Re: Safari color management
Re: Safari color management
- Subject: Re: Safari color management
- From: Roger Howard <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 11:28:52 -0800
On Nov 4, 2004, at 11:19 AM, Andrew Rodney wrote:
on 11/4/04 12:09 PM, Roger Breton wrote:
Thank you Roger. Your account makes 100% sense to me. And I don't
mind what
Safari does presently in the interest of performance. *BUT* I'd like
to have
it as a preference: please, please, Mr. Steve Jobs, add in a small
ColorSync
section in Safari's preferences to let me choose how I want Safari to
handle
the display of untagged RGB (and why not CMYK too) images to my
display!
First Apple needs to get all the product managers for all the OSX
applications to come to some consensus about what they will assume for
untagged documents. For some to assume the monitor profile (which is
just
plain dumb and takes color management back to the pre-Photoshop 5 days)
while others assume sRGB (much more logical) is pretty unforgivable
for a
company that put color management on the map.
I agree, there needs to be a consistent approach to color management.
I'm not positive that today "assuming" monitor profile is dumb; I think
it's an unfortunate necessity, at least until *everything* is color
managed the same way.
Hopefully Steve will see the sense of making all applications assume
sRGB
for untagged documents. Then we can simply provide files in this color
space
for applications that have no reason to use document specific color (as
Photoshop) does. There's really little reason to embed even a 4K
profile in
every web graphic. It can add up in the end. If you simply upload
everything
in sRGB and the browser assumes sRGB but also respects the individual
users
display profile for previewing, then assuming users all have a decent
display profile, the previews will match.
Agreed. But it's not just images; it's HTML colored elements, Quicktime
movies, Windows Media streams, Flash animations, and all the rest that
will *have* to be consistent rendered with the same color mgmt policy
as everything else. I'm not sure what needs to happen on OSX for this
to happen; right now, most of these other things are not color managed
at all. When Web designers integrate elements into a page in different
formats, today they assume that a given RGB color will be rendered the
same in all media types; this works because there's NO conversion
happening. To keep the same consistency, all elements will have to be
color managed (I think this is the way it should be, btw).
Next thing that would be lovely would be for OSX to move away from the
silly
assumption of using a 1.8 gamma. Still, if all the applications would
simply
use the display profile and recognize embedded profiles or assume sRGB
for
untagged images, this would be less an issue.
I disagree; if all we had on the Web today were JPEGs (and HTML had no
color elements itself) then this would be effective today. But as I've
said, the problem is in having consistency between images and other
media; right now, there's no sane matching of Quicktime to the display
space (a few codecs make some insane assumptions about gamma that have
nothing to do with an individuals environment); Flash will be rendered
as-is; HTML colors are rendered as-is. If we can get a consistent color
policy across *everything* on OSX then it'll work great to assume sRGB
for untagged images in a browser; if we don't, the Web sites are going
to look like crap when elements that were intended to match colors are
handled differently depending on their format.
Of course Tiger will fix all this right????? ;-)
Oh yes.
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden