Same here, except that I can not even get it to work on FF 3.0.15.
Running a Dell C22W (Crystal), calibrated, and pointing to the profile using gfx.color_management.display_profile and gfx.color_management.enabled set to On. From a DNG file in Lightroom, I exported a JPEG in Adobe RGB and the same in sRGB. Both look identical when displayed from Lightroom (i.e. color managed), but both look oversatured in FF. If color management is disabled, only the Adobe RGB will look correct, i.e. pretty much identical to the one in LR, since it’s send straight to the wide gamut monitor.

Using Photoshop CS4 to create JPEG images that are sRGB tagged means that I’m left with v4 ICC profiles that Firefox 3.5.x doesn’t interpret correctly and THAT is why all my images look like sh+t in Firefox now? (ie: over saturated like crazy, for starters.) Is this right?

I used to LOVE FF. Why’d you go and break it? I can’t even use it anymore.

BTW: That notion of stripping the color profile information out of all of our images is absolutely crazy. Fix the browser! PLEASE.

I just can’t grasp how the Mozilla team could fail so miserably with this.

RGB colors will not match up with CSS colors, as they would if turning profile recognition on or off was an option, with the option set to “off”, for the vast majority of casual Web visitors that know nothing about it. There are many of us that never bothered to strip the color profiles out of photographs, because it was an unnecessary extra step to do so.

I have scads of sRGB images and graphics on my site mixed with CSS “matching” (at least they were matching at one time, Mozilla) backgrounds. Since you can’t have irregular borders where CSS and RGB colors butt together, that has to be done by floating an image over a rectange of CSS color. Now, these don’t match. Take a look at the two examples below. The first shows a photograph with an irregular border dropped into a CSS field that at one time, matched the surrounding CSS background. Now, you see the entire rectangle of the image area, because the CSS color used as a background now is displayed as a managed color, unlike the surrounding CSS page background color:
http://www.hildebrandstudio.com/seniors/sen_gal_frame.html

Then, here’s the blog theme I modified with a custom header. Instead of seamlessly blending into the surrounding CSS background, it looks like pure unaldulterated crap:

http://www.hildebrandstudio.com/blog/

If Mozilla would just deliver FF with color profiles off, those of us needing hundreds of hours of reworking our sites to accomodate this could simply warn visitors to turn the profiles off to view our sites. Hell, I’d even post a page telling people how to do that! Now, I just tell visitors not to use FF if they want to see the site as intended.

Ron Hildebrand

I use Windows Vista and have “Dell 2407WFP-HC” (the color gamut on this monitor almost matches “Adobe RGB” and is significantly wider than “sRGB”).

So…

I’ve just tested FF 3.5.3 with 4 images:
-”sRGB” image with embedded profile
-”sRGB” image without embedded profile
-”Adobe RGB” image with embedded profile
-”Adobe RGB” image without embedded profile

I left “gfx.color_management.mode” on its default setting: 2.

The results are:

FF is displaying everything as it should!
Images with profiles are displayed correctly (as in Photoshop).
Images without profiles are displayed with distorted colors (as they should ). Even “sRGB” images are displayed with distorted colors because FF displays them in your monitors gamut and if you have some new wide-gamut LCD (like me) the images will be displayed according to your monitors gamut.

The solution to the problem…

All images SHOULD HAVE proper tags embedded! That’s it.
If your image does not have proper ICC profile embedded, don’t cry to FF because colors don’t match on some monitors!
Most (I think ALL) recent point-and-shoot cameras embed “sRGB” profile with the images so this wouldn’t be a problem. And if you’re a pro than you should have known better.

BTW Good work Mozilla!

And earlier browsers didn’t make my images look like crap.

Mozilla is way over-assuming the technical expertise of someone who may happen to know how to upload an image taken with a digital camera and possibly tweaked with some software. I still, after reading and trying like mad to understand what this is all about, am in the dark. Color profiles? sRGB? CSS? TweakPNG? I know the difference between RGB and CMYK and that’s about it.

I like FF but please try to remember that LAYPEOPLE use this browser!!

“I mean rendering colors should be a decision formed by the artist not the browser.”

Then Firefox 3.5 should be a good thing. Now, rendering colors is a decision formed by the artist. Earlier, rendering colors was a decision formed by the browser. Problems result when artists are used to having browsers ignore embedded color profiles and have edited images to get them to look good when the color profile is ignored… but have still maintained the embedded color profiles. The artist is sending mixed messages to any program that attempts to interpret the images. The artist created an image with an embedded color profile telling the program one thing, but the artist didn’t intend for the program to pay attention to that embedded color profile. Can we really blame programmers for not being able to create programs that can accurate interpret the artist’s intent? Earlier browsers didn’t even try!

Lies. I, like most people in this comment thread, knew nothing of color profiles before ff3.5 and now our sites look like garbage. Photoshop adds these tags to PNG and JPG images.

Please PLEASE turn off color correction by default. I really don’t want to have to go through all my images and delete their color profiles (probably to have Photoshop just add them in again). This is such a bad “feature”.

and then I googled and find this article…good job

but…this problem is really annoying…I will have to TweakPNG every image? nahhh….

I’m an artist by trade and while I do enjoy an opportunity to learn more about web development, I do not appreciate it when a formerly reliable piece of software has forced me to the issue by rendering my work unacceptable.

I assume this issue has been resolved.

I compared a jpeg in photoshop CS4 side by side with one I had uploaded to SmugMug and see no difference using FF 3.5.2.
___________________________________________________________
REPLY
I’m not sure how this actually tests the issue, Ric. CS4 will display your jpg with any embedded profile, and that’s what the new versions of FF do, too, so you will not see any difference between the images in your comparison, since you are not comparing matched CSS and RGB colors in your test.

Browsers have been “profile blind” up until now, so matching a CSS color in html with the same color in a profiled (probably most often, sRGB) jpg image resulted in an on-screen match to the viewer. Now, with FF recognizing the profile by defualt (instead of supplying FF with profile recognition off by default), CSS and image colors will not match. You have to actually strip the profile from an image now to get a match between the same colors in CSS and RGB. For many web owners, this means either many, many hours of reworking affected images to strip RGB profiles, or having a crappy looking site when viewed with FF.

Implementation of profile recoginition is a good thing. But introducing it with this feature on by default, instead of keeping it as an optional choice made by the user, blindsides site owners who have never had to deal with this issue. Firefox continues, it seems, to think this is no big deal, but to those of us who have spent hundreds of hours on sites that now look like crap thanks to this clumsy inplementation of profile recognition, it is.

Ron Hildebrand