Camino/Firefox vs. Safari -- Image Quality Difference (HUGE) on Flickr

Kevin MacLeod says:

It has to do with the way Safari (webkit) manages the color profiles embedded inside every image.

I'm not quite sure of the details, but here is what the Webkit team over at Apple has to say about it:

webkit.org/blog/73/color-spaces/
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

ahawks81 says:

This is the stuff that makes digital photography so frustrating.

With physical art, it is the same. Anyone that looks at it, sees the same thing.

With a digital photo, there are countless variables between viewers. Browser. OS. Screen resolution, brightness, contrast. Color profiles. Browser, etc.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

dreamsINdigital says:

Firefox 3.0 will support color profiles.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

Mason Hastie says:

There are some problems with the way Safari handles black areas though. Where there should be subtle shading, I often get a dramatic shift from black to grey. This doesn't happen in Firefox.

So I guess neither browser is perfect.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

CW8746 says:

The issue is the color profile - the map of what color the monitor displays for a given pixel value. The standard for web graphics is sRGB, which describes a limited gamut of colors that almost any device can display. Professional imaging tools (like those you use for RAW images) use more capable color profiles such as aRGB. If the jpeg image is in aRGB but the browser treats it as sRGB then you get the washed out colors. The best way to deal with this given the current state of browsers is to always convert images to the sRGB color profile.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

mattymatt says:

Argh, yes, this is an irritating problem. A few months ago I did a test of various color management techniques specifically for Flickr uploading, the results of which are here.

The solution seems to be converting the color profile to sRGB before uploading. Automator has a built-in action that can easily do just that, though it's very slow on high-res photos.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

aywwts4 says:

ahawks81 Pro User says:\
"With physical art, it is the same. Anyone that looks at it, sees the same thing."

Now to really ruin your day, Think about all people who see your art and are colour blind to some degree, red and green are fused, or blue and yellow fused, or rarely those who see everything greyscale.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

earthsworld says:

and make sure your gamma is set to 2.2 @65K, mac users.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

mudx says:

Hmm... just compared a few images between Firefox vs. Safari and they appeared exactly the same. I then proceeded to test in Camino and still no variances... It's kinda strange that is happening for you.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

FreeTube says:

@ ahawks81
that's not true at all. No two people will see anything as the same, first there's the perception or individual beliefs of the person that will shape what they see, and then theirs the biological - whereby it is suggested that the intensity of the color is not the same for two people. So where you see a very dark red, someone else may see a bright red, and I may see a another color entirely.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

xonicx says:

>>>This image was taken in RAW and exported to JPG in iPhoto

But location bar is showing png image. are you sure what are you talking about?
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

deppisch says:

Mmmmmmm.. carpaccio.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

llshibata says:

The colours in the picture shown in the Safari version is a little too saturated.....but that could be the problem with the camera originally taken with and not the browser itself.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

Justin Dolske says:

Support for color profiles is already in the Firefox 3 alphas, although it's disabled by default right now (it's the gfx.color_management.enabled pref in about:config).

See also:
www.beltzner.ca/mike/archives/2007/08/04/do_y ou_like_the_...
www.flickr.com/photos/johnmichaelmayer/123781 5206/
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

dream.tiger says:

As others have mentioned, always convert to sRGB before uploading images, and use Display Gamma 2.2 @ 6500 K when preparing web graphics on a Mac.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

minusequalsplus says:

But doesn't the food displayed in Safari look a little more appetizing? The saturation just makes the greens look greener and the reds in the meat look sooooo delicious.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

dystopiapop says:

@mudx: That's probably because all of the images you tested were sRGB.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

dystopiapop says:

@minusequalplus: yes it does. but if the image was converted to sRGB before posting it could also be color corrected to compensate the eRGB version.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

MattCairns says:

Wow im glad i use safari!
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

S.S.K. says:

Yes, I have noticed this too, the difference is that Mac stuff uses ColorSync, and Firefox doesn't. www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17612945?hili te=grass+gre...

The colours look so good on in Aperture, Preview and Safari, but they look really bad on Firefox, and even worse on Windows computers. If I did this professionally, I would care, but for now, meh...
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

herorev says:

Here's Firefox's Bugzilla entry for supporting color management:
bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16769

Firefox 3.0 currently supports it, but it's disabled by default and sadly seems like it may stay disabled by default.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

S.S.K. says:

Interesting read from Apple on what to do: docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=30282 7
(found via blogs.smugmug.com/don/2007/02/14/this-is-your -mac-on-drugs/ , another interesting read)
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

letstalkstory says:

would anyone care to comment that the one on the left actually looks more true to real life (I am pretty sure that ham/prosciutto is not supposed to be day-glow pink. lol), than the one people are calling "better". Just because the Mac one has richer colors, to me doesnt seem to be better. i would prefer to see things as they actually are, am i nuts?
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

victor johnson [deleted] says:

basically, its because safari kicks ass.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

Andrew* says:

I discovered the same problem a few months ago, there are a few useful links in the comments.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

Adharmaha says:

Gamma interpolation discrepancy in rendering PNGs. Outdated concept really. :)
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

scottpargettphotography says:

"The colours in the picture shown in the Safari version is a little too saturated.....but that could be the problem with the camera originally taken with and not the browser itself." - llshibata

In the wise words of Jeffrey Lebowski, Thats just like... your opinion, man.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

grzybu says:

I've run into that problem some months ago while designing a web site for my client. Recently it strikes me back when posting some pictures on flickr. RAW to JPG using Lightroom.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

Nocternal Oxide says:

So I am looking at this with Opera, what if I am seeing something different too?

So what if we load this page using firefox now, how is possible to see it? And, if we loaded it with Safari, would it be different now too?

How many screen captures would it take to completely over saturate this image?

This is also explains why everything always look so kick ass at the mac store and makes you want to buy one!
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

emily61 says:

The 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...)

www.iwannamakemoneyonline.com
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

ben- says:

I love safari, I've used it since it came out, on OS X it's the best. FireFox just doesn't run as well.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

olscratch69 says:

According to your theory I should not be able to tell the difference between the two pictures if I am using Firefox, which I am, on a windows machine. Seems like Firefox does a fine job of displaying the colours. See the below link for image comparison on Firefox and Safari on a windows XP machine. Seems like the image comes through better on Firefox. Of course this could just be my opinion.

www.flickr.com/photos/93346142@N00/1427576101 /
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

Catlips de Florida says:

I'm kinda wondering which one you prefer, darknesis. The color is more saturated in Safari, but it looks cyanotic to me on Firefox. Of course, there's the issue of what browser/screen I'm using to view it. But the comparison is interesting.

I got the same result as you after side-by-side testing on my crappy old iBook: www.alifewortheating.com/ba/bar-uriarte/

I use both browsers. Firefox for the web authoring plugins, Safari for the speed.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

superdau1 says:

Actually, I think the Firefox version looks much better. I wouldn't eat the bleeding thing on the right (and the lemon looks like it's treated with food coloring, too). The details are even better visible in the left image.

BTW. why are there PNGs in the address bar when you exported to JPGs? If you used PNGs you should do a little research. They can be saved with gamma information, which seems to create the problem.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

darknesis says:

the one on the right is more true to life. the steak actually was a deep red color. for an upcoming photo based food review site, picture quality is really important.

so ... how do i fix this??
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

dunham_1 says:

Also, iphoto has some weird issues with color models - sRGB is the standard for photos and the web and the default for digital cameras, but it doesn't interpret untagged pictures as sRGB. It will convert properly tagged images to your lcd's color space as soon as you touch them. (I've had photos look fine in "preview.app" and have blown out saturation when loaded into iphoto.) I think the amount of corruption depends on color model that osx has for your monitor.

For example, flickr.com/photos/embem30/445099382 turns a fairly unnatural orange if I load it into iphoto as-is.

I've pretty much given up on using iphoto because of this.

The image at the top of the page is encoded in a "Color LCD" colorspace, so it won't look right in firefox or on a pc - the safari side comes out looking magenta.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

ct_jackfl says:

Both pictures look like crap, focus is terrible, what are they selling the lemon?

Photo on right is very over saturated, the photo on the left the lemon and greens are truer.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

cxn926 says:

I prefer the firefox color.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

rickroberts says:

Apple knows color. Safari is from Apple. Duh.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

Jeff Holmes Photography says:

darknesis: its a pretty simple fix, open your image in photoshop and before you export the jpg, click edit -> convert to profile, and select sRGB. And then save the jpg. Thats it!
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

sevensirens says:

I agree with ct_jackfl.

Also the original image should have been color balanced at the time the photo was taken. You can do a quick and dirty fix by opening the image in Photoshop or a similar app and sampling the white from the plate to neutralize it with a curves adjustment layer. The Firefox picture is closer to true though; just look at the plate in your Safari image - it's pink.

Actually, I just now looked at the original image on your webpage in Firefox, Flock, and Safari. The Safari images looks almost perfect (as it should, since Safari is the only browser that respects color profile metadata). This tells me that you are not using a color managed workflow. You can read more about color management by doing a search on the web or getting a book like "The Photographer's Guide To Color Management" by Phil Nelson or "Real World Color Management" by Bruce Fraser.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

Mahdi Ebrahimi says:

ohhhhhhhhhh
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

indiekid says:

CW8746 was right in saying that Firefox is simply mis-interpreting the color palate.

Most images taken in RAW are exported with a different color profile than sRGB. As soon as it's exported, unless converted, it carries with it, the original color profile. Safari has the ability to display things other than sRGB, yet Firefox and anything with the Gecko rendering engine simply fall back on sRGB as the default, creating an unbalanced, washed out look. The real color was the Safari image, no question.

Regardless of whether or not it looks "too saturated" it is the true-to-form color that came from the camera originally, which means it's the correct image in this comparison.

A lot of the images in my photostream have the same shortcomings...all because I leave it with the original color profile.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

fohlin says:

I see that you've used Adobe Lightroom, which makes it just a matter of changing a setting when exporting. Under 'Image settings', select 'sRGB' from the 'Color space' drop-down menu.

For more technical information, check out these excellent articles on color spaces and sRGB vs. Adobe RGB.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

Ronald Poi [deleted] says:

This is PNG Gamma in action
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

sevensirens says:

Indiekid, you're partially correct. Safari is displaying the image correctly, but not here. The picture that darnesis uploaded on flickr is a screengrab from his monitor. His monitor is not color calibrated or something he did in iPhoto changed the saturation levels of the original image.

To get a true representation of the image, follow the above-referenced link to his webpage. Then open that image in Safari and Firefox. You will clearly see that the Safari image is not overly-saturated at all (as it appears here on flickr), it is, in fact, exactly as he shot it and the colors are true. The Firefox image will now appear too saturated and the plate looks pinkish-white because Firefox is not respecting the embedded color profile. If you or anyone else are having problems with your images not appearing correctly color balanced when you move them from one medium to the next (your monitor, the web, printed page, etc), then the only solution is for you to start practicing proper color management; everything will then appear the same no matter where your images go. Start by calibrating your monitor with a good cailbration device like the ones sold at chromix:

www.chromix.com/colorgear/

and then learn about embedded color profiles and how to establish a color managed workflow by getting one of the books I mentioned above or read this:

www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/emb eddedJPEGpro...
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

Omega X says:

Fixed in the CURRENT Firefox 3 nightly. Its a non-issue now.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

mattknow says:

I'm using
*Firefox 3.0 (a.k.a Gran Paradiso) on Windows
*Safari 3.0.3 on Windows

It's exactly the same.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

mattknow says:

Thanks Omega X,
That makes more since.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

sevensirens says:

Omega, it will only cease to be an issue when everybody is using a browser that respects color profiles and all images on the web are properly tagged before being uploaded :) Unfortunately, I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

xaverx says:

Ok
I write up
www.mymac.cc
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

Omega X says:

@sevensirens

Baby steps. It takes time for things to become Standard across the board. Especially with Microsoft and IE.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

tms.hu says:

wow
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

Grey master says:

It's not the quality, I think Safary can read ICC color profiles which Mozilla can't.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

exclision says:

I don't understand your hesitation. Safari is faster, prettier, and more minimalistic than Firefox without losing any functionality or power.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

darknesis says:

i switched to firefox/camino because of the adblocking support.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

Warg. says:

safari is faster than firefox. that is not quality different, just colour boost.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

sen_amitava says:

You can check out the image tests in all the 4 major browsers Safari, Firefox, IE and Opera. The images look exactly the same in all of them (atleast in in Windows).

www.safariwin.com/2007/09/27/images-in-safari -3-beta-for-...
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

J. Nordberg says:

yep -- ran into the same thing and then found this post. safari's representation is truer to my photoshop output (raw to jpg).

www.flickr.com/photos/iilii-n/2128156665/
Posted 19 months ago. ( permalink )

Travis NZ says:

I get the issues, What do people suggest we do?
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

lanka nuwan [deleted] says:

theres a problem with safari where sumtimes pics get saturated with pink for some reason. can anyone pls help.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

bvm4drw says:

Everyone remember there are (in theory) 4 images 1. left (FF) 2. left (Saf) 3. right (FF) 4. right (Saf). I only want to comment on the right "Safari" image. If you're viewing it with FF yes it is too saturated, probably because of the color profile issue. But in Safari it looks great. So yes images look different in the two. But Safari shows truer color from the original file. Lastly I love leaving IE out, it just feels good.
Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )

webterractive says:

I don't really get what you guys are talking about. I compared both pics and they look both alike. I'm using Camino 1.6.1 and Safari 3.1.2 and here is what it looks like on my iMac.

www.flickr.com/photos/26985977@N08/2632611204 /

I'm using a Late 2006 24" iMac with OS 10.5.4
Posted 13 months ago. ( permalink )

Marco Raaphorst says:

thanks for this. that solved my issue!
Posted 12 months ago. ( permalink )

supercamel says:

So frustrating :( I was wondering why my pictures looked so different on Flickr compared to the original in Photoshop. I tried a better compression setting, read about it some more online and changed the ICC profile to sRGB before saving as a jpg and nothing happened. Then I realized it was simply a Firefox problem! All the different saved versions look fine in Safari. I prefer FF over Safari for everything except this!

But my problem is that Safari is used by such a small percentage of people.. changing your own browser usage is one thing, but if you want your photos to display 'properly' everywhere then everyone kind of needs to use Safari (until the other browsers come out with something better) which aint gonna happen :(
Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )

supercamel says:

The plug-in mentioned here seems to be working for Firefox.

www.dria.org/wordpress/archives/2008/04/29/63 3/
Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )

Francis Omila says:

I know this hasn't been updated in about a year, but, I would like to add that the link "supercamel" posted about going into the config settings of firefox and enabling the color settings actually worked. I am seeing my photos to the same extent as i see them in photoshop. Thank you for allowing me to read all your replies!
Posted 4 weeks ago. ( permalink )

LightIsBeauty says:

Its a bit more perplexing because you will only observe a considerable difference if on a PC. Viewing the image on different browsers on a Mac will not render a drastic difference, but viewing on a Windows system, the different between IE/Firefox to Safari is significant. In fact, in anything but Safari the image looks butchered.
Yes, Firefox can now read color profiles, the problem is that this is not a default setting and most of the people and your clients will most likely be IE/Firefox Windows users.
I work on a color calibrated Mac and still haven't figured this one out. I'm quite embarrassed when I see my pictures on a PC, because I know its not the quality of work I'm putting out.
Posted 2 days ago. ( permalink )

You	Sign in \| Create Your Free Account
Explore	Places \| Last 7 Days \| This Month \| Popular Tags \| The Commons \| Creative Commons \| Search
Help	Community Guidelines \| The Help Forum \| FAQ \| Sitemap \| Help by Email

Camino/Firefox vs. Safari -- Image Quality Difference (HUGE)

Comments

Kevin MacLeod says:

ahawks81 says:

dreamsINdigital says:

Mason Hastie says:

CW8746 says:

mattymatt says:

aywwts4 says:

earthsworld says:

mudx says:

FreeTube says:

xonicx says:

deppisch says:

llshibata says:

Justin Dolske says:

dream.tiger says:

minusequalsplus says:

dystopiapop says:

dystopiapop says:

MattCairns says:

S.S.K. says:

herorev says:

S.S.K. says:

letstalkstory says:

victor johnson [deleted] says:

Andrew* says:

Adharmaha says:

scottpargettphotography says:

grzybu says:

Nocternal Oxide says:

emily61 says:

ben- says:

olscratch69 says:

Catlips de Florida says:

superdau1 says:

darknesis says:

dunham_1 says:

ct_jackfl says:

cxn926 says:

rickroberts says:

Jeff Holmes Photography says:

sevensirens says:

Mahdi Ebrahimi says:

indiekid says:

fohlin says:

Ronald Poi [deleted] says:

sevensirens says:

Omega X says:

mattknow says:

mattknow says:

sevensirens says:

xaverx says:

Omega X says:

tms.hu says:

Grey master says:

exclision says:

darknesis says:

Warg. says:

sen_amitava says:

J. Nordberg says:

Travis NZ says:

lanka nuwan [deleted] says:

bvm4drw says:

webterractive says:

Marco Raaphorst says:

supercamel says:

supercamel says:

Francis Omila says:

LightIsBeauty says:

Would you like to comment?

darknesis' photostream

Tags

Additional Information