do browser understand colorspace?

frederick <lost RemoveThis @sea.com> wrote:

> peter wrote:
> > For people who use colorspace other than the default sRGB, if you drop a
> > photo with a tagged colorspace into your browser, would it render the
> > color correctly, or does it ignore the colorspace?
>
> With some exceptions, it ignores it. IIRC (and IMO strangely) the now
> abandoned IE for mac is one exception. _Always_ use sRGB for web display -
> tagged or untagged.

If your image file has an embedded profile, most modern browsers will
honor that profile. If there's no profile, the default is sRGB. Older
browsers will simply ignore the profile and do whatever they want, which
usually has the effect of using the monitor's profile. Since sRGB is a
generic monitor profile, it's best practice to use sRGB for the web, and
to embed the profile.
 >> Stay informed about: do browser understand colorspace? 

frederick <lost.RemoveThis@sea.com> wrote:

> Paul Mitchum wrote:
[..]
> >> Mac provide some advice in a PDF from their website - that MAC OSX
> >> users can share images with embedded colourspace other than sRGB, and
> >> have these display properly on other users systems.
> >
> > This is the basic premise of color management. Mac OS X (and all Mac OS
> > systems since 1995) have built-in color management, called ColorSync.
> > Not all sharing occurs over the web, either.
>
> And IMO, it's where casual mac users can come unstuck. Sharing with their
> friends or colleagues using macs - no problem. Publish to a web page, and
> the advice in that pdf starts to turn sour. It's not exactly uncommon to
> see aRGB images on the WWW, especially from dslr users who read that using
> aRGB may be a good idea, their cameras can output in aRGB jpgs directly,
> but they don't really know why.

Well, ideally, all web browsers would have color management. Users
shouldn't have to care what profile they're using, if they don't need
to. Web browsers should be able to display images properly, and part of
that includes color management.

It's not that Mac users are 'coming unstuck,' it's that they're
benefiting in a way that they're not even aware is an issue for others.
They're used to interoperability working the way it *should.*
 >> Stay informed about: do browser understand colorspace? 

Paul Mitchum wrote:
<snip>
>
> It's not that Mac users are 'coming unstuck,' it's that they're
> benefiting in a way that they're not even aware is an issue for others.
> They're used to interoperability working the way it *should.*

heh - thread drift is taking this from rec.photo.digital to perhaps
being more suited to alt.endlessarguments.macvstheevilempire
 >> Stay informed about: do browser understand colorspace? 

Paul Mitchum wrote:
> frederick <lost.TakeThisOut@sea.com> wrote:
>
>> peter wrote:
>>> For people who use colorspace other than the default sRGB, if you drop a
>>> photo with a tagged colorspace into your browser, would it render the
>>> color correctly, or does it ignore the colorspace?
>> With some exceptions, it ignores it. IIRC (and IMO strangely) the now
>> abandoned IE for mac is one exception. _Always_ use sRGB for web display -
>> tagged or untagged.
>
> If your image file has an embedded profile, most modern browsers will
> honor that profile. If there's no profile, the default is sRGB. Older
> browsers will simply ignore the profile and do whatever they want, which
> usually has the effect of using the monitor's profile. Since sRGB is a
> generic monitor profile, it's best practice to use sRGB for the web, and
> to embed the profile.

Incorrect - most modern browsers won't "honour a profile" at all.
from: http://regex.info/blog/photo-tech/color-spaces-page3;
"It's truly ironic that the only Color-Smart Browser that's ever
existed, as far as I know, is the now defunct Microsoft Internet
Explorer for the Mac. It was color managed (if you turned on the option;
oddly, it was not color managed by default) and it used sRGB for
unprofiled images. Unfortunately, it was IE, so was woefully lame in
every other respect. I hear that it doesn't even run on modern Macs."
 >> Stay informed about: do browser understand colorspace? 

frederick <lost.RemoveThis@sea.com> wrote:

> Paul Mitchum wrote:
> > frederick <lost.RemoveThis@sea.com> wrote:
> >
> >> peter wrote:
> >>> For people who use colorspace other than the default sRGB, if you drop a
> >>> photo with a tagged colorspace into your browser, would it render the
> >>> color correctly, or does it ignore the colorspace?
> >> With some exceptions, it ignores it. IIRC (and IMO strangely) the now
> >> abandoned IE for mac is one exception. _Always_ use sRGB for web display -
> >> tagged or untagged.
> >
> > If your image file has an embedded profile, most modern browsers will
> > honor that profile. If there's no profile, the default is sRGB. Older
> > browsers will simply ignore the profile and do whatever they want, which
> > usually has the effect of using the monitor's profile. Since sRGB is a
> > generic monitor profile, it's best practice to use sRGB for the web, and
> > to embed the profile.
>
> Incorrect - most modern browsers won't "honour a profile" at all.
> from: http://regex.info/blog/photo-tech/color-spaces-page3;
> "It's truly ironic that the only Color-Smart Browser that's ever
> existed, as far as I know, is the now defunct Microsoft Internet
> Explorer for the Mac. It was color managed (if you turned on the option;
> oddly, it was not color managed by default) and it used sRGB for
> unprofiled images. Unfortunately, it was IE, so was woefully lame in
> every other respect. I hear that it doesn't even run on modern Macs."

You might consider experimenting with it. There's a lot of old
information out there, and there's a lot of incorrect information out
there. Safari and Firefox honor embedded profiles. Some IE versions will
honor a special CSS tag about color profiles.

But I'm in general agreement with you about the best practice: Use sRGB
and embed the profile.
 >> Stay informed about: do browser understand colorspace? 

Paul Mitchum wrote:
> frederick <lost.DeleteThis@sea.com> wrote:
>
>> Paul Mitchum wrote:
>>> frederick <lost.DeleteThis@sea.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> peter wrote:
>>>>> For people who use colorspace other than the default sRGB, if you drop a
>>>>> photo with a tagged colorspace into your browser, would it render the
>>>>> color correctly, or does it ignore the colorspace?
>>>> With some exceptions, it ignores it. IIRC (and IMO strangely) the now
>>>> abandoned IE for mac is one exception. _Always_ use sRGB for web display -
>>>> tagged or untagged.
>>> If your image file has an embedded profile, most modern browsers will
>>> honor that profile. If there's no profile, the default is sRGB. Older
>>> browsers will simply ignore the profile and do whatever they want, which
>>> usually has the effect of using the monitor's profile. Since sRGB is a
>>> generic monitor profile, it's best practice to use sRGB for the web, and
>>> to embed the profile.
>> Incorrect - most modern browsers won't "honour a profile" at all.
>> from: http://regex.info/blog/photo-tech/color-spaces-page3;
>> "It's truly ironic that the only Color-Smart Browser that's ever
>> existed, as far as I know, is the now defunct Microsoft Internet
>> Explorer for the Mac. It was color managed (if you turned on the option;
>> oddly, it was not color managed by default) and it used sRGB for
>> unprofiled images. Unfortunately, it was IE, so was woefully lame in
>> every other respect. I hear that it doesn't even run on modern Macs."
>
> You might consider experimenting with it. There's a lot of old
> information out there, and there's a lot of incorrect information out
> there. Safari and Firefox honor embedded profiles. Some IE versions will
> honor a special CSS tag about color profiles.
>
> But I'm in general agreement with you about the best practice: Use sRGB
> and embed the profile.

http://www.color.org/version4html.html

simple to check your browser:
Result for PC:
Mozilla - "The system does not support these ICC profiles"
IE7 - "The system does not support these ICC profiles"

Later I'll look at safari on an ibook - I don't have a mac handy.

Mac provide some advice in a PDF from their website - that MAC OSX users
can share images with embedded colourspace other than sRGB, and have
these display properly on other users systems. If indeed safari is
compliant, then this advice will lead to grief for mac users posting
images on the web.
 >> Stay informed about: do browser understand colorspace? 

frederick <lost.TakeThisOut@sea.com> wrote:

> Paul Mitchum wrote:
[..]
> > You might consider experimenting with it. There's a lot of old
> > information out there, and there's a lot of incorrect information out
> > there. Safari and Firefox honor embedded profiles. Some IE versions will
> > honor a special CSS tag about color profiles.
> >
> > But I'm in general agreement with you about the best practice: Use sRGB
> > and embed the profile.
>
> http://www.color.org/version4html.html
>
> simple to check your browser:
> Result for PC:
> Mozilla - "The system does not support these ICC profiles"
> IE7 - "The system does not support these ICC profiles"
>
> Later I'll look at safari on an ibook - I don't have a mac handy.

Weerd. I remembered reading that the latest Firefox supported embedded
ICC profiles, but it clearly fails that test. Safari 2.0.4 passes.

Another test page:
<http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.h
tml>

> Mac provide some advice in a PDF from their website - that MAC OSX users
> can share images with embedded colourspace other than sRGB, and have these
> display properly on other users systems.

This is the basic premise of color management. Mac OS X (and all Mac OS
systems since 1995) have built-in color management, called ColorSync.
Not all sharing occurs over the web, either.

> If indeed safari is compliant, then this advice will lead to grief for mac
> users posting images on the web.

....which is why it is, as we said, the best practice to use sRGB with
embedded profile when publishing for the web.
 >> Stay informed about: do browser understand colorspace? 

Paul Mitchum wrote:
<snip>
>> simple to check your browser:
>> Result for PC:
>> Mozilla - "The system does not support these ICC profiles"
>> IE7 - "The system does not support these ICC profiles"
>>
>> Later I'll look at safari on an ibook - I don't have a mac handy.
>
> Weerd. I remembered reading that the latest Firefox supported embedded
> ICC profiles, but it clearly fails that test. Safari 2.0.4 passes.
>
There's some reference I saw that they were working on it - but it was
last century!
>
> Another test page:
> <http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html>
>
I like the link I gave much better - much more instant recognition with
less reading required for the casual user - and also of course it the
official source!
>> Mac provide some advice in a PDF from their website - that MAC OSX users
>> can share images with embedded colourspace other than sRGB, and have these
>> display properly on other users systems.
>
> This is the basic premise of color management. Mac OS X (and all Mac OS
> systems since 1995) have built-in color management, called ColorSync.
> Not all sharing occurs over the web, either.
>
And IMO, it's where casual mac users can come unstuck. Sharing with
their friends or colleagues using macs - no problem. Publish to a web
page, and the advice in that pdf starts to turn sour. It's not exactly
uncommon to see aRGB images on the WWW, especially from dslr users who
read that using aRGB may be a good idea, their cameras can output in
aRGB jpgs directly, but they don't really know why.
>
>> If indeed safari is compliant, then this advice will lead to grief for mac
>> users posting images on the web.
>
> ...which is why it is, as we said, the best practice to use sRGB with
> embedded profile when publishing for the web.

I'm tending now to agree with you that there may be some slight
advantage to tagging the sRGB profile, so as you say, it may be best
practice.
 >> Stay informed about: do browser understand colorspace?