HarrisLegola
Member
- Messages
- 34
- Reaction score
- 4
What are the main differences / similarities between an ICC profile and a color space?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Actually, you tend to say this a lot, but you seldom actually prove anythingThe most numerous are those where multiple people along with myself, dispute, correct and prove how wrong you are.
You may want to keep your facts straight! I pointed this out. The original question which was correctly answered SIX MONTHS AGO.You may want to keep your facts straight. I entered this thread a few days ago.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).
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.If you are responding to something I said weeks ago in this thread, then you are responding to something in your imagination.
Mostly just accusing you of being wrong (again).Good advice. You should be careful what you accuse people of.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.
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 fromYou may not be aware of this, but there is no actual requirement that you include a personal attack in every post.Go away from the keyboard; attempt to make an image. Far better use of everyone's time here!yourpeerspeople who obviously know far more about the subject!
I have lots of help. Case in point towards your silly text just here:Actually, you tend to say this a lot, but you seldom actually prove anythingThe most numerous are those where multiple people along with myself, dispute, correct and prove how wrong you are.
If the only content in your post is wrong, there is no need for the post.If the only content in your post is to say that someone is wrong, there is no need for the post.
Been there, done that.If you have actual information to add, then include it in the post.
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!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 so. They people like Iliah, myself and gollywop could spend our time more constructivly than cleaning up after your mistaken posts.I think they have a good idea of what's going on.
No. I have no need for you to dissect that post.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.
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.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.You cite no particular facts to back up your opinions, other than vague references that are not substantiated.
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!
The facts are factual. :-OYou are entitled to your opinion, but let's not try to pretend that there is some sort of factual basis to your rants.
Yes. You have made it clear that this is a personal for you.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.While I appreciate your willingness to provide further evidence of your methods, I think you have proved my point.
Then there is no need for you to ever respond to anything I write.There is no need to continue writing nonsense. By now, I suspect only you and maybe Chuck2 believe any of it.There is no need to continue personal attacks.
You may benefit from moving away from the derogatory opinions and stick to facts.I have lots of help. Case in point towards your silly text just here:Actually, you tend to say this a lot, but you seldom actually prove anythingThe most numerous are those where multiple people along with myself, dispute, correct and prove how wrong you are.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58214802
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.No. I have no need for you to dissect that post.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.
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.Then there is no need for you to ever respond to anything I write.
Ditto to you sir.Trust your feelings. There is no need to respond to my posts.
Thanks for the smile. You used a lot of words without actually saying anything.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.No. I have no need for you to dissect that post.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.
I've somewhat suspected for awhile now that English might be a 2nd language for you.Thanks for the smile. You used a lot of words without actually saying anything.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.No. I have no need for you to dissect that post.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.
He didn't have to add any explanation for some who already understand this topic.Yes. But I was replying to Iliah, who just said, "Input devices do not have gamuts, [SIC]" w/o explanation.http://www.color-image.com/2012/08/a-digital-camera-does-not-have-a-color-gamut/True, but short and perhaps confusing to beginners. I found this MUCH longer explanation:Input devices do not have gamuts,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.
Better?
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.The usual fact deniers who post here can't believe, understanding or accept this.It was, twice in this thread.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
On my website, I have several spectral graphs. This is one:Understanding or accepting that requires effort on their part!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.

![From viz.tamu.edu [based on material by H.E. Burdick]... From viz.tamu.edu [based on material by H.E. Burdick]...](https://www.dpreview.com/forums/data/attachments/1062/1062970-e516f07ccca8ac94b5b34d8d48de6347.jpg?hash=9pqqkQtI5C)
Andy, it was Iliah who resurrected this 1/2-year-old thread [not post]. He added some good information:IF only your fascination evolved into learning!It's fascinating to read your justification of when it is helpful for you to be rude and boastful.
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.Thanks for the insight.
Simple is an interesting choice of words. There are other words (one that starts with s) that applies IMHO.Sadly, you and Iliah don't have the ability to communicate w/ simple people like me.The usual fact deniers who post here can't believe, understanding or accept this.It was, twice in this thread.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
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.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 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.On my website, I have several spectral graphs. This is one:Understanding or accepting that requires effort on their part!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.
You can find this information via a Google search.
Really? Not that it has anything to do with the facts Iliah provided to you about raw data.One issue is that not every expert agrees on the exact shape of these curves.
Average? In what way?I tried to pick average curves to publish.
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)?One reason I think it varies is because not all sensors have the same Color Filter Array specifications.
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.There are other data involved.
Which is it? The SPD of a light source OR the results from a sensor as CFA data?The above are the curves w/ sunlight as the spectrum illuminating the sensor.
More OT, looked up text that has nothing to do with your ideas Iliah easily and very clearly dismissed. Game over.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:
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.It shows that green is the most sensitive color.
He failed. The OP already addressed the text he found useful 6 months ago.Michael commented about this in a long post. His goal was communicating in a way that beginners could understand.
... opening it with "Some other have thrown in lots of details demonstrating that everyone else is wrong." Which is what I call going passive aggressiveMichael commented about this in a long post
Not sure. Especially given the info he provided was misleading.His goal was communicating in a way that beginners could understand.
... opening it with "Some other have thrown in lots of details demonstrating that everyone else is wrong." Which is what I call going passive aggressiveMichael commented about this in a long post
Not sure. Especially given the info he provided was misleading.His goal was communicating in a way that beginners could understand.