Hi, "Hal V. Engel" <hvengel@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Yes I did read the earlier discussion several times but that was a few > months ago. That is why I was surprised that a proposal surfaced here > that involved doing color transformations as part of loading and > saving images. This was a major part of the earlier discussions and > it appeared to me that this approach had been rejected, or at least > discredited, at that time. At the very least there were sound reasons > put forward that called this approach into question and the only > arguments on the other side were that it made programming the color > management stuff a little easier. But I am also aware that there were > many involved in the earlier thread on this subject that did not seem > to think there was an issue with this approach. I don't think we rejected this part. IIRC we said that it should be optional and that we want to allow people to disable color management entirely. Anyway, whatever we decide to do is just a matter of user interface and doesn't affect the GEGL operators involved. > I think I should point out that color management in GIMP is a major > point of interest for me as it is the only thing at this point in > time that keeps me from using The GIMP. I have been using a full, > end to end, color managed work flow in my digital dark room for some > time now and I consider it to be an essential element. So I have > been following this in some detail for a while. I subscribed to > this list specificly so that I could track progress on the color > management sub-system and to perhaps participate in the discussion > if it appeared that I had something to offer. When I saw the same > flawed assumptions as in the earlier discussion I thought that I > should point out the flaw now rather then wait. After all it is > much easier and less costly to fix a design flaw early in the > process than it is later on. Sure, that's much appreciated. Perhaps you want to suggest a better design then? Sven
