On 8/8/12, Michael Natterer <mitch@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > By discussing here, you turned yourself into a contributor to > the definition of that future workflow and feature set. Since > you know quite a lot and have an opinion, why not suggest how > it *should* work, in your opinion, along the constraints that > the conversions will only ever happen upon import and export > (plus the possibility to convert a buffer in order to correct > wrong profiles). > At first the idea of doing away with assigning and converting except on import and export seemed a bit extreme (translation: not what I'm used to!). However, after thinking about it, the only case I could think of where it might cause a problem was as I described, when wanting to try several profiles before choosing one profile to apply to the raw color image. Or when profile testing. How it should work would be as described, that during image import, Gimp would provide the option of "trial assigning" more than one profile to the image. The image might or might not have an embedded camera profile. If it does, then Gimp will probably ask "should it be converted . . ." and the answer would of course be "no, keep the existing . . ." But then in fact the next step would be to start assigning alternative profiles. (Perhaps a check box: profile testing?) This same procedure - the ability to "test assign" multiple profiles - would also be of use when importing an image when you don't really know what profile the image ought to have, either because either the wrong profile was embedded (it does happen!) or because there is no embedded profile. Although cases of missing/wrong profiles are probably somewhat common, I will guess that most people will likely not ever bring a raw color image into Gimp in the manner I described, as most people likely use their raw processing program to apply the camera profile and then convert to a standard working space. So if what I described above isn't super easy to accomodate (or already planned as possible), then personally I don't think it's worth worrying about. To put into context, if I had to choose between easy profile assigning/testing and easy soft proofing, I would take easy soft proofing any day of the week: Soft proofing is something I want to do with any image that I really care about. Camera profile testing is something I do only occasionally. And I only remember one time needing to guess which profile an image ought to have, though some people probably encounter this issue more often, depending on how images arrive in their digital darkroom. Kindest regards, Elle _______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list gimp-developer-list@xxxxxxxxx https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
