Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: AoxoA on April 20, 2015, 11:39:19 pm
-
Hello-
When I open a file to view in Photoshop the blacks are lighter (or the contrast is reduced).
1) This happens when I choose to edit file to Photoshop from Lightroom. The image in Photoshop looks different than in lightroom. The blacks have more detail and seem to have less contrast in Photoshop.
2) If I export the original file from LR to a jpeg or tiff the file always matches what I see in lightroom (using Apple Preview to view the exported image). If I save the original file to a jpeg or tiff from Photoshop and then view it with Apple’s Preview the file does not match the view in Photoshop. It always matches what I see in Lightroom.
3) When I open a file in Photoshop and open it in Apple’s Preview. Same thing. The Photoshop view is lighter in the blacks with less contrast.
These are the things I checked:
• I calibrated the monitor (V2 not V4). Photoshop is accepting the calibration.
• Lightroom and Photoshop use the same profile settings, etc.…
• Same result doing a 1:1 in LR’s develop module and preview size 100% in Photoshop.
This is my system data:
• Mac OS X 10.8.5
• Lightroom 4.4.1 with Camera Raw 7.4
• Photoshop CS6 Extended Version 13.0.6 x64 with Camera Raw 8.8.0.397
I am not sure if this post is in the correct section. Thank you in advance for anything you can think of to help me get PS and LR to display images the same.
-
That's most likely a monitor profile issue. Lightroom and Photoshop should always display identically, if they don't that's usually the cause.
Set your calibrator to matrix-based profiles, not LUT (table)-based. LUT profiles are theoretically more accurate, but also heavier and more complex, and can cause problems.
If that doesn't do it, uncheck "compensate for scene-referred profiles" in Photoshop. That's an old bug in some calibrators that still comes up occasionally.
Also note that there's a long-standing bug in Photoshop, rendering blacks incorrectly in ProPhoto files, with GPU set at normal or advanced mode. Adobe RGB/sRGB are not affected. My own experience indicates that this too becomes more pronounced with LUT monitor profiles. Usually the bug appears as cyan/red shadow banding, but general black level can be affected too. This bug has been reported and discussed several times in the Adobe Photoshop forum, but is still unacknowledged.
-
I did some more test and maybe it is some type of monitor profile issue. I am using a Spyder2Pro as the calibration device. I have a Eizo CG234W that uses ColorNavigator app to run the Spyder and set the profile.
I used Apple's manual calibration to create a new display profile. Although its just a test profile, so far everything is matching up very closely if not perfectly from LR to PS.
The ColorNavigator software doesn't have options for matrix vs LUT---at least not that i can find at the moment. What device and software are you using for calibration?
Where will I find the check-box for "compensate for scene-referred profiles" in Photoshop?
I am working in Prophoto color space. I will run some test regarding that tomorrow. Been at this all day and need to sleep.
-
The Spyder2 wasn't a very good sensor to begin with, and is certainly not suitable for a wide gamut unit such as the CG243. Get an i1 Display Pro, it's an investment you won't regret. Spyders 3 and 4 are much better, but the i1D3 is still the best.
In ColorNavigator, you'll see a "profile policies" button in the dialog where you get to name the profile. Here you set v2/v4, and LUT/matrix (attachment).
There's a checkbox for scene-referred profiles in Photoshop Color Settings. Some calibrators used to set this scene-referred flag when it shouldn't be there, but so far I haven't heard of ColorNavigator doing this.
-
In ColorNavigator, you'll see a "profile policies" button in the dialog where you get to name the profile. Here you set v2/v4, and LUT/matrix (attachment).
Also, I recommend not using v4 profiles - use v2 (or my version of ColorNavigator offers v2.2 or v4.2 - avoid v4.anything - it causes problems with some software, and might explain the one you're experiencing).
In my version of ColorNavigator, the choice of v2 or v4 profiles is well hidden. When creating a new target, about the 6th screen is to name the adjustment target, and there's a "Customize profile" button. Click that and you can choose v2.x or v4.x profiles.
Whenever there are problems with profiles apparently behaving differently with different software, always check you're using a v2 profile, so eliminate that as a possible cause of the problem.
-
That's correct, Simon, and I would have mentioned it, except the OP already did that. Yeah, I constantly miss stuff in posts too.. ;D
(although if he caught the version rolldown, he should have caught the other one too. So let's get them all covered here).
-
That's correct, Simon, and I would have mentioned it, except the OP already did that. Yeah, I constantly miss stuff in posts too.. ;D
Doh!
-
The Spyder2 wasn't a very good sensor to begin with, and is certainly not suitable for a wide gamut unit such as the CG243. Get an i1 Display Pro, it's an investment you won't regret. Spyders 3 and 4 are much better, but the i1D3 is still the best.
In ColorNavigator, you'll see a "profile policies" button in the dialog where you get to name the profile. Here you set v2/v4, and LUT/matrix
In my version of ColorNavigator, the choice of v2 or v4 profiles is well hidden. When creating a new target, about the 6th screen is to name the adjustment target, and there's a "Customize profile" button. Click that and you can choose v2.x or v4.x profiles.
Whenever there are problems with profiles apparently behaving differently with different software, always check you're using a v2 profile, so eliminate that as a possible cause of the problem. ...recommend not using v4 profiles - use v2 (or my version of ColorNavigator offers v2.2 or v4.2 - avoid v4.anything - it causes problems with some software, and might explain the one you're experiencing).
Thanks for the advice. I will look into an i1D3 upgrade.
I don’t see a “profile policies” button. I am using ColorNavigator Version 5.4.3(1).
I also do not see an option to choose V2 or V4. The reason I said it was V2 is because Apple’s ColorSyc Utility app provides profil information and it says the Specification version is 2.2.0.
(http://i61.tinypic.com/2u9r5nt.jpg)
.
.
Here are the screen grabs of creating a new profile:
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2uo71bc.jpg)
(http://i60.tinypic.com/2vltf8n.jpg)
(http://i58.tinypic.com/20if7ts.jpg)
(http://i62.tinypic.com/adcak3.jpg)
(http://i59.tinypic.com/rlg8ie.jpg)
(http://i58.tinypic.com/290zrex.jpg)
(http://i62.tinypic.com/331k2et.jpg)
(http://i60.tinypic.com/eb7mna.jpg)
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2i0dveo.jpg)
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2m4shfd.jpg)
Hold tight while I get some more info ready.......
-
The screen capture does indeed show a V2 profile so you're good there. I'd trash that profile and recalibrate, forcing a new one to be built, maybe restart, see if that helps. Can't hurt...
-
Thanks for the confirmation: It is a V2.
I unchecked the "compensate for scene-referred profiles" box in Photoshop's Color Settings Dialog window. Closed and re-opened PS but the issue remains.
I created a new profile/recalibration.
Here is a 5 minute video showing what I know so far. You can change the quality setting to 1080p HD.
https://youtu.be/n4UqnnhEWqE
-
I was about to say update to the current ColorNavigator 6. But apparently the Spyder2 is no longer supported, so you can't without buying a new sensor.
Could it be the Photoshop bug I mentioned? Have you tried disabling the GPU in Photoshop (or setting it to Basic mode)? Do you see the same in Adobe RGB/sRGB?
Or when you say "The blacks have more detail (...) in Photoshop" - maybe Photoshop is right and Lightroom is wrong? Are the blacks actually clipped in Lightroom? There was a long thread in the Adobe Lightroom forum about Lightroom clipping blacks in OS X while Photoshop was unaffected - but IIRC that was under Mavericks.
-
I was about to say update to the current ColorNavigator 6. But apparently the Spyder2 is no longer supported, so you can't without buying a new sensor.
Could it be the Photoshop bug I mentioned? Have you tried disabling the GPU in Photoshop (or setting it to Basic mode)? Do you see the same in Adobe RGB/sRGB?
Or when you say "The blacks have more detail (...) in Photoshop" - maybe Photoshop is right and Lightroom is wrong? Are the blacks actually clipped in Lightroom? There was a long thread in the Adobe Lightroom forum about Lightroom clipping blacks in OS X while Photoshop was unaffected - but IIRC that was under Mavericks.
“Have you tried disabling the GPU in Photoshop (or setting it to Basic mode)? “
• Yes. Same issue no matter how I set the Graphics Processor Settings.
“Do you see the same in Adobe RGB/sRGB?”
• Yes. I exported from lightroom to a Tiff with Adobe RGB. Opened the file in PS and Appl’es Preview. Same issue.
• Also opened an edit from lightroom to PS with ProPhoto RGB. The Prophoto RGB and Adobe RGB in PS looked the same.
“Or when you say "The blacks have more detail (...) in Photoshop" - maybe Photoshop is right and Lightroom is wrong? “
I don’t know:
• If I open an sRGB JPEG file directly into each program (i.e. not export or edit in PS) – They do not match.
• Same problem if I export to JPEG from lightroom and then open the file in PS
• If I save the photo in PS, and then view it in LR, it matches the original LR version.
• Apple’s Preview matches Lightroom
• Photos in Firefox match Lightroom
“Are the blacks actually clipped in Lightroom? “
• Not according to Lightroom’s histogram. If there is black clipping it’s a little spot maybe 5% of the pic. So I would say that is not it.
-
Just to be clear, when you view an image in LR to compare to Photoshop, you're in Develop module and viewing at 1:1? The image in PS is at 100%?
-
Just to be clear, when you view an image in LR to compare to Photoshop, you're in Develop module and viewing at 1:1? The image in PS is at 100%?
Yes, see vid https://youtu.be/n4UqnnhEWqE
-
Yes, see vid https://youtu.be/n4UqnnhEWqE
In the vid I am actually in the Library module but I check going 1:1 in the develop module and it is the same.
-
In the vid I am actually in the Library module but I check going 1:1 in the develop module and it is the same.
You MUST view in Develop module!
Also, go into Photoshop, Color Settings, RGB working space dropdown and examine at the top of the list, a setting called Monitor:XXX where XXX should be the display profile. Is it what you showed in the video?
-
You MUST view in Develop module!
Also, go into Photoshop, Color Settings, RGB working space dropdown and examine at the top of the list, a setting called Monitor:XXX where XXX should be the display profile. Is it what you showed in the video?
Yes, I checked 1:1 in LR Develop Module vs 100% view in PS. ---Same Issue---
Yes, as shown in the vid, the RGB working space drop down has my newly created profile (Monitor:XXX...).
Could it be a different white point setting, etc? I don't know how to check that.
Do I have compatible versions of Camera Raw and Lightroom? Do my versions of Lr and ACR match? Does it matter?
I have
- Lightroom 4.4.1 (with, I think, Camera Raw 7.4)
- Photoshop CS6 Extended Version 13.0.6 x64 with Camera Raw 8.8.0.397
-
So you rebuilt a new profile right?
Restart?
Could try zapping the PRAM. Reboot, hold down Command key, Option Key, P and R key until you hear the Mac reboot again.
Lastly, providing a raw would be useful although it sounds like an issue with your system.
-
So you rebuilt a new profile right?
Restart?
Could try zapping the PRAM. Reboot, hold down Command key, Option Key, P and R key until you hear the Mac reboot again.
Lastly, providing a raw would be useful although it sounds like an issue with your system.
Yes. Started fresh with a new profile. I restarted the programs for sure and can't remember if I restarted the computer.
Ok, I'll do it. The NEF is quite a bit different than the Tiff. I have only been testing Tiff and JPEG. I will take a look at some RAW files next.
-
I looked at the video (without sound, though) and I'm fairly certain it's the display profile.
Notice that the Photoshop version has a distinct blue cast in the shadows - more so than being just "lighter".
A useful clue to determine which version is right, is to take screenshots and open them in Photoshop. If one of them has excessive clipping in one or more channels, particularly in the shadows, that's often the smoking gun. But this kind of photo is, to put it bluntly, basically useless since the shadows will be more or less clipped in the shadows anyway.
I'm itching to try a matrix profile instead of a LUT one. I assume that's what it is because it is the default in ColorNavigator 6. But if you don't have that option...
-
Created another profile. Restarted the computer. Restarted again zaping the p-ram. Didn't help.
Ran a NEF through the paces and the result is the same as the Tiff and Jpeg.
Sounds like I need another calibration device, I do have some old Spyder2Pro software. I'll give that a try before I head to Amazon.
-
spyder2 is indeed difficult, as it doesn't support wide gamut. I'm using a Spyder4 since 1 year, works great too... you need a new colorimeter to hardware-calibrate your wide gamut screen.
-
Saw the video to the end and I'm at a loss to figuring out the cause as well.
It hasn't been asked (or maybe it has and I missed it) but when did this start? What's changed from when it did work?
For me after ten years hardware calibrating at least 3 displays this is the first I've seen this happen.
Have Apple's Digital Colormeter open and sample the lighter blacks to the darker one while checking Photoshop's RGB Info Palette to see how way off the black point is from actual data. Maybe the data will read the same between the two which will definitely point to a profile issue.
-
Have Apple's Digital Colormeter open and sample the lighter blacks to the darker one while checking Photoshop's RGB Info Palette to see how way off the black point is from actual data.
How would ADC do anything helpful?
-
I have done some tests using Lightroom 5.7 and Photoshop CC 2014.2.1 (Mac OSX 10.7.5) and have been able to replicate the problem.
I do not believe the problem has anything to do with the monitor profile.
I used a variety of files, including a test file designed to test the clipping on displays (monitors and projectors). Some files were RAWs but the test file is a PSD (Photoshop) file in the ProPhoto colour space.
With all the files a slight lightening of extreme blacks is visible in Photoshop relative to Lightroom. Using Apple’s DigitalColor Meter to read the tones sent to the screen confirms a slight raising of the extreme blacks (2–3 points on the 0–256 scale).
So, it appears that it is the values being sent from Lightroom and Photoshop that are at variance and which give rise to visible difference in the extreme blacks. If my understanding is correct then if it were a problem with the display profile, which the operating system uses to correct the display globally for all applications, then Photoshop and Lightroom would show no difference between them. However, since Photoshop gives a different result from both Lightroom and Preview (see the OP’s video) then it would appear that the ‘fault’, if any, lies with Photoshop and the way it is handling the image data.
As far as the OP, AoxoA, is concerned it is most unfortunate that this shows so clearly in his image. The good news is that at least Photoshop is not clipping the data so the situation is retrievable with some adjustments in Curves or Levels. I would also suggest that, although irritating (and perhaps not up to the standard we should expect from Adobe) it is the final destination and how those blacks are displayed in a print, or by a monitor or projector, that is most important and the changes brought about by these devices will probably eclipse the small difference introduced by Photoshop.
-
I have done some tests using Lightroom 5.7 and Photoshop CC 2014.2.1 (Mac OSX 10.7.5) and have been able to replicate the problem.
Can you perhaps provide a file and exact steps you used? I just tried LR6CC and Photoshop CC2014, Edit in PS using ACR 9. Viewing very dark tones in both appear identical on this end. Viewing the image in Develop at 1:1, rendered image in ProPhoto RGB in PS at 100%. They match.
I do not believe the problem has anything to do with the monitor profile.
In theory that makes sense unless the issue were affecting just the preview, not the actual numbers.
-
(...) the display profile, which the operating system uses to correct the display globally for all applications
This is a very, very common misunderstanding. No, the display profile is not used globally, and not by the OS. That's the calibration LUT - something else entirely.
The profile is a description of the display in a certain state - usually the calibrated state. It uses many more parameters and has a much higher precision level than the calibration curves. It is used by applications, not the OS. The OS just makes it available for the application.
Only color managed apps use the profile, and in a perfectly standard profile conversion: source profile > destination profile. And even though the destination is the same display profile for both Lightroom and Photoshop, the source is very different. So the conversion is different, and thus a bad profile can show up differently between apps.
The basis for this confusion between profile and LUT is probably that the LUT is usually stored inside the profile. This is just for convenience. The two are functionally unrelated and perform different functions.
-
Can you perhaps provide a file and exact steps you used? I just tried LR6CC and Photoshop CC2014, Edit in PS using ACR 9. Viewing very dark tones in both appear identical on this end. Viewing the image in Develop at 1:1, rendered image in ProPhoto RGB in PS at 100%.
Andrew, did you measure the values using the Apple DigitalColor Meter ? Appearances can be deceptive (See below).
-
This is a very, very common misunderstanding. No, the display profile is not used globally, and not by the OS. That's the calibration LUT - something else entirely.
The profile is a description of the display in a certain state - usually the calibrated state. It uses many more parameters and has a much higher precision level than the calibration curves. It is used by applications, not the OS. The OS just makes it available for the application.
Only color managed apps use the profile, and in a perfectly standard profile conversion: source profile > destination profile. And even though the destination is the same display profile for both Lightroom and Photoshop, the source is very different. So the conversion is different, and thus a bad profile can show up differently between apps.
The basis for this confusion between profile and LUT is probably that the LUT is usually stored inside the profile. This is just for convenience. The two are functionally unrelated and perform different functions.
I stand corrected.
I have tried two other profiles and taken measurements using the Apple DigitalColor Meter. One profile was the Apple supplied profile and one was generated by a different version of the ColorMunki software (see my other posts on a related issue on the LuLa Colour Management Forum).
The two profiles, visually, compress the extreme blacks to the extent that I would not rely on them for working on images. Measuring the tones generated by each, using the DigitalColor Meter, supports the assertions by our more knowledgable brethren that each application uses the profile independently. However, with these profiles the dark tones measured in Photoshop are darker than Lightroom, a reversal of the OP’s problem (and that generated by my other display profile). Although this effect is not visually discernible because the extreme blacks are so compressed.
-
Can you perhaps provide a file and exact steps you used?
I would be delighted to provide a file but it is very large to upload.
You can download a small version from here:
Shadow and Highlight Compression Test SMALL (ProPhoto RGB) (https://www.dropbox.com/s/9uobccwwvo7q8qh/Shadow%20and%20Highlight%20Compression%20Test%20SMALL%20%28ProPhoto%20RGB%29.tif?dl=0)
You can make your own by creating a series of rectangles of steps of increasing tones from black to grey and from white to grey. I use a reference circle in the middle of each rectangle of either black or white to make quick visual reference to see whether the display/projector is clipping. The central square contains a black (zero) surround with an inner square of slightly lighter black (I think if memory serves this was at about “7”). For the purposes of visually testing a display/projector for clipping the precise values are not important although they need to be stepped fairly close together at black and white ends of the tonal scale to be of use. Neither are the precise values important to test the differences in ‘blacks’ rendering between Lightroom and Photoshop, it is the differences that matter.
The methodology is simple. Open the test image in Develop in Lightroom and the same in Photoshop. Use Apple's DigitalColor Meter to measure the same blacks in each. Write down the numbers and compare. QED.
Andrew, it would be great if you could give this a try and report back with some results. We might be able to get enough information to isolate the problem.
-
Andrew, did you measure the values using the Apple DigitalColor Meter ? Appearances can be deceptive (See below).
An unnecessary and not reliable product. As you can see below, using PS to examine a screen capture of the two side by side, they appear identical and measure identically. 3x3 sample, 22/22/22.
(http://digitaldog.net/files/LRPS1.jpg)
-
An unnecessary and not reliable product.
In your opinion.
I too get the same result using your methodology, but a different result using Apple’s DigitalColor Meter. All this proves is that a difference can be measured using the DigitalColor Meter but not using a screenshot. I question whether measuring a screenshot (and indeed using the DigitalColor Meter) captures the data actually sent to the screen*. Also, the screenshot opens in Photoshop with the display profile attached. Might this not have an effect on the results ? In addition I have not measured any differences between Lightroom and Photoshop at RGB 22, as in your example above, but at values of between 0 and 10. So I do not believe your test would show the differences observed and measured. The use of a standard test image with values between zero and 15 would help here.
Andrew, if you say that you have not (yet) observed this phenomon then we need to try and establish why. What we need to ascertain is whether it is the profiles causing the problem, or the way Photoshop/Lightroom send their data to the display, or some other as yet unidentified reason. I do not think we have established this with any degree of reliability yet.
* tests done on ColorMunki profiles demonstrate this to be the case – the only reliable way to measure the effect of a profile is to actually measure the display itself – data sent to the screen is not necessarily what the screen is displaying.
-
I too get the same result using your methodology, but a different result using Apple’s DigitalColor Meter.
I get the same in both. And ADC doesn't do anything useful and can't be set on two points at the same time, the screen capture using PS can. They appear the same, they measure the same. There's nothing going wrong on this end.
I question whether measuring a screenshot (and indeed using the DigitalColor Meter) captures the data actually sent to the screen*.
It's actually more reliable but let's not go there, the point is, the two image previews are identical.
Also, the screenshot opens in Photoshop with the display profile attached.
It can, but ADC has to use a single profile too so it's moot.
In addition I have not measured any differences between Lightroom and Photoshop at RGB 22, as in your example above, but at values of between 0 and 10.
The Lstar value is 3, the RGB value will differ based on the RGB working space!
So I do not believe your test would show the differences observed and measured.
That's AOK with me, because there are no differences here between the two. You and the OP can attempt to figure out why either your systems or methodology differ.
-
AR: An unnecessary and not reliable product.
In your opinion.
Explain this:
(http://digitaldog.net/files/DigitalColorMeter_sRGB.jpg)
(http://digitaldog.net/files/DigitalColorMeter.jpg)
The ADC isn't measuring anything. It is taking two or three bits of information:
1. The color that an application is actually outputting to a pixel. i.e. an RGB level.
2. The colorspace that the app says should be used for that pixel for ColorSync to correctly display it. It defaults to sRGB if the app doesn't specify.
3. The ICC profile associated with the display as seen in the screen capture above.
Then given those bits of information, it can calculate via ColorSync what that particular pixel should be if you were to measure it with an external device, and all of the color transforms, profiles etc. are correct.
So it is sometimes useful if you really know what you are doing, to make sure that all your profiles are in order if you can measure patches with an external sensor.
It doesn't really do anything to validate anything without an external sensor, other than to verify numbers are what they should be.
It's "interesting" to see the various calculations that it can do, but there are a lot of assumptions and pitfalls along the way. For one, an application can bypass ColorSync and use it's own CMS.
-
I do remember this issue discussed before a while back and nothing was ever done about it nor was the cause determined.
Just did my own experiment and found the problem or the feature in LR4.4. You gotta' watch for it though.
I loaded a Raw image in LR4.4/Mac OS 10.6.8 with a known black level of around RGB-3,3,3 according to PS info palette in ProPhotoRGB working space zoomed in at 100% in Develop module. I then turned on Soft Proof where I have ProPhotoRGB as the output space (not a printer space) which gives me the same RGB numbers as Photoshop (instead of % readouts). I saw the 3,3,3 near black level actually go darker and now match how it appears in Photoshop.
Apple's Preview shows a slightly lighter black level exporting the Raw to tiff out of LR4 I'm guessing because whatever LR is doing with Soft Proofing turned on and set to a simple matrix profile such as ProPhotoRGB Preview doesn't implement quite exactly with regard to mapping near black. When I turn Soft Proof off in LR4, the black level lightens very noticeably. Maybe this is how LR4 renders black point in its 1.0 gamma ProPhotoRGB internal space since Soft Proof is turned off and there is no defined output space. I remember something similar happening in Photoshop converting to a gamma 1 simple matrix profile several years ago.
So if Soft Proof was left on or off while editing the image upon first opening in LR4's Develop module, black levels will need to be defined according to Soft Proof.
I don't know if this is a feature or a bug in LR4, now for sure this is just another reason why I edit in the less complex world of CS5 ACR 6.7.
My monitor profile is made by Colormunki Display.
-
I get the same in both. And ADC doesn't do anything useful and can't be set on two points at the same time, the screen capture using PS can. They appear the same, they measure the same. There's nothing going wrong on this end.
I know. This is the point, why are you not seeing this whilst others are ? What differences between your and our software/hardware/set-up account for this ?
Explain this:
You explained it very well, and so thank you. However, I am unable to reproduce the differences you demonstrate on a system running OSX 10.7.5 with ADCM 4.4. ‘Measurements’ from ADCM are completely congruent with the the Eye Dropper tool in Photoshop – in all the variations you show.
Nevertheless, this is a red herring and of no use to the OP who needs the help of someone with your knowledge and expertise to help him resolve his problem. So I will now retire gracefully from this discussion.
-
Nevertheless, this is a red herring and of no use to the OP who needs the help of someone with your knowledge and expertise to help him resolve his problem.
In your opinion. :o
-
In your opinion. :o
Touché !!!
::)
-
I thought you were going retire gracefully.
Sorry if pointing out the holes in your testing methodology upset you.
-
Putting aside the ADC debate what is the cause of Soft Proof making black level previews change switching to ProPhotoRGB as a Soft Proof output profile in LR4.4?
That pretty much addresses the OP's issue.
I suggested the use of the ADC because it helps me to show the rate of change that is being applied to the video card frame buffer (x/y color table for every pixel on the screen) which the ADC reflects and derives its numbers. It's not meant as an accurate indicator of actual color according to a hardware sensor meter. Besides we're only addressing black level luminance not color. I use ADC to make sure the subtle visual differences of black level changes in LR4 turning off/on Soft Proof isn't caused by adaptive optical influences of the surrounding GUI.
And the changing black level in LR by turning off/on Soft Proof using a matrix profile shows up even in "Fill" zoom view, not just 1:1 previews.
-
Putting aside the ADC debate what is the cause of Soft Proof making black level previews change switching to ProPhotoRGB as a Soft Proof output profile in LR4.4?
There's no debate in my mind about ADC and further, LR4 is two versions old, I can't comment as I'm haven't had it installed in 3+ years.
-
There's no debate in my mind about ADC and further, LR4 is two versions old, I can't comment as I'm haven't had it installed in 3+ years.
I'm sure the OP appreciates your opinions on the use of the ADC and not helping him with his problems as well.
Any other time wasting off topic comments you want to add douche bag?
-
I'm sure the OP appreciates your opinions on the use of the ADC and not helping him with his problems as well.
Nice of you to speak for the OP. I've added my suggestions to help the OP along with encouraging him not to waste his time with ADC of which at least two people here have done without commenting on it's odd and incorrect values.
Any other time wasting off topic comments you want to add douche bag?
Douche bag? What a immature and non useful comment to add on top of the other non useful posts you've made here Tim. You've painted yourself into a corner, you are now unable to retire gracefully.
The OP should probably download a modern version of Lightroom and test this again, of course avoiding the necessary use of ADC.
-
I'm beginning to suspect that this might be the bug originally reported here: https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1365804?start=0&tstart=0 (https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1365804?start=0&tstart=0)
and here: http://lagemaat.blogspot.no/2014/01/serious-color-management-bug-in-mac-os.html (http://lagemaat.blogspot.no/2014/01/serious-color-management-bug-in-mac-os.html)
Apparently turning on soft proof in Lightroom forces it to use the Adobe Color Engine instead of Apple's, so that made it go away. It was also reported to affect LUT profiles much more than matrix.
As for the bug itself, it is now fixed from both ends in both Lightroom and OS X recent versions.
-
I'm beginning to suspect that this might be the bug originally reported here: https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1365804?start=0&tstart=0 (https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1365804?start=0&tstart=0)
and here: http://lagemaat.blogspot.no/2014/01/serious-color-management-bug-in-mac-os.html (http://lagemaat.blogspot.no/2014/01/serious-color-management-bug-in-mac-os.html)
Apparently turning on soft proof in Lightroom forces it to use the Adobe Color Engine instead of Apple's, so that made it go away. It was also reported to affect LUT profiles much more than matrix.
As for the bug itself, it is now fixed from both ends in both Lightroom and OS X recent versions.
Good find, D Fosse. That was helpful.
From inspection of sample images in those links it appears to be density variation between OS & LR versions because my black level change isn't as pronounced in LR4.4/Mac OS 10.6.8.
It would be interesting to learn the mechanics on how this happens within the hand off between LR, OS & ICC monitor profile. It appears to be different interpretations of the slope angle nearing black point within the internal gamma curve of the monitor profile and maybe a combination of LR's internal implementation of Soft Proof and/or mapping from its internal 1.0 gamma source space.
-
This thread needs to get back on track or it will get locked. We have said numerous times there is no reason to be doing name calling. If it persists you'll find you'll be locked out of the forums. From what I can see Andrew who does know this stuff well tried to help the OP. The OP is a few versions behind in LR and that would have been the first place I would have looked. Many issues have been resolved with upgrades. In the meantime there have also been OS upgrades. Simple solution is to upgrade or try another RAW processor like C1 to see if the issue is persistent.
So, let it be said if it comes to name calling your are warned.
Kevin Raber
-
I was right about replicating the same black level effect in Photoshop. See the attached .png screengrab with my embedded monitor profile that was not convert to sRGB.
I opened Murray David Sutton's "Print Density Tester" tiff file in ACR 6.7 set to output to 1.8 gamma ProPhotoRGB opened in Photoshop and converted to a simple matrix sRGB Gamma 1.0 ICC profile I made in PS Color Settings CustomRGB dialog box. Note the black level crushing that occurs.
-
This thread needs to get back on track or it will get locked. We have said numerous times there is no reason to be doing name calling. If it persists you'll find you'll be locked out of the forums. From what I can see Andrew who does know this stuff well tried to help the OP. The OP is a few versions behind in LR and that would have been the first place I would have looked. Many issues have been resolved with upgrades. In the meantime there have also been OS upgrades. Simple solution is to upgrade or try another RAW processor like C1 to see if the issue is persistent.
So, let it be said if it comes to name calling your are warned.
Kevin Raber
You're pretty quick to call out name calling when it's lobbed at Andrew, but not when Andrew does it to others. Why is that? I don't have a history of name calling but I'm really getting tired of Andrew's long winded off topic debates that waste so much time.
So, how many times have you spotted me name calling going the many years I've been contributing to this forum? I bet you can't count but this one. I'm glad you're really on top of it when I do it. I still stand by my opinion of Andrew. He is what he is by his behavior. And I have private messages from other pro photographers that share that opinion as well.
-
And I have private messages from other pro photographers that share that opinion as well.
Well, you can have mine in public. I think that was uncalled for. You'd be hard pressed to see Andrew ever chasing red herrings, he usually stays on the mark. Which is what you tend to do when you know what you're talking about.
I've seen many discussions taking off on wild irrelevant tangents, and get totally lost in the fog. Let's not do that.
Mostly these problems have simple explanations and simple solutions if you know where to look. But every once in a while a real bug in software comes up, and then these threads can go on forever with nobody being able to explain what's happening. I think that's the case here - and in these cases updating is often the only right answer. That's what I think the OP should do.
That said, I almost got banned myself from this forum (not this subforum) a year or so ago. It was just something somebody said that rubbed me the wrong way, and I fired back without thinking. Before my brain started operating normally again, it was caught by a moderator. I had to eat it up, and I had no problems with that. These things happen.
-
Ok, the bottom line . . . let's not do name calling, think before pushing the send post button. I'd be the first to remind Andrew or anyone of that. We are here to help each other and stay the course.
Kevin
-
Well, you can have mine in public. I think that was uncalled for. You'd be hard pressed to see Andrew ever chasing red herrings, he usually stays on the mark. Which is what you tend to do when you know what you're talking about.
Apparently you haven't seen what I've seen here and on other photography related discussion sites.
Anyone can come across authoritative on any subject on the internet and be perceived as knowing what they're talking about. The proof of whether it's useful information is completely dependent on others that chime in and say "hey, that was useful, thanks", but we don't know how many and who they really are. Sock puppet maybe? Who knows.
I've seen that in many online discussions with a lot of knowledgeable folks, but they don't get in the habit of "stuffing/jamming" a thread making it hard to scroll through to get to useful information by endlessly debating on issues thinly related to the topic at hand as I've seen Andrew who spends a lot of time writing lengthy comebacks to argue, accuse and berate folks on trivial issues on digital imaging that are short on proof and evidence and long on theory or by simply rattling of some obscure info only he's privy but providing no links and using a condescending tone to boot with whom ever has a difference of opinion not just here on LuLa but on other sites like RetouchPro and Photo.net. Clearly he's not a cheerful giver but he spends a lot of time doing it.
Most of the time I just ignore him when he gets that way, but I'm trying to sort this black level issue out myself as well as offer some corroborating info. Getting down to the bottom of those Adobe discussion links you provided shows there's a fix for those with newer software than mine as well as whether GPU acceleration is enabled. That leaves me out for a fix except to use Soft Proof with matrix profile selected as Eric Chan suggests in this Photoshop Family discussion that is the most recent...
http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/lightroom_5_icc_profiles_clipped_shadows_under_osx
-
Ok, the bottom line . . . let's not do name calling, think before pushing the send post button. I'd be the first to remind Andrew or anyone of that. We are here to help each other and stay the course.
Kevin
Understood. Thanks for your patience with me and my flying off the handle. It's been long time since I've done that.
-
Understood. Thanks for your patience with me and my flying off the handle. It's been long time since I've done that.
Apology accepted...
-
I got a new calibration device (X-Rite i1 Display 3 / Pro (i1D3). Therefore, I was able to upgrad the software to ColorNavigator 6 Version 6.4.9.20. Went through the manual set up and used Version to 2.2 and tone curve to Gamma Value (matrix).
Now Lightroom 4, Photoshop CS6 and Preview are basically identical. I consider the problem solved.
Interestingly, it was Lightroom and Preview that changed the most with the new profile. I made two profiles (one with the default LUT and the other with changes to matrix, etc...). I can switch between the two profile and observe the results. Photoshop does have some shifts when going from LUT to Matrix but nowhere near as much as lightroom and Preview. So, it seems that Photoshop was always the closest to a correct image display.
Thanks to everyone for taking the time to help.
-
Thanks for reporting back. This is useful for future reference.
(BTW - yes, you can switch profiles on the fly in Colornavigator, but for Lr/PS to actually use that profile you need to relaunch the app. The profile is picked up at startup. IOW what you observe when you switch is just the change of correction tables in the monitor itself).