Jump to content

m8 raws with Mac C1 Pro. Safari vs. others


misha

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I don't have a slider so the curve was the best choice. LOL

 

The really big question is and i know this one is all over the charts if any of these potential clients even know what a managed system is to start with. I've seen some ugly stuff out there

 

Guy,

 

If you're not going to wind up to throw another curve ball, let me pitch one (hehe). For those of you following this thread, you will remember that NMN said that if one codes a browser check with Javascript and PHP and is willing to manage two sets of image files, then one can show a version with an embedded profile for color-managed browsers and a version without any profile. Here is the curve ball: If one takes this approach, why not embed an Adobe RGB profile or a profile for some other preferred color space instead of sRGB? Safari, for instance, can read Adobe RGB just as well as Photoshop. So, why not?

 

Timothy

 

P.S. I even have a slider, but it's over there in the film forum on the subject of digital negatives. M8 shooters can make digital negatives too, but I thought I would first try throwing it at the film shooters. However, no replies yet. At this rate, I'll have to wait a week before someone posts a comment. But this ballplayer can keep his cool. :cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guy_mancuso

ROTFLMAO . Actually that was a strike Tim. Good one, so Safari can handle a RGB also. Hmmm

 

Okay let's try it for fun

Ist is SRGB

2nd Adobe RGB

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guy_mancuso

Looks indentical in Safari but prefect example how it goes to hell in Firefox. FYI the Safari either one is correct and both versions in Firefox looks real pale in comparision

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks indentical in Safari but prefect example how it goes to hell in Firefox. FYI the Safari either one is correct and both versions in Firefox looks real pale in comparision

 

Yes, I agree.

 

Now, how does this one view in Safari and Firefox?

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

this looks perfect in Camino (Firefox for Mac), what did you change?

 

Michael,

 

I took Guy's sRGB profiled image, increased saturation by +20, moved hue +2, and saved for web without embedded the profile. So, this one has no profile. To me, it doesn't look exactly like Guy's sRGB and Adobe RGB images, but it is close, and, moreover, it looks decent in Firefox.

 

Imagine running a browser check, supplying the Adobe RGB profiled image to Safari and other color-managed browsers for maximum color fidelity, and supplying the no-profile-but-optimized image to Firefox and other not-color-managed browsers.

 

Timothy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael,

 

I took Guy's sRGB profiled image, increased saturation by +20, moved hue +2, and saved for web without embedded the profile. So, this one has no profile. To me, it doesn't look exactly like Guy's sRGB and Adobe RGB images, but it is close, and, moreover, it looks decent in Firefox.

 

Imagine running a browser check, supplying the Adobe RGB profiled image to Safari and other color-managed browsers for maximum color fidelity, and supplying the no-profile-but-optimized image to Firefox and other not-color-managed browsers.

 

Timothy

interesting "solution" yet in most circumstances you are just going to post one imagine, and hope most people will see it right. increasing saturation by 20 is not little.

note to self: post less, print more :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

interesting "solution" yet in most circumstances you are just going to post one imagine, and hope most people will see it right. increasing saturation by 20 is not little.

note to self: post less, print more :)

 

Yeah, that solution is probably only "practical" for one's own website.

 

Note to self: stop posting altogether, start figuring out life. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry guys. This thread dropped off my radar. I'm in Germany right now for work and will be in Turkey at the end of the week (Say hello to my little M8 friend, hagia sophia!).

 

As timothy has pointed out numerous times now ;) I offered some suggestions on how to get a webpage to optimize your images for the capabilities provided by various browsers. Looking over the thread since then, let me offer the following comments:

 

  1. Safari isn't the only color managed browser. Other MacOS Webkit browsers such as OmniWeb and...OmniWeb :) also support color management. I use OmniWeb.
  2. Though browsers with color management recognize profiles, a color profile by itself doesn't mean your image is going to look any better on another monitor. You may hardware calibrate your monitor like I do. How many people you know--photographers or not-- who surf the web on hardware-calibrated monitors?
  3. Even if someone on the PC someday puts out a browser which supports color management, you can't reasonably expect to account for the really dark gamma on PC monitors. I mean, you could, but who really wants to do browser switching and image management for color profile mac, no color profile mac, no color profile PC, and someday color profile PC? Not I.
  4. cross-platform gamma differences are the single biggest problem for web images, period. if an image is adjusted to look good on a PC, it'll be too bright and washed out on a Mac, color management or not. If a moderately dark image is adjusted to look good on a Mac, it'll be way too dark on a PC and a very significant loss of detail will occur in dark areas. You can calibrate your Mac monitor to a PC gamma, but then anyone looking on a Mac will see very bright and washed out images.
  5. Many people view their images on a laptop LCD. I calibrate my powerbook LCD, but I never, never, ever do any (print) work on it which is color critical (I'm not just a web designer, I designed for print for many years and still do the odd job). LCDs change color rendition with viewing angle and ambient light always biases the viewed image. I'm not saying that people who work on laptop LCDs can't get great color--I'm saying it's very difficult to get consistent color.
  6. Given all these issues, I think striving for pure color rendition on a webpage is an exercise in futility. If you are presenting to a very limited audience with known hardware, such as in a print production department, it makes sense.

 

What do I do? I publish images with an sRGB profile to the web--this is the best compromise. Yes, AdobeRGB has a better color gamut, but due to the gamma shift on PCs, I find images optimized for AdobeRGB start losing detail a lot faster on PCs than sRGB images. That's a generalization, of course--some images do work out better in AdobeRGB. ColorMatch worked really well for a few years when most PC users were surfing on CRTs. On Macs, my images look acceptable. On PCs, my images look dark, but those people are using PCs--they're in the dark anyway ;) (just kidding guys). On Macs running Firefox, my images look washed out. C'est la vie.

 

I could optimize for no color profile at all, but quite frankly, as I think I said, images on the web are generally glanced at, not studied. There are better ways to distribute images for close viewing--print being a good one, .pdfs being another. Most people click through web albums at light speed and get only the faintest gestalt, if that. If this is the case, I figure I might as well optimize for the platform which I and which most designers I know use. Everyone else is the peanut gallery. You've got to draw your lines somewhere, and that's where I draw mine.

 

Sorry if that disappoints, but them's the facts as I see them. My advice is worth exactly what you paid for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks NMN! I value your perspectives (that's why I iterated your previous points so much ;) ). I might give up my idealism here and give in to publishing my images with sRGB profiles. We'll see. I think we've (I've) mostly exhausted this thread by now, so don't worry about following it any further. :)

 

Blessings,

 

Timothy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest stnami
Looks indentical in Safari
Guy's images on my moniters/ Safari

Ist is SRGB - looks fine

2nd Adobe RGB- dramatic drop in detail.

Neighbour's firefox both so so................

Link to post
Share on other sites

I embed sRGB in everything, but there is no doubt that Firefox and IE users are seeing the wrong colors. Even B&W photos are affected if sRGB is embedded. Here's a recent sRGB B&W shot of my son Philip: IMG_0276.jpg photo - Amin Sabet photos at pbase.com

 

It's much lighter in Firefox than Safari! For the record, the example I posted was not from my Leica but a 5D.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Oops, I just realized why Safari is showing even sRGB files differently than Firefox. I had my iMac display calibrated to a 1.8 monitor gamma. Once I recalibrated my monitor to 2.2 monitor gamma, the appearance is consistent between browsers (for images with sRGB embedded). If interested in reading more, see http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...