a gamma shift one after a saving2jpg [SOLVED]

The software I use when viewing photos:
Fastone viewer v 7.7 (with cms support/default color profile is on).
RT v 5.10.
Adobe Photoshop v 25.7 (there I also use the monitor system profile).
Adobe camera raw.
3DLUT Creator.
windows 10 21h2. The profile was created using the argyll and colorizer i1display pro.

The display in the viewports of rt and fastone/ps ones is different.
The display in the viewports of the Adobe camera raw app and fastone/ps ones is the same.
The display in the viewports of the 3DLUT Creator app and fastone/ps is the same.
Differences in scale and shades.

I observe several points of difference.
If we compare the display of pictures in rt with the display in other programs, then in the first one I am satisfied with everything. Exactly what I was trying to achieve.
When saving the picture to jpg one, the image becomes less contrasty, and some colors become warmer in temperature (but only if you look at the windows of these different programs visually, without creating screenshots). If I take a screenshot of two windows, I won’t see the difference in shades. I will see the difference only in the contrast.
There is a nuance. This state of affairs will be true only for raw files (I’re talking about raw files of the same camera), for which if we transfer the workspace from prophoto to srgb (This is not about the output profile, but about changing one profile to another specifically for the workspace), we will see the difference within rawtherapee app itself. For the “remaining” images we will not see a difference. That is, most likely it all depends on the content in the file. There are many colorful flowers and we “sailed”.


raw one with pp3 preset https://filebin.net/ic4ygp4yw34blesv/_MG_6884.zip

Have you forgotten anything?..that’s it.

Yes. The program has a system profile.

Some of this relies on you having your Argyll profile set in Windows and Windows using it… I would specify your profile by name in every program. This way you know for sure everything is using the same profile…

That would be a start…

This… act I did)

I forgot to write it.

1 Like

Check in Faststone to see if it is doing any enhancement… It might by default be sharping a or some other small adjustments to improve the preview… this could make a difference…

If all your profiles are specified and you use color managed apps things should be fairly close between them…

To confirm are you talking about comparing the exported jpg from RT and its not matching up…

RT by default applies the automatching tone curve …could this be what you are seeing… You could use the DCP file from adobe and use that as the color profile…turn off the automatching curve and apply the look basetable and tone curve of the DCP file…would that then look more like the others…

I posted raw file with pp3 preset in the subj of first message.



I’ll check it later when I am on a PC with RT…see what I get…

I don’t have faststone on my PC anymore… I guess I could install it but using xnview…I think they are pretty close…this is the exported jpg from RT and the Raw open in the edit window…

I just loaded with RT defaults and switched to using the Adobe DCP for an input color profile… no other changes…

What is your conclusion? :slightly_smiling_face:

Your rt’ photo is darker than in xnview. Is it okay? Can you scale the examples to 1:1? Although, I am not a supporter of using profiles from Adobe if I have already decided to use rtherapy.

Okay though. It was interesting to try that opensource/gpl’ app.
The topic is closed for me personally. The product is weighed.

For those interested, there is a parallel topic on the github one: A gamma shift issue/color change after saving to jpg · Issue #7057 · Beep6581/RawTherapee · GitHub

Thank you.

Ya I don’t really see that when I put the windows side by each on the desktop and really I don’t see a clear difference even in the screen shot so I guess you just have a keener eye…

1 Like

It’s quite that it just seems to me that I see the difference. Illusion. But I see the difference. I’ve even cut out pictures from your screenshots and asked a friend to mix them up so that I don’t know which image is which. There is still a difference))

Something else surprised me. How can the profile used within the program affect the result when exported? If a program is made by sane people, then it should still (if it adequately relates to the idea of ​​the behavior of programs) convert the image (gamma and others) into srgb image. Everything we did there.
And changing the input profile so that we see a better option in the output file, as well as in the program window, is already some kind of shamanism.

I create an Adobe dcp from dng profile editor and transform that one to linear.
Because I don’t know which profile by Adobe you are talking about. Well, not about the crooked profiles, where the gamma and other aspects have already been corrected for me. Otherwise, what’s the point of using the program at all? The result is the same.

The most interesting thing is that I don’t see any topics about all this in the documentation. That before using the program I should use some kind of profile from Adobe. In reviews, few people talk about all this.

Adobe Camera raw And output to jpg. fstone viewer. No differences.

3DLUT Creator And output to jpg. fstone viewer. No differences.

I only did it as you mentioned camera raw. This would use the D70 DCP so I just did the same for RT just to remove the difference you might get from the default RT profile and automatched tonecurve… It’s not necessary to use RT to do this

Well, the difference is still huge. It shouldn’t exist at all.

I would turn off smooth in Faststone…. Also why srgb for the working profile in RT… let the output profile map it….

I suspect the gamut might be out of bounds on the display but not once you have exported and its mapped…

Just guessing as I don’t have access to any of that software at the moment….

I didn’t’ see a huge difference in my test with xnview but you did…That was the adobe standard D70 profile all options active and the RT tone curve disabled so as not to double up…

I see you are only using the matrix and base table and so must be using the tone curve on RT… the output from these varies greatly depending on the model you choose ie standard vs film vs luminance etc so rather than try to figure out what I might introduce with those options I have often just found it simpler to adopt the adobe profile esp when people are making comparisons to LR ACR etc……

I am sure someone versed in RT might comment and perhaps note what you are seeing…Often darker more contrasted can reflect a rendering intent difference but I don’t think that is the case here unless your display profile supports it

It was easy for me to try using rt over the weekend. From Tuesday to Friday there were free days, without concerts or other performances at work. Well, I only work in Adobe Bridge/ACR, although it’s not very good, the results are good.
A year ago I tried for a long time to switch to darktable. The program is without any errors, but no matter what I did, the result was Lara Croft)) For me (I emphasize) all the tools there are built in such a way that there is great interest in creating quality rather than aesthetics. . That is, at the output I received some kind of 3D picture. An ideal picture in terms of volume, entertainment and other aspects. Butter.
This is not the case with rawtherapee - everything here turns out to be very extraordinary (we are not talking about cool tools) - words cannot describe it. It’s as if everyone has their own camera, and it doesn’t matter whether it’s a point-and-shoot camera or a cool full-frame box.
But there is a problem with outputting such images in jpg format.

Regarding srgb (workspace). I also left a prophoto - the weather did not disappoint.
I also use a tone curve, and I find it more convenient than having someone think about me.

4 days have passed. It didn’t work. Then a bunch more photos. I won’t make a choice. In 4 days I was not able to solve the problem. For me, 4 days is very expensive.
It is much cheaper to get a subscription to Adobe. Time! Time is money and more.

1 Like