We have to make compromises in everything. Yeah, it'd be nice to have better scaling algorithms in web browsers, but is it worth the added overhead of processing power and energy usage when it mostly only matters for extremely contrived examples like the one employed here? Yes, people with specific needs won't be able to use the common tool, but that's the very nature of compromise: you give up the little potatoes to satisfy the majority. There is still room for precision, it's just in the craftsman market, not in the consumer market.
He's also being a tad disingenuous. Early in the article, he calls out Photoshop as an offender, but Photoshop has multiple image reduction algorithms that it can use. I haven't used the Gimp in a while, but I'm pretty sure it does, too. Yet it's not until nearly the end of the article that he mentions Photoshop is capable of doing a correct job.
>> "On the other hand, there never was a gamma problem within the printing or the movie industry. They have defined tight and scientifically-grounded standards and procedures and they perceive the public software tools as toys."
This line gave me the impression the article was written by a disgruntled analog-era print or movie industry employee, probably someone who wasn't the best in the world but was employed at the "peak", who is upset about their growing lack of relevance and is foisting the blame on "stupid consumers" and "non professionals". You see the same thing with old line-of-business-application Java programmers. The key is it's not the specific technology that is the problem, it's the relative mediocrity of the writer.
If you argue from a craftsman perspective, but come off as bitter, unemployed greybeard, then you probably weren't ever as good as you seem to think you are. The car didn't kill the horse whip industry, by evidence that one can still buy horse whips. It killed the cheap, commodity horse whip industry.
>> "Knowing that difference, even if you wouldn't notice it, do you accept it?"
Yes, because itty, bitty photos of dragonflies on my cellphone don't mean anything of monetary value to me. For all his grandstanding about professionalism, who is using such tiny, crappy images for work?
Not really going to address your rant, but just wanted to point out that we can and do have better scaling algorithms in web browsers. Works pretty well on safari osx and safari ios. As far as I can tell, it passes his test, which seems to corroborate that OSX added full support to the sRGB standard as of 10.6
He's also being a tad disingenuous. Early in the article, he calls out Photoshop as an offender, but Photoshop has multiple image reduction algorithms that it can use. I haven't used the Gimp in a while, but I'm pretty sure it does, too. Yet it's not until nearly the end of the article that he mentions Photoshop is capable of doing a correct job.
>> "On the other hand, there never was a gamma problem within the printing or the movie industry. They have defined tight and scientifically-grounded standards and procedures and they perceive the public software tools as toys."
This line gave me the impression the article was written by a disgruntled analog-era print or movie industry employee, probably someone who wasn't the best in the world but was employed at the "peak", who is upset about their growing lack of relevance and is foisting the blame on "stupid consumers" and "non professionals". You see the same thing with old line-of-business-application Java programmers. The key is it's not the specific technology that is the problem, it's the relative mediocrity of the writer.
If you argue from a craftsman perspective, but come off as bitter, unemployed greybeard, then you probably weren't ever as good as you seem to think you are. The car didn't kill the horse whip industry, by evidence that one can still buy horse whips. It killed the cheap, commodity horse whip industry.
>> "Knowing that difference, even if you wouldn't notice it, do you accept it?"
Yes, because itty, bitty photos of dragonflies on my cellphone don't mean anything of monetary value to me. For all his grandstanding about professionalism, who is using such tiny, crappy images for work?