On 8/30/20 7:08 PM, Aurélien Pierre wrote: > 1. that still doesn't give you the jpeg cooking recipe, which is more > complicated than building an ad-hoc LUT or a tonecurve if local filters > are applied (and there are), > > 2. what is it with people editing jpegs ? That's nonsensical ! Not the > same workflow, not the same maths, not the same filters, not the same > pipeline, not the same software. A raw is an output-agnostic linearly > encoded master picture that you can still salvage from the beginning, a > jpeg is already non-linearly cooked for display assuming dim viewing > conditions (as per sRGB standard) and firmware blackboxes. > > People need to stop dealing with image processing as if everyone was > right and correctness didn't matter. It's not a silly magic game of > pixels values, there are assumptions to assert underneath the hood. > Sometimes I wish image processing could kill people, as civil > engineering or medicine do, so people would start taking it seriously > and check the theory behind before doing shit carelessly. That kind of > silly workflow will blow up in your face 50 % of times because there is > zero reliability in handling pre-baked jpegs with all the firmwares > discrepancies in a software designed to unroll image operations on raw > files. Then I will let you deal with users who don't understand why the > workflow is so unpredictable. > > Indulging bad habits of users is not a solution, especially since we > don't sell anything/whore ourselves out. Let's be rigorous about pixels > operations and do things properly. Want to edit jpegs ? Use bloody > Photoshop and the likes. They are good at doing shit, don't care about > color consistency, don't care about light emissions, don't even do > associated alpha occlusion properly. Yet people love them because > marketing expenses make up for dev mediocrity and overall stupidity.
Amen. -- Šarūnas Burdulis math.dartmouth.edu/~sarunas · https://useplaintext.email ·
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
