How to get more accurate colors in DT for Sony (Capture One Vs Darktable)?

Hi @priort ! What do you mean with auto curve? could you please share your sidecar file?
Thanks! :slight_smile:

I am talking about Capture One…the default curve is called auto. That is what I used…there are about 5 others including linear… the second curve was the third option… and the final image was basically the first one but C1 had an “Auto” correct feature like basic photo apps… So i applied that … So those are the 3 images… Sorry I don’t have access to C1 at the moment to post a screen shot but its pretty obvious… The various ins and outs are explained here… in case this is what you are asking?? Take Full Control of the Tone Mapping by Using a Linear Film Curve - Photo Editing Tutorials, Tips & Tricks - Capture One Blog

Sorry, I completely misunderstood your message!

Anyway, I’ve tried to use the C1 input profile in darktable but I don’t get good results. I think the reason is that the unbreak input profile module has a non linear output and that invalidates somehow the rest of the pipeline, so that I get clipped highlights very fast.

Does somebody know if there is a proper way to use a 3dr party input profile in darktable? Maybe using the tone equalizer module right after the input color profile module instead of the unbreak input profile? I will try it out later…

In Capture one there are 2 curves applied please see this link How to create Capture One profile

See my edits it is very close to the Capture One default as shown by Todd Prior

1 Like

I have the same problem. Would be glad to read an explanation why this happens :slight_smile:

That’s what i said earlier.
Also, the profile is meant to fix extreme highlights by bringing them to white , while dt tried to preserve colors as long as possible .

Also, these profiles have a curve in them, or they expect a certain curve to be applied first. The 'unbreak profile ’ module is meant to give you something to toy with to get the profile more usable .

But it’s never going to be 100% usable , since the profile and the C1 pipeline go hand in hand , and its always going to be a struggle in every other raw software out there .

The same for Adobe dcp files . See the amount of toggles in rawtherapee , sometimes you really need to play with it to get to use them .

The DT profile works fine in DT, and with the quick and easy calibration tools in the 'color calibration ’ module I’m more than happy .

1 Like

They are meant for capture one…Sure with a bunch of tweaking you might get something but the absolute easiest way is to just use the tools in DT. Use the profile there and fhen use the color calibration color checker feature to make an adjustment preset.

This should give you nice colors. Some ICC are valid over a reasonable range of lighting but many are not. Using an ICC blindly is just as much a penalty to the "scene referred workflow as many of the other things people worry about…

1 Like

I don’t understand this. Unless the profile itself is clipping somehow, there are no clipped highlights in the unbounded, scene-referred workflow.

If you use the base curve as your tone mapper, or you use LUTs, you’ll have to make sure you get their input into the 0…1 range (using an instance of exposure or tone equalizer, for example).

Excellent idea, man. I have already started reading the darktable manual to deepen my knowledge about the tool.


1 Like

Just a side note on this one and as a comment on your exploration…there can be a significant difference if you use the legacy vs default module order when using the basecure… so using your C1 icc and unbreak and the neutral base curve creates a decent base image if the legacy order is used but in the new default its quite a bit darker…on the other hand that is a better place for the curve to be and so may preserve the highlights better and so perhaps that route with some exposure added might work depending on your taste…not sure how that would compare to what you get as you see it in C1 but its worth trying both approaches or at least noting what module order is used when making any comments or comparisions…


I think the problem was that I was setting the parameters of the unbreak input profile not properly, so that I got following scopes diagram:


And then I increased the exposure and the image was very bright and without contrast.

I found this github issue from you (@kofa) where an explanation from AP is linked. I get now good results using a C1 color profile + unbreak input profile.

The links are:

Interestinly enough there says that the unbreak color profile was the predecesor of filmic rgb :astonished:

Thanks @kofa !

This… It pushes extreme highlights to the exact se white , effectively clipping them .

I have a feeling C1 applies the icc somewhat at the end of the chain , even after te curve and all other edits.

In DT you can’t drag ‘input profile’ to be above all others as far as i know .

More importantly , you can work with getting everything between 0 and 1 and even then reduce highlights more to get them to render nicely with the C1 icc… but the whole idea of ‘getting the C1 look easy’ is then out of the window , since you are more fighting to get the weird icc to produce something nice then you are editing your images.

At least the reason I stopped using them. The first reaction was 'oh this is nice ’ on some photos . But it quickly turned into 'this is a hassle '.

I tested my new “C1 ICC profile workflow :sweat_smile:” on several images and I find it pretty easy.

  • Set C1 ICC profile
  • Adjust exposure and black level correction so that you do not get big clipped areas.
  • Adjust unbreak input profile parameters (the functionality here is equivalent to the filmic rgb and from now on, the pipeline is display referred)
  • Adjust color balance rgb.
  • Maybe apply filmic rgb to get some small clipped areas into the range [0,1]
  • Local contrast.

At the end is pretty much the same effort as using the scene referred workflow but maybe I think with the disadvantage that you are practically working with display referred workflow.

Personally I like the results a lot by now and I find it easier to control and fit the dynamic range within [0,1]. I also do not get the color shifts at extreme luminances that filmic rgb v6 was giving (remember this: Comparing filmic color science v5/v6)

I doubt that. filmic rgb is not only a logarithmic tone mapper. However, if that workflow suits you, great. Except that you’re probably violating the On1 licence by using parts of their software (the profile, which is also their product) without purchasing the software.

I wanted to say maybe “similar”, not “equivalent”. But if any doubt you are always right @kofa

I own two versions of C1

1 Like

Sorry. I didn’t follow the thread very closely, and I saw someone mentioning a trial version, thought it was you. I’ll shut up now.

That is no problem at all!

No please, then I won’t learn anything! :sweat_smile:

My first attempt turned out to be somewhere between the C1 “High Contrast” and “Auto Correct” versions that @priort posted.

For my final attempt, I went for the “Auto Correct” look. Side-by-side in the digiKam light table, there’s almost no difference. I’d say I’m 90-95% there. With some further tweaking in color balance rgb, I could probably get it to something like 98%. C1 is still more contrasty, in particular.

I used the following modules:

  • Highlight reconstruction - Color
  • Denoise (profiled)
  • Lens correction
  • Color calibration - Color temp/white balance
  • Color balance rgb - Started with vibrant colors, then added mostly chroma
  • Filmic - Only white relative exposure and a bit of contrast
  • Local contrast - Boosted midtones

Side-by-side. C1 on the left, my edit on the right:

My edit:

2021-11-27 MARAGOGI-077.ARW.xmp (7.2 KB)

Todd’s C1 auto correct, for comparison:


It was me…just grabbed the trial version to make the jpg exports to get a sense of what this look was the was the preferred look referred to as more accurate…

Turns out that much of this is due to the default HLR module which is not compatible with the modern WB settings and this is now magnified a bit by the new filmic v6 which does not desaturate as much… I would go so far as to say if you use filmic v6 and modern WB then you should not use any of the first 3 HLR modes… Laplachian can be added but generally the new modes recently added or the HLR in filmic will avoid these artifacts esp I think the bluish ones…

On or about the 26th min AP explains that the HLR modes esp the default one are not compatible with modern WB using CC… 2nd video here

and demonstrated in my follow-up and other parts of the thread…