Photos at IE, Firefox, Opera

Why on earth do photos look much better on this PC when I browse them by IE
rather than by Firefox and Opera?
For example this
https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/bi...mano-foto1.jpg


--
Luigi Donatello Asero
https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/it/svezia.html
我是�大利人

Luigi Donatello Asero

Luigi Donatello Asero wrote:

> Why on earth do photos look much better on this PC when I browse them
> by IE rather than by Firefox and Opera? For example this
> https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/bi...mano-foto1.jpg

...looks the same to me in all three of those browsers.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck.

Luigi Donatello Asero wrote:
> Why on earth do photos look much better on this PC when I browse them by IE
> rather than by Firefox and Opera?
> For example this
> https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/bi...mano-foto1.jpg


I can't see any difference in the picture quality when viewed on the
latest versions of Opera, Firefox, and IE6. However browsers have a few
settings that allow you to change how an image is viewed. It is
possible that some of these settings for your browsers might be
different from those for mine. For exampe, when you select the "view"
tab on Opera, you are given 3 ways to view the picture. Firefox has a
selection under advanced options to resize images to fit the screen,
but since your example is 640 x 480 px this should not matter unless
one is using a very narrow screen width on a very old computer or some
hand-held device. Some browsers center the images, others not. Some use
a white background, and some use black. Opera uses both white and black
depending on options that you select. I did not investigate this
subject in detail, so if you search the more obscure menus of the
various browers, you may find more settings for the image.

"cwdjrxyz" <> skrev i meddelandet
news: ups.com...
>
> Luigi Donatello Asero wrote:
> > Why on earth do photos look much better on this PC when I browse them by
IE
> > rather than by Firefox and Opera?
> > For example this
> >
https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/bi...mano-foto1.jpg
>
>
> I can't see any difference in the picture quality when viewed on the
> latest versions of Opera, Firefox, and IE6.

So, how does it look like? Bad in all of them or good in all of them?
They look different on Windows 98 but on another PC where I use Windows XP
they look quite the same at IE and Firefox.


However browsers have a few
> settings that allow you to change how an image is viewed. It is
> possible that some of these settings for your browsers might be
> different from those for mine. For exampe, when you select the "view"
> tab on Opera, you are given 3 ways to view the picture.

Which ones and which version of Opera were you talking about?

Firefox has a
> selection under advanced options to resize images to fit the screen,
> but since your example is 640 x 480 px this should not matter unless
> one is using a very narrow screen width on a very old computer or some
> hand-held device.


Some browsers center the images, others not. Some use
> a white background, and some use black. Opera uses both white and black
> depending on options that you select. I did not investigate this
> subject in detail, so if you search the more obscure menus of the
> various browers, you may find more settings for the image.

Well, the background might play a role at Opera.
But what about Firefox?


--
Luigi Donatello Asero
https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/it/svezia.html
我是�大利人

Luigi Donatello Asero wrote:

> So, how does it look like? Bad in all of them or good in all of them?
> They look different on Windows 98 but on another PC where I use Windows XP
> they look quite the same at IE and Firefox.

I am using Windows XP with all upgrades. Browsers used were Firefox
1.5.0.7, IE6, Netscape 8.1, Mozilla 1.7.13, Opera 9.01, Netscape 4.8,
Amaya 8.1b, and a WebTV viewer program. Because your image is on a
secure page the Amaya browser and WebTV viewer will not display the
image at all. When all of these browsers are in their default settings
as delivered, you view the image at full pixel size, and it appears
exactly the same to me. All have a white background in the default
settings. However in opera you can use f11 to switch between a white
and full-screen black background. You can also select a small image on
Opera. I do not recall any changes in image quality over many upgrades
of most of the mentioned browsers.

How images look is a subjective decision. It depends on the quality of
the photo, the resolution used for the digital image, etc. This can be
very subjective. Unless one has an expert Hollywood makeup artist, a
close up photo of a woman often looks better to many if the photo is
made slightly out of focus. This hides pores, hairs, and tiny skin
blemishes. Thus higher resolution does not always mean "better" on a
subjective basis. Also, many computer monitors and TVs have never been
carefully adjusted for accurate color rendition, contrast, brightness,
etc. Before one starts discussing how images view on two different
computers or TV sets, on should be certain that both have been
calibrated, or the discussion has little meaning. The best way to do
this is to use a calibration DVD designed for adjusting home theatre.
However I have a page that will let you see if the most important
monitor adjustments are far off. It is at
http://www.cwdjr.net/tool/a_color_bars.html . Of course, on an absolute
basis, the images used on most web pages are quite poor because of the
low pixel count used to avoid slow downloads. A good digital photo
these days will be at least 2M and even 10 M for the better cameras.
Enlarge most web page images a bit, and and you will soon see what I
mean.

You mentioned Windows 98 as well as XP. I wonder if 98 has the same
color depth as XP? Color depth has more to do with accuracy of color
rendition than anything else. There could be other things different for
98 or other old OSs that might have some influence on how images are
displayed. I have never used a Windows OS earlier than XP.

"cwdjrxyz" <> skrev i meddelandet
news: ups.com...
>
> Luigi Donatello Asero wrote:
>
> > So, how does it look like? Bad in all of them or good in all of them?
> > They look different on Windows 98 but on another PC where I use Windows
XP
> > they look quite the same at IE and Firefox.
>
> I am using Windows XP with all upgrades. Browsers used were Firefox
> 1.5.0.7, IE6, Netscape 8.1, Mozilla 1.7.13, Opera 9.01, Netscape 4.8,
> Amaya 8.1b, and a WebTV viewer program. Because your image is on a
> secure page the Amaya browser and WebTV viewer will not display the
> image at all. When all of these browsers are in their default settings
> as delivered, you view the image at full pixel size, and it appears
> exactly the same to me. All have a white background in the default
> settings. However in opera you can use f11 to switch between a white
> and full-screen black background. You can also select a small image on
> Opera. I do not recall any changes in image quality over many upgrades
> of most of the mentioned browsers.
>
> How images look is a subjective decision. It depends on the quality of
> the photo, the resolution used for the digital image, etc. This can be
> very subjective. Unless one has an expert Hollywood makeup artist, a
> close up photo of a woman often looks better to many if the photo is
> made slightly out of focus. This hides pores, hairs, and tiny skin
> blemishes. Thus higher resolution does not always mean "better" on a
> subjective basis. Also, many computer monitors and TVs have never been
> carefully adjusted for accurate color rendition, contrast, brightness,
> etc. Before one starts discussing how images view on two different
> computers or TV sets, on should be certain that both have been
> calibrated, or the discussion has little meaning. The best way to do
> this is to use a calibration DVD designed for adjusting home theatre.
> However I have a page that will let you see if the most important
> monitor adjustments are far off. It is at
> http://www.cwdjr.net/tool/a_color_bars.html . Of course, on an absolute
> basis, the images used on most web pages are quite poor because of the
> low pixel count used to avoid slow downloads. A good digital photo
> these days will be at least 2M and even 10 M for the better cameras.
> Enlarge most web page images a bit, and and you will soon see what I
> mean.

> You mentioned Windows 98 as well as XP. I wonder if 98 has the same
> color depth as XP?
Perhaps they do not. But how does that explain why the colours are displayed
in a very different way on
IE, Opera and Firefox using the same OP on the same computer?

--
Luigi Donatello Asero
www.om-italien.eu
她是澳大利亚人