[scikit-image] Re: plans for scikit-image 1.0

Yes, this may indeed be pushing things too far. And, since we have the `preserve_range` keyword argument that could handle the issue, albeit with a long-ish deprecation, we should probably just do that.

The problem is that we don’t want to have `preserve_range` at all in 1.0. So it is annoying to instruct everyone to add `preserve_range=True` to all their calls to avoid warnings, only to remove that keyword in the future.