Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: The pale general

Subject: [OM] Re: The pale general
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 01:50:00 -0700
Jan Steinman wrote:
>> Also, are you certain you embedded the profile?
>>     
>
> That, as a minimum, is your problem. When I download your image and  
> open it in Photoshop, it claims it is "Untagged RGB".
>   
I thought that was the problem too, as I posted.
> If you're using Photoshop's "Save for Web" menu item, keep in mind  
> that it strips any profile that may have been tagged to the image.
>
> I think it's still true that most web browsers ignore tagged  
> profiles, but I am willing to be corrected with some reference.
The site Marc posted, aside from really bad web design, is quite helpful 
in this regard. But for Chuck's image, it raises a question. With 
FireFox 2.x, IE 7 and Netscape 8.x, the three tagged/untagged samples 
show no differences, as expected. In Safari, the top two show 
differences, but the sRGB shows no difference, indicating that sRGB is 
the default for untagged images.

So I conclude that on my system, and I'm guessing most contemporary 
Windoze set-ups, an untagged sRGB profile JPEG will display in most 
non-color aware browsers just the same as in a color aware one.

Then if an untagged JPEG displays differently in one of these browsers 
than in PS, it's hard not to conclude that PS is using a color space 
other than sRGB. Is there a flaw in this logic?
>   
> ("You're wrong!" has never been acceptable to me without something to  
> back it up. :-)
>   
I don't think you are wrong about this.

Moose

==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz