On 03/04/2010 05:58 PM, Patrick Horgan wrote:
> On 03/03/10 11:19, Jason Simanek wrote:
>> That's not true in my experience. Yes, sRGB should be as good as NOT
>> having a profile since sRGB is the ASSUMED color space on most
>> computersy. But Gimp still adds a color profile to the image: an sRGB
>> color profile. This still causes all of the color mismatch problems on
>> websites thoroughly described on the gballard.net site mentioned
> Now I'm confused I thought gballard said the opposite.
Here's how it works:
1 Web Browsers That Don't Support Color Management
With these browsers images that do or don't include color profiles is
irrelevant because they can't do anything with them anyway. The colors
are just displayed as whatever RGB color space is available, most likely
some form of unmanaged sRGB.
2 Safari (Browsers that ONLY color manage images with color profiles,
not colors defined in HTML or CSS)
If a color profile is included with an image Safari uses color
management to adjust the colors to the computer's display color space.
If a color profile is not included it acts like #1. Also, as far as
colors defined in HTML and CSS, it acts like #1.
3 Firefox 3.2+/3.5+ by default (Browsers that color manage images with
color profiles. Images without color profiles are also managed assuming
the sRGB color profile. PLUS: Colors defined in HTML and CSS are managed
with assuming the sRGB color profile.
What this means for web designers/developers:
#1 isn't a problem unless you want color managed photos that look
beautiful on your website. Otherwise, #1 is the way web browsers have
generally worked until recently.
#2 is the wrong way to do color management on the web. It's a nice
effort and photos certainly look beautiful, but this approach causes big
problems for web designers that want to use images for page elements
that are intended to exactly match and blend with colors on the web page
that are defined in HTML or CSS. This approach forces web developers to
NEVER include color profiles on images that are part of a website's
design, otherwise the page elements won't match the colors defined in
HTML/CSS. At least not in Safari. It'll look perfect everywhere else.
#3 is the right way to do color management. It makes color profiled
photographs look as close to the creator's intentions as possible on any
computer system that is color managed. But it also allows web designers
to use color management to make their page element images look as good
as intended while still matching the HTML/CSS colors that are also part
of the web page.
Thanks to browser type #2 I can only use color profiles on images that
are not intended to be a part of the web site's design. If I do include
color profiles on those images, every time I bring up the site in Safari
it will look like my page elements don't match the flat colors defined
in my site's HTML/CSS.
So the color mismatch I'm concerned about really only happens in Safari,
but mismatches like that are not acceptable.
Did that resolve your confusion? Or just add to it?
Gimp-developer mailing list