Flickr or ???

Started Jul 12, 2012 | Discussions thread
CSMR
Regular MemberPosts: 449
Like?
Re: Flickr or ???
In reply to bronxbombers, Jul 25, 2012

They don't employ people to actively deny you from doing this. They just did not do the work to implement the feature, with the structural work and user interface elements involved.

It's fairly rare for this to be a good idea, as just as you say, the users need to be using the right browsers. So the market for the feature is small. People understand that you should covert to sRGB for upload to web.

In the future, when the main browsers get better, then it will be time to post non-sRGB images. But it may take several years as web technology moves very very slowly and not many people are interested in the idea of correctness. I am all for color management and 16 bit image formats of course, but you have to accept the current state of the web.

I am not sure what they do for printing and image download, but there things ought to be better as they can work from the original file and color space. But I haven't checked what they actually do.

bronxbombers wrote:

Not as it should since sometimes you want to be able to share wide gamut images with people. In this day and age there is no reason to be denied the option. Firefox handles it all perfectly. Safari mostly does. IE9 won't let you take advantage of wide gamut but it will make the images look normal on a regular monitor. Google Chrome is the only current browser that will make a total muddle of it.

It's tiresome to never get to be able to see other people's work in wide gamut with the likes of Smugmug and Zenfolio insisting that they know better in all cases. No they do not. They may as well start converting some images to B&W only if they decided some are best seen in B&W.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow