Suspected Flaw in Firefox 35 Color Management Behavior

I hope I can keep this concise, but bear with me if my confusion causes me to include some extraneous info. The info below is what I think is required for someone else to fully understand the issue.
BACKGROUND:
- NECPA271W wide gamut monitor in dual monitor setup with a standard gamut Samsung 245BW
- Windows 8.1 Pro 64-bit
- Nvidia Quadro K4000
- Latest versions of FireFox (v35 32-bit), IE11 (11.0.9600.17498 updated to 11.0.15 32-bit) & Avant (Ultimate 2015 build 7, in use for testing because it incorporates the rendering engines of 3 major browsers, IE v 11.0.9600.17496, FireFox v 34.05.5464, & Chrome v39.0.2172.95)
- i1Display Pro (not the NEC SVSensor version), SpectraView II, NEC Multiprofiler & i1 Profiler
- Both monitors are calibrated and profiled. The NEC is calibrated using SVII, but since that software only supports NEC monitors, the 245BW has to be done using i1Profiler software that comes with the i1Display Pro. SVII is only capable of generating v2 ICC profiles, i1 Profiler is capable of v2 & v4, and recommends v4. Nevertheless, I think this entire bullet point is irrelevant to the effect I'm observing.
- I've lately started selling some of my photography on a fine art website. As a result I started digging deeper into how those images are viewed by others & subsequently printed. Images optimized in sRGB for the best possible display results across a widely varied viewer base are not going to give the same results as images that are soft-proofed and optimized for specific media/printer/ink combinations. This is especially true of my images which tend to lean in the direction of being more heavily saturated & wider gamut
- I've been exhaustively over the info here COLOR MANAGEMENT PHOTOSHOP CC CS6 Basic ColorManagement Theory ICC Profiles Color Spaces Calibrated Monitor Professional… & here http://cameratico.com/tools/web-browser-color-management-test/ among many others.
I had reached a point where I thought I understood things pretty well, but now I'm not so sure again Here's the problem:
I followed the guidance and info on how to set FireFox for FULL color management (value 1 with associated monitor profile) that allows the handling of non-tagged images and web page elements, http://cameratico.com/guides/firefox-color-management/. Upon restarting Firefox with the updated configuration, I return to the test at http://cameratico.com/tools/web-browser-color-management-test/ The last two tests there are designed to show a) how much wider your display gamut is than sRGB, and b) how the browser handles untagged images and elements.
The behavior I observe is different from the behavior I expect! Specifically, setting FIrefox to color management value 1 and telling it my monitor profile causes Firefox to display the sRGB tagged images as if they were not tagged. With the default value 2/no monitor profile, I can see a difference between the display of sRGB tagged images and either the ProPhoto RGB tagged image or the untagged sRBG & untagged CSS elements. I would expect that the change to value 1 with monitor profile should have no impact on the display of tagged images and elements, and yet that switch ONLY causes a change in the display behavior of the tagged images it shouldn't have affected, and I can no longer see a difference between the various images because everything is fully saturated
A marked up screen capture showing the comparative behaviors between the various applications and browsers would probably be worth more than the proverbial 1000 words, I'm new here & haven't figured that part out yet, but will post this as is while I work on that.
Can anybody replicate the behavior I observe? Is anybody spotting an error in my thinking?
TIA
Randy
*EDIT - I have annotated a screen shot comparing the results across 4 browsers. The screenshot has an embedded Adobe RGB profile which best represents the effects & changes that I was/am seeing but may not be preserved if posted here. It may be best to download and view in CS6 so as to not introduce any additional confusion arising from which browser YOU may be using :-) If needed the full res 2560x1440 version is available, but scaling to meet the forum limits of 900x900 makes the text unreadable. Can anyone suggest a means of supplying the full res file with the embedded profile retained?

twenty_one wrote:
Firefox will use the profile for the main display. It does not support a dual monitor setup. If you move FF to the secondary display, it will still use the primary display's profile.
There is a Firefox Add-On called Profile Switcher that allows using multiple monitor profiles. You will need to setup a Firefox user profile for each monitor:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Multiple_Firefox_Profiles
After installing Profile Switcher Add-On you will find a new entry in the FF File menu 'Open Profile Manager,' which can be used to create and manage the new user profiles (see screenshots below).
You can then setup a Firefox Sync account to keep the user profiles synchronized or do this manually using Copy & Paste. I was concerned that Firefox Sync would over-write the configuration data for the monitor profile, but it doesn't. I leave 'gfx.color_management.display_profile' blank on the user profile for the primary NEC 272W monitor, and add the path for the monitor profile on the user profile for my standard gamut secondary display. Here's what I see when launching FF:
After installing the Profile Switcher Add-On you'll see two new entries in the FF File menu that allow you to manage and launch other FF user profiles as separate browser instances.
It works fine on my Windows 7 system and should also work on Mac OS X systems and Windows 8.x.

Similar Messages

Changed Color Management Behavior in CS6

hi,
i recently stumbled across the fact that in photoshop cs6 the color management behavior regarding dual monitor setups has changed.
behavior in photoshop cs5:
if more than 50 percent of a window was displayed on one of the monitors the corresponding monitor profile was used to render the image.
that totally makes sense to me.
but in photoshop cs6 the behavior looks like this:
if the window is completely on the primary display everything is fine, but if I drag the window and only pixel from that window appears on the secondary display, the profile from the secondary display is used to render the image.
which is in my opinion a complete nonsense.
Is there anyone else who has encountered this behavior?
or is there anyone who could tell me if this is a feature or a bug?
thanks
fprince

fresh-prince wrote:
…when I drag the window from the primary display to the secondary display with only a tiny fraction of the window being displayed on the second display the color of the image changes. but when i drag it even more, so that more than 50 % of the window is displayed on the secondary display, it changes again.
the second change is actually the change to the monitor profile of the secondary display. which is correct and the same behaviour as in photoshop cs5. but i don't know why the first change is there ...? but maybe thats not even a photoshop bug/feature and more of an os thing?
although it was definitly not occuring under cs5 on the same os version ...
As I said, I can't vouch for the behavior of Photoshop 13.x on Snow Leopard. I'm on Ps 13.0.6 under Lion 10.7.5. There is no change in this respect in relation to previous versions of Photoshop.
What you are seeing could be due to a variety of reasons, such as the version of the driver for your video card, or what you are calling "the first change" could simply be the image displaying using the monitor profile for your first video card before you move the image enough for the profile for the 2nd monitor "kicks in". Who knows?

Snow Leopard and Firefox -- Color Management

Hello
I am using using Snow Leopard 10.6.1 and Firefox 3.5.2 and I noticed that the color
management doesn't really work anynore...when I compared my photo on smugmug
PS and Safari are displaying the right color but FF doesn't really really show the right one...anyone experiencing the same issue ? I have tried playing around with the gfxcolormanagement with 1 and 0 ( by def 2) but doesn't help at all...
Any solutions ?
I found this but doesn't really work
http://support.mozilla.com/tiki-viewforum_thread.php?locale=hu&forumId=1&commentsparentId=446529
If you want a link to compare :
http://www.vadimkrisyan.com/photos/661866345_e8R7v-X2.jpg
and see the diff of color

Have you re-calibrated for the new gamma?
http://www.gballard.net/boutique/colorcorrecting.html

Force Safari to be like Firefox - Color Management

Hello all,
I recently upgraded to Mountain Lion and Safari 6 is by far my favorite browser... until I noticed it's still "color-impaired" when it comes to using my wide gamut display. I've been forced to stick with Firefox (about:config hack for displaying untagged images as sRGB) and sadly it seems Safari is still behind in this regard.
Is there still no way to force OSX/Safari to treat untagged images as sRGB? The crayola tones are horrible.

Post your topic in the Mountain Lion community here.
That way you can get feedback from Mountain Lion users as well.

Does Firefox 3.5 support only some ICC profiles (AdobeRGB, sRGB, e.g.) or all ICC profiles in color management?

I put one image embedded with a ICC profile with D65 as white point, and the same image embedded with another ICC profile but with D50 as white point (the 'chad' matrix in the profile is different as well, given different white point for two profiles). When these two images (of same RGB values) but with different ICC profiles embedded are displayed side-by-side in Firefox, difference in color should be noticed between two images if color management is available in Firefox (color management is turned on in about:config). However, I did not see any difference.
I tried using the same image but embedded one with sRGB profile, and the other with AdobeRGB profile. Now I can see the difference.
So my question is whether Firefox can only recognize a certain number of ICC profiles but not all of them.
Thanks.

See https://developer.mozilla.org/En/ICC_color_correction_in_Firefox
<blockquote>Caveats: The new QCMS color management system introduced in Firefox 3.5 currently only supports ICC version 2 color profiles, not version 4.
</blockquote>
http://www.color.org/version4html.xalter

Color management policies

If color management policies are turned off in Photoshop's Color Settings dialogue panel what happens when a file is pasted into a document that has a different working space? Does the pasted file get converted to the working space or are the numbers assigned to the working space?
EG: Working space is Adobe RGB 1998 and the file being pasted into that document has an Adobe sRGB space. Will the color numbers in the pasted document be converted to Adobe RGB 1998 or will they be assigned?
Thanks

There is no “No Color Management” behavior in Photoshop despite the silly OFF policy. The RGB numbers are untagged and thus undefined but under the hood, Photoshop is still using its color management and Display Using Monitor Compensation architecture. The RGB working space you set in the Color Settings is what is used for the assumption of the scale ( color space) of the untagged data. Same with CMYK etc. All you have to do is open an untagged RGB doc, go into Color Settings and alter the RGB working space popup and the color appearance changes (not the numbers) because now PS is making a new assumption about this untagged RGB mystery meat. The OFF policy and untagged docs are bad, bad, bad!

Color management and ICC V4 support in Firefox 4?

Could you give us an update on how color management has changed in Firefox 4 (if at all) and if V4 ICC profiles are supported again?
There are still very few browsers that really support color management correctly and this it's a pretty big deal for photography buffs and users of wide-gamut monitors.
Tried looking at FF4 FAQs and support and also Googled and Binged but I could not find any info on this related to FF4.
Thanks.

Hello Dennis,
this is the old (known since 2009-04) "qcms doesn't support ICC version 4" bug.
Have a look at:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=488800
It's a shame that ICC v4 support has not been implemented yet again.
For all others, who don't know what we are talking about, you can test the Firefox colormanagement behavior here:
http://www.color.org/version4html.xalter
Regards, Lilien

Color Managed Printing from LR 1.3.1 Inverse of Proper PS CS3 10.0.1 Behavior

Please excuse the length and detail of this post - I'm just trying to be very clear...
Also, it would be helpful if anyone having definitive information about this topic could please email me directly in addition to replying to this forum topic, in order that I might know a response is available sooner (I am new to this forum, and may not check it regularly). My direct email address is [email protected].
Bottom Line: Color managed printing using my own custom-generated profiles from LR 1.3.1 to my Epson 7600 (on Intel-based Mac OS X 10.5.2, but saw the same behavior with 10.5.1) using the current Epson 7600 Intel/10.5x-compatible driver (3.09) is broken, and appears to be doing the exact opposite (inverse) of what I would expect and what PS CS3 does properly.
I am color management experienced, and have been using my custom-generated EPSON 7600 profiles with reliable soft proofing and printing success in PS (both CS2 and now CS3) for some time now. I know how the EPSON printer driver should be set relative to PS/LR print settings to indicate desired function. Images exported from LR to PS and printed from PS using "Photoshop Manages Color" and proper printer driver settings ("No Color Adjustment") print perfectly, so it isn't the Intel-based Mac, the OS, the driver, the profile, or me -- it is LR behaving badly.
The specific behavior is that printing from LR using "Managed by Printer" with the EPSON driver's Color Management setting set properly to "Colorsync" prints a reasonable-looking print, about what you would expect for canned profiles from the manufacturer, and in fact identical to the results obtained printing the same image from PS using "Printer Manages Color". So far so good. Switching to my specific custom profiles in LR and printing with the driver's CM setting set properly to "No Color Adjustment" yields results that are clearly whacked, for both LR settings of "Perceptual" and "Relative CM". Just for completeness and out of curiosity, I tried printing from LR using the same profile (once for "Perceptual" and once more for "Relative CM") with the EPSON driver's CM setting set IMPROPERLY to "Colorsync", and the results were much more in line with what you would expect - I would almost say it was "correct" output. This is why I used the phrase "inverse of proper behavior" in the subject line of this topic. Going one step further, trying this same set of improper settings in PS (PS print settings set to "Photoshop Manages Color" with either Perceptual or Rel CM selected, but using "Colorsync" rather than "No Color Adjustment" in the Color Management pane of the EPSON printer driver) yields whacked results as you would expect that look identical to the whacked results obtained from LR using "proper" settings.
I said above that the improper settings from LR yielded results that I would almost say were correct. "Almost" because the benchmark results rendered by PS using proper settings are slightly different - both "better" and closer to each other - than those rendered by LR using the improper settings. The diffs between the Perceptual and Rel CM prints from LR using improper settings showed more marked differences in tone/contrast/saturation than the diffs observed between the Perceptual and Rel CM prints from PS using proper settings - the image itself was in-gamut enough that diffs between Perceptual and Rel CM in the proper PS prints were quite subtle. Even though the improper LR prints were slightly inferior to the proper PS prints, the improper LR prints were still within tolerances of what you might expect, and still better (in terms of color matching) than the "Managed by Printer" print from LR. At first guess, I would attribute this (the improper LR prints being inferior to the proper PS prints) to the CMM being used by LR being different from (inferior to) the CMM I have selected for use in PS (that being "Adobe (ACE)"). I can live with the LR CMM being slightly different from that use

(Here's the 2nd half of my post...)
I said above that the improper settings from LR yielded results that I would almost say were correct. "Almost" because the benchmark results rendered by PS using proper settings are slightly different - both "better" and closer to each other - than those rendered by LR using the improper settings. The diffs between the Perceptual and Rel CM prints from LR using improper settings showed more marked differences in tone/contrast/saturation than the diffs observed between the Perceptual and Rel CM prints from PS using proper settings - the image itself was in-gamut enough that diffs between Perceptual and Rel CM in the proper PS prints were quite subtle. Even though the improper LR prints were slightly inferior to the proper PS prints, the improper LR prints were still within tolerances of what you might expect, and still better (in terms of color matching) than the "Managed by Printer" print from LR. At first guess, I would attribute this (the improper LR prints being inferior to the proper PS prints) to the CMM being used by LR being different from (inferior to) the CMM I have selected for use in PS (that being "Adobe (ACE)"). I can live with the LR CMM being slightly different from that used in PS - that is not the issue here. What is at issue is trying to determine why LR is clearly behaving differently than PS in this well-understood area of functionality, all other variables being the same. (And, incidentally, why am I not seeing other posts raising these same questions?)
My "workaround" is to use "Managed by Printer" for printing rough prints from LR and to do all other printing from PS, especially given the noted diffs in CMM performance between LR and PS and the fact that printing from PS also supports using Photokit Sharpener for high-quality prints. Still it would be nice to understand why this is happening in LR and to be able to print "decent" prints directly from LR when it seemed appropriate.
Any insights or suggestions will be very much appreciated. Please remember to reply to my direct email address ([email protected]) in addition to your public reply to this forum.
Thank you!
/eddie

Why is color management enabled (all, not just tagged) firefox showing images with higher black level than other color managed programs?

Using Win 7 and spyder calibrated (lut based) display. image editing programs show lower black level than firefox. Firefox images are too light.

Ehkä ensimmäisenä asiana on että sen saa pois päältä: https://addons.mozilla.org/fi/firefox/addon/color-management/
Sen jälkeen tämä näyttäisi olevan sama ongelma kuin täällä: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3569891
Tämä näyttäisi olevan ongelma, jota on vaikea toisintaa (siis kenen tahansa, jolla kalibrointi toimii). Vai olenko väärässä? Jos ongelmaa ei pysty toisintamaan, sitä ei ikävä kyllä ole myöskään mahdollista ratkaista.

Image Color management in Firefox 4 is off

I recently upgraded to FF4. Prior to that I had excellent color agreement in the 3 browsers I use to check the websites I design. Now the color in FF4 is way, WAY, OFF.
I use srgb tagged images and a calibrated monitor and the colors are correct in Chrome, IE8 AND in FF 3.63 but NOT in FF 4. I just spent about an hour trying to figure out why an image on a website I designed no longer matched its background when neither the image, the background nor anything else about the page had changed in a month. Turns out the only thing that changed was the browser! This is NOT GOOD.

You can set the pref gfx.color_management.mode to 0 on the about:config page to disable Color Management in Firefox. You need to close and restart Firefox to make the change effective.<br />
See:
* http://kb.mozillazine.org/gfx.color_management.mode
See:
* https://developer.mozilla.org/En/ICC_color_correction_in_Firefox
Caveats: The new QCMS color management system introduced in Firefox 3.5 currently only supports ICC version 2 color profiles, not version 4.
Test page: http://www.color.org/version4html.xalter - Is your system ICC Version 4 ready?

Firefox 3.6 color management incorrect on wide-gamut monitors?

Hi,
I'm having a problem with sRGB JPEGs exported from Lightroom (2.7) that I don't actually think is LR's fault, but was wondering if anyone here has experienced this.
What I'm finding is that these sRGB JPEGs don't display correctly on my wide-gamut Dell 2408WFP monitor under Windows 7 in Firefox 3.6.9 or in the Windows image viewer. Now, this isn't the standard problem people used to complain about on wide-gamut monitors, where sRGB images came out looking oversaturated (pinkish) in FF because older versions of FF didn't do color management; the newer Firefox seems to be doing color management in general. The problem I'm seeing in my photos is that dark areas are becoming darker and losing detail, and midrange shadows are turning into a grayish green.
What's odd is that these JPEGs look fine in Safari on the same machine and the same monitor (and they also look fine if I load them into PS). That suggests to me that Firefox (and Windows) are doing something wrong, probably related to the fact that the monitor is wide-gamut.
Has anyone encountered this problem?
Thanks,
nj

Jim,
I think you are right in saying that it is a crap shoot. There are some interesting points in your post though.
The general public will be viewing with a monitor and browser that are not color managed. Won't my v4 images diplay fairly well under this situation (at least much better than with ff3.6 and a monitor with a v4 profile)?
That will work just fine indeed. It is arguable whether it will look "better". The variation between monitors is much larger than the benefit you gain from using v4. One thing that will work better is the out of sRGB gamut colors. You won't get the posterization using the v4 sRGB profile that you get with the v2 sRGB. For some images (think shots of flowers) that might be a major benefit. If all your colors are in sRGB that is obviously not a benefit at all. The big disadvantage of using v4 sRGB is that it adds quite a few extra kilobytes (about 60) to your image. For example, I just exported from Lightroom a simple web sized image at 1000 pixels long side at good quality and in v4 it was 262 kB, while in v2 sRGB it weighs in at only 209 kB. I see no real difference between these images on my wide-gamut monitor. This difference in filesize can be important and at smaller sizes is really going to matter.
What about a wide gamut monitor that's not color managed, running a browser that doesn't support v4?
The v4 sRGB image will look just as badly oversaturated as the normal sRGB one. Try it and you'll see. Perhaps slightly less oversaturated but the difference is very small in general. The one thing that you should realize of course is that if these users are running a non-managed browser on a wide gamut display, they are likely conditioned to oversaturated images and probably will never even notice. These users are lost anyway. It's best not to even try to target them. Target normal users who generally run unmanaged browsers on unmanaged sRGB-like displays. The variation between these displays is far larger than the slight advantage you get from using sRGB v4 and in my mind at least it is not worth the added size in the picture and the loss of color management in Firefox. Of course, you might have different priorities.
P.S. the numbers of users using unmanaged browsers are waning quite quickly if I am to believe my website's stats - IE is way down and both Safari and Firefox are up. Chrome (not managed) is coming up too but not as fast as IE is decreasing. Apparently (I haven't tried as I don't do windows) the latest IE does respect embedded color profiles, but alas it doesn't translate to the monitor profile. That is of course basically useless.

IS Firefox 5 color managed ?

Firefox 4 was not totally color managed.
HAVE you addressed this vital issue in Firefox 5.
There are many Photographers / Graphic Artists who sell their work on-line like myself...only to have it ruined at the point of sale...on the internet !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The problem is with Firefox 5 not 6. I didn't even know there was a 6.0 version yet.

Why is my Firefox 9.0.1 Not Color Managing?

Hello, no matter what gfx settings I change in the about:config the browser refuses to color manage. I have my monitor's calibrated ICC profile set and Windows is using it and Photoshop honours it. I just tried on my brand new less than a day old tower with nothing on it yet but PS, FF, and net access software and the issue is as present now as it was on my old tower with 9.0.1 two days ago.

Try to update to the latest Firefox 12.0 version.
You can find the latest Firefox release in all languages and for all Operating Systems here:
*Firefox 12.0.x: http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all.html
See:
* http://kb.mozillazine.org/gfx.color_management.mode
* https://developer.mozilla.org/En/ICC_color_correction_in_Firefox
Caveats: The new QCMS color management system introduced in Firefox 3.5 currently only supports ICC version 2 color profiles, not version 4.
You can set the gfx.color_management.enablev4 pref to true on the about:config page and close and restart Firefox to enable ICC V4 support in Firefox 8+, but that feature is not yet fully implemented, so there may be problems in some cases.
Test page:
* http://www.color.org/version4html.xalter - Is your system ICC Version 4 ready?

Color Management In Various Web Browsers For Untagged Images Broken Since 10.8 Upgrade

I have recently updated my early 2008 Mac Pro to 10.8 and have noticed that neither Safari, Firefox or Chrome handle untagged images correctly anymore. Instead of assuming sRGB as the ICC profile for an untagged image (like they did prior to upgrading), they now just convert to monitor profile which looks over-saturated on my wide gamut monitor (Dell 3007WFPHC, hardware calibrated with a Datacolor Spyder 3 Pro). Color management in Photoshop, Lightroom and all other previosuly color-aware applications appears unaltered. The interesting thing is that in Safari, if I open a link with "open in new tab", the untagged images are rendered as if their color profiles are sRGB and are displayed correctly! But just clicking the link in the same tab or "open in new window" results in the incorrect over-saturated colors. This doesn't make any sense. Anyone else have this same issue?

After digging around, I found that the behavior of Firefox can be changed to assume sRGB on untagged images by putting about:config into the address bar and changing the value of gfx.color_management.mode to 1. I vaguely recall doing something similar for Chrome years ago, but can't for the life of me rememebr what I did. When upgrading to 10.8, I did a fresh install so any mods to Chrome are no longer present.
As for Safari, I have never really used it and only notcied it behaved similarly when trying it because Chrome wasn't working. Still can't figure out why Safari works correctly when you select "open in new tab" though. Maybe this should be moved to the Safari forum?

HELP with sRGB in Photoshop Color Management Winows Vista

Greetings beautiful Windows people!
I am stumped with a Windows Vista problem — it is not displaying sRGB properly.
I posted bigger files here if this is easier to follow
http://www.gballard.net/windows_srgb/
But here goes:
First, my main question is HOW Windows Vista deals with sRGB because I am seeing inconsistant sRGB color on a client's workflow.
The first clue is:
How Photoshop is displaying Tagged sRGB on the two machines:
The original sRGB tagged file opens as above on my Mac.
Note: In the lower screen shots, Firefox has color-management enabled — and Photoshop's Working RGB is set to sRGB (it is using the sRGB embedded profile).
In the above Windows screenshot — Photoshop and Firefox look yellow — Explorer displays TAGGED sRGB correct — FireFox incorrectly matches Photoshop.
In the above Windows screenshot — Photoshop looks yellow — Explorer 8 and Firefox display UNTAGGED sRGB correct.
BECAUSE THIS IS CONTRARY TO THE THEORY, I suspected a bad profile so we loaded sRGB as the Monitor profile in the Windows Color Management setting.
Setting Windows Vista> Control Panel> Color Management: to sRGB fixed the problem (above, Photoshop is displaying the file correctly now, and sRGB is behaving as expected in both managed and unmanaged Web browsers).
However, I am clueless about two things:
Is Vista's "Color Management" Control Panel setting its Monitor RGB, or
Is Vista's "Color Management" Control Panel setting a DEFAULT RGB for the system?
I suspect the client has a bad hardware puck and/or buggy profiling package that needs an update because it appears to be even causing Photoshop to display sRGB improperly using the custom profile (and this is happening on eight of the client's Windows boxes).
He is using a glossy screen on the laptop I saw if his package can't handle it).
Can someone please clue me here as to what's going on (and how Vista should be set up to display sRGB consistantly in Photoshop and WEB BROWSERS)?

Thank you Chris,
When I did windows update I must have checked to download new display drivers I'm using (Dell with Dell Screens). It was loaded into the color settings as a profile, I hit delete and now all is well.
-Patrick

Suspected Flaw in Firefox 35 Color Management Behavior

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for