ICC Profiles in JPG files and Web browsers ?

If I save a JPG file with an ICC profile does any web browser use it when the file is displayed ?

--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

In article <d57qec$squ$ (Al Dykes)
wrote:

If I save a JPG file with an ICC profile does any web browser use it when the file is displayed ?

Some rowsers can--for example, Internet Explorer for Mac has an option (turned off by default) which allows it to use an embedded profile.

However, it works only if:

1. The user has properly profiles his system; and

2. It's turned on.

In otherwords, probably for onee-tenth of one percent of your visitors.

For everyone else, it just makes the file bigger, and perhaps makes the image display worse (if the ICC option is on but the system isn't correctly profiled). I see no real value in including profiles in Web images.

--
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

No!

Web browsers ignore all color space information and assume that everything is in sRGB.

AlexR.

Al Dykes wrote:

If I save a JPG file with an ICC profile does any web browser use it when the file is displayed ?

Alex R wrote:

Web browsers ignore all color space information and assume that everything is in sRGB.

MOST webbrowsers do that. Some Macintosh browsers can indeed use ICC-profiles.

--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

Tacit wrote:

For everyone else, it just makes the file bigger, and perhaps makes the image display worse (if the ICC option is on but the system isn't correctly profiled). I see no real value in including profiles in Web images.

How much bigger will an ICC profile add to the file size?

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote:

Alex R wrote:

Web browsers ignore all color space information and assume that everything is in sRGB.

MOST webbrowsers do that. Some Macintosh browsers can indeed use ICC-profiles.

On a browser that does not support ICC profiles, will a viewer see any difference between an image with an ICC profile and the same image without an ICC profile? In other words, on such browsers, will an ICC profile degrade an image?

wrote:

On a browser that does not support ICC profiles, will a viewer see any difference between an image with an ICC profile and the same image without an ICC profile? In other words, on such browsers, will an ICC profile degrade an image?

No. An ICC-profile will never degrade an image. On color managed browsers it will improve it, on non-color managed browsers it will do nothing. It increases the file size by about 250 bytes.

--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

In article , wrote:

On a browser that does not support ICC profiles, will a viewer see any difference between an image with an ICC profile and the same image without an ICC profile? In other words, on such browsers, will an ICC profile degrade an image?

No; the profile is ignored.

The size of a profile depends on the profile itself; most RGB profiles increase the size of a file by about 600 bytes or so.

--
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Alex R wrote:

Web browsers ignore all color space information

Yes, on PC systems.

and assume that everything is in sRGB.

Web browsers (in Windows) do not make such an assumption, they do not need to make any choices so they do not need to make any assumptions either. They simply throw the image data as it is (without any color management) to the display driver and from there to the monitor.

There are no monitors that are in the sadRGB space.

The profile size of the sadRGB is 3144 bytes where normal RGB working-space profiles are just about 552 bytes. The difference comes from the fact that the transfer-function of the three channels in the sadRGB profile are look-up-tables (with only 10-bits resolution) where the normal RGB working-.space profiles specify an accurate gamma function mathematically.

The transfer-function of the sadRGB is _about_ gamma 2.2 but not at all so in the dark end of the range. So, when you e.g. look at a dark key image that is in the sadRGB color-space inside Photoshop you'll see the dark end much better than how it appears in the browser (in a system that is calibrated to gamma 2.2 space). In case the CRT is not gamma calibrated then it is in gamma 2.5 space (vast majority of the computers on the Web are like that) and the sadRGB images look notable darker in overall on them. So the best choice for Web publishing is a normal gamma 2.5 profile like the nativePC is.

Al Dykes wrote:

If I save a JPG file with an ICC profile does any web
browser use it when the file is displayed ?

This has been already explained but there is an obvious question that remains unanswered: Why did Microsoft provide the ICC managed IE browser for the Mac OS (it has been there already what, about 2 years I think) but they still do not provide that same feature for the IE on the PC systems???

Timo Autiokari

I tried it. JPG was 100 kb without and 107 kb with ICC ticked in Save for Web.

Brian

wrote in message

Tacit wrote:

For everyone else, it just makes the file bigger, and perhaps makes the image display worse (if the ICC option is on but the system isn't correctly profiled). I see no real value in including profiles in Web images.

How much bigger will an ICC profile add to the file size?