https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30214
--- Comment #7 from Brion Vibber <[email protected]> 2011-08-06 08:36:14 UTC --- It shouldn't matter what support imagemagick has really, it just needs to pass the profile through to the thumbnail. In all cases I've seen, it does -- the browser then either understands it or doesn't. I tried disabling color profile management in Firefox -- see http://kb.mozillazine.org/Gfx.color_management.enabled With this off, the 'too pale' images render relatively reasonably (but darker/less saturated than Safari/Preview show them); this probably indicates that either: * Firefox is mishandling that particular color profile, and other apps are handling it right -or- * the profile is wrong (thus Firefox is "correctly" showing the file as pale), but other apps with color management that do correction on images such as Safari are somehow ignoring it or mishandling it in a way that shows a nicely balanced image When I load the image into Gimp (on either OS X or Linux) I'm given the opportunity to either convert the file into sRGB from its native profile, or keep it -- either way it ends up looking decent, unlike in Firefox (again, on either OS). So I'm a bit inclined that it may be Firefox's color management mishandling the profile. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
