Re: web colors puzzle - more q's

Hey! More questions gets you more answers here. Isn't that
great? Isn't that what the lists are all about? And you
know what? I don't remember these questions being asked
before! (Well, not in quite these words at least...) Cool...

> 1) If my computer displays an image fine from a browser
( IE and/or NN) and
> I have NOT converted to web-safe colors (which you
usually cannot do with
> scanned in images), why do I need to ensure an image is
"web-safe" regarding
> the colors?  I mean, isn't my computer being able to
display them in these
> browsers proof that the browsers have the capability to
display them?

Browsers are not the limiting factor. They are called
web-safe colors, but not because of the web's limiting.
Because people on the web have wildly different graphics
capabilities. So yes, you can display them but other
people may not get all the color information, because
their computer (in any program) is not capable of
displaying all of the colors. The purpose of the web-safe
colors (or any limited palette) is to control how an image
will appear for people with low-depth monitors/cards.

> 2) If my computer can display these images fine, why is
it that certain
> other computers display them fine and certain others
cannot?  Is this
> dependent on their graphics card? If so, how does
converting to web-safe
> colors help this matter at all?

You are right on. Graphics card and monitor. Though
remember, people could have quite capable hardware and
simply never had the computer setup to display higher res.
 
> 3) And what may be the most important question of all
pending answers to the
> above: What is the best accepted way  of scanning images
in and ensuring
> that they are capable of being displayed as I intend
them to look? An
> example is http://www.a-rtextiles.com/Samples.htm .  The
images on the left
> on my system (Gateway/Win95 with IE 4.0 and NN 4.0 )
look great.  I'm not
> sure that they will on all other's computers though.
> 
This is the dilemna of web-safe colors. On the one hand
you want to control how an image will dither (browsers are
not as good at images as a real image-editor. take
resizing for example.) One the other hand, you don't want
to throw out information that would benefit someone with a
better computer. In general, since .gifs are limited to
256 colors anyways, I try to get them to use as few colors
as possible. For scanned images and pictures and .jpgs,
they have 16mil + colors. You can't just use the web-safe
colors anyways, so don't bother. Also, realize that
different monitors will always look different than yours,
whether it is because the person likes the contrast turned
down or they are on another platform or they have
flourescent lighting in their office. So just go for the
best combination of quality and filesize and hope for the
best.

Luke

===

                - ( luke opperman ) -
     Spigot Graphics, Cohesive Design for the Web
          - ( http://spigot.hypermart.net/ ) -  

-- ..some tiny cows, two brushstrokes each,
       but confidently cows.. - 'Poem' by Elizabeth Bishop




---Keith <kdsell(at)surfsouth.com> wrote:
>
> Got another question since we're on the subject.  I'm
still not quite
> straight on all this web-safe color thing.  I've been
designing for quite a
> while now and I've done my best to understand the color
situation. What I
> don't understand though is the following:
> 
> 1) If my computer displays an image fine from a browser
( IE and/or NN) and
> I have NOT converted to web-safe colors (which you
usually cannot do with
> scanned in images), why do I need to ensure an image is
"web-safe" regarding
> the colors?  I mean, isn't my computer being able to
display them in these
> browsers proof that the browsers have the capability to
display them?
> 
> 2) If my computer can display these images fine, why is
it that certain
> other computers display them fine and certain others
cannot?  Is this
> dependent on their graphics card? If so, how does
converting to web-safe
> colors help this matter at all?
> 
> 3) And what may be the most important question of all
pending answers to the
> above: What is the best accepted way  of scanning images
in and ensuring
> that they are capable of being displayed as I intend
them to look? An
> example is http://www.a-rtextiles.com/Samples.htm .  The
images on the left
> on my system (Gateway/Win95 with IE 4.0 and NN 4.0 )
look great.  I'm not
> sure that they will on all other's computers though.
> 
> TIA,
> Keith D. Sellars
> WebGraffix
> www.webgraffix.com
> 
> 
> 

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free (at)yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

HWG: hwg-graphics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA