stolen contrast, by TE

You're on Page 3 of 3
Go to
  • Re: stolen contrast, by TE
    That's indeed very strange. So the only explanation for the smaller size on the TE version is that you chose to delete the EXIF information permanently before hit the post button. I don't know what happens when you do that (perhaps Adam can explain...), but that's the only explanation I can find... But the bytes difference is somehow large. Never thought a simple exif info would take so much.
  • Re: stolen contrast, by TE
    ... but I didn't delete anything!

    I left the exif info as it is, untouched...
    I think greg hit the nail on the head: the picture had a color profile which is unused on TE and hence automatically deleted.

    Thanks for looking into it again though :D
    All the best,
    Julia
  • Re: stolen contrast, by TE
    true!
    i do see some diference, especially in the building.
  • Re: stolen contrast, by TE
    I do see a slight difference in the contrast of the building. Some web sites convert your RGB format to sRGB. They claim that sRGB looks better in web. Could that be the cause?

    Andre'
  • Re: stolen contrast, by TE
    It's a colour profiles issue. The version on your website has an embedded AdobeRGB profile, the version on TE doesn't; perhaps because TE strips them? Since there are very few browsers that support embedded profiles, most of us can't see any difference.

    Safari is one of the few profile aware browsers that I know of, so I guess you're using a Mac? Or masochistic enough to download the beta ;)

    Have a look at this test page: Embedded profiles test

    I disagree with his assumptions though. It's assumed, by Adobe, and most other folk, that web images are implicitly sRGB - so assuming everything is sRGB for web saves us all bandwidth.

    Using SaveForWeb converts the colours to sRGB, but only tags it <i>if</i> you check the box.
  • Re: stolen contrast, by TE
    did u save for web?