[size=1.25em]Everyone loves their favorite Browser w/ maybe one other for whatever reason get's em going![/size] There within many of my readings on the subject of 'Colour Space' and 'Colour Space Management' the professionals ALL state "NOT every browser is Colour Aware" ... Which means for those Browsers that are NOT there's teh potential any photo they display could display the colours somewhat less than as intended, or in teh typical vernacular 'WRONG' ... but "THEY" don't specifically SAY which Browsers? [size=1.25em]So I would be curious to know exactly which of our Browsers are NOT colour savvy [/size][size=1.2em] hehe savvy[/size] ... NOT to WORRY, getting the INFO I ask is relatively EASY thus understanding nor interest of the subject is required ... All said'n done please go to the following URL and follow the instruction The Effects of Misinterpreted Color Data [size=1.25em]Reporting back, which of the browsers tried are 'Colour Smart' and which are NOT?[/size] I have tested my version of 'Firefox' and it does appear to display the colours as correct has they can be but only for Photo's w/ embedded 'Colour Profiles' [size=1.25em]Just ONE more question but for our LINUX Junkies: [/size] ... The Photographer/LINUX/Professional are saying LINUX is not 'Colour Aware' {LOL} Well there was ONE certainly but I'm assuming they're must be others who are also echoing this statement ... Thus I would ask the few LINUX users here within Southern Oreo, is this true, would you please verify which side of the question does LINUX actually reside? Disclaimer: Please shed the LIGHT upon the DARK, if only to fill my own Gray Matter, {LAMO} I know for most the questions I ask are NOT even remotely of interest or concern and at it's worst might be uninteresting to the point of being extremely SAD'n Boring! However for those of us who are interested in these things the opposite would dominate our thinking and thus affect the choice of browser we USE in pursuit of our pursuits, AKA: {LOL} Sorry for the somewhat LONG post! [size=1.2em]Thanks in advance[/size] [acronym=EYE See! "The Repository of Lost Legends" LINK will take you to my PhotoBucket RSS Feed][shadow=grey,left][size=1em]w[/size][size=1.25em]00[/size][size=1em]d[/size][/shadow][/acronym] [hr]
Here's my findings on Ubuntu Linux 12.04, Precise Pangolin. My default browser is Chrome version 20. It does NOT respect embedded color profiles. Moving over the aqua colored boxes produced a different result. Then I fired up Firefox 14 and tried it out. It did respect the embedded color profiles. All pictures in the aqua boxes remained the same. Quite interesting, I've never thought that browsers wouldn't respect color profiles embedded into images, let alone that there are so many different looking color profiles. I just assumed everybody in the world used Adobe 1998 or sRGB.
I just finished looking at MS-Explorer and it's NOT Colour Smart ... ... I find this odd because WinXP is ... and Microsoft along with another (I forget who, think it was HP) defined the standard for sRGB Thanks Now I'm wondering why some are and some ain't ?? Maybe the ones that are NOT are assume everything is going to have an 'sRGB' profile embedded anyway Hey Nexus, have a look at this guys work ... http://www.blackmallard.com/cal_ls/ ... Excellent, wish I could do work this good!! [hr]
Wow, he is great. He's not afraid to capture dark colors. That's something I struggle with personally when trying to shoot stuff. I always assume that bright colors mean good photographs, but it really takes a lot of skill to see something dark, leave it dark, and it come out visually appealing. A lot of that work is dark, but still vivid. Very little of it is "bright and cheery", but that's what makes it so interesting. I almost want to describe it as "anti-photography" or something. It goes against what most people assume when you think of photography. Amazing work.
hehe, well said I would have struggles to describe his work, well other than to say "I know what I like" ... What I noticed and liked was how sharp and detailed the photo's are I agree "dark" would describe the work quite well ... All the nature scenes that should have been under a MID day Sun he showed them as if under a Solar Eclipse BUT as I said "I know what I like"
haha, your using Spyder3Express to calibrate, the exact same as the one I use The shot reminds me as I wanted to revisit your photo's but can't find the URL now, if you would mind re-posting?
Yep. It was the cheapest one that would calibrate correctly under Linux. Although, I can't say I noticed any difference before or after, so I kinda feel like the money was wasted.
I myself had the opposite experience, I had tried calibrating by hand and although in most cases I got close the Spyder constantly DID better than I did by hand Yes I agree, if the Monitor comes from the factory WELL calibrated or you CAN do it yourself (LOL, apparently, I can't) ... ... then money spent on a Spyder certainly would be money best spent elsewhere FYI: For those that don't know what monitor 'Calibration' is about ... ... in SHORT it's about making pictures that LOOK as created them or assuring you see them on YOUR Monitor as I see them! < more > And thanks for the input Yoda PS: Nexus you have that LINK for me, the link to your CAR Photo's ?? [acronym=EYE See! "The Repository of Lost Legends" LINK will take you to my PhotoBucket RSS Feed] [shadow=grey,left][size=1em]w[/size][size=1.25em]00[/size][size=1em]d[/size][/shadow][/acronym] [hr]
Yet another master of the medium and again I would struggle to find the words, except to say again "I know what I like" Example below reminds of 'Norman Rockwell' and it does look much better when viewed actual size ... [acronym=EYE See! "w00d's Photo Musings" LINK to my BLOG] [shadow=grey,left][size=1em]w[/size][size=1.25em]00[/size][size=1em]d[/size][/shadow][/acronym] [hr] [size=1.1em]© Jay Maisel[/size] [hr]