Color Space Identity Plates

What color space should Identity Plates be in. Considering the fact that I do not know the working color space I am working in Lightroom with raw files. I am concerned about color space mismatches when printing (in the print module) a raw file and identity plate in a layout. How does Lightroom handle two files printed simultaneously like this in a layout. What is converted to what before it is converted to my printer profile. As it stands I have identity plates stored on disk as sRGB and they seem to be printing slightly darker than they should. Have tried converting them to a 1.8 (Prophoto) gamma space and no change.

In my experience, LR just does the right thing and translates whatever you have to the printer profile. It always comes out just right. Your observation seems to support that as you see no difference between sRGB and ppRGB. The difference in darkness might simply be a small calibration or monitor brightness issue.

Similar Messages

  • Lightroom crashes every time I try to change the font color of my identity plate

    I use the LRB portfolio plugin to create my website. Every time I try to change the color of my identity plate, lightroom crashes immediately. I can change the font and size without the problem, only a color change causes the crash. I tried to trash the plugin, but it still behaved the same way. Can anyone help me with this problem?

    Hi Sean,
    thanks for answering. No, it crashes anyway. I tried changing the identity plate color in all different modules. I was able to change it once when I had just bought a new computer and installed Lightroom, but now I can't. I wonder if there are any cache files or anything causing this. Unfortunately I don't know enough about this to fix it myself. I wondered whether LRB is causing a problem simply by having it installed, but as I said, after I removed it from the Web Galleries folder, the problem still occurred. Is there any way to recreate the identity plate in Photoshop (same font and size etc.) and reimport it into Lightroom? I need to finish my website and my name is sol light, it is barely legible. Any fix or workaround would be appreciated.

  • Lightroom 5.4 identity plate space

    Now that I've updated to 5.4 I noticed my custom graphic in the identity plate is cutoff along the top. It's the space used for the activity & status with mobile sync. Is it possible to remove that or does that space now have new permanent dimensions? Turning off the option to show status and activity in identity plate steup does not change the useable space.
    Thanks
    Craig

    Here is some newer information that pertains to Versions 5.4 (and likely beyond)
    On Windows:
    The width available to the ID plate is always 40% of the current window width.
    The height depends on the UI scaling factor.
    48 pixels tall @ 100%
    74 pixels tall @ 150%
    99 pixels tall @ 200%
    On the Mac:
    The width available to the ID plate is the entire window width, extending behind the module picker if they overlap.
    The height depends on whether or not you have the activity message at the top enabled. (It's enabled by default and can be configured in the ID plate's context menu or in the ID plate dialog.)
    If you turn this preference off, the maximum height allowed for the ID plate should be the same as it was in previous LR versions, apparently 57 pixels.
    If you have the activity message enabled then the top 16 pixels of the app are reserved for it, limiting the height to 41 pixels.
    On a retina display those numbers are doubled.

  • Different results of color space conversion

    I am converting a raw image.
    1. First in ProPhoto, passing it to PS CS3, accepting ProPhoto (against the working color space), and then I convert it in sRGB in Edit.
    2. Next, converting it in ProPhoto, but when CS3 receives it, I ask for immediate conversion in sRGB, the working space.
    3. Third, I change the color sapace in ACR to sRGB and pass the image to CS3.
    Of course, the ACR adjustment parameters are identical in the three processes.
    1 and 3 are almost identical (a difference layer does show differences, but I don't see them on the results without huge boosting, and that shows quite random, noise-like difference).
    However, 1 and 2 are *vastly* different. The difference, boosted by 2 EV clearly shows the original texture, which is determined by a pecularity in the blue channel.
    What is the explanation for the difference between the two conversion from ProPhoto to sRGB?
    The conversion engine is Adobe (the conversion immediately at receiving the image does not ask me for the engine).
    http://www.panopeeper.com/Download/ProPhoto_to_sRGB_Discrepancy.tif contains three layers with the three versions.
    http://www.panopeeper.com/Download/ProPhoto_to_sRGB_inProPhoto.tif is the unconverted, i.e. ProPhoto version.

    > I played around a bit with your samples and I could get close to your "Converted when receiving" version by using the Microsoft ICM engine (other options like Dither and Black point comp didn't produce big differences that I could see). Is it possible that is what you have as the engine in Edit>Color Settings?
    As I posted, I am using the Adobe engine.
    > I reproduced your exact steps (but in CS4), and there was no difference whatsoever between the three. Pitch black in difference blend mode.
    I don't understand how you reproduced these steps. The file I uploaded is already in sRGB.
    Anyway, I repeated the entire procedude carefully, the result is the same.
    The raw file can be downloaded from http://www.panopeeper.com/Download/CCC_ISO0100_01208.ARW, the adjustment parameters are in http://www.panopeeper.com/Download/CCC_ISO0100_01208.xmp
    With these files it is possible to repeate the entire process.
    Pls note, that the conversion from raw to TIFF occured in 16bit mode, I converted the demo file to 8bit in order to reduce the size.

  • Is there a way to assign Color Spaces in AME (Adobe Media Encoder) CC?

    I am trying to output h.264 video for a web project and cannot seem to get sRGB color match when rendering out from AE.
    I see it in AE's native renderer, but not in AME.
    Thanks.

    AME (and Premiere Pro) does not support color management in the way that After Effects does. Via Dynamic Link, which is how AME reads After Effects comps, the color-space-adjusted pixels are not corrected for screen display.
    To get the results you want, add an adjustment layer to the top of the layer stack in the comp and apply the Color Profile Converter effect. Set the Output Profile to Rec.709 (sRGB is practically identical and will also work, but Dynamic Link uses Rec.709 internally so is a better match). This forces After Effects to transform the adjusted pixels into a non-linearized color space that looks correct.
    Note that while the CPC effect is active and View > Display Color Management is enabled (it is enabled by default), this extra layer of color transforms will make the comp appear incorrect in After Effects, at the same time the comp will now look correct in AME or Premiere Pro. Disable Display Color Management to make the appearance of the comp in After Effects match what you see in AME or Premiere Pro. While working on the comp, however, you probably want to work with Display Color Management enabled and the adjustment layer disabled.
    Under the hood, when color management is enabled in After Effects, the pixels it writes into the cache include the appropriate color transforms for the settings you have chosen. When the comp is displayed in the Composition panel in After Effects, an additional transform is added to the screen buffer pixels (not the pixels in the cache) to make it look correct on your computer screen, or not if you have disabled Display Color Management. When the pixels are read through Dynamic Link, no display color management happens, nor does AME or Premiere Pro apply any, so you get the same appearance as having Display Color Management disabled in After Effects.
    Make sense?

  • Color space when exporting from RAW

    Hello,
    I am a new user of Lightroom and I find color spaces topic a bit confusing so far. My main question is: when exporting a photo, does Lightroom convert to a profile or assign a profile? Because there is no way to choose. I tried to export a photo with 3 different color spaces (sRGB, AdobeRGB and ICC profile from laboratory where I print my photos). After exporting them to JPEG it turned out that all of them look differently on my monitor - does it mean that Lightroom assigns a profile? If it was converting, shouldn't they have the same colours? What is more, after printing them in laboratory, results were completely different than I expected - the photo which had closest colours to what I saw in Lightroom was that in sRGB, but that with ICC of Lab was very different (much colder colours).
    Where is the problem, or what aspect do I seem to misunderstand? Do I have wrong settings, should I use DNG to work with photos, should I export to TIFF, or I just have too weak monitor or wrongly calibrated one? Should I calibrate when viewing a picture in Lightroom or with the use of a photo exported to the ICC profile of Lab?
    I would like to have a little bit of control over what I'm working on, depending on whether I want to publish it on a website or print. I know that my monitor can be a problem (I have an iiyama with IPS), but surely there has to be any way to make results of my work a bit closer to my expectations.
    Just for information, my workflow doesn't require Photoshop, as I rather prefer to use only tools from Lightroom. I hope that my problem doesn't require the use of Photoshop.
    I will be really greateful for your help - the general knowledge about colour spaces seems to be unsufficient when it comes to the usage of applications such as Lightroom.
    Many thanks,
    Marcin

    Marcin S wrote:
    Thank you for you helpful replies. Now I know a little bit more about it. But still, this is not completely clear to me.
    My main question is: when exporting a photo, does Lightroom convert to a profile or assign a profile?
    Both.
    What you mean by both? How should I interpret it? I cannot choose "convert" or "assign", so how they both work together? What does it mean for me wanting to process photo and print in Lab?
    I can only add, that those 3 photos which I exported to JPEG with 3 different colour spaces, they look different when viewing outside of Lightroom, ie. IrfanView. But when importing those JPEGs into Lightroom, differences are extremly slight. Is that because Lightroom operates in ProPhoto, which covers all colour spaces which I used, and other programs work in sRGB and those photos differently?
    And the last question for now: will the hardware calibrator help in monitor which is, let's say, medium cost and medium quality? I mainly use it for preparing photos to put them on the website gallery, but would be nice if I could print better ones with a bit of certainty about what I will get from Lab.
    Many thanks!!
    Marcin
    When you export a photo from LR, it converts to the colour space you select (e.g. sRGB) and embeds the appropriate profile in the exported file. 
    If your monitor were calibrated and profiled, and you view with a colour-managed viewer then images should look pretty much identical no matter which colour space you export in.  (W7 Photo viewer is colour managed, the XP equivalent isn't, Mac s/w generally is.  IE and Chrome aren't properly colour managed, Firefox is for all images, Safari is for images with embedded profiles.  Other viewers vary.)  With colour-managed viewers, the only difference should be with very highly saturated colours outside sRGB colour space (and then only if your monitor can display those colours). 
    LR is colour managed.  If the monitor isn't calibrated/profiled then I think LR assumes the monitor has a colour space equivalent to sRGB (which is generally roughly right but won't be accurate).  Internally LR uses ProPhoto RGB colour space in develop module, but uses Adobe RGB in Library, and previews are stored in Adobe RGB.  However, the colour space LR uses won't explain why other viewers show things differently.  It's simply that LR is colour managed (which means it converts to/from the image colour space), and I guess the other viewers you're using aren't; they just throw RGB data at the screen without converting. 
    Is it worth calibrating and profiling your monitor?  Quite possibly.  Does the colour and brightness vary with viewing angle as you move your head from side to side?  If so, it may be TN technology, and perhaps not worth profiling.  If it looks reasonably stable with different viewing angle then probably yes. 

  • Color space problem/confusion

    I posted the following message to another thread, but at the recommendation of a member I am starting a new thread here. For a couple of answers see the thread below.
    http://forums.adobe.com/message/3298911#3298911
    I will provide much more information hoping an Adobe support person will chime in. This is extremely odd.
    System: HP, AMD, Windows 7 64-Bit, Nvidia 9100, all updates to Windows, latest Nvidia 9100 driver
    Display: Samsung 226CW, Windows settings 32-bit color, correct resolution,
    Calibration: Done with ColorMunki, D65 target, done after monitor has been on for more than 30 minutes
    Personal:  (I am adding this information with some hesitation, please excuse it if  it sounds like I'm bragging; I am not). I have multiple posts on my  blog, have made many presentations on color managed workflow and am very  comfortable with the settings in Photoshop and Lightroom. Please take  this only as a baseline information, I am not bragging. In fact, I am  begging for information!
    Problem:
    Any, I mean ANY,  original JPEG image in sRGB space coming out of the camera with no  adjustments, any PSD file in sRGB space, any TIFF file in sRGB space  look significantly paler in Lightroom and in Photoshop CS5 than they  look in other Windows based image viewers like FastStone or XnView. This  should not need these applications to be color space aware, but the  situation is the same with or without their color managment turned on or  off. I have done the following:
    1. Totally uninstalled Lightroom 3 and reinstalled it
    2.  Recreated a brand new Lightroom catalog/library and reimported all the  images, converting all the RAW files to DNG (just in case!)
    3. Recalibrated the display
    When  I view a file, any file and I will use for the sake of simplicity a  JPEG file in sRGB color space, in Lightroom it looks pale. Since the  file is in sRGB color space, I have verified this, the rendering in  Lightroom should be the same as rendering in anything else. But it is  not. I took my monitor and connected it to this system with the same odd  behavior of rendering in Lightroom being much paler than outside. It  appears as if I am viewing an image in Adobe RGB in a windows viewer  that is not color managed.
    I further tried the following:
    1.  I copied various versions of one file, all in sRGB color space. One PSD  and two JPEG files from the folders of the above system and copied them  to my system, Intel, Windows 7 64-bit, display calibrated and profiled  with ColorMunki to the same standards as the problem system above.
    2. Imported them to Lightroom on my system
    3.  The rendering in Lightroom is identical to rendering outside Lightroom  for all the files and all are same as the rendering in FastStone on the  problem system. Outside rendering was done using FastStone as on the  problem system.
    My deduction is that something on the  problem system outlined in the opening of the message is interfering  with the Adobe rendering engine and I have no idea what it could be. I  WILL GREATLY APPRECIATE if an Adobe engineer could chime in and steer me  in the right direction. I am willing to try other things but I have run  out of ideas despite the fact that I have reduced much of the problem  to the lowest common denominator of sRGB and JPEG against a PSD in sRGB.
    Waiting anxiously of your help.
    Cemal

    Also, I know enough to calibrate a monitor when it is connected to a new computer. That said, even without calibration the behavior should have changed to display all the images in question the same but perhaps with somewhat off colors. Am I right? I am not arguing the point, I am rhetorically raising the question. If the 226CW is wide gamut and 244T is not, when I connect 244T on the same computer the wide gamut issue should be eliminated, should it not? I am not talking at this point about the "correct" color, but the same color in or out of Lightroom.
    Unfortunately when you connect another monitor to a computer and don't calibrate or manually change it, Windows will not change the monitor profile. Macs will autodetect and change the profile but this innovation has not reached windows yet. The behavior you observe is caused by managed apps using the monitor profile and unmanaged apps not. If the monitor profile is not changed, the behavior doesn't change.
    BTW, for a "cheap" software to be color space aware it does not need a quantum leap in technology I believe. It simply needs to know how to read the ICC profile and the LUT, is that correct?
    It's extremely simple to program color management into apps. Standard API libraries have been available in Windows for over a decade. The reason why this hasn't happened is related to the fact that Microsoft hasn't made IE color managed and the software makers do not want to confuse folks when images look different in their program vs IE. Considering that this still is the biggest issue people wrongly complain about in every color managed application (just check Photoshop fora) that is maybe not that strange.

  • Why do colors with identical cmyk numbers look very different?

    i thought i had this problem solved, but here it is again with a new wrinkle.  i have this gorgeous orchid bg box, cmyk 9-10-0-0 in a file with cmyk transparency blend space.   same set up in file 2.  i create a new bg box with the same numbers and it's a whole different color.  there must be some parameters mismatched.  what else should i be looking for to make sure the file setups are identical?

    Attached is an image of what the color picker looks like after I have  used the eyedropper to sample what I believed to be a swath of CMYK  color.
    It looks to me like the image you are sampling  from is an RGB image. You can check that by opening the Links panel and  clicking on the link, which will display the image's color space and  profile.
    actually, what i'm sampling--the lavendar bg on left --is color i created in ID; it's not a link.  i thought i created it in cmyk; how can you tell it's rgb?
    If you are picking up an out-of-gamut color from  an RGB image, you can't match that color with a CMYK fill. You could  make the background fill an RGB color and get a match. In that case both  the fill and the image would get separated to the same CMYK mix on  output to a CMYK device.
    which does have a CMYK transparency blend space and separations preview in output.
    You  are confusing the Transparency blend space with a document color space.  The Transparency Blend Space only comes into play if you have  transparent objects that need to flattened. It has no effect on  non-transparent objects.
    hmmm, that's not my experience.  so far as i can determine, i have no transparent objects, and yet the color on  screen changes dramatically when i switch transparency blend space from rgb to cmyk.
    why does changing from View to Separations within Separations Preview change the color of my CMYK background so dramatically?
    Your  background isn't CMYK it's RGB. When you turn on Overprint or  Separation Preview, you get a preview of how your out-of-gamut RGB  violet color will convert to CMYK.

  • Color space export issues...

    Well. This has been going on for a while. Sometimes it doesnt happen but most of the time when I export my images in srgb the view once uploaded is much depreciated. I proof in srgb 2.1 and embed upon export. The same thing happens with using the boarderfx export plugin. In addition, it seems to happen more after exporting to PS for edit and then exporting the tiffs to jpg later. But happens with normal jpg/raws as well. Thanks a lot for all the help and hopefully I can get this solved
    Aaron

    I don't mean "Quick Look" in Leopard. I mean Quick Preview in Aperture (a little button in the lower right corner that turns yellow when selected). I believe that, although not as seductive as the native screen display, Quick Preview is more accurate.
    Here is what I mean by accurate:
    • Quick Preview changes the display significantly and matches closely prints made from Aperture when printed on the paper for which I have selected the proof profile (in Aperture under View / Proofing Profile).
    • Quick Preview displays an image that is nearly identical to that printed from Photoshop, InDesign, and Acrobat when the same paper and profile are used.
    • Prints made from Aperture are nearly identical to those made from PS, ID, and Acrobat using the same parameters.
    • Quick Preview displays an image that is nearly identical to that displayed in Photoshop, InDesign, and Acrobat when the same print profile is selected for soft proofing in these applications.
    There is a wild card though: these days I print mostly using perceptual rendering intent. Aperture does not appear to provide any direct control over rendering intent or black point comp for softproofing. Native display in Aperture (with the correct profile selected for on screen proofing) is much closer to a PS soft proof of the same image using RelCol rendering intent in PS. In this case the difference seems to be perhaps in the implementation of black point comp.
    It would sure be nice if we had full documentation of this stuff and didn't have to make suppositions about its functionality based on empirical data.
    If you know of a way to soft proof in Aperture (that permits my workflow instead of imposing one) that allows for simultaneous editing I would be much obliged.
    OK, I just did a little more poking around. Quick Preview appears to preview the image in the working color space, and what I was calling "native display mode" is using the selected soft proof profile. But on my system it is not accurate with my printer profiles. Not even close. Like I said this might be due to lack of control over rendering intent and black point compensation. (I also just noted that the soft proof display does not incorporate BPC. You can see this by creating a preview through the print dialog and comparing the result to the screen display.)
    Though soft proofing seems to be broken, at least for me, I have answered my own question: My working space is close enough to (and obviously includes the full gamut of) my print profiles that I can select my working space profile for soft proofing (which it does use accurately since Aperture is also using the same profile to convert the RAW file to for export) which will allow me to edit while soft proofing in a valid color space with consistent rendering intent and application of BPC.
    Flame off, over and out.

  • Color space conversion problem when importing JPEG's

    Hi,
    I'm currently playing with the trial version of LR. While importing JPEG's with different color spaces (sRGB and Adobe RGB) to LR I've noticed a strange effect: There is a small but noticable difference in color, depending if the JPEG was previously saved in AdobeRGB, or sRGB. All the images I've tested so far should not contain critical colors that exceed normal sRGB. When opened in CS2 both versions of a JPEG, AdobeRGB and sRGB, typically look perceptually identical, no matter if I leave the sRGB image to sRGB, or convert it to the working space (AdobeRGB). Also my color-managed image viewer behaves as it should. So I don't think it's a matter of the different color spaces.
    Looking at the imported images in LR I would say that the AdobeRGB image is correctly converted while the sRGB image suffers from a slight reddish cast, most noticable in skin tones. The effect is not as strong as if I would load the sRGB image into CS2 and skip color conversion to my working space (AdobeRGB).
    The sRGB versions of the JPEG's were obtained from the AdobeRGB JPEG's using CS2 for conversion.
    Anyone else here experienced a similar problem? Is this a bug in the xRGB-to-ProPhotoRGB conversion of LR, or a feature?
    /Steffen

    Hi Uli,
    thanks for pointing me to your thread. I followed the discussion with great interest. Actually, I think the effect I am describing here is of different nature and a LOT stronger, at least for the type of images I've tested.
    I did some more experiments yesterday with interesting results:
    1) When I export a processed RAW from LR to JPEG or PSD, no matter what Color Space (I tested AdobeRGB, sRGB and ProphotoRGB), and re-import those JPEG/PSD's to LR, they look absolutely identical to the RAW I started with. Also, at first glance, they look similar when opened in CS2, but only because I tested with color images. I can indeed see small differences when testing with B/W, as you described in your "Color management bug" thread.
    2) When I change the color space of an PSD or JPEG inside CS2 (I used the default setting 'relative colorimetric') and save it to JPEG and then import this JPEG to LR, colors are far off. The strength of this mostly reddish color cast depends on the color space of the imported JPEG, strongest for Prophoto, less strong for Adobe and sRGB. Interestingly, when I convert the color space inside CS2 and save the result to PSD, it will display correctly when imported in LR. Another interesting side effect: the thumbnails of LR-exported JPEG's in the "Open" dialogs of CS2 and LR (I guess those are not color-managed) show the typical color-flatness for the Adobe and even more the ProPhoto version. For the CS2-converted JPEG's, all thumbnails look just a colorful as the thumbnail of the sRGB version.
    3) Such an image which doesn't display correctly in LR will keep its color cast when exported again to a JPEG (not sure about PSD). So something goes wrong with the color conversion during the import of such CS2-converted images.
    My explanation so far is that CS2 uses a slightly different way of coding the colorspace information in the metadata of JPEG's which somehow prevents LR to recognise the color space correctly.
    Can you confirm this behaviour?
    Steffen

  • How to get a "crisp" graphical identity plate on prints?

    I'm a long time LR user (currently LR 4.2), but just recently started producing a series of limited edition prints that include a graphical identity plate centered below the image.  As LR insists on having to scale the identity plate, the result is that I can never produce a print where the text appears crisp and sharp.  Rather there's always some perceptible softness in the text.
    I'm using PhotoShop to produce the graphical identity plate and have produced it in the exact dimensions as it should appear beneath the print.  When I bring it into the LR print module, however, it immediately scales it to 100% of the page size so I'm left with no option but to select a scaling % that most closely represnts the original size.
    Is there a solution to this?  I only recently purchased PS CS6 and am thinking I should probably be doing this within that application, but honestly I'm just more comfortable in LR.  For this print, I have the page size set to 20" x 30" and the cell size containing the image at 16" x 24".  I think I know the correct process to duplicate this within Photoshop, but I'd feel better if someone with more expertise than me could verify the procedure if LR isn't up to the task.
    Thank you in advance.
    Ken Schram

    I use two different workflows for this sort of thing that both work fine. One is to Export the image from Lightroom to a upscaled, color profiled and print sharpened image already. So in export I select the correct profile for the paper, use 8-bit tiff (16-bit gives no advantage if you use the correct paper profile in my experience), set the correct size and ppi, and select medium (or different depending on your taste) sharpening for the type of paper I am going to use. Then in Photoshop, I drag this on a blank document of the bigger dimensions as a layer (make sure to have it already in the same color profile) and position it and than drop in my logo in another layer and print this. The other workflow I use is even quicker and I haven't seen any quality disadvantages from this yet. What I do is to set the print panel to output to jpeg and create the layout how I want it, but sans logo. I set the icc profile and the print sharpening and output the jpeg to reasonably high quality (you won't see any difference above about 90) and open this in PS and drop the logo in and print. I have not been able to detect any difference in quality between using jpeg and tiff as the intermediary step at least if I use the correct paper profile but the Lightroom scaler and sharpener is a lot more convenient than optimizing this step yourself in Photoshop which is a lot of work if you do not have something like Photokit sharpener.
    When I print these at a commercial printer, I simply output the final result to a flattened jpeg and send those files. Depending on the printer, you can either use their paper profile or simply stay in sRGB or adobeRGB.

  • File Info - Color Space: Uncalibrated

    In File | File Info there is lots of interesting data about the camera, lens etc. There is also one field that says 'Color Space: Uncalibrated'.
    Should this be calibrated? Is it important, will it make any difference to my pictures if it is calibrated, and how does one go about calibrating it (presumably the camera)?
    FWIW the camera is always used on a copy stand, so same lights etc every time, so calibration might be a good thing.
    Thanks - Brian

    Ansel most likely would have loved Photoshop. He  was far from representative photography and manipulated extensively.  His ideas were around the concept of bringing out the subject matter, if that required suppression of certain aspects to do so. If all that is required is to be unobtrusive as possible, then previsualization would be unnecessary. His mantra was to make a photograph, not take a photograph, which he found distasteful; to "take". One can only make them consistently by using all that your tools can offer.
    I also attempt to get it done in ACR so far as possible, because some steps do look better in ACR than in PS, such as b&w conversion. Wait, not better, different. ACR allows fine tuning across a wider color palette than PS, but dramatizing is better accomplished in PS conversion, albeit with a noisier image likely. Finally, the one tool in PS for which I find no equivalent or better in ACR is Shadow/Highlight, which sometimes I do run as a Smart Object. What you give up as a Smart Object is a number of other tools become greyed out.
    I do use the plan mode as well, D.
    BTW, as I was walking down my street, a car pulled out of the driveway with "Fosse" on the license plate, preceded by initials neither of which was a D. I thought for a moment "wouldn't it be funny if we lived just down the street from each other all these years?"

  • Identity Plate setup problem

    Adobe Lightroom 2.2, MacPro 2.4 GHz, 2GB RAM, Mac OS 10.5.4
    I went to change my identity plate, and selected "Use a styled text identity plate". As soon as I did, the "Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 2" default plate went away, but no matter what I typed, it would not show up as the identity plate. If I uncheck "Enable Identity Plate", the default Adobe plate shows up. If I change the font for the module picker buttons, that works fine.
    I've tried the following:
    * Changing the font, font color and font size. No change
    * Restarting Lightroom (numerous times)
    * Saving the identity plate as a preset, and then changing to/from it
    * Hiding/restoring the identity plate/picker button region
    The result is just solid black in the upper left hand corner of the window
    Anyone have any ideas?
    Thanks!
    -Eric

    Thanks for your reply!
    Unfortunately, that wasn't the problem... I had the ID plate text highlighted as you described.
    Since I first posted I also tried:
    * Repairing permissions
    * Clearing user and system caches (with OnyX)
    * Checking preference file integrity with Preferential Treatment
    I also tried searching for where Lightroom stores the Identity Plate info, but couldn't find it.
    Of course, this all works just fine on my Mac Pro.
    The next things it occurs to me to try is checking for damaged fonts (though I've tried using several, sometimes it just takes one), and reinstalling a fresh copy of Lightroom.
    Thanks for your suggestion!
    -Eric

  • Photoshop 7.0 - Problem Retaining Original Color Space After Export

    I just registered for this forum & would appreciate your input.
    I convert Canon RAW files to jpgs & always embed the sRGB color profile & color space in the converted files.. Once I open & edit one of these files in Photoshop 7.0 & save it, the color space is changed to Abobe RGB. I have tried many changes via Edit > Color Settings, but still the same results. I thought that the settings preset "Web Graphics sRGB Color Space" would do the trick - but it doesn't.
    If I go to Image > Mode > Convert to Profile & select sRGB for both source space and destination space for an opened jpg file, the sRGB color space is embedded in the saved file - even after reopening in PS, editing, and re-saving. Must I do this for each jpg I edit?
    Please educate me how to set PS so all exported files either retain the sRGB color space or have PS embed the sRGB color space upon export.
    Thank you.

    This is of course, an issue of permissions so there may be no solution.
    Absolutely not. Don't jump to false premature conclusions. As Noel said, it solely depends on detecting a previous install/ verifying the install media. Since the latter is out of the question, the first would be way to go, the point being that it merely looks for the respective registry keys in HKEY_Local_Machine\Software\Adobe. Lucky for you, back then nobody cared to encrypt such stuff so it could be hacked in manually. Off hand I'm just not aware of the specific structure for the keys, though, but a little digging might turn up that info. In fact it would be almost identical to the ones for PS 7, which might already linger there just lacking the proper vlaues...
    Mylenium

  • Enabling LOG C color space conversion with cLog or sLOG footage.

    Hi Gang,
    I shoot Sony F3, Canon C100 and Canon 5DMk3 cameras in their respective LOG modes whenever possible.   I would like to apply the newly added LOG LUT feature designated for ARRI footage to footage from these cameras.  Although LOG C is different than the other LOG modes, it should be a good starting point to color grading. 
    Unfortunately, I can't seem to get the ARRI Log C toggle option to appear with my footage. Apparently there is a certain Metadata Tag in Alexa footage which must make it possible for the Radio Button to appear.  I basically want to trick my FCP-X interface into believing the footage is ARRI Alexa Log-C footage even though it is actually Canon cLog, Sony sLog or Cinestyle.  Yes, I know the Alexa Log-C profile is a bit different from the ideal profiles for each of these cameras, but it should be close enough for my needs.  I will then fine tune each individual camera's color corrections using the FCP-X color panes.  What I want is the Curve effect which is difficult to mimic using the Standard Color Panes.  BTW, I've been using a 3rd party effect called Natress Curves for this until now, but would like to start using the built-in LUT feature instead since my company has multiple editbays which lack 3rd party plugins.  Also, using the built-in color space conversion looks much simpler than the techniques I've developed for the Natress Plugin.
    Can anyone tell me which metadata tag is necessary in order to activate the LOG-C LUT option?   Thanks  Matt Thomas

    Thanks for the reply BenB.  I appreciate your willingness to help with this topic, but I'm not sure you understand what I want to do and why. 
    I want to use the LUT for its Luma curve in actual color corrections in FCP-X. I am not trying to use it for display of dailies or other uses which are common with LUTs.
    LOG space color space is similar, but not identical with many cameras.   ARRI LOG-C is also very similar to the color space used in Cineon and DPX film scans which I used to see regularly.  The black points may vary, but I can adjust black points in many ways.  The general shape of the LUT curve should be very similar to other curves used to correct other LOG spaces. If these curves were dramatically different from eachother, they wouldn't be defined as LOG space.  LOG is a mathematical formula for how the bits are arranged and reserved in the file structure which is somewhat similar to how stills photographers manage Zone System exposure indexes  There is no magic about the way ARRI defines this.  It is a way for ARRI footage to match 35mm scans easily and other cameras using LOG space such as the ones I am using regularly.  I would LOVE to have Apple include specific LOG LUT's for each camera which I use, but since they have not done that yet, I would like to experiement with the included one which is designed for ARRI LOG-C. 
    I am a very experienced professional and understand very well how and why LUT's are being used in many ways across the industry.  Yes, I use Resolve for certain tasks and yes, it is the best place to do advanced color work.  The new Resolve LOG color correction pane is very useful and superior to all tools I've seen.   But I also use and enjoy the convenience of keeping my material within FCP-X as much as possible.  And in many cases, FCP-X color correction tools are adequate for my needs.  But when using Cinestyle,  cLOG or sLOG footage on my cameras, controlling the rolloff of highlights is very difficult to do with the simple 3-way controls. in FCP-X.
    Since FCP-X has no Luma or RGB curves tool built-in, I currently use the Nattress Curves plugin in an Adjustment layer over my timelines to provide a basic film look. The downside to this is that not all my editbays have licenses for the 3rd party plugins, and also there are some odd workflow issues which would be much simpler to manage the way that FCP-X does with Arri LOG-C footage. 
    My question is how to trick FCP-X into thinking the footage is LOG-C so I can use the newly added checkbox to interpret the footage using the LOG-C LUT in an early stage of color correction while the footage is still managed in Floating Point color space. 
    The LOG-C profile in the Nattress plugin works as a very good starting point for advanced color correction for footage shot by Sony F3, Canon C and Canon Cinestyle cameras.  In fact, it is also a fairly good starting point for GoPro Hero3 ProTune footage as well.  I am not attempting ot use the LOG-C LUT solely for color correction.  Instead, I want to use it for CineGamma tonal correction which is only possible with a proper luma or RGB Curve.   I will then use the FCP-X color panes to ad specific modifications to each camera's footage to more closely match what I'm looking for.  If I'm dealing with a camera with lower dynamic range, I adjust the FCP-X panes to compensate for that particular camera, then Paste these attributes to all the clips from that camera.  This often results in a very good match from camera to camera while using the same LUT for the tonal look.   I would like to test this technique using the built-in ARRI LOG-C feature, but unfortunately, cannot until FCP-X allows me to use the LUT on other kinds of footage. 
    I hope this makes sense.   Keep in mind I am a very experienced and technical user and have a long history in the blogosphere and forums about these kinds of topics.  I have very specific reasons for why I want to do this, and until Apple provides other LOG correction tools or a bonafide Curves tool, I am seeking to find a way to use the LOG-C as an alternative solution.  BenB, it could be that Apple has closed out the LUT from other types of footage because of comments from their close peers which are not exactly helpful to actual real-world users.  There are many more cLOG, sLOG and Cinestyle users using FCP-X than there are ARRI users and it is unfortunately they chose to limit their features to exclude these somewhat arbitrarily.  My goal is to find a workaround for this odd decision and would love any tips or suggestions if the answer lies in the footage Metadata.

Maybe you are looking for