Editing High Res Images for Web

[hubell]

I  would be interested to hear how others are taking high resolution files initially edited and prepared for print and converting them for the web. It seems that there are significant differences in the way images converted to sRGB for the web appear in Safari v. Firefox and Internet Explorer. The tonal and color balance in Safari look much more faithful  to the original in Photoshop. Is Safari color managed under the hood and others are not?
Thanks.

[wolfnowl]

I can't answer that question, but (without meaning to be obtuse), I ask another questions - how much does it matter?  The reason being that the very process of putting images on the web means that they'll be viewed by all sorts of people with a variety of monitors, using several different browsing programs and in an infinite variety of lighting conditions - none of which you can control.  To me, putting an image on the web is rather like raising a child.  You make the image the best you can, and then you put it out there on its own...

Mike.

[Harris Edelman]

Is Safari color managed under the hood and others are not?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=180069\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes.


-H.

[redbutt]

As Harris said above...yes Safari is profile aware.  And as the other poster said...it really doesn't matter.  You should make sure the image looks as you desire on your calibrated monitor, save to sRGB colorspace and post the image.  That's all you can do...the rest is completely out of your control.

[jonstewart]

As Harris said above...yes Safari is profile aware.  And as the other poster said...it really doesn't matter.  You should make sure the image looks as you desire on your calibrated monitor, save to sRGB colorspace and post the image.  That's all you can do...the rest is completely out of your control.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181022\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Absolutely correct. It's one of the vagaries of the interweb, that you have no control whatsoever over the quality of other peoples screens, nor how badly their colour settings and display are showing your photos.

My only thought is that, where possible, it would be best for clients to see the photos first on your calibrated monitor, which may well, in part or whole, defeat the purpose of showing them on the internet in the first place.

I guess it would be worthwhile doing this for client groups who are likely to apply a discerning eye to your photos, but other punters (eg Joe public, looking at their portrait session) are not likely to notice or question the 'apparent' deficiencies in colour, brightness etc as much if at all, especially if they have chosen your services based on actually finished products of yours that they have seen 'in the flesh' so to speak.

(Just my opinion of course!)
J

[hubell]

Absolutely correct. It's one of the vagaries of the interweb, that you have no control whatsoever over the quality of other peoples screens, nor how badly their colour settings and display are showing your photos.
J
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181079\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks, very interesting. I have seen several websites of photographers that have " viewing notes" as to how your computer should be set up to maximize the visual accuracy of the photography galleries displayed, yet I do not recall anyone recommending the use of Safari.

[Chris Livsey]

t I do not recall anyone recommending the use of Safari.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181184\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It's a big ask to specify MAC for best viewing, less so to ask if you see a grey scale properly.

[jonstewart]

Thanks, very interesting. I have seen several websites of photographers that have " viewing notes" as to how your computer should be set up to maximize the visual accuracy of the photography galleries displayed, yet I do not recall anyone recommending the use of Safari.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Most people wouldn't know what Safari was if you didn't give them a clue!

Probably in part or largely because the use of Macs is a very small minority of the computer owning population, especially here in Europe, where it seems that the vast majority of Mac users are 'Creatives', and everybody else uses regular PC's.

I was interested wandering around one of our UK trade photo shows, a couple of weeks ago, to see that for anything to do with showing photographs, or showing how well some piece of hardware worked, a Mac was used, but on the same stands, by and large, the business end was all PC's (HP's Dells etc).

(I use both Vista and Leopard, and think it's 6 of one; I use vista on the MacPro, and Leopard on the MacbookPro)

The idea of giving viewing notes is good, per se, especially if you have clientele who would actually bother to read and do
J!

EDIT: I've just remembered that Safari IS available for windows, but I don't see many people installing it just to view a site better.

See [a href=\"http://www.apple.com/safari/]http://www.apple.com/safari/[/url]

[eronald]

What about sharpening ? and brightness ?

Edmund

[jjj]

What about sharpening ? and brightness ?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I use a sharpening for web action in PS to run by images reduced for web and brightness is set to look good on my monitor. If your monitor is set up right, there's nothing you can do about other's monitors bar having a grayscale and a few pointers, like this from [a href=\"http://www.dramainnature.com/monitor_calibration.htm]Drama in Nature[/url].

[redbutt]

What about sharpening ? and brightness ?

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181205\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Again...If the image looks like you want it to look on *your* monitor, that is the best you can do.  No matter what you do, you can't change a random web site visitors brightness and contrast.  And, I'd be willing to bet that most "average" folks out there don't know where their brightness and contrast controls are to be able to adjust them.

Oh...and in case anyone wants the numbers...Mac is currently at about 3% market share in the PC market.  Of that 3% the overwhelming majority are graphics/audio professionals.

[redbutt]

EDIT: I've just remembered that Safari IS available for windows, but I don't see many people installing it just to view a site better.

See http://www.apple.com/safari/
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181196\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

In my "day job" we saw a big spike (big is relative...I think a grand total of 1% increase) in Safari usage the week the Windows beta was released, and then very quickly usage went back to the baseline  numbers.  The Windows version is buggy, and I think most people are using it (as I am) to be able to test web site functionality in Safari without owning a Mac.