display on different browsers changes colors

[bwana]

I dont know if it's my imagination but the attached photo seems 'cartoonier' (more saturated?) on internet explorer vs chrome. Opening the image in chrome is close to photoshop and lightroom's rendition. FWIW, MS paint also gives the internet explorer rendition. I thought Internet explorer was color managed? This page
http://photographylife.com/is-your-browser-color-managed
shows that chrome and internet explorer are color managed. But the internet explorer pictures of the same web page have that cartoonier, more saturated look.

This seemed to be a problem with IE9 and still seems to exist today.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=46379.0
http://cameratico.com/guides/web-browser-color-management-guide/

Or is it something that I can specify im my color profile to fix this on a case by case basis depending on the browser?

PS: The image is the stairway in the Apple store. Ans it seems they have an Easter Egg there- they have buried the name of the operating system (OS X) in the middle of the stairwell.

[digitaldog]

Point both browsers here:

http://www.color.org/version4html.xalter

Do they pass the test?

[bwana]

HAHA. Internet explorer is v4 compliant but chrome is not.
Yet Chrome's colors are closer to photoshop/lightroom.

[Simon Garrett]

There's a bit more to it.

The link Andrew gave will tell you if the browser supports image embedded profiles, and if so whether it supports v4 as well as v2 profiles.  It doesn't tell you if the browser supports monitor profiles.  Colour mangement requires both.

Internet Explorer supports image embedded profiles - even v4 - but does not support monitor profiles (not even IE10).  It assumes your monitor has an sRGB colour space.  Most normal-gamut monitors (i.e. not wide-gamut) are very roughly sRGB, but few are exactly sRGB.  This means colours for images with an embedded profile will be roughly right on normal gamut monitors, and hopelessly wrong on wide-gamut monitors (very over-saturated).   

Chrome does not support image embedded profiles (it assumes all images are sRGB) but does use monitor profiles.  It means it will display sRGB images - and only sRGB images - correctly on any profiled monitor. 

Safari supports both image embedded profiles and monitor profiles, so any image with an embedded profile is displayed correctly on any profiled monitor.  Sadly, images without an embedded profile will generally be displayed wrongly. 

Firefox supports both image embedded profiels and monitor profiles, so any image with an embedded profile is displayed correctly on any profiled monitor.  Images without an embedded profile are assumed to be sRGB, so are generally displayed correctly. 

Only Firefox and Safari are properly colour-managed, and Safari only for images with embedded profiles. 

[D Fosse]

This has a very simple explanation: IE does not honor the monitor profile, instead it converts everything to sRGB for display output. Whoever thought that was a brilliant idea should, well...

Firefox is the only browser that gets everything right (as long as you set color management to mode 1 instead of the default 2). All other browsers have some shortcomings and can't always be trusted.

Edit: cross post (same conclusion)

[bwana]

Thank you Simon. That fits my observations as I am using a wide gamut, calibrated monitor and convert my images to sRGB for export.

[bwana]

So if am developing a raw file for print, it makes sense to use a calibrated workflow. But if most browsers ignore the monitor profile (even if they recognize the image profile buried in the image) then I too should develop my images on a monitor that is using its standard uncalibrated (sRGB?) profile?

[Simon Garrett]

So if am developing a raw file for print, it makes sense to use a calibrated workflow. But if most browsers ignore the monitor profile (even if they recognize the image profile buried in the image) then I too should develop my images on a monitor that is using its standard uncalibrated (sRGB?) profile?

Yes to the first - use a calibrated workflow.

However, when you post images on the web you're in bandit country, as most people use uncalibrated monitors and use browsers that don't "do" colour management anyway.  That means it will look slightly different on every (uncalibrated) monitor in the world.  However, most uncalibrated monitors are very roughly sRGB colour space and tone curve.  There's no single "look" of an uncalibrated monitor and browser - they're all over the place, but the average is somewhere vaguely close to sRGB. 

So the best thing is to convert to sRGB before uploading to the web.  But you're still best off reviewing on a calibrated monitor, IMHO.  That way, what you see is right, and will be roughly in the middle of the huge spread of possible monitor renditions.  If you use an uncalibrated monitor yourself, you're merely adding yet another error in your monitor to the error in the uncalibrated monitor viewing your web page. 

[D Fosse]

But you're still best off reviewing on a calibrated monitor, IMHO.

Agree completely, but for a slightly different reason:

The fact that most browsers are lacking in full color management, does not mean you should let all standards go. The browsers will catch up eventually. But it's their responsibility to catch up, not yours to "catch down".

Similarly, the fact that most people use uncalibrated displays is their problem, not yours. You have no responsibility to make them happy. Your responsibility is to get it right.

[Tony Jay]

Yes, the bottom line is that whatever the output for one's images a properly calibrated monitor is mandatory in their preparation.
With regard to posting images on the web the fact that web browsers may not be colour-managed and that most individuals monitors are similarly non colour-managed is entirely besides the point.
If the images that you have prepared were never prepared in a controlled colour-managed environment, neither you nor anyone else will have any idea what the image should actually look like - in that scenario it truly becomes a case of 'the-blind-leading-the-blind!'

Tony Jay