Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Soft Proofing - Adobe RGB 1998  (Read 2863 times)
Dinarius
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 699


« on: July 04, 2013, 03:03:27 PM »
ReplyReply

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

Posts: 2029


« Reply #1 on: July 04, 2013, 06:14:38 PM »
ReplyReply

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
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5255


WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 04, 2013, 06:28:25 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
Dinarius
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 699


« Reply #3 on: July 05, 2013, 01:54:55 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
Simon Garrett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 281


« Reply #4 on: July 05, 2013, 02:52:19 AM »
ReplyReply

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. 
Logged
Dinarius
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 699


« Reply #5 on: July 05, 2013, 03:10:55 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
Dinarius
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 699


« Reply #6 on: July 05, 2013, 10:48:58 AM »
ReplyReply

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.

Logged
elied
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 234


« Reply #7 on: July 05, 2013, 12:13:34 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

Roll over Ed Weston,
Tell Ansel Adams the news
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2737



WWW
« Reply #8 on: July 07, 2013, 10:30:33 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

Dinarius
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 699


« Reply #9 on: July 08, 2013, 03:00:19 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
Rand47
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 512


« Reply #10 on: July 17, 2013, 07:02:45 AM »
ReplyReply

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.  Grin  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
« Last Edit: July 17, 2013, 07:56:10 AM by Rand47 » Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8030



WWW
« Reply #11 on: July 17, 2013, 08:26:57 AM »
ReplyReply

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
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Rand47
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 512


« Reply #12 on: July 17, 2013, 08:46:10 AM »
ReplyReply

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
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8030



WWW
« Reply #13 on: July 17, 2013, 08:49:15 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Rand47
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 512


« Reply #14 on: July 17, 2013, 08:58:51 AM »
ReplyReply

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"  Grin   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
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8030



WWW
« Reply #15 on: July 17, 2013, 09:05:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks again...  "But"  Grin   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.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Rand47
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 512


« Reply #16 on: July 17, 2013, 11:46:10 AM »
ReplyReply

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
Logged
Tim Lookingbill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1054



WWW
« Reply #17 on: July 17, 2013, 01:46:36 PM »
ReplyReply

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!
« Last Edit: July 17, 2013, 01:48:16 PM by Tim Lookingbill » Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8030



WWW
« Reply #18 on: July 17, 2013, 01:50:46 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Tim Lookingbill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1054



WWW
« Reply #19 on: July 17, 2013, 02:26:40 PM »
ReplyReply

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

Ad
Ad
Ad