What browser do you use?

[Josh66]

Mostly Firefox. Chromium (the browser that Chrome gets it's source code from) whenever Firefox doesn't play nice with a website.

 

[Ysarex86 80]

Interesting...

I use Chrome. I'll have to compare the way it displays images to Safari because I don't think I've ever noticed a difference... that's not to say there ISN'T one... I'm just saying I never noticed, haha. Now I'm curious.

An RGB-JPEG photo is tagged with an ICC profile that references the color space. To properly display the photo's colors the RGB values must be decoded using the referenced color space, for example sRGB. Chrome ignores the ICC profile and as a result displays photos incorrectly. The underlying assumption is that photos for the web should be tagged sRGB as opposed to some other color space and then it's OK to display them and ignore the profile. There's some validity to this in that sRGB was created to be a good match to electronic displays. The difference in appearance may be minor, but ignoring a photo's ICC profile really is wrong; the profile is there for a reason. If you really want to check out the issue:

WEB BROWSER COLOR MANAGEMENT Tutorial - Test Page FireFox Safari Chrome Internet Explorer IE 9- FILES have embedded ICC profiles Photoshop ColorManagement

Joe

Why would you want a browser to display colors any other way, unless every other browser was capable of displaying those profiles? Are you going to force all of your clients to use Firefox? I think that their assumption of sRGB is spot on. Unless you are simply storing your photos online only for personal viewing on your own monitor while using your own browser, it doesn't make sense for any type of "Sharing" images with others.

Oh, and I use Chrome as well.

All photos uploaded to the web should be sRGB -- works for me -- I make sure a photo is sRGB before I put it on the web. If someone who has the authority to make the decision that all photos on the internet should be sRGB, and, has in fact made that decision, they should tell everyone. Now read the second half of my sentence: "The underlying assumption is that photos for the web should be tagged sRGB as opposed to some other color space and then it's OK to display them and ignore the profile." A photo tagged sRGB and that same photo with the ICC profile stripped off are not the same thing. sRGB does not equal nothing. Nothing is not by default sRGB.

As I went on to say, since sRGB was designed to be a good fit to modern electronic display hardware, the odds are in your favor that an sRGB tagged photo properly displayed will be pretty close to that same photo incorrectly displayed with the profile ignored. "Pretty close" should work for the mass public. As a photographer, is your standard for the quality of your work "pretty close?" Ah, it's just a photo on the web, who cares? Fair enough. I do believe that's an arguable position. It's more defensible when you consider the extreme range of devices in use to access the web and how terribly bad most of them are. Someone is looking at photos on the web with their Acer netbook and whether their browser is ignoring the color space tag is hardly material.

However when you actually work with your photos in your camera and in post processing, the above position is not acceptable. There's no menu option selection in your camera to save a JPEG without an ICC profile -- can't do it. If you save a RAW file there's no software that will convert it to an RGB photo without assigning a color space and embedding the ICC profile. You can't create a photo without that profile -- must be important. And so it's wrong to ignore it.

I don't have inside access to Microsoft or Google and so I don't know what their rational is. I can guess that they think the existence of multiple color spaces is just too complex for the average internet consumer and they want a simpler solution. In fact the existence of multiple color spaces is too complex for the average photographer and so if that's what they think, I'd have to agree. One of the most common problems that returns to this forum time and time again: "I just uploaded my photos and they look different!! What's going on!!?" This keeps coming back because most software that displays photos processes the photo's embedded profile correctly but some notable software does not.

Right now it's certainly best to put all photos on the web tagged with sRGB -- spot on as you said and I didn't say otherwise. That way you stand the best chance of having them seen as you intended. You should not however strip off or ignore the ICC tags and software that does is wrong.

Joe

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

An RGB-JPEG photo is tagged with an ICC profile that references the color space. To properly display the photo's colors the RGB values must be decoded using the referenced color space, for example sRGB. Chrome ignores the ICC profile and as a result displays photos incorrectly. The underlying assumption is that photos for the web should be tagged sRGB as opposed to some other color space and then it's OK to display them and ignore the profile. There's some validity to this in that sRGB was created to be a good match to electronic displays. The difference in appearance may be minor, but ignoring a photo's ICC profile really is wrong; the profile is there for a reason. If you really want to check out the issue:

WEB BROWSER COLOR MANAGEMENT Tutorial - Test Page FireFox Safari Chrome Internet Explorer IE 9- FILES have embedded ICC profiles Photoshop ColorManagement

Joe

Why would you want a browser to display colors any other way, unless every other browser was capable of displaying those profiles? Are you going to force all of your clients to use Firefox? I think that their assumption of sRGB is spot on. Unless you are simply storing your photos online only for personal viewing on your own monitor while using your own browser, it doesn't make sense for any type of "Sharing" images with others.

Oh, and I use Chrome as well.

All photos uploaded to the web should be sRGB -- works for me -- I make sure a photo is sRGB before I put it on the web. If someone who has the authority to make the decision that all photos on the internet should be sRGB, and, has in fact made that decision, they should tell everyone. Now read the second half of my sentence: "The underlying assumption is that photos for the web should be tagged sRGB as opposed to some other color space and then it's OK to display them and ignore the profile." A photo tagged sRGB and that same photo with the ICC profile stripped off are not the same thing. sRGB does not equal nothing. Nothing is not by default sRGB.

As I went on to say, since sRGB was designed to be a good fit to modern electronic display hardware, the odds are in your favor that an sRGB tagged photo properly displayed will be pretty close to that same photo incorrectly displayed with the profile ignored. "Pretty close" should work for the mass public. As a photographer, is your standard for the quality of your work "pretty close?" Ah, it's just a photo on the web, who cares? Fair enough. I do believe that's an arguable position. It's more defensible when you consider the extreme range of devices in use to access the web and how terribly bad most of them are. Someone is looking at photos on the web with their Acer netbook and whether their browser is ignoring the color space tag is hardly material.

However when you actually work with your photos in your camera and in post processing, the above position is not acceptable. There's no menu option selection in your camera to save a JPEG without an ICC profile -- can't do it. If you save a RAW file there's no software that will convert it to an RGB photo without assigning a color space and embedding the ICC profile. You can't create a photo without that profile -- must be important. And so it's wrong to ignore it.

I don't have inside access to Microsoft or Google and so I don't know what their rational is. I can guess that they think the existence of multiple color spaces is just too complex for the average internet consumer and they want a simpler solution. In fact the existence of multiple color spaces is too complex for the average photographer and so if that's what they think, I'd have to agree. One of the most common problems that returns to this forum time and time again: "I just uploaded my photos and they look different!! What's going on!!?" This keeps coming back because most software that displays photos processes the photo's embedded profile correctly but some notable software does not.

Right now it's certainly best to put all photos on the web tagged with sRGB -- spot on as you said and I didn't say otherwise. That way you stand the best chance of having them seen as you intended. You should not however strip off or ignore the ICC tags and software that does is wrong.

Joe

Sorry, when I said YOU, I mean why would "Someone" want that. But my point still stands ( as you seem to agree ).

 

[kamerageek]

Maybe it's just the fallability of my human eyes, but I don't see the difference in image display between Chrome and Safari. I used SmugMug to pull up a photo I shot in Times Square in each browser and I did a side-by-side comparison on the same monitor. I'm not trying to discredit you, Joe. I'm just pointing out that I can't personally tell the difference in the appearance of an image displayed by either browser.

The article you point to is technically correct, but given the millions of colours that a computer monitor displays I think the average person in the average case won't notice a difference. The point I'm trying to make is that people who are passionate about their craft sometimes over-obsess about small variances that don't concern most people. It's never a bad thing to be that passionate, but as I get older I'm learning to not sweat the small stuff so much.

In answer to the original question, I use Safari, but Chrome is growing on me.

I doubt it's your eyes; it's probably the photo.

Try this one. It's also on Smugmug:

http://jon2472.smugmug.com/Other/photos/i-qCsQrMX/0/O/wharehouse1.jpg

Does the sky look the same color in both Safari and Chrome? If not then Safari is right and Chrome is wrong.

Joe

I had a look at your photo in both browsers. I still don't see enough of a difference to be concerned. Maybe, it's just the photo.

My point still stands. Is this an issue I should lie awake nights worrying about?

 

[marmots]

i see a huge difference in a lot of my images

 

[xposurepro]

Safari ... except for a couple laptops that have windows on them in which case it's Firefox.

 

[Ysarex86 80]

Maybe it's just the fallability of my human eyes, but I don't see the difference in image display between Chrome and Safari. I used SmugMug to pull up a photo I shot in Times Square in each browser and I did a side-by-side comparison on the same monitor. I'm not trying to discredit you, Joe. I'm just pointing out that I can't personally tell the difference in the appearance of an image displayed by either browser.

The article you point to is technically correct, but given the millions of colours that a computer monitor displays I think the average person in the average case won't notice a difference. The point I'm trying to make is that people who are passionate about their craft sometimes over-obsess about small variances that don't concern most people. It's never a bad thing to be that passionate, but as I get older I'm learning to not sweat the small stuff so much.

In answer to the original question, I use Safari, but Chrome is growing on me.

I doubt it's your eyes; it's probably the photo.

Try this one. It's also on Smugmug:

http://jon2472.smugmug.com/Other/photos/i-qCsQrMX/0/O/wharehouse1.jpg

Does the sky look the same color in both Safari and Chrome? If not then Safari is right and Chrome is wrong.

Joe

I had a look at your photo in both browsers. I still don't see enough of a difference to be concerned. Maybe, it's just the photo.

My point still stands. Is this an issue I should lie awake nights worrying about?

This is the difference you should have seen:

Stay awake at night? Nope, but the difference is certainly real which is my point. And I've explained why the difference is there. And it's fair to say one is right and one is wrong.

2 + 2 = 3.79
2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 4.28

No need to lose sleep over any of those, they're all good. Works for Senator Corsine.

Joe

 

[Crollo]

As a photographer, is your standard for the quality of your work "pretty close?"

If you want anything more than just 'pretty close' why are you saving your photographs to the web as low resolution images? To each their own I guess.

 

[z1rick]

Firefox 99% of the time, never tried Chrome

 

[DorkSterr]

Google Chrome.

 

[D-B-J]

Safari, all day err-day

 

[Foxx]

I tend to switch off between Firefox and Chrome every couple of months, though I'll probably go steady with Firefox as my desktop will be my main workstation from now on.

 

[TheKenTurner]

Chrome <3

 

[KaPOWitsCHRIS]

Safari.

I used to use Chrome then I got a Mac and the reader and reading lists features along with syncing iOS pulled me to Safari.

 

[DCMoney]

Chrome