Hi. I've attached three low res scans from some film material, made with SilverFast... each of them was created with different color profiles. sRGB ECI RGB v2 ICC4 ROMM RGB (also ICC v4) When I display these files with e.g. imagemagick or Eye of GNOME, then all three look basically like the same (i.e. same colours) (but not with GIMP, it seems to have the same problem: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=727038). But when I view it in digikm, then the colors look all different, just as when I open them with some dumb default Windows viewer (as said, made with SilverFast) which has no clue about color management. Any ideas? Cheers, Chris. Reproducible: Always
Created attachment 85742 [details] ECI v2 ICC v4
Created attachment 85743 [details] ROMM RGB (ICC v4)
Created attachment 85744 [details] sRGB (i think ICC v2)
Can you share tiff file also using web file service please. Gilles Caulier
What exactly do you mean? The same files that I've attached already? To e.g. Flickr?
Gilles: these files have names that sound as if they were color profiles but they are TIFFs
Created attachment 85795 [details] screenshot of thumbnails Christoph: Attached are the photos as they look on my computer. ECI and sRGB look almost the same, ROMM is slightly lighter. Which one is wrong?
ECI/sRGB look generally very similar (I mean when the profile is "ignored") and ROMM looks much lighter, since, AFAIU, it was made for being used with a gamma for 1,8. When I open the three images with e.g. eog or imagemagick,... they look all the way as digikam/gimp displays the srgb version on my computer... which is probably due to the fact that my ColorHUG is somehow broken and I run with sRGB right now... So I guess that just confirms my point, that e.g. eog/imagemagick render correctly, while e.g. gimp/digikam render something wrong. I made some other scans of school pictures, where one sees the effect even better... in eog/imagemagic all three version ECI/ROMM/sRGB look really identically... while in digikam/gimp, the ECI/sRGB look similar... but ROMM RGB looks just weird... all colours far too staurated, etc.
Yeah... well... maybe I have to take everything back O:-) Uhm I found out in the meantime, that imagemagick's display seem to not support color profiles at all (except, showing their names)... and eog seems to only support them for JPEG, but not for TIFF. This eventually tricked me to believe that digikam/gimp were wrong, but maybe/I guess they're not. Now I've created a new set of scan's with silverfast: http://christoph.anton.mitterer.name/tmp/public/1e7337c4-b9a1-11e3-9385-502690aa641f/c/ The readme tells which file is scanned with which parameters... Something strange happens now: The files that I've scanned with the Epson scanner profile,... => look all the same in programs that DO (I guess) support color profiles (like digikam) => look way different in programs that DON'T support color profiles The files that I've scanned with NO scanner profile,... => look all the same in programs that DON'T (I guess) support color profiles => look way different in programs that DO support color profiles Okay I don't understand that behaviour... but at least it seems digikam is right. Also, looking at these test images: http://www.color.org/version4html.xalter seems to show, that color support in digikam is working (and I've converted them to TIFF as well, and there it works too). Please confirm that behaviour and then we can close the bug as invalid I guess. Cheers, Chris.
I can confirm this behavior using your image collection. I use also CM here... Gilles Caulier