4 ms·

Given the Safari team has been the major driving force behind support for wide gamut in web browsers (for the very obvious reason that all Apple devices ship wi

by dcrazy 10mo ago

Given the Safari team has been the major driving force behind support for wide gamut in web browsers (for the very obvious reason that all Apple devices ship with wide-gamut displays), I am extremely suspicious of the author’s assertion that Safari is ignoring an embedded ICC profile while Chrome and Firefox are doing the right thing. I think it’s far more likely that whatever chain of open-source image modification tools the author is using has written out pixel values in a different colorspace than the one named in the embedded ICC profile. But if the author is absolutely confident in their analysis, they are welcome to file a bug report: https://bugs.webkit.org/ https://bugs.webkit.org/

lr0 10mo ago
You can try. I'm on Safari Version 18.6 (20621.3.11.11.3) [Seqouia 15.6.1] on my Mac, unsure of the version in my iPhone and iPad, but all of them ignore the ICC profile.
- dcrazy 10mo ago
  Again, my suspicion is that you are actually seeing the ICC profile being applied correctly, and it is the pixel values in your image that are incorrect. A good test would be to run a single 100% sRGB red pixel through your image processing pipeline, and then inspecting the resulting PNG file in a hex editor to see what value is encoded. You can also visit this web page to actively test each web browser’s respect for embedded ICC profiles: https://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html# https://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJP...
  - mirashii 10mo ago
    Another good test page for the browser: https://www.color.org/version4html.xalter https://www.color.org/version4html.xalter
    - danaris 10mo ago
      Where, for reference, Safari shows an image that matches the first one listed—meaning, at least in theory, that it fully supports ICC profiles.
      - gcanyon 10mo ago
        Interesting: for me, the image quadrants display correctly in Safari, but there is a horizontal white line between the top and bottom left quadrants. You're not seeing that?
        mirashii 10mo ago
        I see the white line on mobile, but not on desktop, though my OS versions are wildly different too, so hard to narrow down exactly what it might be there.
        danaris 10mo ago
        I see the white line on Safari, and also on Mac Firefox. No idea what the line means—it's not present in any of the reference images.
        smileybarry 10mo ago
        The white line is just because the four quadrants are four separate images, and the four images are HTML-aligned together to make one.
  - leptons 10mo ago
    To paraphrase Steve Jobs, "you're pixeling it wrong".
- alwillis 10mo ago
  Apple essentially invented color matching on personal computers back in the classic Mac OS days; it's hard to believe after all this time, they're not dealing with color correctly. The WebKit blog from 2016: WebKit color-matches all images on both iOS and macOS. This means that if the image has a color profile, we will make sure the colors in the image are accurately represented on the display, whether it is normal or wide gamut. This is useful since many digital cameras don’t use sRGB in their raw format, so simply interpreting the red, green and blue values as such is unlikely to produce the correct color. Typically, you won’t have to do anything to get this color-matching. Nearly all image processing software allows you to tag an image with a color profile, and many do it by default. [1]: https://webkit.org/blog/6682/improving-color-on-the-web/ https://webkit.org/blog/6682/improving-color-on-the-web/
culi 10mo ago
This might be true but I would hope the web standard is defined enough that browsers can also fail in the same way. Regardless of which browser is the most "correct" here
- dylan604 10mo ago
  "correct" in fail, in the same way across browsers? that's hilarious. I forget that throughout the history of the internet the one thing we've been able to depend on is different browsers behaving the same way
  - culi 10mo ago
    interoperability of web features has never been this good and it's only getting better https://wpt.fyi/interop-2025 https://wpt.fyi/interop-2025 other than the Manifest v3 fiasco, we're probably living in the golden age of web interop
    - dylan604 10mo ago
      Ugh, I hate toggle switches like the Stable/Experimental one. Which one is selected? I can’t tell. Which one of them has the better results?
      - culi 10mo ago
        Experimental is just the unreleased versions of the browsers. Like a beta or alpha for the next release. So ofc they're usually gonna be ahead. Every year the major browsers get together and agree on a set of "focus areas" that are paint points for browser interoperability. They've been doing it since 2021. I posted the 2025 results. All browsers reached about 99% support for the selected features The features are voted on by web developers. Basically anyone with a GitHub account can get involved. Here's a blog post with more info about the process https://webkit.org/blog/17320/submit-your-ideas-for-interop-2026/ https://webkit.org/blog/17320/submit-your-ideas-for-interop-...
    - F3nd0 10mo ago
PaulHoule 10mo ago
I seem to recall Safari doing the right thing for JPEGs when I was experimenting with publishing red-cyan stereograms [1] where an sRGB (255,0,0) becomes something like (187, 16, 17) on a high gamut display because the sRGB is less saturated than the P3 red. It looks right for a normal photo but for the anaglyph that little bit of blue and green leaks through and makes ghosts. Emedding a P3 profile in JPEG solves the problem. You run into the same problem with print and I ended up addressing those by applying the color profile to the R and L images, doing the anaglyph blend, then attaching the native color profile of the printer -- it probably isn't quite right but the colors are always going to be off for an anaglyph anyway and if I go back to that project I'll design a color grade that pushes the scene away from pure-red and pure-cyan-spectrum colors. What gets me is that the image he's publishing is not really a PNG kind of image. [1] https://cybereality.com/rendepth-red-cyan-anaglyph-filter-optimized-for-stereoscopic-3d-on-lcd-monitors/ https://cybereality.com/rendepth-red-cyan-anaglyph-filter-op... is a write up that didn't go as deep as my research
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
hinkley 10mo ago
Another reader is claiming the gamma correction value is inverted and Firefox is ignoring it. Which seems plausible. I know when I implemented png I had some issues wrapping my head around the gamma correction function.

by dcrazy 10mo ago

lr0 10mo ago

You can try. I'm on Safari Version 18.6 (20621.3.11.11.3) [Seqouia 15.6.1] on my Mac, unsure of the version in my iPhone and iPad, but all of them ignore the ICC profile.

dcrazy 10mo ago
Again, my suspicion is that you are actually seeing the ICC profile being applied correctly, and it is the pixel values in your image that are incorrect. A good test would be to run a single 100% sRGB red pixel through your image processing pipeline, and then inspecting the resulting PNG file in a hex editor to see what value is encoded. You can also visit this web page to actively test each web browser’s respect for embedded ICC profiles: https://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html# https://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJP...
- mirashii 10mo ago
  Another good test page for the browser: https://www.color.org/version4html.xalter https://www.color.org/version4html.xalter
  - danaris 10mo ago
    Where, for reference, Safari shows an image that matches the first one listed—meaning, at least in theory, that it fully supports ICC profiles.
    - gcanyon 10mo ago
      Interesting: for me, the image quadrants display correctly in Safari, but there is a horizontal white line between the top and bottom left quadrants. You're not seeing that?
      - mirashii 10mo ago
        I see the white line on mobile, but not on desktop, though my OS versions are wildly different too, so hard to narrow down exactly what it might be there.
      - danaris 10mo ago
        I see the white line on Safari, and also on Mac Firefox. No idea what the line means—it's not present in any of the reference images.
      - smileybarry 10mo ago
        The white line is just because the four quadrants are four separate images, and the four images are HTML-aligned together to make one.
- leptons 10mo ago
  To paraphrase Steve Jobs, "you're pixeling it wrong".
alwillis 10mo ago
Apple essentially invented color matching on personal computers back in the classic Mac OS days; it's hard to believe after all this time, they're not dealing with color correctly. The WebKit blog from 2016: WebKit color-matches all images on both iOS and macOS. This means that if the image has a color profile, we will make sure the colors in the image are accurately represented on the display, whether it is normal or wide gamut. This is useful since many digital cameras don’t use sRGB in their raw format, so simply interpreting the red, green and blue values as such is unlikely to produce the correct color. Typically, you won’t have to do anything to get this color-matching. Nearly all image processing software allows you to tag an image with a color profile, and many do it by default. [1]: https://webkit.org/blog/6682/improving-color-on-the-web/ https://webkit.org/blog/6682/improving-color-on-the-web/

culi 10mo ago

This might be true but I would hope the web standard is defined enough that browsers can also fail in the same way. Regardless of which browser is the most "correct" here

dylan604 10mo ago
"correct" in fail, in the same way across browsers? that's hilarious. I forget that throughout the history of the internet the one thing we've been able to depend on is different browsers behaving the same way
- culi 10mo ago
  interoperability of web features has never been this good and it's only getting better https://wpt.fyi/interop-2025 https://wpt.fyi/interop-2025 other than the Manifest v3 fiasco, we're probably living in the golden age of web interop
  - dylan604 10mo ago
    Ugh, I hate toggle switches like the Stable/Experimental one. Which one is selected? I can’t tell. Which one of them has the better results?
    - culi 10mo ago
      Experimental is just the unreleased versions of the browsers. Like a beta or alpha for the next release. So ofc they're usually gonna be ahead. Every year the major browsers get together and agree on a set of "focus areas" that are paint points for browser interoperability. They've been doing it since 2021. I posted the 2025 results. All browsers reached about 99% support for the selected features The features are voted on by web developers. Basically anyone with a GitHub account can get involved. Here's a blog post with more info about the process https://webkit.org/blog/17320/submit-your-ideas-for-interop-2026/ https://webkit.org/blog/17320/submit-your-ideas-for-interop-...
  - F3nd0 10mo ago

PaulHoule 10mo ago

I seem to recall Safari doing the right thing for JPEGs when I was experimenting with publishing red-cyan stereograms [1] where an sRGB (255,0,0) becomes something like (187, 16, 17) on a high gamut display because the sRGB is less saturated than the P3 red. It looks right for a normal photo but for the anaglyph that little bit of blue and green leaks through and makes ghosts. Emedding a P3 profile in JPEG solves the problem. You run into the same problem with print and I ended up addressing those by applying the color profile to the R and L images, doing the anaglyph blend, then attaching the native color profile of the printer -- it probably isn't quite right but the colors are always going to be off for an anaglyph anyway and if I go back to that project I'll design a color grade that pushes the scene away from pure-red and pure-cyan-spectrum colors. What gets me is that the image he's publishing is not really a PNG kind of image. [1] https://cybereality.com/rendepth-red-cyan-anaglyph-filter-optimized-for-stereoscopic-3d-on-lcd-monitors/ https://cybereality.com/rendepth-red-cyan-anaglyph-filter-op... is a write up that didn't go as deep as my research

deleted 10mo ago

[deleted]

hinkley 10mo ago

Another reader is claiming the gamma correction value is inverted and Firefox is ignoring it. Which seems plausible. I know when I implemented png I had some issues wrapping my head around the gamma correction function.