Profile and Presets - turning everything OFF!

[digitaldog]

I know all that, why I agreed with your previous post on the usefulness of Raw Digger. All I'm saying is that if one suspects the starting "recipe" is blowing highlights, one can check for that by toning them down and seeing what happens. I'm not pretending it's a perfect substitute for seeing all the raw information.

Here's what I don't understand. You say you appreciate the comparison David posted because it shows how Neutral reveals more highlight information than one may be lead to believe exists just looking at Adobe Standard, begging the question, if he used Adobe Standard then moved the Highlight recover, could he recover just as much highlights san's anything else the profiles affect aside from highlights? More highlight than one believes to exist just where? We can recover highlights that don't exist and we can blow out highlights that do exist by altering far more than profiles.
This all goes back to the idea of 'turning everything off' the topic here that isn't possible in this product. Perhaps many others.

[Mark D Segal]

I don't know what you're arguing about. Look at David's example. In the Adobe Standard case the highlights don't reveal as much highlight detail as in the Adobe Neutral case. So he's saying he prefers to start with Adobe Neutral because it has a better chance of avoiding that kind of problem. It may well have other effects too, depending on the image, but one can start with either. All I was getting at is that if one started with David's Adobe Standard image, one could shift the highlight slider to the left to see whether more highlight detail comes into view as a result of pulling the highlights back. That's all. I think it's pretty obvious. I'm not leveraging that into arguing anything else.

[digitaldog]

I don't know what you're arguing about. Look at David's example. In the Adobe Standard case the highlights don't reveal as much highlight detail as in the Adobe Neutral case. So he's saying he prefers to start with Adobe Neutral because it has a better chance of avoiding that kind of problem. It may well have other effects too, depending on the image, but one can start with either. All I was getting at is that if one started with David's Adobe Standard image, one could shift the highlight slider to the left to see whether more highlight detail comes into view as a result of pulling the highlights back. That's all. I think it's pretty obvious. I'm not leveraging that into arguing anything else.

We (I'm) not arguing about anything. I did ask you to explain what you wrote. Is there anything I wrote about highlights with respect to the profiles or other settings that's inaccurate? Is there anything I stated that this idea of a 'turning off everything' isn't possible? I did look look David's examples and I can counteract the effects by altering other areas of the software that control highlights. So I don't see what's being shown there as being very pertinent to the idea or desire of 'turning everything off" which again, I firmly believe isn't possible in this product. Perhaps others.

[Mark D Segal]

Good Lord! For the 3rd time let me be clear - I'm not saying anything you said is inaccurate or incorrect. Basta Andrew. I'm moving on..........

[digitaldog]

Good Lord! For the 3rd time let me be clear - I'm not saying anything you said is inaccurate or incorrect. Basta Andrew. I'm moving on..........

Fine with me.
This is for David since you've left the scene.
Below is Adobe Neutral. The ONLY difference is PV1 vs. PV5. As you can see but (Mark may not), just the selection of a PV alters highlights tremendously. Same profile, every other setting identical. So no, you can't turn this stuff off and no, you can't tell squat about highlights (and other factors) without looking at the raw data, which is what I believe you wish to do.

[Alan Klein]

How would I eliminate the initial settings since I'm starting with scanned color or BW film where no adjustments are applied during the scan except for possibly black and white points?  Would there be settings on the other hand that would help initially that I could use? 

[digitaldog]

How would I eliminate the initial settings since I'm starting with scanned color or BW film where no adjustments are applied during the scan except for possibly black and white points?  Would there be settings on the other hand that would help initially that I could use?

Don't understand the question or why you'd be using a raw converter for scans.

[Alan Klein]

Don't understand the question or why you'd be using a raw converter for scans.

What do you mean why use a raw convertor?  I don;t understand?  I use Lightroom when I process digital and film scans. 

[digitaldog]

What do you mean why use a raw convertor?  I don;t understand?  I use Lightroom when I process digital and film scans.

Lightroom (Develop module) is (primary) a raw converter. Why are you not using the scanner software to "process" the scans?

[DavidPalermo]

Fine with me.
This is for David since you've left the scene.
Below is Adobe Neutral. The ONLY difference is PV1 vs. PV5. As you can see but (Mark may not), just the selection of a PV alters highlights tremendously. Same profile, every other setting identical. So no, you can't turn this stuff off and no, you can't tell squat about highlights (and other factors) without looking at the raw data, which is what I believe you wish to do.

I understand that you cannot use a RAW image in Lightroom without a profile. I get that. I was looking for a starting point whereby I can see with pretty good accuracy what my camera's sensor is recording without moving any sliders! Once I view and evaluate the image I then plan on what enhancements I will do to express my vision for the photograph. It's pretty simple.

I realize there are many paths to achieve the final image however I specifically asked how to get closest to a very neutral starting point that allows me to see the data I have to work with.

Adobe Neutral, to me, seems to be the best solution for my own personal work-flow.

[digitaldog]

I understand that you cannot use a RAW image in Lightroom without a profile. I get that. I was looking for a starting point whereby I can see with pretty good accuracy what my camera's sensor is recording without moving any sliders!

You can't do that in LR. Or many raw converters. You can't do this without settings, zero is a setting.
First of all, this is what raw looks like with one type of previewing raw data:



You probably don't want to view your raws this way but none the less, the above is what raw looks like with very minimal rendering from what is just a big pile of numbers.


Next, you probably want scene referred output based on what you say you want  :
http://www.color.org/ICC_white_paper_20_Digital_photography_color_management_basics.pdf
Not at all easy to get depending on the raw converter.
So we're back to your original question about profiles and presets and turning everything OFF. It's not possible. As such, any setting you start with that you are happy with as a starting point if fair game. If that means using Adobe Neutral, so be it and fine.
What you'd start off with using a custom profile could be an interesting area for you to investigate but let's go no farther down that path unless you so desire.

[Alan Klein]

Lightroom (Develop module) is (primary) a raw converter. Why are you not using the scanner software to "process" the scans?

If you adjust with the scanner, you;re locked into the results.  If you want to change them, you have to re-scan, which takes a lot of time and effort.  By scanning "flat", or at the most just esetting black and white points, you never have to go back to re-scan.

Also, Lightroom has more adjustments available like cloning and spot removal to get rid of dust spots on the negatives, curves, graduated filter operations, etc, as well as great conversion to BW from color.  Basically, I start with a "flat image and then adjust from there with Lightroom.  I was curious if others use some sort of presets when they open the scanned file in the Develop mode?

[Alan Klein]

What is Adobe Neutral and how do you set it in Lightroom?

[digitaldog]

If you adjust with the scanner, you;re locked into the results.  If you want to change them, you have to re-scan, which takes a lot of time and effort.  By scanning "flat", or at the most just esetting black and white points, you never have to go back to re-scan.

Also, Lightroom has more adjustments available like cloning and spot removal to get rid of dust spots on the negatives, curves, graduated filter operations, etc, as well as great conversion to BW from color.  Basically, I start with a "flat image and then adjust from there with Lightroom.  I was curious if others use some sort of presets when they open the scanned file in the Develop mode?

You don't lock in the scanner software especially if it's good and powerful, you use it as you would in LR or PS and get a great scan (globally) and move on. Perhaps your scan software sucks. Ask Mark about Silverfast which is pretty good (it ain't LinoColor or Color Quartet).

[Alan Klein]

Here's an example of the scanned image without adjustments and the final image adjusted in LR.  Note the histogram for the scanned file stops at around 172.  That's pretty typical of color scans, for me.  So I then start from scratch for each photo using LR to produce the final.  I was wondering if anyone else has a different take on LR presets using film scans?

[digitaldog]

What is Adobe Neutral and how do you set it in Lightroom?

It's a camera (raw) profile; not going to work on scans.

[digitaldog]

Here's an example of the scanned image without adjustments and the final image adjusted in LR.  Note the histogram for the scanned file stops at around 172.  That's pretty typical of color scans, for me.  So I then start from scratch for each photo using LR to produce the final.  I was wondering if anyone else has a different take on LR presets using film scans?

Yeah, obviously the "no adjustment" scanning method stinks. MAKE ADJUSTMENTS.

[Alan Klein]

Yeah, obviously the "no adjustment" scanning method stinks. MAKE ADJUSTMENTS.

Adjustments are made in LR after the scan.  If I made them for the scan and didn't like the way the scan came out, I'd have to change the scanning software settings and re-scan, a timely procedure.   Also, LR adjustments are more powerful.  EVen if the scan came out good with the scan software, I would still need to use LR in any case: spotting dust, adding graduated filter, adjustment brush, etc.  So I;d be using two  softwares to get a single result.  Scanning flat and using LR only is a more efficient process.  I don;t have to learn and pay for a second adjustment software.  In any case, this procedure works for me.  Others, I'm sure, have developed their own ways that work for them. 

[Alan Klein]

It's a camera (raw) profile; not going to work on scans.

How would I set it when using digital images?

[peterwgallagher]

I apologise for coming to this discussion late. I agree with Jeff Schewe that you really don't want to try to work from raw data and that the Adobe Standard color profile is a pretty accurate representation of what the world looks like (not what you REMEMBER it looked like, of course). But I agree, too, with Ilah Borg (Raw Digger, Fast Raw Viewer) that it can be useful sometimes to zero-out all the added adjustments, especially the Baseline Exposure Compensation (BLE) and contrast curve that Adobe raw conversion adds to the image. This is especially useful if you want to verify your usual shot-preparation routine for exposure choices.

Illah's article on how to zero the BLE and the contrast curve is here:https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/deriving-hidden-ble-compensation

I've made an LR preset that zeroes this on my Olympus 4/3 cameras.