Canon PowerShot SD700 IS
ƒ/2.8
5.8 mm
1/250
(looks better large, and not on Firefox)
12 responses to “Layers”
-
I looked into this a bit more since the last time this came up. The problem is indeed that Firefox has no support for color profiles, and doesn’t even correct to the web standard sRGB (that’s why storing in sRGB doesn’t help). There is an open bug report with more than you want to know:
bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16769Even more in this excellent blog post:
regex.info/blog/photo-tech/color-spaces-page3Apple has a bit of advice:
docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=302827But in the end, the answer for now is to use Safari.
-
Agreed with Atanas – this is a Mac only "problem". Although as Jim Rees indicated this is really a deeper issue reminiscent of the Beta / VHS wars, except that Apple is thriving.
Two cent conclusion, Safari /Apple is great/better but doesn’t play well with the admittedly lame/ substandard-but-it-worked -and-is-now-stuck HP-MS sRGB 90’s standard which is still the standard.
Incidentally, Jeffrey Friedl’s blog explanation is excellent (from Jim Rees’s reference regex.info/blog/photo-tech/color-spaces-page3 )
Uh as far as the photo goes, yes, very fine – but it doesn’t leave me with much of a good feeling – that oak tree is clearly being burdened, the moss prevents its lower limbs from getting light and thus kills them, and the added wind exposure makes the whole tree vulnerable, as can be seen it has already suffered broken limbs.
But, eh, suffering can be beautiful ( cf Salgado’s photos ) in a way.
-
This is not a "Mac only problem" — it’s a problem that some browsers (on all platforms) aren’t color managed, and so the colors one see are essentially random — how random depends on how closely the color-rendering parameters of each user’s monitor happens to be to the color space actually used (in this case, one labeled "CameraRGB"). If your monitor setup happens to be close, you’ll see little difference between a color-managed browser and one that’s not. Otherwise, you’ll see more difference.
Safari is color managed on both platforms, and FF is on neither. IE is not on Windows, but, oddly, the long-defunct IE for the Mac was.
Safari is only partially color managed. JPGs straight from most digital cameras have their color space noted in the metadata, but Safari does not recognize that notation, and so treats them as if the color data was somehow magically built explicitly for the current user’s monitor (an assumption that, I dare say, will never, ever, be correct).
I know that color management for Firefox is being actively worked on. Once that’s released, we can expect — if history holds — that Microsoft will do the same for IE several years later. Until then, sadly, it will be hit and miss whether most users will see the colors in their proper glory, at least if we take care to publish images with the color-space indications that the browsers actually recognize.
-
> Safari on the Mac does fine on images with proper profiles,
> either tagged or embedded.Sadly, Safari does not recognize tagged color spaces. You can see this in action with the third row of buttons (purple ones) under the picture on this page: regex.info/blog/photo-tech/color-spaces-page2/
A browser that understands both tagged and embedded color-space information will show no difference between the two purple button, nor among those and the two buttons above them.
Leave a Reply