Do you assign tasks for multiple web browsers?

[john_childs]

Originally Posted by Dane M

shittyRGB is the most common among web images, other than that you really only see adobe rgb 1998. I have never had any issues with other sites rendering color incorrectly over my calibration. I use colormunki and xrite, usually at d50-65 since I analyze prints here as well. If I'm looking at images to be judged for their color, then they are usually quality images, and if they're quality images you would hope that the image holder has adjusted the color to their taste anyways. Maybe it is just because I have used "mainstream" popular web-browsers so I have not run into this problem. But if a web browser is adjusting color independently then that makes me nervous, because that leaves a lot of room for inaccuracy.

Since you've got a ColorMunki you've got a proper monitor profile and the profile should be set properly as the default profile for your monitor. When things are set right the color management will just work in Firefox. The current version of Firefox defaults to doing color management for tagged images. There's a setting in about:config that will do untagged images as sRGB and also color manage browser rendered colors like CSS elements.

Open a tagged jpeg in both Firefox and Chrome and you should notice that the image is different in each browser.

Firefox isn't adjusting the image color independently. It's adjusting for color profiles the same way Photoshop or any other color managed application does. A jpeg with an embedded color profile should look the same in Photoshop as it does in Firefox (assuming you've got the working space in Photoshop set to sRGB since Firefox does sRGB as its working space).

I like the idea of a browser doing color management. It's the right thing to do when displaying images and has some benefit also for browser generated elements as well. But color management has the possibility to be yet another headache for web designers. There will be new challenges like getting a color manged JPEG to exactly match a CSS rendered background color. The color of the JPEG will be different depending on whether the user has color management enabled or not. Ha ha. More good times for web developers. But that's what you get when you design for a wild west environment like the web.

Despite the potential problems and how confusing color management can be, I would prefer to use a browser that is color managed. For now that means Firefox and Seamonkey. And IE9 when it hits general release.

[john_childs]

Originally Posted by Chrashing

I had used to Firefox, but it has started to pause and run slower and slower as I surf. So I don't use FireFox.

There are a couple of Firefox add-ons that will allow you to restart Firefox and restore your tabs. Restart Firefox when it starts running slowly. When it reopens it will be off to a fresh start. Really sucks though that you even need to do that. The once lean and mean Firefox has turned into a pig.

Memory Restart The default is to alert you when memory reaches 500 Mb. You can change that in the config. Something around 400 Mb may be more suitable.

Restart Firefox Creates a Restart entry in the File menu.

[Dane M]

Originally Posted by john_childs

Since you've got a ColorMunki you've got a proper monitor profile and the profile should be set properly as the default profile for your monitor. When things are set right the color management will just work in Firefox. The current version of Firefox defaults to doing color management for tagged images. There's a setting in about:config that will do untagged images as sRGB and also color manage browser rendered colors like CSS elements.

Open a tagged jpeg in both Firefox and Chrome and you should notice that the image is different in each browser.

Firefox isn't adjusting the image color independently. It's adjusting for color profiles the same way Photoshop or any other color managed application does. A jpeg with an embedded color profile should look the same in Photoshop as it does in Firefox (assuming you've got the working space in Photoshop set to sRGB since Firefox does sRGB as its working space).

I like the idea of a browser doing color management. It's the right thing to do when displaying images and has some benefit also for browser generated elements as well. But color management has the possibility to be yet another headache for web designers. There will be new challenges like getting a color manged JPEG to exactly match a CSS rendered background color. The color of the JPEG will be different depending on whether the user has color management enabled or not. Ha ha. More good times for web developers. But that's what you get when you design for a wild west environment like the web.

Despite the potential problems and how confusing color management can be, I would prefer to use a browser that is color managed. For now that means Firefox and Seamonkey. And IE9 when it hits general release.

One of my biggest peeves about color in relation to computers is that no matter how perfect it is according to the numbers and my calibrated monitor, if someone with an uncalibrated monitor or a monitor that is cheap and only projects sRGB looks at my work, then it will look like crap. I don't run out of printable gamut TOO often, but I've seen my website on sRGB monitors and it makes me want to throw up.

But you would hope that anyone that is analyzing your work to the extent of precise color would also have a calibrated monitor.

Just another reason why I like prints so much better. A perfect print is a perfect print, I can hand it to someone and they can look at it and it's still perfect. I also like being able to physically hold my work, 1's and 0's just don't feel the same. Hopefully in the future (near please) there will be better systems for color in relation to monitors.