Color Spaces
Posted by Dave Hyatt on Sunday, October 22nd, 2006 at 4:37 amI was pointed to this article about color spaces in Web browsers. The ultimate point of the article, that it would be good for a Web browser to be “Color Smart”, i.e., to support not only embedded color profiles in images but also to correct unprofiled images to sRGB is a sound one. However, the author takes a few potshots at Web browsers on the Mac, and I thought I’d respond to make it clear what the technical hurdles are with this problem.
First of all, if you correct unprofiled images to sRGB, you have to correct all drawing to sRGB. This includes everything drawn by CSS (borders, backgrounds, text). This is not difficult to do under the hood, although it is difficult to do it with no performance regression in our benchmarks at all. In fact we even tried this during the Tiger development cycle (just correcting everything drawn to sRGB), but it slowed us down.
The big hurdle that we ran into, though, was with the drawing we did not control, namely the Flash plug-in. The problem is that designers specify colors in Flash and colors in CSS in the Web page, and they expect those colors to match. Because Flash’s drawing isn’t correcting to sRGB, if we did it in Safari, there would be color mismatches all over the place. These mismatches look far worse than if we just don’t correct at all.
(This mismatch with plug-ins is presumably the reason that this feature was not enabled by default in Mac IE.)
October 22nd, 2006 at 5:08 am
Perhaps this is a good time to ask about Safari’s colour-space issues. I can never:
1. Use the OS X colour picker to get a colour from a page in Safari while doing web design and have it be the same colour when I insert it into new code.
2. Use the colour picker to get a colour from my Photoshop mockup and have it be the same colour in Safari.
3. Save a PNG in Photoshop and have the colours predictably match CSS colours in a web page.
I’ve been trying for years, but I can’t resolve these. The latter Safari problem is nearly as annoying as IE’s lack of transparency support.
October 22nd, 2006 at 5:35 am
Or better jet, say What color space is in effect (it has to be Some.. right?) so people can use that in PS or other apps that generate content.
Even maybe let the site ask for color correction by a javascript command? window.doColorCorrection(‘sRGB’);
Why should all the sites that does Not use Flash be held back by those that do? And now that Flash is a part of Adobe, maybe it’s about time it works with all the content produced by their own app’s like AI & PS?
October 22nd, 2006 at 5:37 am
pauld: I haven’t had any problems with colors in Safari.
I can pick a color in photoshop and put it on a page without a problem, and use PNGs. A problem occurs when using PNGs in Firefox, however. To make PNG colors appear the same in Firefox and Safari, use imagemagick in the terminal to adjust the gamma:
convert +gamma 0 infile.png outfile.png
Hope this helps.
October 22nd, 2006 at 9:15 am
pauld:
The way to get css/svg colors to match in Photoshop and Safari is to make the color space of your photoshop document the same as the color space of your monitor, as Safari currently does no correction to these colors before sending them to the screen. When you save a png, and you want it to match css colors, you should strip the profile from the png. Unfortunately, this will leave the png looking different in Windows/OS X, because they have different display gamma. This is exactly the problem that the blog post referenced in this post was ranting about.
Jakob:
css/svg is not in any color space in effect. It’s completely unmanaged, which means that it uses whatever the color profile is for your particular display. This is different on each computer and each display, so it’s really not possible to accurately generate color-accurate content. I absolutely agree that we shouldn’t all be held back by (terribly lame) flash sites. I realize this is pretty hard technically though. So I hope the WebKit team figures out a good solution. Maybe we should petition Adobe to get off their asses and bring Flash into line?
Jeff:
The png may appear the same in Safari and Mac Firefox, but it will appear completely different on Windows/Linux, which both assume that untagged images are in the sRGB color space. Unfortunately, there’s no way to get colors uniform across platforms and browsers without serving different content to each.
October 22nd, 2006 at 11:13 am
I regularly visit a few sites which use png images on their page which the authors expect to blend into the background color on their page. They can not use transparency in their images because they have far too many visitors using Internet Explorer for Windows. When Safari (or some component which Safari uses to display images) first started supporting color profiles in png images, these pages no longer looked correct in Safari, though all other browsers displayed them how the authors intended.
There is a line in the original blog post: “There is almost no chance that there are any images in existence anywhere that were written with your particular monitor (at your current monitor settings, no less) in mind.” I would contend that images designed to blend into CSS backgrounds are designed with your particular monitor settings in mind. Otherwise, they won’t work.
Yes, the true culprit here is the lack of transparency in IE. But since many of these authors did not use OS X, they had no way of knowing that their pages no longer looked correct in Safari. I tested the pages in Firefox, Opera and IE on both Mac and Windows, and found Safari to be the only browser which broke the pages in this manner. I got in contact with the authors of the site, and most of them did want the site to work well in Safari, so they removed the color information from their images.
It may just be my opinion, but most users care that the Web page looks correct. If the colors are a bit different between platforms, most people won’t notice. I know it’s important to many people, but I think it would be a lot better if this was an option which is turned off by default. I work in a tech support department at a University, and occasionally get asked for recommendations on OS X browsers. I tell them that I use Safari, and I have occasionally been told something along the lines of, “Oh, I tried Safari but it doesn’t display image colors correctly.” The average user neither knows nor cares about gamma correction, and Safari has unfairly gotten a bad reputation in some departments here on campus because of it.
Yes, Windows and Linux both assume that untagged images are in the sRGB color space, but that’s because everything on those platforms is in the sRGB color space. Correcting images to sRGB on Windows means that the images are in the same color space as the css colors on the site they are viewing, and thus do not suffer from the same problem that Safari does when color-correcting images.
This is certainly not a problem with a cut-and-dry solution. The CSS2 spec says that CSS colors are specified in the sRGB color space ( http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/syndata.html#color-units ), but unless you can render the whole page in that color space, you’re going to break some sites out there. Windows can get away with it because their monitors use sRGB profiles, and Flash uses the default color profile of your monitor. I’m not sure I’d want to take the performance hit either.
October 22nd, 2006 at 8:01 pm
Hello !
This is of-topic, but is a big problem for me, and is about Safari. The Safari d`ont download digital certificates corretly ?
Se my digital certificate above. Why Safari d`ont download the digital certificate for desktop whit extension .p12 ? The certificat is insid of Safari like this:
–NewContentTypeEnd Content-type: application/x-x509-ca-cert ;name=”root.crt” —–BEGIN CERTIFICATE—– MIICWjCCAcMCAgGlMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBAUAMHUxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVTMRgwFgYDVQQKEw9HVEUg Q29ycG9yYXRpb24xJzAlBgNVBAsTHkdURSBDeWJlclRydXN0IFNvbHV0aW9ucywgSW5jLjEjMCEG A1UEAxMaR1RFIEN5YmVyVHJ1c3QgR2xvYmFsIFJvb3QwHhcNOTgwODEzMDAyOTAwWhcNMTgwODEz MjM1OTAwWjB1MQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEYMBYGA1UEChMPR1RFIENvcnBvcmF0aW9uMScwJQYDVQQL Ex5HVEUgQ3liZXJUcnVzdCBTb2x1dGlvbnMsIEluYy4xIzAhBgNVBAMTGkdURSBDeWJlclRydXN0 IEdsb2JhbCBSb290MIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQCVD6C28FCc6HrHiM3dFw4u sJTQGz0O9pTAipTHBsiQl8i4ZBp6fmw8U+E3KHNgf7KXUwefU/ltWJTSr41tiGeA5u2ylc9yMcql HHK6XALnZELn+aks1joNrI1CqiQBOeacPwGFVw1Yh0X404Wqk2kmhXBIgD8SFcd5tB8FLztimQID AQABMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBAUAA4GBAG3rGwnpXtlR22ciYaQqPEh346B8pt5zohQDhT37qw4wxYMW M4ETCJ57NE7fQMh017l93PR2VX2bY1QY6fDq81yx2YtCHrnAlU66+tXifPVoYb+O7AWXX1uw16OF NMQkpw0PlZPvy5TYnh+dXIVtx6quTx8itc2VrbqnzPmrC3p/ —–END CERTIFICATE—– –NewContentTypeEnd Content-type: application/x-x509-ca-cert ;name=”ca.crt” —–BEGIN CERTIFICATE—– MIIEITCCA4qgAwIBAgIEBAAD1DANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADB1MQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEYMBYGA1UE ChMPR1RFIENvcnBvcmF0aW9uMScwJQYDVQQLEx5HVEUgQ3liZXJUcnVzdCBTb2x1dGlvbnMsIElu Yy4xIzAhBgNVBAMTGkdURSBDeWJlclRydXN0IEdsb2JhbCBSb290MB4XDTA1MDUwNTE0MDcwMFoX DTEyMDUwNTIzNTkwMFowPjELMAkGA1UEBhMCcHQxFTATBgNVBAoTDE1VTFRJQ0VSVC1DQTEYMBYG A1UEAxMPTVVMVElDRVJULUNBIDAyMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA3Q3a 05I54HOZM1bnZnSUXx1qL73+PtERgiIl+MbYasP+UL+l3yQEdplm1hBijpC6gPxHPXLozP35tkSC b2v4TsdY6gE8h65UXZDdOiX/iBycG8165sLAy2NAlifPbMeKGjyI9Fea0Mt9aRfNXM+1SCyOihmH XDV4+v3m12IXj5+O/l5Rxif/bs7GPQbL4XAJT2cApnac7yD/3Y2Alk4/W5CBqnj4YGUArfErIaSP RaiGSEAZiES69+iXxp5LseCr0SZ4Kq+lUgglz6M5EewcDMb7r3ECJM34pl/cuwlzjtANCJvNTiRy J9ot8GT/6+5l/0Zf9BgByJ8Hdy8oGo/iNwIDAQABo4IBbzCCAWswRQYDVR0fBD4wPDA6oDigNoY0 aHR0cDovL3d3dy5wdWJsaWMtdHJ1c3QuY29tL2NnaS1iaW4vQ1JMLzIwMTgvY2RwLmNybDAdBgNV HQ4EFgQUHcO5iKUYvmCnLKZjymYq/Awnwb0wUwYDVR0gBEwwSjBIBgkrBgEEAbE+AQAwOzA5Bggr BgEFBQcCARYtaHR0cDovL3d3dy5wdWJsaWMtdHJ1c3QuY29tL0NQUy9PbW5pUm9vdC5odG1sMIGJ BgNVHSMEgYEwf6F5pHcwdTELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxGDAWBgNVBAoTD0dURSBDb3Jwb3JhdGlvbjEn MCUGA1UECxMeR1RFIEN5YmVyVHJ1c3QgU29sdXRpb25zLCBJbmMuMSMwIQYDVQQDExpHVEUgQ3li ZXJUcnVzdCBHbG9iYWwgUm9vdIICAaUwDgYDVR0PAQH/BAQDAgEGMBIGA1UdEwEB/wQIMAYBAf8C AQEwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADgYEAF7q0aES4V6hspWZoma3tCrzg1raLohrMRfi+nvbSdcxP5VLd Sw/lu0Fje68gRNc5kpob39tFUS0kfqyY7IVW+p1FEYpLQNicx6wAgi9ySjNkFJ6fb/5f+o/RbtYJ ZeiaUlQgzAs3YncGvpdMKh/rxMRWl3D5jSq/FlQrDZB39IY= —–END CERTIFICATE—– –NewContentTypeEnd Content-type: application/x-x509-user-cert ;name=”user.crt” —–BEGIN CERTIFICATE—– MIIGLjCCBRagAwIBAgIEQmi5VDANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADA+MQswCQYDVQQGEwJwdDEVMBMGA1UE ChMMTVVMVElDRVJULUNBMRgwFgYDVQQDEw9NVUxUSUNFUlQtQ0EgMDIwHhcNMDYxMDEwMDE0NzIy WhcNMDcxMTA5MDIwNjQ5WjCBsDELMAkGA1UEBhMCUFQxFTATBgNVBAoTDE1VTFRJQ0VSVC1DQTEW MBQGA1UECxMNQ0VSVElQT1IgLSBSQTESMBAGA1UECxMJQ29ycG9yYXRlMRQwEgYDVQQLEwtDZXJ0 aXBvciBTQTEUMBIGA1UECxMLUGVyc29uYWwgSUQxMjAwBgNVBAMTKU1hbnVlbCBKb2FxdWltIE1h cnF1ZXMgZGEgU2lsdmEgTWFnYWxoYWVzMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA qoL0r6/u3Lvbn/9JSQBKkEf/wt5zIa0ba02EwMH+flWdu5J/bjubJRUi6aBHzHZIxcDkLKRnRBC5 T7Nz7UJFRAY6pHIctmtoTlpsNNThK9CTBl66n+VARVBt9M011+DW2+gpoUAJd9tPcdd714sCvbtD SH3B/xeDyobVc6QpvINCmjTCOi/oUt+amYQ26lS1WecNC+0epX0XjI2DXrF9IwPRyMpltMDeq613 clFy9au3SkTcHtq2wRldO1YHOG41Rb3wNVqLnxM56OP6sYqbBgnfj3JThBtvCIhye1wfbYJLyw1u WIyJfknWmCEZI8YyamMM11o+sbhol9/op7VR5QIDAQABo4ICvzCCArswCwYDVR0PBAQDAgP4MDgG CCsGAQUFBwEBBCwwKjAoBggrBgEFBQcwAYEcaHR0cDovL29jc3AubXVsdGljZXJ0LmNvbS9jYTCB 4AYDVR0gBIHYMIHVME0GCSsGAQQBsDwKAjBAMD4GCCsGAQUFBwIBFjJodHRwOi8vd3d3Lm11bHRp Y2VydC5jb20vY3BzL211bHRpY2VydC1jYS1jcHMuaHRtbDCBgwYLKwYBBAGwPAoCh20wdDByBggr BgEFBQcCAjBmHmQAaAB0AHQAcAA6AC8ALwB3AHcAdwAuAG0AdQBsAHQAaQBjAGUAcgB0AC4AYwBv AG0ALwBjAHAALwBtAHUAbAB0AGkAYwBlAHIAdAAtAGMAYQAtADEAMAAwADUALgBoAHQAbQBsMBEG CWCGSAGG+EIBAQQEAwIFoDAtBgNVHREEJjAkgSJtYW51ZWxqb2FxdWltc2lsdmFAbWFpbC50ZWxl cGFjLnB0MIIBAAYDVR0fBIH4MIH1MIGaoIGXoIGUhi9odHRwOi8vd3d3Lm11bHRpY2VydC5jb20v Y2EvbXVsdGljZXJ0LWNhLTAyLmNybIZhbGRhcDovL2xkYXAubXVsdGljZXJ0LmNvbS9jbj1NVUxU SUNFUlQtQ0ElMjAwMixvPU1VTFRJQ0VSVC1DQSxjPVBUP2NlcnRpZmljYXRlUmV2b2NhdGlvbkxp c3Q/YmFzZTBWoFSgUqRQME4xCzAJBgNVBAYTAnB0MRUwEwYDVQQKEwxNVUxUSUNFUlQtQ0ExGDAW BgNVBAMTD01VTFRJQ0VSVC1DQSAwMjEOMAwGA1UEAxMFQ1JMMjQwHwYDVR0jBBgwFoAUHcO5iKUY vmCnLKZjymYq/Awnwb0wHQYDVR0OBBYEFO1KNbVY4J6jj8NXqXqpWBeNbq8lMAkGA1UdEwQCMAAw DQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggEBADIA77hdc9mmz6b1jkr8xtDJjAPetpIKgm7PDnye56u/p734NcfV On4tRvSvDekfluL5K47aJt2s4aTqOAW3dP3C9DJVsdpBUUY55saKoRD8BWITL+hvm+3/tqjFK4+x WLtC3hhgKIGZrcJ1KNN07cgTq4WRK82unWchJ4ViDxsEib+Shagvq3GDsGdOve2QIJApoF2QwKeP t52ZAxhqyWVA4uUyH4hbzIhoTndbtwNW+E2JkksuGaeNAMcYgai4ApFjF2VQjNQGc+WYBsp/uCzU kM866fAra0nbqxypeqrHbG00A3xdoNy3tuyjNZRr8ZQtDU4vKH50HOm2oQwNglI= —–END CERTIFICATE—–
October 22nd, 2006 at 8:05 pm
One more time !
Each certificat cost for me 40 € !
In Firefox the process is OK.
But in Safari is a problem.
If you need I send a print-scren of Safari or a achive web.
The CA:
https://multira.multicert.com/forms/retrieveResult.jsp?o=0&ref=58349&token=
October 23rd, 2006 at 10:17 am
jacobolus, thank you for making this clear: so there is no easy way to use pngs, because gifs look the same on all plattforms!
So, what would be the best way to work with pngs? Using CSS-Hacks? Include a profile or strip it from the png? I would be more than thankfull for a real world help.
October 23rd, 2006 at 9:00 pm
macmoz:
no, gifs don’t look the same on all platforms either. If you have a gif, most likely it has no profile information at all. So this means that it will send color values directly to the display, resulting in much lighter/duller colors on displays with a 1.8 display gamma.
Basically, if you make pngs with an embedded sRGB profile, it will look correct on Windows/Linux, and on Safari or other Webkit browsers, but will look wrong for Camino/Firefox Mac users. Fortunately there is some progress being made there too. See: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16769
Unfortunately, it is not currently possible in any way, without sending different content based on browser, to get consistent color on all browsers on all platforms.
The css/html/svg specs make it very clear that all images with profiles included should have those profiles interpreted, but Windows IE and Gecko don’t do this. The specs also make it clear that untagged images should be treated as if they were sRGB. Safari and Mac Gecko don’t do this. The result is basically that users of Mac gecko-based clients get wrong color pretty much in every situation, and everyone else can get wrong colors depending on context.
October 23rd, 2006 at 9:10 pm
macmoz:
As far as whether to include the profile or strip it: that depends on what your goal is. If you want images which look the same on all platforms, and have vibrant colors, you should convert your image to sRGB and include the profile, and then only Mac gecko browsers will suffer.
If you want images which look the same on all mac browsers but could care less about windows/linux, you should convert the image to the profile of a generic Mac monitor. I’m not positive, but I think that the “Apple RGB” profile is close enough, and include the profile. This way at least clueful windows clients (if any ever show up) will show your image correctly.
If you want images which match your css colors, then you should convert to sRGB, and then strip the profile. Unfortunately they’ll look kind of unsaturated on the Mac, but you can get all the colors on your site consistent that way.
For an example of the kind of “unsaturated on the Mac” I’m talking about, see: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tunaranch/269794437/
But there really is no good solution at the moment. Hopefully if Mac gecko browsers get their act together, then option 1 will work out well enough. Hopefully Safari will also follow the css/svg/etc. specs, and then, as long as everything stays sRGB, we should have consistency across the board.
October 24th, 2006 at 6:43 am
Thank you so much, jacobolus. Because I’m more in the interface-design, gifs and pngs should perfectly blend with css-colors. That wasn’t the case in Safari (I worked without a colorprofile in RGB in Photoshop). So option 3 would be the best for me, convert to (or work in) sRGB, and than strip the profile.
But, how do I strip the profile after generating the GIF or PNG? With Photoshop or imagemagick? And do i have to use this ‘convert +gamma 0′, as Jeff mentioned?
October 24th, 2006 at 11:51 am
Manuel, in your post I see what I assume to be a user cert (user.crt), the cert from the intermediate CA (ca.crt) that signed/issued the user cert , and the cert from the root CA (root.crt) that signed/issued the intermediate CA’s cert. The one thing that P12 files usually (always?) have, that I don’t see in your post, is the private key that goes with the public key in your user cert. It’s my understanding that the thing that makes a P12 file special is that it contains not only your user certificate (and optionally the trust chain for your certificate) but also the private key that goes along with the public key in your user certificate.
Before you can make progress on this, you probably need to go find your private key — the one you generated (or was generated for you) when you created your certificate signing request.
October 24th, 2006 at 6:39 pm
Hi. I’m the author of the post to which you responded. I appreciate your response.
> First of all, if you correct unprofiled images to sRGB, you have to correct all drawing to sRGB
Why do you say this? Is it because some some small percent of web authors might do image-to-background blending? (I’m not saying that’s a bad reason — heck, I do image-to-background blending — I ask because I want to understand your reasons).
As for CSS, as has already been mentioned, that’s defined to be sRGB, so should be translated from that to the local monitor/printer space. I can’t imagein a few translations are very CPU intensive, so that’s not really an issue….
So that leaves Flash. It sounds as if you’ve made 99%+ of the images on the web render incorrectly so that Flash authors can have perfect color matching with standards-broken non-sRGB CSS colors? Or did I misunderstand something in your post?
I should be clear that I know little about Flash except that I usually seem to dislike how it’s used, so I have little care about how it renders, and I certainly don’t think that everything should be dumbed down to its level just because it’s poorly designed.
I should also admit that I made up the “99%+” number (it’s probably a low estimate)
Finally, I’m sorry that you considered my criticizims of Safari’s color management to be “pot shots.” I have perhaps harsher words for Apple than for Microsoft because I don’t expcect cluefullness from Microsoft (and they don’t disappoint). If there’s anyone I would expcect to get this right it’d be Safari and Firefox, and it’s disappointing to see that’s not the case.
From what I understand from your post, I don’t agree at all with your reasons, but at least it’s good to know that there are reasons. Why, though, was the ability to set a default color space for unprofiled images removed from ColorSync?
Jeffrey
October 25th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
Spiff:
Thank you for your reply, I really do appreciate it!
Your explanation is absolutely correct.
More, strangely, or not, I have the private key in Keychain !
I think the private key is created when renew the certificate.
The problem in Safari is about download certificates. When I collect the certificate !
And this is a problem in some CA. I tried in some CA internation and d`ont work. The problem is the Safari not open the window -DOWNLOAD, and the content of the certificate (cert. and public key) it is inside of Safari -like this page, but above, mixed with this posts.
If the process is functioned, run, the window -Download, open, download the certificate for desktop. This does not happen. The certificate it is inside of Safari, in the main window, mixed with the content of the page.
If you or other will be interested I I can send a print secreen.
My intention is that somebody tells this problem of Mr. HYATT and other developers for fix this problem, bug ?
Why Safari d`ont download, transferred, the certificates for descktop ?
Best regards
Manuel
October 26th, 2006 at 3:15 am
Manuel, if you have a bug to report in Safari the best way to get it addressed is to report it via the appropriate channels rather than in comments on a completely unrelated blog post. Bugs in Safari should be reported at the Apple bug reporter, and bugs in WebKit should be reported in Bugzilla. Thanks!
October 29th, 2006 at 12:37 am
jfriedl:
> Why do you say this? Is it because some some small percent of web authors might do image-to-background blending? (I’m not saying that’s a bad reason — heck, I do image-to-background blending — I ask because I want to understand your reasons).
Yes, this was indeed the reason claimed in my discussion with hyatt and others on IRC.
> As for CSS, as has already been mentioned, that’s defined to be sRGB, so should be translated from that to the local monitor/printer space.
The impression I got was that they are going to try to move towards this as time goes on.
> So that leaves Flash. It sounds as if you’ve made 99%+ of the images on the web render incorrectly so that Flash authors can have perfect color matching with standards-broken non-sRGB CSS colors? Or did I misunderstand something in your post?
Yep, that’s right. I think the idea was that web designers would rebel if their color-matched flash no longer matched.
October 29th, 2006 at 2:31 am
Mark and others:
Sorry, excuse.
Is possible suggest a new topic ?
Safari, digital certificates and java policy.
I have some questios about it.
Thanks
Manuel
November 29th, 2006 at 3:40 pm
[...] This might explain it: Surfin’ Safari – Blog Archive » Color Spaces FWIW, OmniWeb does support embedded Coloursync p [...]
December 18th, 2006 at 4:10 am
Hi Dave,
Understanding the problem with treating unprofiled images differently than Flash/CSS, let me ask about images for which the color space is tagged in the Exif? An image can be tagged as being sRGB with the ColorSpace tag, or as being AdobeRGB with the InteroperablityIndex tag. This is how most digital cameras communicate the color space of their image. Web-site-adorenment images (ones that might need to match with flash) generally don’t have these tags, so it seems that you could take a big step forward by recognizing these tags. It would require that colorsync have sRGB and AdobeRGB profiles on hand, but don’t they already?
The up side to this is that images straight from the camera now are processed properly. I don’t see any downside with what you mentioned (Flash/CSS).
It’s not a complete resolution of the issue, but it’s a huge win-win step.
I hope you’ll consider it.
Jeffrey
(Author of the article you cited in your original post)
February 14th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
I’m a huge Mac user and fan who was at NeXT during the let’s do a gamma of 1.8 days, back when monitors were dimmer and CMYK was the thing.
I don’t think the color mismatches are a Safari issue, per se, but I did pour my heart into this blog post that make the front page of Digg:
http://blogs.smugmug.com/onethumb/2007/02/14/this-is-your-mac-on-drugs/
It seems to me it’d take the pressure off the Safari team if OS X shipped in the config that Apple suggests its users switch to — a gamma of 2.2. Tell me where I’m wrong.
Thanks,
Chris
February 16th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
[...] ofile for my Mac. Here is an interesting discussion from one of Safari regarding png color shifts in the browser. Apparently Safari ha [...]
October 29th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
[...] that’s coming to Firefox 3. I read about it on Mozilla Links. coolbru: It bears repeating: http://webkit.org/blog/73/color-spaces/ Incidentally the only other browser I know of with colourspace support is the long-dead MacIE. [...]