Re: Panther, sRGB, web browsers
Re: Panther, sRGB, web browsers
- Subject: Re: Panther, sRGB, web browsers
- From: Chris Murphy <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 13:08:15 -0700
On Dec 14, 2003, at 12:22 PM, Roger Breton wrote:
When it comes to untagged images, I really think that assuming sRGB is
better than giving the end user the option to assume anything else as
a
source.
I agree that assuming sRGB is probably the best choice. And if it was
me,
I'd make that assumption explicit, even if it was hardwired. Perhaps
then,
in an advanced Safari color setup dialog, there could be an informative
message like to the users like:
Untagged RGB images are assumed to be sRGB
and converted to the current monitor profile for display
Is that so hard for Apple to pull technically?
I'm no programmer, but I doubt it. But that's not what preference
dialogs are used for. You don't have an advanced settings dialog, and
then just have a message to the user without anyway to make a change.
That's not a settings dialog, let alone an advanced one. I think more
than anything there just needs to be consistency with respect to apps
that do not do their own color management. I don't know the programming
or performance implications of this, but Apple could just say that
applications passing off data to be displayed/printed are expected to
include appropriate source profiles, and if they don't the OS will
assume sRGB as source.
But I might be convinced it's Ok to have a checkbox to turn off
ColorSync/display compensation/sRGB as assumed source for untagged
images, making it monitor RGB instead. But even that encourages
mystery
meat RGB.
Depends how Apple does it? It could be done along the lines of:
Assumed Source Profile for Untagged Images [current monitor profile]
The name in bracket could be fetched from the Monitor System
Preferences.
Then, this kind of implementation, IMO, has merit because it make users
think twice and helps develop in them the reflex of always going to a
central, independent setup in their system for color setting.
Yeah - when checked it says "sRGB" and when unchecked is says "monitor
RGB." That makes sense, but it still allows for monitor RGB to be used
as source, which just isn't ideal. I still think it's better to equate
untagged RGB to sRGB. Exceptions need to embed profiles. The exception
is with CMYK. We still need a system level CMYK Default that would be
used as source for any untagged CMYK documents.
I agree that simple is better, and color geeks only make a tiny
segment of
users. And if most of the world treats untagged images as sRGB, like
you
suggest then so be it! But, please, make this explicit somewhere in
Safari
or iPhoto or ACDC or FotoStation or Cumulus or Portfolio; making the
assumed
profile explicit will only serve to heighten everyone's color
experience IMO
-- indeed setting up an important example and trend in color management
policy.
That's asking too much for each application vendor to do. They're
already not doing a good enough job when it comes to respecting
embedded profiles. If they can't do that I don't see them being very
interested in sticking a note to the user about what's going to be used
as source.
If Apple enforced this behavior at the system level (untagged = sRGB
unless explicitly tagged & the application respects embedded profiles)
then we wouldn't need per application notification. That's just the way
the OS would work. It's not like vendors announce they use monitor RGB
now.
Chris Murphy
Color Remedies (TM)
www.colorremedies.com/realworldcolor
---------------------------------------------------------
Co-author "Real World Color Management"
Published by PeachPit Press (ISBN 0-201-77340-6)
_______________________________________________
colorsync-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.