On 01.12.2010 14:31, Kenneth wrote:
> What all of this says to me (and I'm not saying it's wrong) is that, from now
> on, it's "POV-Ray against the world!" The 'world' meaning, all the *other* apps
> (like Photoshop) that we're so used to working with, with their apparently
> flawed way of handling gamma.
>
There is and never was something like POV-Ray against the world. 
Photoshop is a great tool (I'm, using it since the time it was not even 
called Photoshop but Photostyler and was developed by Aldus and not 
owned by Adobe - and a few weeks ago did update to CS5) but it is also 
still flawed in multiple ways and has (as every complex piece of 
software) numerous bugs.

but as Stephen Klebs wrote:
 >like it or not, Momma Photoshop holds the ruler.
...and...
 >A language needs dictionaries like Photoshop to tell us what thing's
 >mean.

well, like it or not, but the only one who will be happy about such 
statements is the marketing department of Adobe - I for one do report 
the usual found bugs back to Adobe and do never trust blindly any piece 
of software. And just as a side-note: the long history of Adobe 
Photoshop is full of changes that also caused particular image file 
formats written by some older version to be rendered completely 
different with the new one.

I'm also using frequently Blender as a modeller and always POV-Ray as 
final render engine for it.

In fact and for short: since the applied gamma handling changes in 3.7 
making POV-Ray work together with applications like Photoshop and 
Blender has become much easier, less painful and without time consuming 
workarounds.

And to put it a bit rude: the only thing that *is* apparently flawed is 
the knowledge of most users about the tools they use - and well, I'm not 
talkin' especially about POV-Ray here ;)

-Ive

Post a reply to this message