🚀 go-pugleaf

Hello

"
Note that while scanners are also linear devices, they're scanning film, which responds to light much more like our eyeballs do, so the the arguments that apply to digital raw captures do not apply to film scans (or to camera-produced JPEGs, which are already converted to a gamma-corrected space)."

This is ridiculous.

Once the image is recorded on film,it is fixed. A scanner (which reads data linearly) scanning film, is no different from a camera(which reads data linearly). A linear camera has no idea if the scene is a real scene or a projected one. Is the scanner somehow applying a non linear light to match the non linearity of the film.

Of course the image is gamma corrected after Adobe Raw is finished.
In order to view the preview of the linear data,Adobe gamma is simulating the order of gamma 1.8 or 2.2 to the monitor.

This workflow is no different than that advocated by Mr Autiokari.

What would now be the difference now if all work were to be done in linear and the necessary conversion made at the time of publishing.

The original objection was that sharpening was best done in gamma space, but Adobe Raw does its sharpening in linear.

Once a image left Adobe raw, there should be NO need for any more correction.

The workflow is EXACLY as propounded by Mr Autiokari.

As I say, I fully expect that futher versions of Photoshop WILL do ALL processing in linear space.

Mr Autiokari has been cruelly hounded over the last few years.

Mike Engles