Yeah, it is old software. Likely written originally written when file names were restricted to 8 characters plus 3 character type extension.
When i saw all the other names in the directory listing, that is what triggered the memory.
Glad it is workable for you.
On not noticing any real difference between Epson sRGB and using the profile i1 generated + the Spectraview monitor profile, that may be because the i1 profile colour patches fall within the sRGB colour space. I don’t know for sure off hand.
When you are adjusting images, you want to work in a colour space that is larger than what you plan to output to. The working colour space for the image editing program is different from your device profile usually. AdobeRGB1998 can be ok and is larger than sRGB. ProPhoto is another commonly used. If you are printing or displaying on wide gamut devices, this can matter. If you are only outputting to the web, it may not make much difference as sRGB is assumed for internet and almost all monitors.
Yes, the 8 characters could have done it. Thanks.
I have my NEC PA242W monitor calibrated with Spectraview II for sRGB because I put my digitally captured and scanned film photos up on the web. I also use them to make slideshows for presentation on my monitor or others. Also for presentation on my 4K UHD 75" TV. Of course with the TV who knows how it's calibrated and its color space?
It didn't make sense to me to use let's say Prophoto or Adobe Photo and then switch to RGB at the end. So I just leave everything in RGB for simplicity. Since I'm not printing, what would be the point? Would it make much of a difference if i use the scan to do a coffee table book? It's something I'd like to do and will do soon.
The other thing is that color is very individual. Everyone sees it differently and has their biases. So if I adjust it to look good to my eye, probably it will look good to most people and the rest don't matter because I'm pleasing myself and their tastes aren't mine. Comparing color palettes and spaces seems to me to be like pixel peeping. Frankly, unless you have two photos that you are comparing too, you won't see the difference in colors, and then only marginally. With one picture, how does anyone know it's "right" or "wrong". Unless a color is really off, such as with flesh tones, no one's going to notice. Does anyone see some colors missing because they're using a smaller color space? Bigger issues are banding, chroma effects, artifacts, etc. These are obvious or at least seeable. With film, did you spot out all the dust? Does the picture do anything for me? Or am I more concerned with technical perfection? As an engineer, it's easy for me to get caught up in the latter and miss the aesthetic trees in the forest.
The only reason I want color profiles though is to make the adjustment procedure easier because the results from scanning film gives weird results sometimes and it's hard to get to decent color results. Most people change saturation and stuff like that. So the picture isn't "real" anyway and doesn't match the original colors. But no one cares. Larger color spaces seem to be for people who like more pixels even if they don't need them. Sorry for the philosphy.
If I'm missing something, I'd sure like to hear yours or others ideas on this. Especially as regard to coffee table books and printing.
