Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10
 61 
 on: October 21, 2017, 06:24:27 PM 
Started by aaronchan - Last post by Doug Gray
OK, here it becomes necessary to sort out purposes and methods. If you are trying to see whether a printer can accurately reproduce the file values using the profile you are using, this is proofing and you do need to use ABSCOL so that no application-induced transformations are taking place. ABSCOL is designed to reproduce the values in the image file without making adjustments. RELCOL with BOC remaps pixel values so this is not a correct test of profile and printer behavioural accuracy. Step One is to determine whether the printer can accurately reproduce those file values. If it can, Step Two is to see what happens to them once you introduce another Rendering Intent with BPC. Depending on the paper, the differences could be either very little or very considerable. Please see my articles on this for further elaboration. If Step One shows the printer cannot reproduce the file values quite accurately, then the problem is up-stream of the Rendering Intent/BPC business and needs to be addressed.

Mark,
I suspect the problem is upstream and that the 21 step neutral wedges do not have the L* shown in his spreadsheet.  21 step "linear" in L* wedges would normally go from L0 to L100 in steps of 5. Printing them using RelCol, but not BPC, should produce values that clip at the black point but otherwise match pretty closely all the way up to 100. RelCol values are scaled to the white point but clipped at the blackpoint by ICC compliant profiles and I1Profiler does this.

What I think happened is he printed some 21 step set that is scaled against something other than L*. Then, he measured the dark patch and light patch and drew a line between them. I'd say that was 99.9% likely since the starting and ending values match to the last fractional decimal place. It could have been something like a sRGB tone curve or something else with a gamma around 2.2. The L* isn't exactly a gamma curve but it's approx. 2.5 and his plot indicates the 21 step image used a lower one.

This is why I attached a tif file that has exactly those same starting and ending points and equal L* steps in between. This has the advantage of being within his printer's gamut. If he downloads and prints that using AbsCol then measures them he should have results very close to a straight line if his profile is good.

 62 
 on: October 21, 2017, 06:20:25 PM 
Started by Rand47 - Last post by peterwgallagher
As far as Lightroom CC (the cloud based version) nothing much to see there...it's LR with missing features and not designed for the LuLa marketplace. The odds are nobody here would seriously consider NOT using the full Lightroom Classic in favor of Lightroom CC. Is there?

Now we come to Lightroom Classic...what's new to see here? Well, Range Mask is pretty cool. I have been testing that for a while and was responsible for also keeping the older Auto Mask so you can use both in combination... [this] is a big workflow improvement for local adjustments...

Agree with both of those statements. Range masking with Auto Mask is actually very neat. It's as near a substitute for luminosity-masking-layers as we're likely to get without layers (which I'm happy not to have BTW).

I can't find anything on the market right now that is as useable (speedy development of a bunch of images) or as refined as LR Classic for such a wide range of development processes... and over the past 12 months I've tried everything and bought two or three (as insurance should they improve: my strongest hopes are with either Luminar or Affinity ... but both are a long way back on the DAM/Print timeline).

Also although I'm unlikely to use LR Web or CC LR for iOS is more advanced and not a bad "first instance" processor that allows me to determine on the road what will be worth processing back on the desktop. I just wish I could use my development presets from LR Classic in LR for iOS. Then I'd be able to use the two of them more successfully in "serial".

Best, P

 63 
 on: October 21, 2017, 06:17:40 PM 
Started by ButchM - Last post by Mark D Segal
Mark, the restriction is on going into the module. Edit In will work without doing so.

I'm pretty certain of this, and did test it for myself in the past. As I feel I know the answer, I'm not willing to test it again.

OK that's good to have confirmed. And no, I wasn't suggesting that YOU in particular test this - I had in mind any person who had cancelled their LR subscription plan. This may be of comfort to some people but I would find it unsatisfactory as I am really enjoying the merits of the raw workflow.

 64 
 on: October 21, 2017, 06:15:57 PM 
Started by GeraldB - Last post by GeraldB
I thought that was about "issues" as in problems. I am Ok to move this if I can.

 65 
 on: October 21, 2017, 06:15:08 PM 
Started by ErikKaffehr - Last post by Mark D Segal
OK, I'll just mention one last time that I think it makes sense to carry separate threads for commercial policies versus technical matters on the subject of the Adobe applications.

 66 
 on: October 21, 2017, 06:12:56 PM 
Started by ButchM - Last post by john beardsworth
Mark, the restriction is on going into the module. Edit In will work without doing so.

I'm pretty certain of this, and did test it for myself in the past. As I feel I know the answer, I'm not willing to test it again.

 67 
 on: October 21, 2017, 06:09:21 PM 
Started by GeraldB - Last post by Mark D Segal
This is the kind of discussion that perhaps should have been carried in the thread created yesterday http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=121124.0. That said, members are free to start new topics if they so wish of course, but it would just be so much more convenient to group all this technical performance stuff in one place rather than scouring multiple threads to find it all.

 68 
 on: October 21, 2017, 06:08:30 PM 
Started by LesPalenik - Last post by David S
This afternoon as I was driving to the airport, I saw a driver just barely able to stop and miss hitting a young person crossing the street (a four lane street at that) against the light and looking at their phone instead of the light, road and where they were walking.

Dave S

 69 
 on: October 21, 2017, 06:05:33 PM 
Started by ButchM - Last post by Mark D Segal
According to this https://lightroomkillertips.com/happens-cancel-lightroom-cc-subscription/, nothing will work in the Develop Module and everything will work that is in the Library Module, which would presumably include "Edit In". But I couldn't find anything granular enough to specify what happens with "Edit In" when accessed from the Library Module. Maybe someone with experience of cancellation can join-in here. However, even if it does work, it's a crummy solution for people who don't want to bloat their drives with rendered files and need to go back to Photoshop or some such for editing their photos. Losing the elegance and convenience of the raw workflow would be a real downer for me. It would probably be preferable to convert them all to DNG and work in C1, if C1 will recognize all the stored adjustments in the DNG.

 70 
 on: October 21, 2017, 05:51:49 PM 
Started by ErikKaffehr - Last post by Alan Goldhammer
I don't know who these snowflakes are (one can guess - ha ha Jeff)
It was the Trump discussions on the Coffee Corner Section of LuLa.  Jeff was an important contributor to those discussions.
Quote
I'm assuming this is humour,
Unfortunately not for some of us who were active on some of the aforementioned threads
Quote
My understanding of LuLa policy is that no such discussion would be locked as long as it remains civil.
There was a very good Climate Change thread that ended up in the waste can as well and I think the discussion on that thread was pretty civil (I was very active along with Ray and some others).  It's all water under the bridge right now and I'm sure LuLa released a large amount of disk space when all those threads were removed.

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10