digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Firefox/Camino vs. Safari Image Quality -- Big difference (IMAGE)

flickr.com — There seems to be a pretty big significance between these two browser in terms of displaying this image. Not sure why this is happening ... but it's making me consider leaving my favorite browser.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • stonyhill, on 10/10/2007, -115/+302I've run into this before. If you upload a photo with attached color profile, Safari will render it, but other browsers will ignore it. If you output the photo with "Save for Web" in Photoshop, Photoshop will strip the color profile, and it will display identically in all browsers.

    In my opinion, Safari is actually the "broken" behavior in this scenario.
    • Jo9100, on 10/10/2007, -10/+55The More You Know
      • ShrimpCrackers, on 10/10/2007, -20/+14Its okay, already working on fixing this for Firefox. Thats why OpenSource is better in the long term...
        • kris33, on 10/10/2007, -0/+36The core of Safari that render images is Open Source.
        • arjung, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4i think he was saying that if IE was at fault, the problem would never get fixed.

          using an open source renderer means problems get fixed faster. so, wait a few months and Fx will work the same way Safari does now.
    • jmnormand, on 10/10/2007, -14/+161safari is designed to display color more accurately using the profiles. definitely not broken, and looks much more realistic. would be nice for all browsers to do this but since to be done properly it has to be calibrated to the hardware its a lot more difficult for other browsers. apple has a lock on their hardware so can take advantage of it in ways like this.
      • geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -4/+19Most operating systems, including those using X11 (Linux, Solaris...), have some kind of framework for ICC color profiles. It wouldn't be any more or less difficult for those browsers to use that framework, as that's what it is there for. The main reason it's not used is because "nobody else uses it"; they try to keep a consistent look to images across all browsers and all platforms.
      • ronjohn, on 10/10/2007, -22/+1Damn just when I was considering to buy a mac
        • Konstantino, on 10/10/2007, -1/+20So because Safari does a better job of displaying colors, you'd rather not buy a Mac? (Regardless of this, Safari isn't the only browser for OS X, FYI).
        • fxspec06, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Safari is also for windows as well.
      • 68024, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3Whether it looks more realistic or not is not a result of the browser, but of the color profile. If the image has a color profile that makes a photo look oversaturated (as the photo in the example in my opinion), then which version looks 'more realistic'? That's very subjective.
        • DaffyDuck, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14It's not about which one is more realistic, it's about what the photographer wanted you to see. As an amateur photographer myself, I want viewers to see my photos using the color profiles because they get to see it the same (or closer) to what I intended them to look like.
          • 68024, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I know, that's exactly what I'm saying. If you read jmnormand's comment, he says: "...and looks much more realistic".
      • DOGPARTY, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6its not the locked hardware, its the better colour management than other operating systems
      • dinostabOMG, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Fair enough, but what is the standard behaviour? Or isn't there one? If there isn't.... then isn't this a proprietary feature? Isn't that one of the things for which IE faces so much derision?

        If I'm wrong and what Safari is doing is standard, then excuse me. But if not, it is a mistake to design your site with Safari in mind in this capacity. Do what stonyhill suggests and "Save for Web."
      • Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7> "definitely not broken, and looks much more realistic."

        No, it doesn't. It looks more artistic (which isn't necessarily a bad thing), but it is most definitely not "more realistic". When was the last time your fish glowed like that?
      • spectre_25gt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1How the hell is Safari's handling of this situation broken? If you don't want a color profile interpreted, then don't embed one in the image. Obviously that's easier said than done in some cases, but that's the real issue. Education and better tools are the answer. Safari is doing just what it should.
    • geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -7/+8If there were a way to enable/disable it, or better yet the W3C stated that it should be enabled/disabled (or even better, add a CSS key to allow it to be enabled/disabled by the content provider), all would be well, but in this case, they are going against the grain.
    • joshuaer, on 10/10/2007, -11/+30i agree why would the one doing what the file is telling it be the broken one. If i tell 4 people that they have to work late and get some paper work done, when i come back in the morning and one guy stayed late got it done and the other 3 went home and did nothing, who do you think would be first fired.


      • geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -16/+1First you say you agree with him, then you go on a tirade explaining why you disagree. Which is it, Senator?
        • GawtMilk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3His logic is bad.

          "If I tell four people to get some work done, and one stays overtime and does it wrong, yet three go home and do it well, who am I going to fire?"
      • MalDON, on 10/10/2007, -13/+1You fire the guy who stayed up late because he will not be as productive the day after, thus becoming more behind than if he would have just rested.
      • PixelVision, on 10/10/2007, -10/+1Trick question, the paperwork got done so nobody needs to be fired. They might have arranged for it to be done this way. Now if the one guy who did it starts to complain that he's having all the work dumped on him, then you start having serious words with the other 3 (but not before he does, it creates too much paperwork).
      • zybch, on 10/10/2007, -12/+3YOU would be fired for being a totally ineffectual manager who can't delegate and who has staff that don't respect you or your orders.
    • superkendall, on 10/10/2007, -5/+22If you ever tried uploading an image in the Adobe RGB colorspace you sure wouldn't think Safari was the broken one!
    • NgrHader, on 10/10/2007, -25/+16As a photographer this is why I use Safari
      • Firehed, on 10/10/2007, -2/+23So only 5% of your viewers can see how nice your photos look? Not really the best logic I've seen used. Of course, I can hardly fault Safari for respecting the color profile as it should, but this is the same kind of thing we faced when Firefox was just gaining popularity and half the web didn't work properly with it. Just like you still need to use a workaround to get transparent .png files in IE6, you need to take appropriate measures with your photos so they display properly in all browsers.
        • KAMiKAZOW, on 10/10/2007, -12/+6Safari also runs on Windows (incl. color profile support). Nobody is forced to buy a Mac just to display photos correct.
        • Myonosken, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Noone mentioned Mac.
      • PixelVision, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Surely you should be optimizing for what your customers/viewers are using so to provide them with the best product, not the one easiest for you.
      • GawtMilk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8As someone who knows how to take and edit photographs, my online media is always saved with Photoshop's "Save For Web". It removes the color profile so that it looks very similar on all computers. Don't use your profession to seem like you know what you're talking about.
        • coolbru, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3"It removes the color profile so that it looks very similar on all computers."
          That's entirely wrong. The only thing that that guarantees is that every computer will render it differently.
    • mrASSMAN, on 10/10/2007, -7/+87Broken behavior? Safari is the one doing it correctly. It's reading the color profiles while the other ones ignore it. Luckily, Firefox 3 will fix this and implement color profiles.
    • simX, on 10/10/2007, -13/+35"In my opinion, Safari is actually the 'broken' behavior in this scenario."

      What?! Are you serious? If everybody's computer spontaneously combusted, and yours was the only one left, would you say that yours was the one that was broken? Just because no other browsers do it doesn't mean that they're right. Safari is definitely doing the right thing, here: if there's an embedded color profile, it should be used. If you want your image to display the same across all browsers, then strip the color profile first.
      • stonyhill, on 10/10/2007, -12/+12I'm a web designer. I spend 80% of my time trying to get sites to render identically in all browsers. "Unique" Browser behaviors, even if that behavior is useful to some people, tend to cost me time and money. For example, the way the IE6 box model handles padding makes more intuitive sense to me, but it is not the standard, so I curse IE6 whenever I have to work around its unique padding model.
        • matbyrne, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10I'm a web designer too, but IE6 is clearly going against the standard in that situation. Some would say that IE is actually misinterpreting the guidelines.

          Safari on the other hand is going out of it's way to try and do the right thing. As much as it pains me to say it, I'm with Safari on this one. There just needs to be more awareness of color profiles and how they should be handled on the web.
        • DOGPARTY, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5stonyhill such an expert web designer, can't remember to strip colour profiles
        • manitoba98xp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10ICC color profiles are standard. The W3C box model is standard.

          IE6's behavior is not.
        • pdbailey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Right, but the image was supposed to look like A, and only Safari gives you A, I'd say it's the other three that were broken. It would be one thing if the image just looked different, but the fact is that the photographer has to do the fix to "save for web" for the other browsers to get them to look right.
      • KAMiKAZOW, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2What? Adding a batch job Save For Web in Photoshop (or any other image editing tool you use) costs you money? Shouldn't all images be saved with that option anyway?
    • davidrools, on 10/10/2007, -13/+10Neither browser is broken, the image should have been optimized using a standard color profile so it would look fully saturated in both browsers. According to description, it seems like iPhoto is the one that's broken since it ought to be doing this. Instead it'll just make the photographer's work look like crap in anything but safari.
      • theblacknight, on 10/10/2007, -6/+9I have reproduced this many times without going through iPhoto, leading me to the conclusion that it has nothing to do with iPhoto, but Firefox which does not render color properly.
      • dinostabOMG, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1Good point. Antitrust?
    • OBKenobi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3How does it look in other browsers?
    • dnk973, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9> In my opinion, Safari is actually the "broken" behavior in this scenario.

      I hate smart people. Read and learn http://www.webkit.org/blog/73/color-spaces/
    • KAMiKAZOW, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10Broken? Look at http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/mypics/435997/di ... and tell me which browser is broken.

      Just FYI: http://flickr.com/photos/19616885@N00/1427698138/
      Gecko (Firefox/Camino) on the left, Safari on the right.
      • pdbailey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yikes! that's a wicked example. How did it even get that far off?
    • cyberoidx, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Thanks stonyhill From now on, having an extra feature is considered as a bug.
    • marx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Firefox 3 added support for this.. just set true to gfx.color_management.enabled and be happy
    • NSResponder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5"In my opinion, Safari is actually the "broken" behavior in this scenario."

      Are you nuts?

      Safari (Actually, CoreImage, to be precise) properly implements the JPEG specification. If other browsers used the native image rendering facilities on the Mac instead of their own homegrown amateur code, they'd get the same results.

      -jcr

    • FHKE, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I just wanna add that if no profile is embedded in the picture, Safari will simply takes your monitor color profile to render it...
  • rebotfc, on 10/10/2007, -15/+189Safari isnt broken, it just renders with a color profile, the image should look like the one on the right ( more saturated).

    Most probably the image has an adobeRGB profile which has a wider gamut.
    • ctrlfreak13, on 10/10/2007, -11/+16Except for the fact that there are very few (and also very expensive) monitors that are actually capable of rendering the entire Adobe RGB gamut.
      • niczar, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4That's not the point. Think about it, not all pictures using the Adobe RGB profile use all of its gamut, duh.

    • jer2eydevil88, on 10/10/2007, -8/+6Why digg down ctrlfreeak when he's right?
      • cyberoidx, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Because our monitors can show the difference
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17Reminds me of the DVD commercials at the beginning of VHS movies.
      I'm using Firefox and the image I see is supposed to be the Safari improved version...
    • newAccount, on 10/10/2007, -13/+4our company's webside bans safari users due to our strict "no *****" policy.
    • HeroreV, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Firefox 3.0 already has support for color management, although it's disabled by default. Sadly, it looks like it may stay disabled.
      https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16769
  • ajgnet, on 10/10/2007, -19/+8The image was taken with sRGB, not AdobeRGB, and exported directly from iPhoto. This kind of difference is really staggering.
    • dadzilla, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7You are nearly right. Actually the photo is an AdobeRGB (probably how the camera is set up for RAW images). Firefox and most browsers assume jpegs to be in sRGB, so the colors are mapped incorrectly.
    • cyberoidx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Heck.. i just saved the Photo [ http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/mypics/435997/di ... ]
      and opened it with acdsee and it yet show's the firefox version... hmmm... now that's strange.
  • toolow, on 10/10/2007, -14/+2That's a fairly big difference.
  • graviplana, on 10/10/2007, -6/+63Agreed. Safari will adjust an image if there is an attached profile. sRGB is a profile that was made by MS and HP to compete with Adobes domination of the Color, Design and Publishing Market. In Short sRGB was designed for the crappy gamma and less accurate color reproduction of most PC displays. Adobes profiles have favored the Mac platform with its better attention to color accuracy and also Adobes profiles allow more range in the blue, green and purple colors that often get truncated. However, Integrated Color Management did actually get off the ground on PC's faster than on Macs contrary to popular opinion. Anyway, Adobe's color profile would reproduce more colors more accurately when converted to CMYK color space from an RGB color space. Basically, s RGB is a way that MS and Hp wanted to usurp Apple and Adobe from the Graphics Number 1 Slot. Then, HP and MS made all these agreements with manufacturers to embed the sRGB color profile in devices and all sorts of printers. Basically, they're the reason why CMYK has gone away. They want to do everything in RGB from acquisition to print. In the realm of all things it's about business and money, I think. If you Google more you'll find lots of subjective FUD, so do your homework.
    • geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -14/+12In other words, if you're not printing the image and don't work for a major print house, you probably don't give a damn about CMYK.

      Color nazis are almost as bad as grammar nazis. At least the latter learned how to use the return key.
      • ShrimpCrackers, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12Color Nazi's are why every McDonalds looks the same and why your left shoe is the same color as your right. Its important.

        It also ensures a picture of Michael Jordan's jersey is in red and not pink.
        • heppareppana, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4i dont think you have to be color nazi to have an idea that shoes look better when they both are in same color..
      • allanak, on 10/10/2007, -13/+6Grammar nazi handbook says it's spelled "colour"
      • Firehed, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3Well by now, the idea of color spaces should be dead by now. Cameras save files that work in RGB, as do computers. Monitors display 24-bit RGB (8 bits per channel). The only medium that's physically incapable of displaying RGB is print, and if we face facts, the print medium is dying out to various display mediums (which all work around RGB). There should be a single accepted standard to convert the RGB we see on-screen to CMYK that printers use. I don't want my photos to look different depending on what program I'm printing them from - that's just idiotic.
        • niczar, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9I suggest you read up a bit on "color spaces" before you comment on it. You clearly have no idea what this encompasses.

          Hint: not all RGB devices can display the same gamut. And not all cameras can capture the same gamut. And just try taking a picture of the same object in plain day light, then at dawn, and then indoor with fluorescent lighting, and then incandescent lighting.


        • Angostura, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Not all monitors have the same colour response, not all printers use the same ink, not all paper is the same, not all lighting conditions are identical. But apart from that. Right on!
        • innate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Firehed is expressing a common misunderstanding of color spaces. People tend to believe that an RGB triplet is an accurate description of a particular color. Not true!

          Every device renders color differently and has a different gamut (range of colors). Not to mention the "strength" of the three R, G, B components will vary per device, output medium and environmental conditions. If you have RGB values of, say 15% R, 32% G, 41% B -- the color you will get from that will vary even on RGB devices! The actual color you get isn't precisely defined... unless you use a color profile.

          This doesn't matter when you're printing snapshots of your kids or quarterly reports. It *does* matter to professional photographers and printers.

          When you convert to CMYK you have the same problem. A certain RGB color may be represented by a particular set of values on a 4-color web press with a certain brand of ink on a certain paper stock (even plain white paper comes in varying brightnesses that affect the color). And you need a completely different CMYK value to get the same color on a digital press. Since you are never going to get a one-to-one mapping the only sane way to deal with it is to use color profiles.

          In theory the way Safari presents the picture will look exactly the same on every display and every printer. However that assumes that your display and printer are calibrated.

          IE and Firefox are just ignoring the color profile data embedded in the JPEG. Therefore if you want your pictures to look the same in Safari, you have to remove the color profile. That's what Photoshop's "Save for Web" does. Then the pictures will look the same in all three browsers, but the color might vary when printing or when viewed on a different monitor.
    • eugene259, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Interesting but what is the reason for only Safari having this functionality?
      • Angostura, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Basically its designed so that professional photographers and repro houses can maintain the consistency of reproduction across different media.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/10/2007, -4/+499% of people don't care about professional print.
      Most people couldn't care less if there was a marginally wider color range.

      Ive adjusted settings and profiles... I just can't see any benefit.
      Damn I could even set the profile to be slightly more saturated to give me the impression it was better.
      Problem is when you get to those lighter colors you get a lot of color bleeding. Which safari is likely to do with that profile, to some extent at least. You should try it, especially with flesh tones.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1.
    • FHKE, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Most monitors in the world are NOT able to display the full Adobe RGB gamut, including Apple Cinema Displays.
      EIZO has one which can cover the Adobe RGB gamut: http://www.eizo.com/products/graphics/cg221/featur ...
      In contrast, most desktop monitors produced noweday are capable to display full sRGB gamut.
  • amdinator, on 10/10/2007, -3/+20Too bad they deleted the pic on the website it refers to so I can't check for myself...
  • Bartboy919, on 10/10/2007, -14/+4Which is better I cant tell/ does it even matter?
    • ruddy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3i can tell the diff, but i cant tell which is better either :/
    • crash331, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6The one on the right is better. More color saturation and contrast.

      The image on the left looks like it has a gray film over it (low contrast) and looks washed out (low saturation).
      • tekmonkey, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12Since when does higher color saturation and contrast mean better?
        The one on the left has much more natural-looking colors.
        • DaffyDuck, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Ugh, would you prefer Pablo Picasso's paintings to be less saturated so they look more realistic as well. I'm not saying this is a Picasso level of work here but the point is the same. If the person that created the photo wanted it more saturated, that's how it's supposed to look whether or not it is more realistic looking.
          • shark615, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Comparing a Photograph to a Painting is stupid. A Photograph is supposed to represent a snapshot of reality not some over saturated out of focus image.
    • NebCanuck, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14Have you ever seen meat the same colour as the one on the right? If you have, I would advise you not to eat it...
      • MagicCake, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Yeah I was kind of thinking that too...
        • jcaino, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6id bet the one on the left is more akin to what it looked like in real life...
      • Firehed, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Very true, but let's not forget that accurate/natural colors aren't always the most visually appealing. At first glance I liked the look of the image on the right better, but the left one is definitely more representative of what's actually in the scene.

        I remember reading a while back that photo print stores often oversaturate the prints slightly for that reason - while less accurate, it looks better to most people. Some obscure thing regarding how the brain remembers scenes, I think.
    • ToadLeg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I agree. I think they completely missed the point; it's not about which one looks better, it's about which one looks like it's supposed to. A reference to the original, or what the original is supposed to look like would make sense. I'm sure you could intentionally mess up an image so that without the color profile it would look better.
  • narcissystem, on 10/10/2007, -1/+59wtf is on that plate?
  • redstatepride, on 10/10/2007, -40/+3Yet another reason free software will never be able to properly compete with its commercial counterparts.
    • damndj, on 10/10/2007, -3/+19Um, what exactly is the commercial browser out of those three?
  • compgeek, on 10/10/2007, -10/+5wow that Safari one had such vibrant red in it and the picture seemed overall a lot more lifelike but realistically still not enough for me to leave firefox with all the extensions and the way I've customized it to my liking
    • joshuaer, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4you know after 3 weeks i really do not even miss the firefox plugins, they seemed to turn surfing more into work for me.
    • MaxPayne3476, on 10/10/2007, -10/+2its the tabbed browsing. I can't live without tabs.
      • superkendall, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11??? Safari has tabs, has had them for a long time now....
  • crash331, on 10/20/2007, -3/+37As a Photographer I can attest to the fact that web browsers fudge up colors about 98% of the time.
    • JoshDaFink, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3Really? They "fudge" them up?
    • martindale, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Actually - no, what messes colors up is the display device.
  • penneyisok, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10I toke his image and took a snap shot rendered in firefox and safari (top safari bottom firefox). There is a little noticeable difference.
    http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1425793817 ...
    Now some one take my snap shot of my image...wait maybe that is to much...
    • Firehed, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6That's because they're the same. Screenshots don't have embedded color profiles, so they'll render the same across the different browsers. At least ignoring jpeg compression and that kind of nonsense. If you want to have fun like that, VNC into the machine you're currently using, move the window around until it sees itself and does that two mirrors facing each other thing, and watch how the colors change in each successive window.

      I should warn you that the last time I did that, I almost crashed my machine. It wasn't happy viewing a picture of a picture of a picture of a ... x50... picture of a picture of itself.
  • jake57, on 10/10/2007, -20/+48Safari's text rendering compared to Firefox on OS X is also incredibly better.
    • theuniversal, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3That's so true, firefox font rendering looks really bad in comparison. That's the one reason I don't use firefox.
    • DOGPARTY, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Safari renders text absolutely perfectly on OS X, nothing can even come close to it.
      Windows version needs a little work
    • coolbru, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I must admit to being somewhat in love with Safari's CSS3 drop shadow support. In Safari 3 it even does it on divs, even with lovely rounded corners. Everything else just looks so sad when I switch browsers...
  • coolboy0286, on 10/10/2007, -33/+24But overall, firefox > safari.
    • jer2eydevil88, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16I agree simply because Plugins > No Plugins...
      Otherwise Safaris is a bit faster, resource friendly and more stable than Firefox.
      • MadOtaku, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7I have some plugins with Safari. Inquisitor, safaristand, and pithhelmet. Gives me ad-block, and search enhancement among other things. Good enough for me.
    • antitab, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6And overall Camino > Firefox.
      • kris33, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1If Camino could get a bookmark sidebar, I would have agreed with you.
    • DOGPARTY, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2I like my browser to start up within 1 minute, firefox on my new windows machine takes forever
  • NebCanuck, on 10/10/2007, -7/+8Interestingly, if you're using Firefox as the browser to view this link, the one on the left looks better, while in Safari the one on the right looks like the one on the left does in Firefox, but the one on the left looks grey and washed-out. Interesting to flip between the two with alt-tab to see the difference in how it renders that page alone!
    • joesmeat, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Agreed. I'm using Firefox and the one on the right looks over saturated, and the one on the left looks right.
  • cros, on 10/10/2007, -3/+23The person who posted the photo was slightly incorrect: they say they exported it as a JPG but it is clearly a PNG in the address. Safari will render any gamma settings contained in a PNG whereas other browsers will not. Effectively Safari is doing things correctly. This guy should check out GammaSlamma - I bet it would fix the problem but result in the drab photo being what is seen.

    http://www.shealanforshaw.com/gammaslamma-11-updat ...
  • sononame, on 10/10/2007, -12/+0Who goes around looking at the same picture in different browsers to compare contrast? Colorblind people should just stick with firefox.
    • kai05yang, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5The guy who make web pages for a living.
  • mehan, on 10/10/2007, -28/+5..more proof that macs are for fags.
    a heterosexual man should not care about ***** like this.
    • geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Honestly, most people don't care about this kind of thing. But there are people in the world who will absolutely kick, fight, bite and scratch about the smallest of color differences across platforms, and this is one place where Safari/WebKit does kind of stick-out.
    • masterdieff, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2"An intellectual is a person who has discovered something more interesting than sex.” - Aldous Huxley
      Grow up and stop parroting flawed cliches, you worthless creature.

      Fyi, there are plenty of sex-obsessed ***** out there.
  • graviplana, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8The thing for Firefox and Camino developers to do is to make hooks in their programs to tie into the Integrated Color Management systems on PC and Mac platforms. Then Firefox and Camino will obey color profile settings. Further, if LINUX developers really want their platform to be credible and usable by professionals, they will develop a good ICM solution that obeys standard color profiles as well. GIMP users would definitely benefit. Hey Developers, are you listening? :) /2cents
    • ilgaz, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1If they have listened, they may have implemented it by now... They even refuse CYMK and 16bit.
      Sorry to sound negative but it is the problem of open source. For an open source nerd, displaying right colour on his 19" generic LCD doesn't matter anything and he basically ignores thousands of professionals needing it for money.

  • earther, on 10/10/2007, -4/+93 easy steps for getting consistent color online.

    1. calibrate your monitor at gamma 2.2, white point 65K (essential for mac users).
    2. convert your images to sRGB before saving as jpeg (don't tag as srgb, CONVERT).
    3. enjoy the consistency.
    • ilgaz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4You mean enjoy the junk ignoring all that technology built into the core operating system. I run a dynamic colour calibrator here, sorry to ignore any crap display for sake of consistency. It is NOT consistency, it is lacking a very serious feature. Apologise for Mozilla/Firefox nerds but don't tell people to convert their own images to non profiled junk!

    • DOGPARTY, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2but then you lose how standard mac users will see it…
  • IgnatzMouse, on 10/10/2007, -11/+10The folks working on the Mozilla browsers need to step up!
    (I'm still using Firefox as my main browser but, with Safari available on Windows these days...)
  • anmol2k4, on 10/10/2007, -21/+5Try Opera 9.5 kestrel (Alpha).

    Mac > http://snapshot.opera.com/mac/o950s_4417.dmg
    Windows > http://snapshot.opera.com/windows/o950s_9542m.exe

    But i am sure that there is or may be an addon to improve the image quality.
  • robbiekhan, on 10/10/2007, -5/+17If you're putting a photo for people to see online the SAME rules apply as if you were a web designer - you have to publish your work for the masses, not for those people with Safari just because you shot your photo using AdobeRGB.

    It's the Photographers duty to convert the image to an sRGB format prior to uploading online so that browsers can universally display the colour as should be seen.
    • ilgaz, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2He has Safari, his friends have Safari so he is publishing it with a colour profile. It is not his job to remove actual features from JPEG, you are happy to use it with non colour corrected windows junk. It is just a 2kb extra on jpeg, not big deal.

  • canadaboy, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3Switch from "Vivid" to either "Standard" or "Cinema" :-)
    • potterboy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3You didn't notice that those are screenshots. They are not moniter related.
    • canadaboy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3YES. That's why I put the :-) incase people didn't realize. One render looks in "vivid", so I thought it might be funny to relate to the TV settings. Thanks for not getting the :-) in the post.
  • DemiRonin, on 10/10/2007, -12/+1BooYa! Finally a reason for u guys to stop bashing Safari and saying firefox is all lthat
    • afx1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4that's a pretty obscure reason
    • EbilPhish, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Yep, safari implementing a non-standard feature that is only going to matter to professional photographers, obviously every other browser is supposed to do that too.

      You know the DreamCast browser supported an extension that rendered an image on the LCD screen of the memory card, I can't believe Firefox doesn't support it either.
  • iknoritesrsly, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Ironically, most of the people who will view that photo will be looking at it only in one browser or the other.
  • grumpyrain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+23Safari is the only (mainstream) color-space aware browser. A color-space is basically a way to define a color so that it appears identically on different devices. In terms of web experience, it usually isn't as critical as say a print designer that colors would exactly match. After all, the vast majority of your viewers won't have even calibrated their monitors.
    On a technically level, Adobe RGB has a wider gamut and so is able to represent more colors. (But there are others with larger gamut than Adobe - like Pro Photo). sRGB was much easier to implement in the CRTs around at the time it became popular.
    • aliguana, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5yeah, but if you're a designer, and 90% of the world are running an sRGB browser (ie IE) then you have to account for that. Anyhow, "Save for web" in Photoshop does that for you.
      It would be nice, now we are all running 21" cinema-screens at obscenely high rez on expensive gfx cards in colourspace-aware browsers to have wider-gamut and higher resolution photographs online, but... we're not all running 21" cinema-screens at obscenely high rez on expensive gfx cards in colourspace-aware browsers. Unfortunately.
      • dvdrtrgn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I don't think this guy is targeting the lowest common denominator. FYI, one doesn't need very high-end kit to get decent color-accuracy, Any Mac going back to 7 years or more will perform these corrections.
  • aliguana, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6everyone converts their images to sRGB before putting them online. Don't they?
    I think Safari is an excellent browser, I use it quite a bit for checking layouts etc. I'm not switching from the Fox though until there is an adblock plugin for it.. and a free one at that. Why is it most of the Safari plugins cost money?
    • dvdrtrgn, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1SafariBlock does the trick. (btw I use both FF and Saf)
    • zongamin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1yep its called safari block.
  • alpharuin, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Yeah well, Safari still does not scale images to fit...
    • Karmavs, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Safari 3 does (the version in leopard, but that will be released for tiger too). (and firefox three also does colour correction - Yay Future!)
    • DOGPARTY, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2But Safari does anti-alias images when it scales them!
      • astrosmash, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah, the scaled images in Firefox look terrible.
  • rowlodge, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1trying camino now, loads a hell of a lot faster. firefox was good too but a little slower, safari doesnt even work on my old g4 ibook anyway.
  • bsolidgold, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4I don't know what the deal is, but I bet if you cried about it more it'd help.
  • jorgepblank, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6http://digg.com/software/Color_management_support_ ...
    • marx, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1for those who wont read it. Firefox 3 DOES have support this, just set true to gfx.color_management.enabled and be happy
  • Jalh, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2interesting ..... im using firefox and i can see the difference ......
  • mRIpX, on 10/10/2007, -16/+3hey fags, don't leave out opera
  • eugene259, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5I actually find that the image on the right is over-saturated. I wouldn't eat my smoked salmon (at least i think that's what that is) if it was that color... An artificial example I think. If anything the picture on the left is more true to life? Still, I guess if this functionality should be added to Firefox (and it is being added according to the link in on the comments above) unless it is proprietary.
    • Kappa00, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4This is exactly what I was thinking.
    • trollzor, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Ditto, the picture on the right looks horribly over-saturated and the one on the left looks like you would see it with your own eye. Regardless of whether firefox is not implementing a tech-spec colour shift, the pic on the left looks far better.
    • rebotfc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's not about being true to life, it's about the color profile rendering the image as it was saved in photoshop.
      Its nothing about looking 'better'.
      If you want images to look similar in all browers unfortunately you have to use sRGB which has a smaller gamut than adobeRGB
    • simonwalton, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Jeez... Firefox can do no wrong, can it. I bet if they hadn't implemented CSS properly everyone would say "ohh umm... style/content separation is overrated".
  • graviplana, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9/Sigh. It's a shame that Color Spaces aren't taught in school by people that understand them better. My workflow for design projects involves acquisition in as wide a Gamut Color Space as possible. If the device that I'm using only works in sRGB, then once I get to my image programs, I CONVERT to Adobe RGB to do any editing or processing. THEN I either: convert to CMYK for print, or convert to sRGB for web, or keep Adobe RGB for web. sRGB is CRAP for colorspace, in terms of being a Photographer or Printer, sRGB is like the bastard child of color spaces. If you're photographing Greens or Blues or Purples, then sRGB is truncating and throwing away a lot of your content. YES, it's true! But yes, I have to output in sRGB sometimes. Sometimes I have to make Powerpoints and work with Excel documents also. :P If you're a serious Photographer, ditch sRGB and ditch JPEG for that matter - go to RAW and use a profile with a large Gamut, like Adobe RGB or Wide Gamut RGB. Also, go 16 bit as opposed to 8 bit images. Of course, if you're a serious photographer, then you know all of the above already. :P /2cents

    http://www.signindustry.com/computers/articles/200 ...

    This article is mostly accurate:

    http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sRGB-Ad ...
    • kris33, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1RAW is a great format, but not exactly the best for the web.
      • grumpyrain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Technically RAW is not a single format. (I suppose DNG could be argued to be.) It is more like channel measurements. That is why different programs render RAW images differently.
  • graviplana, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2http://www.signindustry.com/computers/articles/200 ...

    http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sRGB-Ad ...

    Links were hosed.
  • jeterblogger, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5firefox all the way
  • coheedcollapse, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1I thought that this has been known for ages. I've definitely seen it on Digg before. Are Apple fans dragging out this stuff in retaliation to the crappy things that have come out about the touch and the iPhone?
  • mogulati, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Honestly, I think its great that Safari supports Color profiles, but this is for me NOT the only decision I make when choosing my browser. Firefox has recently come under attack the last days. Firstly with the memory leaks and now with not supporting color profiles. I am sure there are many other issues as well. My personal hope is that as continually promised Firefox 3 delivers on all its promises. On the other hand, Safari was extreamly buggy when it first came out, and I did try it for a week without using any other browser, it just did not seem stable enough for me at the time. I expect in the future this will change.
  • OneDunya, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5Firefox is not very good on OS X. It is as slow as molasses loading and it has become too bloated with all the extensions. I have 10 browsers on my Mac but I always find myself going back to good ole Safari. The rendering engine that Safari uses Webkit is just so much faster then, Gecko the rendering engine that Firefox uses. For the same reason I find all the Gecko browser just way too slow on my Mac that includes Firefox, Camino, Mozilla, Netscape Flock and Wyzo.
    • repruhsent, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1...why in the world do you have 10 browsers on your Mac? That's about the dumbest use of hard drive space I've heard.
      • ilgaz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Because he can. Object oriented design and metadata enabled filesystem, packages, central internet plugin directory, one API for plugins.
        He can add 20 more without any negative effect.
  • dolske, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Firefox 3 will support color profiles... See:

    http://www.beltzner.ca/mike/archives/2007/08/04/do ...
    and
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnmichaelmayer/1237 ...
    • terrorpin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Already does in the beta, althouugh you enable gfx.color_management.enabled in about:config
    • ilgaz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Funniest thing is they will FINALLY enable it (it dates back to Mozilla/Apple) but it will be up to user to enable it in browser.
      The browser will come non colour corrected by default. Why? Some genius figured it slows down JPEG rendering. So, instead of calling Intel, AMD, IBM (PPC) for optimised code,what you do? You just ship it disabled. :)
  • Sabretou, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5"dreamsINdigital Pro User says:
    Firefox 3.0 will support color profiles."

    Everybody go home, now. God still exists and demons have been slayed.
    • repruhsent, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I love how the only reason Firefox got the attention it did was because it was a slim, lightweight version of Mozilla/Netscape, and now that they have all this mainstream recognition, each new release adds more and more bloat to it, making it more and more like the old version of Mozilla everyone hated and switched from in the first place.
  • cgomez, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The debate over this is kind of rendered moot due to the fact that 99% of people have their monitors with brightness/contrast at 100% and inaccurate color anyways. But good on Safari for supporting this and Firefox for developing it into FF3.
    • Karmavs, on 10/10/2007, -1/+199% of Macs, on the other hand, are well calibrated when you buy them.
  • ekasim, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0I like the one on the right here: http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1425793817 ...
    • Nysul, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4The one on the right looks like it was pumped fill of artificial colors.
  • mrASSMAN, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11Firefox/Camino may not be rendering the image correctly, but the colors are actually more realistic than the image rendered by Safari. Looks overly-saturated to me.
    • BearinG, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Although it COULD render it properly if the image was made to support all browsers equally.. I still think its over saturated..
  • graviplana, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3Just read that Firefox 3 Supports profiles. Great news. Now Camino (my usual browser of choice when I'm on my Mac) needs to support it as well.

    /Flameon
    As for retaliation, LOL. PC users are the ones needing to get up to speed on color, graphics, video, etc. If I see another clueless PC user commenting and using the phrase "Apple Fanboy", or any variation thereof, my head is going to explode as I laugh at them. It's gotta be Slashdot's fault. Apple's the *****. Either you realize it, or you don't. The iPhone is the bomb, but I don't have one. Why bother now, Gen. 2 is where it's at. Apple almost always leads the industry. If you don't agree, you're just jealous. You can drive to Tallahassee in a Chevy Cavalier or a BMW. Both have AC, CD, Sunroof, power windows, etc. But man, that BMW sure is a lot nicer. :P
    /Flameoff
    • Kappa00, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Fanboy...
    • KAMiKAZOW, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Just as Firefox, Camiso uses Gecko. Thus Camino supports this as well. Just download the latest trunk nightly.
    • masterthiefster, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's a pity that that BMW costs more, and that its replacement parts sometimes have to come all the way from Europe...

      Color correction is not a standard web browser feature. By adding it, suddenly Safari users get unintended results.
  • joshuaduffy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I have Safari, Camino, Firefox, and SeaMonkey on my iMac and I love all of them!
  • databoy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The problem with photos posted on the internet are that they are small compressed images of the original. The only way you can do a true comparison with web browsers is a use high resolution JPG compare image render. Kindgirls http://www.kindgirls.com/archive is a nude site with photos from professional photographers. Every photo shoot has a different colour. Admittedly the site says that some of the photos are low resolution, but you will find photos which are reasonable quality. Nude women are a good photo compare because skin tones are easy to compare. Have a look at your own skin tone in sunlight and inside light and compare it with a nude shot. To get a realistic comparison you need to calibrate your monitor to a white scale using a colour chart. I have a Canon S3IS digital camera and I find the photo quality varies from shot to shot depending on the light conditions. At the end of the day the best you can do is comprise and accept a minimum standard. I do not place much importance on the photos embedded in web pages; they just give me a general idea of what other people are doing.
    • noname202, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0There's not much to compare. Firefox renders the image incorrectly since it doesn't have full support for gamma with PNGs or Adobe RGB with JPGs, whichever it is they're using on the site (quite unclear). If an aRGB JPG or PNG-file with gamma settings looks better in Firefox than Safari it's simply because the photographer did a bad job, not Safari. The browser's job is to render the image correctly, which is as the artist or photographer intended it. (And no, I'm no mac-lover. I use Ubuntu / Firefox, and the only thing "Apple" I own is an iPod nano generation 1 running rockbox.)
  • EbilPhish, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Might be fun to deliberately implement bizarre colour profiles just to screw with mac people, imagine if all of Digg suddenly rendered bright pink on Safari :)
    • dvdrtrgn, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Interesting. But that would only screw with Safari users. At home for me, Digg would look like *****. At work it would look less like *****.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 80 of 80 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.