Just in case this wasn't clear in my last message, I'll expand on a few points. You can implement either or both of calibration and profiling.
Having systems calibrated to a common standard means that you don't _have_ to worry about ICC profiles etc IF ALL YOU'RE DEALING WITH IS RGB DATA IN THE COLOUR SPACE REPRESENTED BY THAT CALIBRATION. Thus with the Gimp in its current form, calibration is important (it's the only thing available!). But if you want _accurate_ colour you need to implement profile support (e.g. building on top of lcms) including dynamic conversion from an image's colour space to the display system's profile. With full profile support it doesn't matter what the user's system is calibrated to (e.g. weirdarse 1.8 gamma). If an image's data is in sRGB the colours will get converted so that what is displayed on the screen is accurate, even though sRGB has a gamma of 2.2. My systems are calibrated to a gamma close to 2.2, and I can view images in "ColorMatch RGB" (which has a gamma of 1.8) with no problems as the profile conversion takes care of that for me.. Calibration benefits the non-colour-managed applications, but with only limited usefulness. Mac and Windows systems implement both calibration and profiling in an attempt to serve both CM and non-CM applications (and the calibration can help ensure the system is in a reasonable state prior to profiling). Full profile support is important because the colour response of your inkjet printer, scanner, printing press, etc will probably not match that of your calibrated system, and for accurate work you need a profile describing the colour space of each and to convert between them as required. I'll shut up for now. ;) Cheers __ David Burren _______________________________________________ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
