Per colour luminance and saturation adjustments

[dreed]

Is it possible to do per-colour luminance/saturation with either the gradient or brush tools?

[Schewe]

Nope...

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Is it possible to do per-colour luminance/saturation with either the gradient or brush tools?

Hi,

The reason it's not possible, besides requiring a more complex use interface, is the risk of creating discontinuities and color shifts in smooth gradients which will show up as banding / posterization.

As a solution, there is a plug-in that can be called from Lightroom that allows relatively fine control, especially because it integrates intelligent masking and Intellicolor technology to keep colors looking natural when you change the Luminosity. It also offers awesome Clarity control. This is more accurate and feature rich than the Lightroom controls.

Cheers,
Bart

[stormyboy]

Bart,
Thank you for reminding me about that plug-in.

Tom

[digitaldog]

Thank you for reminding me about that plug-in.

AFAIK, using the plug-in ends your editing of the raw data. That is an important consideration.

[stormyboy]

AFAIK, using the plug-in ends your editing of the raw data. That is an important consideration.

True.  I usually use things like this at the end of the workflow and on a virtual copy.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

AFAIK, using the plug-in ends your editing of the raw data. That is an important consideration.

Hi Andrew,

That's correct, although most of the LR controls are applied on what is basically already Raw converted image data. The only difference is that the parametric LR controls will recalculate the adjustments in a predefined order all over again when something is changed.

I'm not sure at what stage the HSL controls are actually applied by LR, but if the order of the control panels is an indication, it is going to be pretty late in the sequence as well. The HSL corrections are IMHO also something that comes pretty late in the order of all corrections, in the creative part after all basic adjustments are in place already.

So, as a finishing touch, one could use only the HSL controls of such a plugin (although it has much more to offer), and if need be save the settings as a preset to tweak and re-apply them should one want to change the basic Raw conversion in LR. As an alternative for those who also use Photoshop, the final 'master' TIFF could be saved with an adjustment layer, or smart layer, holding just these corrections.

Cheers,
Bart

[digitaldog]

That's correct, although most of the LR controls are applied on what is basically already Raw converted image data. The only difference is that the parametric LR controls will recalculate the adjustments in a predefined order all over again when something is changed.

Recalculate using the best processing order and when one wants to render the data. So in my mind that's kind of a big deal workflow wise. Yes, I suspect by the time LR's HSL takes place, the data is 'less raw' than other processes, but with the plug-in, you have to commit to being completely done with all parametric and raw processing. It sounds like stormyboy takes that into account by doing all the other raw/parametric edits first, render then apply the plug-in to a VC or rendered data which I think is the best way to work in this case. But one does have to commit to finishing all raw/parametric edits before moving to that step (my initial point albeit not well spelled out).

It's just too bad these plug-in's can't get access to the Develop module data. Not their fault. But something to consider when using them and their effect on the workflow.

As an alternative for those who also use Photoshop, the final 'master' TIFF could be saved with an adjustment layer, or smart layer, holding just these corrections.

Exactly and it seems for those that own Photoshop, that's a better route (due to layers).

[eliedinur]

It sounds like stormyboy takes that into account by doing all the other raw/parametric edits first, render then apply the plug-in to a VC or rendered data which I think is the best way to work in this case.

I don't see the point in making a VC. There is no reason or advantage to it. Whether VC or master is selected you still have to create a tif for the plugin and it is the tif that is edited, not the VC. The tif is very "unvirtual" and as you say, nonparametric.

[digitaldog]

I don't see the point in making a VC. There is no reason or advantage to it.

True, since a TIFF has to be generated, iternation might as well (as to be) be in that format. Not that the VC takes up any additional overhead.

[Jim MSP]

I don't see the point in making a VC. There is no reason or advantage to it. Whether VC or master is selected you still have to create a tif for the plugin and it is the tif that is edited, not the VC. The tif is very "unvirtual" and as you say, nonparametric.

I have found through trial and error that Topaz DeNoise, Detail, and Clarity all work better on LR files if I pass a file via a tiff that has minimum noise reduction, sharpening, and clarity adjustments. Since I usually want to keep my best LR edit, I pass a VC to Topaz with these parameters minimized.

[eliedinur]

I have found through trial and error that Topaz DeNoise, Detail, and Clarity all work better on LR files if I pass a file via a tiff that has minimum noise reduction, sharpening, and clarity adjustments. Since I usually want to keep my best LR edit, I pass a VC to Topaz with these parameters minimized.

Thank you, that is interesting and worth knowing.