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.

Similar Messages

  • 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

  • Will Safari be customizable like Firefox in the nearest future ?

    Well Safari focuses everyone's attention on the speed. But without extensions it gradually becomes not cool in comparison to Firefox. Is there any chance that Safari will be customizable and will have alternatives for the most popular firefox extensions, which are:
    Adblock
    Flashblock
    Menu Editor
    customize google
    Scrubfire
    Mouse gestures

    Terms of use do not allow "speculation" in these Discussions pages.
    Check out the "Developer" section of Apple to see some stuff found in Safari version 4.

  • Wish Safari was a bit more like Firefox...

    I mean when I need to work on bookmarks, can't it open the 'show all bookmarks' window in a page I'm not looking at on the web? Ok, I can do that by holding command down but honest, would it be so hard to have it open up into a new page or tab automatically?
    And what about the possibility of breaking the bookmarks flyout into sections like I can do with Firefox...I'm talking about just the ability to put in some dotted lines between bookmark folders that appear in the book marks menu and bar...is there a way to do that that I'm not aware of? This way I can say divide folders with bookmarks for music related links into a section, art related links into another...just a visual divider so the bookmarks menu isn't one long gigantic list of folders...
    okokok, maybe i'm asking for too much...forgive this wild charade, i'll try not to let it happen again...
    M

    Oh, one other thing...I also wish Safari was more like Firefox in how it handles color...I rarely use Safari these days cause I'm using a wide gamut monitor and having these neon greens and reds all over is quite hard on the eyes...
    I've read about how Safari is color managed, I just don't think it works as well as the Firefox has color managed its browser...
    I'd love to go back to using Safari a bit more...maybe Mr. Jobs can put a word in for me?...

  • 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.

  • 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

  • Safari RSS like Firefox

    I wish that Safari RSS behaved like Firefox.  I feel that Safari RSS is sort of redundant and not informative, as clicking it takes you to a new page of the RSS clips.  I might as well just go to the website itself.  Also the # of new feeds is irrelevant for most people.  The point of RSS is get snippets quickly and easily, which I feel Firefox accomplishes.  While I'm waiting for a webpage to load, I can quickly glance at the Firefox RSS feeds, without interrupting the webpage load.  Hope this is incorporated, at least as an option in Preferences for those who want it.

    I don't use Apple newsreaders for RSS feeds. At the moment I use NetNewsWire and I see they have a lite version that is free on the App Store. There are other ones out there. I started of with Vienna when I first moved to Mac's but found it really slow.
    Just my 2 cents worth, if it's worth 2 cents.
    Message was edited by: worksafe

  • LR4 color management oversaturated colors on a dull laptop

    I'm starting to use LR4.1 on a Lenovo T500 Win7 laptop with a miserable LCD panel and with an external wide-gamut IPS Dell U3011.
    I used to use Picasa (non-color-managed), and have calibrated both displays with Eye-one display2. Its profile loads upon Win7 startup and corrects laptop colours considerably, while the change on the U3011 is hardly noticeable. I used near-native white point and gamma so that most of the laptop display's limited gamut is used, and I can work on the laptop when necessary with predictable relationship to the U3011 display.
    The color-managment of LR is markedly different; I can see it set in when moving the image more than halfway from one display to the other on the extended desktop. It slightly desaturates the U3011, which is good. And it pumps up the colors on the laptop too much: the pale-colored images do get closer, but any vivid colors are blown on the display. I'm quite positive about this because I see the saturation level in the color channel "staircases" of a sRGB test image that set in just over half-way in the R and B channel, only the G channel is relatively unaffected. In Picasa this does not occur to such extent, and the unsaturted colours are a bit more different due to different white point & gamma.
    Initially I suspected a faulty calibration, but I saw very similar behavior on a similar hw setup with LR4 but without calibration, where Win7 CM was using manufacturer-supplied color profiles for both displays. I would not like to revert to the standard sRGB display profile in Win7 CM because that'd have a bad effect on non-managed programs.
    Is there any way to make color management in LR work like non-color-managed applications? Or to adjust the white point & gamma for the laptop display by LR so that it would become more useful with vivid images (yet less accurate)?

    Remember that "calibration" is actually two procesesses: calibration and profiling. 
    Calibration brings the monitor to a defined state by correction tables to correct white point and tone response curve.  This information is loaded into the display driver at boot-up, and affects the display for virtually all programs (except a few games and such that bypass the driver). 
    Profiling measures (just measures, doesn't adjust) the colour space and other parameters of the monitor, after calibration. Generally colour space can't be altered, only measured.  It is this measurement that goes in the profile.  (Confusingly, the calibration corrections tables are also stored in the profile, despite being nothing to do with the profile!)
    Colour management is really about the profile (the profile measurement, not the calibration info).  Colour managed programs (and only colour managed programs) use the monitor profile (and the image profile) to convert the RGB values in the image from the image colour space (e.g. sRGB) to the monitor's colour space (as measured and information stored in the monitor profile). 
    So the change you see when the calibration is applied at boot-up is just that - the calibration.  Colour management happens when colour-managed programs display images to the screen.
    "The color-managment of LR is markedly different." 
    Or rather, LR is colour managed, Picasa isn't. 
    "I can see it set in when moving the image more than halfway from one display to the other on the extended desktop. It slightly desaturates the U3011, which is good. And it pumps up the colors on the laptop too much: the pale-colored images do get closer, but any vivid colors are blown on the display."
    When you drag an image from one screen to the other, are you using Lightroom (or another colour-managed application)?  In which case you shouldn't see a difference between the two monitors.  If you do, then one or both monitor profiles is probably bad.  If you're using unmanaged applications, then this is what you expect to see. One (or probably both) screens will be displaying incorrect colour.  But each will display different incorrect colour. 
    "Is there any way to make color management in LR work like non-color-managed applications? Or to adjust the white point & gamma for the laptop display by LR so that it would become more useful with vivid images (yet less accurate)?"
    Colour management in LR is always on.  And in truth, it's a bit pointless trying to make something behave "like non-color-managed applications".  Thing is: non colour managed applications will look different on every monitor.  Different unmanaged applications may look the same on your monitor, but they'll look different on someone else's.  There's no single "look" of non-managed applications. 
    The best you can do is export to sRGB for the web.  Most monitors have roughly sRGB colour space, so this is the best guess you can make at the right colour space for unmanaged browsers.  Using an unmanaged colour workflow yourself is simply adding errors in your system to errors in the viewer's unmanaged system.  It's likely to make it worse, not better!

  • Is there a way to force color management ON in Flash Player 10

    Here's my problem:
    I have a wide gamut display (calibrated and profiled) and
    with a wide gamut display, it is very important to have web
    browsing (and ideally everything else) fully color managed, because
    unmanaged colors get displayed horribly wrong.
    Firefox 3 supports full end-to-end color management (when
    switched on). It even wisely assumes sRGB for CSS color values and
    untagged images. But of course, Firefox 3 can't control Flash
    rendering and this makes it impossible to view web pages that
    contain Flash with correct (or even near-correct) colors.
    So is there a way to force Flash Player 10's color management
    ON by default? I know it is probably not a good idea in many cases,
    but in my case, it would work a lot better than having if off by
    default.
    I'm using Mac OS X 10.5.5.

    The website may alter its page display based on the browser ID that is transmitted to the site from your browser. Some browsers on the iPad like iCab allow you change the browser ID to something desktop-oriented. Safari does not provide this capability.

  • Safari's Color Management Policies

    Hello, I'm a graphic designer from Germany. I've encountered that Safari can handle color management, which is indeed quite up to date. But Safari always assumes that untagged RGB image data has to be translated with the "Generic RGB"-profile (Apple's system profile, right?) instead of sRGB - the official standard color-profile in the web.
    Well, that's not a problem at all if every image has a sRGB profile attached. But the only practical web file format handling ICC is the JPEG (PNG works also but is a bit difficult to use thanks to the png-internal gamma "correction" and his chunk of a sRGB-profile). As a result, I'm limited to the JPEG. But the real problem is not only Safari: Macromedia Flash data isn't color managed too, and there is NO WAY of importing images with color-profiles into a Flash movie. Additionally, no browser (except IE5 for Mac) bothers about color management.
    To sum things up: Safari handels images with color profiles correctly, but untagged image data is displayed wrong (sRGB is official). IE5 for Mac DOES emulate a sRGB environment in the browser's window. IE5 displays untagged data correctly, it's using sRGB.
    I'm not searching for a plug-in for Safari or anything else. The customers, to which my graphics are sold, don't bother about such a plug-in. They want to use Safari right out-of-the-box. As a graphic designer I have two choices:
    First, I only use JPEGs and maybe PNGs with color profiles. Firefox for Mac won't care, but at least Safari can translate colors.
    The second is, that I always use untagged data and accept that Apple users just see the web a bit lighter. Images without an ICC profile are way smaller, a good reason to abandon profiles at all (by the way, profiles in the web should be obsolete anyway, browsers just have to interpret every RGB-value as sRGB).
    My question is, does Apple plan to change Safari's color management policies to a standard sRGB environment or do I really have to see Flash pages an the like a bit lighter than it is intended to be? What is the best way to handle my images? Attach profiles or leave it untagged, so that Windows users (sRGB) will see it correctly and Mac users a bit lighter?
    Thanks for any answers that will come! Greetings, Peter.
    iMac 17" Intel   Mac OS X (10.4.6)  

    Welcome to Apple Discussions
    Good questions about rendering color on the web. Not being technically savvy when it comes to this type of thing, I'll leave the technical questions for others more versed in web design.
    Suggestions to Apple for future versions of their OS and software can be made here.
    iMac G5 Rev C 20" 2.5gb RAM 250 gb HD/iBook G4 1.33 ghz 1.5gb RAM 40 gb HD   Mac OS X (10.4.6)   LaCie 160gb d2 HD Canon i960 printer

  • *Please* Apple, fix Safari color-management

    Hey,
    I was very happy with the SL update and following 10.6.2 regarding color management under OS X.
    The problem is that Safari's own color management is broken. It reverts any untagged content to Monitor RGB. This is a huge problem on wide gamut monitors as they'll render over saturated colors (almost neon-like).
    Apple should follow Mozilla's steps and see what they did with Firefox 3.6. It manages all colored content (whether it's images or CSS colors) and reverts everything to the ICC monitor profile you set on your preferences.
    I cannot rely on Safari (or Chrome for that matter) anymore.
    I know this issue is well-known and was reported before, but Apple has to fix this.
    -F

    HI,
    Best to put a bug in Apple's ear...
    From the Safari Menu Bar click Safari/Report Bugs to Apple.
    They will not respond but developers do read the reports.
    Carolyn

  • 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.

  • Safari Color Management

    I am running Mac OS X Version 10.4.9 with a dual monitor set up.
    Both are Eizo monitors, a Flexscan 1731 and a Coloredge CG 221. Since I've replaced my CRT Barco monitor with the CG221, I've seen huge color differences between Photoshop and Safari.
    I finally realized the differences I see between Photoshop and Safari is that my working space is sRGB, while the monitor's profile (which it seems that Safari assigns to the web) is Adobe 1998. Since Eizo's CG221 has a larger gamut than the Barco monitor and my Flexscan S1731 (which are sRGB monitors), the drastic differences between Safari and Photoshop are more apparent on the CG221.
    Eizo's solution is to calibrate emulating the sRGB space, which is possible with Color Navigator. But this does not sound like the best solution for me. Why should I clip the monitor profile? This would mean the only way to see my monitor's full gamut is to re-calibrate.
    So now my question is, are there any browsers available with color management settings? It'd make sense if I could calibrate my monitor at it's full gamut and have a browser which converts to a working space instead of assigning the monitor profile, or which at least honors embedded profiles.
    I must also note Eizo's suggestion of recalibrating to the sRGB space seems incorrect, because even if I worked in Adobe 1998 most webpages would display incorrectly (except my own which would have images with Adobe 1998 embedded). Even when I view Apple's website colors appear oversaturated, especially in skin tones.
    Any help and feedback is highly appreciated.

    An interesting problem indeed. It sort of emphasizes the lack of color management on the WEB.
    The commonly recommended workaround, to calibrate all monitors to something close to sRGB is suddenly outdated when monitors can display a gamut outside of the sRGB range.
    To clarify your problem a bit.
    Safari uses the monitor color space as working space, always. This is not necessarily a problem, as long as images gets converted into the monitor color space when they are opened. However, this does not happen when the image does not have a color profile. Correct but inconvenient.
    In Photoshop you can choose the working space. Best is if the working space is the same as the target space. Thus, if you work with WEB publishing choose sRGB. If you work with printing choose your printers color space etc.
    But Photoshop will also have a problem if images does not have a color profile, unless the image has an EXIF tag, indicating that the image is in for instance sRGB color space. Photoshop is intelligent enough to understand this, because most digital cameras produce images without color profile but with the EXIF color space tag. In case there is no color profile, and no EXIF color space tag, Photoshop will, depending on your color preference settings, ask you to assign a colorspace or automatically assign working space, which could be whatever.
    There are possible solutions to your problem.
    1. If you publish WEB sites and want to browse them correctly, using your very expensive monitor without lobotomizing it's capabilities. Use Safari or other color managed browser and follow the two rules of image publishing for the WEB
    Rule 1) Images on the web should be published in sRGB color space (otherwise they will not be displayed correctly in browsers on the MS-Windows platforms, with the exception of Safari, viewing images with a color profile)
    Rule 2) Images should have a color profile, in particular the sRGB images (otherwise they will not be displayed correctly on the MacOS platforms. Maybe close to correct if you have calibrated your monitor to PC-gamma)
    For a test, go to http://www.gballard.net/psd/golive_pageprofile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html
    2) If you want to browse WEB sites, created by people who did not follow the second rule, that is most WEB-sites, and by the way, includes parts of the Apple WEB site.
    Do the following: In Safari, Safari Menu/Report Bugs to Apple - include the following statement.
    Dear Safari development team. Most WEB sites on the internet does not display properly in Safari, due to the fact that most WEB publishers are unaware of that they should include color profiles in their images. Today, Safari effectively disables color management when the color profile is missing, a correct but not very practical approach. In reality, most images published on the WEB are in fact sRGB or close to that but without a color profile. In order to enhance the WEB experience for the vast community of Safari users, could you PLEASE include at least the option in Safari, to "Assume sRGB for WEB colors". Since Safari is already color managed, it should mean only a few lines of code in the Safari application.
    I did this, but probably we need a lot of users to complain before it gets fixed. It has been like this for ever, but I really expected it to be fixed in Safari 3.
    See also http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=5204498&#5204498 and http://www.tomasjonsson.eu for more information
    Tomas

  • 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.

  • Color managing Safari 4.0.3

    I read Safari is automatically color managed and it is linked to the ICC profile the display is using.
    I use a colorimeter for monitor calibration and my display profile is set to that created profile. Am I getting accurate colors with Safari? I just want to be able to view sRGB correctly.

    HI,
    This thread might offer some insight.
    Safari Color Management
    Carolyn

Maybe you are looking for