Mike Chaney's Tech Corner

I have been using Qimage without problem for almost 10 years.  I have the pro edition.  Two days ago I did a standard print to file to convert PSD images to my local Costco icc profile.  About half the images ended up with a dull green color cast when viewed on my monitor.  They also printed that way.  Now here is the bizarre part.  When I simply open the psd files in Qimage, the images have the green cast. It doesn't matter what icc profile I am using.  In fact, I can turn the profiles off.  If I look at them in PS or with say Windows photo gallery they look as they should.  Certain images have the cast because of something that Qimage has begun to do a couple of days ago.  Which images have the cast seems to be random.  In my testing, some previously "off" pictures have "normalized" and other previously OK images acquired the cast.  I have done several resets with no luck.  I've gone back to earlier monitor calibrations and Costco icc profiles.  If I convert the files to the Costco profile in PS5, they look just fine.  I have an NEC monitor that I calibrate with Spectraview software.  I'm no expert, but I'm pretty familiar with how things work.  I've checked all current setting and tested earlier versions of all settings.   I've been trying to figure this out for two days. Still, I hope it's something stupid that I have done.   I have a big gallery show coming up and I need to make dozens of prints ASAP.  Can some one help me?

Try turning off the monitor profile, or better yet, substitute a pure sRGB profile (sRGBIEC61966-2.1)
It can be found in your windows profile directory.
*After substituting the profile, do a VIEW and REBUILD thumbs in Qimage.*

How do the images look when you hover the mouse and hit the space bar? Are they green?

If that is green too, and you are printing green, I would check the read out of the color space that might be embedded in the image.
You can see this as you hover the thumbnail and read the hotbar at the lower left of the screen area.

Fred

This just gets more screwy.  I work in prophoto color space.  I checked all the files in both NEF and PSD.  They are all tagged with prophoto.  When I open qimage, however, a few of them (the green ones) open up as srgb!   How can this be?  This seems to be the source of the problem. 

Tagged means that the prophoto color space isn't embedded in the image.
Try either saving with the colorspace as part of the image (embedded), or when in Qimage, go into the Image Editor screen and set ICC override to Prophoto.icm
Save the filter.

Fred

Thanks, I may be using the term "tagged" incorrectly.  According to my PS metadata all my images are in prophoto color space.

The icc override worked, but that would mean I would have to check every image I print manually (remember it appears to be happening on a random basis) and then apply the override filter.  There must be a way to prevent this to begin with. 

Correction:  my PSD files are listed as prophoto, my Nef files are listed as untagged in my PS metadata.  I've begun looking at other folders of images and randomly opening them in Qimage. So far this problem seems to have begun in May.  Photos taken before May do not seem to have the problem.

Set the Assigned profile to Prophoto in EDIT Assign color space in CS5. Place the dot in the row to use it.
Then SAVE.

You can see yourself narrowing in on the real cause....

Fred

I went to assign profile in an image that was opened as srgb in Qimage.  Prophoto was already the assigned space. As I have mentioned, according to PS metadata,  all PSD files are listed as prophoto, that is what they are assigned when opened in ACR. I apologize if I being dense about this and I appreciate your help. 

I should have added that doing what you said works.  I am now painstakingly going through hundreds of images by opening the folders in Qimage, identifying which ones are listed as srgb (remember that PS lists all PSD files as Prophoto).  Every image that is listed as srgb must then be opened in PS and assigned prophoto and saved.  Thankfully only about 1 in 10 or 15 has this problem, but it is a slow PITA process.

Hi,

In cs5 there is a difference 'twixt 'assign' and 'convert' - beware. http://www.adobepress.com/articles/article.asp?p=1315593&seqNum=6

Also, you could record an action, and play it in batch mode http://www.adobepress.com/articles/article.asp?p=1395933&seqNum=3 and preceding to see how to record actions. Qimage does not handle 32bit/channel images, if that is what you are using for prophoto.

Best wishes,

Ray

Thanks.  I understand the difference.  What is puzzling is that PS isn't saving (embedding) the image profile on certain images.  If it suddenly stopped doing this on all images it would mean a setting was off.  Problem is that it is doing this on what appears to be a random basis.  I will continue to try analyze the differences between images where the profile is embedded and the ones where no profile is embedded, but so far after examining all aspects of many of these, I can't find any difference.

I did create an action to assign the prophoto profile to the errant images, but I still have to actually find them amongst all the images in a file.  In small files I just run the action on all images, but if I have several dozen images in a file it's faster to open them in Qimage, ID the ones that are srgb, and run the action on those.  If you know of a way to ID them in Bridge, that would help me.  Remember, according to the metadata, they are all tagged as prophoto even though some obviously do not have an embedded profile.

Thanks, just wish I could figure out why this is happening in the first place.

I removed my post on doing in Qimage because I could not get it to work properly with converting.
The really simple way, if you are printing in Qimage, is to use the icc override filter in a batch process.
It really surprises me that a so called professional colour management aware program uses tagging as an option. The "correct" and certain way is to embed always.
Even the modest Paintshop Pro embeds rather than tags.
Terry

I can assure you PS embeds profiles.  This something that started happening recently and so far appears to be affecting a percentage of images at random, though I suspect there is something that I am doing without knowing it that is causing the problem.

Yes, I know that. The point was, why offer tagging as well, if that is what I understand to be the case. Doesn't sound as though it's very reliable though or very difficult to see what the settings are  :o  ;D
For the record, back to:
It does work, I said before:
That is correct, however you must put the input and output profile to be the same when there is no embedded profile and the image is known to be in that colour space. See attached screen shot.
Terry

I started having the EXACT same problem just about a month ago and cannot get it figured out. I use Adobe RGB (1998) and in all my processed files the color profile reads Adobe RGB in every program except Qimage. Starting on a session done on June 17th, it is just random files that end up reading at srgb.  Yesterday's session had 119 files and one of them randomly reads wrong only in Qimage.
I will be watching this thread closely and hopefull can contribute if I figure it out...

The only thing that I can think of that might be different is I am using a 64 bit computer, but I changed to 62 bit about 6 months ago

Hi,
Perhaps you should be asking why the other programs are producing random results!
Qimage has strict rules on how it reads the colour space of an image and the sure way (highest priority in Q) is to have the profile embedded.
Q tells you what it is seeing, hover your mouse over a thumb and and see what Qimage is seeing as a profile in the Exif bar under the thumbs, last item on the right.
Also, right click on a thumb, select Display Image Info. As you move your mouse over the thumbs, the info for each will be displayed which includes whether or not a profile is embedded.
Qimage does acknowledge Exif profile data in an image, so a camera jpeg in Adobe RGB will be recognised, however the Exif data usually says something like "unknown" (ok. with sRGB) so an assmption has to be made that unknown means Adobe RGB.
Finally, read Qimage Help CM and input profiles.
Using a 64 bit OS makes no difference, Qimage Ultimate is a  64 bit compatible program.
Terry

Anyone having the problem should send me the image file.  If it's too large to send, you can use http://yousendit.com.  If you get the wrong profile, the image is mis-tagged.  Only way I can know how it is mis-tagged is to see the image/file.  I've seen some programs lately that are saving conflicting information.  They'll tag one profile in the EXIF and embed an entirely different profile in another part of the image, creating a conflict.  So if I have example(s), I can see what is going on quite easily.  Without the examples, I can do nothing.

Thanks,
Mike

Just sent a file from yesterday's session :)

Thanks.  As I thought, that file is a mess.  It has sRGB and Adobe RGB embedded multiple times.  Look at the screen capture from the file you sent.  I've circled the relevant places in the file that show that this file has sRGB tagged.  You said they were processed in PhotoShop.  How?  Anything done different to these than the others that don't have the problem?  I'm just trying to figure out what was done in PhotoShop and what the files looked like before PhotoShop hosed them.

Mike

Now we are getting somewhere ;)

I Process with Image Processor - CS5
 Just tried running it through CS3image processor on older computer and it processed all the files with none showing up as srgb in Qimage!  So now to find the photoshop problem solution

I wonder if there were any IP updates around the time the problem started... I guess on to another forum?  Can you tell me how you got the file info in that format to look at?
Thanks so much for your help!

I found the location by tracing Qimage's decoding of the embedded profile and then displayed it in my hex editor.  I use XVI32 as my hex editor: it's free.  All you really have to do is open the file you sent me in XVI32 and search for ICC_PROFILE because that's the official PhotoShop tag.  It points right to sRGB... twice.  And then Adobe RGB... once.  This looks like a classic case of some program not updating the file headers properly.  I see that a lot.  You start out with an sRGB image for example, convert it to Adobe RGB, make some changes, and then save.  Sometimes the program doing the saving doesn't have sense enough to remove the original embedded sRGB and it just adds an embedded Adobe RGB.  Now you have both, and a conflict.  Anyway, that's what it looks like to me since sRGB is embedded twice and Adobe RGB once in the same file.

Mike

I switched color preferences in PS to North America Prepress and so far so good.  I did have it on North America General purpose - gone to custom by changing only the RGB setting from srgb to Adobe RGB.
Thanks so much for you help!!! ;D
 I'll let you know if things keep going great in the next week or if I still have issues.

Problem not found and fixed after all :'( 
Now to find out why PS CS5 is randomly assinging some files with double color space profiles...
Any suggestions on where to look welcome.

If it is .psd files that are  giving the problems, then you you need to know that that is 'owned' by Adobe, and from time to time they will change the specification. You should be able to get the latest specification of the  format from Adobe. I would imagine that Adobe can read their own file formats OK, but third parties - e.g. Qimage, and others, may not have been able to implement the latest changes.

Best wishes,

Ray

Adobe has not published a PSD spec since PhotoShop 5.0 from a decade ago.  That's why not even their own products (Lightroom) are fully compatible with the PSD format.  I think PhotoShop is hosing JPEG files in this case though so PSD is likely not part of the problem.  Another thing Adobe likes to do is take an existing/international spec and add their own "tweaks" to it.  After a while, people claim that it is part of the spec when it is not.  Black point compensation in ICC profiles and alpha channels in TIFF files are good examples of that.  Lots of programs support those Adobe abominations but only because Adobe can get away with cheating... not because they are part of any spec but just because they are a big company.  I only mention that because the information in this thread means that Adobe either has a pretty major bug in their JPEG saving routine, or I guess it's possible that they added a new "feature" where they changed how profiles are embedded in JPEG's to show a "history" of all the profiles ever used.  Sounds ridiculous to me but you never know with Adobe.

Mike

Only a jpg problem thus far,  Adobe claiming that it is impossible so I am sending files to someone there and the screenshot Mike attached with the red circles - we will see...

Not to let Adobe off the hook... but I've tried replicating the problem and I can't so far.  You said you used "File", "Scripts", "Image Processor" in CS5.  I tried that with a number of options (on raw files), saving as JPG, and I only get one ICC profile embedded and not three like you got.  I'm starting to wonder now if it is a CS5 problem or somewhere else (before) CS5.  Could you send me one sample image before it goes through the CS5 image processor and tell me all your image processor settings so I can try replicating it?  Example: send me your 1775 image as it was before the image processor ever saw it.  Then let me know what settings you were using in image processor so I can repeat it.  I want to see if (a) the image before it went into the image processor had the problem and (b) if not, what the image processor does to it.  I know it's not a Qimage problem but a few other people have had the same issue and it would help me to know exactly what program/process is creating the problem and when (under what conditions).

Thanks,
Mike

I sent it yesterday with YouSendit, I'll send you another one that processed correctly also.

I put two images that were shot side by side with the different results into the XVI32 and did a screen shot to send to Adobe
sending now

Acutally, I process by selecting all in bridge folder, going to tools - photoshop- image processor
I usually don't go to scripts, then image processor, but I can try that

Mitrajoon, the op of this thread uses psd files. Hardgravephoto said he had the exact same problem If he's not using psd, then it is not the same problem, and i guess it should be in a different thread.

The mystery deepens.  I found the yousendit files.  When I use the CS5 image processor on 1775.NEF, I get a nicely formed JPEG that only has one profile: Adobe RGB.  So it works for me.  However, I noticed that the (messed up) 1775.jpg you sent me is cropped and is a different aspect ratio.  That indicates you did more to it than just send the NEF through the image processor.  I guess I still need a screenshot of your settings in the image processor.  Also worthy of note, then I pointed the image processor at that folder, it had your original (messed up) 1775.jpg in there.  Guess what?  When image processor processed the messed up 1775.jpg file, it FIXED it!  Only one profile embedded: Adobe RGB.

Not sure what is going on, but it's looking less likely that image processor is the culprit.  Are you sure you aren't doing anything else to the image, maybe AFTER image processor converts it?

Mike

Okay, I do have it run an action that is Portraiture - skin softening software in the #4 box preferences when I run Image Processor
I just  try running some without Portraiture as well, but no difference
The processed file is cropped in ACR, as are all the other files
I have a screen shot of the Image processor setttings, how do I attach it to a post?

Click "additional options" when typing a post and you can upload a file there.  If it's too big, just email me the screen shot.

Thanks,
Mike

oh, that was easy :-[

same files processed through CS3 with no problems

I think I figured out why I couldn't reproduce it.  I hadn't updated my CS5 since I installed it because I just never use it for anything other than this: helping people.  I was running 12.0 x64.  I just updated to 12.0.4 x64 and guess what?  NOW I get the problem!  Your 1960.NEF for example... all I did was use the image processor to convert the NEF to a JPEG and the resulting JPEG has sRGB embedded in it twice and Adobe RGB once.  So just as I thought, this is a recent update that has started causing this problem.  Apparently Adobe borked their 12.0.4 release so that it is corrupting files.  Oh well, not the first time Adobe has done that.

What version are you running?  Is it 12.0.4 x64?  Wonder if there's a way to go back to 12.0.3?

Mike

OMG!! I could hug you right now!!! I don't know if there is a way to go back, but at least I am not quite the idiot the guy at Adobe is making me feel like. Yes it is 12.04 x 64, yes the first session I noticed it was July 15
I cannot thank you enough for taking so much time to help me.  ;D
You just don't know how much that means to me!
Becky Hardgrave
Hardgrave Photography

You're welcome.  I did find a related thread where someone else was saying 12.0.4 was corrupting JPEG files.  It ended with Chris Cox of Adobe basically saying it wasn't CS5.  I added a new reply just now telling them about the multiple profile embedding problem and told them they need to fix it.  We'll see if/when they reply.  I'll update here when they do.

Mike

Hmmm, that is who I have been talking with  - maybe time to talk to someone else at Adobe

Holy crapoli.  He answered already!  Asked "what makes you think there are three ICC profiles in the JPEG".  So I told him I can examine the file and see three ICC_PROFILE tags in the file.  Time will tell.  I'm impressed that I got a response.  On a Saturday!  Anyway, if that's who you talked to, they should have enough info to fix it.  Either that or they can reply and claim it is a new "feature" to embed a cool quarter dozen ICC profiles into one JPEG.  ;)  We'll see.  The ball is in their court.

Mike

Could I get your permission to send Chris your 1775 and 1960 shots?  I'm preparing some files for him and they must be named in a certain order.  So I want to create a ZIP and send it to him.  I'd like to get your permission on the photos even though I think you probably already sent them to him.

It's actually a very strange problem.  If you have nothing but NEF's in the folder you are converting, it works (or appears to).  As soon as you put an sRGB JPEG in that same folder though, after it converts the sRGB JPEG, all NEF's converted after that point are corrupted with the multiple profiles.  So I need to name the files such that the problem occurs and then I'll send them to him.

Thanks,
Mike

yes you can send them, I have also offered to send anything he wants to see.
When I upload from a session, all the nef files go into a new folder by themselves called unprocessed. There are no other files of any other type of files in that folder.

I saw this thread this AM and am also running the CS5 12.0.4 x64 version.  I have their Beta ACR also installed as it popped up with the original RAW file about only being good for som many days until I need to update it.

I just finished working on some image and saved it out to a JPG (I saved it as "Adobe 1998" color space) to send to someone.  In a few seconds, the email server responded with "Corrupt File, or it exceeds the 25MB AT&T/Yahoo limit.  Try again?"  Say huh?  It's only a small 357 KB JPG, but it won't go through for some reason.

I took the same file that wouldn't go through and opened it in Paint Shop Pro X3 and saved it out to a different named JPG.  It got accepted and sent on it's way.  The Adobe CS5 one won't go through their email server.  The Adobe JPG was 357KB and the re-saved PSP X3 one is 355KB, or 2KB less.  Don't know why the difference.

Something is indeed screwy with CS5 12.0.4 x64 in JPEG land.


Mack

I don't know if your problem is related to the multi-profile bug, but if you want to pipe in on the Adobe thread, see http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/corrupt_jpg_from_12_0_4

Chris Cox started by saying I (we, since it's happening to more than one person) had a bad hard drive or corrupted OS.  The next line was that what I/we are seeing is "impossible".  Then he moved on to saying "user error" was causing CS5 to embed 3 profiles.  Judging by the lack of responses since I sent him the detailed files/instructions to replicate the problem, I think he's finally realized it's an Adobe bug but just in case, it doesn't hurt to give more details.  I've done all I can do so the ball is in Adobe's court now for a fix.

Mike

I sent an message and posted to the Adobe board.  Wait and see I guess.

It is odd why the Adobe JPG file I re-sized is about 4 KB larger than the same one done in PSP X3.  If it is leaving remains of another header behind, then maybe that's why I got a "Corrupt file" from a server message?

I did read somewhere that the CS5 JPG compresses more below a setting of 6-7 as it redoes the chroma or something.  Here it is:  http://forums.dpreview.com/news/1108/11082915jpegupdate.asp (http://forums.dpreview.com/news/1108/11082915jpegupdate.asp)  Anyway, both mine were set to max. level of "Not to compress" in both files so who knows.  Might not be related though.


Mack

Hi Mike
I have been having an ongoing battle of words with Chris Cox on the Photoshop board and still receiving rather inane replies. I feel like going to the head office and see if anyone there can understand what we are saying. I will try using my second licence of PS which has not updated to 12.0.4 and see if I can get better sense. Then, if that never produces the sRGBs I will scream loud & clear. >:(
See you
Col

Colin,

I think Chris is well aware there is a CS5 bug but his point is that even though CS5 produces garbage (two extra embedded profiles) into the converted files (at random I might add), if you follow the entire JFIF (JPEG) header one tag at a time, it actually skips over the garbage.  In Qimage, since Qimage processes many files at a time, I don't waste time processing the entire header when I'm just looking for what profile is embedded: I simply extract the defined header and search for the "ICC_PROFILE" tag.  The JPEG spec specifies there should only be one of those in the header so nothing wrong with searching for the tag... unless some program is inappropriately embedding more than one into the header.  So anyway, it's easy enough for me to work around the Adobe bug since I know what they are doing.  That's usually easier than getting them to admit there is a bug in Adobe "precious".  ;)

Mike

There was a bug with Qimage finding the proper color space from the header but it is only a problem when combined with the Adobe bug that saves multiple ICC profiles in the file: inappropriately attached to embedded thumbnails.  I fixed the problem in Qimage Ultimate (2012.104 released today) so that it ignores the extraneous data as it should, but I don't plan to fix it in the retired Qimage (Lite, Pro, Studio) versions.

Mike

Guess I will upgrade to Ulitmate, but at least my print life can get back to normal :)
Thanks for all your help, and not blowing off a long time customer. These days, customer service and attention is a big deal. Too bad some companies are so big that they can afford to forget that... for now.

Ditto the above for me and thanks for the service Mike. I can see where Adobe is coming from, but it IS messy for sure. I wonder if a quiet update will occur?
All the best
Col

Yeah, it seems a long road to get anything across to Adobe as they seem more intent on defending a defective product than listening to bug reports.  Since Chris Cox has basically taken over and rewritten the thread at Adobe to suit Adobe's needs (including deleting many of my posts that show the actual problem), I've posted the facts here:

http://ddisoftware.com/tech/qimage-ultimate/qimage-exposes-photoshop-cs5-%2812-0-4%29-jpeg-corruption-bug/

Mike

Mike

You might like to know there is .. Adobe cs5 Camers Raw "Version 6.5.0.216" Update, maybe they got it right this time  ???
Hope it doesn't start more work for you again!

Ya Me

Tried it: no change.  I don't think an update to ACR is going to do it because it looks like a CS5 12.0.4 bug.  They're probably going to have to update CS5 to 12.0.5 in order to fix it.  If/when they'll get to that is anyone's guess.

Mike

Mike
Thanks for letting Me know .. I finaly downloaded Ultimate .. but I won't be giving you any money .. till the time runs out. ;D
I will say: I do like it, easy to use .. as of yet I don't do raw, it prints great and that is why I will buy it. :)
Thanks For A Great Program!

Ya Me