A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Is Your Browser Color Managed?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old May 21st 17, 03:09 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default 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  
Old May 21st 17, 04:11 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,514
Default 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  
Old May 21st 17, 04:20 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default 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  
Old May 21st 17, 06:10 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default 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  
Old May 21st 17, 01:34 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,514
Default 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  
Old May 21st 17, 02:21 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,514
Default Is Your Browser Color Managed?

"nospam" wrote

| what you're saying is wrong.

Ah. A most fascinating, informative and well argued point.


  #17  
Old May 21st 17, 05:47 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default 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  
Old May 21st 17, 05:47 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default 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  
Old May 22nd 17, 01:24 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default 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  
Old May 22nd 17, 01:43 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 07:18 PM
Monitor calibration and color managed workflow question Stanislav Meduna Digital SLR Cameras 17 December 22nd 05 07:18 PM
Color Managed Slideshow Program andre Digital Photography 0 January 30th 05 02:13 AM
Color Managed Slideshow Program andre Digital Photography 0 January 30th 05 02:13 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.