Is Your Browser Color Managed?

In article , Mayayana
wrote:


| Interesting. That has a mythical look about it.
| Maybe I owe someone an apology. Actually it turns
| out it was a Pelican that I remembered. A very
| striking, crisp, dynamic combination of whites and
| blacks, with bright orange beak and feet.
| The EXIF data lists - Artist: sas
|
| check again. there is no artist tag in that photo.
|
I'm talking about the pelican photo.

the link you snipped, you mean? no artist tag.

here it is again:

https://photos.smugmug.com/Miscellan...-10-04-411.jpg

Interesting. That has a mythical look about it.
Maybe I owe someone an apology. Actually it turns
out it was a Pelican that I remembered. A very
striking, crisp, dynamic combination of whites and
blacks, with bright orange beak and feet.
The EXIF data lists - Artist: sas

check again. there is no artist tag in that photo.

however, there is this:

User Comment : (C)2009 Jill Florie

On May 26, 2017, Mayayana wrote
(in article ):

"Eric wrote

I have spent another hour trying to produce a screen dump which will
show all three renditions of your file side by side but I just cannot
get it to work. All three applications seem to do something which
interacts with one of the others. I can get two out of three depending
on what I do with PS Autoselect and which way I hold my tongue.

Usually it works to just press PrtScr. If one of
the programs is interfering (Irfan View does that)
then you might be able to use Alt + PrtScr to get
one window at a time. (It captures the active
window.)

I just used a neat little app “SnapNDrag� to select a screen area with
resized Safari, Chrome, and Preview windows with the image in question.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/2m0z0egyva9c8i5/screenshot_50.jpg

With SnapNDrag it is simple enough to capture the entire screen, a selected
window, a selection of a screen area, or a timed screen shot. While all of
that can be done with keyboard commands, using the app makes life simple. For
now it is a Mac only app.
http://www.yellowmug.com/snapndrag/

--

Regards,
Savageduck

"nospam" wrote

| I'm talking about the pelican photo.
|
| the link you snipped, you mean? no artist tag.
|

How do you manage to get so confused? I mentioned
to SD that I really liked a swan photo I thought was his.
It turned out it's a pelican photo, taken 12/22/2013 by
sas. There's no link. I saved a copy. It has nothing
to do with Tony's swan photo. Can you understand that?

On Fri, 26 May 2017 09:38:17 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

I know that most of the people I share my work with have no idea what a color
managed/calibrated system is. I would also hazard a guess that less than a
handful of the usual suspects in this NG actually use a fully color managed
workflow/system.

What has not been mentioned (or has even been overlooked?) in this
discussion so far is that color management entails more than colors.
It also includes brightness and gray scale. The impact of many
monochrome images depends on the subtle rendering of grays and a
screen which telescopes the steps of a gray scale at one end or
another will not do justice to images the details of which have been
carefully developed in both the photograph and post processing.

An uncalibrated display will always cause the viewer to miss the full
impact of the finished image.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Mayayana
wrote:


| I'm talking about the pelican photo.
|
| the link you snipped, you mean? no artist tag.

How do you manage to get so confused?

because you keep snipping relevant content.

I mentioned
to SD that I really liked a swan photo I thought was his.
It turned out it's a pelican photo, taken 12/22/2013 by
sas. There's no link. I saved a copy. It has nothing
to do with Tony's swan photo. Can you understand that?

how did you save a copy if there was no link?

you're *very* confused.

post the relevant message id or the link to the photo.

"Eric Stevens" wrote

| Nope! It's your problem since you're picture ain't communicating with
| the viewer as expected, especially since they most likely are blissfully
| unaware of the problem.
|
| I go along with nospam and say that it is the viewer's problem. Noone
| can be expected to try and tailor their image to all the widely
| different uncalibrated monitors which exist in the wider world.

That reminds me of the derision that used to be
common in web design circles for young "artists"
who would produce websites and add a note like,
"Best viewed at 800x600 in Internet Explorer 5".
It epitomized the approach of asking people to
appreciate "my art", as opposed to the approach
of trying to make a functional website.

Your version of that is, "Please view this photo
on Windows 10 in Photoshop with a calibrated
monitor, or don't view it at all!"

On Fri, 26 May 2017 21:45:48 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

"Eric Stevens" wrote

| I have spent another hour trying to produce a screen dump which will
| show all three renditions of your file side by side but I just cannot
| get it to work. All three applications seem to do something which
| interacts with one of the others. I can get two out of three depending
| on what I do with PS Autoselect and which way I hold my tongue.

Usually it works to just press PrtScr. If one of
the programs is interfering (Irfan View does that)
then you might be able to use Alt + PrtScr to get
one window at a time. (It captures the active
window.)

I wasn't aware that last one. I will try it later.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

"nospam" wrote

| how did you save a copy if there was no link?
|
A couple of years ago this photo was posted.
I thought it was by SD, but I may be wrong. At
the time I saved a copy because I thought it was
a beautifully made image. A pelican, apparently
coming in for a landing. Black background. Black
water. White pelican with black on the wings.
Very dramatic. Nothing to do with any links
or images in this thread. I mentioned it and Tony
posted a couple of images he thought might be
it. They were not. I'm explaining this only because
someone other than you might understand and
remember the image. It could be that it wasn't
even linked in this newsgroup, but I thought it was.

For you, I would suggest that maybe you should
try to get some sleep.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:


| Nope! It's your problem since you're picture ain't communicating with
| the viewer as expected, especially since they most likely are blissfully
| unaware of the problem.
|
| I go along with nospam and say that it is the viewer's problem. Noone
| can be expected to try and tailor their image to all the widely
| different uncalibrated monitors which exist in the wider world.

That reminds me of the derision that used to be
common in web design circles for young "artists"
who would produce websites and add a note like,
"Best viewed at 800x600 in Internet Explorer 5".
It epitomized the approach of asking people to
appreciate "my art", as opposed to the approach
of trying to make a functional website.

the sign of an incompetent web designer.

Your version of that is, "Please view this photo
on Windows 10 in Photoshop with a calibrated
monitor, or don't view it at all!"

that's not what it means at all.

what it means is that people are free to use whatever hardware and
software they want, and as long as the display is calibrated, the
images will look how the creator intended.

since many devices are calibrated out of the box (although to a 'lab
standard' rather than individually, which is 'good enough' for most
people), there's really nothing for the end user to do but enjoy.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:


| how did you save a copy if there was no link?
|
A couple of years ago this photo was posted.

then how is anyone supposed to know what photo it was? particularly
when you replied to a post which contained a link to a photo.

I thought it was by SD, but I may be wrong. At
the time I saved a copy because I thought it was
a beautifully made image. A pelican, apparently
coming in for a landing. Black background. Black
water. White pelican with black on the wings.
Very dramatic. Nothing to do with any links
or images in this thread.

if it was posted, there had to be a link. this isn't a binary group.

I mentioned it and Tony
posted a couple of images he thought might be
it. They were not. I'm explaining this only because
someone other than you might understand and
remember the image. It could be that it wasn't
even linked in this newsgroup, but I thought it was.

so you admit there was a link.

For you, I would suggest that maybe you should
try to get some sleep.

for you, i would suggest you read a book on colour management.