> If you are using Netscape(*) you will probably see the happy cow above. Internet Explorer-users on Windows and Mac, however, will see a dead flat elephant. And this is due to a strange browser-feature.
> (*) or MSIE for Solaris
Yes, Netscape and MSIE on Solaris. This goes back to the 1990s:
https://web.archive.org/web/19990222144857/http://x42.com/ko...
That's not how color management is meant to work. The color profile tells you how the data is saved. If you are displaying it using a different color profile, then it needs to be converted. Displaying P3 in sRGB is doing it wrong. How can you conclude Chrome "was not wrong"?
Correct. What's supposed to happen is P3 colors get converted on the fly to the their closest sRGB colors.
Why does the page 404 when opening the image? Bandwidth issue? Firefox issue? (Yes, the username is a joke - I don't work for Firefox I just use it and thought this would be a funny name)
they wayback machine doesn't have a copy of https://lr0.org/i/2025-12-27_18-21-51_screenshot.png or i was going to link to it in the post here usually, i'd try to balance a blunt reply like this with they wayback version
cheers!
Edit: https://web.archive.org/web/20251227181428if_/https://lr0.or...
https://web.archive.org/web/20251227181428if_/https://lr0.or...
maybe you linked a different picture?
> Plot twist; here was never a gAMA chunk to begin with!
But I do see a gAMA chunk in the file?
> 00 00 00 04 67 41 4d 41 00 03 5b 5e 5c ff 26 78
Which decodes to a gamma of 2.19998. Conversely, I don't see any bundled ICC profiles (iCCP chunks).
Mind you, I am able to reproduce the different colors, so something is indeed wrong. Chrome (Windows) and the Photos app (MS Store) both present it as a washed out, ghostly image (I wouldn't describe it as foggy, as that to me suggests a blur as well, but alas). In contrast, when I open it in MS Paint (the modern, MS Store app version), I do get saturated colors.
dcrazy•1h ago
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/
lr0•1h ago
dcrazy•1h ago
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/embeddedJP...
mirashii•1h ago
danaris•39m ago
leptons•22m ago
alwillis•13m ago
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/
culi•1h ago
dylan604•1h ago
culi•22m ago
https://wpt.fyi/interop-2025
other than the Manifest v3 fiasco, we're probably living in the golden age of web interop
PaulHoule•44m ago
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-op... is a write up that didn't go as deep as my research