I have not had problems with my images before on any sites I have worked on.
I am viewing one test site I created on Mac on a new PC with VISTA and IE7. For some reason, all of the jpegs I just uploaded, which look much better than earlier ones on my Mac browsers, are faint, thin on the PC/IE7 totally unacceptable (they are logos). My other sites look good, the jpegs of logos and photos etc. No problems.
What could be different? What should I look for?
I am stumped.
The new, supposedly better logos that I am replacing the small gifs with, were all sent by client, all seemed OK, I opened into Photoshop, checked that they were RGB, saved as jpegs, made them slightly larger than image size needed…they looked great till the PC thing.
Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!
It would help if you explained what browsers are in use and if you used the save for web function in PS. It might also help to see the web page in question.
I looked at it on MacOSX 10.4 on Safari, FIrefox, Opera. Even on IE5.2 they look better. I looked on Windows Vista IE7 and the logos on the left (2 are not coming in) and they are, as I said, thin and weak, very choppy. Not acceptable.
I made them the same way as usual, I opened up the files in PS, checked to be sure they were RGB, saved them to 300 dpi wide (I am using them from 155-178 dpi, or 55-65%) and making sure they are all 72 dpi.
You think I have to use the "Save for Web Devices"? maybe? I have not used this ever before, other files are not done this way. What is different about this?
Thanks for passing this site along, this is a good resource for future.
My issue right now is a breakdown in the images, the logos are not rendering or rendering badly in IE7, with strokes very thin and choppy on the logos, not acceptable.
The choppy lines are because you are trying to cram a 1392×1083 image in an area of 200×150. Browsers render scaled images differently.
Revisit some web design tutorials to understand why these huge images are inappropriate. Scaling should be done in Photoshop or as a smart object in your web design app.
Right. Save your images at the exact size the web page requires, not oversized.
Save them from Save for Web, not a standard save to jpeg.
The weak/choppy thing is from the browser resampling the images. Mac browsers do this well, but that’s no reason to post oversized images. (You can leave them oversized as you work, if your layout isn’t yet finalized, but you need to resize them before the final posting.)
OK. I used to size them but it is a pain and I quit. Will do.
FYI-they are NOT NEARLY as large as you are indicating, (1392 x 1093) I am not sure what you are looking at unless the site logo was not converted yet. They are more like 300 x 50 as I said, around 50-65% larger than finals on average.
But if just that amount of shrinking is ruining the rendering, I will fix, especially if download is that slow on your machines. That is not good.
I suspect the main issue is the "Save as Web". I will resize the logos and use "Save to Web" and see how it goes. I use "Save to Web" in Illustrator and InDesign, just never switched (habit) in Photoshop, I hadn’t needed to before now, and did not realize it was there.
I notice that more and more people ARE using IE7. On my sites, it has climbed to lowest 15% and highest 25% on the sites I maintain, and the lowest includes a few more years before, so it is several %s higher at this date factoring that in.
the left skyscraper image is 1392 x 1083 pixels, the right one is the same. I didn’t check any others, because the root of your problem is so very obvious.
Since most browsers default to display sRGB, adding an extra 3-4KB to each JPG by checking the ICC profile box may be wasted effort.
It is not "wasted effort" unless you don’t care about your viewers seeing wildly distorted colors.
Most browsers do NOT default to display sRGB and the Mac platform currently exacerbates the situation by incorrectly "Assigning" non-tagged files to "Monitor Space" (which is not necessarily sRGB these days following the introduction of the new Wide-gamut Adobe-RGB Displays).
Why wouldn’t you follow your own advice on your site at taumel.com, which does not use ICC profiles?
Read Gary’s article above (post #2) and then come to the same conclusion that he and most everyone else has come to. At present, the workflow that most every web designer uses is to work in sRGB within Photoshop and then save for web, without adding the ICC profile that is assumed already in most browsers.
Why wouldn’t you follow your own advice on your site at taumel.com, which does not use ICC profiles?>
Because the Taumel Site was built before the Wide-Gamut monitors became available and long before this issue became apparent.
You just live by copy/pasting OLD Tech sheets on this Forum don’t you? And you are back in the last century on this one!
Your first link (A Standard Default Color Space for the Internet – sRGB) is dated: "Version 1.10, November 5, 1996"!
And your Microsoft one refers to Windows operated Systems only which, with their restricted color space, possibly are not even able to take advantage of the full capabilities of the new Wide-Spectrum Displays anyway.
[Perhaps someone who has tried to to use an Eizo CG or a NEC 2690WUXi on a Windows machine can report on their experience?]
Perhaps YOU should read the more recent discussion in the Photography Forum? and the acknowledgement in John Nack’s Blog that Adobe are working on this now-recognized problem.
I have also drawn Apple’s attention to the issue and hope that they will also respond with the same alacrity that Adobe is demonstrating.
Gary already has a wide gamut monitor page. But you are apparently arguing my comment about ‘most browsers’ by alleging that most folks have these wide gamut monitors. That is silly.
The point is that a LOT of people will be getting Wide-Gamut Monitors (even Dell are selling one now) so I don’t suggest that you ignore the issue if you are really the IT expert that you would have us believe that you are.
If you are working on a Mac, and have any Mac viewership at all, at least some images are better posted with a profile… but others are not.
Since we here are Mac users, and presumably imaging pros, most of us would at least have reason to consider whether we want our images viewed well in Safari, and for most of us, the answer is going to be "yes"
For the image to be viewed with color management, it must have a color profile. With no color profile, Safari will make an incorrect assumption about the color. Safari does not work like the other browsers.
Where I draw the line on whether an image is posted with a profile or not is between whether it is to be interface graphics, or full-raster imaging (photography, illustration, painting, etc)
A graphic that needs to match HTML or CSS colors should not have a profile, because Safari color manages images but not CSS/HTML colors. So you have to leave the profile off to match code colors.
Since GIF and PNG don’t support profiles (at least not from Save For Web) the question of embedding a profile on them is moot, anyway. Interface jpegs are the only question, and the decision has to be made according tot he site/context.
If you want good color in Safari on jpegs, you have to embeprofiles, but I reserve this for hotos and artwork, as i mentioned earlier.
gballard’s site explains all of this.
For all the logos on the original posters site, I would probably go with PNG and skip the profile, but I would consider whether any colors were being badly distorted before I made that decision for sure. Since they are logos, I might instead go with jpegs with embedded profiles, for color fidelity.
The point is that you feel you need to argue on silly issues. Wide gamut monitors are a minority and a web designer is not going to need to bend over backwards to accommodate them. There will certainly be a software resolution to this. With over a hundred million distinct web sites and a spec for sRGB on the web going back to at least 1996, do you really think a backward compatible solution will not be found? How soon do you think MSIE (the most popular browser) will support CM? The sky is not falling. Lighten up. 🙂
Well it is definitely not a "silly issue" to serious Photographers who wish to use the convenience of the Adobe Web Galleries to show-case their work on the Web.
Nor is it a "silly issue" for anyone trying to sell a product that depends on their customer being able to see accurate colors on the Web (unless they want to see 80% of what they sell being returned to Store).
I don’t get the impression that you have much, if any, experience with either category of Web Site owner, or of high-end marketing in any category, so your comments on this subject are not only uninformed but are superfluous to the discussion.
I would consider whether any colors were being badly distorted before I made that decision for sure
That’s easy – just look at the page in a color managed and an un-managed browser. There is no big difference. Which takes us back to that argumentative point about just ignoring CM.
That is because you are using a standard old sRGB monitor are you not?
Do you even have a Wide-gamut Display so that you can experience what we are talking about for yourself?
I get the impression that this entire discussion is way above your ability to comprehend the issues.
Well it is definitely not a "silly issue" to serious Photographers who wish to use the convenience of the Adobe Web Galleries to show-case their work on the Web.
Ann, back to the arguing again. The site in question here is not a photo gallery.
I don’t get the impression that you have much…
I know for a fact that you don’t have much experience with Windows (the majority of the web audience) and with web design. So why are you alarming folks for no reason?
Have you looked at Jane’s web page in a color managed and an un-managed browser? Do you recognize the silliness of persisting in a pointless debate about CM on a page that is not adversely affected one way or the other?
The OP has no clue, it’s not a photoshop topic, no one here gives a damn about Windows except the I’ll fight you on anything guy, and now the personal attacks again.
a LOT of people will be getting Wide-Gamut Monitors (even Dell are selling one now)
The September issue of shutterbug even has a glowing report on the ViewSonic VP2250wb, a 22" wide-gamut, Adobe RGB+ LCD monitor with a street price in the $450 range. (Slightly stronger in the reds, and a smidgen weaker in the blues than Adobe RGB, but hugely wider than sRGB.)
The competitiveness in the monitor market practically guarantees that wide gamut monitors will be the rule rather than the exception in very short order.
the I’ll fight you on anything guy, and now the personal attacks again.
Lundberg02, we have to remember that one should never fight with a dimwit. I you win, there’s no merit in it. If you lose, you come out worse than the other guy. In the end one gets used to simpletons and learns to ignore them. Just like you ignore a yapping dog who barks at you in the streets.
I would consider whether any colors were being badly distorted before I made that decision for sure
That’s easy – just look at the page in a color managed and an un-managed browser.
on my wide gamut monitor, some are pretty overly saturated when the profiles are stripped. When viewed with no profile on a stock Mac, they are pretty obviously lightened. So I would give that one serious consideration. Certainly if the logos were for someone like Coca Cola or Tidy Cats, whom I know to be obsessive over identity color, I would use a profile.
The group of colour conscious graphics professionals is a very small niche in a very big market place.
The price and the quality of the image will lead average consumers to buy the wide gamut monitors, even if they’re not actually conscious of the reasons why they look "better".
You don’t need to have a clue about color management to see that images look like they’re on fire when a wide gamut profile is thrown at them.
True. They can’t tell the difference in color because they don’t have access to compare the original art like we do. Certainly if Jane’s clouds turn pink, there should be concern. Folks here are simply getting too cerebral for someone who was trying to squash 4 MB of images on a web page. Lighten up already! Baby steps. 🙂
I think that was a point made earlier but Ann is in panic mode again.
Jim:
Don’t make ridiculous, and deliberately provocative, statements.
If I am in any "mode" (as you would put it!) it is in "Investigative" and "Bug-Squashing" mode because I wanted to discover the cause of the discrepancy that I had observed between the way that exactly the SAME image displays simultaneously: in the same Browser; on the on the same computer; and on the same Wide-Gamut Display depending on whether that image is contained in a straightforward HTML page or was a component of a Flash-powered "Adobe Web Gallery".
Having found the answer, I took the trouble to report my findings in various Forums; to write-up formal Bug Reports and Feature Requests; and to alert people at Adobe who are in a position to fix the Flash side of the problem. And Adobe have apparently already started to work on the issue
Fixing Flash is a major issue as far as I am concerned because, providing that I tag all sRGB files for the Web, the two color-managed Browsers can display tagged images reasonably acceptably on a Wide-Gamut monitor even on a Mac..
I also reported my findings to Apple.
Hopefully, Apple will also be responsive to the problem because the last thing that they surely need is for word to get round that: "Apples are useless for the Web".
While the three color-managed, or partially color-managed, browsers (Safari, Firefox and the very old IE for Mac) are all showing the same image in a very similar, and not too unacceptable, manner the Non-color-managed Camino, Opera and Netscape do a horrible job of displaying even tagged sRGB images on a Wide-Gamut monitor on the Apple Platform.
If you thought that the Reds were bad, just try the Greens!
Don’t make ridiculous, and deliberately provocative, statements.
Ann, the argument is in your head. Grow up and move on.
I stated:
Since most browsers default to display sRGB, adding an extra 3-4KB to each JPG by checking the ICC profile box may be wasted effort.
This means, use it if you need it – but most folks will not care about the profile.
And this is where the senseless debate spiraled out of control in your head. Take a step back and realize what you think you are really arguing. I provoked nothing. Learn what ‘provocative’ means.
You are welcome to continue your childish arguing until Neil shuts you down again. I cannot debate your silly provocations. There is no argument here.
A look at both homepages for Apple.com and Adobe.com show they use images without profiles. Go figure! Shouldn’t Apple and Adobe web designers know better? Or maybe they already do.
If the truth be told, Apple has always sucked at color. ColorSync is an example, the Apple ColorSync engine is a mess, the Apple color picker is broken, as is the Apple Digital Color Meter.
Apple took a long time to remember that the gamma 1.8 encoding had nothing to do with color. Only relatively recently have they begun to recommend 2.2 too.
One of the three worst mistakes made by Steve Jobs was his long-time resistance to color monitors in the early days. The other two were his resistance to open architecture machines and the hiring of that Pepsi Cola clown.
Fortunately, there were enough savvy 3rd party developers that had faith in the Mac, including the Photoshop team.
is Apple even admitting the problem or are they saying it’s a monitor issue
If they were to claim that they would revealing their color cluelessness.
Adobe’s web designers are the most ridiculously incompetent bunch in the world. Adobe engineers know it and it’s a source of endless embarrassment for them, as shown in their blogs.
But what excuse do we have for Apple web designers? 🙂
Do we need to go through a list of major graphics players to see how many use images without profiles on their own web sites? It might give Ann something more productive to do.
we have to remember that one should never fight with a dimwit. I you win, there’s no merit in it. If you lose, you come out worse than the other guy. In the end one gets used to simpletons and learns to ignore them. Just like you ignore a yapping dog who barks at you in the streets.
that’s not the way to do it for any number of reasons…
That is actually the ONLY way to do it if you want to be sure that Mac Users with a Wide-Gamut Monitor have the slightest chance of seeing your images as you, the author, intended!
It is not what I see that matters, it is only what my audience might see that counts!
(And that is another reason for any one who is preparing material for the Web to make sure that they have one of these W-G monitors because otherwise you are travelling blindly and living in a Fools Paradise.)
The Wide-Gamut NEC is absolutely superb for Photoshop and other Color-managed applications; and for preparing CMYK files for Press; and I feel that I made an excellent decision when I decided to buy one.
My only concern is how other people, who are using non-color-managed Browsers in conjunction with a Wide-gamut monitor on the Apple platform, will view my Photographs.
Provided that I embed those ICC sRGB Profiles in every image, my pictures display perfectly acceptably in both Safari and in Firefox.
The only images that do NOT display perfectly acceptably are when I use a Flash-powered ADOBE WEB GALLERY to hold the tagged images because, at the moment, Flash prevents the Color-managed Browsers from being able to read the embedded sRGB Profiles.
The problem with Flash preventing the Browsers from being able to recognize embedded sRGB profiles is what Adobe are now endeavouring to fix.
You are absolutely correct: there is no point in trying to have a discussion with that individual because he does not have the cerebral capacity, or the experience to begin to comprehend what the rest of us are saying.
As to why he picks on me?
I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that for some reason he harbours huge resentment and untrammelled jealousy that any one (particularly a female!) might have superior knowledge, experience and ability than himself!
And better toys too!
I have noticed the way that he responds to Jean too.
You are absolutely right of course; but I find in the end that I have to respond in order to defend myself from the relentless denigrating effusion of attacks that are levelled in my direction by the aforementioned Forum Misogynist.
Ann, I’m simply showing how major web publishers (including yourself) make web images. If you think someone is attacking you, it is those who do not use profiles in web images: Apple, Adobe, Kodak, NEC, EIZO, and most oddly… you need to address yourself on your own web site. The Ann Shelbourne that made that web site apparently does not agree with the Ann Shelbourne that is posting in this thread. I cannot be held responsible for your insanity. Surely one of these Ann Shelbournes should know better and share that knowledge with the other. 🙂
That is actually the ONLY way to do it if you want to be sure that Mac
Users with a Wide-Gamut Monitor
that is such small miniscule fraction of users it is not worth bloating my pages and screwing up my graphics from blending seamlessly into their surrounding page colors
if debating bloating my pages with embedded is the point, I can have dozens of graphic files and sliced photos on a page, so that 4k per image/slice is a major factor in my design approach
also, if you check typical site statistics on high-traffic websites, some 90% of visitors are using Explorer on a PC
again, the issue is not the improving panel technology, it is Apple’s approach to defaulting their monitors to 1.8 gamma, and applying a 1.8-gamma custom device profile to a 2.2 gamma viewing space (the web)…
It takes someone with an IQ below room temperature in degrees Celsius to fail to understand that this is a very recent discovery of a real problem with untagged images in combination with wide-gamut profiles. What may have been done before this realization is irrelevant.
What’s being advocated is the use of tagged images from now on.
The image which I embedded in my post #25 is untagged at the Shutterbug web site, and that is NOT good. Their bad.
My mantra has always been to beat anybody who hands you an untagged image with a baseball bat. I’ve been saying that for longer than I can remember, literally. Granted, I do not deal with web sites. My only use of JPEGs is to illustrate an occasional post in the forums. Since yesterday, I’ve been making sure that my images I post as JPEGs are always tagged. Some servers will strip the profile, but that is beyond my control.
In the case of the image embedded in post #25, I have no idea in what color space it was saved because the moron who posted it did not tag it.
I’ve always commented on the total lack of sophistication by the Shutterbug magazine folks regarding color in the production of their printed publication. Just look at that radish-colored face in the portrait of GS, their publisher.
As a photographer (amongst your other myriad skills!) you should surely be concerned with how your work will display on these new monitors?
I would have thought that you would WANT to use a W-G monitor so that you could be fully aware of the way that your photographs may be being displayed on the monitors of other Graphic Arts Professionals?
And I also would have thought that you would also be concerned about the Flash problem as I notice that you are currently including Adobe Web Galleries on your web site.
Concerning Apple, have you filed a Bug Report with them?
The more people that do so, the more chance that they will finally do something to rectify the problem.
This thing comes in here feeling at liberty to provoke everyone under the Sun in full confidence that the thread will be closed and most of his transgressions will be censored.
Keep in mind that everything you delete or move to the spam receptacle is mirrored and readily available on the net.
I have no idea in what color space it was saved because the moron who posted it did not tag it
Ramon, you clearly don’t care for that ‘moron’ and you don’t care for the Apple and Adobe web designers. Can you point us to a well designed site that actually uses images with profiles to point out how an intelligent web designer is doing it? Maybe you have a site of your own to show?
Can someone talking the talk actually show someone walking the walk? The personal attacks seem severely pointless if you can’t support your notion for tagged images with real world examples used by professional designers. Surely there must be at least one site a profile zealot can give as an example? Right?
Are the profile zealots in this thread even web designers? Where is your work that is better than Apple.com and Adobe.com?
This thread is absurd. The fact that Neil is now a participant and has allowed the personal attacks to remain is even more disappointing.
Cut out what? Are you unwilling to answer a simple request to put up or shut up yourself? Where are these modern sites with color profiles? You are unbelievable.
we really need to be able to embed profiles for a whole page in a style sheet, and Apple needs to allow us to choose a preferred color profile for our own browsing, if not switch to sRGB altogether.
But, with wider gamut monitors coming along, it would be nice to make use of more than just the sRGB gamut. That points me back to specifying color profiles in style sheets
Not only did the images never finished uploading on this laptop with a mediocre connection (not too slow but not stellar) where I am now, but the typography is simply atrocious, what with the all-caps text blocks, dark blue text on black background, then white text on black, etc.
The pictures are very nice. They finally finished loading.
I wouldn’t presume to tell you how to present it, GB. All I can do is tell you my reaction to the site.
Sites that are terrible include the DPReview site and The Luminous Landscape. Dark backgrounds make it very difficult to focus on colored text. After spending even three minutes at the DPReview site, my eyes really hurt a lot when I come back to the real world, this forum for instance, or the NY Times site.
It’s kind of like with eggs. I don’t have to be a hen to know a rotten egg when I come across one, and I’m sure not going to be able to tell the hen how to lay a good one.
This thread is absurd. The fact that Neil is now a participant and has allowed the personal attacks to remain is even more disappointing.
Let’s get something straight. The only things that are "absurd" or "disappointing" are those people here who continue to provoke others into argument and those who act uncivilly in this forum.
Everyone reading this topic has a pretty good idea of who’s involved. The majority of folks here want this Forum to be a better place, with some level of professional conduct. That means everyone does his small part. And that gets honed down to just one word: respect.
This topic will NOT be deleted, or moved offline; but if necessary, it will be frozen in place and left at the top of the list as a reminder of how not to conduct yourself around here. The rules of behavior for this forum, clearly marked in red at the top of the main page, are still in place.
John & Neil, the mention of ‘bait’ implies someone is trying to snare Ann and Ramon into a silly argument. Perhaps some should review this thread to see who contributed erroneous info to spark pointless controversy within herself. And then clueless parrots follow along for the ride.
Ann Shelbourne – 12:46pm Sep 18, 08 PST (#11 of 75) Ann Shelbourne, "jpegs on one of my sites not working on PC Internet Explorer 7/Vista/IE6" #11, 18 Sep 2008 12:46 pm </webx?14/11>
I understand that IE is the most commonly used browser by the average Office worker who would probably be the most likely visitors to Jane’s site.
Ann Shelbourne – 1:10pm Sep 18, 08 PST (#13 of 75) Ann Shelbourne, "jpegs on one of my sites not working on PC Internet Explorer 7/Vista/IE6" #13, 18 Sep 2008 1:10 pm </webx?14/13>
One cannot have it both ways. Let Ann waste her time debating herself. No one needs to bait or participate in the personal conflicts exclusively within the heads of some here.
And no, I’m not picking on Ann. There’s plenty of blatant stupidity shared in this thread by all (even me, for trying to explain web design to certain argumentative folk that clearly have no business in web design).
And Neil, I still think you are failing as a host when you specifically address me when there are plenty of other players here, some calling others ‘morons’ and ‘dogs’. You are way off base. Forum Operations will be made aware.
