Mike Chaney's Tech Corner

Lately I switched from Canon 350d to 500d, and now I find that Qimage handles saturation different: colors seem washed out.
When I convert the CR2's to jpg's with for instance FSViewer I get pictures that look natural, and when viewed and printed with Qimage they look fine.
The thumbs in FSViewer of the CR2's look better already than those in Qimage. When I save the CR2's in Qimage as jpg's they are under-saturated too.
With CR2's from the 350d the colors (saturation) was fine.
I added some thumbs that (hopefully) show what I mean.
The jpg's on the left, the CR2's on the right. Especially the reds and greens look dull.
Does anybody have an explanation?

Can you answer a couple of questions:
When you used your 350D did you have a custom camera profile for use in Qimage? There is not one available yet for the 500D so that prompts me to ask what have you what raw preferences are set to in Qimage? It looks as though you may have sRGB set rather than Adobe RGB.
Using Adobe RGB will give more saturated colours than sRGB, and a custom profile will be better still.
Check you raw settings and let us know how you get on.
Terry.

I did not use a camera custom profile for the 350d.
Raw preference is set (now) to Adobe - that makes it slightly better (after rebuilding thumbs) than the thumbs I posted (I tried sRGB before starting this topic, checking out the options). Still, I'm not greatly impressed.

All I can say is that with my 350D, the difference between sRGB and Adobe RGB is significant; the difference between Adobe RGB and a custom camera profile is less but noticeable.
Have you another raw converter that you can try?
Hopefully someone else has some more ideas for you.
Terry.

Thnx so far. The difference is significant, but I find the result stille a bit drab.
And - as I said - FSViewer makes a better job of converting to jpg, but I'd rather stay with Qimage, because of the Raw-refinement options; especially the whitebalance. I thought wit Qimage to have left behind me the 999 different tools I used to have. :'(

I find it hard to believe that FSViewer does a better job. I've just downloaded it and tried it out. It does not even seem to be colour management aware.
Have you got Qimage set up ok. in that respect with a good monitor profile? That's the only other thing that comes to mind.
Terry.

Have you tried Digital Photo Pro that comes with your Canon camera?  What do the images look like in that?
John

If you don't mind me asking a couple questions

1. Is FSViewer  *FastStone Image Viewer*?
    I did a search an that is what came up.

2. Is this about viewing thumbs in the programs or viewing thumbs made for the internet?

The reason I ask is I think I have notice some difference in some of my thumbs in some of my other programs.
But then again my eyes are not that great.

Thanks
Ya Me

Have your tried to switch the color space in the 500D from sRGB to Adobe RGB to see if there is a difference with the raw conversion in Qimage?

[quote
With CR2's from the 350d the colors (saturation) was fine.
I added some thumbs that (hopefully) show what I mean.
The jpg's on the left, the CR2's on the right. Especially the reds and greens look dull.
Does anybody have an explanation?

[/quote]

I need to know a few more details, if you can indulge me.
Just to eliminate any possible corrupted or wrong monitor profile, can we turn it off for a few minutes and the rebuild thumbs?
Now we have a level playing field.
I assume you have a few images from each camera in a folder so you can compare.
Next hover the mouse over one of the thumbs and click the spacebar. You will not get a profiling label, and you should be seeing a hugh res screen of that shot.
Any difference? Are the colors better or worse?
Now put the monitor profile back on, rebuild thumbs, and try it again.

BTW, I have eyes like Yame, but something is bothering me about the sample images. The one with the brighter red shirt has an almost washed out sky compared to the one on the right. Looks like added contrast, some manipulation has taken place????

Next I would look at the settings of any software that you use to decode raw besides QSE.
QSE will only adjust your USM (sharpness), your color space that you chose, and a possible adaptive noise reduction if the ISO is high. That's it! It does an auto exposure which allows you to tweak later.
Other software, have preset contrast, brightness, saturation, exposure adjustment, tint, color temperature, that applies itself to the raw image, and many people think they didn't do anything to the image; but the software did anyway.
Have a look.
The JPGS, are from you shooting RAW + JPG or did you extract the JPG from the raw image.
Any clues?

Fred

Well I figured out you a talking about thumbs in the program.

Are you saying thumbs can look different in all program? ??? ???

Ya Me

That's exactly what I am trying to figure out: A thumb problem or a comparative image problem?

Fred

How does a person decide which program to go by, if they all can be different? ???
I am definitely lost ??? ??? ???

Ya Me

Phew, lot's a questions.
First off, let me say that I did not change anything in Qimage or my monitor color profile (Pantone Huey), the only thing that's different (ahum, see below) is that I now have CR2's from a Canon 500d instead of a 350d.
The only thing I wasn't sure of, was the color profile in the 350d compared to the 500d - in the 500d I had sRGB, now I changed it to Adobe.
I'm still not impressed - Qimage does not give me a neutral white balance.
The first picture is what Canon's own Digital Photo Pofessional makes of it, as far as I can tell the WB is ok,
The next is (a screenshot of) the thumb in Qimage, and you have to believe me: the jpg and the print look the same. It is not a thumb-problem, the washed out colors carried through to the jpg en the prints.

This is a very interesting topic, I hope I can learn and understand all that is being said!
So I hope you all won't mind if I ask a question now an than.

Ya Me

Not at all.
And by FSViewer I was indeed talking about Faststone Image viewer.

If I may ask about Faststone Image viewer

Is it better to have a program like that to view your images than Windows Explorer? If you just want a quick view.

Ya Me

The Qimage illustration does not look "washed out" to me, just underexposed a little and in that state, the WB will be hard to judge.
As Fred has already said, other programs have pre-sets, and the Canon one initially processes in the same way as for in-camera jpeg's.
As your Qimage view is dark, you need to use the Refine feature where using one of the segments and/or the Fill you will get a well balanced image. You can White Balance there too but do that first.
Attached is an example of before & after refine where camera exposure was set so the light wing area was not overexposed; Fill was used to balance up the overall image.
If you are not familiar with the refine features, there is a separate raw processing guide here http://ddisoftware.com/tech/qimage/qimage-raw-processing-a-guide/
Terry.

Terry
If I may ask, was image 2 compressed more than image 1?

Ya Me

Image 2 is the raw file converted to jpeg at 100% quality. Image 1 is the raw file with no Fill. It is just a screen snap of the full page editor, with both images on the page, in HQ mode, so it's really all at screen resolution
Terry.

Just to clarify, Qimage raw takes the camera WB and does not adjust in any way, you can do that in the refine screen. My experience with a 350D is that Auto WB is useless and the pre-set values nearly always need some adjustment in the refine screen.

One other thought about
My 350D tends to overexpose so I nearly always use it with negative compensation for raw. Maybe the 500D is different and tends to underexpose or expose for highlights (I may have read that in a review).
That may explain the differences you are seeing - it's a new camera with different characteristics. Try a bit of plus exposure compensation - check the camera histogram after taking the shot. Also, use some raw refine fill in Qimage, which can be + or -.
Terry.

Terry
Am I understanding correct

Image 2 jpg on Top
Image 1 raw file Bottom

Take picture

Ya Me

Not take picture with camera, I have a little program that allows you to copy what is on the screen. You can do the same with the Print Screen button on your keyboard and then copy into the Windows Paint program to edit & save.
Terry.

You prove my point exactly: as you say "The Qimage illustration does not look "washed out" to me, just underexposed a little", because the picture is definitely not underexposed, I used a flash, as I say, the first picture is accurate, what Qimage makes of it is not.
And I'm aware of the raw refinement possibilities, and I can correct this image somehow that way, but it's simply not true that Qimage leaves the WB alone. I want it to give an accurate "as shot" white balance by default.

It's fast and it's free, but - as someone in this topic said - it's not color profile aware. It's a lot more versatile as a viewer than Windows Explorer, that's for sure.

Thanks .. I was just thinking as viewer

Ya Me

How did you get FastStone to display a 500D raw file?  I downloaded the latest version (3.9) and it is not even compatible with the 500D.  When you try to display a 500D raw photo in FastStone, you get a magenta image that is full of interpolation artifacts.  Here's the FastStone conversion and Qimage conversion of a 500D raw that I downloaded from Imaging Resource.

Mike

I took a fast look at that Fast stone viewer, and it states that the WB will be reset to the camera setting.
So WB is adjusted before the fact.

Fred

This topic is not about FSViewer, but I don't know what's going wrong - I (like you?) downloaded a CR2 file, from Imaging Resource: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/T1I/T1IhSLI12800.CR2.HTM (http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/T1I/T1IhSLI12800.CR2.HTM), FSViewer (yes, v 3.9) converts it flawlessly, it looks like this (first picture)
The thumb of the CR2 in Qimage looks - unbelievably - like this (second picture),
but when I use Qimage to make an email sized copy it looks like the third picture. Nothing like the thumb, but still: drab. Aaarg.
Weird.

I don't think your FSViewer is decoding the raw file at all!  I think it's simply ripping the embedded JPEG out of the raw: you're never even seeing the raw photo.  In FSViewer, press F12 to get the settings dialog and then click the "RAW" tab.  Take a look at the second dropdown labeled "Batch convert raw files in" and see what setting is there.  I bet it is set to "Embedded Preview Image".  Change it to "Actual Size" and you'll get the real raw photo: the ugly magenta mess.

Mike

In addition to my previous post where I think you are not looking at the true raw decoding in FastStone, take a look at the Qimage result on that raw photo without the 500D ICC profile and with.  The 500D appears to be one of those cameras that benefits quite a bit from having a profile!  The profile is not quite ready for sale yet but I'm shooting to have it available tomorrow.

Mike

The 500D ICC profile for Qimage Studio raw is now available:

http://www.ddisoftware.com/shopping/index.html#cameraq

Mike

...which is exactly the setting I'm using. Besides: I never have my camera set to "emdedded jpeg". So: that's not the explanation we are looking for.

You are right - this looks better. Still (and I hope you're not offended) I think Qimage should treat the 500d RAW more neutral by default (as it did the 350d RAW); camera ICC profiles should be for getting from "good" to "outstanding", forgive me if I sound ungrateful  ;)

FastStone Viewer cannot decode Canon 500D raw files, so whatever explanation you are looking for, you are comparing apples and oranges because you are not getting/seeing the raw photo in FastStone: you are seeing the embedded JPEG.  FastStone uses dcraw just like Qimage, so if it was showing you the actual raw, it'd look just like it does in Qimage without a profile... except for the fact that FastStone doesn't appear to be using the latest dcraw code which is why you get that magenta image when you decode the actual raw.


I don't think you are being ungrateful, just unreasonable!  :D  Seriously, dcraw is what it is: a tool that allows software (like Qimage) to decode raw files.  If you don't like the "default" (no profile) color, you'd have to complain to David Coffin: author of dcraw.  His default renditions are usually pretty good but for whatever reason, dcraw doesn't do that well in its current form with 500D raw photos.  Most cameras only show subtle changes in color with a profile but for the 500D, there's a bigger change.  I have no control over that because that's what dcraw has to offer.  That's why Qimage is better than dcraw alone: it offers quality and control beyond the "standard" dcraw engine.

Mike

Just for fun and learning, I got that test 500D image from Terry, and in my computer, ( I know, everyone says this) with monitor profiled etc., I get a vibrant rich rendition of the raw test image. The colors jump off the screen at me... no the monitor is not too bright, like me!
I see a lot of noise (400 ISO) in the image, especially near the left side of the cup and the dark green leaves.
I experimented: I pushed the Noise Reduction slider full right in RAW options and the noise abated a lot.
I could even reduce the noise to a minimum using the Qiimage batch noise filters called either Shadow Noise or Hi ISO.

See attachment
Fred

I forgot the initial image from QSE

I purchased the 500D ICC profile, and it works fine. Good job!