Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Retaining Both Lightroom 4+ and Lightroom 3.6 for Photo Processing  (Read 6459 times)
JimAscher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 328



WWW
« on: November 17, 2012, 03:54:58 PM »
ReplyReply

The Basic Brightness control in LR 3.6 is an essential part of my printing workflow (via QTR), which Basic control is no longer available in LR 4+.  However, I am discovering in use of my trial version of LR 4+ many new features (different from LR 3.6) which I find useful.  If I should decide to purchase (upgrade to) LR 4+, will I (1) still be able to process photos in both versions, but more specifically (2) will I be be able to process a photo first in LR 4+ then massage it further for printing purposes in LR 3.6 before sending it off to VTR for printing?   As I've reported before in other threads in this forum, in order to get my photo as printed to match fairly well the photo I have evolved on my monitor, I must lighten it somewhat using the LR 3.6 Basic Brightness control.  This methodology may appear unnecessarily cumbersome to other forum members, but it's really quite simple, and works fine, for me.
Logged

Jim Ascher

See my new SmugMug site:
http://jimascherphotos.smugmug.com/
Anthony.Ralph
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 43



« Reply #1 on: November 17, 2012, 04:28:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Apart from the difficulty in keeping catalogues from two different version in any sort of synchronisation, there is always the possibility of choosing different process to develop particular images (2010 or 2012). The sliders change to suit each version.

The best way, in my opinion, is to embrace the 2012 process pipeline and really get to know it well. And possibly look at either Micheal/Jeff's videos or George Jardine's ones all of which give a big helping hand in such an endeavour.

Anthony.
Logged
Tony Jay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2029


« Reply #2 on: November 17, 2012, 04:29:25 PM »
ReplyReply

As far as I am aware the answer is yes 3.6 will still work.

As to the issue of needing to brighten images prior to printing - just get your monitor luminence correct and the need for your cumbersome workflow dissapears.

Tony Jay
Logged
Steve House
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 202


« Reply #3 on: November 17, 2012, 04:36:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Why don't you just turn down the brightness on your monitor a skosh?  You say you adjust the image to what you want the print to look like and then notch up the brightness a bit in LR3 so it will print properly, right?  Well, turning up the brightness slider in LR at that last step makes the on-screen image look too bright doesn't it?  So back off the brightness control on your monitor until the image on the screen once again looks proper and leave it set there as your standard monitor setting for all your photo work.  What you now see on your screen is what you'll get when you print regardless of which version of LR you use.  Problem solved without having to jump through hoops using multiple versions of LR.

« Last Edit: November 17, 2012, 04:49:01 PM by Steve House » Logged
JimAscher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 328



WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 17, 2012, 05:06:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Why don't you just turn down the brightness on your monitor a skosh?  You say you adjust the image to what you want the print to look like and then notch up the brightness a bit in LR3 so it will print properly, right?  Well, turning up the brightness slider in LR at that last step makes the on-screen image look too bright doesn't it?  So back off the brightness control on your monitor until the image on the screen once again looks proper and leave it set there as your standard monitor setting for all your photo work.  What you now see on your screen is what you'll get when you print regardless of which version of LR you use.  Problem solved without having to jump through hoops using multiple versions of LR.



Ah, Steve, if only it were that simple!  The logic behind your solution would seem irrefutable, and most compelling.  I in fact use a separate monitor for my photo work (which i neglected to mention is entirely in black-and-white).  I have struggled with Eye One Match 3 to get my monitor to match a final print, to no avail.  In spite of all the expert advice and apparently successful experience reported by other members of this forum, I remain highly dubious that a back-lit monitor display can EVER sufficiently represent for me a matching reflective paper photograph.  I have come to terms with this disparity over a period of time, and evolved my solution described earlier, using the LR 3.6 Basic Brightness control.  With keeping both LR 3.6 and LR 4+ operational on my PC, and maintaining the two separate LR Catalogs that this necessitates, I believe I can export from LR 4+ to its catalog, then synchronize a massaged photo from there to LR 3.6 for applying the LR 3.6 Brightness control, before printing.  I may, nevertheless, have a go at the method you describe as a solution, but i remain doubtful.  Many thanks, though.  Jim
Logged

Jim Ascher

See my new SmugMug site:
http://jimascherphotos.smugmug.com/
Rand47
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 513


« Reply #5 on: November 17, 2012, 05:12:23 PM »
ReplyReply

While I also would not consider this optimal - take a look at the LR4 print module.  You'll notice you now have the ability to increase brightness and contrast, "post develop module" and applied only in the print pipeline.  Perhaps you can find a set amount of one, or both, to apply to get a print match that would obviate the need to run LR 3.x and move images back and forth?  Worth some time testing, I'd think.

Rand
« Last Edit: November 17, 2012, 05:14:27 PM by Rand47 » Logged
JimAscher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 328



WWW
« Reply #6 on: November 17, 2012, 06:42:11 PM »
ReplyReply

While I also would not consider this optimal - take a look at the LR4 print module.  You'll notice you now have the ability to increase brightness and contrast, "post develop module" and applied only in the print pipeline.  Perhaps you can find a set amount of one, or both, to apply to get a print match that would obviate the need to run LR 3.x and move images back and forth?  Worth some time testing, I'd think.

Rand

Unfortunately, Rand, I have my preferred ink-mix profile well-established in QTR and don't want to venture away from printing with that tried-and-true (for me) method. But thanks for pointing out that the LR Print module does allowing brightening.  Jim
Logged

Jim Ascher

See my new SmugMug site:
http://jimascherphotos.smugmug.com/
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5258


WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 17, 2012, 07:31:58 PM »
ReplyReply

If I should decide to purchase (upgrade to) LR 4+, will I (1) still be able to process photos in both versions, but more specifically (2) will I be be able to process a photo first in LR 4+ then massage it further for printing purposes in LR 3.6 before sending it off to VTR for printing? 

That would be a goofy workflow...first off, the LR 4 catalog is not compatible with LR3, so you would need to keep two completely different catalogs for both versions. Second, there's no reason you are forced to use Process Version 2012 that doesn't have Brightness...you can keep images in PV2010 and use Brightness in LR4. But that will be giving up all of the important tone mapping improvements in PV 2012. I would suggest you rethink your workflow and take steps to correct some weaknesses you currently have...

Quote
In spite of all the expert advice and apparently successful experience reported by other members of this forum, I remain highly dubious that a back-lit monitor display can EVER sufficiently represent for me a matching reflective paper photograph.

And I'm here to tell you, you are wrong...I've been doing it for years and now it's even easier (and better) to do soft proofing in LR4. If you have a well profiled display and you have a quality output profile, soft proofing is very accurate (once you learn how to do it).

It's also pretty easy to take what Brightness "used to do" in PV 2010 and convert that to a Point Curve in LR and you can even save out the custom curves and apply them from a drop down or create a preset.In point of fact, the Point Curve Editor is prolly where you should have been making all your final tone mapping for QTR...much more powerful and complete than a simple Brightness command with is very crude.
Logged
JimAscher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 328



WWW
« Reply #8 on: November 17, 2012, 08:01:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Jeff:  Many thanks.  I'd drafted a longer appreciative reply to you, but the forum "dropped" my draft, as I'd apparently "timed out."  In short, I'll have a go at the various suggestions you've made.  (I wish the forum had a method of "backing up" draft thread contributions.)  Again, thanks.  Jim
Logged

Jim Ascher

See my new SmugMug site:
http://jimascherphotos.smugmug.com/
Rand47
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 513


« Reply #9 on: November 17, 2012, 08:25:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Jeff:  Many thanks.  I'd drafted a longer appreciative reply to you, but the forum "dropped" my draft, as I'd apparently "timed out."  In short, I'll have a go at the various suggestions you've made.  (I wish the forum had a method of "backing up" draft thread contributions.)  Again, thanks.  Jim

Jim,
/side-track 

I've been bitten by the time-out bug enough that I now compose in Word, then copy & paste into forum reply!   Grin 

/end side-track

Rand
Logged
JimAscher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 328



WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 17, 2012, 08:33:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Jim,
/side-track 

I've been bitten by the time-out bug enough that I now compose in Word, then copy & paste into forum reply!   Grin 

/end side-track

Rand

Rand;  Good idea (although I may use Wordperfect!). Jim
Logged

Jim Ascher

See my new SmugMug site:
http://jimascherphotos.smugmug.com/
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5258


WWW
« Reply #11 on: November 17, 2012, 10:21:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Jeff:  Many thanks.  I'd drafted a longer appreciative reply to you, but the forum "dropped" my draft, as I'd apparently "timed out."  In short, I'll have a go at the various suggestions you've made.  (I wish the forum had a method of "backing up" draft thread contributions.)  Again, thanks.  Jim

Just so you know, I downloaded and installed QTR and used it to print out of LR4...if what you need to do is a gamma adjustments to overall tonality, you could easily do that using the Brightness adjustment in the Print module. There is no way to use the QTR profiles for soft proofing because they aren't actually ICC profiles, but there should be a way of creating a profile that would simulate the gamma output of QTR.

The bottom line is that there is no real good reason to resist upgrading to LR4 and a lot of benefit from doing so.

I downloaded QTR because I was interested in a better/different B&W workflow to include in my upcoming The Digital Print book. Although I doubt I would EVER install the Piezography Cone inks...having an alternative to the Advanced B&W mode of the Epson driver could be useful.

Also, just so you know, I tested out both soft proofing (using a glossy R3000 profile on a grayscale image) and a -30 Brightness setting in the Print module and got a very, VERY close display>print match. I used a neutral curve one and a warm curve 2 with a split tone that resulted in a very nice print. Note, the split tone doesn't soft proof and would need to be set by trial an arror but the soft proofing did a good job of proofing the contrast range of the print.
Logged
JimAscher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 328



WWW
« Reply #12 on: November 17, 2012, 11:32:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Jeff:  For what it's worth, I use a modified ABW (warm) curve with QTR, employing Paul Roark's formulas for mixing the three grades of carbon inks I use: the MIS 100% black with dilutions of 18% and 6%.  My printer is the Ebson 1400, with a CIS system, both of which have served me well for years (along with Silver Efex Pro 2).  However, I am tantalized by the further possibilities of Lightroom 4, and would like to explore it to the extent I'm able to improve my print quality.  Thanks again.  Jim
Logged

Jim Ascher

See my new SmugMug site:
http://jimascherphotos.smugmug.com/
Steve House
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 202


« Reply #13 on: November 18, 2012, 06:17:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Ah, Steve, if only it were that simple!  The logic behind your solution would seem irrefutable, and most compelling.  I in fact use a separate monitor for my photo work (which i neglected to mention is entirely in black-and-white).  I have struggled with Eye One Match 3 to get my monitor to match a final print, to no avail.  In spite of all the expert advice and apparently successful experience reported by other members of this forum, I remain highly dubious that a back-lit monitor display can EVER sufficiently represent for me a matching reflective paper photograph.  I have come to terms with this disparity over a period of time, and evolved my solution described earlier, using the LR 3.6 Basic Brightness control.  With keeping both LR 3.6 and LR 4+ operational on my PC, and maintaining the two separate LR Catalogs that this necessitates, I believe I can export from LR 4+ to its catalog, then synchronize a massaged photo from there to LR 3.6 for applying the LR 3.6 Brightness control, before printing.  I may, nevertheless, have a go at the method you describe as a solution, but i remain doubtful.  Many thanks, though.  Jim
You don't need to completely re-profile the monitor, just use whatever profile you are using now BUT with a slight decrease in the brightness knob.  You are adjusting the image in LR until it looks right to your eyes, then dialing in a brightness amount you have determined experimentally will get the print to look like the screen looked before the last brightness adjustment step.  But the will leave your screen image looking too bright.  So you back down the monitor control until that over-brightness on the screen goes away and you're golden, from now on out files that look right to your eyes on the screen will print the way you want them to without needing that last brightness adjustment step.  Now you can use any software you want for your image prep, make it look 'right' to your eyes on the screen, and you'll get predictable results when you print.

You're correct that it is a hopeless cause trying to make the image viewed on a light emitting screen look identical to the image viewed on a reflective print.  But there's really no need to do that in the first place.  An image of a film negative projected on an enlarger baseboard doesn't look anything like the positive print it leads to but a skilled darkroom worker can look at that image and couple what he sees with his knowledge of the behavior of his printing materials (and the appearance of a test print) to select a paper grade, exposure, and development that will produce a beautiful print.  IMHO, the image you see on the screen as you make the develop adjustments to your digital file corresponds to the negative in analog photography.  As long as you can look at your work surface (the screen) and from what you see there predict the appearance of the  final outcome (the print), it really doesn't matter whether or not the on-screen image actually looks identical to the on-paper image.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2012, 06:21:38 AM by Steve House » Logged
JimAscher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 328



WWW
« Reply #14 on: November 18, 2012, 10:23:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Steve:  Your further, and very much appreciated, more detailed explication would be foolish for me to ignore, and not give a try.  I'm not certain that my (Dell) monitor's brightness control will permit me to dial down to the extent required, but what can I lose in trying (except the need to reset if it doesn't work)?  It just took me so long over time to evolve my current practice (and settings) that I am (possibly understandingly) loathe to mess with it all.  But I will.  Thanks again.  And also to Jeff, for so much more to think about and experiment with.  Jim
« Last Edit: November 18, 2012, 10:45:11 AM by JimAscher » Logged

Jim Ascher

See my new SmugMug site:
http://jimascherphotos.smugmug.com/
JimAscher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 328



WWW
« Reply #15 on: November 18, 2012, 12:48:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Steve:  Your further, and very much appreciated, more detailed explication would be foolish for me to ignore, and not give a try.  I'm not certain that my (Dell) monitor's brightness control will permit me to dial down to the extent required, but what can I lose in trying (except the need to reset if it doesn't work)?  It just took me so long over time to evolve my current practice (and settings) that I am (possibly understandingly) loathe to mess with it all.  But I will.  Thanks again.  And also to Jeff, for so much more to think about and experiment with.  Jim

Steve:  My present established brightness level on my Dell is 36.  Bringing it down to its minimum (of zero) I regret still doesn't reduce the brightness level sufficiently for me to employ your otherwise highly logical and attractive solution.  Many thanks again.  Jim
Logged

Jim Ascher

See my new SmugMug site:
http://jimascherphotos.smugmug.com/
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1575


WWW
« Reply #16 on: November 19, 2012, 07:47:16 AM »
ReplyReply

There is no way to use the QTR profiles for soft proofing because they aren't actually ICC profiles, but there should be a way of creating a profile that would simulate the gamma output of QTR.
I'm unsure about this since it runs counter to what Eric Chan and others have said.  I've used QTR to prepare ABW profiles for the papers that I use on my 3880 under the Win7 OS since Mac OS does not support this feature with the Epson driver.  The effects are quite subtle since the profiles correct for a very small amount non-linearity in my measurements.
Logged

JimAscher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 328



WWW
« Reply #17 on: November 20, 2012, 10:13:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Just so you know, I downloaded and installed QTR and used it to print out of LR4...if what you need to do is a gamma adjustments to overall tonality, you could easily do that using the Brightness adjustment in the Print module....

Also, just so you know, I tested...  a -30 Brightness setting in the Print module and got a very, VERY close display>print match....

Jeff:  I am following up our recent exchange with a further query.  What you stated, and I've quoted above, interests me and/or I've subsequently followed up on, namely:

I took one of my photographs to which I had had to apply a +125 LR 3.6 Brightness setting to get a print which matched my monitor.  I ran this print through my trial version of LR 4 print module, using the Profile setting of my preferred Eye-One Match 3 monitor calibration, and without altering the Print Module's Brightness setting at all, I produced a rough print with almost exactly the same "overall tonality" as on the monitor and my preferred final print!

However, I assume my printing through the LR 4 Print Module did not employ the three-ink proportions I achieve through using QTR.  You state that you "downloaded and installed QTR and used it to print out of LR4..."  How did you do this, as I'd like to try QTR in combination with the LR 4 Print Module's brightness settings?

Many thanks, again, Jeff, for all your assistance.  Regards, Jim
Logged

Jim Ascher

See my new SmugMug site:
http://jimascherphotos.smugmug.com/
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5258


WWW
« Reply #18 on: November 20, 2012, 10:43:23 PM »
ReplyReply

However, I assume my printing through the LR 4 Print Module did not employ the three-ink proportions I achieve through using QTR.  You state that you "downloaded and installed QTR and used it to print out of LR4..."  How did you do this, as I'd like to try QTR in combination with the LR 4 Print Module's brightness settings?

Correct...if you printed through the Epson driver instead of the QTR driver, you are not getting the advantages of the QTR B&W toning...but the Epson driver can be used well...(depends on wether or not you are using the ABW mode or color mode)

As far as using the QTR in Lightroom, the QTR driver installs like any other print driver which you can select in the Print Settings/Page Setup (depending on OS) dlog in LR. I just used the QTR printer for my Epson R3000 (I had to jump though some hoops to get the R2880 curves into the R3000 printer). I selected a Neutral Curve 1 and the Warmer toned Curve 2 and blended the split toning. Then I ran tests on using the Brightness slider in the Print module.

I ended up with a real good screen>print match my setting the Brightness in Print to -35. LR didn't show the accurate split toning colors-that would require making an accurate sort proofing profile just for soft proofing (which I'll test out at some point).

There are further steps you can take to more formally make profile corrections in QTR...but that's a rabbit hole I'll likely not go down.

Bottom line is that your old workflow can be superseded with LR4 with a bit of testing and tweaking. So, you don't need to rely on the old PV 2010 Brightness to get good prints.
Logged
RobertBoire
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #19 on: November 21, 2012, 12:03:05 PM »
ReplyReply

While I find the discussion about the brightness slider interesting, I thought the whole point behind color management was to avoid this kind of experimenting when trying to match print to screen and to ensure WYSIWYG. What am I missing? Why is it not working here.

Thanks
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad