Topic: Profile mismatch in Flexcolor? (Read 28373 times)

blainesiesser · « **Reply #40 on:** June 16, 2011, 11:07:56 am »

I have duplicated the problem on 4 different computers mac and pc.

Creating a whole new profile is an interesting idea...

Hasselblad support won't return my calls or emails as well which is kind of annoying. Its true their customer support is terrible.

In FLEXCOLOR:

I output in sRGB.

My Flexcolor ICM:
Input: Flextight Input
RGB: sRGB
I choose both the boxes imbed profile and convert.

In PHOTOSHOP:
My working space is sRGB and I'm not proofing any colors.
My conversion engine is Adobe ACE.

I've tried 3 different computers 2 with gretag macbeth eye monitor calibration installed and two without to make sure that wasn't confusing things. All three show slightly warmer images in once opened in photoshop.

I'm viewing on an EIZO monitor.

drcahmss · « **Reply #41 on:** June 16, 2011, 12:08:06 pm »

I have to give Hasselblad the credit, as they have worked closely with me on this one for over a year now, but have sadly not been able to offer a solution.

In Flexcolor

I output to Adobe RGB (1998)

My flexcolor ICM
Input Flextight X5,949
RGB Adobe RGB(1998)
CMYK Hasselblad 330SKEL30K75
Grey Def Hasselblad Grey

In photoshop

My working space is Adobe RGB(1998) and I'm not proofing any colours.
My conversion engine is Adobe ACE

I'm viewing on an EIZO monitor.

drcahmss · « **Reply #42 on:** June 17, 2011, 05:39:35 am »

I should say that I also choose both the boxes imbed profile and convert.
I have tried 3 different PC's and 2 Apple Mac's and the problem is exhibited on all of them.

Strangely if I scan as 3F and then use Flexcolor to process the file to a tiff, using the same ICM criteria, then the processed tiff matches the preview in Flexcolor. But it is a very roundabout way to achieve a correct tiff file. This very high end scanner should be capable of producing correct results by just scanning as tiff!

Hasselblad do need to get to grips with this problem!

blainesiesser · « **Reply #43 on:** June 17, 2011, 09:31:29 am »

Wow that is good to know about 3f. At least there is a semi solution. I was just beginning to experiment with that last week but ran out of time. Did hasselblad ever admit there is a problem. How did you get ahold of them support@hasselbladusa.com?

It looks like I use almost identical settings to you. Its interesting sometimes If I scan with my gretag macbeth monitor profile as either my input or output it seems to be even slightly closer to matching. Say a 97% match whereas its usually its a 90-95% match. I don't like making the changes in photoshop either because I really feel like the flextight has a way of interpreting the film that is unique compared to other scanners i've used and I want it to look just like I see it. Adjusting in photoshop takes me to 99% but like you said it shouldn't be hard to just have it work right...

stefohl · « **Reply #44 on:** June 19, 2011, 06:08:52 am »

Best way to solve this problem is to deselect both embed profile and convert. When you open the image in Photoshop you should use the correct scanner profile (Flexcolor input for scans of negative film, Flexcolor X5 & 949 if you scan slides) and then convert to working space. The results should be the same if you choose to do the conversion in Flexcolor, but I get a better result this way and the colours on my monitor is the same in both applications.

drcahmss · « **Reply #45 on:** June 27, 2011, 09:18:42 am »

I have tried converting colour the way stefohl suggests, but the colour is exactly the same as choosing embed profile and convert in flexcolor.
i.e. when opened in photosop the result is still warmer than what is displayed by the flexcolor preview.

stefohl · « **Reply #46 on:** June 27, 2011, 03:53:49 pm »

Quote from: drcahmss on June 27, 2011, 09:18:42 am

I have tried converting colour the way stefohl suggests, but the colour is exactly the same as choosing embed profile and convert in flexcolor.
i.e. when opened in photosop the result is still warmer than what is displayed by the flexcolor preview.

Do you know if your monitor profile is a version 2 or version 4 profile?

drcahmss · « **Reply #47 on:** July 05, 2011, 08:51:25 am »

As far as I am aware it is a version 2 profile.

drcahmss · « **Reply #48 on:** July 20, 2011, 03:47:08 pm »

Any more suggestions, anyone!
There must be an answer to this.

jc1 · « **Reply #49 on:** July 20, 2011, 08:27:07 pm »

Just curious. When you output from Flexcolor with Adobe RGB profile, are you given option for rendering intent - Absolute or Relative?

If such option is unavailable, or it may be default to Absolute, how about try to output with ProPhoto?

drcahmss · « **Reply #50 on:** July 22, 2011, 04:43:44 am »

Many thanks for your reply jc1 I will give it a try.
Do you mean to output as prophotoRGB from Flexcolor and then convert to Adobe RGB in photoshop, as we use Adobe RGB 1998 as our standard colour space.

drcahmss · « **Reply #51 on:** August 10, 2011, 04:46:05 am »

I have just tried the prophoto profile ( converting to Adobe RGB and not converting ). I have found absolutely no difference between either result. The image still appears warmer in photoshop than in the Flexcolor Preview.
Help! anyone any other suggestions?

drcahmss · « **Reply #52 on:** September 22, 2011, 08:45:20 am »

Just thought I would refresh this thread to see if anyone has had any bright ideas about the problem!

delfalex · « **Reply #53 on:** October 03, 2011, 02:39:43 pm »

Just a thought but: When asked about a similar issue with Phocus - how does one control the output space colour conversion Perceptual, Relative or Absolute; Hasselblad said

'[It] is not possible at the moment. The conversion is done via the operating system's color engine'. (And because I'm using Windows) ..' it will be the Microsoft ICM that is used'.

So maybe if you want to mimic Flexcolor's conversions in P'shop change the colour engine it uses for rendering.

At least with Flexcolor - camera, you can strip a calibration image's output profile, create a custom profile and therefore have a a less messy set of output conversions. With Phocus we are limited to having to always output with some kind of a profile pre-shaping it.

Ps if you are looking at Pro Photo RGB for a working space you might find Pro Star RGB slightly better - (it works like Pro Photo but is following L* lab linear curve rather than the 1.8gamma, so will translate better when outputted into other media - Web / Inkjet / Litho.

Alex

jc1 · « **Reply #54 on:** October 03, 2011, 10:59:51 pm »

Here's my suggestion to find out where could be the source of the problem.

Obtain these files from Flexcolor station.
(a) scanner raw image in tiff (scanner raw: RGB data in tiff before profile being assigned)
(b) converted image with Adobe RGB in tiff, from Flexcolor.
(c) scanner profile for (a)

Test to be conducted with CS5
(1) Import the scanner raw image (a) into CS5, assigned with scanner profile (c), converted to Adobe RGB
Do it for both Adobe ACE (with RelCOl) and Microsoft ICM (with RelCol and AbsCol).
(2) Import the tiff image with Adobe RGB (b) into CS5

Questions
(i) Compare images, are (1) and (2) same?
(ii) If they are not the same, is the neutral in (1) correct or still too warm? Which is closer to the "preview" in Flexcolor?
(iii) Is (c) a the custom profile, scanner generic profile, or a dedicated profile (for the negative) that comes along with Flexcolor?

Alternatively, if the files can be made available for investigation,
drop (a), (b) and (c) here. < CLICK >
Do not drop (a) and (b) together if huge files are expected.

jc

drcahmss · « **Reply #55 on:** October 04, 2011, 03:51:09 am »

Many thanks for both your suggestions delfalex and jc1. I will work my way through both of your experiments ASAP.
I will try to upload some results to you jc1 as soon as i can.
Again many thanks.

drcahmss · « **Reply #56 on:** December 21, 2011, 08:50:55 am »

Re post by Jc1.
Images (1) and (2) are the same. But the preview in Flexcolor before scanning was cooler than the files that were produced.
It is the difference between what is shown in the preview against what is actually achieved in the final scan, that is the problem.
As delfalex suggested I have tried using the Microsoft ICM but with no difference.

Anyone any other suggestions?

blainesiesser · « **Reply #57 on:** January 09, 2012, 08:07:07 pm »

I wonder if this is just a common issue. It seems completely ridicilous that it would be but maybe all machines are like this and we are particularly sensitive.
Have you had a chance to try another machine? Or only done test on yours?

blainesiesser · « **Reply #58 on:** January 09, 2012, 09:39:36 pm »

Just Like you if I create a 3f File, I'm able to get 99.9% color accurate scans from what my preview shows.

drcahmss · « **Reply #59 on:** January 10, 2012, 03:51:55 am »

Using the 3f route is a much longer and more complicated process when we are trying to scan as many as possible and as quickly as possible!
Did you ever get any joy from Hasselblad about this problem, from the email address I gave you?

Author Topic: Profile mismatch in Flexcolor? (Read 28373 times)