XnView Software

XnViewMP 0.64

I couldn't find the ability to adjust color temperature in XnViewMP.
But it is available in "Tool/Batch Convert" as an action.
Is the a possibility to add this any time soon to "Image/Adjust"?

Ciao
toralf

+1 - support this.

Hello,
Have you tried into Setting\General\ICC\ ... Default Profile of picture ... Other/your custom Icc file + Use ICC profile for monitor ?

PS: ... available in "Tool/Batch Convert" action: "ICC Convert" "Input (*)" ... is only a color filter (doest not embed an Icc profile into the .jpg file) ... (not yet )
... And I do not know what "Output (*)" does exactly ??? so Pierre ?

...Is the a possibility to add this any time soon to "Image/Adjust"?

... As a "color adjust filter only to file", to "embed an new icc profile", or just to "show the effect on the screen (temporary in memory only)" ?

oops66 wrote:Hello,
Have you tried into Setting\General\ICC\ ... Default Profile of picture ... Other/your custom Icc file + Use ICC profile for monitor ?

PS: ... available in "Tool/Batch Convert" action: "ICC Convert" "Input (*)" ... is only a color filter (doest not embed an Icc profile into the .jpg file) ... (not yet )
... And I do not know what "Output (*)" does exactly ??? so Pierre ?

...Is the a possibility to add this any time soon to "Image/Adjust"?

... As a "color adjust filter only to file", to "embed an new icc profile", or just to "show the effect on the screen (temporary in memory only)" ?

IMHO he doesn't look after a setting like ICC - not the monitor is the problem, but the files. Think that one or more files has/have a wrong White Balance and/or another one (or more) photo(s) was shoot with Automatic WB and he wants to give it a warmer/cooler tone.

m.Th. wrote:IMHO he doesn't look after a setting like ICC - not the monitor is the problem, but the files. Think that one or more files has/have a wrong White Balance and/or another one (or more) photo(s) was shoot with Automatic WB and he wants to give it a warmer/cooler tone.

You are 100% correct.
I want to correct Automatic WB.

m.Th. wrote:...IMHO he doesn't look after a setting like ICC - not the monitor is the problem, but the files. Think that one or more files has/have a wrong White Balance and/or another one (or more) photo(s) was shoot with Automatic WB and he wants to give it a warmer/cooler tone.

... Yes, I suspected that too ... but it is also possible (as a workaround) to embed a custom ICC profile to these "wrong" images files only ... and, do not forget than: transform (correct Automatic WB) a file corrupts the original file
... so maybe the request can also be to have an automatic White balance option without to corrupt the files (then a transformation in memory only) ?

oops66 wrote:

m.Th. wrote:...IMHO he doesn't look after a setting like ICC - not the monitor is the problem, but the files. Think that one or more files has/have a wrong White Balance and/or another one (or more) photo(s) was shoot with Automatic WB and he wants to give it a warmer/cooler tone.

... Yes, I suspected that too ... but it is also possible (as a workaround) to embed a custom ICC profile to these "wrong" images files only ... and, do not forget than: transform (correct Automatic WB) a file corrupts the original file
... so maybe the request can also be to have an automatic White balance option without to corrupt the files (then a transformation in memory only) ?

Usually these things are done by using a non-destructive editing engine like in Lightroom or in other similar programs - basically is a list of settings stored in a sidecar which are applied each time when the image is loaded.

m.Th. wrote:...Usually these things are done by using a non-destructive editing engine like in Lightroom or in other similar programs - basically is a list of settings stored in a sidecar which are applied each time when the image is loaded.

... Thank for the information m.TH ... I like this approach (a non-destructive editing engine), but into the DB (better than sidecar files for me), ... I didn't know that.

oops66 wrote:

m.Th. wrote:...Usually these things are done by using a non-destructive editing engine like in Lightroom or in other similar programs - basically is a list of settings stored in a sidecar which are applied each time when the image is loaded.

... Thank for the information m.TH ... I like this approach (a non-destructive editing engine), but into the DB (better than sidecar files for me), ... I didn't know that.

Sorry but having the editing info in DB will greatly slowdown it. We need to have DB as fast as possible. Any other non-searcheable info must be kept outside.

I can understand the wish to not change the original file.
In my case I want to modify the file.
Because I would like to be able to access the file from other devises and see the optimized image. Thus, I need to change the original file.

toralf wrote:I can understand the wish to not change the original file.
In my case I want to modify the file.
Because I would like to be able to access the file from other devises and see the optimized image. Thus, I need to change the original file.

... So it's a simple "filter adjust color" request then ...

@M.th
... Basically, working into DB is always faster than working on files (sidecar files still files) ... it's the main goal of a DB, non ?

oops66 wrote:

toralf wrote:I can understand the wish to not change the original file.
In my case I want to modify the file.
Because I would like to be able to access the file from other devises and see the optimized image. Thus, I need to change the original file.

... So it's a simple "filter adjust color" request then ...

@M.th
... Basically, working into DB is always faster than working on files (sidecar files still files) ... it's the main goal of a DB, non ?

Oui & Non.

...because in DB (which is a single file) we have all our collection (10,000 - 100,000 - 1,000,000 files). For all these photos we have a bunch of data already. Adding all the transformations (Brightness=+5, Contrast=-2, Unsharp_Mask=2,-4,3 etc.) in the DB fore each one/many from these of 1,000,000 files will make a huge 1000 pound gorilla which will be sloooow to search because the search & retreival engine of the DB will need to crawl between all this data in order to find it. Yes, I know - there are indexes - but still the performance will be impacted by the big number of pages which will be blindly cached in RAM.

Having separate sidecars (which is the standard) means that just one small sidecar will be loaded/cached. Even if the loading time could be faster in DB, the search time will be way slower than from disk.

@M.Th
Yes but ... (or) oui mais ...
... Yes, but but for only few files to adjust (color adjust, Automatic WB, etc) , for a non-destructive editing engine... we can have a separate data base (instead sidecar files) ... sidecar files, for me, mess up the visibility of the directories (for the human read, and even few)...

Back to the original request...

Think that one or more files has/have a wrong White Balance and/or another one (or more) photo(s) was shoot with Automatic WB and he wants to give it a warmer/cooler tone.

This is a frequent issue with digital cameras: For whatever reason the processor selects an inappropriate WB for some pictures in a serie - or for all. So the need for a feature to apply a definite correction to restore the natural colours as much as possible. This means:
1) Invalidate the WB applied by the camera (based on WB value in EXIF data) - could be different templates depending on make/model
2) Apply a new template, either auto-selected from the picture content (is it possible?) - or manually selected by the user

Note: Some users may appreciate to have non-destructive editing but this is probably not limited to WB correction. This need to be discussed in a specific topic. For the time being, XnView MP allows to keep originals safe non-corrupted and save the modified file with another name / location.