Firefox vs. Safari: Image Profile Style May 6, 09:50 PM
For the past couple of weeks I’ve been using Safari instead of Firefox (for the mac users) for browsing the world wide web. I’m not here to debate about all the pros and cons of these two browsers, however, something caught my eye while making this transition. Check out the two photos below. The *top is a screenshot of one of my photos viewed in Safari, the bottom view from Firefox.
What a difference! I declare this unacceptable! (color profile nazi’s: I do convert my images to sRGB, so that’s not the problem here). Apparently, I’m not the only one that noticed this either.
After doing some research, I found this article. To break it down, Firefox doesn’t support color profiles, unlike Safari. The next version of Firefox (3) is said to have full support of ICC color profiles. Until then, I’m sticking with Safari.
I thought you other photographers out there might find this useful – and to you viewers who have a sharp eye :)
*Note that I over-saturated the top photo after first noticing this anomaly, that is why it looks like Matthew has a gross sunburn.
**Also, I’m now offering RSS & ATOM feeds if you use a web aggregator. Click on Subscribe to Feed to subscribe!
RSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS feed
11 Responses to "Firefox vs. Safari: Image Profile Style"
I knew firefox was up to no good.
No way! That’s unacceptable…
Firefox 3 will have a hidden preference for turning on color profile support. It’s off by default due to plug-ins and such. See the blog post below.
http://www.dria.org/wordpress/archives/2008/04/29/633/
And, of course, you said that but I didn’t read all the way. You probably don’t want to turn it on, actually. I’d recommend continuing to use Safari if you care about what photos look like. There are a few hidden crashes as well. It’s not quite ready for primetime, which is why it isn’t on by default.
Benjamin, Very good point. Seeing the pictures from this specific blog on both browsers, I’m more impressed with the results that Safari delivers. However, while looking at the actual blog where the pictures are found, I noticed that there is little (I’m talking small) difference. I was actually very surprised to see the close similarity between both because Firefox doesn’t deliver the image quality that Safari does, like you mention.
So what am I trying to say? Well I compare both browsers in a Powerbook G4, the difference is clearly significant. But when I view them with this DELL monitor, the difference isn’t that much. So I don’t have an answer or wise explanation for this, but maybe Firefox behaves different with various monitors. I don’t know, something to research.
The only thing I don’t like about Safari is that when it crashes you lose your place. At least with firefox, you can restore..
I know that statement was very relevant to your post… haha
Thanks, Ben, you reminded me about embedding icc profiles in images. I’m going to start embedding profiles for all my mac friends from now on.
It’s true that on a mac the only way of seeing pics as intended is viewing through safari and hoping the profile is embedded. Much of the web doesn’t have embedded profiles because PCs with 2.2 gamma don’t need them to be viewed accurately and because multimedia stuff (most movie players) and other elements embedded in sites can’t support profiles, and so their colors won’t match surrounding colors that might have the same rgb numbers but are profiled. So I guess embedding profiles is good if your viewers use macs (safari), and you’re not counting on matching other colors on your site perfectly.
this makes so much sense! i always noticed how gray my images got when i uploaded them to the web, but i only use firefox so i thought it was simply a web thing, but NO, i have been fooled. Thanks for uncovering this mystery for me ben blood. phew. what a relief :)
First time viewer of your blog. Nice work! I’m glad to see there’s other photog’s out there with an interest in various technical aspects (most people don’t know what ICC color profiles are, or what ICC means). This was very interesting to me and it’s always been a concern that my clients aren’t viewing the pics under a calibrated monitor, or using various browsers.
I checked your last picture on this blog with Safari, IE7, & FF in Mac & PC. There was a huge different between Safari and FF on Mac, but no difference between FF and IE7 on PC. Considering less than 10% of I-net viewers use Mac, I always check my stuff on IE too.
Version FF3 can’t come soon enough. For the integrity of our work for all ours sakes.
I’m confused… to what are you attributing the difference between the browsers? You say that you convert to sRGB which is the default rendering mode for browsers, then seeming attribute the difference to Safari’s ability to interpret ICC profiles. But by using sRGB as your profile, are you not asking both browsers to interpret them the same?
Time to redo your test with Firefox 3.
But.. even if you do discover that it works well in the new FF what will you do? Target the elitist photo-viewers who have any clue of what we’re talking about? or pander to the unwashed masses who would consider using Internet Explorer (horrors)?
If you are exporting from an Adobe product, you can create one picture for all people. It takes 2 things:
1. use sRGB (for the record these acronym is the name of both a colorspace, and an ICC profile, #1 refers to the colorspace)
2. when you are exporting (“export to web” or “Save-As” just make sure you uncheck the box next to the word ICC Profile.
This will ensure that you are not storing any info that a browser may not be able to handle.
If your pictures are less saturated than before, over-saturate the original before exporting (can you say “action-script”?)