Browser Rendering Different to Editor


Posting rules: It shouldn't need saying, but... play nice. Please keep your discussions civil. You can disagree, just don't be disagreeable. And, of course, all of the usual stuff like no spamming. Tex adds: I'll be rigorously enforcing this as we go along. We're probably going to be a small community in a little lifeboat, so we can't have members at each others' throats. This is for the sake of the project as a whole. So when you post, pretend you're speaking in person with your very wealthy auntie who has always treated you wonderfully and currently lists you prominently in her will. I won't be tossing anyone out of the forums because we are all in this together (except spammers: immediate membership cancelation), but I'll delete suspect posts right away.


25 posts / 0 new
Last post
jknights
Browser Rendering Different to Editor

I am using the latest LZ4.1-beta6 with the new Fuji XT1 camera RAF files.

I am seeing this rendering in the browser (left) and when I open the image in the Editor (right image).  I would expect the rendering to be near identical.   The Browser rendering is closer to the As I Remember it memory!!

 

http://jmknights.com/transfer/LZ-difference-in-colour-on-default-open.jpg

I know that the Browser is probably rendering the Thumbnail from the RAW file while the Editor is rendering the original image.

Any suggestions or Help!!!

Thanks

Jonathan

 

SFA
Jonathan,

Jonathan,

 

This is quite similar to what I see (but the other way around!) with my Canon S90 and G11 files.  For them the previews are about a stop darker and with a 'pink' tinge compaed to the image opened in Edit mode. Recently the 600D seems to have gone the way of your XT1 file  - but what have you done for the Tone Curve tool? Does one appear?

 

You could try unlocking the Tone Curve tool (if there is one) and switching it off just to see where that takes things.

 

Bear in mind that the Tone Curve is not something set in stone by the camera manufacturer. Indeed they tend not to tell anyone anything if they can avoid doing so. So we are all free to create our own preferred interpretations if we wish to ... which would be great if it was not so challenging to get a balance with some cameras!

 

 

HTH.

 

 

Grant

 

 

jknights
"You could try unlocking the

"You could try unlocking the Tone Curve tool (if there is one) and switching it off just to see where that takes things."

 

How do you do this?

I cant see anything in the Editor that offers this but maybe I am looking in the wrong place.

 

 

tex
You need to watch the tool

You need to watch the tool anatomy video!

SFA
Jonathan,

Jonathan,

 

Firstly as I understand things the XT1 has only just become available so I am a little surprised that LZ recognises it at all for RAW files but then as I don't have one I don't really keep up with what is and is not possible. That said your screen shot certinly looks like the RAF is being opened so ...

 

If you are getting a genuine opening of the the RAF files in a full implementation of LZ you should see 2 tools in the tool stack on the right of the screen when you open the RAF.

 

One is titled RAW Adjustments and allows you to mess with the overall exposure, a noise setting and white balance stuff.

 

The one above it should be a RAW Tone Curve.

 

If that appears, click the arrow on the left of the Tool Title strip to expand the tool so that you can see what it offers. There should be a padlock symbol on the title bar over towards the right. Right click your mouse with the cursor on th title bar and you should see a drop down menu where on of the options is to Unlock the tool. Select that and wht you will end up with is a regular Zone Mapper tool that is working in RGB mode rather then luminosity. Now the the tool is active you can use the disable/enable tick box to swich it on and off.

 

If it is switched off what you are seeing is the straight interpretation of the RAW file with no attempt at adjusting the values to get something with a reasonable colour balance.

 

I think that I would first use the RAW Adjustment tool to increase the exposure a little to try to bring the walls closer to matching the preview file as a realtively neutral looking colour. This would not be a final result - just a meas of differentiating between the apparent exposure difference and the look of a slight colour cast. It's really a question of seeing what does what to start with and then deciding on an approach from there.

 

HTH.

 

Grant

 

 

jknights
Hi Grant,

Hi Grant,

Thanks for the help.  I get the RAW Adjustments tool palette but no RAW Tone Curve.

 

Yes the XT1 is new but LZ4.1-b6 is meant to support it as the version of DCRaw is there that provides preliminary support.  This may be the issue.  It is only preliminary support.

 

Tex,

I am downloading the tutorials but I only tend to use them if I get stuck or think I need some fine tweaks that I havent found but desire.   LZ is proving to be very good for my images but there are items I look for.

Been working with RAW a long time so I know my way around but every tool is slightly different.

 

jknights
Well I have just watched Doug

Well I have just watched Doug Pardee's excellent video on the RAW Tone Curve generation.

I guess the reason that I dont have a RAW Tone Curve is because the camera is very new and the RTC has not been generated.

 

I have a Gretag Macbeth Chart so I guess I could make one and upload it for others to use.

Which is best - Shoot in Sunlight or using Flash ?  I guess Sunlight. 

 

 

SFA
On Dave Coffin's site he

On Dave Coffin's site he recommends sunlight and some angles for the subject matter to avoid direct light and reflections plus the light should be in the middle of the day. (I thnk if was noon +/- 2 hrs.

 

Dave Coffin = DCRaw in case that is not a known connection for people reading this.

 

HTH.

 

 

Grant

 

ETA: The source of sample files from various test sites will likely use Studio Flash rather than sunlight. However they are hopefully using sunlight balanced quality units and so should be close enough to sunlight colour temperature (sunlight used as a relatively constant natural referenece point) to make an acceptable colour Tone Curve development possible.

jknights
Thanks Grant.

Thanks Grant.

The sunlight should be easy enough to arrange here in Spain.

I'll have a go next week.

 

jknights
If anyone wants a Fuji XT1

If anyone wants a Fuji XT1 RAF file for producing an RTC then see here.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vjeb5392f635i4p/XT1-1-1442.RAF

The RTC is also there.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dd8am3nnzkitypq/CameraDefault%3BFUJIFILM%20X-T...

 

SFA
Most interesting ...

I had made an attempt at the adjustments using your colour checker test file and one from the Image Resource web site. The two images were sor to fclose but required idfferent adjustments in the middle range in my opinion. Not really a surprise - we are not in a mimnutely managed lab at this poi nt!

 

When applied to a sample 'field' image from the IR web site both yours and my lzt files produce similar results which tended to be a bit on the pink side I thought. Compared to he IR sample file's jpg version there were some obvious differences that I could not readily adjust. That said I'm not totally convinced the the jpg looks right anyway! That might be a personal thing of course.

 

That said I thought the results were OK as a starting point for an edit. How do you feel about lzt file? Happy enough with it or do you think that there is something else going on behind the scenes that may  be making it difficult to get it how you would like it?

 

I'll dig deeper if I get some more time this evening.

 

 

 

Grant

 

 

jknights
I did a flamenco dance shoot

I did a flamenco dance shoot last night and I found using the EVF under low levels of artifical light difficult.  In the end I gave up using the XT1 and reverted to my Nikon D3S as for moving dancers the EVF makes life difficult.  I have found a reason why I maybe got the XPro1 int he first place.  EVF just cant refresh quick enough to provide an OVF quality.

The light quality is mixed - UV strip light, halogens with gels, incandescent bulbs, etc.

I will process these though on Tuesday when I have time but I will probably stick to using the XT1 for studio and daylight work.

 

 

 

Regarding the colour cast I dont tend to have to tweak that on my machine but it is not as I remember seeing it.

In fact the RAF when first rendered in LZ was pretty good with no tone curve.  However it did make the Macbeth chart match but the floor tiles were not the correct colour!!!  I need to check out what I need to do to get them to match.

 

 

SFA
I did notice

 that the floor tile colour changed quite dramatically.

 

Obviously I have no idea which is correct.

 

I think perhaps the Macbeth chart needs to be shot in the most neutral area, from a colour POV, that one can find. Unless, of course, one is trying to get a colour balance for a location which is very susceptible to colour influence from nearby reflections!

 

It all starts to get a bit like more effort is required than would ideally be necessary.

 

 

 

Grant

 

 

jknights
I will do a shoot of the card

I will do a shoot of the card in the studio later today or tomorrow if I can find the time.

It doesnt take very long to make a RTC from the RAF file.

 

jknights
Grant try these ones and see

Grant try this one and see what you think.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/41gmqx9hjxnnj46/hykEXCVbPi

 

SFA
Hi Jonathan,

Hi Jonathan,

 

I'm not sure what you are likely to be seeing - these files look like thay are, in some areas, quite sensitive to slight changes and screen colour calibration could be making a big difference but I'm not sure.

 

Looking at the sample file for City Hall from the Imaging Resource web site the JPG file (seems like a good basis fo a comparison if the jpg is reasonably accurate) to my eyes looks a bit flat in the colours on the flags, the sky is a bit magenta-ish for a blue and the brickwork can't quite decide whether it is red or brown. I'm not convinced by it but it is a target to see how close we can get.

 

The answer seems to be  - nowhere near.

 

The initial RTC made the building bricks pink and the sky a bright azure. The whole was a bit pale.

 

I got the bricks to UK red brick hues (various of them) and the  sky to the blue end of Azure and darker - but not close to the 'official' samples. I have no idea what that means in terms of whether the 'official' jpg is accurate or the LZ version is closer to the reality. either way one has to be a long way wrong.

 

Against that test file your latest profile (as seen on my screen)  has much the same shades of colours as the first one but the whole image is lighter by quite a bit.

 

Against the "Davebox" sample colour charts the numbers get quite close one I move the exposure slider down about 1/3 stop. It seems to give quite good tonal response detail in the dark areas although possibly a tad lacking in deep black at the darkest points.

 

Against your original Xrite colour target shot is also looks quite bright but dropping the exposure about 2/3 of a stop brings it somewhere in the ballpark for the numbers Doug suggests and makes it look very similar (at preview resolution) to the earleir profile.

 

BTW, are the tiles in the background something like a "mustard" yellow or a kind of terracotta/salmon pink/brown sort of colour? Or neither of those?

 

More later if I get a chance to do some digging.

 

 

Grant

ETA.

 

I added this reply somwhat later than my short response earlier but this now seems to be indented from your post and placed above my earlier response. Also the post numbers seem to have swapped. Very confusing for me. Completely puzzling for anyone else I would imagine. Especially the potential for post number changes should people be referencing the thread by post number.

SFA
Hi Jonathan,

Hi Jonathan,

 

I've been otherwise occupied today but will try this soon.

 

Meanwhile ... playing around with my Canon G11 files .... things are getting stranger and it appears something odd is going on. I need to do some more digging before I ask questions  but I suspect that something recently introduced (DCraw related?) may not always be playing the game for some cameras.

 

This will not help when making an RTC!

 

 

 

Grant

 

 

jknights
For the first RTC I used

For the first RTC I used Daylight around middle of the day. I think if you look at the first RAF it shows an WB temp of 5750K.

The second was shot using a pair of Bowens Quad 2000 flashes in studio, WB temp shows 5260K.

I see a small colour difference between the two profiles.

I will try with my SB800 units tomorrow and see what I get.

jknights
All previous K values are

All previous K values are from LZ reporting.

Daylight 5750K

Bowens Quad 2000 flashes in studio, WB temp shows 5260K

Nikon SB800 colour temperature is 6040K according to LightZone.

 

New RTC from using Nikon SB800 flash

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/5ru8rncw91oyedl/-6vRPJ93eh

 

 

SFA
A slight tangent ...

I'm not seeing anything that looks right to me here.

 

I had a mind to see what the test RAF files look like in Capture One but as yet it does not support the X-T1 without some messing around so on a whim I thought I would try open the files in FastStone.  FastStone Viewer 4.8 opens and processes them very well as far as I can tell. That surprised me  - I was not expecting it to be able to handle such recent files.

 

There are limits to what one can check. FS does not seem to have a WB tool other than selecting Camera or Auto as a preference. And there are no readout views so that one can check values. But I thought the image looked pretty good. However it would be useful to have a second opinion. If you don't have FS it is free for non-commercial use so there are no issues about downloading it for testing. The workflow is a bit ancient but for some quick assessments it's quite a handy tool. There is also a portable version to download. No need to run an Install process and can be run from a memory stick if you don't want to put it on your disk. I use it for quick views on a netbook when travelling. Win 7 Starter and an Atom processor does not allow much else ...

 

 

Grant

 

 

jknights
I'm on Mac.  Closest software

The latest RTC is giving me the closest match to skin tones in images but I need to do a studio shoot to check this out properly.

I'm on Mac.  Closest software is PhotoMechanic and I only have an old version of that.

 

I do see some differences but until I do a full studio shoot with the XT1 then I wont be able to test with enough samples to make it worthwhile.

 

SFA
Good point about lack of

Good point about lack of FastStone on Mac.

 

I have 600+ images from a shoot today to go through - I may be a while ....   ;)

 

 

Grant

 

 

tundraquad
You're talking about

You're talking about FastStone. And what about XnView?

 

jknights
On the Mac I use Lyn browser

On the Mac I use Lyn browser as it is much like FastStone on Windows.
However Lyn is a paid for application but it is only $19.

Thanks, I'll take a look at XnView as it is multiplatform.

 

jknights
In beta9 this issue is

In beta9 this issue is resolved. 

 

Thanks and well done.

:-)