| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/08/2009 05:02:32 PM · #1 |
This might be helpful to some other people as well who might be having the same issue I had. ( Added note: For MAC users!)
I use Firefox browser on my Imac and noticed that my photos (converted to sRGB) looked washed out and a bit desaturated compared to the original on my desktop after I uploaded them to DP challenge.
However when I used my Safari browser from the same Imac the uploaded photo's looked exactly the same as the original on my desktop.
So obviously the issue was with the Firefox browser.
After googling for this issue I found the problem and the solution:
Test your browser:
//news.cnet.com/Safari-ushers-in-better-browser-colors/2100-1012_3-6191815.html?tag=mncol;txt
Here it is. Test your browser rendition here.
Is your browser ICC Version 4 ready?
//www.color.org/version4html.xalter
How to fix the issue with your Firefox browser:
There are two ways to turn on color profile support in Firefox 3. The easiest is to install the Color Management add-on (which will work with Firefox 3 Beta 5). After you install the add-on and restart Firefox 3, color profile support is enabled, and you can specify a custom color profile by going to the Tools menu, selecting “Add-ons”, and clicking the Color Management add-on “Preferences” button. If you do not specify a color profile, the system default profile will be used, which should be OK for most people.
//www.dria.org/wordpress/archives/2008/04/29/633/
Now my images look the same as the original on my desktop when viewing them on DPC with either the Firefox or Safari browser
Message edited by author 2009-04-08 18:48:49. |
|
|
|
04/08/2009 05:14:00 PM · #2 |
| You'd be better off correctly converting your images to sRGB, before uploading. The majority of the world aren't using profile aware browsers, so will still see your images washed out. Convert them to sRGB and you'll see what everyone else sees. |
|
|
|
04/08/2009 05:16:25 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
You'd be better off correctly converting your images to sRGB, before uploading. The majority of the world aren't using profile aware browsers, so will still see your images washed out. Convert them to sRGB and you'll see what everyone else sees. |
I have always converted them to sRGB as I stated in my post above. That was not the issue at all in my case. My Firefox browser was rendering sRGB images as washed out. The issue was with the Firefox browser which did not have the ICC color profile enabled. It is switched off by default. You have to enable it by downloading the color management add-on. Very simple. It means that people using the Firefox browser that have not enabled the ICC color profile will still see sRGB images as washed out.
Here is a screen shot of the Firefox tools /add-ons window on my desktop where the downloaded Color management add-on is together with the chosen monitor color profile.
//g.imagehost.org/0150/Color.jpg
Message edited by author 2009-04-08 17:40:48. |
|
|
|
04/08/2009 05:40:39 PM · #4 |
I am using FF3.0.8, and looking at the links you provided I have not got these profiles enabled (It's a locked down work machine, so no chance of changing that fact)
Would you not be better off getting your pictures to look 'right' in an unmodified browser? This is what most voters would be using, and it is them you are trying to impress.
Aren't we all rude - you were only trying to help!
Message edited by author 2009-04-08 17:41:27. |
|
|
|
04/08/2009 05:46:04 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by daryn:
I am using FF3.0.8, and looking at the links you provided I have not got these profiles enabled (It's a locked down work machine, so no chance of changing that fact)
Would you not be better off getting your pictures to look 'right' in an unmodified browser? This is what most voters would be using, and it is them you are trying to impress.
Aren't we all rude - you were only trying to help! |
I don't know enough about all that tech stuff. What is an Unmodified browser?? My browser is the same one (Firefox) that every other Firefox user has. Firefox is an unmodified browser and it wont render a sRGB converted image correctly until you download that add-on I mentioned and enable it. By default it is not enabled so wont render sRGB images correctly for reasons explained in that link I gave. My other browser that I use (Safari which is "Unmodified") rendered the image correctly and needed no changing anything. All I know is what i said in my post above. I had a problem with Firefox..now it is fixed. I am sure other people might have the same problem so i posted the solution that worked for me hoping it might help others who have that issue.
Maybe Windows Explorer is the most used browser. I don't use it and as far as I know it renders sRGB images correctly.
No I don't think anyone is rude.
Message edited by author 2009-04-08 17:54:26. |
|
|
|
04/08/2009 06:03:33 PM · #6 |
safari is one of the few browsers that supports colour profiles, by default.
Every other browser assumes an image is sRGB and displays it that way. Some have support for colour profiles built in (like firefox) but it is disabled by default because of the performance penalties associated with it.
If your images look washed out, in firefox, without colour profile support enabled, then it is very likely that you haven't converted them correctly to sRGB, or have another profile attached, or your system default profiles are different from those typically found.
The current situation is that most browsers just throw away the profile and render it as if it was sRGB. You'd be better off seeing your images the way everyone else does, until the world catches up. |
|
|
|
04/08/2009 06:06:56 PM · #7 |
There are three scenarios we need to be concerned with:
1.) Image was converted to sRGB (or was originally sRGB) and was posted without that profile embedded
2.) Image was converted to sRGB (or was originally sRGB) and was posted with that profile embedded
3.) Image was in another color space, and was not converted before posting, and had the profile still embedded
4.) Image was in another color space, and was not converted before posting without the profile still embedded
In the first and second cases, the image will be rendered correctly by all browsers, because either the correct sRGB profile is attached, or no profile. In each case, both color-managed and non-color-managed browsers will render correctly
In the 3rd case, only color-managed browsers will render correctly. Non-managed browsers will render as if it were in sRGB space, which it is not
In the fourth case, no browser will render it correctly because it is not in sRGB space and there is no information as to what space it is in.
My browsers (both IE7 and Firefox 3.0.8) render correctly. I have not loaded any color-management add-ons for either one. |
|
|
|
04/08/2009 06:18:36 PM · #8 |
Whatever.. Maybe so. All I know is that I shoot in sRGB ( My camera is set to sRGB) I process (edit) in sRGB. I upload in sRGB with profile embedded. I have never converted to anything else. I use only sRGB. My Firefox browser rendered the sRGB images I uploaded to DPC differently to the way my SAFARI browser renders them.
My Safari browser renders them as they appear on my desktop..nice rich full colors. My Firefox browser rendered them all washed out and with faded colors.
Since I downloaded the add-on for Firefox and enabled the color profile my Firefox browser now renders the images just like the Safari browser...nice rich full colors.
I am happy.
Thank you all for the feedback, suggestions and comments.
Regards
Fred
Message edited by author 2009-04-08 18:20:04. |
|
|
|
04/08/2009 06:22:29 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Sangiro:
Whatever.. Maybe so. All I know is that I shoot in sRGB ( My camera is set to sRGB) I process (edit) in sRGB. I upload in sRGB with profile embedded. I have never converted to anything else. I use only sRGB. My Firefox browser rendered the sRGB images I uploaded to DPC differently to the way my SAFARI browser renders them.
My Safari browser renders them as they appear on my desktop..nice rich full colors. My Firefox browser rendered them all washed out and with faded colors.
Since I downloaded the add-on for Firefox and enabled the color profile my Firefox browser now renders the images just like the Safari browser...nice rich full colors.
I am happy.
Thank you all for the feedback, suggestions and comments.
Regards
Fred |
As a few people have indicated, you are describing a very frequently raised problem, but you are claiming an unusual solution, or at least a contradictory one. Do you have any samples of those images you can point us at?
|
|
|
|
04/08/2009 06:29:33 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Sangiro:
Whatever.. Maybe so. All I know is that I shoot in sRGB ( My camera is set to sRGB) I process (edit) in sRGB. I upload in sRGB with profile embedded. I have never converted to anything else. I use only sRGB. My Firefox browser rendered the sRGB images I uploaded to DPC differently to the way my SAFARI browser renders them.
My Safari browser renders them as they appear on my desktop..nice rich full colors. My Firefox browser rendered them all washed out and with faded colors.
Since I downloaded the add-on for Firefox and enabled the color profile my Firefox browser now renders the images just like the Safari browser...nice rich full colors.
I am happy.
Thank you all for the feedback, suggestions and comments.
Regards
Fred |
As a few people have indicated, you are describing a very frequently raised problem, but you are claiming an unusual solution, or at least a contradictory one. Do you have any samples of those images you can point us at? |
First check this one out Gordon:
//www.flickr.com/groups/adobe_lightroom/discuss/72157608202947678/
Well check out these 2 links. First read the first link and then do the browser test.
Before I enabled my Firefox browser it showed the test picture as being devided in 4 blocks with different colors. After I enabled the color profile it rendered the picture correctly.
My Safari browser rendered it correctly from the start.
After googling for this issue I found the problem and the solution:
Test your browser:
//news.cnet.com/Safari-ushers-in-better-browser-colors/2100-1012_3-6191815.html?tag=mncol;txt
Here it is. Test your browser rendition here.
Is your browser ICC Version 4 ready?
//www.color.org/version4html.xalter
Here is another ICC browser test and info:
//spyder.datacolor.com/learn_expert.php
Message edited by author 2009-04-08 19:32:17. |
|
|
|
04/08/2009 06:35:48 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Sangiro:
Well check out these 2 links. First read the first link and then do the browser test.
Before I enabled my Firefox browser it showed the test picture as being devided in 4 blocks with different colors. After I enabled the color profile it rendered the picture correctly. |
For what it's worth, there are other versions of sRGB. It may be possible your Lumix is using an earlier version, and that's where the problem is. I have recently acquired an older Lumix, and I have to "convert profile" in CS3 to get it to render correctly...
R.
Message edited by author 2009-04-08 18:36:11.
|
|
|
|
04/08/2009 06:37:57 PM · #12 |
Fred, the problem is with the way that Mac's handle Color Management.
If you don't embed an ICC profile OR if you don't use a color-managed browser, windows machines will (properly) assume the profile to be sRGB. Mac's, on the other hand, will assume/assign the system default monitor profile. This means, if your monitor is not correctly calibrated, there will be a difference between what you see in PS and on the web. The only way to get an incorrectly-calibrated Mac monitor to view sRGB photos correctly on the web is to do what you are know doing - embed an ICC profile and use a color-managed browser. Hopefully, in the future Mac will give the user a choice of how to assign system profiles. |
|
|
|
04/08/2009 06:39:34 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Sangiro:
Well check out these 2 links. First read the first link and then do the browser test.
Before I enabled my Firefox browser it showed the test picture as being devided in 4 blocks with different colors. After I enabled the color profile it rendered the picture correctly. |
For what it's worth, there are other versions of sRGB. It may be possible your Lumix is using an earlier version, and that's where the problem is. I have recently acquired an older Lumix, and I have to "convert profile" in CS3 to get it to render correctly...
R. |
Could be Bear-Music. I don't know.All I know is it's fine now. I have the Lumix DMC L1 which was introduced in 2006. It says it uses sRGB and can be set also to Adobe sRGB. I have it set to just sRGB. .I don't know about other standards of sRGB.
Ps.
Check this link out and see if it gives you any answers and if your browser shows it correctly.
Here is another ICC browser test and info:
//spyder.datacolor.com/learn_expert.php
Message edited by author 2009-04-08 18:42:47. |
|
|
|
04/08/2009 06:40:48 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by pointandshoot:
Fred, the problem is with the way that Mac's handle Color Management.
If you don't embed an ICC profile OR if you don't use a color-managed browser, windows machines will (properly) assume the profile to be sRGB. Mac's, on the other hand, will assume/assign the system default monitor profile. This means, if your monitor is not correctly calibrated, there will be a difference between what you see in PS and on the web. The only way to get an incorrectly-calibrated Mac monitor to view sRGB photos correctly on the web is to do what you are know doing - embed an ICC profile and use a color-managed browser. Hopefully, in the future Mac will give the user a choice of how to assign system profiles. |
Thanks for clearing that up so nicely Point and Shoot. So that's what it is. It's a Mac thing. So for all other Mac users...if you use Firefox this is the way to fix that issue then.
:)
Ps. Not sure about the monitor calibration issue you mention. My monitor is calibrated correctly as far as i know because I calibrated it excactly as the Mac tutorial and help guide recommends. My printed images match the images on my desktop very closely too.
Message edited by author 2009-04-08 18:46:33. |
|
|
|
04/08/2009 06:55:26 PM · #15 |
Perfect timing for this thread. My Internet comp is a refurbished HP which ran only Explorer before; now. $205 later, it runs both Explorer and Firefox. FF takes waaaaaayyyy longer to load up this site, but (so far) has been infallible in loading up my hotmail account, which btw is an MSN item...but MSN can't/won't let me get into my hotmail anymore!!!!
So apart from the hotmail account, I am paralleling the bookmarks, and dpc and many other sites load up way faster on Explorer than it does on FF.
Just my .02 CDN...:-) |
|
|
|
04/08/2009 06:59:32 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Sangiro:
Ps. Not sure about the monitor calibration issue you mention. My monitor is calibrated correctly as far as i know because I calibrated it excactly as the Mac tutorial and help guide recommends. My printed images match the images on my desktop very closely too. |
I don't know of anything else it can be other than a monitor profile sightly off. You should be able to get close enough using the Mac profiler. Use expert mode. Gamma set to 2.2 (not 1.8) temp. set to 6500. Start your profile with a new default. (don't recalibrate your old profile)
To check, open one of your sRGB photos in PS and proof it in "Monitor sRGB", and then "Windows sRGB". there should be little difference. |
|
|
|
04/08/2009 07:04:11 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by pointandshoot:
Originally posted by Sangiro:
Ps. Not sure about the monitor calibration issue you mention. My monitor is calibrated correctly as far as i know because I calibrated it excactly as the Mac tutorial and help guide recommends. My printed images match the images on my desktop very closely too. |
I don't know of anything else it can be other than a monitor profile sightly off. You should be able to get close enough using the Mac profiler. Use expert mode. Gamma set to 2.2 (not 1.8) temp. set to 6500. Start your profile with a new default. (don't recalibrate your old profile)
To check, open one of your sRGB photos in PS and proof it in "Monitor sRGB", and then "Windows sRGB". there should be little difference. |
P&S thanks. Yes I used the Mac profiler and have my settings as you describe them. 2.2 and 6500.
(By the way..I dont have Photoshop..I use a very basic and simple editor called Photo Complete for Mac see here: //www.funkypixels.com/
I just checked some photo's here on DPC on my neighbours Windows desktop and there is no difference I can see between them on his Windows monitor and my Mac monitor now. The same photo's render the same. I use a SAMSUNG SyncMaster Monitor so maybe the Mac profile is not really ideal. Not sure about that and if the Mac profile is for Apple monitors only.
Here are two interesting forum threads relating to this color profile issue:
//forums.macosxhints.com/archive/index.php/t-44096.html
//www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3998
Check this test and discussion on Flickr:
//www.flickr.com/groups/adobe_lightroom/discuss/72157608202947678/
Message edited by author 2009-04-08 19:34:13. |
|
|
|
04/08/2009 07:45:37 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Sangiro:
I use a SAMSUNG SyncMaster Monitor so maybe the Mac profile is not really ideal. |
The Mac software calibrator makes a profile for your monitor and will get close, but for really accurate calibration you should calibrate using one of the hardware calibration tools. Keep reading and take color management one step at a time. It is a complicated subject but not difficult if you don't try to learn it all in one day. I've spent many hours pounding my head on my monitor trying to figure it out. I still have questions. You already know more than most users. |
|
|
|
04/08/2009 07:52:37 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Sangiro:
Check this link out and see if it gives you any answers and if your browser shows it correctly.
Here is another ICC browser test and info:
//spyder.datacolor.com/learn_expert.php |
Checked all that out a year and a half ago or so. Working fine without having to add color management to my Firefox, which I've been using since it first came out.
R.
|
|
|
|
04/08/2009 07:57:31 PM · #20 |
| Great interaction and I have become a little wiser. Thanks for everyone's input. Gonna hit the sack now. G,nite all. :) |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 12/26/2025 06:11:53 AM EST.
