Photoshop JPG conversion issues once again

On Jun 6, 2:39 pm, louise wrote:

I note you compare Safari and IE. What's your opinion of
color management if using Windows Firefox?

Firefox doesn't have colour management, Opera doesn't have colour
management, IE doesn't have colour management.. Safari is the only
browser to support it.

Ray

Ray Macey wrote:
On Jun 6, 2:39 pm, louise wrote:
I note you compare Safari and IE. What's your opinion of
color management if using Windows Firefox?

Firefox doesn't have colour management, Opera doesn't have colour
management, IE doesn't have colour management.. Safari is the only
browser to support it.

98.3% of web surfers aren't using Safari. If the OP is concerned about
his actual audience, he should be tuning his images to look their best
on non colour managed browsers.

--
Derek Fountain on the web at http://www.derekfountain.org/

Ray Macey wrote:

Firefox doesn't have colour management, Opera doesn't have colour
management, IE doesn't have colour management.. Safari is the only
browser to support it.

That's not technically true; there are several other Mac browsers that
have it, by virtue of using the Apple frameworks. Most of the software
you'd use to view pictures on a Mac will be color-managed, with the
notable exception of Firefox. Internet Explorer for the Mac even had
it, when it existed.

Derek Fountain wrote:

98.3% of web surfers aren't using Safari. If the OP is concerned about
his actual audience, he should be tuning his images to look their best
on non colour managed browsers.

You can't target them, since they don't have color management. All you
can do is give them sRGB and hope for the best. Since most people also
don't have their monitors calibrated or set anywhere near correctly,
this isn't as big a deal as it seems; you're really just hoping for the
best anyway. And for any one viewer, all the pictures he sees will
be *consistently* off, so he'll be used to the error.

The key thing is to make sure to convert to sRGB. If you don't do that,
things get ugly. This is unfortunate, since most monitors and almost all
output processes can exceed sRGB, and the conversion visibly harms some
images, but that's what we have to work with at this point and for the
near future.

--
Jeremy | | http://www.flickr.com/photos/100mph/

On Jun 6, 6:12 pm, Derek Fountain wrote:
98.3% of web surfers aren't using Safari. If the OP is concerned about
his actual audience, he should be tuning his images to look their best
on non colour managed browsers.

That's great, but I was answering louise's question on Firefox and
colour management in Windows, not addressing the original poster of
this thread.

Ray

On Jun 6, 7:33 pm, Jeremy Nixon wrote:

That's not technically true; there are several other Mac browsers that
have it, by virtue of using the Apple frameworks. Most of the software
you'd use to view pictures on a Mac will be color-managed, with the
notable exception of Firefox. Internet Explorer for the Mac even had
it, when it existed.

Well there you go. I'm not a mac user, so I'm only going from what
I've heard from mac users, which has always been "only safari".

Ray

Derek Fountain wrote:
Ray Macey wrote:
On Jun 6, 2:39 pm, louise wrote:
I note you compare Safari and IE. What's your opinion of
color management if using Windows Firefox?
Firefox doesn't have colour management, Opera doesn't have colour
management, IE doesn't have colour management.. Safari is the only
browser to support it.

98.3% of web surfers aren't using Safari. If the OP is concerned about
his actual audience, he should be tuning his images to look their best
on non colour managed browsers.

And how would that differ from tuning them for Safari?

In other words, I tune my image using CS3 on my screen,
calibrated with Spyder2 and then I upload them to zenfolio.
When I look at them, I'm looking at them in FF or IE.

Louise

Jeremy Nixon wrote:
Ray Macey wrote:

Firefox doesn't have colour management, Opera doesn't have colour
management, IE doesn't have colour management.. Safari is the only
browser to support it.

That's not technically true; there are several other Mac browsers that
have it, by virtue of using the Apple frameworks. Most of the software
you'd use to view pictures on a Mac will be color-managed, with the
notable exception of Firefox. Internet Explorer for the Mac even had
it, when it existed.

Derek Fountain wrote:

98.3% of web surfers aren't using Safari. If the OP is concerned about
his actual audience, he should be tuning his images to look their best
on non colour managed browsers.

You can't target them, since they don't have color management. All you
can do is give them sRGB and hope for the best. Since most people also
don't have their monitors calibrated or set anywhere near correctly,
this isn't as big a deal as it seems; you're really just hoping for the
best anyway. And for any one viewer, all the pictures he sees will
be *consistently* off, so he'll be used to the error.

The key thing is to make sure to convert to sRGB. If you don't do that,
things get ugly. This is unfortunate, since most monitors and almost all
output processes can exceed sRGB, and the conversion visibly harms some
images, but that's what we have to work with at this point and for the
near future.

I've just started loading on the web and I am loading RGB,
not sRGB. I haven't seen anything I think is "ugly"
although occasionally things look a little darker.

What do you mean by ugly?

Louise
www.madeline.zenfolio.com

louise wrote:

I've just started loading on the web and I am loading RGB,
not sRGB. I haven't seen anything I think is "ugly"
although occasionally things look a little darker.

What do you mean by ugly?

Well, if you're working in Adobe RGB or ProPhoto RGB or something like that,
and you put the images on the web like that, they will be desaturated and
dull in the browser (unless the browser is Safari or one of the minor Mac
ones that does color management). They might also be darker or lighter
depending on which color profile you use.

--
Jeremy | | http://www.flickr.com/photos/100mph/

Jeremy Nixon wrote:
louise wrote:

I've just started loading on the web and I am loading RGB,
not sRGB. I haven't seen anything I think is "ugly"
although occasionally things look a little darker.

What do you mean by ugly?

Well, if you're working in Adobe RGB or ProPhoto RGB or something like that,
and you put the images on the web like that, they will be desaturated and
dull in the browser (unless the browser is Safari or one of the minor Mac
ones that does color management). They might also be darker or lighter
depending on which color profile you use.

OK - let's hope I can keep this straight because I often get
confused about color space etc.

I'm using a Nikon D40X and I have it set to take photos with
Adobe RGB

I have calibrated by Sony CRT with a Spyder2

I am using an HP 8250 (6 inks) and Photoshop CS3

I have PS set for the working space which is the calibrated
Spyder profile

PS color management says "convert to working RGB"

When I print, I select the HP printer and particular paper
for that profile, and color management is managed by
application PS).

Therefore, I'm under an impression that I am working in RGB
straight through the printing process.

BUT - when I put my photos on line
(www.madeline.zenfolio.com), I simply take the files I've
created (usually TIFFS) and I save as jpg highest quality.
This makes this an acceptable size for uploading to zenfolio.

Are you saying that at the point I am saving a tif as a jpg
for the purpose of uploading, I should then take the jpg
I've created and convert it to sRGB before uploading it?

Hope this was clear and thanks in advance for your help.

Louise

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 02:14:44 -0400, louise
wrote:
I have PS set for the working space which is the calibrated
Spyder profile

You should never use a device profile as your working space,
it's purpose is to make your (unique) device appear more
standard; it relates to the device, not to the image you're
working on.

As a working space you should use one of the standard
device-independent spaces such as sRGB, Adobe RGB, and so
on.


--
John Bean