HarrisLegola
Member
- Messages
- 34
- Reaction score
- 4
What are the main differences / similarities between an ICC profile and a color space?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Difference between ICC profile and color space?
- Thread starter HarrisLegola
- Start date
Iliah Borg
Forum Pro
What in fact is embarrassing is that you you are promoting very wrong ideas of what is white balance, what is demosaicking, why green pixels are relatively more saturated under broad spectrum of light sources, and why 2x green does not lead to 1 EV lead of green channel; and promote those ideas to beginners, misleading them.
Consider a raw image with one G channel absent. No more green tint, you think? Wrong.
Consider binned image, 4 pixels, RGBG2, replaced with one pixel {R, (G+G2)/2, B}. No green tint? Wrong.
If 2x green leads to green tint, why green is not 1 EV above red and blue?
Consider the example raw I posted. It contains 2x greens. Is it green?
You read an awful lot into a simple statement.
No, because you posted a rendered NEF file. If you had opened it in RawDigger and posted a screen copy of the "Raw composite" version, it would have been green and low contrast, just like I said. You chose to ignore this complaint about what you are doing!
It's still embarrassing for you because you can't win when you:
- Don't understand the rules.
- Cheat.
- Ignore your opponent's points.
Iliah Borg
Forum Pro
BS. It is right out of camera. Sad you know so little...
D
digidog
Guest
That's completely wrong! But at least you're consistent in that respect. You're looking at the raw data. I don’t know if you are purposely trying not to understand this, or if you are really struggling with it. Based on so many of your posts, even here, seems you're really struggling again.
tony field
Forum Pro
I was going to check out this "little green men" in raw digger ... however my "RawDigger Batch Edition" Renew License button "is not implemented yet" and "Please Renew" does not have a "Batch edition" option so I don't know if Profile / Research / Exposure should be chosen 
Iliah Borg
Forum Pro
[No message]
It's also sad that you have to cheat to "win". I have no information how you made that RAW file have a brighter red channel than either of the green channels. I do know that none of my RAW images look like that:
I suspect you changed the illumination. Light bounced from a big red surface? You also are smart enough to go inside a NEF file and change stuff!
BUT, why should I comment on your images if you don't comment on my images?
--
I speak my mind because it hurts to bite my tongue all the time.
Iliah Borg
Forum Pro
You know so little, and you are resorting to lame accusations and insults out of desperation.
The file contains 2x green pixels, it is straight out of the camera, and it is not green. Simple as that. So much for your "green because 2x green pixels" and "your "always green".
--
http://www.libraw.org/
Last edited:
gollywop
Veteran Member
Hold on just a moment and stop to think rationally, which I realize is something that is very difficult, if not impossible, for you to do. But, as you appear to realize, many images have a leading green raw channel and tend, thereby, to have a greenish raw composite image.It's also sad that you have to cheat to "win". I have no information how you made that RAW file have a brighter red channel than either of the green channels. I do know that none of my RAW images look like that:
I suspect you changed the illumination. Light bounced from a big red surface? You also are smart enough to go inside a NEF file and change stuff!
BUT, why should I comment on your images if you don't comment on my images?
Can you possibly entertain that the reason for this may be because, for many images, the green channel is significantly leading (relatively stronger) and not because there are two of them? And that ample evidence of this would be to present, as Iliah has done, an image for which the green channel is not leading and which, on account of this, does not have a greenish cast, despite the fact that it still has two green channels. It is crystal clear to anyone with a modicum of intelligence that any tendency toward greenishness is not due to the two green channels, and this example is not a cheat, but rather is a legitimate proof of the point and contradiction of your erroneous position.
You have no idea just how badly you are embarrassing yourself. But I do.
--
gollywop
I am not a moderator or an official of dpr. My views do not represent, or necessarily reflect, those of dpr.
http://g4.img-dpreview.com/D8A95C7DB3724EC094214B212FB1F2AF.jpg
Last edited:
D
digidog
Guest
The narrower the mind, the broader the statement.
Stick to the correct part of your signature and bite your tongue, hard! Try to refrain from speaking from such a small and often incorrect mind!
You, I, Iilah and hopefully most of the lurkers here have a good idea! Some of these confused and misinformed posters have to return after 6 moths to continue to regurgitate their nonsense on the innocent OP and lurkers, while getting their tails cut off by those of us that understand the technology. Always the same couple of people, sad how little they know or can learn.
--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net
Last edited:
Michael Fryd
Forum Pro
By my count Digidog has posted 14 times in this thread.
By my count, half of those are posts that contain no useful information They consist solely of an unsupported assertion that Digidog is right, and the other person is wrong, or they contain an insult.
I am curious, is this the tone that people are looking for in this forums?
D
digidog
Guest
Generally, most desire facts. Something several posters without access to mirrors or facts here continue to avoid in posts! Welcome to that group after said facts were presented 6 months before you arrived!
What do we owe people who are (nearly always) wrong? What do we really owe Mike for opening his can of unnecessary worms?
What some will do to get attention for being wrong...
That you wish us to believe you have some concern for the OP, the facts are, you do not, nor have you taken the time to read the threads you interrupted 6 months late; here's the paper trail if you can follow it:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57301684
HarrisLegola wrote:
What are the main differences / similarities between an ICC profile and a color space
Here you may find your answer.
The URL was MY web site: http://www.digitaldog.net/
Then the OP writes: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57304804
The OP wrote: That's brilliant! Thanks! I just needed someone to state it clearly just WHAT it is. A concise statement is perfect.
Last edited:
Iliah Borg
Forum Pro
They pollute the beginners' forum with misconceptions on exposure, equivalence, amount of light reflected from the glass, details on how the sensor works, sRGB and colour management, etc.; seeking not truth or to be helpful, but cheap respect and attention. Of course they want to be un-challenged.
D
digidog
Guest
The idea of any peer review isn't on their radar, on their minds or is their desire to be correct and aid others. It's about getting attention then complaining when called out for misinformed posts. All we can continue to do is strive to call out such nonsense in public with clear facts, and outside references. The trolls and idiots will never change their tiny minds after being presented the facts. All we can do is hope to protect the lurkers and OP's from their pollution.They pollute the beginners' forum with misconceptions on exposure, equivalence, amount of light reflected from the glass, details on how the sensor works, sRGB and colour management, etc.; seeking not truth or to be helpful, but cheap respect and attention. Of course they want to be un-challenged.
Such posters of misinformation really need to find a forum on religion or politics to waste their time posting. In a forum on Photography and imaging, with fundamentals in facts and science, they don't stand a chance if presented the facts.
--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net
Last edited:
Michael Fryd
Forum Pro
D
digidog
Guest
IF only your fascination evolved into learning!
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.
--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net
Last edited:
Michael Fryd
Forum Pro
Make that 8 posts of yours that consist entirely of boasts, insults, or personal attacks.
D
digidog
Guest
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. I have had RawDigger for years and I have yet to see a RAW image look red, as Iliah's sample did. I know that you illuminati are smarter than I am, but when my BS detector goes off, I am persistent.
I KNOW that I too could create a RAW image that looked red. Trivial.
But I also know that when I take a RAW image of a white sheet of paper, under reasonably white lighting and look at the picture via RawDigger, I see a VERY green piece of paper. I know that you illuminati are smart and skilled enough to take a similar picture, thus I get my hackles up when you insult me.
For anyone who thinks I'm embarrassed, I'm not because this is what a RAW image of a white piece of paper looks like in RawDigger:
Anybody who doesn't see green has bad vision.
You can contend until hell freezes over that it isn't because there are twice as many green photosites, but any 5th grader can see you are wrong.
I don't deny that there are other factors, but insist that the dominant one is the simple predominance of green photosites. How could it be any other way?
--
I speak my mind because it hurts to bite my tongue all the time.
Iliah Borg
Forum Pro
It was, twice in this thread. 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.
Similar threads
- Question
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum