color management broken in firefox

Bug #657297 reported by Per Ångström
56
This bug affects 11 people
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
firefox (Ubuntu)
Confirmed
Undecided
Unassigned

Bug Description

Binary package hint: firefox

Firefox, using standard settings, renders a jpeg containing an embedded sRGB color profile with different colors than a jpeg lacking an embedded profile. Firefox's rendering of the jpeg containing a color profile is also different from that of other applications.

How to reproduce:
0) Make sure you have the default Firefox color-management settings:
gfx.color_management.display_profile: (none)
gfx.color_management.mode: 2
gfx.color_management.rendering_intent: 0

1) Load a jpeg having an embedded sRGB color profile in Firefox.
2) Load a profile-stripped version of the same jpeg in another Firefox tab.
3) Compare the images.

Expected result: The two images should look exactly the same.
Actual result: The two images have different colors.

You can also load the images in Gimp and compare to Firefox's rendering.

You can achieve identical rendering of profiled and non-profiled images by turning off color management completely in Firefox.

ProblemType: Bug
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 10.10
Package: firefox 3.6.10+build1+nobinonly-0ubuntu3
ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 2.6.35-22.33-generic 2.6.35.4
Uname: Linux 2.6.35-22-generic x86_64
Architecture: amd64
Date: Sat Oct 9 13:14:03 2010
FirefoxPackages:
 firefox 3.6.10+build1+nobinonly-0ubuntu3
 firefox-gnome-support 3.6.10+build1+nobinonly-0ubuntu3
 firefox-branding 3.6.10+build1+nobinonly-0ubuntu3
 abroswer N/A
 abrowser-branding N/A
InstallationMedia: Ubuntu 10.10 "Maverick Meerkat" - Release Candidate amd64 (20100928.1)
SourcePackage: firefox

Revision history for this message
Per Ångström (autark) wrote :
Revision history for this message
Per Ångström (autark) wrote :
Revision history for this message
Per Ångström (autark) wrote :
Revision history for this message
Per Ångström (autark) wrote :

In all fairness, it is only on one of my three machines I can see this problem.

Revision history for this message
Per Ångström (autark) wrote :

I managed to correct the color display by assigning a value to gfx.color_management.display_profile: "/usr/share/ImageMagick-6.6.2/config/sRGB.icm".

Revision history for this message
Per Ångström (autark) wrote :

I found the following page: http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html
Experimenting with the different images, I find that Firefox seems to be using "ADOBE RGB (1998) 2.2 gamma" as default, unless I assign a value to gfx.color_management.display_profile.

Revision history for this message
Per Ångström (autark) wrote :

See also bug #458133.

Revision history for this message
Per Ångström (autark) wrote :

I can reproduce this both in Firefox 3.6.11 (Ubuntu repositories) and in 4.0b7pre (Mozilla-built).

Revision history for this message
Ioannis Ramfos (isr81) wrote :

This also happens on Natty (20110219) on firefox 4.0b11 (Ubuntu built).

Using the instructions posted on comment #5, the colors are reproduced correctly.

Revision history for this message
Ioannis Ramfos (isr81) wrote :

By the way, viewing the image I attached on comment #9 with firefox, the colors of the images inside the displayed web page are shown correctly and the others are shown incorrectly, somehow reversing the previous effect.

Revision history for this message
Anton Statutov (astatutov) wrote :

Also affects Firefox 4.0 with Ubuntu 11.04

Revision history for this message
test007 (test007-deactivatedaccount) wrote :

Hi,

I'm also affected by this bug (Firefox 4.0 on Ubuntu 11.04)

Revision history for this message
Lukáš Chmela (lukaschmela) wrote :

Affected too. Firefox version 5.0+build1+nobinonly-0ubuntu0.11.04.2 from natty-updates, using Ubuntu 11.04

Changed in firefox (Ubuntu):
status: New → Confirmed
Revision history for this message
Arnaud Dessein (arnaud.dessein) wrote :

Hi,
I have the same problem with Ubuntu 14.04 64 bits (firefox 38.0+build3-0ubuntu0.14.04.1).
Does that mean that this big has existed since 2010 and is still unfixed 4 years later ? Sounds weird...

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.