I will send the profiles to you. Thanks again, Fred.

Markus

Thanks Fred, but that doesn't solve my problem. Since the installer of Qimage contains the wrong profiles it will overwrite my new profiles with the old ones. So I have to copy the new profiles to the mentioned folder with every Qimage update.

In 2013 I created two camera profiles which are integrated in the Qimage installer. Those profiles were not perfect (first try with Profile Prism) - so I created new ones.

I tried several times to send my new profiles to Mike but I neither got any response nor were they integrated in Qimage.

Is there a special mail address for sending the new profiles to have them integrated in Qimage?

Everytime I install a new Qimage version the installer overwrites my new and better profiles with every Qimage update.

BTW, after testing many raw converters Qimage is still my number one because it gives me fast results and a perfect color rendition.

Problem has been fixed with new version v2016.153.

Thanks a lot!

Thanks for the workaround Mike. But doing it this way gives me the mentioned wrong and oversatuarated colors. For my camera it is not the same as the old behavior of Qimage (which gave me perfect results).

I have sent you a dropbox download link for an original and a converted DNG.

Thanks Mike for your comprehensive explanation.

Qimage has always delivered the same result for my original and converted DNG-files (maybe because the originals already are DNG). The problem with wrong/oversaturated colors may be valid for some but not for all cameras.

In its current state Qimage is not usable for converting my DNG-files. Without a custom profile I get ugly reddish skin tones in my images (desaturating reds is just a workaround with unwanted side effects in other colors).

So why not make it optional. Either a general switch in raw format options or (IMHO a smarter solution) via profile naming (xxx stands for the camera model):
xxx.icm (profile is used only for originals)
xxx-adobe.icm (profile is used for all files from camera model xxx)

By the way I didn't backup my original DNG-files because there was no need for it. Qimage was my raw converter of choice for the past six years. When it stays as it is now there would be the need to switch to another raw converter (fear it is lightroom ...). For this case it would be nice if you would provide me with a download link of the last Qimage version with the old behavior, so that I would have time to switch.

Hi Fred,

Examining the images with Exiftool shows me that there are no problematic changes.

Converting DNG to DNG doesn't alter the raw data itself, so the result is exactly the same (provided that the same profile is used in Qimage). I have done extensive tests in the past and compared the results with Beyond Compare - there is no visual difference.

As stated above converting makes sense for me because my camera embeds only small previews inside the DNG-file.

I don't have any older Qimage setup files, but I am quite sure, that my problems didn't exist in older versions.

Hi Terri,

Qimage shows adobe.icm for the converted images.

No, it definitely doesn't. The converted DNG-files don't have any embedded ICC-profile after conversion (original camera DNG-files also don't have embedded ICC-profiles).

But this procedure doesn't produce a larger embedded preview.


Yes it does. Adobe DNG Converter is an easy way for a larger preview. It doesn't simply resize the embedded preview (as it makes no sense to resize a small pixelated image) - it creates a new preview from raw data. The larger embedded preview is needed bedause it is used in my DAM (IMatch) or when double clicking DNG-files in Windows Explorer.

As both the original and converterd DNG-files have no embedded ICC-profile and both show the correct camera model in Qimage's "Display Image Info" it should be possible to use the custom profile.

The raw format of my camera is DNG. Qimage can use my custom profile for images straight out of the camera.

I convert my DNGs with Adobe DNG Converter to increase the resolution of the embedded jpg-preview.

After the DNG to DNG conversion, Qimage stops to use custom profiles for those files. Instead of the custom profile Qimage uses the standard Adobe.icm. The image info (Ctrl+I) in Qimage still shows the correct camera model.

Is there a possible solution for that problem?

Winfried,

I have attached my IMatch settings for nef- and dng-files.

Works perfectly for me.

Markus

Terry,

thank you for your useful explanation. Additionally "perform a profile to profile conversion" should be left unchecked while converting the target image to get correct results.

Your findings are similar to my expierences. Last year I wrote to Mike that Gamma Match (Auto) leads to underexposed images and has to be set to "2.2" (I got no response from Mike). Also saturation set to "normal" leads to very vivid colors.

I think that both the help files of profile prism and qimage need an update on the matter.

Markus

Hi Terry (sorry for the "i"),

thank you for the additional information. I think I've got it now.

Hope the next weekend is sunny so that I can make a good shot of the IT8 target.

Markus (no "c") 

Hi Terri,

I converted the IT8 target from raw to jpeg/tiff following the instructions from Qimage help (tagging the image with a "placeholder" profile) while leaving the Qimage's raw image options at their default values.

Could you explain your "trick" please? Is it a different approach compared to the description from Qimage help?

Markus

That's great. Thanks for your answer, Mike.


I need it for special things I can't do in Qimage (and which shouldn't be included to not overload it):

Black and white conversion: I use TrueGrain which simulates classic b/w films. From their website: In terms of color resolution, the quality of the image brought into TrueGrain for processing significantly affects the results. For example, when computing the spectral response of a given film, if the information is not in the source image, the conversion cannot be accurate. The more information in the original image the better the conversion, meaning that at an unfiltered image with 16 bits per channel is preferable.

Noise reduction: For heavily noised images I have to use Neat Image. As above the more information - the better the result.

Creative contrast enhancements with Contrast Master: 24 bit files can lead to banding, especially when used with a wider gamut like Adobe-RGB.

For everyday image conversion and printing QU already has everything needed.

Best regards, Markus

Fred, believe me I know that a bit depth of 8 bits per channel is enough for printing the final result.

But during the image editing process 48 bit files can really make the difference, especially when making further edits in other programs and using a wider gamut than srgb.

IMHO it's a waste of space to use 48 bit files for archiving purposes, so I convert the final result in 24 bit.