Talk:Color management

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Untitled

Adopted orphan redirects for searching: Colour management

Hi I´m Jan-Peter Homann and made the first version of this page. Every interested user can contact me at mailto:homann@colormanagement.de — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.235.7.114 (talk • contribs) 2003-02-21T06:35:52 (UTC)

Criticism section

I propose to remove this section of unsourced whining. Any objections? Dicklyon 23:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the paragraph "A clear implementation of color management ...", I agree. For the rest I think fact tags would be more appropriate. Mlewan 04:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One year later, it's still unsourced (except for my efforts). Time to rethink? --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 16:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Long past time. I'll take it out. Dicklyon (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge color calibration into this article

The two cover essentially the same ground. Color management is the more general topic however, so the article should be here. --jacobolus (t) 17:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would not do that. Although a subset of color management, the color calibration article is already pretty long.--Adoniscik (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am coming around to your way of thinking... If you remove the link spam from color management you would be left with a short enough article to incorporate color calibration... There is more than enough information to constitute a separate article, this article should make reference to color calibration as one aspect of color management, moving it here would just confuse. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 21:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – the topics are distinct; color calibration is a key component of color management, but is also involved in lots of color systems whether they use color managed or not. The concept of color calibration predates the concept of color management, by a lot. Dicklyon (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any books or articles that discuss the history/usage of color calibration before color management? What are some early products that use color calibration?

P.S. Doesn't anyone else find the EL spam irritating? I'm inclined to nuke the lot since spam attracts spam. People keep adding links instead of references, which is what an encyclopedia needs. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 21:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an old color calibration ref, but it doesn't discuss the relationship. Feel free to remove all the ext. links any time you think a list is too spammy. Dicklyon (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking much support since the Sept '07 proposal, I removed it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge rendering intent into here

this article could use a discussion of rendering intents, and that article is currently a stub. until more information is added, I think rendering intent should be a sub-section of this article. --jacobolus (t) 18:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Color space, which already has a section for this, would be a better place. I'll add the appropriate merge template to it now...--Adoniscik (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I subsumed it under color space conversion. --Adoniscik (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think that color space is the best place. Color management is the broader topic. --jacobolus (t) 01:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to color translation, not color space. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 03:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What in the world is color translation? I have never heard that term used. Most of the results at the google search for that term have nothing to do with the definition given at that wiki article, and there are fewer of them than for "gamut mapping", "rendering intent", etc. What's wrong with just merging the whole caboodle into this article (color management), until such time as there is enough information there to support a complete article about some sub-topic? --jacobolus (t) 14:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Color translation is what color management systems do. Seems strange that it should have a separate article. Dicklyon (talk) 04:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Rendering intent" and "gamut mapping" are terms associated with the ICC. I tried to use something broader than both and more neutral; see Rodney, pg.32 for reference. I'm not sure what's going on with the "color management" and "color calibration" articles right now so I'd tentatively keep it on hold. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 15:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no p.32 at that URL, so it's not clear what you're trying to say. ICC is the main CM system, and yes it uses the concepts of rendering intent and gamut mapping; so why not talk about them here? Dicklyon (talk) 04:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is the index, and confirms that there is an article by the name "color translation", on page 32. (I linked to it since jacobolus questioned the term.)

It's simply WP:summary style. We can't address every topic related to color management in this article. I note we already have articles for ICC profile, ColorSync, and even ColorSync Utility. This arrangement allows one to address both topics with a neutral term and, more importantly, segregate the see also and ELs. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 04:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if this article gets big, and if color translation gets any significant amount of content, that might be an OK way to go. Why not wait until then? Dicklyon (talk) 04:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's already as big as the three I mentioned (never mind the insignificant list of standards in the first). The "Color translation" section is already at third-level, so there is nowhere to go for further subheadings like rendering intent (each type of which could well do with a subheading). With so many headings in this present article, it's hard to call it anything but summary style. So I am treating it as such. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 05:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with fourth-level headings? The contents of color translation is pretty meager; just a handful of sentences. And even though you found the term in a book, it's not a concept that's commonly discussed except as part of color management, and is often not even dignified with a name. And color management is nowhere close to what I'd consider a big article; it's not even half of the 32K guideline for betting pretty big. Dicklyon (talk) 05:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic, you should merge ICC profile back in too. Why this article and not that?

I don't see that interpretation of my logic, since an ICC profile is a well known entity, but OK with me if you want to merge it in. Dicklyon (talk) 06:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth level headings barely look different from the thirds, sacrificing clarity. See how the rendering intents are now deprived of attention? I'm opposed purely on presentational grounds. The merger is undeniably less clear. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 06:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bullet list would be a good alterantive for that. We don't need a separate article just because we haven't found the best format or organization for this one. Dicklyon (talk) 06:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I guess. This merge is not that important to me. What do other editors think? I'm temporarily reverting until somebody takes the initiative to follow through and repair the broken refs, and formatting. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 13:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and fixed the refs and re-did the merge of color translation. Any other inputs? Dicklyon (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge color translation to here

I've proposed to merge the new color translation article to here, including its coverage of gamut mapping and rendering intent. It presently confuses the translation problem with the mapping problem, but we can straighten that out. Dicklyon (talk) 04:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a stab at a merge, and also added a small subsection on color calibration as distinct from characterization. Dicklyon (talk) 04:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 23:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Color Profile" Section Doesn't Bother to Explain What a Color Profile Is

The section talks at length about color profiles, but never actually tells you what they are. You have to guess, based on all the clues in the writing, instead of the writer having the courtesy to just explain it directly.

When writing for Wikipedia (or any media for wide public consumption) one should always consider the audience and keep in mind the following: Would most readers understand all of the terms that I am using here?

Otherwise the writing becomes very 'clubby' (written for an imaginary 'in-crowd', who already know a lot about the subject, rather than the article informing as many readers as possible).

Self-centered writing is usually poor writing, while writing that tries to reach as many readers as possible usually ends up being much more readable and well-constructed (because it takes more thought to write that way). As well as the final product often being something of far greater value.

173.246.35.185 (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be Bold, take a crack at it! –jacobolus (t) 12:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saturation discussion

  The last paragraph in this section is incomplete with sentence hanging. Please someone fix.MxBuck (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Color management/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Should this article be merged with "color calibration"? They cover very similar aspects, and both are incomplete. wh 08:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 08:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 12:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Video

FTA: Thus, almost every video player is unable to have color management, and browsers (Chrome, Firefox, Edge) are only able to do color management for images but not video.

The people commenting on this bugreport claim it's a problem specific to Firefox. I've also checked the video players on my computer and all support at least some colour correction, some even allow arbitrary pixel shaders.

I suspect this paragraph contains a half-truth somewhere. 92.67.227.181 (talk) 05:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ICM vs WCS

The part about ICM and WCS doesn't adequately explain the difference, and is ambiguous about which of the two was originally written by Heidelberg.

It doesn't explain what happens if an application isn't colour space aware. I've read reports that an unaware application can have its gamut ‘stretched’ resulting e.g. in oversaturated colours. That seems like an important thing to mention.

I wonder why Windows doesn't just use an sRGB profile for unaware applications?

There should also be more technical references here, such as API documentation. 92.67.227.181 (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources

This article uses some forum posts ([1] and [2]). The latter is okay, since an administrator of the official forum of DisplayCAL did reply to it, yet the former is problematic, since none of the administrators replied, and WP:RS prohibits Wikipedians from using forum posts as sources in most cases. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]