OK, I've "fixed" the thing.
It's all related to OS/GNOME default color profiles. GNOME contains a
GUI utility available under Settings - Color. Inside this utility just
select your output screen, add Standard space - sRGB profile and
enable it. Restart your apps (Firefox, DT, GNOME image viewers, etc.)
and you are done.
The only down-side is darktable-cmstest starts nagging after you set
sRGB profile:
darktable-cmstest version 2.4.3
this executable was built with colord support enabled
darktable itself was built with colord support enabled
primary CRTC is at CRTC 0
CRTC for screen 0 CRTC 1 has no mode or no output, skipping
CRTC for screen 0 CRTC 2 has no mode or no output, skipping
LVDS-1 the X atom and colord returned different profiles
X atom: _ICC_PROFILE (15400 bytes)
description: sRGB
colord:
"/home/<username>/.local/share/icc/edid-1be6e0958dcbf558460fe50a8d95abc6.icc"
description: ThinkPad T430
Better check your system setup
- some monitors reported different profiles
You may experience inconsistent color rendition between color managed
applications
2018-05-15 21:37 GMT+02:00 Yuri <[email protected]>:
> You are right Anton, the embeded image "inside" a RAW is generated by
> camera's internal JPEG(?) engine. Thus any closed-source magic affects
> the embeded image looks. That is OK, since it is generated there just
> to have some kind of a fast thumbnail/preview.
>
> However, my problem is related to the difference between DT's
> 'darkroom' rendering (repsesented decoded RAW data) and somehow weird
> color profile in *exported* JPEGs.
>
> So far it seems there are only KDE/Plasma users. I use GNOME env, so
> this might be relevant to the way the ICC/profiles are handled. I've
> found an old thread with the same issue as I have. It seems the guy
> also used GNOME:
> http://darktable-users.narkive.com/bcTCeaYG/exported-jpegs-always-darker-and-more-satuated.
>
> 2018-05-15 21:15 GMT+02:00 Anton Aylward <[email protected]>:
>> On 15/05/18 01:57 AM, Yuri wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>> it's really frustrating but I can't get any usable export to JPEG.
>>>
>>> I got Sony RAWs shot in sRGB, I wanna simply convert them straight to JPEG.
>>> No
>>> module tweaking, etc. So I check the image in the 'darkroom' mode - colors
>>> and
>>> saturation are perfect there.
>>
>> I don't know if it's relevant but ...
>>
>> When I view an unprocessed RAW film roll in my file browser it is different
>> from
>> the colours/saturation etc I see when I open with DT. If I simply export to
>> JPG
>> and again view, side by side, in my file browser or Firefox doing a file
>> viewer
>> even Gwenview, then what I see is, again different.
>>
>> Upon investigation I found that what was actually being displayed for the RAW
>> was embedded JPG. I gather that this is the screen image I saw on the 3"
>> display on the back of my DSLR.
>>
>> If I use one of the exif tools to remove the embedded image and thumbnail
>> from
>> the RAW not only is the RAW file a lot smaller but my file mode browser can
>> no
>> longer display an image for the RAW.
>>
>> Other tools that CAN import the RAW can render it.
>>
>> Do remember, however, that the RAW captures what the lens projects onto the
>> pixels and is unprocessed; no adjustments of any kind. What you see in the
>> viewfinder and what that embedded JPG shows is what your camera settings are
>> set
>> up for.
>>
>> That a un-adjusted DT export to JPG of the RAW is different from the embedded
>> JPG does not surprise me at all.
>>
>> --
>> Most of what we call management consists of making it difficult for people to
>> get their work done.
>> --Peter F. Drucker
>> ____________________________________________________________________________
>> darktable user mailing list
>> to unsubscribe send a mail to [email protected]
>>
____________________________________________________________________________
darktable user mailing list
to unsubscribe send a mail to [email protected]
