🚀 go-pugleaf

The concept of rendered and unrendered images, or scene-referred colorimetry vs output-rendered colorimetry, is not something I made up, and referring to it as "my" concept does a great disservice to many hardworking color scientists. Try a Google search on "scene-referred colorimetry"�you'll find a lot of work, none of which has my name on it.

A sensor cannot know whether it's being presented with a rendered or unrendered image. A human whose business is designing imaging systems, however, can generally make the reasonable assumption that cameras will generally be called upon to capture scenes while scanners will generally be called upon to capture rendered images. That's why we have cameras AND scanners, it's why the design of scanners is very different from that of cameras, and it's why it's foolish to generalize from ACR to scanning. If you can't accept that, it's entirely your problem.

I've told you to how to implement a linear workflow in Photoshop, and I've given you the reasons why it's an asinine thing to do. Go ahead and prove me wrong if you can, but spare me the half-baked theories. I've done the due diligence of testing linear-gamma 16-bit/channel workflows. Have you?

You have a serious misapprehension as to my scanning practice. I haven't made a linear-gamma scan since I stopped using the Leafscan, and I only did so then because Leaf didn't offer any way to gamma-correct 16-bit/channel images. That's why Real World Photoshop 3 and 4 had lengthy procedures for trying to get something usable out of linear-gamma 16-bit images. Fortunately, such desperate measures are no longer required, which is why ot was dropped from subsequent editions. Gamma correction is one feature that is generally reliable in scanners, and it's foolish not to take advantage of it. (Don Hutcheson has a good paper on determining the optimum gamma for a given scanner at www.hutchcolor.com.)

Was there a point to any of this?