"Eric Stevens" wrote

| Web-safe colors are *ancient*. They date from the days when many
| devices could only display 256 colors.

That was meant as an example of the problems
with online rendering to a wide variety of hardware
and software.

| First, we are talking about photography, for which web colours are not
| sufficient. Second all bets are off if you are sufficiently behind the
| times to be not using a color-managed work flow with the color
| profiles of calibrated equipment.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. We're not talking
about photography. Did you read the original link?
It's all about trying to get accurate display
*in browsers*, and specifically about the possible
advantage of using color profiles with images. In
the course of the article, the author demonstrates
how even different browsers, given the same
conditions (same OS, color management,
monitor, etc) can actually render different hues
for the exact same color value.
(See the rows of smaller images halfway down the
page. He's pointing out that even with browsers
that handle color management, the actual hues
rendered may vary.)

I was reinforcing the article, stressing that browser
display of images, or any colors, on websites is never
exact and trying to make it so is futile. It's like sharing
a recipe and trying to ensure your friend ends up tasting
exactly what you taste. You can suggest where to buy
each ingredient. You can specify what stove to use....
But that quickly becomes untenable. And even if your
friend matches your process exactly, he might have a
cold when he eats the end result and complain that
your recipe is bland.

The article author suggests recommending to Windows
users that they install Safari before viewing your photos.
Good luck with that, as the saying goes. It's roughly
analogous to telling your friend what stove to use.

I ran into a related issue last week, which I
commented on in SD's thread of Yosemite pictures. His
images seemed slightly blurred. I download one for a closer
look and loaded it in IrfanView. It looked better. So
I lined up IV and Firefox next to each other onscreen.
The Firefox version was noticeably less saturated
and less sharp. I don't know how it does that. The
images are identical. Essentially they're bitmaps, grids
of pixel values. If the value of the 3rd pixel down and
3rd pixel across is, say, B6C8DE (pale sky blue) then
when the software calls Windows to paint that pixel
onscreen it seems that it should always display the
same way on the same screen. But it doesn't. I can
see that if I retrieve the color of that pixel it won't
be B6C8DE. It will be entirely different. Maybe
something like C6D3E1! The only explanation I can think
of is that the Mozilla people are doing some kind of
second-guessing calculation with the colors.

So you can adjust between devices on your end, so
that your printer gives you what you see onscreen, but
once you share an image with others, you can't control
the variations in what they see. Thus, all bets are off.

|
http://www.brotherjet.com/support/wp...Management.jpg

As I said, you're talking about hardware there and
I'm not arguing with you. The OP was about rendering
in browsers. I'm sorry if I didn't make my point clearly.