South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
For interests sake what browser are you using and does it have ICC support enabled? I'm guessing it does not but this will tell you for sure - http://www.color.org/version4html.xalterBwana's pic looks seriously purple in the water. ld's pic looks ok to me, somewhat oversaturated, but I can live with it.
Hope you all have a nice new year!
Fortunately, we had a monster storm around midnight, which meant very little fireworks - hope they don't pop out on another night
My copy was screen shot and doesnt have embedded colour profiles (it was uploaded as a png) in order to illustrate the differences - thats why it looked the same on the first machine.I just opened this thread on my work machine (no ICC profiles) and your copy of the pic is seriously purple, but still ldmelsa's isn't.
I'm using FF3.0.3. I had ICC support enabled, but I switched off (can't remember why). My monitor is calibrated in both Linux (ArgyllCMS with Spyder) and WinXP (Spyder software, but I'm going to download ArgyllCMS for Win as well).
Perhaps I'll download Argyll and see if it makes any difference as compared to the Spyder software.
Give me a shout if you do, I worked out a recipe for using all the bits to get a profile and use it (hope it's the same for the mac). It's a whole lot more time consuming than using the Spyder software, but the guy who wrote it knows his stuff about colour management.
Hmmm . . . no GUI?
Not going to happen.
Do you see a significant colour difference between this photo - http://mybroadband.co.za/photos/showphoto.php/photo/8739 - and the larger version - http://mybroadband.co.za/photos/showphoto.php/photo/8739/size/big/cat/ ?
Being an old Unix hand, the lack of GUI doesn't bug me too much, even though I am getting soft in my old age
I switched on the browser colour management, and the serious purple has gone from your pic - it now looks the same as ld's pic. I must be honest and say I still don't see a purple cast though. However, it just worries me how 99% of other folks see the pics without colour management enabled in their browsers. Maybe I'll leave it on...
Here is a more exciting page showing what the browser colour management can do if profiles are included in the pics:
http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html#
Can't see any difference. Do you want me to try with the browser colour management turned off?
You should see a massive difference if the management is turned on (one had an embedded colour profile the smaller one doesnt) - did you try that color.org test I posted earlier?As I said, don't see any diff. Here are screen grabs of the two pics, composited into one image:
This blog post comment might hint why tagged and untagged might be looking the sameAs I said, don't see any diff. Here are screen grabs of the two pics, composited into one image:
In the lower part of the lightning bolt, there's a little wobble on the left. The RGB values in that are B(196, 171, 205) S(193, 170, 203) which shows the colours are pretty similar.
On the link you gave, the main pic looks fine. In the link I gave, the top pic in the middle column (three tagged files in one box) all show the same, and the "TaggedWhackedRGB" pic in the same column also shows correctly, with the browser colour management on.
Can you do a screen grab, similar to what I did, to show the differences that you're seeing?
I see now why you're worried that I'm seeing the images as the same!
