If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
On Sat, 20 May 2017 13:47:12 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote: "Eric Stevens" wrote | My browser is Firefox and I believe it is color managed. | Still a small factor, I think. People have different OSs, different monitors, different monitor settings... Why did you write that, even after snipping the bit where I wrote: "My monitors have been color magaed since before that article was written - except for now while I wait for the necessary X-Rite i1 to manage my new monitors. Nevertheless, I believe them to be fairly accurately managed for whatevere color profile I may choose for them." My monitor settings are as close to right as I can get them. If a page depends on the browser recognizing color profiles then the webmaster doesn't know what they're doing. Webpages are simply not designed for that kind of precision. Of course not! Any old splash of color will do. Nor are computers, for that matter. It's one thing to calibrate your own computer to your printer. You are giving a very strong impression of somebody who has not even the foggiest idea of what they are talking about. Only a complete innocent would try to get their printer colors right by doing things to their computer. They do things *with* their computer so as to send the correct color signals to their printer. This requires that first the printer, the paper in use and the ink, be used to derive a color profile for the printing. It's another to expect that you can pass on that accuracy to someone else's machine. Of course you can, if that other machine is properly calibrated and color managed. Interestingly, when I first went to that page I saw the yellow car. I then tried changing the Firefox pref for gfx.color_management.mode, trying to figure out what prefs might affect the display, but nothing changed. Actually, I tried the setting to always apply color management. Today I see the purple car in both Firefox and Pale Moon. Yet it was only in PM that I made any settings change in the first place, and I later changed that back to the setting to only apply color management for tagged images. Your problem is that you don't understand what you are doing. Fiddling with settings is not the answer. I also see a purple car when I download the image and view it with various software. The author didn't explain how the purple vs yellow shows. When I look at the image bytes I see a simple JFIF, no EXIF data. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
"Eric Stevens" wrote
| Still a small factor, I think. People have different | OSs, different monitors, different monitor settings... | | Why did you write that, even after snipping the bit where I wrote: | | "My monitors have been color magaed since before that article was | written - except for now while I wait for the necessary X-Rite i1 | to manage my new monitors. Nevertheless, I believe them to be | fairly accurately managed for whatevere color profile I may choose | for them." | | My monitor settings are as close to right as I can get them. | I wasn't talking about that. My point was the part that *you* snipped. "It's one thing to calibrate your own computer to your printer. It's another to expect that you can pass on that accuracy to someone else's machine." In other words, when dealing with graphics on your own machine, calibration is relevant. When dealing with webpages or transferring graphics, one just has to settle for a range. Browser, OS, monitor, settings, graphics driver, a and of course a person's vision will all affect what's seen. You can only adjust for your own view. (Most monitors I see default to too much saturation and too bright. I don't know why. I'm guessing the device companies are trying to wow customers with "richness".) Years ago there were web-safe colors to attempt some kind of standard. Everyone agreed they'd try to do their best to have those colors show the same on all machines. They were the hex codes made up of 00 33 66 99 CC FF. (0033FF, CC6699, etc) The idea was that if you stuck with only those colors you could sorta, kinda depend on people viewing your webpage all seeing about the same colors. But even that was just an approximation. Color is also relative to lighting, surrounding colors, etc. Cream next to orange looks white, while next to white it looks yellow. Which is the real color? So what I'm saying is, you can calibrate your devices in order to print accurately what you see on your monitor, but that's the only relevant calibration. Once you send images to others, who view them on other devices, all bets are off. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
In article , Mayayana
wrote: So what I'm saying is, you can calibrate your devices in order to print accurately what you see on your monitor, but that's the only relevant calibration. Once you send images to others, who view them on other devices, all bets are off. what you're saying is wrong. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
On Sat, 20 May 2017 23:11:50 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote: "Eric Stevens" wrote | Still a small factor, I think. People have different | OSs, different monitors, different monitor settings... | | Why did you write that, even after snipping the bit where I wrote: | | "My monitors have been color magaed since before that article was | written - except for now while I wait for the necessary X-Rite i1 | to manage my new monitors. Nevertheless, I believe them to be | fairly accurately managed for whatevere color profile I may choose | for them." | | My monitor settings are as close to right as I can get them. | I wasn't talking about that. My point was the part that *you* snipped. "It's one thing to calibrate your own computer to your printer. It's another to expect that you can pass on that accuracy to someone else's machine." I diodn't snip that. Its there in my reply. You can't see it in your current reply because *you* snipped it. In other words, when dealing with graphics on your own machine, calibration is relevant. When dealing with webpages or transferring graphics, one just has to settle for a range. Browser, OS, monitor, settings, graphics driver, a and of course a person's vision will all affect what's seen. You can only adjust for your own view. (Most monitors I see default to too much saturation and too bright. I don't know why. I'm guessing the device companies are trying to wow customers with "richness".) Thats why devices such as http://www.datacolor.com/photography-design/ and http://tinyurl.com/lolsetm exist. Years ago there were web-safe colors to attempt some kind of standard. Everyone agreed they'd try to do their best to have those colors show the same on all machines. They were the hex codes made up of 00 33 66 99 CC FF. (0033FF, CC6699, etc) The idea was that if you stuck with only those colors you could sorta, kinda depend on people viewing your webpage all seeing about the same colors. But even that was just an approximation. Color is also relative to lighting, surrounding colors, etc. Cream next to orange looks white, while next to white it looks yellow. Which is the real color? Web-safe colors are *ancient*. They date from the days when many devices could only display 256 colors. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_co...eb-safe_colors So what I'm saying is, you can calibrate your devices in order to print accurately what you see on your monitor, but that's the only relevant calibration. Once you send images to others, who view them on other devices, all bets are off. 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. See http://www.brotherjet.com/support/wp...Management.jpg and https://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pd...w_workflow.pdf -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
"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. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
"nospam" wrote
| what you're saying is wrong. Ah. A most fascinating, informative and well argued point. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
In article , Mayayana
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. not a very good example, since it doesn't apply for several reasons. | 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. note which newsgroup this thread is in. 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. that's the very problem colour management solves. (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.) the link has been snipped so i don't know what images you're referencing, but you're probably not understanding what it is you're looking at, along with colour management in general. 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 not futile at all. in fact, it's rather straightforward. while the results may not be 'exact' between multiple browsers (or other apps, nothing special about a browser) they can be close enough to where the images are indistinguishable, outside of pixel peeping, and even then, the differences would be minor. 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. no. it's not like that at all. The article author suggests recommending to Windows users that they install Safari before viewing your photos. Good luck with that, as the saying goes. clearly an outdated article, since safari for windows has long been discontinued. you clearly don't understand the reason why safari was suggested, which is because safari uses embedded profiles. its also not the only browser that does that, so therefore it's not required. It's roughly analogous to telling your friend what stove to use. nope. not even close to that. 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. they aren't guessing at all. more than likely, they're applying a colour profile. however, that doesn't explain the blurriness you describe, which could be due to the image being poorly resized to fit into the browser window. 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. completely and utterly wrong. http://www.brotherjet.com/support/wp...Management.jpg As I said, you're talking about hardware there other than a colour puck to do the calibration, no. and I'm not arguing with you. you certainly aren't agreeing with him or anyone else. The OP was about rendering in browsers. I'm sorry if I didn't make my point clearly. you don't have a point to make. you don't understand colour management *at* *all* nor do you want to learn about it. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
In article , Mayayana
wrote: | what you're saying is wrong. Ah. A most fascinating, informative and well argued point. several people have already explained why you're wrong, and i just did so again in another post. tl;dr you haven't a clue about colour management. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
On Sun, 21 May 2017 08:34:23 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote: "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? I did, and it was discussing photographs and it even contained photographs which were the subject of discussion. It's all about trying to get accurate display *in browsers*, and specifically about the possible advantage of using color profiles with images. And it shows what you get when you put up an image with no ICC profile - which that test image lacks. 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. Which is why images should contain color profiles if you want accurate reproduction of colours. (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. That advice is many years out of date. My web browser (Firefox) is color managed, my screens have been color calibrated for nearly 10 years and Windows has had one form of color management or another since 1995. 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. Firefox is fully color managed and SD will be able to confirm whether or not he included a color profile with his picture. And don't forget you have Dropbox in between. 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. I've been talking about rendering in browser also. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: 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. That advice is many years out of date. My web browser (Firefox) is color managed, my screens have been color calibrated for nearly 10 years and Windows has had one form of color management or another since 1995. what form was it in 1995? wikipedia says 1997, 4 years after macos did. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_management#Operating_system_level Apple's classic Mac OS and macOS operating systems have provided OS-level color management APIs since 1993, through ColorSync. Since 1997 color management in Windows is available through an ICC color management system (ICM). As of 2005, most web browsers ignored color profiles. Notable exceptions were Safari, starting with version 2.0, and Firefox starting with version 3. Although disabled by default in Firefox 3.0, ICC v2 and ICC v4 color management could be enable by using an add-on or setting a configuration option. As of 2012, notable browser support for color management is: € Firefox: from version 3.5 enabled by default for ICC v2 tagged images, version 8.0 has ICC v4 profiles support, but it needs to be activated manually. € Internet Explorer: version 9 is the first Microsoft browser to partly support ICC profiles, but it does not render images correctly according to the Windows ICC settings (it only converts non-sRGB images to the sRGB profile) and therefore provides no real color management at all. € Google Chrome: uses the system provided ICC v2 and v4 support on macOS, and from version 22 supports ICC v2 profiles by default on other platforms. € Safari: has support starting with version 2.0. € Opera: has support since 12.10 for ICC v4. € Pale Moon supported ICC v2 from its first release, and v4 since Pale Moon 20.2 (2013). looks like mayayana's pet browser is colour managed and he doesn't even know it. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
have i managed to buy a camera with two faulty lenses | sean-sheehan | 35mm Photo Equipment | 21 | September 20th 10 05:37 PM |
Monitor calibration and color managed workflow question | Stanislav Meduna | Digital Photography | 23 | December 22nd 05 06:18 PM |
Monitor calibration and color managed workflow question | Stanislav Meduna | Digital SLR Cameras | 17 | December 22nd 05 06:18 PM |
Color Managed Slideshow Program | andre | Digital Photography | 0 | January 30th 05 01:13 AM |
Color Managed Slideshow Program | andre | Digital Photography | 0 | January 30th 05 01:13 AM |