Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/06/09

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] LR 4.1 question
From: leica_r8 at hotmail.com (Aram Langhans)
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 12:56:44 -0700
References: <4FD2713A.6000202@cox.net><CAE3QcF4oJ3cJaXCP3kBauuHDdpxF6on+fP38NUnR0gXQ28UV2Q@mail.gmail.com><4FD29A86.8080902@cox.net><CAJ4y7gwcrQQXHZnHcC6vre76KrV5EG1qgDsnN==YJjP19z8_UA@mail.gmail.com><4FD37D5A.9060707@cox.net> <E8E62B38-70E2-4D8C-83F1-6327EF0FC18E@gmail.com>

Not sure what that would do for him, as he is viewing the files on the same 
monitor.  I find it odd that if he saves the file in a different directory 
the problem does not exist.  That is odd.

Aram

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Leowesson" <leowesson at gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2012 11:16 AM
To: "Leica Users Group" <lug at leica-users.org>
Subject: Re: [Leica] LR 4.1 question

> Do you calibrate your monitor?
>
> Leo Wesson
> www.leowesson.com
>
> On Jun 9, 2012, at 11:44, Ken Carney <kcarney1 at cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Thanks.  I've given up for now.  I also downloaded PS6 and ACR 7.1, but 
>> the same problem occurs.  Everything is fine until I save the tif or psd 
>> file in the same directory with the raw file.  The differences between 
>> the (unadjusted in PS) saved image and the raw image range from subtle to 
>> enormous.   I guess it is not that big a problem - I can adjust in LR, 
>> edit in PS and then just save the tif file in a different directory.  It 
>> is only when I save the PS image in the same directory with the raw file 
>> that either LR or PS is doing something to the image.
>>
>> Ken
>>
>> On 6/8/2012 8:10 PM, Robert Baron wrote:
>>> When you click 'edit in PS' from LR you are given a choice of whether to
>>> send it to PS with or without the adjustments you have made in LR.  If 
>>> you
>>> haven't made any, the file opened in PS should open as a RAW file w/o 
>>> any
>>> adjustments. All things equal it should look the same, so obviously a
>>> change is being made to it somewhere along the line.
>>>
>>> Then when you return it to LR are you returning the original file or a 
>>> file
>>> with the changes you made in PS?
>>>
>>> I know that consistency is reputed to be the hobgoblin of small minds 
>>> but
>>> there is something disrupting the consistency of your workflow.  Your
>>> assignment is to figure out what it is.
>>>
>>> Maybe you should get into preferences / file handling and preferences
>>> /external editing and see if there are any clues there.
>>>
>>> --Bob
>>>
>>> ==On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 7:36 PM, Ken Carney<kcarney1 at cox.net>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Geoff,
>>>>
>>>> Of course it is difficult to follow - it was written by a C.P.A.  Try
>>>> reading some of our financial statements.  I tried the same thing using 
>>>> LR
>>>> 3.6 and PS 4 and PS 5.1 - same thing.  If I open (edit in) PS and save 
>>>> the
>>>> tif, viewing the two in LR (raw file and tif) the tif is much lighter,
>>>> actually blown out.  If I choose "develop" in LR for the tif, the
>>>> brightness setting is much higher than the CR2 I chose to "edit in PS".
>>>> As I suspected from the beginning, this is obviously a conspiracy to
>>>> require an upgrade to CS6.  Thanks much for your comments.
>>>>
>>>> Ken
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 6/8/2012 5:13 PM, Geoff Hopkinson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ken, that's difficult to follow! I might be able to shed some light on
>>>>> some
>>>>> of it at least.
>>>>> PS 5.1 uses ACR6.7 which does not support all of the functions of 
>>>>> LR4.1.
>>>>> It
>>>>> does not understand some possible raw adjustments and ignores them.
>>>>> Photoshop CS6 uses the same raw engine as LR4.1. The current version 
>>>>> is
>>>>> Adobe Camera Raw  7.1xxx
>>>>> Possibly there may be some profile changes for your Canon Raw files 
>>>>> too?
>>>>> Canon of course is a major client target and updates for Canon would 
>>>>> be a
>>>>> high priority for Adobe. I'm sure it doesn't hurt that Mr Knoll is a 
>>>>> Canon
>>>>> user ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> The working colour space in the raw converter is not the same thing as 
>>>>> a
>>>>> colour space assigned to converted files (such as TIFFs). I think it's
>>>>> linear anyway, that is needs a big curve applied to become something 
>>>>> we
>>>>> easily relate to. But if you export a version as a TIFF you can choose 
>>>>> to
>>>>> make that Pro Photo as you did to preserve the maximum information. 
>>>>> Keep
>>>>> in
>>>>> mind that you can't see all of the information in there on your 
>>>>> monitor
>>>>> nor
>>>>> in a print.
>>>>> For most monitors sRGB is more likely with a few high end ones very 
>>>>> close
>>>>> to all of Adobe RGB which is very largely covered by good inkjet 
>>>>> printers
>>>>> too.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Saturday, 9 June 2012, Ken Carney wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>  I have seen a number of references to this problem in the Adobe 
>>>>> forum,
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> have not seen an answer to it.  Hopefully the wisdom of the LUG will 
>>>>>> bail
>>>>>> me out once more.  I can import a raw file (CR2) into LR 4.1, and 
>>>>>> then
>>>>>> select edit in PS 5.1.  If I save the PS file (as a tif), then in LR 
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> CR2 and the saved tif files look quite different.  Sometimes the tif 
>>>>>> will
>>>>>> be lighter, sometimes darker.  If I make any adjustments in PS, then 
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> saved tif can look very different from the CR2 file.  The odd thing 
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> when I look at the file as opened in PS (edit in PS) without any
>>>>>> adjustments, it looks the same as the CR2 file in LR.  So something 
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> happening when I save the PS file (if I just open the saved tif in 
>>>>>> PS,
>>>>>> sure
>>>>>> enough it looks just like the saved tif file as seen in LR, i.e.,
>>>>>> different
>>>>>> from the CR2 file).   I have ACR 6.7 which is supposed to be 
>>>>>> compatible
>>>>>> with LR 4.1 and both programs use ProPhoto as the color space.  Sorry 
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> the long question, but does anyone know what I am missing?  Thanks 
>>>>>> much,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ______________________________****_________________
>>>>>> Leica Users Group.
>>>>>> See 
>>>>>> http://leica-users.org/****mailman/listinfo/lug<http://leica-users.org/**mailman/listinfo/lug>
>>>>>> <http://**leica-users.org/mailman/**listinfo/lug<http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug>>for
>>>>>> more information
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>>> Leica Users Group.
>>>> See 
>>>> http://leica-users.org/**mailman/listinfo/lug<http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug>for
>>>>  
>>>> more information
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Leica Users Group.
>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
> 


Replies: Reply from jhnichols at lighttube.net (Jim Nichols) ([Leica] LR 4.1 question)
Reply from leowesson at gmail.com (Leowesson) ([Leica] LR 4.1 question)
In reply to: Message from kcarney1 at cox.net (Ken Carney) ([Leica] LR 4.1 question)
Message from hopsternew at gmail.com (Geoff Hopkinson) ([Leica] LR 4.1 question)
Message from kcarney1 at cox.net (Ken Carney) ([Leica] LR 4.1 question)
Message from robertbaron1 at gmail.com (Robert Baron) ([Leica] LR 4.1 question)
Message from kcarney1 at cox.net (Ken Carney) ([Leica] LR 4.1 question)
Message from leowesson at gmail.com (Leowesson) ([Leica] LR 4.1 question)