clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:

> Photoshop is a liar when it comes to color maths.
>
You've obviously never worked as a graphics artist. Eventually, everything goes
through Photoshop at one point or another. If Photoshop is a "liar", then the
lie is the truth. Us kids have to play with a lot of multi-colored graphics
tools - raster and vector and tracers and converters and raytracers and scanline
and cad, etc. - but we can't play nice together without some supervision and,
like it or not, Momma Photoshop holds the ruler. Otherwise, we can just play
only in our own backyard, with only are own toys. Why we accept it -- or any
other well thought out graphics program is that, whatever it's bias, it is
equally tolerant of many approaches. If you don't like things one way, you play
with the levels or curves or color profile or styles until it looks like you
want it, something that says "hey, that looks cool", which is not necessarily
the "proper" -- whatever that is -- behavior. All those shaders and sliders and
tweakers that you hope to avoid are really very necessary because the relation
between the painting and the painter, the seeing and the seen, is relative and
readjusting, with only the eye the final judge. We say "no that's not quite
right, a little more this, a little less that". There will always be in any
picture making inevitable adjustment and readjustment. It's in the nature of the
visual process. Nothing ever comes out just as we want the first time. POV, on
the other hand, can not make use of such real-time adjustments -- as yet. It's a
language. A language needs dictionaries like Photoshop to tell us what thing's
mean.

Post a reply to this message