Please explain what I do wrong

[Jack]

Well FTR it runs CS3 just fine on my machine, and even color-manages properly LOLOL!

I suspect that the issue lies within Safari under Leopard. I just noticed something even more weird. On the screenshots you posted of my image

1) they look wrong in BOTH Safari and Firefox

2) in Safari, your screenshot looks exactly like the image in my post above it, and both are wrong

3) BUT! In Firefox, my posted image looks right and your screenshot still looks wrong!

:wtf:

 

[Jack]

Just for giggles, here's the screenshot of the difference on my system.

Where it gets weirder, is now when viewing the screenshot in Firefox, the Safari side (LEFT) looks correct while the Firefox side (RIGHT) is washed. In Safari, the Firefox side looks correct and the Safari side looks gross, like when I view it directly form Safari.

As I suspected, viewing the LEFT image in Firefox matches the RIGHT image view in Safari, But now both match CS3 --- ???

The final thing is I only really notice the difference between browsers in the reds. Got to be a Leopard/Safari bug and something in the Safari/Leopard combo is stacking the profile...

 

[Maggie O]

That is some weird, wild, wacky stuff!

</Johnny Carson>

 

[mark1958]

I wonder if the problems i had observed previously were related to the OS system upgrade. I am not to leopard but OS 10.4.10.

 

[Jack]

I have checked with a few other users, and all who are on Leopard can see what I'm talking about...

 

[Maggie O]

Hummm. The Safari vs. Firefox thing is going on again, this time in B&W. I was puzzled when you said that this photo was "flat" and needed more contrast, as it looked nicely contrast-y in Safari and in iPhoto and in CS3. But, when I looked at it in Firefox, sure enough, it was flat and washed-out.

(hopefully, the differences between the two browsers will be visible in the screenshot, if only in degrees of contrast)

I'm at wit's end. If I tune photos to look good in Friefox, they look crappy in everything else!

 

[Bob]

I think there is more going on here...
Firstly, Safari 3.0 is the only commonly available browsers that is color profile aware. That means if a profile is embedded, then Safari will attempt to use it. If no profile is embedded, then it will use the monitor color space.
IE and firefox, on the other hand, always throw out the color space tagged in the image and display it in the monitor color space.
Firefox folks are working to change this, so that their browser will also honor embedded color spaces. This might be out in the next major release i hear.
So, look again at those misbehaving images and see if there is an embedded profile. If there is, then there is a clue I think.
Most of the time, and especially for small images, it makes no sense to embed the 4k bytes or so of profile. Just convert to sRBG and BE SURE that there is no embedded profile. If there is an embedded profile, then I suspect that Safari expecting something like a calibrated monitor at D65 6500K around 120 lumens and 2.2 gamma in order for a match to occur between an embedded sRGB profile and no profile at all. If a radically different profile, such as ProPhoto, one of Joe Holmes specials, or Apple RGB, is embedded, then the image has no chance of matching between current firefox and Safari.

-bob

 

[Jack]

Bob:

In my case, ALL of my web jpegs are converted to sRGB so they have the tag embedded... There is definitely a saturation/gamut issue of some type.