Jan Steinman wrote:
>> Also, are you certain you embedded the profile?
>>
>
> That, as a minimum, is your problem. When I download your image and
> open it in Photoshop, it claims it is "Untagged RGB".
>
I thought that was the problem too, as I posted.
> If you're using Photoshop's "Save for Web" menu item, keep in mind
> that it strips any profile that may have been tagged to the image.
>
> I think it's still true that most web browsers ignore tagged
> profiles, but I am willing to be corrected with some reference.
The site Marc posted, aside from really bad web design, is quite helpful
in this regard. But for Chuck's image, it raises a question. With
FireFox 2.x, IE 7 and Netscape 8.x, the three tagged/untagged samples
show no differences, as expected. In Safari, the top two show
differences, but the sRGB shows no difference, indicating that sRGB is
the default for untagged images.
So I conclude that on my system, and I'm guessing most contemporary
Windoze set-ups, an untagged sRGB profile JPEG will display in most
non-color aware browsers just the same as in a color aware one.
Then if an untagged JPEG displays differently in one of these browsers
than in PS, it's hard not to conclude that PS is using a color space
other than sRGB. Is there a flaw in this logic?
>
> ("You're wrong!" has never been acceptable to me without something to
> back it up. :-)
>
I don't think you are wrong about this.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|