Simon writes ... > > Is there any reason NOT to profile tag images saved for web? > > The added profile appears to add hardly anything to the file size. > > > > I have been snooping around various highly respected > > photographers web sites (photographers from this list and > > known for advocating serious colour management) and I have been > > surprised to notice that the jpegs are not tagged. > > Is there any reason for this?
Most do not tag only because of the increase in file size, but as you point out, this isn't much ... but you shouldn't be tagging all JPEGs ... e.g., thumbs and icons don't need it, where as important imagery does. Since Mac gamma (1.8) may be associated with some macintosh browsers, it would be nice if there were a method for compensating for sRGB color space. MS IE for the mac will read and associate sRGB (or any other profile) with the image when the profile is embedded ... and it works great, but does come at some expense of time required for reading & compensating. I did hear somewhere ... or maybe it was suggested, that IE(Mac) should simply assume sRGB when no profile is embedded. cheerios ... shAf :o) Avalon Peninsula, Newfoundland www.micro-investigations.com =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
