Tint Slider starts at 50%

[CoilM]

I don't know if it is a bug or a user error, but when I load a picture from my last photo session, the White Balance seems off. The tint on most of them is at 50%, Meaning that I really don't have much freedom in my white balance adjustement. If I use the WB tool I am able to go above 50, but I cannot use the slider.

Any idea on how I can fix that?

_DSF1445.RAF

[firstdefence]

Hi, the slider starts at '0' and overall has a scale of 100% 

-50----------0----------+50

It's the same in V1 as V2

The help file doesn't really help, it basically just says it balances the white balance but there are no tech specs, like range etc under develop persona.
https://affinity.help/photo2/English.lproj/pages/Tools/tools_raw.html 

[CoilM]

8 minutes ago, firstdefence said:

Hi, the slider starts at '0' and overall has a scale of 100% 

-50----------0----------+50

It's the same in V1 as V2

The help file doesn't really help, it basically just says it balances the white balance but there are no tech specs, like range etc under develop persona.
https://affinity.help/photo2/English.lproj/pages/Tools/tools_raw.html 

Thanks, except that if you look at the raw I am pretty sure the starting value when I open the raw should not be 50%. so it means that I cannot push my purple tint further away.

[firstdefence]

On my Mac Monterey the white balance sets at 9%

Screenshot to give a bit of visual feedback...

[Ron P.]

I see the same as @CoilM .  I even checked in V1 and it also opens with the Tint at 50%.

Does your camera have an Auto WB, and is that the setting you're using while shooting?

[CoilM]

2 minutes ago, Ron P. said:

I see the same as @CoilM .  I even checked in V1 and it also opens with the Tint at 50%.

Does your camera have an Auto WB, and is that the setting you're using while shooting?

This one was taken with a calibrated WB (by taking a picture of a neutral grey)

[NotMyFault]

Its a bug.

you get 50% (wrong) with Serif engine for RAW development, and 9% with Apple RAW engine.

On Apple devices you have the choice (Development Assistent), on Windows you are stuck with Serif engine (which often lacks behind to support newer camera models and RAW format, e.g. compressed RAW, gets white balance wrong as seen here).

[Ron P.]

I agree it's a bug. Looking at the file in Corel PSP, the Tint is more accurate.

[CoilM]

5 minutes ago, NotMyFault said:

Its a bug.

you get 50% (wrong) with Serif engine for RAW development, and 9% with Apple RAW engine.

On Apple devices you have the choice (Development Assistent), on Windows you are stuck with Serif engine (which often lacks behind to support newer camera models and RAW format, e.g. compressed RAW, gets white balance wrong as seen here).

Thanks for your answer, this is annoying...

Is there anything we can do to make it usuable? Should I post in the bug section then?

[Ron P.]

Yes post it in the Bug forum, and include a link back to this one.

Until they fix it, nothing but deal with it. It is workable, I played around with it, and it takes working both temperature and tint.

[Pšenda]

30 minutes ago, NotMyFault said:

Serif engine

As is known, Serif does not have its own engine for processing RAW files, but uses the LibRAW library.

[NotMyFault]

19 minutes ago, Pšenda said:

As is known, Serif does not have its own engine for processing RAW files, but uses the LibRAW library.

Serif cells the engine "Serif Labs" in develop assistant. It has been explained that Serif modified or extended the version, e.g. it added support for Canon CR3 files when LibRAW did not had it. So to be more precise:

The RAW Engine called "Serif Labs" in Develop Assistant is based on LibRAW, but has been modified / extended by Serif to support certain newer camera models. It is unknown to me if Serif offered these optimisations back to libRAW for usage outside Affinity apps (probably not).

I would call this a "own engine".

[Pšenda]

15 minutes ago, NotMyFault said:

I would call this a "own engine".

What something is "called" doesn't really matter in the context of this thread. The fact that I take someone else's code and just rename it to "own engine" does not mean that I have complete control over this engine, and I can modify and fix it according to my needs. For example, when adding support for OM-1, Serif refused the beta version for almost a year. 

 

 

In the context of the mentioned problem (generally poor processing of RAW files, especially on Windows), significant improvement cannot be expected if Serif does not have its own engine (even if it calls it that) and does not actively develop and improve it.

[NotMyFault]

58 minutes ago, Pšenda said:

What something is "called" doesn't really matter in the context of this thread.

Well, you started the nitpicking:

1 hour ago, Pšenda said:

As is known, Serif does not have its own engine for processing RAW files, but uses the LibRAW library.

and then, it is important in the context of this thread to explain users how to switch between engines, using the UI, and using the engine names available within that UI.

[RichardMH]

I'm running 2.0.3.1688 and its fine. Windows 11.

FWIW LibRaw has at least 11 demosaicing algorithms, 10 highlight recovery algorithms and 2 denoise algorithms. So I guess Serif chooses one from column A.....

I don't think Serif are alone in using LibRaw.

[Pšenda]

43 minutes ago, NotMyFault said:

Well, you started the nitpicking:

It was certainly not nit-picking from me (unlike your argument about the "name" of the engine), but a communication of the unpleasant "fact" that the Serif does not actually have its own engine, i.e. its complete development and know-how.

[Pšenda]

8 minutes ago, RichardMH said:

I'm running 2.0.3.1688 and its fine. Windows 11.

Windows 10, 2.0.3, same as OP.

 

 

[RichardMH]

Might be camera specific. Mine was for Sony Images.

[Pšenda]

9 minutes ago, RichardMH said:

Might be camera specific. Mine was for Sony Images.

I'm talking about the file provided by the OP.

[thomaso]

3 hours ago, NotMyFault said:

you get 50% (wrong) with Serif engine for RAW development, and 9% with Apple RAW engine.

16 minutes ago, Pšenda said:

It was certainly not nit-picking from me (unlike your argument about the "name" of the engine), but a communication of the unpleasant "fact" that the Serif does not actually have its own engine, i.e. its complete development and know-how.

It seems to be at least possible with the "Serif Labs" engine on a mac to get it opened with a different value than 50%. – Don't these WB values depend on and vary with the image, respectively its saved / read / ignored metadata?

[RichardMH]

I gather its a fujifilm image. Try the free Capture One Express for Fujifilm to convert the raw conversion.

[CoilM]

4 minutes ago, RichardMH said:

I gather its a fujifilm image. Try the free Capture One Express for Fujifilm to convert the raw conversion.

Yes it was taken with an XT-4, any idea how I would do that? (What do you mean by converting the raw conversion?)

 

[RichardMH]

oops. its late at night here. I meant do the raw conversion. I used Capture One Express for Sony to do my Sony raw conversions as its better than the Serif convertor. Send a tiff to Photo.

https://www.captureone.com/en/capture-one-express/fujifilm

[thomaso]

4 hours ago, firstdefence said:

On my Mac Monterey the white balance sets at 9%

4 hours ago, NotMyFault said:

9% with Apple RAW engine.

In Mojave + V1 the OP's image opens with 50% in both engines, Apple Raw, too:

6 hours ago, CoilM said:

from my last photo session, the White Balance seems off. The tint on most of them

The metadata (exiftool) report a "Custom" white balance … while the image appears obviously yellowish/greenish. – Can you check an image of a quite different shooting, possibly taken with a non-custom WB?

[CoilM]

12 minutes ago, RichardMH said:

oops. its late at night here. I meant do the raw conversion. I used Capture One Express for Sony to do my Sony raw conversions as its better than the Serif convertor. Send a tiff to Photo.

https://www.captureone.com/en/capture-one-express/fujifilm

Ok thanks! I'll do that while I wait for an update... Still a bit annoyed since the X-T4 is in the list of supported raw format...