LIGHTROOM 4 AND 32 BIT

I was about to order Lightroom 4 then discovered the reference to 64 bit. My PC is 32 bit. Does this mean Lightroom 4 won't work on my PC and I will need a new one?

I would discourage you to use Lightroom 4 on a 32 bit PC. You can expect out of memory errors when exporting raw files or rendering 1:1 previews. Develop module is slow and not stable (brush).
See also this thread of me: http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/lightroom_4_i_cant_export_web_galler y_missing_raw_files
I recently changed to 64 bit and the memory and stability problems have disappeared and Lightroom is faster too. My system is Windows 7 Home premium 64b, i7, 8GB memory and Nvidia GTS450 video card.
Message was edited by: janh1948

Similar Messages

My Lightroom kepps stopping just after being loaded. My Lightroom is 5.4 64 bits installed on a Dell PC with Windows 8.1(upgraded from 8). I have uninstalled Lightroom and re-installed it with the same result. What could be the problem?

My Lightroom kepps stopping just after being loaded. My Lightroom is 5.4 64 bits installed on a Dell PC with Windows 8.1(upgraded from 8). I have uninstalled Lightroom and re-installed it with the same result. What could be the problem?

Try resetting your preference file next: http://www.lightroomforums.net/showthread.php?14226-Resetting-(or-Trashing-)-the-Lightroom -Preferences-file
It survives an uninstall/reinstall.

Using vista 64 bit with current versions of lightroom and CS3

Since the new versions of lightroom and photoshop are going to run on 64 bit I was thinking of upgrading to vista 64 bit. Will the present versions of lightroom and CS3 function in the vista 64 bit environment
thanks
Roger Lieberman

I use both LR & CS3 on both XP 64 and Vist 64. They wor just fine. In fact you get access to more RAM. Research your printer drivers etc though. That's an issue.
Doug BIbo

I have just sought to update my lightroom and am now unable to access the develop function and get a note stating that I have reduced functionality what it this about and how do I get my product back

I have just sought to update my lightroom and am now unable to access the develop function and get a note stating that I have reduced functionality what it this about and how do I get my product back

Hi there
I have version 5.7 and every time I opened it I was told that updates are available and to click on the icon to access these. Instead it just took me to the
adobe page with nowhere visible to update. I then sought to download lightroom cc and this is when I could not access the 'develop' section due to reduced
functionality It was apparent that my photos had been put in cc but no way to access them unless I wanted to subscribe.
I have since remedied the problem as my original lightroom 5.7 icon is still available on the desktop and have gone back to that. I do feel that this is a bit
of a rip off and an unnecessary waste of my time though.
Thank you for your prompt reply by the way.
Carlo
Message Received: May 04 2015, 04:52 PM
From: "dj_paige" <[email protected]>
To: "Carlo Bragagnolo" <[email protected]>
Cc:
Subject: I have just sought to update my lightroom and am now unable to access the develop function and get a note stating that I have
reduced functionality what it this about and how do I get my product back
dj_paige created the discussion
"I have just sought to update my lightroom and am now unable to access the develop function and get a note stating that I have reduced functionality what it
this about and how do I get my product back"
To view the discussion, visit: https://forums.adobe.com/message/7510559#7510559
>

I am trying to install Lightroom and I am OK until it asks for a serial number. I purchased Lightroom from B&H and the have entered the seal number on the the B&H invoice. Nothing happens, not all the entry boxes are filled with the serial number that was

I am trying to install Lightroom and I am OK until it asks for a serial number. I purchased Lightroom from B&H and the have entered the seal number on the the B&H invoice. Nothing happens, not all the entry boxes are filled with the serial number that was provided by B&H. I looked for a serial number on and in the box it came in, nada. Need a bit of help here, what can I do?
RJ@

Try to connect on Live chat one more time.
Still not connected , better to contact Adobe Phone Support
Click on Phone option and check once :
Contact Customer Care

Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 64-bit has stopped working [Lightroom 5 Beta]

I was looking for a Lightroom 5 Beta forum but am unable to find one. Today, I downloaded and installed LR5 Beta on my new HP Envy 64-bit Windows 8 machine. After running an installation, I started the program. At first, it asked about opening a catalogue during which time I created a new one as I have no intention of using my LR4 catalogue for LR5B. After creating the catalogue, it stated the following:
"Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 64-bit has stopped working. A problem caused the program to stop working correctly. Windows will close the program and notify you if a solution is available."
After it closed, I tried opening it again. Same result. No matter how many times I tried, the program would not open. I tried reinstalling the program to no avail using the "repair" feature. Finally, I just removed the program.
Windows 8 Home Premium (x64) (build 9200)
Hewlett-Packard h8-1534
Asset Tag: 4CE306029F
Enclosure Type: Desktop
3.80 gigahertz AMD FX-6200 Six-Core
No memory cache
64-bit ready
Multi-core (3 total)
Hyper-threaded (6 total)
1498.41 Gigabytes Usable Hard Drive Capacity
1100.84 Gigabytes Hard Drive Free Space
AMD AHCI Compatible RAID Controller
Microsoft Storage Spaces Controller
Standard Enhanced PCI to USB Host Controller (3x)
Standard OpenHCD USB Host Controller (4x)
Texas Instruments USB 3.0 xHCI Host Controller
Board: Gigabyte 2AC8 1.2
Bus Clock: 200 megahertz
BIOS: AMI v8.10 12/03/2012
Administrator account
I hope I have supplied enough information for resolution. If not, please let me know what additional information is needed.

It's here http://forums.adobe.com/community/labs/lightroom5. Not that difficult to find.

Why does Lightroom (and Photoshop) use AdobeRGB and/or ProPhoto RGB as default color spaces, when most monitors are standard gamut (sRGB) and cannot display the benefits of those wider gamuts?

I've asked this in a couple other places online as I try to wrap my head around color management, but the answer continues to elude me. That, or I've had it explained and I just didn't comprehend. So I continue. My confusion is this: everywhere it seems, experts and gurus and teachers and generally good, kind people of knowledge claim the benefits (in most instances, though not all) of working in AdobeRGB and ProPhoto RGB. And yet nobody seems to mention that the majority of people - including presumably many of those championing the wider gamut color spaces - are working on standard gamut displays. And to my mind, this is a huge oversight. What it means is, at best, those working this way are seeing nothing different than photos edited/output in sRGB, because [fortunately] the photos they took didn't include colors that exceeded sRGB's real estate. But at worst, they're editing blind, and probably messing up their work. That landscape they shot with all those lush greens that sRGB can't handle? Well, if they're working in AdobeRGB on a standard gamut display, they can't see those greens either. So, as I understand it, the color managed software is going to algorithmically reign in that wild green and bring it down to sRGB's turf (and this I believe is where relative and perceptual rendering intents come into play), and give them the best approximation, within the display's gamut capabilities. But now this person is editing thinking they're in AdobeRGB, thinking that green is AdobeRGB's green, but it's not. So any changes they make to this image, they're making to an image that's displaying to their eyes as sRGB, even if the color space is, technically, AdobeRGB. So they save, output this image as an AdobeRGB file, unaware that [they] altered it seeing inaccurate color. The person who opens this file on a wide gamut monitor, in the appropriate (wide gamut) color space, is now going to see this image "accurately" for the first time. Only it was edited by someone who hadn't seen it accurately. So who know what it looks like. And if the person who edited it is there, they'd be like, "wait, that's not what I sent you!"
Am I wrong? I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone. I shoot everything RAW, and I someday would love to see these photos opened up in a nice, big color space. And since they're RAW, I will, and probably not too far in the future. But right now I export everything to sRGB, because - internet standards aside - I don't know anybody who I'd share my photos with, who has a wide gamut monitor. I mean, as far as I know, most standard gamut monitors can't even display 100% sRGB! I just bought a really nice QHD display marketed toward design and photography professionals, and I don't think it's 100. I thought of getting the wide gamut version, but was advised to stay away because so much of my day-to-day usage would be with things that didn't utilize those gamuts, and generally speaking, my colors would be off. So I went with the standard gamut, like 99% of everybody else.
So what should I do? As it is, I have my Photoshop color space set to sRGB. I just read that Lightroom as its default uses ProPhoto in the Develop module, and AdobeRGB in the Library (for previews and such).
Thanks for any help!
Michael

Okay. Going bigger is better, do so when you can (in 16-bit). Darn, those TIFs are big though. So, ideally, one really doesn't want to take the picture to Photoshop until one has to, right? Because as long as it's in LR, it's going to be a comparatively small file (a dozen or two MBs vs say 150 as a TIF). And doesn't LR's develop module use the same 'engine' or something, as ACR plug-in? So if your adjustments are basic, able to be done in either LR Develop, or PS ACR, all things being equal, choose to stay in LR?
ssprengel Apr 28, 2015 9:40 PM
PS RGB Workspace: ProPhotoRGB and I convert any 8-bit documents to 16-bit before doing any adjustments.
Why does one convert 8-bit pics to 16-bit? Not sure if this is an apt comparison, but it seems to me that that's kind of like upscaling, in video. Which I've always taken to mean adding redundant information to a file so that it 'fits' the larger canvas, but to no material improvement. In the case of video, I think I'd rather watch a 1080p movie on an HD (1080) screen (here I go again with my pixel-to-pixel prejudice), than watch a 1080p movie on a 4K TV, upscaled. But I'm ready to be wrong here, too. Maybe there would be no discernible difference? Maybe even though the source material were 1080p, I could still sit closer to the 4K TV, because of the smaller and more densely packed array of pixels. Or maybe I only get that benefit when it's a 4K picture on a 4K screen? Anyway, this is probably a different can of worms. I'm assuming that in the case of photo editing, converting from 8 to 16-bit allows one more room to work before bad things start to happen?
I'm recent to Lightroom and still in the process of organizing from Aperture. Being forced to "this is your life" through all the years (I don't recommend!), I realize probably all of my pictures older than 7 years ago are jpeg, and probably low-fi at that. I'm wondering how I should handle them, if and when I do. I'm noting your settings, ssprengel.
ssprengel Apr 28, 2015 9:40 PM
I save my PS intermediate or final master copy of my work as a 16-bit TIF still in the ProPhotoRGB, and only when I'm ready to share the image do I convert to sRGB then 8-bits, in that order, then do File / Save As: Format=JPG.
Part of the same question, I guess - why convert back to 8-bits? Is it for the recipient? Do some machines not read 16-bit? Something else?
For those of you working in these larger color spaces and not working with a wide gamut display, I'd love to know if there are any reasons you choose not to. Because I guess my biggest concern in all of this has been tied to what we're potentially losing by not seeing the breadth of the color space we work in represented while making value adjustments to our images. Based on what several have said here, it seems that the instances when our displays are unable to represent something as intended are infrequent, and when they do arise, they're usually not extreme.
Simon G E Garrett Apr 29, 2015 4:57 AM
With 8 bits, there are 256 possible values. If you use those 8 bits to cover a wider range of colours, then the difference between two adjacent values - between 100 and 101, say - is a larger difference in colour. With ProPhoto RGB in 8-bits there is a chance that this is visible, so a smooth colour wedge might look like a staircase. Hence ProPhoto RGB files might need to be kept as 16-bit TIFs, which of course are much, much bigger than 8-bit jpegs.
Over the course of my 'studies' I came across a side-by-side comparison of either two color spaces and how they handled value gradations, or 8-bit vs 16-bit in the same color space. One was a very smooth gradient, and the other was more like a series of columns, or as you say, a staircase. Maybe it was comparing sRGB with AdobeRGB, both as 8-bit. And how they handled the same "section" of value change. They're both working with 256 choices, right? So there might be some instances where, in 8-bit, the (numerically) same segment of values is smoother in sRGB than in AdobeRGB, no? Because of the example Simon illustrated above?
Oh, also -- in my Lumix LX100 the options for color space are sRGB or AdobeRGB. Am I correct to say that when I'm shooting RAW, these are irrelevant or ignored? I know there are instances (certain camera effects) where the camera forces the shot as a jpeg, and usually in that instance I believe it will be forced sRGB.
Thanks again. I think it's time to change some settings..

Lightroom and Photoshop Integration

Hello Everyone,
I am a beginner photographer and beginner Lightroom / Photoshop person.
I use Lightroom for most of the "darkroom" type stuff with my pictures (cataloging them, minor croping, playing with tint, hue, etc). However some things can only be done in Photshop - layers, HDR, masks, adding textures.
One reason i like LR is that the changes are non destructive. That means that the original picture is not changed, but the edits I make are stored in some file and applied on top of the picture and saved elsewhere - not saved with the pic. But i need to use PS and learn PS a bit more. I heard both products were highly integrated, but does anyone know how? If I edit in LR, how do I send the pic to PS to do more? Do the PS edits need to be "saved as" a new file or are they sent back to Lightroom and somehow saved as non-destructive edits?
Also can both products convert color RAW files to BW and Sepia just as easily?

Confusedxx wrote:
I heard both products were highly integrated, but does anyone know how? If I edit in LR, how do I send the pic to PS to do more? Do the PS edits need to be "saved as" a new file or are they sent back to Lightroom and somehow saved as non-destructive edits?
Also can both products convert color RAW files to BW and Sepia just as easily?
To send an image to Photoshop for editing you use the Edit in Adobe Photoshop command (see Photo>Edit in menu or use the Cmd/Ctrl+E shortcut). When you use this command Lightroom creates a rendered version in ram. It is this rendered version that you edit in Photoshop. When you have completed your Photoshop edits use the "Save" command not "Save As" to save the image back into Photoshop. The edited file will be saved as a fully rendered TIFF or PSD file (you can define which in Lightroom Preferences).
Non destructive editing in Photoshop requires that you use either layers or smart objects. While Lightroom can handle files with layers and/or smart objects it can't actually edit the Layers or Smart Objects. That being said, if you need to re-edit the non-destructive Photoshop edits just send the rendered file back to Photoshop.
Photoshop uses the Camera Raw plug-in to convert raw images and Lightroom uses an embedded version of the Camera Raw engine for the same purpose. So, both convert colour to B&W and Sepia with equal ease.

Using Lightroom and PS Elements

I have been a Lightroom user since the beginning and have PSCS3 for when I need to do some more involved editing. (Not very often - probably 95% of my editing/adjustments are done in Lightroom exclusively, including my RAW conversions.)
I have a friend who swears by PS Elements - which I have not used since I believe version 2. I played a bit on his computer and felt that probably everything that I use PSCS3 for I could also do in Elements. But I really don't need the Organizer - have already done all the importing/keywording in LR. So do if I decide to try out the trial version of PSE8:
(1) Do I have to install the Organizer?
(2) If I do have to install it, is there a way to bypass it - either from Windows or from Lightroom - and go straight to the Editor?
(3) What will I be missing from PSCS if I start with Elements - aside from 16 bit editing, which I VERY rarely do?
(4) Can Elements open any existing PSCS files I have?
Thanks,
Steve

Hi Steve,
Welcome to the world of PSE. I am glad that you are thinking of moving to PSE.
Here are the responses to your query:
1. Organizer and Editor are installed together on the machine, there is no way you can just install PSE Editor.
2. Simple way to bypass Organizer, is to go to ProgramFiles\Adobe Photoshop Elements 6.0\ folder and create a desktop shortcut of PhotoshopElementsEditor.exe on the desktop and invoke it directly in place of PSE Welcome Screen.
3. In a nutshell, PSE is a subset of Ps CS3, so there will be some differences/limitations in PSE for sure. Say for e.g., there will be fewer adjustment layers, Pen tool and Patch tool aren't supported in PSE 6.0, Actions cannot be played(supported from E7 onwards), there will be no separate animation panel, etc.I would suggest you install PSE 8(current version) in trial and since you are less on edting side, so i think you will get what all limited editing functionality you strive for.
4. Elements can open Ps CS3 files successfully with ease.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Ankush

Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 64 bit has stopped working error

I had not been using my laptop for a while and decided to install lightroom 3.2. I did the install and now when I try to start lightroom I get the error message in the subject line:
Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 64 bit has stopped working
I have a Windows 7 laptop, with 6gb RAM, ATI Radeon video card. The laptop is working well, except I just noticed that Photoshop CS5 64 bit and After Effects both give a similar error upon starting those applications as well.
Any ideas as to how I can solve this problem.
Thanks,
Scott

I have the same problem
Lightroom 5.6 crashes when I enter the printmodule.Windows 8.1 64-bit

Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 64-bit has stopped working

After opening LR 5.6 on Windows 8.1 and clicking Import it pops up a message, "Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 64-bit has stopped working". It worked yesterday.
How should I troubleshoot and fix this?
Thanks.

After opening Lightroom and clicking Import it pops up this message:
Upgraded to 5.7, same problem.
Please help me to fix this problem or to find other software for processing photos.

Windows 7 error message: Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 64-bit has stopped working

Typical Windows 7 Pop up Window with this content:
Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 64-bit
Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 64-bit has stopped working
A problem caused the program to stop working correctly. Windows will close the program and notify you if a solution is available.
using Windows 7. Just recently statredf using a new SSD as C: Drive for OS and Apps. I still have OS and all apps on my old C drive but that copy of LR 5.6 bombs too. I had also moved all image files to a different external drive and created a new catalog.

Is that really the exact message you are receiving?

Lightroom and Photoshop CS 6 workflow

Installed:
Lightroom 3.6
Lightroom 5.3
Photoshop CS6
InDesgin
Illustrator
Windows 8.1
all programs 64 bit (except InDesgin)
Hello,
there's a problem, which I couldn't solve.
I choose a photo in LR 5.3 to edit in an external editor (which is Photoshop CS 6, format: psd, 16 bit, 300 dpi) and PS CS 6 starts so I can do the editing.
When I save my work, the new file not appears in the LR 5.3 catalogue / collection.
I choose different a file format (tiff), but I haven't success.
Any ideas, what could be the reason?
Thank You all!!
Cheers
Theo

If you decide to stick with your present software configuration then it will be necessary for you to convert your raw images using the latest DNG converter. Conversion to DNG is built into Lightroom, and it doesn't use the standalone DNG converter.
I might suggest that you download the Lightroom 4.1 RC2 from the Adobe Labs web site and give it a try. It will create a copy of your Lightroom 3 catalog, but it will not interfere with your use of the previous version. I am running it, and don't find that I have the problems that some are. You can use it for free until it expires. That should give you enough time to evaluate whether or not you want to switch. I have purchased Lightroom 4 but have not installed it yet. I'm going to wait until 4.1 is officially released.

Lightroom 5.6 would not open. I only get a flash picture then I get an error message. See below message: [Window Title] Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 64-bit [Main Instruction] Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 64-bit does not work more [Content] there was a problem m

Lightroom 5.6 would not open. I only get a flash picture then I get an error message. See below message: [Window Title] Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 64-bit [Main Instruction] Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 64-bit does not work more [Content] there was a problem making the program no longer work properly. The program is closed and there is a notification if a solution is available.

I may have just solved my own problem. Right after posting this I googled bezel lightroom and found this: Flickr: Discussing The word 'bezel' appears in the taskbar. in Adobe Lightroom
I changed the setting in the view menu and now everything appears to be working fine. I cannot explain why it stopped working before because I hadn't made any previous changes to the view options.
Still am curious about the memory usage, though.

Color Space and Bit Depth - What Makes Sense?

I'm constantly confused about which color space and bit depth to choose for various things.
Examples:
- Does it make any sense to choose sRGB and 16-bits? (I thought sRGB was 8-bit by nature, no?)
- Likewise for AdobeRGB - are the upper 8-bits empty if you use 16-bits?
- What is the relationship between Nikon AdobeWide RGB, and AdobeRGB? - if a software supports one, will it support the other?
- ProPhoto/8-bits - is there ever a reason?...
I could go on, but I think you get the idea...
Any help?
Rob

So, it does not really make sense to use ProPhoto/8 for output (or for anything else I guess(?)), even if its supported, since it is optimized for an extended gamut, and if your output device does not encompass the gamut, then you've lost something since your bits will be spread thinner in the "most important" colors.
Correct, you do not want to do prophotoRGB 8bit anything. It is very easy to get posterization with it. Coincidentally, if you print from Lightroom and let the driver manage and do not check 16-bit output, Lightroom outputs prophotoRGB 8bits to the driver. This is rather annoying as it is very easy to get posterizaed prints this way.
It seems that AdobeRGB has been optimized more for "important" colors and so if you have to scrunch down into an 8-bit jpeg, then its the best choice if supported - same would hold true for an 8-bit tif I would think (?)
Correct on both counts. If there is color management and you go 8 bits adobeRGB is a good choice. This is only really true for print targets though as adobeRGB encompasses more of a typical CMYK gamut than sRGB. For display targets such as the web you will be better off always using sRGB as 99% of displays are closer to that and so you don't gain anything. Also, 80% of web browsers is still not color managed.
On a theoretical note: I still don't understand why if image data is 12 or 14 bits and the image format uses 16 bits, why there has to be a boundary drawn around the gamut representation. But for practical purposes, maybe it doesn't really matter.
Do realitze hat the original image in 12 to 14 bits is in linear gamma as that is how the sensor reacts to light. However formats for display are always gamma corrected for efficiency, because the human eye reacts non-linearly to light and because typical displays have a gamma powerlaw response of brightness/darkness. Lightroom internally uses a 16-bit linear space. This is more bits than the 12 or 14 bits simply to avoid aliasing errors and other numeric errors. Similarly the working space is chosen larger than the gamut cameras can capture in order to have some overhead that allows for flexibility and avoids blowing out in intermediary stages of the processing pipeline. You have to choose something and so prophotoRGB, one of the widest RGB spaces out there is used. This is explained quite well here.
- Is there any reason not to standardize 8-bit tif or jpg files on AdobeRGB and leave sRGB for the rare cases when legacy support is more important than color integrity?
Actually legacy issues are rampant. Even now, color management is very spotty, even in shops oriented towards professionals. Also, arguably the largest destination for digital file output, the web, is almost not color managed. sRGB remains king unfortunately. It could be so much better if everybody used Safari or Firefox, but that clearly is not the case yet.
- And standardize 16 bit formats on the widest gamut supported by whatever you're doing with it? - ProPhoto for editing, and maybe whatever gamut is recommended by other software or hardware vendors for special purposes...
Yes, if you go 16 bits, there is no point not doing prophotoRGB.
Personally, all my web photos are presented through Flash, which supports AdobeRGB even if the browser proper does not. So I don't have legacy browsers to worry about myself.
Flash only supports non-sRGB images if you have enabled it yourself. NONE of the included flash templates in Lightroom for example enable it.
that IE was the last browser to be upgraded for colorspace support (ie9)
AFAIK (I don't do windows, so I have not tested IE9 myself), IE 9 still is not color managed. The only thing it does is when it encounters a jpeg with a ICC profile different than sRGB is translate it to sRGB and send that to the monitor without using the monitor profile. That is not color management at all. It is rather useless and completely contrary to what Microsoft themselves said many years ago well behaved browsers should do. It is also contrary to all of Windows 7 included utilities for image display. Really weird! Wide gamut displays are becoming more and more prevalent and this is backwards. Even if IE9 does this halfassed color transform, you can still not standardize on adobeRGB as it will take years for IE versions to really switch over. Many people still use IE6 and only recently has my website's access switched over to mostly IE8. Don't hold your breath for this.
Amazingly, in 2010, the only correctly color managed browser on windows is still Safari as Firefox doesn't support v4 icc monitor profiles and IE9 doesn't color manage at all except for translating between spaces to sRGB which is not very useful. Chrome can be made to color manage on windows apparently with a command line switch. On Macs the situation is better since Safari, Chrome (only correctly on 10.6) and Firefox (only with v2 ICC monitor profiles) all color manage. However, on mobile platforms, not a single browser color manages!

How to view resolution (ppi/dpi) and bit depth of an image

Hello,
how can I check the native resolution (ppi/dpi) and bit depth of my image files (jpeg, dng and pef)?
If it is not possible in lighroom, is there a free app for Mac that makes this possible?
Thank you in advance!

I have used several different cameras, which probably have different native bit depths. I assume that Lr converts all RAW files to 16 bits, but the original/native bit depth still affects the quality, right? Therefore, it would be nice to be able to check the native bit depth of an image and e.g. compare it to an image with a different native bit depth.....
I know a little bit of detective work would solve the issue, but it
would be more convenient to be able to view native bit depth in
Lightroom, especially when dealing with multiple cameras, some of which
might have the option to use different bit depths, which would make the
matter significantly harder.
This
issue is certainly not critical and doesn't fit into my actual
workflow. As I stated in a previous post, I am simply curious and wan't
to learn, and I believe that being able to compare images with different
bit depths conveniently would be beneficial to my learning process.
Anyway,
I was simply checking if somebody happened to know a way to view bit
depth in Lr4, but I take it that it is not possible, and I can certainly
live with that.
Check the specifications of your camera to know at what bit depth it writes Raw files. If you have a camera in which the Raw bit depth can be changed the setting will probably be recorded in a section of the metadata called the Maker Notes (I don't believe the EXIF standard includes a field for this information). At any rate, LR displays only a small percentage of the EXIF data (only the most relevant fields) and none of the Maker Notes. To see a fuller elucidation of the metadata you will need a comprehensive EXIF reader like ExifTool.
However, the choices nowadays are usually 12 bit or 14 bit. I can assure you that you cannot visually see any difference between them, because both depths provide a multiplicity of possible tonal levels that is far beyond the limits of human vision - 4,096 levels for 12 bit and 16,384 for 14 bit. Even an 8 bit image with its (seemingly) paltry 256 possible levels is beyond the roughly 200 levels the eye can perceive. And as has been said, LR's internal calculations are done to 16 bit precision no matter what the input depth (although your monitor is probably not displaying the previews at more than 8 bit depth) and at export the RGB image can be written to a tiff or psd in 16 bit notation. The greater depth of 14 bit Raws can possibly (although not necessarily) act as a vehicle for greater DR which might be discerned as less noise in the darkest shadows, but this is not guaranteed and applies to only a few cameras.

LIGHTROOM 4 AND 32 BIT

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for