It fails in Firefox 3 for me, working in Safari 3 though.

(No comment was entered for this change.)

Firefox 3 has a hidden option you can enable for color management, if you google it
you can find it.  But, really, google chrome HAS to support color management, if they
expect serious graphic designers/etc to use it.  

(No comment was entered for this change.)

Confirmed in 0.4.154.18, as an interesting note, if you open the file in Chrome and 
Paint the color wheel will display incorrectly.  If you open it with Windows Picture 
and Fax Viewer or Safari it will display correctly.

This doesn't work in Firefox (with default settings) or Internet Explorer.

I don't see how any sites could depend on this feature if it's missing/disabled for 
90% of users.

I'm all for it, but it's definitely not a release priority.

I would be interested in patches for Vista to do this, using the built-in APIs (which 
I'm not familiar with). It's not a priority. XP doesn't have color management 
libraries and I don't see shipping our own.

As of version 3.1 beta 1, Firefox by default respects color profiles for images that 
have been tagged with one: http://bholley.wordpress.com/2008/09/12/so-many-colors/

Lack of color management is an issue for me: I have a high-gamut monitor, and in 
Chrome images are garishly oversaturated.

Every serious graphic designer or photographer will welcome this. Wide gamutmonitors 
are become more widely used every day. Especially now certain brands are releasing 
new panels with normal consumerprices.

I'm splitting this bug in two. I filed  issue 4938  for converting to the monitor 
profile. That bug will be most relevant to the people with wide gamut monitors.

This bug is about reading the color profiles in images and handling them properly 
(independent of the current monitor profile. See  issue 4938  for and explanation of 
why these may actually be separate issues.

This is a very important issue for me too. Chrome should both convert to the monitor profile AND respect 
embedded profiles. They are not separate issues. Color management is only good when both are done. Right 
now, Chrome is color stupid and useless for me (see http://regex.info/blog/photo-tech/color-spaces-page1 ). 
Also if there ever is a Mac version of this, color management is mandatory as that platform is by default 
calibrated at a different gamma but does come with reasonably good monitor profiles with calibration and 
profiling.

"good monitor profiles with calibration and profiling."  Of course I meant "even without"

It's really disappointing that Chrome isn't color managed. Safari has been color 
managed for a long time and so does Firefox 3 (not enabled by default but I heard it 
will be in 3.5). It's better to get things done the right way while the user base is 
still relatively small as it will be a much more disruptive change later on. 

Chrome and IE are holding the web up in terms of digital photo quality. Looking at 
the whole digital imaging workflow, it's often the output part of the process that is 
the most limiting, e.g. narrow monitor/printer gamut, color-stupid image rendering 
software. 

Input: image sensors are advancing in terms of dynamic range, gamut and bit-depth
Processing: most proper image processing software have been color-managed for years
Output: even monitor manufacturers are now pushing the technology ahead by producing 
wide gamut, 10bit+ display panels. Browser is the most important image display 
software and it's sad to see that it is becoming a bottleneck.

I'm very surprised that Chrome isn't making more effort on this one.  I'd really like 
to see colour management added in.

Any estimation on when this will be addressed?

This is a very low priority compared to most other graphics work we're doing (that 
affects real sites and everyday users).

Chromium (at least the OS X builds - I haven't tested any others) now color manages, so 
apparently it is not such low a priority: 
http://lagemaat.blogspot.com/2009/05/chrome-color-managed.html 

Re: Brett's comment #16
Flickr is a real site as far as I can tell, with lots of users.  The lack of colour 
management affects that, so please reconsider the priority here.

 Issue 4938  is fixed so there is now a command line option to enable conversion to your 
monitor profile.

(No comment was entered for this change.)

I have a high gamut monitor, properly set up with a display profile. Neither Chrome
2.x (stable) and 3.x (beta) seem to do anything when the --enable-monitor-profile
switch is passed on.

The attached image shows my Windows CMS settings, and Chrome 3.x (beta) side-by-side
with Firefox 3.5. Chrome was started with the --enable-monitor-profile switch, yet it
still renders webpages without a monitor profile.

	chrome3-ff35-cms.jpg
	982 KB Download

This frustrates me a lot, because even though I don't consciously think "Hey, I think
I'm gonna use color profiles today", this feature has helped keep me from Chrome. 
Also, gkovacs, that doesn't look like Firefox 3.5, that looks like the mockups of 3.7
- is that still 3.5?