDog or any other of the illuminati to explain why Iliah's program, RawDigger, consistently shows white objects taken w/ MY cameras as having a green cast
It was, twice in this thread.
The usual fact deniers who post here can't believe, understanding or accept this.
Sadly, you and Iliah don't have the ability to communicate w/ simple people like me. Iliah uses too few words; you use to many of the wrong words. And you constantly resort to insults when your words fall short.
Because green is "more sensitive" under the broad range of light sources. Look at the table of white balance coefficients for any camera and you will see.
Understanding or accepting that requires effort on their part!
On my website, I have several spectral graphs. This is one:

cfcad3041ce54c5093d6aa6c5e12ed84.jpg

You can find this information via a Google search. One issue is that not every expert agrees on the exact shape of these curves. I tried to pick average curves to publish. One reason I think it varies is because not all sensors have the same Color Filter Array specifications.

There are other data involved. The above are the curves w/ sunlight as the spectrum illuminating the sensor. There is also the sensitivity curve of the human eye, which like all the other curves varies a lot among individuals and w/ illuminance levels. Commonly published eye sensitivity curves are:



From viz.tamu.edu [based on material by H.E. Burdick]...
From viz.tamu.edu [based on material by H.E. Burdick]...

It shows that green is the most sensitive color. Other sources state that the human eye is most sensitive at 550 nm. Note however, that our eyes are not twice as sensitive in the green.

I present these to let you know that I understand both the eye and Silicon sensors re their spectral characteristics. I learned this in my HS Physics class over half a century ago.

--
I speak my mind because it hurts to bite my tongue all the time.
 
It's fascinating to read your justification of when it is helpful for you to be rude and boastful.
IF only your fascination evolved into learning!
Thanks for the insight.
Glad I could help the OP as he stated and others. Do give it a try someday. Maybe a bit less time posting and a bit more time learning from others (and maybe working on your photo skills) rather than entering a half year old post with even more home of your grown misinformation.
Andy, it was Iliah who resurrected this 1/2-year-old thread [not post]. He added some good information:

"Colour space is defined as a set of colour dimensions (3 for Munsell, RGB, Lab, HSB,...; 4 for CMYK,...; 1 for monochrome; 5 and more for a fancy printer; etc), a shape (can be a universe, limited only by the dimension maximums) that encompasses the allowed combinations of the dimension values, and a metric that allows to convert combinations to colours and colours to combinations. This conversion is not necessarily one-to-one, that is several combinations can correspond to a same colour.

Profile is a mapping into a pre-determined colour space."

Michael commented about this in a long post. His goal was communicating in a way that beginners could understand. I don't think he was trying to insult you or Iliah. Unfortunately both of you reacted defensively. He said in closing:

"It turns out that the answers to some of the above are controversial, and discussing those issues are best left to a different thread."

Go up and read what you incorrectly typed in that last sentence? I believe that "...post with even more home of your grown misinformation." is seriously scrambled. You write such cute mistakes!
 
It would be SO simple for you, Iliah, or DigiDog or any other of the illuminati to explain why Iliah's program, RawDigger, consistently shows white objects taken w/ MY cameras as having a green cast
It was, twice in this thread.
The usual fact deniers who post here can't believe, understanding or accept this.
Sadly, you and Iliah don't have the ability to communicate w/ simple people like me.
Simple is an interesting choice of words. There are other words (one that starts with s) that applies IMHO.
Iliah uses too few words; you use to many of the wrong words. And you constantly resort to insults when your words fall short.
You mean when people I assume have average or slightly less than average intelligence are unable to understand facts and expect them to ask question when they are so regularly confused. I see.
Because green is "more sensitive" under the broad range of light sources. Look at the table of white balance coefficients for any camera and you will see.
Understanding or accepting that requires effort on their part!
On my website, I have several spectral graphs. This is one:

cfcad3041ce54c5093d6aa6c5e12ed84.jpg

You can find this information via a Google search.
You can search for all kinds of items that have nothing to do with the correct text Iilah has attempted to explain to you. Text that thus far, only you seem not to understand.
One issue is that not every expert agrees on the exact shape of these curves.
Really? Not that it has anything to do with the facts Iliah provided to you about raw data.
I tried to pick average curves to publish.
Average? In what way?
One reason I think it varies is because not all sensors have the same Color Filter Array specifications.
What does your spectral graph have to do with CFAs and your flat earth idea about how all raw files are green (despite being provided a clear example or a raw that dismisses this silly idea)?
There are other data involved.
Yes, data that's moot. Here's some more data that's about as useful in dismissing your ability to understand what Iliah wrote: 3x4 equals 7.
The above are the curves w/ sunlight as the spectrum illuminating the sensor.
Which is it? The SPD of a light source OR the results from a sensor as CFA data?
There is also the sensitivity curve of the human eye, which like all the other curves varies a lot among individuals and w/ illuminance levels. Commonly published eye sensitivity curves are:
More OT, looked up text that has nothing to do with your ideas Iliah easily and very clearly dismissed. Game over.
It shows that green is the most sensitive color.
Had you read what Iliah clearly wrote, you wouldn't have to repeat it here. So seems you missed that text from him as well.

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
 
Michael commented about this in a long post. His goal was communicating in a way that beginners could understand.
He failed. The OP already addressed the text he found useful 6 months ago.

I asked Mike if he wanted me to once again critique his text technically (after Iliah did) and Mike refused which is fine with me. It would only serve to embarrass him more.

The OP had some useful suggestions for your posts, miss it?

 
Michael commented about this in a long post
... opening it with "Some other have thrown in lots of details demonstrating that everyone else is wrong." Which is what I call going passive aggressive :)
His goal was communicating in a way that beginners could understand.
Not sure. Especially given the info he provided was misleading.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top