Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: john beardsworth on April 03, 2018, 08:59:19 am
-
Look out for Lightroom 7.3 today - I've just seen one official announcement here (https://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/lightroom-classic-7-3-is-now-available).
There's a very big change in the profiles area. Profiles have moved from the Camera Calibration tab into the Basic panel and they are much extended. New Adobe looks, new "creative" looks too, and LUTs can be included.
One great change is that the whole image is now previewed when you move the mouse over a preset or profile (there's a profile browser in Basic panel - attached).
Face Recognition has a new engine and is much, much faster and more reliable on my system, and adds the ability to rescan a folder.
They have moved Dehaze into the Basic panel, which makes sense only because using Dehaze usually screws up other adjustments set in Basic panel. So if you really must use Dehaze on the whole image, at least you can make the compensating adjustments. I'd still recommend avoiding this Dehaze slider and using it locally in the brush/radial/grad filters.
There's some good stuff in LrMobile iOS too which now has a left handed mode. I'm not one, but always wondered how left handers used the app. It also has the Upright adjustments.
John
-
It’s about time Adobe started showing some love for Lightroom. I hope they continue to improve performance as well.
-
They have been improving performance in each iteration of 7.x, though in this release it isn't centre stage (they've looked at some niche issues in that area though).
It's worth saying that I see "Love for Lightroom" as being more than ensuring it receives changes originated in the Adobe Camera Raw environment. That's an important sign, but I'm more reassured by the previous performance improvements and some of the tweaks in Library like the folder filter and now the face recognition upgrade.
John
-
As usual Julieanne has a great intro to 7.3 changes
https://youtu.be/r3aKrscoUx0
-
They have been improving performance in each iteration of 7.x, though in this release it isn't centre stage (they've looked at some niche issues in that area though).
It's worth saying that I see "Love for Lightroom" as being more than ensuring it receives changes originated in the Adobe Camera Raw environment. That's an important sign, but I'm more reassured by the previous performance improvements and some of the tweaks in Library like the folder filter and now the face recognition upgrade.
John
Well said, John. This update is very welcome and puts them in contention with Capture One, Luminar, etc.
That said, I'm waiting patiently for 7.3 to show up in my Adobe CC app so I can update. I'm hoping the new RAW can demosaic Fuji files and render decent sharpness as well as the Fuji film simulations. There's more to RAW files than just color rendition.
-
Some intriguing, welcome and interesting information about v7.3 ... but ... as I learned the hard way on four different occasions during the lifespan of Lr v6.x ... I'm going to wait for the dust to settle and give the pay-to-play beta testers the opportunity to report back before I update.
-
It’s about time Adobe started showing some love for Lightroom.
As Thomas Knoll continues to show love to ACR (the new camera profiles and 'look profiles'), it migrates to LR.
-
I'm glad to hear that Thomas is still engaged in ACR.
-
I own Lightroom 6, and updated to 6.14 back in December. Am I right in assuming that was the last stand alone update for my version, and that the new profile look will not be applied to my software, and only to CC version?
Thanks,
Mike
-
I own Lightroom 6, and updated to 6.14 back in December. Am I right in assuming that was the last stand alone update for my version, and that the new profile look will not be applied to my software, and only to CC version?
Thanks,
Mike
Correct.
-
Not there yet...
-
Does this suggest Adobe have gone back to every supported camera from the beginning and re-profiled.
If so it must have been quite a time consuming task.
-
Does this suggest Adobe have gone back to every supported camera from the beginning and re-profiled.
If so it must have been quite a time consuming task.
I doubt that. There are now three types of profiles, Adobe Raw profiles, Camera Matching Profiles, and Creative Profiles.
Adobe Color is now kind of the replacement for the older (but still available) Adobe Standard. These as in the past, only work on raw data. Creative profiles work on either raw or rendered images. You alter their effect with a dedicated slider. Such profiles can contain 3D LUTs so if you have products that can build em, you should be able to now use them in the ACR engine once there are tools to make them accessible to LR/ACR.
-
Does this suggest Adobe have gone back to every supported camera from the beginning and re-profiled.
If so it must have been quite a time consuming task.
only if you do "bespoke" manual tuning... otherwise they have enough brainpower to write a code to automate.
-
good text @ https://theblog.adobe.com/april-lightroom-adobe-camera-raw-releases-new-profiles
-
...
There's a very big change in the profiles area. Profiles have moved from the Camera Calibration tab into the Basic panel and they are much extended. New Adobe looks, new "creative" looks too, and LUTs can be included.
...
John
Any idea of how one goes about creating one's own set of looks, specifically by incorporating existing LUTs into the workflow? I took a look at some of the canned looks that are included with this update (they are XMP files) and the look table is just a huge string of characters - i.e., not human readable tables, etc.
Thanks,
kirk
-
Any idea of how one goes about creating one's own set of looks, specifically by incorporating existing LUTs into the workflow?
re LUTs, not yet. It looks like profile creation is driven by Adobe Camera Raw. From the ACR dialog Basic tab's menu, you can create a preset. This preset then shows up in LR when you re-open it. My guess is that this step will be where you will load LUTs. That's only a guess, but I expect it will be publicly documented before too long.
John
-
Any idea of how one goes about creating one's own set of looks
visually ?
how about https://3dlutcreator.com
the look table is just a huge string of characters
somebody for sure will come up with that it is and then utilities to translate from well known formats to that will be available shortly
-
visually ?
how about https://3dlutcreator.com
I use 3DLC and the most recent version of it permits a LUT made within the application to be exported as a DCP for use in LR. Which is cool, but requires the app to generate a DCP and a Curve preset to modify neutrals. If this new profile system really does permit the inclusion of LUT-based remapping, as the J. Kost videos briefly mention, then it opens up a new workflow for incorporating LUTs and LUT remapping into raw conversion.
kirk
-
re LUTs, not yet. It looks like profile creation is driven by Adobe Camera Raw. From the ACR dialog Basic tab's menu, you can create a preset. This preset then shows up in LR when you re-open it. My guess is that this step will be where you will load LUTs. That's only a guess, but I expect it will be publicly documented before too long.
John
Cool. Thanks John.
kirk
-
Any idea of how one goes about creating one's own set of looks, specifically by incorporating existing LUTs into the workflow?
With a forthcoming tool from Adobe.
-
My only concern about early adoption (ANY software) is whether a new release is truly well-proofed against any major bugs at the time it is released, so I tend to wait a while. For example, just a short time ago today Victoria Bampton released this statement in her email to her membership:
<If you're using Lightroom Classic 7.3, .......................
<I'm also hearing intermittent reports of some backups getting corrupted. It's being investigated as a matter of urgency, but for the moment, I'd recommend doing a file system copy of your Lightroom Catalog (just the *.lrcat file) while Lightroom's closed, rather than relying on Lightroom's Catalog Backup tool. It may turn out to be nothing, but better safe than sorry.>
-
then it opens up a new workflow for incorporating LUTs and LUT remapping into raw conversion.
Torger's LrPD ( http://lumariver.com/lrpd-manual/ ) also allows you to do it somewhat visually and right into DCP profile itself (regardless of the new Adobe features), albeit it is not exactly as user friendly for LUT work as 3DLC and aimed at camera profiles... so probably too much time consuming going that way...
-
With a forthcoming tool from Adobe.
I was sort of hoping they would update/remake the DNG Profile Editor - maybe this forthcoming tool?
Thanks Andrew.
kirk
-
With a forthcoming tool from Adobe.
hopefully with better further love than Adobe DNG Profile Editor... which did not get much love after some initial releases.
-
My only concern about early adoption (ANY software) is whether a new release is truly well-proofed against any major bugs at the time it is released, so I tend to wait a while. For example, just a short time ago today Victoria Bampton released this statement in her email to her membership:
<If you're using Lightroom Classic 7.3, .......................
<I'm also hearing intermittent reports of some backups getting corrupted. It's being investigated as a matter of urgency, but for the moment, I'd recommend doing a file system copy of your Lightroom Catalog (just the *.lrcat file) while Lightroom's closed, rather than relying on Lightroom's Catalog Backup tool. It may turn out to be nothing, but better safe than sorry.>
Mark, this was being reported while 7.2 was current, before 7.3 was released.
John
-
With a forthcoming tool from Adobe.
Andrew, I think I remember Thomas saying that if you hold down the Option key when creating a new preset it allows you to save the preset as a looks profile. I'm downloading now so I can't check till I update but I'll check when it's done :~)
Edit: I just checked and if you open an image in ACR 10.3 you can create a new "Look Profile" when holding down the Option ket when clicking on the create new preset button. There's no way that I know of to do that in LR yet.
-
Andrew, I think I remember Thomas saying that if you hold down the Option key when creating a new preset it allows you to save the preset as a looks profile. I'm downloading now so I can't check till I update but I'll check when it's done :~)
Jeff - you are correct!
kirk
EDIT - I can save a new preset and select a ".cube" LUT to include in it, and the XMP file is created in the appropriate file location; however, I cannot access the preset in the preset window (it does not appear), even if I restart PS (or LR). Interesting approach though. And, to follow up on the previous post about the look file and the huge string of characters in the look table - the XMP created by the new preset contains this large string of characters, so the new preset dialog maybe translates the external LUT to the appropriate string in the new file.
EDIT 2 - Everything works fine - I was looking for the new preset in the preset list, but it gets made into a new User PROFILE and is accessible in the Profile Browser. Yay!
-
Andrew, I think I remember Thomas saying that if you hold down the Option key when creating a new preset it allows you to save the preset as a looks profile. I'm downloading now so I can't check till I update but I'll check when it's done :~)
Don't see it working (yet?) in LR.
Holding down the option key when pressing "New Preset" should bring up a "New Profile" dialog instead.
-
Mark, this was being reported while 7.2 was current, before 7.3 was released.
John
OK, but she raised this today in the context of 7.3, and says they are looking into it urgently. So should one not interpret it mean that if anything systemic were amiss at the 7.2 stage, it hadn't been caught and remedied by the 7.3 release?
-
OK, but she raised this today in the context of 7.3, and says they are looking into it urgently. So should one not interpret it mean that if anything systemic were amiss at the 7.2 stage, it hadn't been caught and remedied by the 7.3 release?
I first recall noticing it within the last two weeks, so very late in 7.2 and too late to expect in 7.3.
John
-
Hi,
To those who updated to the new Lightroom 7.3, is consuming CPU like crazy while it is doing nothing? I just updated and my CPU usage by Lightroom skyrocket to between 200% to 400% without me doing nothing. Is that normal?
Regards,
David
-
Ok, now it seems that it has finishing doing whatever it was doing and it is happy being idle. Not sure what it was... since I just opened after the update.
-
Don't see it working (yet?) in LR.
Holding down the option key when pressing "New Preset" should bring up a "New Profile" dialog instead.
Yeah, sorry, ACR 10.3 only...not in LR yet.
But the upside is that ACR and Lightroom now share both presets and profiles so you can create then in ACR and use them in LR.
-
By the way, if someone from Adobe is reading this, fix your spanish translations of the profiles (at least the Spanish translation for Spain, not sure if other spanish speaking countries share the same type of translation). "Adobe Landscape" was translated to "Adobe Apaisado" instead of "Adobe Paisaje" and "Adobe Portrait" to "Adobe Vertical" instead of "Adobe Retrato". Any spanish speaking photographer will think "Adobe Landscape" it is be used with horizontal images and "Adobe Portrait" with only vertical images... whatever the content of them. Whoever is doing the translation to spanish of Lightroom has no idea of photography.
-
EDIT - I can save a new preset and select a ".cube" LUT to include in it, and the XMP file is created in the appropriate file location; however, I cannot access the preset in the preset window (it does not appear), even if I restart PS (or LR). Interesting approach though. And, to follow up on the previous post about the look file and the huge string of characters in the look table - the XMP created by the new preset contains this large string of characters, so the new preset dialog maybe translates the external LUT to the appropriate string in the new file.
That is because the new "preset" shows up as a profile.
I followed these steps:
1. In PS, I added a bunch of adjustment layers
2. File > Export > Colour Lookup Table - saving a cube format (easy way to create your LUT)
3. Open raw file in PS and go to the Presets tab of Adobe Camera Raw
4. Option/Alt click the new preset
5. In the Color Lookup Table section, referred to LUT from step 2
6. Reopened LR
7. Select a raw file in Develop and in Basic panel the new profile is in User Profiles
Attached: some junk profiles (which include a PS Invert layer...)
-
That is because the new "preset" shows up as a profile.
I followed these steps:
1. In PS, I added a bunch of adjustment layers
2. File > Export > Colour Lookup Table - saving a cube format (easy way to create your LUT)
3. Open raw file in PS and go to the Presets tab of Adobe Camera Raw
4. Option/Alt click the new preset
5. In the Color Lookup Table section, referred to LUT from step 2
6. Reopened LR
7. Select a raw file in Develop and in Basic panel the new profile is in User Profiles
Attached: some junk profiles (which include a PS Invert layer...)
Yes - I edited my original post to note this, after it occurred to me that the new preset dialog used the term "profile" - pretty nifty addition to the workflow. Hopefully there will be a way to preview the effect of the LUT on the settings prior to saving the preset, but that's icing on the cake at this point.
thanks,
kirk
-
This is a better example of what one might do. A PS Posterize adjustment layer was used to create the LUT.
John
-
Victoria's article on profiles (a must read from an awesome LR resource):
https://www.lightroomqueen.com/camera-profiles/?utm_source=The+Lightroom+Queen&utm_campaign=0f0de71644-Newsletter_2018_04_03&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_17d5f8afbe-0f0de71644-340903009&mc_cid=0f0de71644&mc_eid=90d02d3347
-
Here are a couple of examples created in 3D LUT Creator, exported as .cube and then packed into a new creative Profile. Things like color remapping and a 2-strip simulation, etc. There is a whole library of film sim HALD files that can be converted to .cubes and used in these creative profiles, etc. and tempered with the Amount slider.
kirk
-
Victoria's article on profiles (a must read from an awesome LR resource):
https://www.lightroomqueen.com/camera-profiles/?utm_source=The+Lightroom+Queen&utm_campaign=0f0de71644-Newsletter_2018_04_03&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_17d5f8afbe-0f0de71644-340903009&mc_cid=0f0de71644&mc_eid=90d02d3347
Yes - it is a very good article; explains it well. I was very pleased to see there is a "neutral" preset - minimizes the need to undo effects one may not want for various photos using some of the others.
-
Here are a couple of examples created in 3D LUT Creator, exported as .cube and then packed into a new creative Profile.
Sorry if it's OT but which version (Grading/Standard/Pro) are you using?
-
Sorry if it's OT but which version (Grading/Standard/Pro) are you using?
Pro, v1.46.
kirk
-
good text @ https://theblog.adobe.com/april-lightroom-adobe-camera-raw-releases-new-profiles
This may long have been obvious to those who understand the rendering process better than I do, but I found Josh Haftel's description of some of the variables involved in demosaicing a raw file quite interesting:
Our profiles incorporate deep imaging science and take into consideration the colors of the filters used on top of the sensors (the array of red, green, and blue filters that help an otherwise colorblind sensor “see” the colorful world around us), the specific sensitivity of the sensor used, the sensor’s characteristics in different lighting conditions and with different ISO values to interpret the digital 1s and 0s into images inside Adobe photography products.
Also, this comment about the Adobe profiles provides some practical guidance regarding why using them might be preferable to using the camera-specific ones:
All of the Adobe Raw profiles, from Adobe Standard to the six new profiles, were created with the intention of providing a unified look and feel, regardless of which camera was used. This can be incredibly helpful when upgrading from one camera to another (you won’t have to spend a ton of time figuring out how make your new photos match your personal style) or if you’re using multiple cameras for the same shoot, you won’t have to worry about some photos looking totally different from the others.
For me, at least, descriptions of how ACR and Lightroom work "under the hood"—i.e., in general non-technical terms; I'm not proposing that Adobe publicly disclose any trade secrets—are a great aid to understanding how to exploit these tools optimally. I'd definitely like to see more of this type of discussion from the products' developers.
-
This may long have been obvious to those who understand the rendering process better than I do, but I found Josh Haftel's description of some of the variables involved in demosaicing a raw file quite interesting:
Sounds like a fair amount of marketing speak to me....
-
Sounds like a fair amount of marketing speak to me....
but of course ... "deep imaging science" ...
-
but of course ... "deep imaging science" ...
Based on Dark Matter?
-
but of course ... "deep imaging science" ...
Yes, indeed. Although, I suppose it's possible that phrase may refer to machine-learning based on a neural-network methodology. Unfortunately, there's no way for customers like me to know the underlying semantics of fuzzy terms like this.
The specific points that intrigued me were:
- the references to the characteristics of different color filters on the respective camera sensors, which I assume must be evaluated not only for what frequencies they transmit but also for how much light passes through them;*
- the way each sensor responds to "different lighting conditions," which I suspect means both different frequencies and intensities of light;
- and the effect of in-camera amplification ("different ISO values") on the rendering process.
Again, all of this may have been obvious to those who have actually been involved in the development of demosaicing algorithms, or who may have insider knowledge of Adobe's (or other companies') products. But I am dealing with black boxes—as, I suspect, are the majority of Adobe's customers. So any information about what goes on between the input and the output is helpful because it provides a conceptual model to help me interpret what I am doing when I fiddle with the end-user controls.
———
*Does Adobe do this through reverse-engineering, or do the camera or sensor manufacturers provide this information?
-
- the references to the characteristics of different color filters on the respective camera sensors, which I assume must be evaluated not only for what frequencies they transmit but also for how much light passes through them;*
- the way each sensor responds to "different lighting conditions," which I suspect means both different frequencies and intensities of light;
- and the effect of in-camera amplification ("different ISO values") on the rendering process.
It's massively complex; do they have the actual spectral sensitivities of all the cameras for one? See Doug's reply here; a good start:
http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11375
Then if you want to go a bit deeper:
http://dougkerr.net/Pumpkin/articles/Metameric_Error.pdf
And no, sensor manufacturer AFAIK, do not provide this kind of information.
-
Let's look at just one statement:
All of the Adobe Raw profiles, from Adobe Standard to the six new profiles, were created with the intention of providing a unified look and feel, regardless of which camera was used.
First, in terms of marketing speak, an intention isn't a result!
Next, the text suggests that if I take a Nikon and a Canon (you pick the model), the results (not intention) would be setting them up to capture the identical scene produce a match (unified look and feel; more marketing space IMHO). OK, so can they do this or can we? What's the deltaE difference in the two captures for each pixel? NOW we have an answer. Not vague marketing speak (intention, look and feel).
This kind of marketing language may work for many (and I'm sure they are eating up on many lesser forums) but doesn't serve Adobe customers well IMHO.
Now IF someone like Thomas Knoll makes such a statement, I'm far more inclined to take that to the bank. Not some marketing manager.
-
My very incomplete knowledge of this subject suggests that the manufacturers provide Adobe et. al. with very little information, especially when they have their own software they prefer to promote. The 3rd-party software developers need to reverse engineer the characteristic behaviour of the sensors in order to build the demosaic algorithms for them.
-
Based on Dark Matter?
Yes! Same place Apple got the “deep pixels” for the new iPhones! ;D
Rand
-
Yes! Same place Apple got the “deep pixels” for the new iPhones! ;D
Sure, on the iPhone X, we're told they can 're-light' the photo's taken. And lots of people believe that since the image looks different due to some processing, the phone has lit the scene differently. Here's an example of the new puppy with the iPhone X, Portrait mode. Did the camera relight the second image? Is dodge and burning relighting? Absolutely if you're a marketing person selling Apple cameras to those without critical thinking! ???
-
Has someone tried the new portrait profiles yet for typical cameras such as the D850, a7rIII or H6D?
Thank you.
cheers,
Bernard
-
My very incomplete knowledge of this subject suggests that the manufacturers provide Adobe et. al. with very little information
it seems Fuji did provide Adobe with data for their "film" profile, that's why Fuji camera simulation profiles are not external .dcp files (as usual), but hardcoded in ACR/LR instead...
-
Has someone tried the new portrait profiles yet for typical cameras such as the D850, a7rIII or H6D?
those are not profiles - those are presets on top of underlying real (dcp) camera profiles... for example I can simply assign the tag "crs:CameraProfile" to "DCamProf SSF M" in "Adobe Portrait.xmp" file and it will be working with my matrix profile for A7R2 instead of Adobe Standard... so I get rid of any references to "Adobe Standard" the first thing after I upgraded in all those presets...
-
There is a new sdk document for developing the new profiles. I downloaded it eariler today and it seems like there is alot more than meets the eye going on. The pdf is a good read.
It sounds like each new profile can consist of some of all of the following,
- Camera Raw Profile (like was being used before, like adobe standard, camera specific) also includes a look table
- Lightroom slider adjustments (that do not change the accual values of the sliders on the interface)
- A 3d Lut Table (applied AFTER all the Lightroom sliders)
Here is a http://www.adobe.com/go/profile-sdk (http://www.adobe.com/go/profile-sdk)
and the https://forums.adobe.com/thread/2473570 (https://forums.adobe.com/thread/2473570) where i saw it.
-
I'm hoping the new RAW can demosaic Fuji files and render decent sharpness as well as the Fuji film simulations.
I've done a few compares of the new profiles against Iridient processed DNGs and there doesn't seem to be any improvement in the sharpness of the Adobe processing. Iridient is still better from what I'm seeing.
-
OK, but she raised this today in the context of 7.3, and says they are looking into it urgently. So should one not interpret it mean that if anything systemic were amiss at the 7.2 stage, it hadn't been caught and remedied by the 7.3 release?
As John said, this isn't new to 7.3, so nothing to stop you upgrading. In fact, I think it's been going on intermittently since 7.0, but it's only just been identified in the last few weeks, too late to get a fix into 7.3. It may only affect a very small number of people, but it's a serious issue for those it does affect, and very easily prevented, so just worth erring on the safe side.
-
Yes, indeed. Although, I suppose it's possible that phrase may refer to machine-learning based on a neural-network methodology. Unfortunately, there's no way for customers like me to know the underlying semantics of fuzzy terms like this.
The specific points that intrigued me were:
- the references to the characteristics of different color filters on the respective camera sensors, which I assume must be evaluated not only for what frequencies they transmit but also for how much light passes through them;*
- the way each sensor responds to "different lighting conditions," which I suspect means both different frequencies and intensities of light;
- and the effect of in-camera amplification ("different ISO values") on the rendering process.
Again, all of this may have been obvious to those who have actually been involved in the development of demosaicing algorithms, or who may have insider knowledge of Adobe's (or other companies') products. But I am dealing with black boxes—as, I suspect, are the majority of Adobe's customers. So any information about what goes on between the input and the output is helpful because it provides a conceptual model to help me interpret what I am doing when I fiddle with the end-user controls.
———
*Does Adobe do this through reverse-engineering, or do the camera or sensor manufacturers provide this information?
Yes, it's actually pretty easy, all you need are the spectral sensitivity functions of the specific sensor+CFA(+lens? I don't think they bother but maybe...), the rest just follows. All they need is a well setup monochromator or similar, you can make your own for a couple of hundred bucks or buy it for a few hundred more. It looks like with this new 'profile' tab Adobe is bringing other standard rendering variables under one roof, which is a good idea. Nothing deep or rocket science though, just color science with 'Adobe inside'.
If you are interested in a high level overview of how an image is rendered from raw you can find a short article here (http://www.strollswithmydog.com/raw-file-conversion-steps/).
Cheers,
Jack
-
It sounds like each new profile can consist of some of all of the following,
- Camera Raw Profile
no, it does not "consist of" of it - it contains a reference (by name) to a dcp profile
-
If you are interested in a high level overview of how an image is rendered from raw you can find a short article here (http://www.strollswithmydog.com/raw-file-conversion-steps/).
Excellent explanation. Clear, and just the right amount of information for someone like me who wants to understand the raw conversion process but doesn't need the level of detail necessary to actually write the code to implement it. Thanks for posting the link—and, of course, for writing the essay in the first place.
-
Excellent explanation. Clear, and just the right amount of information for someone like me who wants to understand the raw conversion process but doesn't need the level of detail necessary to actually write the code to implement it. Thanks for posting the link—and, of course, for writing the essay in the first place.
except ACR/LR do somewhat differently than described in that article... for example Jack needs to put a note about the workflow indicating that some converters (ACR/LR) do demosaick before WB (that's why linear DNG exists)
-
As John said, this isn't new to 7.3, so nothing to stop you upgrading. In fact, I think it's been going on intermittently since 7.0, but it's only just been identified in the last few weeks, too late to get a fix into 7.3. It may only affect a very small number of people, but it's a serious issue for those it does affect, and very easily prevented, so just worth erring on the safe side.
Thanks Victoria, and I, as well as many others no doubt, appreciate your "heads-up" and the suggested workaround. However, the generic question it raises is why, if this were a known issue a couple of dot versions back, it was not by now corrected. One of the headline features of the subscription model approach was to have been more real-time flexibility to fix problems and get the solutions out to customers. Or did the decision-makers on the Lightroom team give this problem very low priority because it's a low impact problem in terms of numbers affected. Would be interesting to know how they prioritize new features and bug fixes.
-
Thanks Victoria, and I, as well as many others no doubt, appreciate your "heads-up" and the suggested workaround. However, the generic question it raises is why, if this were a known issue a couple of dot versions back, it was not by now corrected. One of the headline features of the subscription model approach was to have been more real-time flexibility to fix problems and get the solutions out to customers. Or did the decision-makers on the Lightroom team give this problem very low priority because it's a low impact problem in terms of numbers affected. Would be interesting to know how they prioritize new features and bug fixes.
one good reason to separate DAM and raw converter, despite certain conveniences of an integrated solution... eggs in different baskets - $0.02
-
One of the headline features of the subscription model approach was to have been more real-time flexibility to fix problems and get the solutions out to customers.
please, you certainly understand that reason was for Adobe to ensure the cash flow on a regular basis... why repeat the marketing "headline" BS ? technically nothing prevents software developers to release you upgrades just in time for any pay model...
-
Mark, LRs backup is IMHO lame and half baked, not that it should not be fixed. I haven’t used it from day one because I back up everything and to multiple locations. The idea of only backing up the catalog is not a sound back up strategy. Upgrade and turn the feature, if I can be so kind, off.
-
Mark, LRs backup is IMHO lame and half baked, not that it should not be fixed. I haven’t used it from day one because I back up everything and to multiple locations. The idea of only backing up the catalog is not a sound back up strategy. Upgrade and turn the feature, if I can be so kind, off.
I don't want to hijack the thread - but maybe this is relevant insofar as back-up strategy is part of any application version upgrade. For Lr, what is there outside the catalog that needs backing up? I was under the impression that the catalog contains everything Lr except for the raw files themselves, which the catalog only references back to their storage location. One of the most basic functions necessary to work the application is the catalog, so catalog corruption is something to really avoid as much as one can control it. I do back up my whole computer every night using CCC, but that's for clean-up after a major crash. I was hoping the Lr catalog back-up would be sufficient to deal with replacing a corrupted catalog, is it not? Otherwise what's the point?
-
please, you certainly understand that reason was for Adobe to ensure the cash flow on a regular basis... why repeat the marketing "headline" BS ? technically nothing prevents software developers to release you upgrades just in time for any pay model...
Not everything depends on "technically". We don't live in their boardroom and we aren't entitled to more commercial information than what they say in their annual 10-K submissions to the SEC, which has been interesting on this particular subject. This is a rabbit hole I won't explore with anything more than that.
-
Thanks Victoria, and I, as well as many others no doubt, appreciate your "heads-up" and the suggested workaround. However, the generic question it raises is why, if this were a known issue a couple of dot versions back, it was not by now corrected.
Mark, it was only recently shown to be an issue. To use Victoria's expression "I think it's been going on intermittently since 7.0, but it's only just been identified in the last few weeks". You see this kind of issue in isolation and you can easily think it's insignificant, maybe only a local problem. And a lot of more savvy users will rely on their own backups and not encounter/report the issue.
John
-
For Lr, what is there outside the catalog that needs backing up?
Apart from the lrcat file, remember all your presets and templates in the Application Support folder, or in the same folder as the catalogue if you have chosen that option.
There's some value in backing up the previews folders, ie the time to rebuild them. Not enough in my view.
A similar argument can be applied to the smart previews folders, but maybe it's stronger since they provide some safeguard against catastrophic loss of originals and their backups. Again, not enough in my view.
John
-
I don't want to hijack the thread - but maybe this is relevant insofar as back-up strategy is part of any application version upgrade. For Lr, what is there outside the catalog that needs backing up?
Your images. Your presets. Your profiles. Maybe you want to back up your previews (you can regenerate them but that will take a long time). You want to back up EVERYTHING. :D
-
Apart from the lrcat file, remember all your presets and templates in the Application Support folder, or in the same folder as the catalogue if you have chosen that option.
My presets are stored with the catalog. Makes cloning that to other drives that are used on other machines much easier to deal with. All that other stuff scattered over the HD is an Adobe mess (but they are not alone). They could if so desired store everything pertinent in the catalog like presets and I think they should. This again illustrates Adobe's idea of backing up is lame and nearly worthless unless you're a computer use who has no idea you should back up lots of other data. And if you do, you hardly need their single backup of a catalog. Adobe has really no business giving it's users an idea knows how to backup data.
-
Mark, it was only recently shown to be an issue. To use Victoria's expression "I think it's been going on intermittently since 7.0, but it's only just been identified in the last few weeks". You see this kind of issue in isolation and you can easily think it's insignificant, maybe only a local problem. And a lot of more savvy users will rely on their own backups and not encounter the issue.
John
Yes, I agree with you that there are other back-up solutions. But let's look at the logic of the argument here. Victoria thinks it's been happening intermittently since 7.0, but it's only been identified in the past few weeks (by who - presumably Adobe?). If Victoria thinks it has been happening since 7.0, how is it that whoever you mean here (Adobe perhaps?) only identified it in the past few weeks? The passive voice is seldom an aid to understanding a sequence of events. Did Victoria keep it a secret all this time? That's not like her. And exactly who is it that sees this kind of issue as local and insignificant? Are you talking about Adobe? Does it make sense to take this position unless they actually check it out to be sure of that? Obviously there is some discomfort from an application perspective as Victoria tells us the matter is now being addressed with some urgency. There are so many systems and configurations out there, quite possibly some are doing things that deserve to be fixed at the application level? If that's the case, so be it, we now know about it, what to do about it and depending on the cause, may be fixed. It's a complex business and mistakes can happen. What matters is that they are identified and fixed, which Adobe usually does. No need to dance around over it. The context of my initial observation is that this is an example of why I like to wait a while before adopting the latest updates - but I appreciate the updates and Adobe's ongoing commitment to improving the application. Other people are eager to be early adopters, and thank goodness for that - they do the rest of us a great service.
-
My presets are stored with the catalog. Makes cloning that to other drives that are used on other machines much easier to deal with. All that other stuff scattered over the HD is an Adobe mess (but they are not alone). They could if so desired store everything pertinent in the catalog like presets and I think they should. This again illustrates Adobe's idea of backing up is lame and nearly worthless unless you're a computer use who has no idea you should back up lots of other data. And if you do, you hardly need their single backup of a catalog. Adobe has really no business giving it's users an idea knows how to backup data.
Thanks Andrew and John, yes that makes sense - forgot about the previews and presets; anyhow, I do back-up my whole computer every night with CCC.
-
But let's look at the logic of the argument here. Victoria thinks it's been happening intermittently since 7.0, but it's only been identified in the past few weeks (by who - presumably Adobe?). If Victoria thinks it has been happening since 7.0, how is it that whoever you mean here (Adobe perhaps?) only identified it in the past few weeks? The passive voice is seldom an aid to understanding a sequence of events.....
The passive voice has its uses.... In hindsight, one was hearing about the problem a while ago, but I only recognised the pattern a couple of weeks ago. I couldn't say when Adobe reached a similar view, but I don't believe it was much earlier.
John
-
The passive voice has its uses.... In hindsight, one was hearing about the problem a while ago, but I only recognised the pattern a couple of weeks ago. I couldn't say when Adobe reached a similar view, but I don't believe it was much earlier.
John
OK, we've exhausted that one I think! Cheers.
-
OK, we've exhausted that one I think! Cheers.
Getting back to 7.3, the new preset & profile mechanism does slightly worsen the problem about what needs backing up. Previously all presets and templates were buried in the Application Support folder (I use a symbolic link to put it on Dropbox), or stored with the catalogue if you prefer that option. Now though, Develop presets and profiles are tucked in a settings folder shared with Camera Raw, and people will want to ensure those are backed up too.
-
On my Mac the new profiles I just purchased from Matt K are to be installed under:
Macintosh HD/Users/my machine name/Pictures/Lightroom Settings/Settings
There's now a slew of folders with profiles:
/Library/Application Support/Adobe/CameraRaw
Like John, the best solution I've found is making a symbolic link to wherever you wish to quickly find and backup those important files. For me, in the folder with the LR catalog and all other important items.
And while on the subject of profiles and LR, we really, really need a search criteria for Smart Collections to find specific images that have used specific profiles!
-
Macintosh HD/Users/my machine name/Pictures/Lightroom Settings/Settings
That's interesting, Ron. I don't think it's a standard location or documented. Try right clicking a regular preset and going to the presets folder in Finder. Is there anything related to these profiles in that folder too? An alias or something?
I'd definitely hold off on purchasing profiles, if you buy them at all.
-
John,
I'm not quite sure how I screwed up that previous post so badly. It should be:
Macintosh HD/Users/my machine name/Library/Application Support/Adobe/CameraRaw/Settings/
Does this look better? I deleted my previous post.
-
BTW John, I've been following MattK for many years and I just wanted to see what he had to offer in Profiles. The price was quite reasonable so I bought them. Nothing earth shattering but some reasonable starting points.
Since I've started playing with Profiles. I wish there was an option for "Solo" within the "Profile Browser".
-
BTW John, I've been following MattK for many years and I just wanted to see what he had to offer in Profiles.
Like his ol' buddy Kelby, lots of stuff you probably don't need <g>
-
John, I figured out how I screwed up so badly in the now deleted post.
I did put them in the proper location to begin with but.... after doing so I went into "Preferences" and checked "Save Presets with Catalog" which alters where you go if you click on "Show Lightroom Presets". To start with it was easy to use "Show Lightroom Presets" and then scroll up and find "Camera RAW".
I apologize for the confusion. My excuse today is that the pollen count here is maxed out and I'm allergic to most spring pollens. The meds work but perhaps its takes away some mental sharpness. That's my excuse and I'm sticking with it. ;D
-
Very long thread... but aren't these new 'profiles' just presets which include Camera Raw camera profile + editing settings?
-
I like Andrew’s explanation:
I doubt that. There are now three types of profiles, Adobe Raw profiles, Camera Matching Profiles, and Creative Profiles.
Adobe Color is now kind of the replacement for the older (but still available) Adobe Standard. These as in the past, only work on raw data. Creative profiles work on either raw or rendered images. You alter their effect with a dedicated slider. Such profiles can contain 3D LUTs so if you have products that can build em, you should be able to now use them in the ACR engine once there are tools to make them accessible to LR/ACR.
-
Very long thread... but aren't these new 'profiles' just presets which include Camera Raw camera profile + editing settings?
A bit more than just that. The new XMP Profiles are built on top of .dcp profiles and they extend them in a few ways. On top of a base .dcp profile, there can be an optional LUT which is new (and potentially powerful). This was discussed in the thread. Plus these XMP profiles can specify most of the features within the UI to alter the image (camera profile + editing settings).
-
Very long thread... but aren't these new 'profiles' just presets which include Camera Raw camera profile + editing settings?
I tend to think that no matter how many Adobe or 3rd party tutorials offer explanations, the technical differences are irrelevant to the user and many will struggle to distinguish between the two tools. From a user's viewpoint, they both apply "looks" or canned styles. Maybe it would have been best to merge the two concepts in the UI, whatever the underlying technical differences.
I also agree with Ron's point about a solo mode for profiles. I would have liked profiles to have their own panel, and not be in the bloated Basic panel.
John
-
I tend to think that no matter how many Adobe or 3rd party tutorials offer explanations, the technical differences are irrelevant to the user and many will struggle to distinguish between the two tools. From a user's viewpoint, they both apply "looks" or canned styles.
But there are behavioral differences that users need to understand even if they don't look under the hood. Users need to understand that when selecting a new profile, they do not see the current sliders change and for good reason. Not the case with a preset, what adais is calling editing settings (which isn't a profile).
if the sliders don't move, that is not a preset, it's a profile.
Presets are not profiles; they are separated in the new browser.
Presets allow editing settings to be altered, profiles don't.
-
I just don't think users do need to understand those differences. It's overcomplicated, an unnecessary difference with no creative value.
-
I just don't think users do need to understand those differences. It's overcomplicated, an unnecessary difference with no creative value.
I will not speak for all users. But I suspect some will wonder:
Why sliders move with one, not the other.
Why the separation in the browser.
How many years have some users asked (and continue today): why don't I see my camera profiles? Answer: Because you're viewing a rendered image.
Some of us here are interested in aiding users with such questions and helping their understanding of the product. Other's are not; that's fine.
Some of us can be both creative and technically savvy and pass the later onto users.
While intelligent people can often simplify the complex, a fool is more likely to complicate the simple. -Gerald W. Grumet
-
As John said, this isn't new to 7.3, so nothing to stop you upgrading. In fact, I think it's been going on intermittently since 7.0, but it's only just been identified in the last few weeks, too late to get a fix into 7.3. It may only affect a very small number of people, but it's a serious issue for those it does affect, and very easily prevented, so just worth erring on the safe side.
After reading this thread, I tested with an SQLite Database manager my recent backups made directly from LR in two different computers (Different catalogs, Windows 10) and all have issues, from very mild to severe ones (e.g. from incorrectly ordered or missing rows to failed integrity check), especially with large catalogs.
The current working catalogs have no issues, as well as old backups (can't confirm when the issues started) and backups made with other tools.
It seems to me that is not an intermittent issue, and I will not even bother to perform backups from LR until an official response from Adobe is made.
-
After reading this thread, I tested with an SQLite Database manager my recent backups made directly from LR in two different computers (Different catalogs, Windows 10) and all have issues, from very mild to severe ones (e.g. from incorrectly ordered or missing rows to failed integrity check), especially with large catalogs.
I just did the same on several recent back-ups, and encountered no errors (MacOS 10.13.3). But I agree with the advice not to depend on Lightroom's built-in mechanism for backing up the catalog. Actually, I would never rely on any single back-up method to adequately preserve files I couldn't afford to use. I always back up to multiple locations using multiple back-up methods at frequencies proportional to the preciousness of the files.
-
After reading this thread, I tested with an SQLite Database manager my recent backups made directly from LR in two different computers (Different catalogs, Windows 10) and all have issues, from very mild to severe ones (e.g. from incorrectly ordered or missing rows to failed integrity check), especially with large catalogs.
The current working catalogs have no issues, as well as old backups (can't confirm when the issues started) and backups made with other tools.
It seems to me that is not an intermittent issue, and I will not even bother to perform backups from LR until an official response from Adobe is made.
I can confirm that all my catalogue backups made by Lightroom 7.x are affected as well. Luckily the catalogue currently in use is not affected.
It seems the problem started with Lightroom 7 since the backups made with Lightroom 6.x are not affected. I started using Lightroom 7 when 7.1 was the current release, so the problem has been there at least since that version.
The fact that only backups are affected is puzzling. I can't imagine why compressing the catalogue for backups would result in corruption. At the same time, the current catalogue regularly gets optimised, which maybe corrects errors as well.
Cheers,
Fabien
-
I can confirm that all my catalogue backups made by Lightroom 7.x are affected as well. Luckily the catalogue currently in use is not affected.
Cheers,
Fabien
Are you on Windows or OSX - I'm wondering whether the problem is OS-specific.
-
I use 3DLC and the most recent version of it permits a LUT made within the application to be exported as a DCP for use in LR.
Became aware of another tool today, Lattice: https://lattice.videovillage.co
Same price as the "Standard" version of 3DLC but I'm not knowledge enough to know which might be more appropriate for making LUTs for LR. Don't see a demo which is a plus for 3DLC and the UI, well from the two web sites alone, 3DLC seems a bit nicer. Anyone tried or know about Lattice?
-
Became aware of another tool today, Lattice: https://lattice.videovillage.co
Same price as the "Standard" version of 3DLC but I'm not knowledge enough to know which might be more appropriate for making LUTs for LR. Don't see a demo which is a plus for 3DLC and the UI, well from the two web sites alone, 3DLC seems a bit nicer. Anyone tried or know about Lattice?
Lattice is more utilitarian, akin to OCIO - not necessarily limited, but more technically oriented. . 3DLC is really more of an all-around versatile and unique creative tool.
Kirk
-
Lattice is more utilitarian, akin to OCIO - not necessarily limited, but more technically oriented. . 3DLC is really more of an all-around versatile and unique creative tool.
Thank Kirk, that seems to align with my initial impressions and I've watched several of the video's and it looks like a winner. I think I'll have to go for the Pro version; the functionality seen in the video using various targets was most impressive. I've had some want bumps for it for awhile but didn't pull the trigger until now that ACR/LR seem to be moving into a 3D LUT fashion that looks quite interesting and useful.
-
Are you on Windows or OSX - I'm wondering whether the problem is OS-specific.
This happens on a Windows 10 PC (x64, build 1709). The catalogue is on a dedicated internal SSD drive, so there is nothing too exotic about my setup. The catalogue is about 200 MB large and contains less than 30K photos.
In order to assess the health of the catalogue backup outside of Lightroom, I used a generic SQLite utility to perform an integrity check as explained here (https://www.team-mediaportal.com/wiki/display/MediaPortal1/Repair+SQLite+Database). (I know the page is for a different product, but this check should work for any SQLite database, including a Lightroom catalogue.)
Any entry other than "OK" as a result of the test indicates inconsistencies which might (or not) be fixed by a repair tool. In my case, some entries were related to invalid page numbers and a malformed database disk image.
Cheers,
Fabien
-
Thanks for the explanation Fabien.
-
So.... are you saying that when we choose:
Catalog Backup
- test integrity
- optimize catalog after backing up
that these steps aren't sufficient for the SQLite DB? That we should also periodically run the generic SQLite utility? If so, this sounds like Adobe has really given us a sense of false security.
-
So.... are you saying that when we choose:
Catalog Backup
- test integrity
- optimize catalog after backing up
that these steps aren't sufficient for the SQLite DB? That we should also periodically run the generic SQLite utility? If so, this sounds like Adobe has really given us a sense of false security.
No, it should not be necessary to run the SQLite utility. The issue is with the Catalog Backup step for some users (apparently in Windows 10). This is something that Adobe has to address.
The "Test integrity" and "optimize catalog after backing up" are performed on the current catalog, not the backup.
As other posters before have said before, backup your catalog, images and previews by other means.
-
I have not read the Adobe Profile background documentation floating around, but my understanding so far is that the new Profile paradigm is really the fusion of a base camera/sensor profile with a set of basic editing parameters (and other tools like LUTs) as an editing baseline. This could be done before with a camera profile plus a Preset, with the difference that the editing sliders would be changed. With the new paradigm the editing sliders are zeroed for that look.
Prior to this I had my own camera profiles either built with the Adobe DNG Profile tool or the GretagMacbeth tool... Can one associate one's own camera profile and one of these new baseline profiles? Or can one start by picking one's camera profile layer and then add an 'artistic' baseline profile on top of that? From what I saw by playing around it does not seem to be possible.
---
I just read the Adobe SDK kit info and it appears that there is no way to layer several 'Profiles'.
-
Or can one start by picking one's camera profile layer and then add an 'artistic' baseline profile on top of that? From what I saw by playing around it does not seem to be possible.
---
I just read the Adobe SDK kit info and it appears that there is no way to layer several 'Profiles'.
well, read again ... you are laying a lot of LUTs on top of the base DCP profile (yours or what comes as a dcp file from Adobe)... enough to do anything you want.
-
well, read again ... you are laying a lot of LUTs on top of the base DCP profile (yours or what comes as a dcp file from Adobe)... enough to do anything you want.
Sure, I know that. But it would be mor powerful to stack separate profiles on top of each other. I could choose a dcp profile as the base and then load a processing/artistic profile to set a baseline for further editing.
-
But it would be mor powerful to stack separate profiles on top of each other.
dcp profile is essentially a color transform from camera's DNs to a formal color space... you can't stack them in principle because the second one does not have camera's DN to work with, hence it will not work as designed.
I could choose a dcp profile as the base and then load a processing/artistic profile to set a baseline for further editing.
it is exactly what XMP "enhanced" preset profile does... you can choose a base dcp camera profile of your choice and design and stack "processing/artistic" LUTs (w/ you choice how do it - either by LookTable which will replace the one in dcp profile or with CUBE-format LUT that will work after dcp is over or with both... plus a set of 1D luts - tags crs:ToneCurvePV2012, crs:ToneCurvePV2012Red, crs:ToneCurvePV2012Green, crs:ToneCurvePV2012Blue that also can add to your "artistic" whatever) on top of dcp ... prepare yourself a set of XMP presets profiles and play... now if you understand this, then what you want is lazy way out - 2 different controls in GUI... but you don't really need that - DCP profile in such approach shall be doing a minimal set of work, so it can simply be left the same all the time to provide the consistent starting point (that is what Adobe does - all the time "Adobe Standard" - so you selected only what stacked on top of it in UI - "processing/artistic profile" in your terminology)... unless you are of the type that does not know what to do and simply randomly selects profiles in UI hoping to hit a good combo... so ?
-
Just noticed that the default sharpening has been increased from 25 to 40. Considering the trend towards not putting an anti-aliasing filter on the sensor, the increased sharpness seems a bit much.
-
So.... are you saying that when we choose:
Catalog Backup
- test integrity
- optimize catalog after backing up
that these steps aren't sufficient for the SQLite DB? That we should also periodically run the generic SQLite utility? If so, this sounds like Adobe has really given us a sense of false security.
So far, only backups are affected. The catalogue in use seems to be fine and should be backed up by other means, as pointed out by Frank.
As far as I know, the only thing that gets done as part of the Lightroom automated backup is to zip the catalogue file. Not sure what one can mess with such a simple workflow. Now, obviously, if they do this too early while the database is in use and still has a lock on it... ;)
I don't know if it makes sense to keep on doing the Lightoom backup to trigger the optimisation of the catalogue in use. I have disabled it in the meantime. Who knows, maybe the optimisation is nothing more than running the SQLite utility in repair mode? ;D
Cheers,
Fabien
-
Thanks, Fabien and Frank.
I wonder how Adobe can screw up simply making a backup of the database? It should be as simple as copying a file, shouldn't it?
-
Just noticed that the default sharpening has been increased from 25 to 40. Considering the trend towards not putting an anti-aliasing filter on the sensor, the increased sharpness seems a bit much.
Omer, I asked about this on the Adobe Forum, which led to a short conversation with an Adobe moderator. I screen-grabbed the conversation and put it on my latest blog post - the jpeg is HERE (https://i0.wp.com/www.wildlifeinpixels.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/forum.jpg)
I thought the answer(s) were quite telling >:(
-
Omer, I asked about this on the Adobe Forum, which led to a short conversation with an Adobe moderator. I screen-grabbed the conversation and put it on my latest blog post - the jpeg is HERE (https://i0.wp.com/www.wildlifeinpixels.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/forum.jpg)
I thought the answer(s) were quite telling >:(
Thanks Andy. Yeah, it occurred to me that Adobe might indeed be feeling some pressure from Capture One, which by default applies slightly more vibrance and sharpening in its base profile. Also, Adobe might be trying to appease Fujifilm users, though that may less true.
Interestingly, though Sony and Nikon raw files are affected, Panasonic RW2 files are not. At least not those from my GM5, for which the 25 setting remains the default.
-
The catalogue corruption in backups has been fixed in LR 7.3.1. I can confirm that zipped backups on my Windows 10 PC no longer contain SQLite validation errors as reported above in this thread.
Cheers,
Fabien
-
The catalogue corruption in backups has been fixed in LR 7.3.1. I can confirm that zipped backups on my Windows 10 PC no longer contain SQLite validation errors as reported above in this thread.
Cheers,
Fabien
Yay!!!!
-
I wonder how Adobe can screw up simply making a backup of the database? It should be as simple as copying a file, shouldn't it?
My new understanding is that they don't just do a straight file copy. According to what I've read on LRForums, it was reported this bug was due to a"rare condition when writing the backup catalog file".. Something like that, anyways - I forget exactly the wording.
So it apparently wasn't the zipping code that got messed with.
I found the corruption in all catalog backups since 7.0. I have a feeling that it was actually widespread, at least for Windows, but not many people regularly check their backup catalogs with an outside utility - including myself.
But I'm happy to also report that backups made with 7.3.1 tested fine here as well.
-
Great! I also confirm that backup is working fine now in version 7.3.1