ICC Profiling: No internet browser does it right?

For testing purposes, I have installed Safari 5, Firefox 3.6, Internet Explorer 8, and Chrome 8.0. (All up-to-date.) My monitor has been recently calibrated with the Spyder Express 3 and I'm using Windows 7.

When I go to this webpage...

http://color.org/versi​on4html.xalter

NO browser displays the test image properly.
Both Firefox and Safari treat the image as only supporting ICC version 2 profiles. (In other words, each looks exactly like Image 2 under the "Expected results" list.)

As for Internet Explorer and Chrome, both apparently lack ICC support and display an image very similar to the third photo posted under the "Expected results" list, which has no such support.)

What I expected to see was Safari displaying everything correctly, because it is apparently the only browser that supports ICC v4 profiling right out of the box. However, it did not. Can anyone explain this?

---------------

A second test I ran on this whole profiling issue was through my own Flickr page. (Each image I post online is tagged with the sRGB IEC61966-2.1 profile.)
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/bengford

Results?

Chrome and IE are once again the big losers: These browsers simply get it wrong. Most of the colors are over-saturated and blacks are exaggerated. Yuck.

Firefox and Safari: These guys come a lot closer. It still isn't EXACTLY what Photoshop displays, but the differences are far more subtle. Slight bits of saturation and contrast seem to be added, but only to a small degree.

---------------

Well, what does a guy make of all this mess? Obviously, Chrome and Internet Explorer are simply out of the picture if you're serious about viewing photography on the web. (Which is a shame for Chrome, because it's easily the best browser when it comes to doing just about everything else, IMO.)

Safari should, theoretically, be the best choice for those of us who care about seeing colors as they are intended. However, I'm not viewing any of those gains in practice. Firefox and Safari, to my eyes, are almost identical, and the same thing could be said of Chrome and IE.

Is there anything I'm missing??

SimplyShane wrote in post #11578666
Is there anything I'm missing??

You are missing the fact that web browsers are not intended to be critical image viewers. I doubt if recognizing ICC profiles is high on any browser developers list. Only a minuscule percentage of web users have calibrated monitors and an even smaller percentage of web images would take advantage of a browser that was ICC profile compliant. Also consider that many photographers seriously limit the web versions of their work to avoid theft. Even if the browser did work as you wish, you would be viewing a low res, low bit depth version.

There is a color management extension module for firefox :
https://addons.mozilla​.org/fr/firefox/addon/​6891/

yb98 wrote in post #11579115
There is a color management extension module for firefox :
https://addons.mozilla​.org/fr/firefox/addon/​6891/

All that does is make it easier to use the already-present color management system in Firefox, it doesn't add anything but the GUI.

Safari for Mac shows ICC 4, Firefox shows ICC 2, and Chrome & Opera don't show either.

When I look at your pictures (or anyone else's) on Flickr, the ones in Chrome look slightly different, but nothing significant. I wouldn't even notice if I weren't comparing them side by side. The difference I see is probably the equivalent of +1 on the blacks slider in your processor.

Firefox 3.6.12 supports system supports ICC version 2 profiles only
Safari 5.0.3 supports these ICC version 4 and version 2 profiles
Google Chrome 8.0.552.231 supports these ICC version 4 and version 2 profiles

All on my iMac

whiteflyer wrote in post #11579939
Firefox 3.6.12 supports these ICC version 4 and version 2 profiles (Has to be enabled by user)

What's your source for this info? AFAIK, FF 3.6 still doesn't support ver.4 profiles.

The solution is simple enough... Calibrate your monitor with ver.2 profiles.

ChasP505 wrote in post #11580037
What's your source for this info? AFAIK, FF 3.6 still doesn't support ver.4 profiles.

The solution is simple enough... Calibrate your monitor with ver.2 profiles.

My apology, I was looking at the wrong image/browser, I'll edit my previous post.

Mark-B wrote in post #11579296
Safari for Mac shows ICC 4, Firefox shows ICC 2, and Chrome & Opera don't show either.

When I look at your pictures (or anyone else's) on Flickr, the ones in Chrome look slightly different, but nothing significant. I wouldn't even notice if I weren't comparing them side by side. The difference I see is probably the equivalent of +1 on the blacks slider in your processor.

+1? I'd give it +3 at least. Maybe even a +5. Seriously.

I've had many Black and White images compromised as a result of what Chrome and IE "add" to them. It's a rather big change, at least to my eyes.

Beachcomber Joe wrote in post #11578807
You are missing the fact that web browsers are not intended to be critical image viewers. I doubt if recognizing ICC profiles is high on any browser developers list. Only a minuscule percentage of web users have calibrated monitors and an even smaller percentage of web images would take advantage of a browser that was ICC profile compliant. Also consider that many photographers seriously limit the web versions of their work to avoid theft. Even if the browser did work as you wish, you would be viewing a low res, low bit depth version.

The appearance of a photographer's online portfolio is rather important. It's how clients are typically introduced to the work.

If that isn't displaying properly in certain browsers, how can that not be a big deal?

Granted, my Flickr account isn't anywhere CLOSE to being professional, but still...The idea stands.

Mark-B wrote in post #11579296
Safari for Mac shows ICC 4, Firefox shows ICC 2, and Chrome & Opera don't show either.

When I look at your pictures (or anyone else's) on Flickr, the ones in Chrome look slightly different, but nothing significant. I wouldn't even notice if I weren't comparing them side by side. The difference I see is probably the equivalent of +1 on the blacks slider in your processor.

Safari does NOT SHOW ICC v4 files correctly. (http://color.org/versi​on4html.xalter proves this to me.)

That was one of the major reasons I posted this thread. Why is Safari screwing this up?

SimplyShane wrote in post #11582652
Safari does NOT SHOW ICC v4 files correctly. (http://color.org/versi​on4html.xalter proves this to me.)

That was one of the major reasons I posted this thread. Why is Safari screwing this up?

Safari for Windows does not. Safari for Mac does.

Mark-B wrote in post #11582917
Safari for Windows does not. Safari for Mac does.

So why just Macintosh?

Is there anything I can do on my end to support ICC v4?

SimplyShane wrote in post #11582620
The appearance of a photographer's online portfolio is rather important. It's how clients are typically introduced to the work.

If that isn't displaying properly in certain browsers, how can that not be a big deal?

Granted, my Flickr account isn't anywhere CLOSE to being professional, but still...The idea stands.

You know, if you think about it, your clients will in all liklihood not be using color-managed software to view your photos and, even if they do, probably won't be using a calibrated monitor.

The links show a picture that has been purposefully pushed to show extreme variations that will definitely be obvious to everyone but users of certain software -- why would you want to publish that in a Web portfolio?

When I post software to the Web for people to view I convert to sRGB, I view it in IE, and I work with both calibrated and uncalibrated monitors to avoid such screwups! I can live with a bit of variation, but I'd never go for posting in aRGB even unless I was doing some testing for my eyes or other photographers.

SimplyShane wrote in post #11582603
+1? I'd give it +3 at least. Maybe even a +5. Seriously.

Depends on what monitor one is using...