Oversaturated images on browser

Question

I m using Lightroom 5 and I am looking for a function to export images to web (similar to the save for web function in photoshop).  The exported images from lightroom are over saturated (e.g. very red) when viewed on a browser such as Firefox (no problem with Internet Explorer).  To fix this problem I used photoshop's 'save for web' function to reprocess the images.  Does lightroom has a 'export for web' function?

Answer 1

General advice for Lightroom users: export to sRGB if your image goes to the web (both HTML and flash) or gets emailed to others. Do NOT strip the profile (like Photoshop's Save for Web anachronistically does by default). If you get strange color that is very different from Lightroom in any web browser, check your monitor calibration profile. In 99% of cases that's the culprit. In general if you want your output color to whatever destination to be as good as you can get it, calibrate and profile your own monitor. The last is by far the most important step.
> the color is still dictated by the browsers, which (@2014) don't display it properly in many (if not most) cases.
Color management in browsers is a major pet peeve of mine as people on this forum know well and until a few years ago, I would have completely agreed albeit I would still have recommended against using flash for anything. The color management situation has radically improved. Chrome, Firefox, and Safari all color manage as long as a icc profile is present in the image. Even IE (from 9 on) understands and converts tagged images (Color Management) . If I understand correctly some browsers on Windows (notably IE apparently) do a strange version of color management where they will convert tagged images to sRGB before displaying. So they don't use the monitor profile, but for the vast majority of windows using people this is not an issue as extremely few of them calibrate their monitor. IE is a minority platform nowadays anyway as web statistics all show. So color management is actually present on most of the desktop browsers. That said, this is all moot if you simply use sRGB (and tag!). Almost nobody calibrates their monitor, so using sRGB for everything destined for the web gets you as close as you can get on all browsers and remains the only sensible advice. It will display as good as it gets on tablets (which are never color managed but usually have close to sRGB screens) and on desktops. It is even better if you tag those images with an sRGB profile because the number of people using Macs (where every browser correctly color manages and with very few exceptions a fairly good monitor profile is present by default), is far higher than the number of windows people that do calibrate their monitor, have wide gamut displays and therefore could theoretically benefit from flash color management. Those people (windows+wide gamut monitor+savvy enough to calibrate) are better off running only Firefox in full color management mode anyway as in that mode it will even manage untagged images and HTML color.
Concerning flash, I consider it heaven that Safari by default doesn't run flash applets even if you have flash installed (no longer default on Macs but a separate download and install) without an extra click enabling the content. Plugins for Safari and Chrome like click-to-flash, etc. are also fantastic. These things have suddenly made the web useful again as annoying ads and blary stuff no longer appear everywhere. Furthermore, flash is a constant source of zero-day exploits sending Adobe scrambling and leaving us vulnerable for long periods all the time. Worse, even Adobe's flash updater looks very much like a trojan installer resulting in many people that have a modicum of training (don't click on stuff saying it needs to install to make stuff better as the result of going to a webpage!) not running fully patched flash. So with all this, I'd very strongly recommend against using flash for anything on the modern web. You're missing a major audience in mobile browsers for no realistic benefit.