Just out of interest........

[Simon Garrett]

Ady, no disagreement with you on this. If it looks OK, go with it. And I'm not going to say "told you so".

If you get problems with colour or colour matching (we all do from time to time), then colour management is one set of tools that might help you sort them out, and it's useful to have at the back of your mind that, at the moment at any rate, IE doesn't do colour management properly. That's all!

All the best to you too, S.

[ajohnw]

I think you are missing the point in 2 ways Simon. The intro of colour management is aimed at showing any profile as correctly as it can be shown on a sRGB monitor as the vast bulk of monitors by an absolutely enormous amount are sRGB and often poorly calibrated which is an entirely different problem.

In some ways this doesn't make much sense as certain aRGB colours just can't be shown on a sRGB monitor. The same is true the other way round however as the gradation of sRGB is smaller not so noticeable.

The other is a miss understanding about aRGB that I had some time ago due to the web. It has the same number of colours as sRGB but they are wider spaced. I gained the impression that it was a 3x10bit colour space. Try this page

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tu...obeRGB1998.htm

and also this one

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/adobe-rgb.htm

John
-

[Simon Garrett]

I think you are missing the point in 2 ways Simon. The intro of colour management is aimed at showing any profile as correctly as it can be shown on a sRGB monitor as the vast bulk of monitors by an absolutely enormous amount are sRGB and often poorly calibrated which is an entirely different problem.

In some ways this doesn't make much sense as certain aRGB colours just can't be shown on a sRGB monitor. The same is true the other way round however as the gradation of sRGB is smaller not so noticeable.

The other is a miss understanding about aRGB that I had some time ago due to the web. It has the same number of colours as sRGB but they are wider spaced. I gained the impression that it was a 3x10bit colour space. Try this page

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tu...obeRGB1998.htm

and also this one

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/adobe-rgb.htm

John
-

Thanks for the links.

Ken Rockwell's conclusion: "stick to sRGB" is sound. You lose little by sticking to sRGB as most pixels in most images have colours within sRGB. His explanation for his advice is not quite right, as he's probably trying to simplify it in a way that his readers don't need to understand much about colour.

The Cambridge in Colour stuff is much more accurately explained, but it's worth emphasising that it doesn't say "Adobe RGB has the same number of colours as sRGB". Colour spaces don't have a set number of colours. Clearly if you represent colour in numeric form, your representation has a finite number of combinations, which means that, as the C in C article points out, the larger the colour space the larger the step size between adjacent colours for a given numeric representation. For that reason, the article points out the drawbacks of using Adobe RGB, and I entirely agree - certainly for jpeg (8-bit per colour representation).

Ken is also well known for his views on colour management (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/colo...-for-wimps.htm) and I agree with some of what he says.

Provided you stick to sRGB, and you have a normal-gamut monitor (i.e. not wide-gamut) with a colour space close to sRGB, then usually colours won't be far off, even without colour management.

If you use any other colour space, if you have a wide-gamut monitor, or if you use Lightroom (or any other software that forces you to work in a wide colour space) then IMHO use of colour management is more or less a must.

I reckon the advantage of using colour management is not so much colour accuracy as colour consistency and predictability. But Ken is quite right to say you can get good results without, which is pretty self-evident as many people don't use colour management!

[Colin Southern]

Why anyone would have used IE in the past 6 or 8 years is just beyond me. "The internet browser with the open door policy, everybody welcome".

Been using Firefox for many years. They've got some great add ons as well. Glad to see you finally came to the realization.

http://secunia.com/vulnerability-rev..._security.html

[shreds]

http://secunia.com/vulnerability-rev..._security.html

So maybe its Saturday morning here, but just explain why those market share figures fail to add up to 100% ?

It may come as a surprise to Secunia that not everyone uses Windows OS. Installed and Use are very different things.

Plus unfortunately some of us do work occasionally for very backward organisations run by dinosaurs who only permit IE to access their systems. Other browsers fail badly as IE bolt ons such as Active X do not run correctly on other browsers. grrrr....

But I would happily bin IE for those companies if it were possible.

For my own work and those of my own company, we run other browsers quite happily 24/7

I think that the Secunia stats are just based upon the fact that MS bundles IE with all their software. But you don't have to use it. FF or Safari on a Mac are far better.

[Colin Southern]

So maybe its Saturday morning here, but just explain why those market share figures fail to add up to 100% ?

I took it to mean % PCs that it's installed on.

[ajohnw]

I took it to mean % PCs that it's installed on.

There are other browsers as well.

One of the things to remember about MS is that they publish security flaws before fixing them. It's very important to keep their stuff fully up to date. This only generally leaves vulnerabilities available for a fairly short period of time. There have also been at least one odd ball that probably wasn't a mistake. Something to do with image loading.

Oh - I have read that Opera has a significant share of mobile browsing including where safari is used. I also assume that they still sell it for PC use along with support. Businesses that take this up are mostly concerned about security and limiting what users can do with it. I suffered a couple of years of that at work at one time.

John
-

[ajohnw]

Colin you are clearly using the wrong gear see

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7NheLH1mfc

His web site is brilliant - watch the video on what is compression of perspective. - But I reckon getting on for 100m is better for scenes.

http://www.damianmcgillicuddy.com/videos-3/

Anyway back on topic. Firefox colour management is poorly written. Opera sometimes has a problem with web pages. It's usually down to web designers using browser "features" that is faults that are "useful" and basically using them is bad practice. So went to the site and loaded it with Firefox. That can have the same problem as well but it didn't. I use a matrix plus LUT colour management profile and one of the things that people recommend with these is to swap 2 of the colours over to check that software is using it correctly. It isn't which results in some rather odd colouring - models with green rather than red lips for instance. Some of his shots looks rather interesting but I think I will give colouring like that a miss.

For Linux users - Just switched to Konqueror and perfect. I'd guess the rest may be as well. Most use the same engine.

Suspect I will spend some time on his site - the blunt statement about compression is refreshing.

John
-

[Colin Southern]

There are other browsers as well.

One of the things to remember about MS is that they publish security flaws before fixing them. It's very important to keep their stuff fully up to date. This only generally leaves vulnerabilities available for a fairly short period of time.

Do they? I thought it was more a case of publishing the vulnerability as part of the description of the patch that fixes it. And in reality all people need to do it turn on automatic updating and let the PC do the rest. Patches are normally released every Tuesday ("Patch Tuesday" we call it).

Point I'm trying to make (and I say this as a primarily Chrome user) is that browsers along with UV filters, Mac -v- PC, religion etc seems to be one of the things people are somewhat divided on - and often the facts are the first to go out the window - and those stats (from an independent major player in the industry) are a good reality check. IE isn't everyone's cup of tea for sure; personally I find it just fine for 99% of things, but I got better compatibility with Google drive - and some parts of this site - using Chrome, so that's what I use now - so I really don't have any great bad feelings about IE - but the bottom line is that last year it had far less holes than either Chrome or Firefox - there's just no denying it.

[Colin Southern]

Colin you are clearly using the wrong gear see

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7NheLH1mfc

Sorry, but I just couldn't get past the heavy metal rock music - why the heck did he use that?

[ajohnw]

Sorry, but I just couldn't get past the heavy metal rock music - why the heck did he use that?

Probably goes with the pony tail and the part artificial leg, I thought some of it wasn't too bad but did turn the volume well down on some of them.

It looks like he runs demo's/training for Olympus UK. Also seems to use the gear. I like the description of the "compression" but the other video's other than watching him work were a bit off.

John
-

[Black Pearl]

While all this talk about rgb's, patches and such like is very nice I'll stick with my Safari.

I can be browsing something on the iMac at home, have to leave for work, turn the iPad on when I get there and continue where I left off. I can see a site on the iPhone and know it will be on the other devices within moments. Notifications from websites will pop up on my Pebble via the iPhone but I can view them on any of the the Apple devices without having to think about it.

For me it is all about integration and the ability to switch between devices regardless of where I am, what I am doing or how I want to interact with the content.

Might not be everyone's cup of tea but for me life is in the clouds.

[Colin Southern]

I can be browsing something on the iMac at home, have to leave for work, turn the iPad on when I get there and continue where I left off. I can see a site on the iPhone and know it will be on the other devices within moments. Notifications from websites will pop up on my Pebble via the iPhone but I can view them on any of the the Apple devices without having to think about it.

That bit never really appealed to me (I run safari on all iOS devices of course) - to be honest, the bit I like most with Chrome is simply adding a bookmark in one place and having it sync to my other installation.

[Black Pearl]

Safari on OSX and iOS does the same unless I'm missing something else?

[drjuice]

Well, there are several ways, John 2. What are you trying to accomplish?

0. Make a bookmark out of a fully qualified website link
1. Specify it in the Target pane of your FF properties table
or
2. Specify said bookmark as your FF home page
or
3. If you don't want to make a bookmark, --> Tools/Options and click the General tab. Then, specify the "a blank page" as your starter.

Then when the FF opens up, I click on the link that will get me to the page I'm working on. All of my stuff downstream is clickable off the website's front page using the navigation I've built into the front page which is the first page I build.

As a for instance, when I'm working on a new website, it's on the computer I'm using to build the site which has my full, preferred Apache2, PHP, and MySQL organized to provide a web server for me to use. So, I make a shortcut out of my FF browser which is automagically placed on my desktop. It has http://localhost/test/ as the preferred front page. As I mentioned above, the first thing I do with a site is to build what I want to use as the front page. That's front page is named index.htm which is what I've specified in the webserver setup as the default front page to be displayed.

If I didn't specify something that fits what you need, holler via a PM. I won't be back on here until next weekend most likely.

virginia