[Digikam-users] problems with ICC profiles

[Duncan Hill]

Daniel Bauer wrote:

> 1) photo as the canon-program on Win98 made it without any corrections (then 
> http://www.daniel-bauer.com/test/6057_09_canon.jpg
> 
> 2) same picture in 0.9.0 svn with setting as shown by you (resized and saved 
> http://www.daniel-bauer.com/test/6057_009_editor.jpg
> 
> 3) same, then with "automatic color correction" by digikam:
> http://www.daniel-bauer.com/test/6057_009_automatic.jpg

To me...

1 looks overblown - the detail of the white duvet is missing.  Could 
argue that the model is the focus, not the duvet.

2 is much less overblown, 3 is slightly more overblown than 2, but less 
than 1.  3 has a green tint (based on the paneling and her armpit), 2 
has a bit of it, but not as bad.

The flesh tones in 1 are probably more accurate (having never met the 
model, I can't say for sure).

I'd be curious to see what RawShooter essentials (Windows, don't know if 
it runs on 98) makes of the shot.

But yes, I'd pick 1 as the usable one right now - while it appears 
overblown, the colour balance is better.  With 2 and 3, the eyes appear 
sunken and brooding.