Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: steverap on July 10, 2020, 02:01:04 pm
-
Jeff Schewe and others suggest sending files to an Epson printer with print resolutions of 360 or 720 ppi, so if a file's resolution is greater than 360 but less than 720, it should be upsampled in, say, Lightroom's Print Job module by checking Print Resolution and entering 720. Does that remain the consensus advice about printing from Lightroom?
-
It depends on quality options selected. Below is for P800 (from RedRiver site)
Quality Options
2880 x 1440 dpi (Level 5)
1440 x 720 dpi (Level 4) - Lowest choice available for glossy, luster, fine art settings
720 x 720 dpi (Level 3) - Available for photo matte and plain paper media settings
720 x 360 dpi (Level 2) - Available for plain paper media setting
Interpolation in the computer will, almost always, be better than in the driver/printer. Plus, one should assume that, in the computer, sharpening will be adjusted for the dpi (really ppi). Qimage does this for you automatically.
-
Thanks, John, but that does not really answer my question. If it is best to send files to an Epson printer (P800 soon to be replaced by a P900) with resolutions of either 360 ppi or 720 ppi, if a file is, say, 550 ppi, should I upsample the file to 720 ppi by checking Print Resolution in Lightroom's Print Job module and entering 720 ppi? I guess it's two questions: (1) should I always upsample files >360 ppi to 720 ppi, and (2) any reason not use Lightroom's Print Job module to upsample?
-
In terms of LR or otherwise, yes.
Jeff's piece, a must read:
https://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/photography-workflow/the-right-resolution/
-
Thanks, John, but that does not really answer my question. If it is best to send files to an Epson printer (P800 soon to be replaced by a P900) with resolutions of either 360 ppi or 720 ppi, if a file is, say, 550 ppi, should I upsample the file to 720 ppi by checking Print Resolution in Lightroom's Print Job module and entering 720 ppi? I guess it's two questions: (1) should I always upsample files >360 ppi to 720 ppi, and (2) any reason not use Lightroom's Print Job module to upsample?
It should answer your question. What ever quality you select should be the ppi you send, irrespective of original size, as it will be resized to that in the driver, but with inferior interpolation...relative to what can be used in the computer.
For years, Jeff, and other, would say, adamently, that ~200 ppi was fine and no resizing was needed. In more recent years, he came over to support resizing. LR, unfortunately, only supports 360/720 (300/600 for Canon).
-
For years, Jeff, and other, would say, adamently, that ~200 ppi was fine and no resizing was needed. In more recent years, he came over to support resizing. LR, unfortunately, only supports 360/720 (300/600 for Canon).
Not really. For years he and other's have stated that if all you can provide is 200PPI, that's fine AND that data has to be resampled somewhere. Where is the question and for many years, Jeff and other's have suggested doing so in LR due to the underlying processing engine, adaptive sharpening (workflow).
Less than 200PPI (I'd submit 180), you may want to rethink how large you wish to divide up those pixels FOR resampling.
-
Not really. For years he and other's have stated that if all you can provide is 200PPI, that's fine AND that data has to be resampled somewhere. Where is the question and for many years, Jeff and other's have suggested doing so in LR due to the underlying processing engine, adaptive sharpening (workflow).
Less than 200PPI (I'd submit 180), you may want to rethink how large you wish to divide up those pixels FOR resampling.
Sorry...either your not going back enough years or your memory is altered. He, and others (maybe you) said that resampling to what the driver (printer) wanted was not necessary. For years, he poo-poo’d Qimage doing the resampling...now (article you referenced) he comments that Qimage provides support to higher ppi levels.
-
Sorry...either your not going back enough years or your memory is altered.
Neither actually.
He, and others (maybe you) said that resampling to what the driver (printer) wanted was not necessary.
Either your not going back enough years or your memory is altered. ;D
Read his article, he's quite clear about the driver(s) resampling based on OS. Not ideal. Again, resampling has to take place. Where is the important consideration.
For years, he poo-poo’d Qimage doing the resampling...
He did, where?
Do read the actual question here regarding Lightroom (not Qimage). His article makes this all clear, nothing has changed with respect to the actual product being asked about.
-
Plus, one should assume that, in the computer, sharpening will be adjusted for the dpi (really ppi). Qimage does this for you automatically.
Some don't have to assume; Lightroom does this automatically based on capture sharpening applied as well. It IS the product being asked about. ;)
-
Thanks, John, but that does not really answer my question. If it is best to send files to an Epson printer (P800 soon to be replaced by a P900) with resolutions of either 360 ppi or 720 ppi, if a file is, say, 550 ppi, should I upsample the file to 720 ppi by checking Print Resolution in Lightroom's Print Job module and entering 720 ppi? I guess it's two questions: (1) should I always upsample files >360 ppi to 720 ppi, and (2) any reason not use Lightroom's Print Job module to upsample?
Yes and Yes. Hopefully that answers the question specifically about LR. You may wish to run your own tests however. I did after Jeff's article was released. You'll want to use an image with high frequency imagery (I actually constructed a synthetic image to include in my own images). It may take a loupe, but the differences are visible. And since there's no downside in terms of speed (well clicking on one check box which you can then 'build' into a Print Template), I can't see why anyone wouldn't do so.
-
Neither actually. Either your not going back enough years or your memory is altered. ;D
Read his article, he's quite clear about the driver(s) resampling based on OS. Not ideal. Again, resampling has to take place. Where is the important consideration. He did, where?
Do read the actual question here regarding Lightroom (not Qimage). His article makes this all clear, nothing has changed with respect to the actual product being asked about.
His article is relatively recent....original 2011, updated 2017.
I did read it. I made reference to LR still not supporting 1440. Also, while I have not used LR printing in years, it used to require selection of 360 or 720. If they have updated to automatically setting based on driver, that’s great....good copy of Qimage which had it from the get go.
-
Yes and Yes. Hopefully that answers the question specifically about LR. You may wish to run your own tests however. I did after Jeff's article was released. You'll want to use an image with high frequency imagery (I actually constructed a synthetic image to include in my own images). It may take a loupe, but the differences are visible. And since there's no downside in terms of speed (well clicking on one check box which you can then 'build' into a Print Template), I can't see why anyone wouldn't do so.
There is a difference in printing speed. This will be more apparent if you follow Jeff’s recommendation of ‘unidirectional’ for ‘finest detail’ (720).
-
His article is relatively recent....original 2011, updated 2017.
Yes, either 9 or 3 years old. Whatever.
I did read it. I made reference to LR still not supporting 1440.
Not support?
Also, while I have not used LR printing in years, it used to require selection of 360 or 720.
No. The field for PPI can have any value between a number 72 and 1,440 inserted by the user.
If they have updated to automatically setting based on driver, that’s great....good copy of Qimage which had it from the get go.
The question is about a product you don't seen to have used in years nor fully understand. The question and appropriate answers are and have nothing to do with Qimage.
-
There is a difference in printing speed.
Yes, an 8x10 prints faster than an 12x18 and you've again missed the point; the speed of printing is moot, setting an ideal configuration in LR with a print template isn't.
-
Yes, an 8x10 prints faster than an 12x18 and you've again missed the point; the speed of printing is moot, setting an ideal configuration in LR with a print template isn't.
I was commenting on your statement....which was wrong. You were taking about ppi settings. You are changing the subject and parameters, which is normal for you.
-
Yes, either 9 or 3 years old. Whatever.
Not support?
No. The field for PPI can have any value between a number 72 and 1,440 inserted by the user. The question is about a product you don't seen to have used in years nor fully understand. The question and appropriate answers are and have nothing to do with Qimage.
I stated I had not used LR printing in years. However, I had been answering the OP Question, before you came in on your usual attack mode.
-
I was commenting on your statement....which was wrong. You were taking about ppi settings. You are changing the subject and parameters, which is normal for you.
No it's not wrong; setup LR Print Template ideally and it is no slower than setting it up for a less ideal setting. But as someone who has admitted a lack of experience and misstatements about LR, not surprising.
Have you yet located Jeff ”poo-pooing” the product no one asked about here? :P
-
Try it for yourself and see if you can see any difference. I have and can't.
-
I stated I had not used LR printing in years. However, I had been answering the OP Question, before you came in on your usual attack mode.
Providing correct answers about the product actually asked about and pointing out you misunderstanding of that product is not an attack.
What do we owe people who are wrong (and off topic)? 😂
-
I stated I had not used LR printing in years.
That's quite clear.
However, I had been answering the OP Question, before you came in on your usual attack mode.
And then there's this:
Thanks, John, but that does not really answer my question.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong" H. L. Mencken
-
Thanks, Andrew, I was hoping for succinct answers to my two questions and I now have them - thanks!
-
Jeff Schewe and others suggest sending files to an Epson printer with print resolutions of 360 or 720 ppi, so if a file's resolution is greater than 360 but less than 720, it should be upsampled in, say, Lightroom's Print Job module by checking Print Resolution and entering 720. Does that remain the consensus advice about printing from Lightroom?
The objective is to send the file to the print pipeline with the pixels per inch as the print pipeline expects. So if in W10 the printer driver of say An sc-p9000 is set to print quality level 5 (2880dpi) and Fine Details is set to On, the expected ppi is 720. If not the print pipeline Will rerezz to 720, and then do the printing.
If you set the driver to say pql is 4 and FD is off, then 360ppi.
Note the W10 pipeline needs the FD set to On to process the file as 720ppi. If not set it will process at 360ppi, but the printer itself(print engine) will process at 2880dpi.
So when using Lightroom, you can set your print templates to the required print resolution, and Lightroom will rerezz to the set PPI.
Very efficiënt.
-
And, I think it is important for the OP to know that not all Epson printers are 360/720. Some of the newer ones, e.g. the SC P7570 / 9570 are 2400 x 1200 heads. So, the appropriate LR res settings would be 300 / 600 as with Canon.
Rand
-
And, I think it is important for the OP to know that not all Epson printers are 360/720. Some of the newer ones, e.g. the SC P7570 / 9570 are 2400 x 1200 heads. So, the appropriate LR res settings would be 300 / 600 as with Canon.
Correct, and an application like Qimage will sort out the optimal settings by automatically interrogating the printer driver. That will also show that a "Finest Detail" setting is required to allow printing at 720 PPI.
A question that seems to remain unanswered is; what to do if the image size results in a PPI between 360 and 720 (or 300 and 600) PPI?
The answer is, why waste real image data by downsampling? Use the next higher resolution instead, i.e. 720 (or 600) PPI, and avoid downsampling artifacts (even if they will be hard to spot in the final print). There could be a reason to downsample to 360 (or 300) PPI, and that is when the total number of pixels exceeds the maximum allowable width of the paper (roll) in pixels.
In theory, there can also be a memory buffer limit to how many pixels can be sent to the printer driver with large format output, but an application like Qimage can usually avoid that by sending chunks of data to the printer.
Qimage (Ultimate, not sure about the Qimage One versions) also support an "Overdrive" printing mode, that's useful when printing large files on smaller output formats. When the resulting PPI for a given output size would exceed the maximum printer resolution of 720 (or 600 PPI), Qimage will attempt to print at something like 1440 (or 1200) PPI, thus improving the print quality even further.
-
Qimage (Ultimate, not sure about the Qimage One versions) also support an "Overdrive" printing mode, that's useful when printing large files on smaller output formats.
Yes, my copy (on Mac) has this option.
-
Yes, my copy (on Mac) has this option.
Good to know. The effect may be subtle, but it does work for the better.
-
In an earlier thread I showed the effect if you send a file to the printer in a ppi resolution not equal to the setting of the driver. In short a poor result. Do not know how to copy the I’d of that thread.
-
Since the Epson printer has a maximum print resolution of 2880 dpi, why is the maximum image resolution limited to 720 ppi? If I'm working with a super high resolution image (such as from image stacking), why can't I send a 2880 ppi file to the printer? If the printer can lay down 2880 dots-per-inch onto the paper, it should in theory be able to manage a 2880 pixels-per-inch image file, no?
-
Since the Epson printer has a maximum print resolution of 2880 dpi, why is the maximum image resolution limited to 720 ppi? If I'm working with a super high resolution image (such as from image stacking), why can't I send a 2880 ppi file to the printer? If the printer can lay down 2880 dots-per-inch onto the paper, it should in theory be able to manage a 2880 pixels-per-inch image file, no?
There is no reason to send 1 image pixel to such a printer at those values and further as mentioned, those values differ from the actual native possible printer resolution (e.g. 360/720).
-
Since the Epson printer has a maximum print resolution of 2880 dpi, why is the maximum image resolution limited to 720 ppi?
Because we need to mix ink color dots for different per pixel-colors and brightnesses (by placing the single color dots adjacent to each other or slightly overlapping) that are in between the individual colors and white background.
So, the individual dots of ink (or absence thereof, thus revealing background-white) are placed with e.g. a 1/2880th inch accuracy, which allows to place at least 4x4=16 of them side-by-side per 1/ 720th x 1/720th inch pixel. By varying the droplet size one can create even finer gradations of intermediate colors, also mixed by ink diffusion. Also, 720 PPI is roughly 2x the limit of human visual acuity at reading distance, so adjacent pixels are optically diffused/blended by our visual system.
Printing at higher pixel resolution than visual acuity requires, helps with blending gradations between pixels, and it helps with achieving "Vernier acuity" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernier_acuity) .
-
I didn't think about the necessity of mixing multiple ink dots to render a single pixel color. That makes sense.
I was also wondering why the printer head has a higher dot density in the horizontal direction (ie, 2880 dpi) than it does in the vertical direction (ie, 1440 dpi). That seems a bit cockeyed. Camera image sensors have a uniform pixel density across its two-dimensional surface. Why not printer heads?
-
I was also wondering why the printer head has a higher dot density in the horizontal direction (ie, 2880 dpi) than it does in the vertical direction (ie, 1440 dpi). That seems a bit cockeyed.
Ever view the spec's of a flatbed scanner? Optical resolution one dimension, stepper motor the other; perhaps the same here?
-
Ever view the spec's of a flatbed scanner?
No. I'm old but not that old 😁
-
Because we need to mix ink color dots for different per pixel-colors and brightnesses (by placing the single color dots adjacent to each other or slightly overlapping) that are in between the individual colors and white background.
So, the individual dots of ink (or absence thereof, thus revealing background-white) are placed with e.g. a 1/2880th inch accuracy, which allows to place at least 4x4=16 of them side-by-side per 1/ 720th x 1/720th inch pixel. By varying the droplet size one can create even finer gradations of intermediate colors, also mixed by ink diffusion. Also, 720 PPI is roughly 2x the limit of human visual acuity at reading distance, so adjacent pixels are optically diffused/blended by our visual system.
Printing at higher pixel resolution than visual acuity requires, helps with blending gradations between pixels, and it helps with achieving "Vernier acuity" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernier_acuity) .
Bart,
Thanks for this. Excellent stuff. Helped my overall general understanding a lot!
Rand
-
Allow me to add my gratitude to the group, this was enormously helpful - thanks!
-
WoW! the math hasn't changed has it?
2+2=4 unless you're selling a large bridge.
Any even division of 1440 for Epson is the right print resolution 1440 divided by 8= 180 you can print at 180 and get great results.
As far as 2880 its mostly marketing hype.
But try it out print at 1440 and 2880 if you see a noticeable difference on the wall from 6-8' then you can be sure.
-
WoW! the math hasn't changed has it?
2+2=4 unless you're selling a large bridge.
Any even division of 1440 for Epson is the right print resolution 1440 divided by 8= 180 you can print at 180 and get great results.
As far as 2880 its mostly marketing hype.
But try it out print at 1440 and 2880 if you see a noticeable difference on the wall from 6-8' then you can be sure.
You missed the point that the printer driver expects the ppi as set in the pal parameter. And if not it will rerezz to set value , but with the neirest neighbor method, rather ugly.
As for 2880 being marketing, may be for you, my experience is that it is of value.
-
In terms of LR or otherwise, yes.
Jeff's piece, a must read:
https://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/photography-workflow/the-right-resolution/
It seems to me that much confusion in this discussion is failure to distinguish between dots and pixels. This difference is explained very well in Color Management, 2nd Ed by Fraser, Murphy, and Bunting (pages 56 and 57). A pixel is an image sample with red, green and blue with each color having different and continuously variable intensities (continuity is limited by digital encoding, commonly 8 or 16 bits). A continuous-tone device such as a monitor or contone printer (e.g dye sublimation) can display these pixels directly, but our injket printers need to break down the pixel into dots using error diffusion halftoning. My Epson 3880 can use a maximum of 2880 x 1440 dpi. This resolution refers to placement of the dots, and with error diffusion halftoning the relationship of the dots to the actual pixels is rather tenuous.
Jeff's article to which you refer is excellent, but he appears to use dpi and ppi interchangeably.
Bill
-
In terms of Jeffs article, one can use PPI and DPI interchangeably: image pixels are used to create dots.
What makes you believe that an ink jet print can't be considered continuous tone? Under a strong enough magnifier, what is? Certainly not a display who's output resolution can be lower than some digital prints.Lastly, even encoding 8 bits, two different numbers can result in the same color.
-
In terms of Jeffs article, one can use PPI and DPI interchangeably: image pixels are used to create dots.
What makes you believe that an ink jet print can't be considered continuous tone? Under a strong enough magnifier, what is? Certainly not a display who's output resolution can be lower than some digital prints.Lastly, even encoding 8 bits, two different numbers can result in the same color.
Interchanging pixels and dots just causes confusion. ‘Pixels Per Inch’ is a definition of input to the printer. ‘Dots Per Inch’ is the output of the printer to it’s media.
Jeff, in the article does misuse dpi when he says, “... Epson pro printers’ print heads have a reported output resolution of 360/720 dpi...”. The 360/760 is an expected input resolution (ppi) that the printer expects to get. If it gets a different number it (either in driver or printer software) will interpolate to the number.
A monitor may appear ‘continuous’ tone, but it is clearly made up of individual bits of colored (usually rgb) lights. Dye-sub may be considered ‘continuous tone’ due to the overlay blending of colors, but it is, as I understand, usually laid down in a pattern of dots. That an inkjet printer (or billboard) viewed at a far enough distance appears continuous, does not change the definition that it is created by dots.
Lastly, I think the statement would be “even encoding 8 bit, two different numbers can be perceived as the same color”
-
Jeff, in the article does misuse dpi when he says, “... Epson pro printers’ print heads have a reported output resolution of 360/720 dpi...”. The 360/760 is an expected input resolution (ppi) that the printer expects to get. If it gets a different number it (either in driver or printer software) will interpolate to the number.
If one reads (carefully) Jeff's article, when he uses DPI, it refers to prints, and where he refers to PPI, images. For example:
So, an image that’s 5616×3744 pixels can have a dimension of 23.4×15.6 inches when set to a pixel-per-inch (ppi) of 240. If you set the resolution to 360 ppi, the print dimensions are reduced to 15.6×10.4 inches.
And then:
No, but the print made at 360 ppi will have better image quality and finer detail.
Made from an image with that PPI.
Lastly, I think the statement would be “even encoding 8 bit, two different numbers can be perceived as the same color”
Yup, because color IS a perceptual property of (in this discussion) humans. So if you can't see it it's not a color. Color is not a particular wavelength of light. It is a cognitive perception, the excitation of photoreceptors followed by retinal processing and ending in the our visual cortex, within our brains. As such, colors are defined based on perceptual experiments. In ProPhoto RGB, G255/R0/B0 is not a color. It is a device value.
Two numbers that produce the same color appearance (and we can measure and define this difference precisely) IS the same color no matter the encoding:
(http://digitaldog.net/files/ColorNumbersNotColors.jpg)
-
In terms of Jeffs article, one can use PPI and DPI interchangeably: image pixels are used to create dots.
What makes you believe that an ink jet print can't be considered continuous tone? Under a strong enough magnifier, what is? Certainly not a display who's output resolution can be lower than some digital prints.Lastly, even encoding 8 bits, two different numbers can result in the same color.
Please read the cited article by Fraser et al.
"... the practice of using the terms 'dpi' (dots per inch) and 'ppi' (pixels per inch) interchangeably inevitably leads to confusion, because dots and pixels are distinct entities with different properties."
"But most digital hard-copy output devices are not continuous tone. Instead of pixels, they print dots of ink or toner"
The output of a high quality inkjet may appear continuous, but if you look at the print under a microscope you see innumerable randomly spaced color dots. With the output of a true contone device you would see individual pixels. I think the Lightjet430 is a true contone printer (see here (https://www.wattsdigital.com/lightJetprints.html)).
Bill
-
Please read the cited article by Fraser et al.
"... the practice of using the terms 'dpi' (dots per inch) and 'ppi' (pixels per inch) interchangeably inevitably leads to confusion, because dots and pixels are distinct entities with different properties."
I've got signed copies of all of Fraser's books, he of course isn't wrong, nor is Jeff. Jeff clearly differentiates PPI from DPI in the article when speaking of images composed of pixels and devices that produce dots (in this case, printers). If you or others are confused, I'm sorry.
The output of a high quality inkjet may appear continuous
Of course it can and thus, how is it NOT continuous tone?
but if you look at the print under a microscope you see innumerable randomly spaced color dots.
And when I examine a silver print with a microscope, I see grain. So what? BOTH appear without as continuous tone. My B&W laser printer of a photo without a microscope, no, it does not.
You stated: "A continuous-tone device such as a monitor ...." Really, even when examined with a microscope? Please explain how a display IS continuous-tone but an ink jet without either being examined with a microscope isn't continuous-tone. Because if the topic is confusion, you've confused me..... ;)
-
Epson's REPORTED output resolution is:
-
How can a c-print system like lightjet be continuous, as the input is a discrete set of pixels. Furthermore it uses silverhalide paper, which by its very nature is not continuous tone.
A display is a discrete set of pixels, but these pixels can vary in intensity and color. That in itself can be identified as continuous. But the display as a set of pixels in my view can not be called continuous, as i see a grid of pixels.
Not suprisingly as the DPI values of displays are quite low.
.
-
I've got signed copies of all of Fraser's books, he of course isn't wrong, nor is Jeff. Jeff clearly differentiates PPI from DPI in the article when speaking of images composed of pixels and devices that produce dots (in this case, printers). If you or others are confused, I'm sorry. Of course it can and thus, how is it NOT continuous tone? And when I examine a silver print with a microscope, I see grain. So what? BOTH appear without as continuous tone. My B&W laser printer of a photo without a microscope, no, it does not.
You stated: "A continuous-tone device such as a monitor ...." Really, even when examined with a microscope? Please explain how a display IS continuous-tone but an ink jet without either being examined with a microscope isn't continuous-tone. Because if the topic is confusion, you've confused me..... ;)
Again, re-read Fraser et al:
"But most digital hard-copy output devices are not continuous tone. Instead of pixels, they print dots of ink or toner"--that includes inkjet printers.
"A monitor is an example of a continuous-tone device."
You don't appear to understand the theoretical difference between contone and dithered output.
Bill
-
"A monitor is an example of a continuous-tone device."
You don't appear to understand the theoretical difference between contone and dithered output.
You don't appear to be able to explain yourself.
-
You don't appear to be able to explain yourself.
Not to someone with limited comprehension. :)
-
Not to someone with limited comprehension. :)
Not to anyone here.
Who to believe, you with your inability to explain you opinions or Schewe? ;)
It seems to me that much confusion in this discussion is failure to distinguish between dots and pixels.
I accept your confusion.
-
Epson's REPORTED output resolution is:
Thanks for posting this information. An example may help to explain the difference between PPI and DPI when printing.
Here is the Quality Option dialog for the 3880 printer. For optimum output, one would usually use 2880x1440 dpi. You can set the resolution to anything you want, but for the 3880 the usual values are 360 and 720 as Schewe explains. Here it is set to 720.
Now you have to set PPI sent to the printer. The example shows a D850 image cropped to a 4:5 ratio using Photoshop. When cropped to 8 * 10 inches, the image resolution is 688 PPI. According to Jeff's recommendations one would resample to 720 ppi and send this to the printer, which would use 2880x1440 dpi. If we want a 24 x 30 inch print, the resolution would be 229 ppi. You would sent 360 ppi to the printer. Any more would simple be empty magnification.
-
Not to anyone here.
Who to believe, you with your inability to explain you opinions or Schewe? ;)
I accept your confusion.
As I remember from many years ago with regard as to whether or not a raw file has a color space, you never admit you are wrong and persist in specious arguments until your own referee, Thomas Knoll, clarified the issue. Do you remember this? I'm done here.
Bill
-
As I remember from many years ago with regard as to whether or not a raw file has a color space, you never admit you are wrong and persist in specious arguments until your own referee, Thomas Knoll, clarified the issue. Do you remember this? I'm done here.
Bill
Thanks, Bill +1
-
As I remember from many years ago with regard as to whether or not a raw file has a color space, you never admit you are wrong and persist in specious arguments until your own referee, Thomas Knoll, clarified the issue. Do you remember this? I'm done here.
Bill
Remember what? Raw does have a color space, it's not a colorimetric color space. I quoted Thomas and others about this as well.
You're done, but can't answer the questions asked of you to explain your opinion. Fine.
-
Since you seem to want to reference Fraser and the color space of raw, do turn to page 375 of the book you referenced:
"Raw files from digital color filter array cameras are linear gamma grayscale images that require processing by a raw converter (such as Adobe Camera Raw) to produce a color image".
So based on your reading of that text, what is the color space of that linear gamma grayscale data?