Backround problem

[Blue4meo]

ok ok ...i have a issue...I have made a template or my "design". And in my pictures I do alot of drop shadows and all. Well I have colored backround so I make the backround in my picture the same as the website. EXACTLY! But when you view it on the web you can see the backround of the picture, its a lighter color even though I used the same exact color!! If your confused please look at what im talking about. www.gardencrest.com . Would it possibly have anything to do with saving it as a GIF, sense they only have 256 colors? If you can help , that would be awesome! Thanx!

[don5408]

"when you view it on the web you can see the backround of the picture, its a lighter color even though I used the same exact color"

Hi, Mark. The colors *do* match up perfectly in my browser (they appeared identical 'by eye' and I double-checked it with a color utility which confirms both the .gif background and page bgcolor as 57748D). Perhaps others will take a look and add their two cents but from where I sit it would appear that the issue is something on your end.

Best o' luck solving the *mystery*!
Don

[Blue4meo]

Thank you! I will see whats the matter. Thank you!

[factory99]

The same on my computer. The colors match up perfectly

[El_Nino]

It matches perfectly here too. Make sure the color depth on your video card is set to True Color 32bit instead of High Color 16bit.

[lakatz]

Hi there Mark --

I am surfing this site because I'm considering hostrocket as my host, and I happened upon your post. I DO see a definite visible difference in color on your 360 page, and I have a solution to your problem.

360 is the only page I tested using a program called eyedropper and viewing it in MSIE 6.0 with my video card set for 16-bit color (more on that in the next paragraph). The background of the picture is a pure color, 588CD0, however the background of the web page is a checkerboard of sorts of four different colors, 5888C8, 588CD0, 5888D0 and 608CD0.

Regarding the use of 16-bit color, I disagree with El Nino's recommendation to use 32-bit color instead of 16-bit. The designer should be designing for the user, not for him/herself. When I'm designing a web site, my goal is to make it as consistent and as accessible as possible for as many users as possible. Not all of your viewers are going to be using 32-bit color for a number of reasons. I originally remained with 16-bit color myself because I work in a 3D interactive program that works best in 16-bit color. I have since found that I can anticipate the color needs of more browsers (and more users) if I test my sites in 16-bit color.

A solution I recommend in your case is the use of websafe colors. I know that many view it as an old-fashioned notion that caters to the almost obsolete 256 color mode, but I've found that even in 16-bit color, colors other than websafe colors still DO behave differently in different browsers. And that has certainly proven to be true in your case.

Eyedropper is an extremely helpful program when designing web sites, and it's freeware available at webattack.com -- .www.webattack.com/get/eyedrop.shtml (http://www.webattack.com/get/eyedrop.shtml) . I hope this helps. If there's anything else I can do to help, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

lakatz
threezerothree.com (http://threezerothree.com)

[don5408]

"I DO see a definite visible difference in color on your 360 page"

So do I, the difference on that particular page is clearly visible to the 'naked eye'.

Just FYI to lakatz (whose observations and suggestions I don't necessarily disagree with) this isn't exactly an apples to apples comparison...it looks like Mark has been working on his site over the last month and while I can't speak to what was there when the other posters visited on 6/28 what you are looking at today isn't representative of what was there when I followed that link on 6/6.

One thing that I did notice is that on the 360.htm page in which the background color doesn't match up to color of the image background rather than specifying a bgcolor of 588cd0 Mark is using a 1x1 pixel gif as a background image. For whatever reason rather than tiling that 1x1 pixel gif as a solid background the result in my browser (IE6) is the 4x4 pixel "4 color checkerboard" effect lakatz mentioned.


608cd0 _|_ 5888c8
5888d0 | 588cd0

Out of curiousity I saved a local copy of 360.htm adding a base href tag and replacing the background= in the body tag with a bgcolor= tag and the result was a page with a solid 588cd0 background which matched up with the background of the images. As such in addition to lakatz' advice to stick with websafe colors Mark may want to try specifying bgcolor="#588cd0" rather than using the image in the body tag on that particular page, I can't speak to all browsers however that change did the trick on my system (IE6, 16bit high color).

Best wishes
Don

[lakatz]

Hi Mark and Don --

Well I'm STILL online comparing web hosting services, and I got an email that you posted Don. Hostrocket is looking more and more inviting all the time.

That's interesting additional information about Mark's graphics. Thanks! It just makes the mystery even more mysterious!

Now I have some MORE interesting input. After I posted here I took the eyedropper to my own site just to test how it would read my websafe bg color, 336699, which is written into the html code, and it read the 4 x 4 checkerboard there also. The numbers average out basically to 336699.

I also tested the rounded corner on the main pages (services, portfolio, clients, etc.) of my site because I made that in Photoshop using the hexadecimal code 336699 in the color picker, and it comes up with the same colors in the same 4 x 4 checkerboard. So I know, at least, Photoshop's colors are calibrated okay.

Curiouser and curiouser...

PS Don -- I recognize that voyeuristic eye in your signature. Is that your creation? If so, it's very possible I've been to your site, or the site of someone who knicked it. If it IS your creation, I'd love to know your web address, so I can go see if I don't experience a little more deja vu. THANKS!