Firefox 3 "Enable Color Management" Trick

René Damkot wrote in post #6236522
AFAIK: No

because i tried the new version of opera and it seems more more more fast and light then firefox 3

I don't see that with a two year old Compaq SR1950NX, with Outlook Express, PS7, & sometimes other apps running.
So I wonder if FF is the problem?

PhotosGuy wrote in post #6239656
I don't see that with a two year old Compaq SR1950NX, with Outlook Express, PS7, & sometimes other apps running.
So I wonder if FF is the problem?

My thoughts too. My old Acer does fine. It does have a 128meg PCI-E video card though (I know, but I'm not a gamer!) and that might help.

Perhaps if you could tell us what you are running?

An aside - you run Firefox 3.0 and OUTLOOK EXPRESS? No Thunderbird?

PhotosGuy wrote in post #6239656
I don't see that with a two year old Compaq SR1950NX, with Outlook Express, PS7, & sometimes other apps running.
So I wonder if FF is the problem?

It's not everyone, just some, and unfortunately mine is one. I can click on a link, and while FF says "contacting X.com, or "loading x.com" switch to Opera and load the same page while FF still hasn't loaded it. It is not just a little slow, but several minutes to render the text on a page and the images still aren't there. I usually have no more than 2 or 3 tabs open. My machine is not new, but adequate. Prior to v. 3 I would be browsing while converting hundreds of Raw files in the background with no noticeable slow down. I like FF and have used it since pre version 1. For me it just doesn't work any longer. YMMV

Yeah, I'm a fossil. If I could figure out how to export everything to a better browser, I'd switch. Tried it once years ago & failed miserably.

The following images were converted with Canon's Digital Photo Professional. They contain embedded colour profiles, and can be used to determine if your browser is colour space-aware.

Adobe RGB:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Running FF3.0.1 and agree almost entirely with the last post. To me the Adobe RGB and Wide Gamut RGB look to have very slightly more contrast than the others which may make the colours look a little richer but only a little. Thanks for posting the comparison shots.

PS
And they loaded very quickly.

Looks pretty much identical on my laptop screen (calibrated as good as possible) in FF3.0.1

davidcrebelxt wrote in post #6219943
I don't think it's pointless. If everyone had a colormanaged browser, it wouldn't matter what color space was used. Plus I can't control how others post their images so now I'm covered either way. I've headed the problem off on my end before it's even a problem.

I wouldn't consider it wise to not process ones web photos in sRGB at this point (if you want them to sell based on web based appearances that is). I didn't hear you say you would stop processing your photos in sRGB for the web, but if that's what you're thinking (or what the lurkers may think) then you should probably be aware that road is fraught with pitfalls.

To illustrate the inherent problem, here's an example: You may have a color managed browser and for that reason you decide to leave/convert your photo's colorspace to a color space with a wider gamut such as "ProPhoto RBG" Adobe RGB, etc. so that you can display your photos in richer color. Every time you look at a photo in your color managed browser it looks good, whether the photo you're looking at is in sRGB, ProPhoto RGB, Adobe RGB, or anyone elses RBG color gamut. However, to the people you are selling to without color management they could be looking at a lot of blocky black shadows (out of gamut blacks etc.) or blown colors/highlights if you've processed your images (for the web) in something other than sRGB and that's not gonna be very impressive to the one viewing them. sRGB is a narrow color gamut and it's basically the lowest common denominator so that it's reproducible by any monitor and most printers of reasonable quality.

When you produce photos that have as the minimum standard a wider RGB color gamut it is only gonna look right to those who are able to reproduce it through color managed equipment (who are using the same color gamut or wider than you) or those who just get lucky with how their equipment is configured. I've even had photos processed in sRBG have too wide of a color gamut for a friends monitor, though that points to his monitor or faulty monitor profile more than anything else. It wasn't my photo as it showed up fine on multiple other monitors and it was in sRGB after all which is known to be a very narrow color gamut. It would be nice if one day everyones system got shifted to a wider color gamut and sRGB (sick RGB) would be made completely useless, but some other color gamut will take it's place as the lowest common denominator at that point. Color management will still be necessary as equipment drifts in it's output over time and always has to be brought back to a common standard.

+1 - My point exactly. I'll post my images in sRGB. I would much prefer to view the web in a color managed browser.

tkoutdoor wrote in post #6242558
I wouldn't consider it wise to not process ones web photos in sRGB at this point (if you want them to sell based on web based appearances that is). I didn't hear you say you would stop processing your photos in sRGB for the web, but if that's what you're thinking (or what the lurkers may think) then you should probably be aware that road is fraught with pitfalls.

Understood.

But that's not what I was stating at all. Simply stating I'm covered if someone else posts in other than sRGB. Since I'm smart enough to use a color-manged browser on a calibrated system I don't really care WHAT color space they post in. In fact... I wouldn't even notice.

There's alot of people out there with dSLR's now, being told AdobeRGB has a wider color gamut so its best... they don't consider that it makes a difference when posting. There are TONS of pictures on flickr that are AdobeRGB. Rather than complaining to each person I come across "Hey idiot, you should be doing it this way..." I simply use a color-manged browser, and we all get along peacefully.

Granger chart, ProPhoto vs. sRGB:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

tkoutdoor wrote in post #6242558
I wouldn't consider it wise to not process ones web photos in sRGB at this point (if you want them to sell based on web based appearances that is). I didn't hear you say you would stop processing your photos in sRGB for the web, but if that's what you're thinking (or what the lurkers may think) then you should probably be aware that road is fraught with pitfalls.

Agree. However, with the rising popularity of wide gamut screens, another pitfall also rears its head: On a wide gamut screen, with a non color managed aplication, an sRGB image will look oversaturated

tkoutdoor wrote in post #6242558
However, to the people you are selling to without color management they could be looking at a lot of blocky black shadows (out of gamut blacks etc.) or blown colors/highlights if you've processed your images (for the web) in something other than sRGB

I agree there will be problems, but not those you describe
A ProPhoto RGB image will simply look very dull and "off" in a non CM browser.

In effect that browser assigns the monitor profile to the image. The numbers in the file don't change, so there is no "out of gamut".
Where a (235;0;0) was quite a vivid red in ProPhotoRGB, maybe even outside monitor Gamut, it now is a red not even close to the monitors maximum red.
Example below: ProPhotoRGB image without embedded profile (so will look wrong in any browser) and sRGB image with embedded profile.

tkoutdoor wrote in post #6242558
sRGB is a narrow color gamut and it's basically the lowest common denominator so that it's reproducible by any monitor and most printers of reasonable quality.

sRGB is based on the "average" CRT.
A lot of cheap LCDs (Laptops, TN screens) are not capable of producing the entire sRGB gamut.

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

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

René Damkot wrote in post #6244909
I agree there will be problems, but not those you describe
A ProPhoto RGB image will simply look very dull and "off" in a non CM browser.

In effect that browser assigns the monitor profile to the image. The numbers in the file don't change, so there is no "out of gamut".
Where a (235;0;0) was quite a vivid red in ProPhotoRGB, maybe even outside monitor Gamut, it now is a red not even close to the monitors maximum red.
Example below: ProPhotoRGB image without embedded profile (so will look wrong in any browser) and sRGB image with embedded profile.

sRGB is based on the "average" CRT.
A lot of cheap LCDs (Laptops, TN screens) are not capable of producing the entire sRGB gamut.

Nice colors in the color space map pics posted by strat 666 above. sRGB looks more impressive (the colors look richer with what appears to be a wider color range) on my non-CM enabled browser, but sRGB is still the narrower gamut. On my non-CM enabled browser some of each color group is non-existent in the ProPhoto pic. The one area that I can be specific about is that there is almost no Cyan range in the ProPhoto that shows up. Aside from that some of each color range is also missing from ProPhoto when compared to sRGB. Here's why... A full working color space has been compressed to fit within sRGB so it shows as full a range as possible within the color space available. The Pro Photo looks dull because it entire range of colors has not been compressed to fit within the typical available color space for the web (sRBG) and so there is a lot of color clipping where the ends of the spectrum are just lopped off without any attempt to create a similar color to sRGB. If one could see the same ProPhoto pic in a system capable of displaying the full gamut the ProPhoto pic would look even richer with fuller color and (possibly) smoother gradations than the sRGB that I'm seeing now on my system. If the ProPhoto was actually output in the ProPhoto color space (instead of converted to sRGB) then those of you with color managed browsers that are functioning correctly will be seeing that the ProPhoto RGB looks better than the sRGB instead of worse. If you opened it in a color managed system from Photoshop you'd see it there as well.

The results of an out of gamut color space (relative to sRGB) being shown within sRGB etc. may show a dull transition such as this one or it may be blocky patches depending on the inherent qualities of the photo. I've seen it go both ways. A whole lot of out of gamut colors side by side when clipped will default to one extreme or the other (pure white or pure black). Up to the point of getting clipped everything will attempt to be a graduated color change. Once clipped it's all one color. If the gamut were simply compressed to fit within sRBG it wouldn't be blocky because its entire range would be visible as a smooth gradation, but ProPhoto is a wider gamut than sRBG so it won't fit inside of it. That mean the colors get clipped off when they hit the limits.

On a color space pic (like what strat 666 has shown) we see here the transitions are smooth and gradual. In real world photos deep shadows and bright highlights can be completely randomized and the effect can be blockiness (pixelation) instead of simply dull colors as you can go from areas of smooth color gradations to one flat color. Entire portions of a photo can hover at the edge of a color gamut (just inside and just outside the edge of the color space). This can happen with sunset photos for example. You can get blocky patches where it goes from smooth gradations to harshly clipped areas that could just be a few pixels in size. This creates the blockiness (pixelized effect). The pixelation in a small photo will not be as noticeable as the same photo at large size for reasons that should be apparent.

Here's a quote from an about.com article that repeats briefly the typical talking points on the sRGB design standard. "Hewlett-Packard and Microsoft designed sRGB. It includes the color space used by most computer monitors, so that any color that is allowed in the sRGB profile can be reproduced on any computer display. That's handy, and that's why sRGB is the only color profile used by Web browsers. More to the point: Web browsers expect pictures to be rendered in the sRBG color profile. If they're not, the images will be rendered inaccurately." Here's the link to to the article. http://pcworld.about.c​om/news/Feb212006id124​547.htm

Whereas it's possible for "much older" equipment to not be able to display the full sRGB gamut, that can only be described as a rare exception. For example... If there's anyone out there still using "High color" (64,000 colors if I recall correctly), 256 colors, 8 colors etc. then it's you that would not be able to see the full sRGB standard. I don't personally know of anyone doing that anymore. Those were from the days of 2 meg and less video cards. Today equipment that can't produce 16 million colors would have to be somewhat antiquated, but as you've pointed out it may yet exist somewhere. I have a few components here in my house to create a system that can't display the full sRGB color space, but it's well past 10 years old and not in use anymore. Same is true of monitors..., except I think I threw out the last couple monitors that would only do 640 x 480 etc. about 6 or 8 years ago. If there's someone out there trying to squeak an extra decade out of a laptop using Linux or something I could see them still bumping into problems even with sRGB, but that's got to be a true rarity (in industrialized nations) as the statistics go.

NOTE: I apologize for any of you sharp enough to point out that I've used "color space" when I should have used "color gamut" or "color space map" instead or visa-versa. I probably should have gone through it more carefully, but it's not the main point I'm trying to make and it's way past my bedtime... LOL

I have a question on this. As I dont know much about the topic, I am unsure of which is "correct".

I read this entire thread, viewed the pictures and then went and enabled like the OP said to.
Strat666's pictures before configuring looked totally different from one another. The one on the left was gradient from color to color, the one on the right has what I can only descride as BLOBs of colors. With defined lines around the blue, yellow, greeen, etc....
After enabling, they both look the same, and the same being the way the sRGB looked prior to enabling.

Is this the correct way I should be viewing, so that all pictures no matter what format OTHERS post will all look "correct"?