On 03/04/2010 05:58 PM, Patrick Horgan wrote: > On 03/03/10 11:19, Jason Simanek wrote: >> That's not true in my experience. Yes, sRGB should be as good as NOT >> having a profile since sRGB is the ASSUMED color space on most >> computersy. But Gimp still adds a color profile to the image: an sRGB >> color profile. This still causes all of the color mismatch problems on >> websites thoroughly described on the gballard.net site mentioned >> above. >> > Now I'm confused I thought gballard said the opposite. Here's how it works: 1 Web Browsers That Don't Support Color Management With these browsers images that do or don't include color profiles is irrelevant because they can't do anything with them anyway. The colors are just displayed as whatever RGB color space is available, most likely some form of unmanaged sRGB. 2 Safari (Browsers that ONLY color manage images with color profiles, not colors defined in HTML or CSS) If a color profile is included with an image Safari uses color management to adjust the colors to the computer's display color space. If a color profile is not included it acts like #1. Also, as far as colors defined in HTML and CSS, it acts like #1. 3 Firefox 3.2+/3.5+ by default (Browsers that color manage images with color profiles. Images without color profiles are also managed assuming the sRGB color profile. PLUS: Colors defined in HTML and CSS are managed with assuming the sRGB color profile. What this means for web designers/developers: A #1 isn't a problem unless you want color managed photos that look beautiful on your website. Otherwise, #1 is the way web browsers have generally worked until recently. B #2 is the wrong way to do color management on the web. It's a nice effort and photos certainly look beautiful, but this approach causes big problems for web designers that want to use images for page elements that are intended to exactly match and blend with colors on the web page that are defined in HTML or CSS. This approach forces web developers to NEVER include color profiles on images that are part of a website's design, otherwise the page elements won't match the colors defined in HTML/CSS. At least not in Safari. It'll look perfect everywhere else. C #3 is the right way to do color management. It makes color profiled photographs look as close to the creator's intentions as possible on any computer system that is color managed. But it also allows web designers to use color management to make their page element images look as good as intended while still matching the HTML/CSS colors that are also part of the web page. Thanks to browser type #2 I can only use color profiles on images that are not intended to be a part of the web site's design. If I do include color profiles on those images, every time I bring up the site in Safari it will look like my page elements don't match the flat colors defined in my site's HTML/CSS. So the color mismatch I'm concerned about really only happens in Safari, but mismatches like that are not acceptable. Did that resolve your confusion? Or just add to it? -Jason Simanek _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
