How do I convert "Color Tint" to DPP's "color tone" and "color saturation"?

When adjusting basic white balance in ufraw and rawtherapee the second control next to the color temperature in Kelvin is "color tint" with values between 0.0 and 5.0.

In DPP there is no such value, it has that 2-dimensional circle with "Color tone" (0-180) and "color saturation" (0-255).

Any idea how I would reproduce certain things that ufraw or rawtherapee came up with in DPP?

It looks like "color tint" is rougly comparable with moving the dot in the circle along the "horizon" with the "Color tone" being either zero or 180. But the values are "off, there is no direct equivalent that I can find.

ETA: actually that is what it is. The difference is that my windows machine doesn't have the same color calibration, saving the file comes out the same if "Color tint" in 1.000 and dpp circle's parameters are 0 and 0.

Of course the pictures are still completely different

See http://www.youtube.com …dex=10&feature=​plpp_video

But you'll need the DPP++ plugin.

The Tint control in other converters works primarily on the green channel, on the green - magenta axis. On DPP's Tune color ball locate an imaginary line the runs from green (tone 90) through the center to magenta (tone 270). If you want to add green set 90 and then use the saturation control to control the amount. If you want less green and more magenta, set 270 and adjust saturation.

tzalman wrote in post #13949378
The Tint control in other converters works primarily on the green channel, on the green - magenta axis. On DPP's Tune color ball locate an imaginary line the runs from green (tone 90) through the center to magenta (tone 270). If you want to add green set 90 and then use the saturation control to control the amount. If you want less green and more magenta, set 270 and adjust saturation.

If I'm not wrong (may be I'm), I think it's 120 instead of 90 and 300 instead of 270.
As the red is at 0 and there are 3 color channels (RGB) you divide 360/3=120.
So :
Red at 0
Green at 120
Blue at 240.

And so the opposite channels are :

Yellow (oppposite of blue) : 60
Cyan (opposite of Red) : 180
Magenta (opposite of Green) : 300

Yes, my mistake. 120 and 300.

I'll try that.Thanks, guys.

Still have difficulties reproducing the results I want. In the "RAW" tab under picture style DPP insists on having an S-curve that blows out some details I want to keep (and that ufraw and rawtherapee do keep). I tried faithful and neutral but it doesn't go where I want it. If I switch to "linear" the whole picture becomes a dark mess.

I think what I am missing is rawtherapee's "highlight recovery". Any idea how I would get that in dpp?
The "auto lighting optimizer" doesn't do it.

I also miss the luminance curve from rawtherapee.

can you post your raw file with your rawtherapee jpeg and we will see if we can achieve the same result with dpp ?
BTW why are you trying to reproduce the same result in DPP ? is there something you d'ont like in rawtherapee or ufraw ?

uOpt wrote in post #13950165
Still have difficulties reproducing the results I want. In the "RAW" tab under picture style DPP insists on having an S-curve that blows out some details I want to keep (and that ufraw and rawtherapee do keep). I tried faithful and neutral but it doesn't go where I want it. If I switch to "linear" the whole picture becomes a dark mess.

I think what I am missing is rawtherapee's "highlight recovery". Any idea how I would get that in dpp?
The "auto lighting optimizer" doesn't do it.

I also miss the luminance curve from rawtherapee.

An S-curve will not cause clipping, that's why it is an S. You can, however, reduce its slope by moving the Contrast slider to the left.
DPP does not have a recovery function, which reconstructs partially clipped highlights. In fact, because partially clipped highlights can be rendered with false colors, DPP avoids this problem by clipping highlights at around 15,000 (14 bit), thus reducing the DR. The only thing you can do is to reduce Brightness (Exposure) to bring the highlight down below the clipping point.

I didn't mean "blow out" as in clipped. But it gets too tight in the high regions and I lose how the light forms a gradient on a curve on a cheek.

I found that lowering the mids in the brightness curve does a similar thing to what I like in rawtherapee. I'll have to check back later how good that went, unfortunately my windows machine doesn't have an identically adjusted color display so I have to save it and then look at the result in Linux.

I'll post things when I get home.

Does Aperture have noise reduction that is similar quality compared to DPP? The only reason why I bother with DPP is that this shot is noisy. Ufraw doesn't have good NR and rawtherapee has good NR that doesn't have enough maximum strength (stops about where DPP's "3" setting is). But it has been a real pain reproducing the parameters I want, and the UI is... I dunno. Is Aperture a good alternative for the occasions where I need better NR?

yb98 wrote in post #13950480
BTW why are you trying to reproduce the same result in DPP ? is there something you d'ont like in rawtherapee or ufraw ?

This shot is noisy and I want DPP's NR.

I don't like ufraw's NR, rawtherapee has very good looking NR but the maximum strength isn't enough here and I'm too dumb to use whereever G'MIC now put Greystoration

That reminds me to ask: given the same algorithm, is there something that can only be done in the raw, as opposed to an uncompressed TIF? It's isn't clear to me how the color information in cr2 and regular files differs and whether there is anything in there that helps with NR.

The primary difference is that RAW data is linear (like when you clicked the Linear box in DPP) and in a rendered image it's usual that a gamma tone curve has been applied. As you saw when you clicked Linear, the data straight from the sensor is dark and sort of squished together. The gamma curve lifts and stretches shadow data and compresses highlight tones. This brightening of the image, like any other brightening operation, increases noise. So yes, it's easier to suppress noise while the data is still linear, for example Dave Coffin's Wavelet NR used in UFRaw. Still, there are plenty of dedicated NR applications that do excellent treatment of rendered images.

Oh the NR in rawtherapee is the same as the wavelet denoise plugin in GIMP then, minus the raw versus rendered? Maybe I should poke around in there some more.

Apps like NeatImage and Noise Ninja have a lot of happy customers and they should work just fine with tiffs. Do your Raw processing in your app of choice, then you can save a tiff and open it in one of those apps for noise reduction. They have free trials so you can play around!