• Members 2285 posts
    May 8, 2023, 6:03 a.m.

    w727.1web 2.jpg

    w727.1web 2.jpg

    JPG, 814.9 KB, uploaded by DonaldB on May 8, 2023.

  • Members 2285 posts
    May 8, 2023, 6:11 a.m.

    looks good on my screen, had problems a week ago, but looks like it corrected itself.

  • Members 218 posts
    May 8, 2023, 12:46 p.m.

    Looks good to me, and I like the contrast of the spider and leaf, nice 👍

  • Members 38 posts
    May 8, 2023, 1:50 p.m.

    Looks good to me too. Nice photo!

    I do notice a difference between Firefox and a chromium browser (Edge) though:
    The image is more saturated in Firefox. In Edge it looks slightly lighter.
    I think the difference is in the way these browsers deal with images that don't have an embedded ICC profile. FF does not assume a profile while Chrome (or Chromium based browser) assumes sRGB in that case.

    Long story short, what your photo looks like to others -amongst other things like monitor used and calibration/profiling- depends on the browser they use.
    Whether one or the other approach is correct behaviour is another discussion. You could argue the EXIF tags in the image should be enough to apply the correct profile without making assumptions at all:
    Under XMP it says> ICC Profile Name: sRGB IEC61966-2.1
    Under EXIF it says> Color Space: sRGB

    Yet, until differences or some would say bugs in how different browsers (fail to) deal with this are resolved, the safest option is to embed a profile.

  • Members 252 posts
    May 8, 2023, 2:04 p.m.

    I am using three different browser (Firefox/Chrome/Opera) and the colors of your image are exactly the same in each.

    I have seen this spider image from you before however and while I think it does look good now it also looked good back 'then', whenever 'then' was.

    Ray