Photoshop CS4 Save for Web JPEG Colors are Off

Question

Ok, I've scoured the web to see about finding a solution for this and tried every possible option and still I'm coming up empty handed. I have a website that I'm developing for a painter and have an image converted to sRGB, and the colors are where I want them to be. I use Save for Web, and every iteration suggested online for the, embed and don't embed, convert to sRGB and dont' covert, use document color profile, use windows, yada yada. Here's a recent example:
when i preview the image with Firefox, here's the difference:
The photoshop version is on the left and is the color that I want/need. The image on the right is firefox and saturated. If I save for web with embedded profile, safari is accurate, whereas firefox is saturated, so it's obviously discarding the icc and using some color space that I can't see in my file. I did notice that if I have my Custom, Proof and select Monitor RGB, then I can see what firefox will ultimately display and also what Safari will display if i have Embed ICC Profile unchecked in the save for web dialogue box.
I know that CS2 and CS3 were easier and less squirrely with color managing web files, but I think CS4 has some juju under the hood. Am I the only one out there frustrated, or like other web developers just accept the inaccuracy and move on? Since this is fine art, I'm doing my best to dial the color in, but it's been all afternoon beating on this.
Any ideas, I'm ready to install CS3 and see if my life will be easier, but I'm wondering if having Photoshop CS3 and CS4 will cause any issues.

Answer 1

>> your logic
That's my rant and I'm sticking to it.
The OP wrote he doesn't want or need to discuss the pros and cons of embedding profiles in Web images, but for the sake of anyone else reading this:
1) Embedded ICC Profiles increase file sizes (about 4K per image).
a) I may have over 100 thumbnails and dozens of photos on one page,
b) Plus, I may have an image sliced into many pieces.
c) That additional 4k per image, per slice, will add up fast and may kill dial-up traffic.
2) Very few computers use color-managed web browsers or calibrated monitors anyway, and
3) Problems with matching/blending image's edges or background color with a filled box or page color.
d) If I tag the image — on Mac colormanaged browsers — the color will mismatch the box/page color on managed browsers because the tagged image is being Converted to MonitorRGB, and the untagged page or box color is having MonitorRGB Applied.
e) This matching or blending a pixel-based graphic to page color is a pretty big deal to do correctly in professional web publishing.
f) If I publish untagged sRGB images/graphics, the box/page color will match the images and blend correctly in all browsers.
I WILL QUALIFY my general recommendation about embedding profiles in pixel-based web images for the following reasons:
1) You are posting fine-art images, creative portfolios, and are not worried about adding 4K additional data per image, per slice.
2) You are not worried about having Mac visitors seeing graphic blends or photos mismatched to a background color.
3) You understand only properly-profiled monitors and color-managed web browsers will benefit from your embedded profile — and it is likely 99% of web surfers don't have either — however, if you are targeting the one percent who do, then there is your number one best reason for tagging web photos with embedded profiles.