Assumptions
From your question, I assume you already have an algorithm that does produce the transformation you want, but you have to play with the parameters manually.
Proposed solution
First, convert the images to grayscale (this is mainly for convenience). You might play around a bit with the channels of your images - do you need all channels, or do some only contribute noise? Is it a good idea to have a certain channel overrepresented, e.g. the red one because there is least distracting information in it, and so on.
Secondly, check if you can find threshold on the values that drops most parts of the noise and leaves you mainly with desired information. In the image you posted, there is this kind of rainbow band... I assume this is something unwanted and you could get rid of it in this step.
Define an objective function to minimize, e.g.
$\sum\limits_{(x,y)}(I_\textrm{ref}(x,y) - T(I(x,y),\vec{\zeta}))^2$.
Here, $I_\textrm{ref}(x,y)$ is your reference image, and $I(x,y)$ is the image to be transformed to match the reference as closely as possible. $T(I(x,y),\vec{\zeta})$ is your image correction transformation applied to the image $I(x,y)$, and its (eight you say) parameters are summarized in the vector $\vec{\zeta}$.
Now, take an optimization algorithm of your choice. Probably it is best to take one that does not depend on the derivative of your objective function, or one that automatically estimates the derivative numerically. An very well-studied algorithm of the first kind is the Downhill-Simplex-algorithm (or also called Nelder-Mead-algorithm, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelder%E2%80%93Mead_method). Give your objective function to it and let it play with the parameters $\vec{\zeta}$ until it finds an optimum (i.e. a minimum).
Depending on how your transformation handles edges, it might be necessary to modify the objective function a bit, so that it does not sum over all pixels $(x,y)$, but only over the central part of your image.
Also, if you would like the letters to match as well as possible, it might be an idea to invert your images, so that the background is mainly black (i.e. zero). In theory, this should not make a difference, but it might in practice due to numerical reasons.
Further improvement
If you do have slight differences in the illumination in your images, you could use Mutual Information as a cost function. This is very often done in medical imaging, when registering two images with different contrasts.
I hope that helps.