Color Management: Color Management and the web

[Chain]

I am happy to report that Firefox 3.5 has enabled color-management (for tagged images) by default. This means that if an image is not sRGB (e.g. Adobe RGB) it will still display correctly (if the image is correctly tagged). Basically images will look the same as in Photoshop.

Read more here: http://hacks.mozilla.org/2009/06/color-correction/

This means you are more likely to view images here on retouchpro correctly (as people sometimes forget to convert to sRGB before uploading). I recommend everyone to upgrade now (ESPECIALLY if you are using Internet Explorer) - Firefox 3.5 is also faster, more memory efficient, and has some neat new features (like private browsing that doesn't leave any tracks).

Note that you should still convert to sRGB if the image is intended to be viewed on web since most people still use old crappy browsers

[Chain]

Also, I can confirm that the new Safari 4 is color managed as well.

I know of no other browsers that does this - but if yours does, tell us in a comment

[ReneDamkot]

FF 3.5 is color managed by default: The same way Safari is. Only for tagged images.
If you want to fully color manage FF 3.5, you still have to set gfx:color_management.mode to 1. Link

Also, there's a bug in 3.5. It doesn't play nice with wide gamut screens, and does not recognize ICC V4 profiles. I'm sticking with FF 3.0.1 (Or Flock 2.5) for now.

Upcoming version of Chrome is color managed supposedly.
OmniWeb 5.1.3 is color managed when set to be in the prefs.

Internet Explorer for Mac used to be if set.

[Chain]

I'd still say FF 3.5 is better than 3 out of the box and the color management apparently a lot quicker. Most users shouldn't need to mess around with the more advanced hidden settings anyway (and even doing that won't make the old cm as good as the new). The only advantage v3 has over v3.5 that I can see is that it supports the v4 profiles.

Going into the settings and turning on the full color management will make it color manage everything - not only images. That means it will start to shift the color values on e.g. the background. If the background color was supposed to exactly match the color of a plugin (like flash) - it might no longer match (unless they have figured out a way to color-manage plug-ins in 3.5, I didn't check). For this reason I think it's wise to leave that setting at default.

Those who use custom 4.0 profiles and wide gamut screens (that you mention) for their images will just have to remember to convert to sRGB (as everyone still should do for web). The bug you linked is however listed as "RESOLVED FIXED" so I figure it will be fixed when the next update rolls out.

[ReneDamkot]

Originally Posted by Chain

(and even doing that won't make the old cm as good as the new).

What would be the difference?

Originally Posted by Chain

The only advantage v3 has over v3.5 that I can see is that it supports the v4 profiles.

That and FF 3.0 actually working okay with wide Gamut screens...
Tested it and it's slightly off on my screen as well. No idea yet why. I have a LaCie CRT. Not wide gamut I'd say

Originally Posted by Chain

That means it will start to shift the color values on e.g. the background.

Exactly opposite actually.
Safari is the one that causes "wonkiness": http://www.smugmug.com/help/safari/safari.html. And now FF 3.5 at default as well.

Originally Posted by Chain

If the background color was supposed to exactly match the color of a plugin (like flash)

Flash is not color managed prior to Flash Player 10. And that one assumes sRGB for the images. Link.

Originally Posted by Chain

Those who use custom 4.0 profiles and wide gamut screens (that you mention) for their images will just have to remember to convert to sRGB (as everyone still should do for web).

Obviously that'll work instead of V4 profiles. But it'll do absolutely nothing for the users with a wide gamut screen. They have to use FF3.0.11 or wait for 3.5.1

Originally Posted by Chain

The bug you linked is however listed as "RESOLVED FIXED" so I figure it will be fixed when the next update rolls out.

Yep. 3.5.1
AFAIK that one will also read V4 profiles.

[ReneDamkot]

Okay. Did a quick test. Opened an sRGB image (with embedded profile) in Photoshop, Safari4, FF 3.5, FF3, Preview and Flock 2.5. All color managed, FF 3.5 fully.

Same image that's on my weblog if you're curious.

Results: FF3, Flock an FF 3.5 are slightly sharper. Safari is closest to PS sharpness wise, Preview is softest. (serious pixel peeping )

Safari and preview "jump" a bit (looks like an additional line of pixels in Safari, a bit different size in preview) Might be a result of the screenshooting.

FF 3.0 and flock are about identical to PSCS4 color wise.
Preview & Safari are a bit darker then the rest.
FF 3.5 is *way* off.

Opened the screenshots in PSCS4.
Set two color pickers at a random spot in the neck and in the lower left.

These are the values (the monitor profile as color space): Notice a trend?

PSCS4: (236; 95; 107) (5; 2; 6)
PSCS4 using Apple CMM (trying to explain the difference between PS and OSX): (236; 95; 108) (5; 2; 6)
FF3.0: (235; 94; 107) (5; 2; 6)
Flock2.5: (235; 94; 107) (5; 2; 6)
Safari: (234; 98; 110) (3; 2; 3)
Preview: (234; 98; 109) (3; 2; 3)
FF3.5: (246; 100; 100) (7; 2; 8)

[Chain]

Originally Posted by ReneDamkot

Exactly opposite actually.

Opposite = it will not alter the values given at all? Isn't that the default when it is not color managed? #333333 is displayed as #333333 by the monitor instead of being corrected to e.g. #343434 (when it uses a profile to convert the color). Did i misunderstand you?

Anyway, if people do not want color management in their browser for some reason, they can turn it off (and non sRGB-images will always be a bit wrong) - or use an old browser. If you want to really study an image it should be popped open in Photoshop or something anyway

[ReneDamkot]

Originally Posted by Chain

Opposite = it will not alter the values given at all? Isn't that the default when it is not color managed? #333333 is displayed as #333333 by the monitor instead of being corrected to e.g. #343434 (when it uses a profile to convert the color). Did i misunderstand you?

Opposite = Safari will show a difference between a background color and an image, where both FF3 and a non color managed browser will not.

The color shown will obviously be different between color managed and not color managed... Then again, safe to assume that the color managed browser is "right", and the other one is not.

Even safer to assume that Safari (And FF 3.5 at default) will make a mess of the page I linked to in post #5.

[Chain]

Version 3.5.1 of Firefox has now been released.

[ReneDamkot]

FF 3.5.2 is out, and still won't work with my (LUT based) monitor profile...
Also, V4 profiles still aren't supported.

[Chain]

Good to know for those with such "special" monitor profiles. For the rest though I guess it works great