Skip to main content

⚠️ Please note that this topic or post has been archived. The information contained here may no longer be accurate or up-to-date. ⚠️

Exported files in jpeg doesn't match the edited preview

NNN635588836142985839
I am using the latest version of capture one, and recently I see that the white balance of the exported files in jpeg does not match the preview I see in the capture one window.
My raw files are DNG format, I am exporting in sRGB color profile with the proof profile set same as the export to sRGB.
It seems that some adjustments done to the white balance are getting lost during the exporting process.

Does anyone have idea what I am missing here?
0

Comments

17 comments

Date Votes
  • Paul Steunebrink
    Are the DNG raw files native DNG files or converted?
    0
  • Karl N
    I export Embed Camera profile, and I have similar problem, MEF to JPG miniatures look desaturated, definately not the same as full-size files.
    0
  • Ian Wilson
    Moderator
    Top Commenter
    [quote="KarolNoe" wrote:
    I export Embed Camera profile, and I have similar problem, MEF to JPG miniatures look desaturated, definately not the same as full-size files.

    Why do you use the embed camera profile option? Do you get better colours if you use, for instance, sRGB?

    Ian
    0
  • NNN635588836142985839
    I have contacted the CO support, and despite their willing to help me in this issue, I still don't have consistent results.
    My scenario is this:
    Export ICC profile set to sRGB, exported as jpeg full, Proof Profile (from View menu tab) set to "Selected recipe (default)". I view the exported files in Picasa and Windows viewer both looks the same, so is not a Picasa related problem.
    Now I have sometimes similar results, sometimes the white balance adjustments get lost.
    Still could not find what is wrong here.
    It's really annoying when always have to double check if the output will still match close enough with the CO preview.
    I never have this problem in LR or DxO Pro. ☹️
    0
  • SFA
    I'm afraid that link is never going to work.

    You need to host the image on the internet somewhere and then provide a link in the post.

    When you use the term "Export" are you using the Export function or the Process function?

    If "Export" are you exporting the Original or the Variant?



    Grant
    0
  • NNN635588836142985839
    Hi Grant,
    Thank you for attention at first.
    I use Process for exporting the pictures as jpeg.
    I have tried Export also, so for exporting the Original, the output can be only DNG, if I choose Variants and set the settings same as in Process, the exported picture comes out same as in Process way, so either way the problem is there.
    Strangely, as I also asked the support, I got from them a side by side screenshots CO&Adobe PS CC 2015 where the both pictures looks the same. I have replicated here but with no success, the picture look in PS match the Picasa view so the problem I guess there are some wrong settings in CO but I cannot figure out which.
    Please let me know which website I can use, so I can upload some screenshots here.

    Cheers Mark.
    0
  • SFA
    Mark,

    You would perhaps need to use Dropbox or one of the many similar services (Microsoft's Onedrive for example) where you can send a file (or files) and then post a link to it in the forum post. You could also use a photo sharing service like Photobucket for example however if you are not already familiar with such a concept it might be more effort than it is worth to set something up.

    However if you have had a response form support ... was that with your file or just some other example?

    Were you given an explanation of the settings that might, possibly, influence how the image looks?

    If not it might be an interesting subject to cover in one of the Capture One webinars. You might suggest that to them!




    Grant
    0
  • ChrisM
    This may or may not be related to another oddity regarding CO1 jpeg rendering in te viewer. When I view a jpeg (generated from a raw file in CO1), which has a size smaller than 600px, colors are way off, garish and over saturated. But when I view the exact same jpeg in photoshop, colors are correct. Increase the size of the jpeg, and the also in CO1 colors are right.
    What a peculiar bug (assuming this is a bug).
    Chris
    1
  • SFA
    Interesting point Chris.

    Mark, what size are the exported jpgs?


    Grant
    0
  • NNN635588836142985839
    Hi Grant,
    Here in the fast way to upload the side by side comparison CO and PS, can be seen also the CO settings for the picture, I provided the links here:


    I have tried to replicated their way by not using Picasa as viewer but PS - as they have mentioned that may be a Picasa issue.

    Here the picture I got from the support team:
    it looks good

    Still not got a solution from them, about what may be.

    Regards,
    Mark
    0
  • NNN635588836142985839
    [quote="ChrisM" wrote:
    This may or may not be related to another oddity regarding CO1 jpeg rendering in te viewer. When I view a jpeg (generated from a raw file in CO1), which has a size smaller than 600px, colors are way off, garish and over saturated. But when I view the exact same jpeg in photoshop, colors are correct. Increase the size of the jpeg, and the also in CO1 colors are right.
    What a peculiar bug (assuming this is a bug).
    Chris


    Wow, this is a thing, all the pictures were exported in full size jpeg (same size as the DNG), but now I just tried following your idea Chris, and indeed there are inconsistencies in the exported JPEG look depending on the picture size at least with ICC set to sRGB - I don't know about the other color profiles.
    My preview is set to 2560 px, if I export to JPEG within this range I get closer color to the one I see in my preview, but once I export as full JPEG ( same size as the DNG file 6000x4000) then the color comes out different as in the links I have just added before.
    Yes looks like a bug here.

    I
    0
  • SFA
    Consider what happens to the pixels when you set up an image at 6000x4000 wiht all the lovely opportunity for fine details and wonderfully graduated colour change interpretations that are possible with that number data points and then throw over half of them away making a smaller file with quite a lot of compression such as a jpg.

    Something has got to give. By quite a lot. And then there are the limits of the colour space in sRGB compared to what is likely being used during image processing (assuming your screen has a suitably wide colour gamut to show the finer subtle details in colour rendition at 100%.

    You may also look at it the other way around.

    If you edit at your default 2560px you are seeing a compressed version of the file on screen. Some subtle colour gradations may well be lost in the compression even within the colour range. Change to 100% and they may return, assuming that the screen is capable of displaying them.

    Large areas of mainly primary colours are likely to be the least changed. Colours that we see and give names to that are made up of primary colour mixes may be very different since each colour may be treated differently by compression.

    I'm not suggesting that this is an excuse for what you are seeing but it is something that can easily affect how we think about the resulting colours and any differences especially for certain images which, due to their content, might be especially susceptible to the appearance of what we think of as a colour discrepancy whilst others may not.


    Just something to bear in mind when using what can be somewhat easily mismatched technology in some circumstances.



    Grant
    0
  • ChrisM
    The issue of incorrect jpeg rendering in the CO1 viewer is totally unrelated to downsizing etc. The colors may be spot on with a jpeg 650px wide, and hopelessly oversaturated when 550px wide.
    It must be a bug
    Chris
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="ChrisM" wrote:
    The issue of incorrect jpeg rendering in the CO1 viewer is totally unrelated to downsizing etc. The colors may be spot on with a jpeg 650px wide, and hopelessly oversaturated when 550px wide.
    It must be a bug
    Chris


    Maybe but I don't think the OP has said anything about small jpgs so that would seem to be a somewhat different issue to the original discussion point of the thread. And unless I am mis-reading things the problem reported seems to be about the colour of exported jpgs viewed through other applications not matching the pre-export rendition in the C1 viewer.

    So basically no obvious connection between the two perceived problems as far as I can see.



    Grant

    ETA: As An experiment I have just exported almost 300 images at 545px wide, various content and colour mixes and none of them is garish. This is using 8.2 at the moment. I'll activate 8.3 later to see if that is any different.
    0
  • ChrisM
    It may very well be an unrelated, different bug.

    Chris
    0
  • ChrisM
    I tested this jpeg viewer behavior some more.
    My conclusions:
    any jpeg generated in whatever way in CO1, smaller than 600px, gets marked with the non-editable sign, and gets a boost in color saturation in the CO1 viewer, that is not faithful to the actual saturation of the image (as can be seen in other viewers like photoshop or can be seen when generating a jpeg larger than 600px.
    This is designed behavior I believe, because it happens on windows as well as on the mac.

    Chris
    0
  • Karl N
    [quote="Ian3" wrote:
    [quote="KarolNoe" wrote:
    I export Embed Camera profile, and I have similar problem, MEF to JPG miniatures look desaturated, definately not the same as full-size files.

    Why do you use the embed camera profile option? Do you get better colours if you use, for instance, sRGB?

    Ian

    sRGB works fine
    0

Post is closed for comments.