How to Improve Photoshop Performance
Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!
Design resources, Photoshop add-ons, UI Kits and Inspiration
Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!
It means that black in the source image’s color space will be mapped to black in the destination color space.
For example, because of paper reflectivity, a printed black is typically brighter than black
on a monitor. Instead of converting printed black to something like RGB(10,10,10) value, black will be converted to the black of the destination color space, RGB(0,0,0).
—
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com/forum/
Thanks Russell
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 02:33:57 GMT, "My View" <no spam >
Pity you answered this stupid fool, Mike.
Maybe we should have a kind of houserule here
like only reacting to calls placed by people with names. Sorry for this explosion, but you carry this kind of weight here, that it irritates when a *nobody* does not even have the decency of saying thanks to you by your name but calling you by the surname.
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 02:33:57 GMT, "My View" <no spam > wrote:
Thanks Russell
Pity you answered this stupid fool, Mike.
Maybe we should have a kind of houserule here
like only reacting to calls placed by people with names. Sorry for this explosion, but you carry this kind of weight here, that it irritates when a *nobody* does not even have the decency of saying thanks to you by your name but calling you by the surname.
Dave
Here are the links to those much-talked-about
Crime Reporting Websites :
http://www.crimexposouthafrica.co.za
http://www.southafricaiscrap.blogspot.com
http://deathofjohannesburg.blogspot.com
http://www.wea.co.za/
It means that black in the source image’s color space
will be mapped to black in the destination color space.
……………….
RGB(10,10,10) value, black will be converted to the black of the destination color space, RGB(0,0,0).
………….
That time of the month Dave? I hope I spelt that correctly.
Thanks anyway Dave for pointing that out. I’m sure your heart is in the right place.
Dave, I will also be looking out for your replies in the future so I can make my own judgement as to whether or not you are also worth following like Mike.I wish my advice could have been (half as much) worth following like Mike’s, but it’s not. Mike have already forgotten what I still should learn.
regards
Peter
That time of the month Dave? I hope I spelt that correctly.
Thanks anyway Dave for pointing that out. I’m sure your heart is in the right place.
Dave, I will also be looking out for your replies in the future so I can make my own judgement as to whether or not you are also worth following like Mike.I wish my advice could have been (half as much) worth following like Mike’s, but it’s not. Mike have already forgotten what I still should learn.
regards
Peter
Mike Russell wrote:
It means that black in the source image’s color space
will be mapped to black in the destination color space.
That is correct.
BPC is a proprietary color management addition to the ICC color-management. It can be (but not always is) useful when profiles that conform with v.2 ICC spec are being used since the blackpoint is not properly managed in them. The v.4 ICC spec does specify device the device blackpoint unambiguously so the effect of the BPC could be (usually is) different when v.4 profiles are in use.
Also the v.2 ICC profiles can affect to the conversion of the device blackpoint but this goes by approximation (where the v.4 profiles provides the accurate blackpoint tag). Some/many profilers (that output
v.2 profiles) do such approximation, some do not. Therefore it is a very
good idea to check behavior of a new printing path, in respect to the BPC, using a suitable test chart.
The problem with v.4 ICC profiling is that most of the
spectrophotometers are not good enough to measure the blackpoint accurately, only the most expensive laboratory grade spectros have good enough dynamic range.
Timo Autiokari
http://www.aim-dtp.net
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 22:55:41 GMT, "My View" <no spam > wrote:what a whack-job you are Dave!
That time of the month Dave? I hope I spelt that correctly.
Thanks anyway Dave for pointing that out. I’m sure your heart is in the right place.
It is obvious Peter, that I have been to much in a hurry in replying, and not the first time:-(
2 reasons for it this time, which may be mitigating (w?) –
I simply hate it when somebody get called by his surname, and Mike’s answer to you made it very clear that Russel is his surname. It recalls the time in the army where officers called a troopy by his surname, and getting sent to detention barracks if they do attack an officer because of it. When talking about people like mugabe (zimbabwe) you do it by his surname because of the contempt he deserves.
You did not even post under a name. There was somebody posting on this group with a question regarding something and he needed a file. I sent it to him, finding he used a false address, which he should have explained, if he was looking for a file. His reaction when I pointed it out to him, was sarcastic. Never mind, I then posted this file to my homepage, and gave him the URL, and he downloaded it, without even coming back with a thank you. Whether he posted again, is unknown.
He posted without a name as well.
This morning I had two calls, one from a woman (not lady but simply woman) and the other from a man, in reaction to an advert in a newspaper for property to let. Both telephone numbers showed ‘withheld’ on my cell phone, and after telling them the property was already taken, they simply dropped the line.
Why? Because they phoned nameless – without even a number to trace.
Dave, I will also be looking out for your replies in the future so I can make my own judgement as to whether or not you are also worth following likeI wish my advice could have been (half as much) worth following like Mike’s, but it’s not. Mike have already forgotten what I still should learn.
Mike.
Sorry for calling you a stupid fool. If you was one, you would not have replied. Don’t write without using a name. Even if calling yourself *dogman*, use a name.regards
Peter
Keep well,
Dave
"Dave" wrote in message
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 22:55:41 GMT, "My View" <no spam > wrote:what a whack-job you are Dave!
That time of the month Dave? I hope I spelt that correctly.
Thanks anyway Dave for pointing that out. I’m sure your heart is in the right place.
It is obvious Peter, that I have been to much in a hurry in replying, and not the first time:-(
2 reasons for it this time, which may be mitigating (w?) –
I simply hate it when somebody get called by his surname, and Mike’s answer to you made it very clear that Russell is his surname. It recalls the time in the army where officers called a troopy by his surname, and getting sent to detention barracks if they do attack an officer because of it. When talking about people like mugabe (zimbabwe) you do it by his surname because of the contempt he deserves.
You did not even post under a name. There was somebody posting on this group with a question regarding something and he needed a file. I sent it to him, finding he used a false address, which he should have explained, if he was looking for a file. His reaction when I pointed it out to him, was sarcastic. Never mind, I then posted this file to my homepage, and gave him the URL, and he downloaded it, without even coming back with a thank you. Whether he posted again, is unknown.
He posted without a name as well.
This morning I had two calls, one from a woman (not lady but simply woman) and the other from a man, in reaction to an advert in a newspaper for property to let. Both telephone numbers showed ‘withheld’ on my cell phone, and after telling them the property was already taken, they simply dropped the line.
Why? Because they phoned nameless – without even a number to trace.
Dave, I will also be looking out for your replies in the future so I can make my own judgement as to whether or not you are also worth following likeI wish my advice could have been (half as much) worth following like Mike’s, but it’s not. Mike have already forgotten what I still should learn.
Mike.
Sorry for calling you a stupid fool. If you was one, you would not have replied. Don’t write without using a name. Even if calling yourself *dogman*, use a name.regards
Peter
Keep well,
Dave
never figured you’d get so fired up over a name thing but the explanation was really interesting, not the usual NG chat..
Should BPC make any observable difference to the mere mortals?
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 15:30:43 -0400, "KatWoman" wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 22:55:41 GMT, "My View" <no spam > wrote:what a whack-job you are Dave!
That time of the month Dave? I hope I spelt that correctly.
Thanks anyway Dave for pointing that out. I’m sure your heart is in the right place.
It is obvious Peter, that I have been to much in a hurry in replying, and not the first time:-(
2 reasons for it this time, which may be mitigating (w?) –
I simply hate it when somebody get called by his surname, and Mike’s answer to you made it very clear that Russell is his surname. It recalls the time in the army where officers called a troopy by his surname, and getting sent to detention barracks if they do attack an officer because of it. When talking about people like mugabe (zimbabwe) you do it by his surname because of the contempt he deserves.
You did not even post under a name. There was somebody posting on this group with a question regarding something and he needed a file. I sent it to him, finding he used a false address, which he should have explained, if he was looking for a file. His reaction when I pointed it out to him, was sarcastic. Never mind, I then posted this file to my homepage, and gave him the URL, and he downloaded it, without even coming back with a thank you. Whether he posted again, is unknown.
He posted without a name as well.
This morning I had two calls, one from a woman (not lady but simply woman) and the other from a man, in reaction to an advert in a newspaper for property to let. Both telephone numbers showed ‘withheld’ on my cell phone, and after telling them the property was already taken, they simply dropped the line.
Why? Because they phoned nameless – without even a number to trace.
Dave, I will also be looking out for your replies in the future so I can make my own judgement as to whether or not you are also worth following likeI wish my advice could have been (half as much) worth following like Mike’s, but it’s not. Mike have already forgotten what I still should learn.
Mike.
Sorry for calling you a stupid fool. If you was one, you would not have replied. Don’t write without using a name. Even if calling yourself *dogman*, use a name.regards
Peter
Keep well,
Dave
never figured you’d get so fired up over a name thing but the explanation was really interesting, not the usual NG chat..
lol…!!! You did not miss the name I suggested, Katwoman…. surely you didn’t miss it :-O
Dave
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 02:33:57 GMT, "My View" <no spam > wrote:
Thanks Russell
Pity you answered this stupid fool, Mike.
Maybe we should have a kind of houserule here
like only reacting to calls placed by people with names. Sorry for this explosion, but you carry this kind of weight here, that it irritates when a *nobody* does not even have the decency of saying thanks to you by your name but calling you by the surname.
Dave
Here are the links to those much-talked-about
Crime Reporting Websites :
http://www.crimexposouthafrica.co.za
http://www.southafricaiscrap.blogspot.com
http://deathofjohannesburg.blogspot.com
http://www.wea.co.za/
"Dave" wrote in message
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 15:30:43 -0400, "KatWoman" wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 22:55:41 GMT, "My View" <no spam > wrote:what a whack-job you are Dave!
That time of the month Dave? I hope I spelt that correctly.
Thanks anyway Dave for pointing that out. I’m sure your heart is in the right place.
It is obvious Peter, that I have been to much in a hurry in replying, and not the first time:-(
2 reasons for it this time, which may be mitigating (w?) –
I simply hate it when somebody get called by his surname, and Mike’s answer to you made it very clear that Russell is his surname. It recalls the time in the army where officers called a troopy by his surname, and getting sent to detention barracks if they do attack an officer because of it. When talking about people like mugabe (zimbabwe) you do it by his surname because of the contempt he deserves.
You did not even post under a name. There was somebody posting on this group with a question regarding something and he needed a file. I sent it to him, finding he used a false address, which he should have explained, if he was looking for a file. His reaction when I pointed it out to him, was sarcastic. Never mind, I then posted this file to my homepage, and gave him the URL, and he downloaded it, without even coming back with a thank you. Whether he posted again, is unknown.
He posted without a name as well.
This morning I had two calls, one from a woman (not lady but simply woman) and the other from a man, in reaction to an advert in a newspaper for property to let. Both telephone numbers showed ‘withheld’ on my cell phone, and after telling them the property was already taken, they simply dropped the line.
Why? Because they phoned nameless – without even a number to trace.
Dave, I will also be looking out for your replies in the future so I can make my own judgement as to whether or not you are also worth following likeI wish my advice could have been (half as much) worth following like Mike’s, but it’s not. Mike have already forgotten what I still should learn.
Mike.
Sorry for calling you a stupid fool. If you was one, you would not have replied. Don’t write without using a name. Even if calling yourself *dogman*, use a name.regards
Peter
Keep well,
Dave
never figured you’d get so fired up over a name thing but the explanation was really interesting, not the usual NG chat..
lol…!!! You did not miss the name I suggested, Katwoman…. surely you didn’t miss it :-O
Dave
hmm now that suggestion of nick is that implying you don’t care for mine? If it’s any consolation I fill out all net inquiries with first name: Kat
last name: Woman
so to insult me according to your rule I would be "woman" "hey woman get me some pie!"
or if you love me I am Kat?
It is not safe to go on NG with my real name due to perverts and trolls BTW DAVE you give no last name
so we can’t call you by the sur
anyhow NG is not the most polite place as you may have noticed..at least the trolls are quieted and not too much spam..
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 16:46:09 -0400, "KatWoman" wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 15:30:43 -0400, "KatWoman" wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 22:55:41 GMT, "My View" <no spam > wrote:what a whack-job you are Dave!
That time of the month Dave? I hope I spelt that correctly.
Thanks anyway Dave for pointing that out. I’m sure your heart is in the
right place.
It is obvious Peter, that I have been to much in a hurry in replying, and not the first time:-(
2 reasons for it this time, which may be mitigating (w?) –
I simply hate it when somebody get called by his surname, and Mike’s answer to you made it very clear that Russell is his surname. It recalls the time in the army where officers called a troopy by his surname, and getting sent to detention barracks if they do attack an officer because of it. When talking about people like mugabe (zimbabwe) you do it by his surname because of the contempt he deserves.
You did not even post under a name. There was somebody posting on this group with a question regarding something and he needed a file. I sent it to him, finding he used a false address, which he should have explained, if he was looking for a file. His reaction when I pointed it out to him, was sarcastic. Never mind, I then posted this file to my homepage, and gave him the URL, and he downloaded it, without even coming back with a thank you. Whether he posted again, is unknown.
He posted without a name as well.
This morning I had two calls, one from a woman (not lady but simply woman) and the other from a man, in reaction to an advert in a newspaper for property to let. Both telephone numbers showed ‘withheld’ on my cell phone, and after telling them the property was already taken, they simply dropped the line.
Why? Because they phoned nameless – without even a number to trace.
Dave, I will also be looking out for your replies in the future so I canI wish my advice could have been (half as much) worth following like Mike’s, but it’s not. Mike have already forgotten what I still should learn.
make my own judgement as to whether or not you are also worth following
like
Mike.
Sorry for calling you a stupid fool. If you was one, you would not have replied. Don’t write without using a name. Even if calling yourself *dogman*, use a name.regards
Peter
Keep well,
Dave
never figured you’d get so fired up over a name thing but the explanation
was really interesting, not the usual NG chat..
lol…!!! You did not miss the name I suggested, Katwoman…. surely you didn’t miss it :-O
Dave
hmm now that suggestion of nick is that implying you don’t care for mine? If it’s any consolation I fill out all net inquiries with first name: Kat
last name: Woman
so to insult me according to your rule I would be "woman" "hey woman get me some pie!"
or if you love me I am Kat?
It is not safe to go on NG with my real name due to perverts and trolls BTW DAVE you give no last name
so we can’t call you by the sur
anyhow NG is not the most polite place as you may have noticed..at least the
trolls are quieted and not too much spam..
of course I care for yours, Kat. That indeed is why it came to mind. Like you said, I gave no surname, maybe that was clever – and you said the trolls are quited, did you not, Kat..
– in 4 materials (clay versions included)
– 12 scenes
– 48 MacBook Pro 16″ mockups
– 6000 x 4500 px
Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections