Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: Dinarius on July 04, 2013, 04:03:27 pm
-
I'm trying to wean myself off ACR and on to LR 4.
I supply TIFFs in Adobe 1998.
I'm aware that in LR I'm looking at, and editing in, ProPhoto RGB.
Just about every article I've read on soft proofing deals with printing.
Just to be sure, if I'm saving out to Adobe 1998, I should be soft proofing too. Right?
Thanks.
D.
-
Yes the principles are exactly the same.
Tweak your master file in Prophoto.
Then create a virtual copy and softproof it using AdobeRGB as the profile.
Use the Prophoto original as the reference point.
When the virtual copy is sorted then export it as a TIFF with AdobeRGB as teh colourspace.
Tony Jay
-
The only limitation to soft proofing to another color space is that while LR will allow you to change rendering intents, in reality unless you have a special V4 ICC profile, you'll always only get Relative Colorimetric rendering...the rest of the soft proofing works the same for color spaces as printer profiles.
-
The only limitation to soft proofing to another color space is that while LR will allow you to change rendering intents, in reality unless you have a special V4 ICC profile, you'll always only get Relative Colorimetric rendering...the rest of the soft proofing works the same for color spaces as printer profiles.
Are you implying that if I want to edit properly in Adobe 1998, I should stick with ACR?
Thanks.
D.
-
Are you implying that if I want to edit properly in Adobe 1998, I should stick with ACR?
The limitation is in profiles, not in LR. It would be the same in ACR I think.
-
The limitation is in profiles, not in LR. It would be the same in ACR I think.
But, in ACR, if you toggle between colour spaces, there is no Perceptual/Relative as there is if you are editing in Adobe 1998 via Soft Proofing in LR.
So, is what one sees in ACR, in any given colour space, more representative?
(I should add that a lot of what I do is fine art documentation for museums and galleries. I know my RGB 0-255 numbers backwards! - which is why I want to use Adobe 1998 in LR. I hate the % readout in ProPhoto and it begs the question why Adobe have it both ways in the program. That said, it would be nice to be able to switch.)
Thanks.
D.
-
Been reading Andrew Rodney's text on Color Management in LR and this passage pretty much says it all......
"Here again, Adobe apparently intends to make Lightroom
easy for the user by limiting the options.
Time will tell if this approach is viable.
We didn’t see much in the way of color
management in Photoshop until v. 5.0, nearly
8 years after its initial release, and it was still
rough around the edges. For a 1.0 product,
Lightroom looks promising with respect to color
management, but it’s a delicate balancing act.
I can live without LAB or CMYK support,
but hope to see true soft proofing in a future
version. The lack of multiple working spaces
isn’t a serious limitation for me. In fact, if
you only work with raw files, all you really
have to do is set Lightroom to always export
in 16-bit ProPhoto RGB. It will be
interesting to see how the market reacts to
Lightroom, and how the product will evolve
in response to wide user feedback."
Though it was written before Soft Proofing in LR 4.
If colour critical users are happy to use only ProPhoto, the I guess LR is fine. But, choice would be nice! And how hard can it be?
D.
-
One shortcoming of soft proofing to Adobe RGB that should be kept in mind is that unless you have a wide gamut monitor you will never truly see Adobe RGB. Even the soft proof will be remapped to your monitor space. Of course the same is true of ACR set to Adobe RGB. LR lets you see what colors are OOG for your monitor as well as what might be OOG for the target output space but determining what color changes (if any) are due to which cause can be problematic. But I don't know what monitor you have, so this may not be relevant for you.
-
I guess I'm confused as to why you would need to "soft proof" to AdobeRGB. It's a working space like ProPhoto RGB and the reason one would submit work would be to make sure whoever gets the file doesn't have information clipped they will need when they then convert it to an output space. It's usually just a submission requirement meaning they don't want it in the restricted space of sRGB. I think AdobeRGB is preferred because most require 8 bit files as well, and prophoto files at 8 bit can be problematic. you really don't ever "see" a file in the working space.
Can you even see a difference in the two before and after? I tried 2 or 3 quickly and really didn't see any differences.
-
Thanks for the replies.
On balance, while I like LR 4 and its interface, that blue hyperlink at the bottom of the ACR screen is its killer application, IMHO, and the reason I'll probably continue using ACR most of the time.
I want to be able to switch between colour spaces in a more orthodox way - soft proofing just doesn't feel right.
Also, if I use ACR, I@ve got 0-255 across the board. Oscillating between 0-255 and % in LR is silly, and you really have to wonder why they allow it.
I also miss the colour sampler tool, which I use a lot.
This just keeps ringing in my head... "Adobe apparently intends to make Lightroom
easy for the user by limiting the options." Andrew Rodney.
LR should be an exact copy of ACR with bells on, and it isn't. ACR was perfected over many years and some of its best bits were omitted in LR - they shouldn't have been.
D.
Ps. ACR ain't perfect either. Some things LR does better, e.g. the Spot Removal Tool. In LR, after clicking on an area, you can hover over the next spot and resize for it BEFORE clicking on it. In ACR, if you try to resize before clicking, you enlarge/make smaller the previous spot instead. So, the LR way is more intuitive, in my view.
-
This thread has my head spinning. Allow me to go off-topic a bit please. If I export from LR5 a tiff as aRGB1998, is that the same as if while editing in CS6 I were to "convert to" aRGB1998? In other words, does LR remap the color coordinates during export to profiles other than ProPhoto?
At this point, I'm hoping my question is even intelligible. ;D Just about the time I think I'm getting a handle on color management I read a thread like this and my brain explodes. And, as for soft proofing to another profile/color space, I'm with Wayne Fox on this one - I see zero difference soft proofing to aRGB1998.
Rand
-
This thread has my head spinning. Allow me to go off-topic a bit please. If I export from LR5 a tiff as aRGB1998, is that the same as if while editing in CS6 I were to "convert to" aRGB1998? In other words, does LR remap the color coordinates during export to profiles other than ProPhoto?
In LR, any edits and subsequent exports have to be handled using the ACR engine and it's color space (ProPhoto primaries with a linear gamma). That usually isn't the case, or let's say it doesn't have to be the case in Photoshop. So to make the answer simple, let's just say no, it's not the same. If you wanted to know the differences, you could conduct the two conversions in the two locations, then in Photoshop, subtract one from the other as explained here:
http://digitaldog.net/files/Apply_Image.pdf
-
In LR, any edits and subsequent exports have to be handled using the ACR engine and it's color space (ProPhoto primaries with a linear gamma). That usually isn't the case, or let's say it doesn't have to be the case in Photoshop. So to make the answer simple, let's just say no, it's not the same. If you wanted to know the differences, you could conduct the two conversions in the two locations, then in Photoshop, subtract one from the other as explained here:
http://digitaldog.net/files/Apply_Image.pdf
Thanks very much. So, is it safe to say that both approaches are remapping the coordinates, but that they don't do it exactly the same way? If so, is one method to be prefered?
Rand
-
IF you have edits applied to the data in LR/ACR then I have to suspect you want that rendered out. So yes, that's preferable to not getting the edits you applied. The question may be this: I have a non raw file and I need to edit it and I could do this either in ACR or Photoshop proper, what's the best path? If you have a raw file, you have to process it through the ACR engine. So the question is moot.
-
IF you have edits applied to the data in LR/ACR then I have to suspect you want that rendered out. So yes, that's preferable to not getting the edits you applied. The question may be this: I have a non raw file and I need to edit it and I could do this either in ACR or Photoshop proper, what's the best path? If you have a raw file, you have to process it through the ACR engine. So the question is moot.
Thanks again... "But" ;D If, in LR I've optimized my RAW file then "Edit in CS6 - copy with LR Adjustments" (and I'm configured to do so as 16 bit tiff) and then only use CS6 to convert to aRGB... ? Is that to be preferred to just exporting from LR as tiff in aRGB? Or am I completely flummoxed?
I appreciate your patience with my struggle to understand.
Rand
-
Thanks again... "But" ;D If, in LR I've optimized my RAW file then "Edit in CS6 - copy with LR Adjustments" (and I'm configured to do so as 16 bit tiff) and then only use CS6 to convert to aRGB... ? Is that to be preferred to just exporting from LR as tiff in aRGB? Or am I completely flummoxed?
There's the workflow of saving off iterations from a master and there's the workflow of editing the master. IMOH, once you move past the editing in LR, you now ask to 'edit in Photoshop' and have thus rendered that data, that data is now to be further edited in Photoshop. You can still use LR as a DAM to keep track of that edited iteration. You could also use that rendered iteration to spin off images that are say smaller in size, gamut etc (export for a web page). Or to make a print etc. The question becomes, what do you want to do with this sRGB copy? Probably doesn't matter if you spin it off from within Photoshop or LR, whatever is easier for you. They may not be 100% pixel value identical (again, do a test). The differences should be tiny.
-
There's the workflow of saving off iterations from a master and there's the workflow of editing the master. IMOH, once you move past the editing in LR, you now ask to 'edit in Photoshop' and have thus rendered that data, that data is now to be further edited in Photoshop. You can still use LR as a DAM to keep track of that edited iteration. You could also use that rendered iteration to spin off images that are say smaller in size, gamut etc (export for a web page). Or to make a print etc. The question becomes, what do you want to do with this sRGB copy? Probably doesn't matter if you spin it off from within Photoshop or LR, whatever is easier for you. They may not be 100% pixel value identical (again, do a test). The differences should be tiny.
Thanks so much! That helped a bunch.
Rand
-
I'm trying to wean myself off ACR and on to LR 4.
I supply TIFFs in Adobe 1998.
I'm aware that in LR I'm looking at, and editing in, ProPhoto RGB.
Just about every article I've read on soft proofing deals with printing.
Just to be sure, if I'm saving out to Adobe 1998, I should be soft proofing too. Right?
Thanks.
D.
I'm like you, I've been messing around in LR4.4 trying to create a similarly simplified workflow I had working out of Bridge CS3, ACR 4.6 and Photoshop. I like having RGB readouts (ProPhotoRGB output) show up so I can tell if the data is getting close to 000RGB/255RGB due to the histogram being so much smaller than in ACR.
For those that aren't aware of what I found yesterday I'll relate it here in screengrabs just for FYI since this fits within the topic here.
I found buried in SoftProof Basic Edit Panel Section Dropdown Arrows an option to include other profiles where you can select ProPhotoRGB as the output space but you have to make sure the "Include Display Profiles" is checked, a very confusing naming convention since it suggests only a user's custom display profile would show up. It shows all profiles.
The buried features and options is the one thing about LR I'm finding a bit annoying and time consuming to hunt down. I've had to do several Google searches asking questions on how to set it up so LR works similarly to how I work in CS3.
However, the DRASTICALLY improved previews I'm getting in LR4 over CS3 tells me I've got a lot of re-editing on about 3000 Raws so I want to get LR set up for ease of use workflow so it all makes sense.
GEEZ! There's so much crap you have to turn off and hunt for the stuff you want in LR! Rant be gone!
-
The show display profiles option has been around for at least 3 versions if not more if memory serves me. Prior to soft proofing in LR4.The various dialogs where you can filter which profiles to show up (export, print).
What it means is show Matrix profiles as well as LUT based/printer output profiles.
-
The show display profiles option has been around for at least 3 versions if not more if memory serves me. Prior to soft proofing in LR4.The various dialogs where you can filter which profiles to show up (export, print).
What it means is show Matrix profiles as well as LUT based/printer output profiles.
I don't doubt you know how LR works 3 versions back, but I posted what I found and how it appears to people who would be rummaging around the LR interface like I did and not be aware of this being NEW or weaning themselves off ACR as Dinarius points out.
I don't think photographers in general new to LR really know the difference between a matrix and display profile. It's still a misleading naming convention when you're trying to grok the intuitiveness of a software interface in order to get something as simple as RGB readouts to show up in a photo editing app that deals with RGB data. I just don't understand why LR's default RGB readouts have to be in %'s where the photographer has to setup SoftProofing that's nothing but intuitive just to get RGB readouts.
Clearly LR has definitely been "Hamburgered" as a photo editing app meant for photographers who are extremely obsessive compulsive, but in a good way.
-
If you have a better name for the check box, that's fine with me. How about the fact we can toggle to a Perceptual rendering intent on profiles that can't provide one? Same in Photoshop too. The little inclusion of RGB working space and display spaces has been around awhile and discussed too in LR centric forums and videos, that's one of my points.
-
OK, Andrew, I get your point.
Aside from that why would Dinarius or anyone else want to Soft Proof in AdobeRGB since it doesn't change the preview in LR?
Are they using it simply for the histogram and RGB readouts similarly as I illustrated with ProPhotoRGB?
-
Are they using it simply for the histogram and RGB readouts similarly as I illustrated with ProPhotoRGB?
That's the only reason I could see (or if you want to use the display OOG to see how far out the data is on an sRGB display).
-
Aside from that why would Dinarius or anyone else want to Soft Proof in AdobeRGB since it doesn't change the preview in LR?
Actually, there are some images where changing the soft proof from ProPhoto RGB to Adobe RGB and sRGB will have an impact on the image–which is the whole purpose of soft proofing in the first place. And while there are no version 4 ICC profiles for ProPhoto RGB nor Adobe RGB that allows using a perceptual rendering intent, the ICC does offer a v4 sRGB profile that DOES have perceptual matrixes that offers an alternative to relative colorimetric.
Also not that if somebody want to check the RGB readouts in 0-255 and Adobe RGB is the final output then soft proofing allows the use of 0-255 readouts.
-
I have a raw file I know is outside both sRGB and Adobe RGB (1998). If I soft proof on my wide gamut display using ProPhoto (no soft proofing) versus Adobe RGB (1998) I see no difference visually. If I soft proof between Adobe RGB (1998) and sRGB I do (it's very subtle but visible). I suspect the gamut of the display plays a role here (it better). An interesting aside. If I make a screen capture of both, the resulting sRGB capture doesn't show much difference visually.
-
I have a raw file I know is outside both sRGB and Adobe RGB (1998). If I soft proof on my wide gamut display using ProPhoto (no soft proofing) versus Adobe RGB (1998) I see no difference visually. If I soft proof between Adobe RGB (1998) and sRGB I do (it's very subtle but visible). I suspect the gamut of the display plays a role here (it better). An interesting aside. If I make a screen capture of both, the resulting sRGB capture doesn't show much difference visually.
On a related question sort of, Andrew, have you noticed saturation levels differ by any degree viewing the same color managed image on a dual display setup, one a wide gamut, the other sRGB-ish both calibrated with the same calibration package?
The reason I ask is it seems saturation levels of CM previews on my newly acquired & calibrated, slightly less than sRGB (LG 27") are a bit less vibrant than what I remember seeing on my Dell 2209WA which is slightly larger than sRGB. I might just be seeing things and could chock it up to the larger 27" LG screen area over the Dell 22" influencing my adapting to perceived saturation levels.
I know for sure with the LG's increase of yellow/green in its gamut over sRGB and the Dell, fresh grass backlit by an early morning sun just above the horizon looks so much vibrant than on the Dell. I'm just trying to distinguish gamut size as the influence over whether display calibration packages can create profiles that accurately render CM saturation levels between two displays with different size color gamuts. Can't see this for myself since I don't have a wide gamut display to compare against.
-
On a related question sort of, Andrew, have you noticed saturation levels differ by any degree viewing the same color managed image on a dual display setup, one a wide gamut, the other sRGB-ish both calibrated with the same calibration package?
No because I'm not in that workflow (I'm using SpectraView for wide gamut display, i1P for the other device which at this time is a MacBook Pro display-yuck).
What I don't understand is why I can't capture via a screen capture or video the big visual differences I see soft proofing in Photoshop and LR on this one image. If I toggle between Adobe RGB (1998) and sRGB I see this update on-screen within the two app's. But toggling a screen capture of capturing a video of this doesn't show up! Weird.
-
No because I'm not in that workflow (I'm using SpectraView for wide gamut display, i1P for the other device which at this time is a MacBook Pro display-yuck).
What I don't understand is why I can't capture via a screen capture or video the big visual differences I see soft proofing in Photoshop and LR on this one image. If I toggle between Adobe RGB (1998) and sRGB I see this update on-screen within the two app's. But toggling a screen capture of capturing a video of this doesn't show up! Weird.
Hi, Andrew...
I never tried a screen capture, but have seen the same effect.
I run dual monitors (with two separate cards on Win7)...both calibrated with i1P. One wide gamut and one sRGB
With the right image, they look slighly different. If I softproof the wide gamut image to sRGB, they, then, look identical. Frustrated me until I realized this :)
To Tim: I would not worry about the different saturation. After a few prints you will be able to judge the saturation level of the screen to the print output. The importance is consistency. One of my displays in LED backlit and the other CFL. With the CFL, I had difficulty getting good calibration until I realized the color was not consistent until it was one 30 min.....now, I can absolutely trust it if it was calibrated "warm" and used "warm".