Gator soup, I'm not sure what you're asking for...

All the images are published with the profiles listed (and the one is untagged, meaning it has no profile).

If the leaves in the tagged images look like one another then that means the browser is interpreting image color profiles.

The red box at the top of each image uses the hex code exactly as listed to define the color in that space, which of course is interpreted differently because each different image is in a different color space.

Assuming your browser IS in fact interpreting the image color profiles, then these things are interesting:

1.  Whether the leaves in the untagged image match any / all of the other images.  If they do match, say, the sRGB tagged image this implies the browser is interpreting the color values as though an untagged image is in the sRGB color space.

2.  What red blocks at the tops of which images exactly match the surrounding HTML background of the same code (which is what interests the Macchiato here in this thread).  If, for example, the red block at the top of the sRGB image matches the background, then the browser is color-managing each to the same goal.

On my system...

Firefox 10.0, when set to color management mode "1", shows the following:

A.  All the leaves match in color in all 4 images, and the colors are accurate, because Firefox (set this way) outputs everything in the monitor's color space.  Firefox assumes untagged images are in the sRGB color space.

B.  The red blocks atop both the untagged image and the sRGB-tagged image match the background red color, because it assumes untagged images and HTML hex codes are in the sRGB color space.   The red blocks atop the Adobe RGB and ProPhoto RGB tagged images do NOT match the background, as expected, because they're expressed in something other than the sRGB color space.

Internet Explorer 9, which always assumes the monitor is sRGB, displays the following:

A,.  All the leaves match in color in all 4 images, but the colors may not be accurate (depending on how different actual monitor performance is from sRGB) because IE outputs everything in the sRGB color space. 

B.  The red blocks atop both the untagged image and the sRGB-tagged image match the background red color, because untagged images and HTML hex codes are all assumed to be in the sRGB color space.  The red blocks atop the Adobe RGB and ProPhoto RGB tagged images do NOT match the background, as expected, because they're expressed in something other than the sRGB color space.

Safari shows the following:

A.  All the leaves match in color in the 3 tagged images, but do not match the untagged image, since Safari passes the untagged image through to the monitor with no color management.

B.  The red block atop the untagged image matches the background, but none of the other three do, because Safari passes the HTML colors through to the display without any color management.  Whether it's better to put untagged imagery out to the monitor without transformation is a judgment call.  It may be literally the right thing to do, but Firefox's strategy may be better.

At first blush Firefox seems to have it closest to right in the general case, but it has its problems as well.  For example, it ONLY uses the color profile of the primary monitor, no matter what monitor it's opened on if you have a multiple monitor system.   In my mind this makes it lose its edge over Internet Explorer because it's sometimes right and sometimes wrong, where IE's consistent transform to sRGB on any monitor is expected.

Conclusion:

ONLY IF one configures ALL of one's monitors to produce their output in the actual sRGB color space and associates the sRGB profile with each of them, do all browsers do a proper job of color-management.

-Noel

D Fosse wrote:

 

RikRamsay14 wrote:

 

The web, and everything about the web defaults to sRGB. If there is no profile, it displays as sRGB

This is simply not correct and misunderstood. It defaults to your monitor color space.

 

Though I've said it above, I just want to re-clarify this:

One of the reasons this is misunderstood is that it differs depending on which browser you're talking about.

• IE assumes untagged images and HTML elements are sRGB.
• Firefox set to mode 2 (default) passes untagged images through without color-management.
• Firefox set to mode 1 assumes untagged images (as well as HTML elements) are sRGB.
• Safari passes untagged images through to the monitor without color-management.

-Noel

>> (Noel) The red box at the top of each image uses the hex code exactly as listed to define the color in that space, which of course is interpreted differently because each different image is in a different color space.

>> (D Fosse) It seems to me that hex numbers are not profile specific - they're just numbers, like RGB numbers. They don't have any specific meaning until they refer to a given space

okay, that's especially clear, thanks...

"speechless" was my gut reaction, no criticism intended, so I apologize if I came across that way to anyone

the OP's problems surfaced in Save for Web (SFW) after he calibrated his monitor - a common problem and fairly easy to explain why

setting the default monitor profile to sRGB (to work around the SFW behavior) breaks Photoshop's ability to display color 'accurately' — it sets Photoshop up to behave like Microsoft Internet Explorer on an 'uncalibrated' system — and it only makes it harder (if not impossible) to guess what other people will see even in fully color-managed 'calibrated' conditions

while my exposure to Windows users here is broadening my awareness as to how some web designers work, I still think setting one's Default monitor profile to sRGB is the worst advice for Photoshop users who need a professional 'calibrated' reference monitor (and that is my point)

macchiato. perfectly explained his reasons for going back to what he is comfortable with in post #36 and I wish him luck

All colors are presumed to be defined in the sRGB color space

Exactly. "Presumed" is the operative word. That's the smoking gun. Not sRGB, but "presumed" to conform to sRGB.

Try out a wide gamut monitor once and see what presume means when there is no profile.

gator soup wrote:

as i understand the theory, all web browsers (except Firefox V1) do not alter untagged Photoshop .jpg files or hex colors specified in CSS and HTML — web browsers simply send the RGB 'numbers' straight through to the monitor unaltered — the "presumption" is that they are in the sRGB color space for display on an sRGB-compliant device

This is not theory, but observed fact:

• Internet Explorer assumes untagged images and HTML elements are sRGB and that the display is sRGB.  Thus untagged image and HTML colors are passed through without color management when being sent to the display.
• Firefox with gfx.color_management.mode set to 2 (the default) passes untagged images and HTML colors through without color-management.
• Firefox set to mode 1 assumes untagged images (as well as HTML elements) are sRGB, and transforms the colors to the PRIMARY monitor's color space.
• Safari passes untagged images and HTML colors through to the monitor without color-management.

I don't know about Chrome and the others.  I should probably check them out to complete my knowledge.

-Noel

thanks for the feedback, Noel, i was pretty sure i had that part of the theory correct -- seeing is believing

What use is a color match when you don't have control of the color? Maybe you don't care about this, but designers do.

Designers are of course aware that they have no control over destination monitors, but that is no reason not to use a calibrated display. You don't need to abandon display calibration in order to match css color to image color. My point is, using a calibrated display is a designer's best shot at having control over color, while being fully aware that he or she only has control over their own output, not the destination display.

Yes, it does explain why the OP had no problems before calibrating the monitor. But once the monitor is calibrated,simply converting the image to the sRGB profile before Saving for Web also gives the desired result. And in fact, Photoshop CS5 on my Mac defaults to that profile conversion via a checkbox in the Save for Web dialog, so the process would work even if the user was unaware of it.

And my point is that a person who presents a problem like the OP presented will not be able to make an intelligent choice without learning a little more about Color Management. If we are going to recommend or tolerate the use of a generic profile for the display profile, then why discuss Color Management at all? We had this discussion over and over on the old Mac forum. People would show up saying stuff like, "Color Management is a hoax, just disable it and everything works!" Then they would get raked over the coals by some real curmudgeons. Those were the days;)

Noel Carboni wrote:

 

Perhaps we should just try to share our knowlege instead of trying to tell people what to do?

Yes, since that is hopefully the purpose of this forum. It is especially difficult when the topic is Color Management, because the topic is so confusing, and people get very opinionated about it. My own understanding of the subject is pretty rudimentary, yet took me years to wrap my mind around. The only thing that really bothers me is seeing bad advice passed off as good. I've seen a lot of this over the years in other forums, not so much in Adobe's forums.