Jump to content
🇩🇪 Neu: Leica SL3 Reporter ×
🇺🇸🇬🇧 New: Leica SL3 Reporter ×

Firefox vs Safari (color shift)

yoMammabot

By yoMammabot
in Digital Forum

Recommended Posts

yoMammabot

yoMammabot

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Some clever person mentioned that there are inconsistencies with the way that Firefox and Safari displays color. I opened both browsers and took a screen shot of them side by side on my Mac.

 

Here are my findings.

 

Firefox on the left and Safari on the right. I had no idea it was so different!

 

Cheers!

 

406573823_9eb28f5d3e_o.jpg

 

-matt

Link to post
Share on other sites
nryn

nryn

Posted
Posted

Without being too elitist, they're different because Safari is better. :)

 

Last I checked, Firefox still didn't support embedded ICC profiles. Webkit browsers such as Safari and OmniWeb fully support ColorSync.

 

For the record, fonts look better in Safari as well. Much better, in fact. I hear that internally, Webkit is a complete mess, but the results are hard to beat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ckthual

ckthual

Posted
Posted

Hi,

 

In order to have your image looking the same, or close, in both browsers :

- make sure you save your image in sRBG

- Use your display at Gamma 2.2 (System pref>Displays>color>calibrate, or something like that, mymac is in french...)

 

Optional but so useful : Calibrate your screen with a colourimeter, I bought a Spyder 2 Express, it's not very expensive...

 

Kind regards

Link to post
Share on other sites
jonoslack

jonoslack

Posted
Posted
Some clever person mentioned that there are inconsistencies with the way that Firefox and Safari displays color. I opened both browsers and took a screen shot of them side by side on my Mac.

 

Here are my findings.

 

Firefox on the left and Safari on the right. I had no idea it was so different!

 

Cheers!

 

406573823_9eb28f5d3e_o.jpg

 

-matt

 

WOW - so that's why Tim was moaning about the colour of our AGA - though - to be honest, It looks too pink in both of those shots (I was using Safari to look at it as well).

 

Still, the difference is big - the worst thing with Firefox is that it's so unpredictable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
stunsworth

stunsworth

Posted
Posted

Rather like Cedric I think the original Jpeg is in Adobe 98 rather than sRGB colour space - certainly the washed out colours are typical of that. The last thing I do before I save an image for upload is convert it to sRGB.

 

The vast majority of the people who look at anything posted on the internet will be using a non-colour aware browser such as IE or Firefox. This is one of those cases where you have to appeal to the lowest common denominator if you want people to see accurate colours in your images.

Link to post
Share on other sites
yoMammabot

yoMammabot

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

We should set up a sticky thread built just for Monitor calibration.

 

We're all using the finest optics on the planet... thats one variable we do not need to worry about ( WB and now matching Firmware is a pretty big variable though ;) )

 

We may as well at least try setting up our displays to render the colors as all these wonderful photographers originally record them.

 

I am certain that my Dell 2405FPW monitor is off.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso

Guest guy_mancuso

Posted
Posted

It's funny I have been using Firefox all along. Weird thing is my monitor and firefox match. Maybe i need to switch back

Link to post
Share on other sites
sandymc

sandymc

Posted
Posted

Subject to all the other 500 things that can go wrong in color management, if you save an image with an sRGB profile, Firefox, IE, etc as well as Safari should display essentially identically to your original (on the same monitor). If you save with any other profile, of the mainstream browsers, only Safari has any chance of getting it right.

 

Sandy

Link to post
Share on other sites
eronald

eronald

Posted
Posted
Hi,

 

In order to have your image looking the same, or close, in both browsers :

- make sure you save your image in sRBG

- Use your display at Gamma 2.2 (System pref>Displays>color>calibrate, or something like that, mymac is in french...)

 

Optional but so useful : Calibrate your screen with a colourimeter, I bought a Spyder 2 Express, it's not very expensive...

 

Kind regards

 

Good advice,.

 

The color management in the various applications is riddled with bugs. That goes for Safari, yes it does.

 

The photoshop display is the only one which is decently color managed, with certainty. Export sRGB to the rest of the world !

 

My advice to color newbies is to set all color management options to sRGB. Y

ou may not get the best color but what you will get will be correct everywhere.

Edmund

Link to post
Share on other sites
eronald

eronald

Posted
Posted
We should set up a sticky thread built just for Monitor calibration.

 

Why ? for complaints or advice ?

 

Truth is, the sad state of color management is such that whatever you do, you end up .... confused.

 

Edmund

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jamie Roberts

Jamie Roberts

Posted
Posted
It's funny I have been using Firefox all along. Weird thing is my monitor and firefox match. Maybe i need to switch back

 

Safari is colour managed, Firefox is not. IE is not. Laptops are not, period (the video cards and screens are still not manufactured well enough to be stable or reliable indicators of colour).

 

So there are a couple of things to bear in mind, and they're pretty important (I know a lot of you know this already, but here goes anyway):

  • If your clients are on Windows, they're not looking at color managed images on the web. No browser on Windows (not even Vista, IIRC) is color aware. This means they can't read an attached colour profile, even if it's in the shot.
  • No browser on the various UNIX / LINUX platforms is colour aware (that I know about)
  • Many programs strip out the color profile anyway when preparing shots for the Web. For example, PS's "Save for Web" has an option to include the colour profile on output or not. If it's not set to include it, not even Safari will render the right color. BTW--including the profile will make any JPEG you create for the Web about 100K bigger than it has to be :)
  • If you're prepping shots for many folks to look at, regardless of platform, you want to convert to sRGB in PS first, even if you don't include the profile. Why? Because sRGB is closest to an unprofiled / uncalibrated monitor space (that's a real crap shoot still) and much closer to profiled / calibrated monitor space. That doesn't mean diddly for critical colour, which is why all those internet discussions of color--except for gross differences--are usually crap, unless everyone is on a color managed Mac using Safari, and everyone has included the profile.
  • You still want a properly calibrated and profiled monitor to have a hope of making something look reasonably in the ballpark here.

I hope that helps some folks. This is why judging stuff like skin tones on a laptop--unless you're measuring CMYK or LAB values in PS--is such a crap shoot. You can't do it just by looking. Don't believe your eyes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
adan

adan

Posted
Posted

Jamie pretty well covered it - but in a nutshell: You have no control over how OTHERS on the web see your pictures, any more than you have significant control over how a web page looks. The browser THEY are using will trump all your best-laid plans - along with other things such as: their chosen default fonts/sizes, screen resolution, calibration, etc.

 

The best you can do is convert images to sRGB (or Gamma 2.2 grayscale for B&W) just before saving your aimed-at-the-Web jpegs.

 

My iMac has a screen resolution of about 99 pixels per inch - so I have to remember that folks viewing on older Macs (72ppi) will see my images much larger than I do, and so I size them a bit small on my screen so that they won't overwhelm on others'.

 

By the same token - if you are sizing your pictures to what you think is a nice readable size on a 72ppi Mac screen, you should be aware that they will look 1.33x smaller (funny how that number keeps cropping up!) on MY screen. I.E., an image 720 pixels wide will "look" 10" wide on a 72ppi Mac, but only 7.35" wide on my screen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jamie Roberts

Jamie Roberts

Posted
Posted
Jamie pretty well covered it - but in a nutshell: You have no control over how OTHERS on the web see your pictures, any more than you have significant control over how a web page looks. {snipped}.

 

Absolutely great advice Andy, and thanks for the explanation of why, when I do Web design, I still have it stuck in my head that 72ppi is lowest common denominator for screen resolution (I knew it but had forgotten).

 

By the way, this is why we still like to control all the printing stuff for our wedding clients (the corporate clients deal with CMYK printing, usually, and that's another kind of crap shoot!).

 

Anyway, the only thing worse than unmananged Web browser colour is un-colour-managed inkjet color. So the clients see stuff on the Web, then they print something totally different ;) So many people have not seen a good photographic print, I sometimes don't think they know what they're missing!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...