Warning: choose your web browser wisely!

[gavinlg]

I just spent a good 2 hours trying to figure out why photographs posted to a website and flickr were more contrasty and saturated than when I exported them from Lightroom.
So basically, I've been trying Google Chrome, and it doesn't support color profiles. In other words, it was showing my photographs with different/incorrect contrast and saturation and color gamut because it wasn't profiling the photograph for viewing correctly, and annoying the crap outta me.

So Google Chrome and Internet Explorer are both as useless as each other - no profiling support. Firefox has ICC2 support - which is halfway there.
Apple Safari is the only browser that supports ICC4 color profiles - and thus makes the best browser for photograph viewing.

After switching back to Safari my problem was solved. Just thought I'd share.

 

[Steve M.]

This is some interesting info.

I've also noted that when I click on one of my images, the Windows program that opens the files (not sure what it's called, but it has features like slide show and stuff) makes the photos look so much better than in PS or on the web. So, what do my shots REALLY look like? Which is the more accurate version of the shot?

I've finally decided that it doesn't matter, none of them are "right". I'm looking at an image on a computer monitor, not a photograph. I just worry what the photograph looks like now. I, and most of us, seem to have forgotten that a monitor is for proofing photographs, it isn't a final step. In fact, it isn't anything at all, really. Just glowing pixels on my monitor, and it will look different on everybody's monitor. Besides, when I turn off the computer it's gone. Poof. It's nothing more than a virtual image of hot pixels. It isn't real.

 

[fotomeow]

Aha! thats why my pics look like crap when I post them! I knew I was a better photographer than that! ....... Just kiddin', just being a smart *ss.

"After switching back to Safari my problem was solved. Just thought I'd share."
Really appreciate your investigation Gavin and sharing your results. Your knowledge of the computer interfacing/programming for posting pics is far beyond mine. Just glad that I use Safari, and that the cost of my Mac is paying off in some way!

The way that the contrast is increased, etc is another example of how manufacturers second-guess the consumer, b/c they assume the consumer needs this help, and to help them sell product. E.g, Its similar the commercial tea production: the tea is put in bags to be steeped at boiling point. However, boiling point is actually not the best temp to steep tea at. The manufacturers know this, but they assume that the consumer does not, so they make an inferior product (tea) to be brewed at the wrong temp. Most people dont know this or give a sh*t, just like people posting pics on the web.

 

[Field]

Flickr's up-loader does not even work with my operating system (Ubuntu). I use the basic up-loader.

I think Flickr just has a bunch of ..... doing programming. Compatibility does not need to be an issues since everything else I use works fine, that runs about the same way (Google image up-loader etc).

 

[taskoni]

Apple Safari is the only browser that supports ICC4 color profiles - and thus makes the best browser for photograph viewing.

After switching back to Safari my problem was solved. Just thought I'd share.

What a relief... I am on Safari 😀

 

[Frank Petronio]

Of course your viewers may not be on Safari. The safest bet is to convert to the sRGB profile in "Save For Web" or in your other editing software. Since sRGB seems to be the defacto Windows color space, you stand the best chance of being seen well.

The other thing is to hit an average, figuring that half your audience is looking at stuff with wacky monitors, crap browsers, etc. If you know you have a reasonably calibrated, neutral monitor and can hit a black and white point, make your greys gray, etc. then your pictures should look better, on average, than most other people's internet clutter.

 

[divewizard]

Flickr's up-loader does not even work with my operating system (Ubuntu). I use the basic up-loader.

I think Flickr just has a bunch of ..... doing programming. Compatibility does not need to be an issues since everything else I use works fine, that runs about the same way (Google image up-loader etc).

I have uploaded photos to Flicker with Unbuntu and Firefox.

 

[oftheherd]

I have uploaded photos to Flicker with Unbuntu and Firefox.

Same here. My main laptop is set up for Ubuntu only. My netbook dual boots for Ubuntu or Windows XP. They both work.

 

[divewizard]

Of course your viewers may not be on Safari. The safest bet is to convert to the sRGB profile in "Save For Web" or in your other editing software. Since sRGB seems to be the defacto Windows color space, you stand the best chance of being seen well.

The other thing is to hit an average, figuring that half your audience is looking at stuff with wacky monitors, crap browsers, etc. If you know you have a reasonably calibrated, neutral monitor and can hit a black and white point, make your greys gray, etc. then your pictures should look better, on average, than most other people's internet clutter.

I agree with you Frank. Everything posted to the web should be sRGB becasue that is the default for almost all hardware and software. Besides, almost no one besides a few anal graphic artists and photographers has a calibrated monitor. Most people have ill adjusted fading monitors.

I still use a CRT as one of my monitors because it is easier for me to adjust the subtle color and brightness differences with it since it has a more linear response curve than LCDs. I also and I check my picture adjustments on both.

At work I have three different Dell LCDs, 2 on my PC, and one on my linux box. The color rendition is different on all three. But pictures with proper black and white point sets look far better on all than those that do not.

 

[swoop]

I've stopped being nitpicky about colours. I get them where I want on my monitor, but I know its going to look different on every display.

I have 2 colour calibrators, a Huey Pro and an i1. Neither will keep their profiles on my windows laptop, the Intel display driver overrides it every time. it's annoying. So I just calibrated the thing manually by eye. It's the one thing I miss about my iMac. The colours were beautiful.

 

[Tim Gray]

Unfortunately, Safari (and OS X) doesn't assume photos without ICC profiles are in sRGB, or any other user-selectable color space. As a result, if you have a large or AdobeRGB gamut monitor, and view photos that are in sRGB but untagged, they look 'a bit' saturated. Not sure what the work around for that one is.

I think Firefox does assume sRGB, but I'm not sure.