On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 3:26 AM, David Gowers <00a...@gmail.com> wrote: > Don't you think that would be very tiresome? > Most images have no ICC profile attached; in this case, sRGB is indeed > implied. Producing images that are not sRGB but have no ICC profile > attached is wrong (more precisely, it's a miscommunication, saying > that the image is sRGB when it's not. ).
Nope, I wouldn't find that tiresome at all. Many other applications have an option to allow just that. When I edit a file in Digikam, I have it set so that if there's no color profile detected, it asks me what the source color profile should be and whether or not to convert it to my default working space. This is neither tiresome nor annoying. If I did find it tiresome, I could just turn that off and have it use a default profile (like sRGB) for the source file when none is detected. As far as I'm concerned, this is just part of having proper color management in my workflow. > I appreciate your situation of needing to correct the profile here, > OTOH, have you considered using tools like imagemagick and jpegicc to > detect the camera it came from and then attach an appropriate profile. > this would allow you to assign profiles automatically in large > batches. IMO this is much less painful all around. That would add a bunch more steps to my workflow, and it would only work on this computer. I frequently have to work on other people's computers with files straight from the camera (and other people's cameras), and Gimp is the only cross-platform tool I have that does what I need. > BTW, I just checked the exif information on those JPEGs and both have > no EXIF information. So it does look indeed like the profile data is > stored in some custom format; there may even be no profile per se > stored, just a reference to or description of one. Sorry, those were links to the version of the pictures as displayed by Picasa, which has the metadata stripped. The direct download links are as follows: Adobe RGB: http://lh6.ggpht.com/_HAZjMzZWrtc/S05qkb7KkYI/AAAAAAAABCw/oPJ80XXYH-Y/d/_GOR3359.JPG sRGB: http://lh3.ggpht.com/_HAZjMzZWrtc/S05qk1yxBOI/AAAAAAAABC0/5kXGfiIIF7s/d/GORE3360.JPG There's a LOT of metadata, Pentax fills in more metadata than I thought existed. On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Milan Knížek <knizek.co...@volny.cz> wrote: > How about the filenames? AdobeRGB image starts with "_" (underscore). Yes, the link to the Adobe RGB file I posted is named _GOR3359.JPG and the sRGB one is named GORE3360.JPG As I stated in my original post, the sRGB image has the EXIF tag "Color space" set as "sRGB". The Adobe RGB picture has that same EXIF tag set as "Uncalibrated". That's how it comes right out of the camera. Changing it to "Adobe RGB" does not change anything. Gimp still doesn't detect the color space properly and still assumes it's sRGB. _______________________________________________ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
