Godfrey - Windows browsers simply ignore profiles. Here are two more articles.
"Mac Browsers, Can You Believe Your Eyes?" <http://blogs.smugmug.com/great-prints/2005/06/27/mac-browsers-can-you-believe-your-eyes/> "Why ICC profiles don't fly on the Internet", <http://blogs.smugmug.com/great-prints/2005/06/25/why-icc-profiles-dont-fly-on-the-internet/> Keep in mind, he's discussing the use of profiles on the Internet and by commercial photo printers. He's not discussing ink jet printing, photoshop or printing presses. I think Mac's are great and commend Apple for the way they handle color management. But when you're working on the internet or getting your images printed at the local Wal-mart, the profile hasn't any effect. I'm sure there are examples and exceptions to the contrary, but in general, that's the way it works. See you later, gs <http://georgesphotos.net> On 4/21/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've read the article and tried to divine what was meant in the > statement "The Macintosh browsers Safari and Internet Explorer can, > but only under unusual circumstances not seen in everyday browsing." > The article does not state what is meant by that or what 'unusual > circumstances' are being referred to. In that, at least, they are > either being facetious or are simply downright wrong. > > Mac OS X uses ColorSync to color calibrate every window drawn with > the system routines. Safari, Preview, most all Mac OS X applications > that render JPEGs to the screen use these system routines. Those that > don't, like Photoshop, are generally sophisticated enough to do the > right thing anyway. If a JPEG file, whether from web or local hard > drive, has an embedded profile it is honored in Safari. (It's honored > in Internet Explorer too, but only if you turn on ColorSync profile > matching.) > > In extensive testing with one of my good buddies from another list, > we found that embedding an sRGB profile in an sRGB rendered image > helped consistent color rendering even on the brain-dead-with-respect- > to-color-management Windows browsers, and certainly helped if not > solved the issues of rendering such photos between Mac OS X and > Windows platforms, despite the gamma correction standards > differences. It's a damn good idea to embed a color profile if you > want to have any hope of consistent color rendering on viewers > screens, and is certainly worth the extra download time for the 1K > byte or so of profile data. > > Godfrey > > On Apr 21, 2006, at 2:56 PM, George Sinos wrote: > > > Here's a short quote from the page linked below: > > > > "The box of crayons you're given for displaying photos on the web is > > called sRGB. > > > > There are other color spaces, such as Adobe RGB (1998), but no > > Windows-based browser can display them correctly. The Macintosh > > browsers Safari and Internet Explorer can, but only under unusual > > circumstances not seen in everyday browsing." > > > > The full story is at: > > <http://www.smugmug.com/help/srgb-versus-adobe-rgb-1998> > > > > See you later, gs > > <http://georgesphotos.net> > > > > > > > > On 4/21/06, Thibouille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> As far as web images is concerned, the browser also has to support > >>> colour management. I only know of two that do (they use ColorSync). > >>> One of those was discontinued long ago. > >> > >> Which is the currently available one? I'm much interested. > >> > >> > > > >
