Colour management problem?

Great stuff, that worked a treat though oddly I had to change it to 0, not that I'm too worried as the problem is resolved. Much appreciated.

For what it's worth, I'm on Safari for Windows (color managed) and I see a definite difference between Zenfolio and POTN. The Zenfolio image is contrastier and in the background blur in the upper right corner the tonal transitions are far less smooth. I was going to say that what FF and Safari have in common is color management which IE lacks, but then I checked your Exif and discovered that your image file lacks an embedded color space profile, which means that all three browsers would be without c.m. So the first thing I'd advice is to upload a sRGB image with an embedded profile in order to see if that displays better.

tzalman, how you described it was exactly the problem I was having. How would I go about embedding a profile, it's something I'm unsure of. Thanks.

Edit: I've found it as an option when saving, I'll do that in the morning, time I was calling it a night.

tzalman, I had a go at embedding a profile and changed my browser back to my original settings and assuming I have done it correctly I don't see any difference. Here's 2 images I put up, both converted to sRGB and I selected Embed colour profile when I was saving one of them and not for the other.

No profile embedded.

Profile embedded.

While I'm happy enough using the fix that stsva gave me and setting my browser so that it doesn't do colour management, it's still a bit annoying knowing that there's folks like yourself who aren't seeing my images on Zenfolio as I intended. It's weird though how a browser will see the same image diffently when shown on different websites, so I assume that how websites are set up must also affect things.
Could I ask how you know from my images that a colour profile is embedded or not, is that something that is specific to Safari?

Brian -
First the bad news: I can't see any difference between the two versions, with and without profile, equally bad compared to your image that I downloaded.

Now the good news: I think I have discovered the source of your problem. First, I saw that your image lacked a profile by using Jeffrey Friedl's Exif Viewer plugin. What I failed to notice yesterday in the Exif Viewer is that Zenfolio is doing something very bad to images, but today I caught it. I'll explain. The two photos below are screen captures of the Exif Viewer. The first one is of the POTN page and it is just what you would expect - jpg image, 800x533 pixels, etc. The second one is from when I turned on the Exif Viewer on the Zenfolio page. It is not a jpg, it is a gif. Zenfolio is converting jpgs to gifs for its display. This is a disaster. Gifs are horrible for photographs - they support a very limited color palette, 256 colors instead of the 16 million of a jpg, and they are intended for graphics only. They are also much smaller than jpgs and this saves Zenfolio a lot of bandwidth. When you hot link to the image from POTN the original jpg is sent and when you download from Zenfolio you get the jpg, but, as I said, their display is a disaster. I don't know if other photo sharing sites do this, but I definitely know that the site I use, Imageevent, doesn't.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

tzalman-
I think the EXIF viewer is picking up on something other than the actual image from Zenfolio. It's difficult to tell what's going on since Zenfolio disables right clicking for image information. I can't tell from the Zenfolio page source information exactly what's going on, but it looks like it may be using flash to display the images.

tzalman wrote in post #11094681
Zenfolio is converting jpgs to gifs for its display. This is a disaster.

If they were, it would be very bad. But they aren't.
The gif is an 8x8 blank gif, serving as right click / download protection

An image without embedded profile will look identical in safari (assumes monitor profile) and IE (assumes nothing).
Firefox 3.6 set to color management mode "0" (no color management) or "2" (stupid color management; like Safari) will show the same.
http://kb.mozillazine.​org/Gfx.color_manageme​nt.enabled

Firefox 3.6 set to color management mode "1" however will (correctly) assume sRGB, so will display the image as it looked in PS before stripping the profile.

If you open this jpg in PS, you (should) get a "missing profile" warning. If you assign sRGB, it should look like in FF (and what it used to look like in PS), if you assign your monitor profile, it'll look like in IE and Safari.

Images look identical here in the POTN thread (opened image in a new tab) and Zenfolio (Downloaded the jpg and opened in a new tab to not get confused by the black vs. white background). That's on safari. None of the images have an embedded profile, so all should look different then they did in your PS before saving.

Thanks folks for your time and help, it's all been very much appreciated. I'll ensure I embed the profile when saving images now and I'll start replacing my images on Zenfolio with images that have their profiles embedded.