Firefox 3 is released to face this challenge. The wide gamut monitor owners can once again see the web galleries the same way as the folks with sRGB limited monitors or TV do.

Which is exactly the same as what happens under Windows. It is just that the default monitor profile on Windows (almost) always has a gamma of 2.2 (which happens to be the same gamma as the sRGB color space) and on a Mac the default gamma is 1.8. If you change the gamma on the Mac to 2.2, which you can do with built-in tools, there is no fundamental difference anymore between the two systems. Except that on the Mac much more programs do respect embedded profiles in images than on Windows (eg, iWork vs. Office).

If an image is tagged sRGB, it doesn’t matter. In assuming sRGB both ColorSync and Windows ICM convert from the source color space (assumed to be sRGB) to the hardware profile of the monitor, regardless of what it might be. At least, that is the way it is supposed to work. If a browser doesn’t do this and displays raw pixels, that’s not a knock against color management. While an sRGB tag would seem to be superfluous, it’s good to have if that image later needs to be converted to another color space.

Since most people don’t calibrate their monitors, and the default on a new OS is a monitor profile whether good or bad, this works out when all image data is not only IN sRGB but when it is assumed that all image data is thus. When content producers use best practices and embed or tag images and work in a color-managed process, this breaks on browsers that ignore profiles if content is not converted to sRGB.

Blaming Colorsync for lazy display management is not really a valid gripe. Depending on device-dependent profiles like those for monitors and cameras is a sure way to end up with crap.

The way around this is to always convert images intended for the web from the source color space regardless of what it is (could even be CMYK) to sRGB, either tagged or not (tagged is better), in Photoshop or another app that understands this stuff. I don’t know how consumer apps like iPhoto manage color, if at all.

Is it just all bad news for Mac owners.

That sucks.

Is there some way around this by saving the photographs in an different format photoshop?

I’m still on the trial period. I need to know this before I shell out the membership fee.

Take a look at this the site linked with my name (http://safariphoto.blogspot.com) in Safari. The top photo is perfect there. In no other browser/OS combination is it possible get the photo to look that good. And SmugMug messes it up.

Since Photoshop, iPhoto, and other photo programs all support the use of color profiles, I think we can assume that color profiles are a good thing for the digital photo community in general.

You argue that Microsoft and HP are wonderful because they say, “Forget color profiles! Forget photographers! Forget professional photo apps! We like TV!” And this is supposed to be a good thing?

I don’t know about you, but I really don’t want the capabilites of a TV to be the lowest common denominator for viewing photos on the web. That’s just not logical.

My photos look good in iPhoto. If I export from iPhoto at the size I want and then upload to ImageShack, which won’t remove the profile, they look good on the web in Safari. Smugmug’s upload process causes my photos to lose color and since I know there are other ways to make it work, I can safely say that Smugmug is part of the problem for me.

Your site is great at just about everything, except actually showing my pictures the way I see them in my editing application. That is your problem, and IE’s problem, and Firefox’s problem. it’s not Safari’s problem for supporting modern common color management features. Firefox is fixing it in 3.0. And since IE follows Firefox they’ll be next. Very soon it’s going to be only your problem.

My suggestion, and request, is that you include color profiles (the original profile, not a conversion to sRGB) with all image sizes except for the two thumbnail sizes. Although I personally would prefer it to be in those too. I understand that’s a bandwidth cost decision, but if another site offered this feature at your same price, I’d happily move all my photos over tomorrow.