BreezeBrowser & Color Profiles

[mikedavid]

I'm using the latest version of Breeze Browser, and have tried to convert my G1's raw files assigning the True Color G1 ICC profile provided by Breeze Browser.

When I open the resulting TIFF file in Photoshop 7.0.1, using the Adobe RGB(1998) working space, I find the image to be overly saturated and the relationship between the colors to be a bit off. Color correction is more difficult because the image does not have a common color cast throughout the photo that needs to be removed.

If I don't assign the G1 profile and do the conversion, the image looks fine in Photoshop, except for some minor color tweaking to remove a bit of a magenta color cast. The saturation and exposure look fine.

I've tried using the ICC profile for my monitor instead of the Adobe RGB (1998) for the workspace, but have the same problem. My monitor has been visually calibrated (No Spyder, etc.)

Are there any settings in Photoshop that I'm missing? At this point, it seems that it's better to not assign a profile to the G1 raw files.

Thanks in advance for any advice!

[Roger_Cavanagh]

Mike,

When you say "I open the resulting TIFF file in Photoshop 7.0.1, using the Adobe RGB(1998) working space", have you (a) checked the True Color profile is embedded, and (b) then run Image>Mode>Convert to Profile? It's not entirely clear from your post.

I don't have a G1, so I can testify as the the goodness of the True Color profile.

To clear one point, you should not use your monitor profile as a working space.

Regards,

[slejhamer]

mikedavid,

I just tested the True Color G1 ICC on a handful of RAW conversions and think it is very accurate -- more so than the PopPhoto G1 ICC that I have been using.

I did not get oversaturation upon conversion to AdobeRGB in Photohop, though I did notice that problem (slightly) with the PopPhoto ICC.

Note that I have not tested any prints, only evaluated the on-screen appearance. I also calibrate my monitor visually using the individual RGB sliders in Adobe Gamma, so it's possible I am not seeing things with 100% accuracy; however, my reference color chart looks about right. I will try printing a few this weekend and see how they turn out.

P.S. What method are you using to remove a color cast?

[mikedavid]

Roger -

After converting the raw file with BreezeBrowser, the image does indeed have the True Color profile embedded (the EXIF data on the file shows the profile).

When I open the TIFF file in Photoshop, I get the message "The document has an embedded file that does not match the current RGB working space. How do you want to proceed?" The message screen indicates that the image has the True Color profile embedded and that the working space is Adobe RGB(1998). I then click on the "Convert the document's colors to the working space" option.

I also have the following options selected in Photoshop's Color Settings menu:

Working Space RGB: Adobe RGB(1998)
Color Mgmt Policies: Convert to Working RGB
Conversion Options: Engine: Adobe (ACE)
Intent: Relative Colormetric

Use Black Point compensation is checked, as is Use Dither (8 bit images)

I've tried doing it again today, and it doesn't appear as bad as it did yesterday. Instead of the magenta cast of the non-embedded conversion, there's a bit of a cyan or blue cast now. It's certainly something I can live with.

Mitch -

I use the Photoshop add-in, iCorrect EditLab 3.0 from Pictographics. It's a superb piece of software and makes color correction almost pleasurable!

I also have to agree with you regarding the PopPhoto profile. I've tried using that as well, and find the TrueColor profile to be far superior.

I guess my initial reaction to the results was a bit of an overeaction. I expected to have close to perfect color balance, with the image not requiring any further adjustment.

Thanks guys for your responses!

Mike

[slejhamer]

mikedavid wrote:
I expected to have close to perfect color balance, with the image not requiring any further adjustment.



That's my thought regarding a camera that was originally listed at US$1,000...

Here's one thing you might try: change your conversion "intent" to perceptual. My understanding is that relative colormetric will clip out-of-gamut colors, though it supposedly does a better job when an image has all colors in-gamut. When I opened a True Color ICC-embedded file (without converting to AdobeRGB,) I noticed that "RGB*" appeared, indicating out-of-gamut. Reportedly, using relative colormetric on out-of-gamut images can produce the odd color separations you are seeing. (But there will still be color correction to be done...)

Thanks for the iCorrect tip; I've heard good things about it before but have not tried. Do you think it is better than the new AutoColor feature in PS7? It's certainly less expensive than an upgrade from my current version 6.0 :)

[Roger_Cavanagh]

Mike,

Well, you are doing everything the same way I would, so I've got nothing to suggest. I agree with Mitch about using perceptual intent. It _is_ supposed to give better results than RC.

Might be worth taking a few tests shots with a gray card included just to check colour balance.

Regards,

[slejhamer]

mikedavid:
I forgot to mention that I typically use the "daylight" white balance setting when I convert my G1 RAW images, even on shots taken with flash. Sometimes I will set a custom WB, other times I will use something else, but the daylight setting generally does the trick for my shots (most of which are taken outdoors in daylight or indoors with bounced flash.) I am happy to find out about the True Color ICC in BreezeBrowser as it does seem an improvement over the profile I used before.

Roger:
Very helpful write-up on your site about PS7's AutoColor feature. It is perhaps the one reason I would consider upgrading from PS6, though I will test the demo of iCorrect's plug-in first.

Regards,

[mikedavid]

Mitch -

I think iCorrect is much better than the autocolor feature in 7.0. You have the ability to click on different areas of grey to color correct independently.

For example, the whites may be a little too cyan, whereas the middle greys may be too yellow. By clicking on each, you can correct both instead of a universal change. This is probably not clear, but you'll see what I mean when you test the demo.

As far as to upgrade or not upgrade to 7.0, I find the healing brush tool to be quite useful. I believe also that you can do more corrections in 7.0 while in 16-bit mode than you can in 6.0. While this does not matter for G-1 pics, which are 8-bit only, it does help for scanned negatives or slides, as well as the G-3 (which I just got, and can't wait to try out!)

If you are interested in Photoshop plug-ins, you should also check out Color Mechanic, and the Shadow and Highlight filters from Chroma software. nikSharpener is great for sharpening and the PowerRetouche suite of filters is also quite useful.

I guess I've found that there is no "magic" tool that can do all the corrections that you need - each plug-in has its advantages that are invaluable in some situations, but are unhelpful in others. Most of these tools are relatively inexpensive, and offer downloadable demos, so it's probably best to just try them out for yourself.

Have fun!

[Roger_Cavanagh]

slejhamer wrote:
Roger:
Very helpful write-up on your site about PS7's AutoColor feature. It is perhaps the one reason I would consider upgrading from PS6, though I will test the demo of iCorrect's plug-in first.

Bruce Fraser has a more detailed article http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/17164.html about auto color. I do have iCorrect, but don't use it an awful lot. It does work and would really help a studio photog who needed to apply the same colour corrections to a batch of pictures.

Regards,