On 8/2/2018 3:48 PM, dale wrote:
On 8/2/2018 4:54 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/08/2018 01:24, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 06:01:58 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Jul 31, 2018, dale wrote
(in article ):

On 7/30/2018 9:57 PM, nospam wrote:
In ,
wrote:

might be a nice feature for Lightroom ... compatible with some
measurement instruments ... and data like viewing angle, white
point, etc.

lightroom has been fully colour managed since day one.

there is a difference between managing color and managing appearance,
look up CIECAM02 on wikipedia

viewing environment like a light room is one variable in appearance

What exactly do you believe is a *light room*?

Understand that any viewing environment is going to be influenced by
amient
light, regardless of the specific light source be it day light, or
any type
of artificial lighting.

What is your specific, or special purpose/interest for needing this
specific
icc profile for a *light room* (not LR the app)?

It doesn’t sound as though you have any interest in color management
for
photography post processing.

My impression is quite the contrary. Why else do you need color
management if it is to enable the management and control of the
appearance of the finished print? The process starts with the object,
continues through the camera, the processing in computer (which
includes the screen or monitor), on through the printer and paper and
surely (and this is the subject of the OP's original post) includes
the viewing environment.

Provided that the light approximates a blackbody with a characteristic
temperature then the human eye's automatic white balance does a very
good job of removing the orange or blue casts that a camera will
faithfully record (if it is set to record the absolute RGB image).
Remember in the old days of daylight vs artificial light films?

You cannot control the lighting environment that prints will be viewed
in and some peaky LED or mercury line fluorescent lamps can mess stuff
up. But if you avoid the obvious pitfalls then comparison by eye with
the original object is OK under real incandescent light or sunlight.

There are a handful of materials whose colours alter radically
depending on the colour temperature of the light that they are seen in
didymium glass being one such and the gemstone Alexandrite another.
They are unusual in that they have a deep cut notch in their
transmission spectrum in the yellow which makes their perceived (and
measured) colour vary significantly with the ambient lighting
characteristics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysoberyl#Alexandrite

Most pigments and dyes used in colour printing avoid having these
characteristics to prevent a print from appearing significantly
different depending on the colour temperature of the ambient light.

You still have problems in a mixture of incandescent and daylight
though if the proportions vary across the object. Compared to the
subjective errors caused by well known optical illusions there is
little point in obsessing about total control of everything for one
particular lighting situation unless you can control the display
environment precisely.


you *can* control the viewing environment an image is "approved" of ...

... WYSIWYG ...

soft proofing from monitor to print in a light box, light room, or
transparency on light table sometimes involving a loop ... or the
reverse involving scanning or camera capture

... hard proofing more applicable to prepress...

you sound like you would rather put the emphasis on the hardware, which
would be "good enough color" with a standard working space like sRGB
which has proved out for consumer WYSIWYG as in W3C's choice


there are also hoods for monitors ...

--
dale - https://www.dalekelly.org/
Not a professional opinion unless specified.