Return-Path: owner-tiff@olympiakos.com
Return-Path: <owner-tiff@olympiakos.com>
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by at1895.spb.edu (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id g6BBVhjU028689
	for <dron@localhost>; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 15:38:09 +0400
Received: from eudoramail.com [209.185.123.45]
	by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.9.11)
	for dron@localhost (single-drop); Thu, 11 Jul 2002 15:38:09 +0400 (MSD)
Received: from gate7.olympiakos.com ([64.32.199.150]) by shared1-mail.whowhere.com; Wed Jul  3 22:30:48 2002
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
	by gate7.olympiakos.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA28882;
	Thu, 4 Jul 2002 01:16:40 -0400
Received: by gate7.olympiakos.com (bulk_mailer v1.9); Thu, 4 Jul 2002 01:14:16 -0400
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
	by gate7.olympiakos.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA28851
	for tiff-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 01:14:16 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: gate7.olympiakos.com: majordom set sender to owner-tiff@olympiakos.com using -f
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (root@[192.204.191.242])
	by gate7.olympiakos.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA28848
	for <tiff@olympiakos.com>; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 01:14:15 -0400
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g645Do200306;
	Thu, 4 Jul 2002 01:13:51 -0400 (EDT)
To: Jon Saxton <js@triton.vg>
cc: tiff <tiff@olympiakos.com>
Subject: Re: Photometric interpretation for grey-scale JPEG 
In-reply-to: <20020703132702.GFFF27345.out018.verizon.net@thalassa> 
References: <B937CE9D.BF6C%bruno_ledoux@binuscan.com> <20020703132702.GFFF27345.out018.verizon.net@thalassa>
Comments: In-reply-to Jon Saxton <spam.free@verizon.net>
	message dated "Wed, 03 Jul 2002 09:26:55 -0400"
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 01:13:50 -0400
Message-ID: <303.1025759630@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Sender: owner-tiff@olympiakos.com
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO
Content-Length: 750
Lines: 19

Jon Saxton <spam.free@verizon.net> writes:
> Is this correct?  If so, then should 6 be an acceptable PI for grey
> JPEG-in-TIFF?

Absolutely NOT, imho.  1 (MINISBLACK) is correct for grayscale JPEGs.

The fact that you came across some cluelessly encoded TIFFs is not
grounds for breaking such basic assumptions as that
PhotometricInterpretation has something to do with the colorspace of
the stored data.

The only reason TTN#2 doesn't spell this out in so many words is that
it never occurred to me that anyone might think otherwise.

			regards, tom lane
			organizer, Independent JPEG Group

To subscribe or unsubscribe email tiff-request@olympiakos.com with subscribe
or unsubscribe in the email body.  Libtiff home page: http://www.libtiff.org

