ProPhoto to sRGB strangeness

I've an image (people/portrait) that I opened in Photoshop from Lightroom and it comes in as ProPhoto as a default. When I convert to sRGB the faces all turn a deep(er) magenta hue and the saturation bumps up too. Strange, never experienced such a dramatic shift doing a conversion.
I then tried the same image only this time I went from ProPhoto to Adobe RGB then to sRGB and everything works as it should, that is, no noticeable color cast/change.
Any idea as to what is going on?
Mac Snow/Photoshop/Lightroom (most recent editions of all). Calibrated monitor.

I've been plalying around and have found that the weirdness is only with the preview in the convert dialog box. When I click OK it looks correct.
I've also noticed that when converting there's an odd "flicker", for instance, say I go from AdobeRGB to sRGB, I I clik OK in the convert dialog box, I see a short interim off color version of the image before it goes to the correct one.
Just to check, (with an Nvidia 8800 GT video card), I turned off Enable OpenGL Drawing in the Photoshop > Performance prefs and now everything works fine. No magenta cast in faces or flicker or any other anomaly.
Is my video card going out or somehow not playing well with CS5?
MP 8-Core, 14GB RAM, Snow

Similar Messages

Working Colour Space and sRGB

Only partially related to CR, I'm still unclear about using different colour spaces in my workflow, as a semi-pro photographer producing images for the internet, projector, and for home printing.
I found this topic in the archive:
Klaas Visser, "ProPhoto vs sRGB" #1, 15 Nov 2006 4:36 pm
and was still left puzzled.
I read Bruce/Jeff's book a year ago, and took in the recommendation to use ProPhotoRGB as the target colour space, but am still not clear WHY, and if it is relevant to a workflow which results in a reduced sRGB jpeg, or an A3/A4-sized print on a SOHO 6-colour injet printer. Does CR work best in ProPhoto?
Recent conversations have led me to believe that there is little point starting with a ProPhoto colour space if the end medium uses a much smaller gamut, like a calibrated monitor, projector, or domestic inkjet printer. Not only that, but the colour space conversion process will actually degrade the image unnecessarily. I'm told that it's better to start with the final colour space and avoid conversions. One friend went to great lengths to explain to me that a larger gamut with the same bit depth had "bigger gaps" between colours and therefore less accurate colour resolution.
Well, the theory in both camps seems sound, so I'm left in confusion. I could spend many hours (and money) on doing test conversions and prints, and examine fine details with a large magnifying glass, but I was hoping: could somebody put me out of my misery with a logical explanation of best practices?

> Recent conversations have led me to believe that there is little point starting with a ProPhoto colour space if the end medium uses a much smaller gamut ...
You don't sound that confused -- you simply need to decide on what your target color space (CS) gamut should be. You're correct in noting that color gamut conversions are somewhat destrustive, but there nothing wrong with minimizing them, and restricting them for going from large to small gamuts only.
A large CS gamut (PpRGB) is capable of all the color from your camera (depending on your camera), but like your friend implies most probably sould be editted in highbit depth (16bits). This CS is useful for archiving your images, or for aggressive tonal adjustments. (... although your images are 'really' archived as raw data, and ACR "undestructively" modified tonal values before exporting to Photoshop).
I find little utility in exporting to small CS gamuts (eg, sRGB), unless the image is intended for a small gamut (monitors in general - eg, web browser presentations, and/or printers that can only relate to sRGB).
In between are intermediate CS gamuts (eg, AdobeRGB), which are quite capable of small tonal adjustments with 8bit depth, for which the target gamuts are usually better printer technologies.
my CA$0.02 :)

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.

Canon G9 CR2 File Problems

I'm running into some troubles with this combination of CR2 files from the Canon G9 and using Lightroom 1.3 or Photoshop CS3.
When I import the files from the camera using Lightroom's import function (and yes, I have the 4.3 camera raw update installed), Lightroom brings over both the .jpg and the .cr2 files (so far, so good) but then I run into problems.
First problem: The .CR2 files have improper white balance set on them. catastrophically so, as I'm using the camera for infrared shots and without the original white balanace settinsg taken at the time of shooting the shot is useless. The .jpg's are fine, but obviously lack the full details of a raw file, which I would prefer to work with.
Second problme: When I right click on the .cr2 image in Lightroom and choose to edit it in Photoshop, the result is that Photoshop opens the file as a Tiff image and I never get the opportunity to use the Camera Raw loader settings for the raw image in photoshop, which are fairly important to me.
Third Problem: If I open the image directly in photoshop, it will initiate the Camera Raw 4.3.1 loader (a good thing) but still has the color balance issues. And for an instant when the file loads in camera raw 4.3.1, a triangle warning sign shows in the upper right corner of the picture then dissappears. I have tried using the Adobe RGB, Colormatch, ProPhoto and sRGB settinsg, 8 and 16 bit, all to no avail, I still lose the white custom balance as shot.
Any help on this would be very much appreciated, I've thus far been totally unable to work with raw images from the G9 regardless of what versions of the various software and tools I have loaded.

Hi, thanks once again for responding.
My dilemma is that the final results of an artifically induced white balance through channel switching won't give the same results as the false color image produced when the original white balance is done on-site using the non-IT filtered color metering system of the camera. It can give an approximation, but it will lack in a great many nuances.
IR images taken using the Canon G9 produce correct .JPGs, but the processing of the CR2 files by camera raw is flawed in the way that it is handling the white balance settings in the CR2 it seems. Images produced by other camers such as our Nikon D80 or others that use formats other than CR2 come through perfectly. Only the CR2 images are incorrect. This may be linked to the use of custom white balances instead of standard white balance settings, perhaps something in the file contents identifying which white balance (the camera has approximately eight) is being used and should be processed. Or perhaps the file itself is being incorrectly produced by the camera. Who know, eh?
I know the CR2 format in the G9 is relatively new and full support will come in time, but I'd hoped that it was some obscure setting that could get us back on track. In the meantime, we are using the .JPG images from the G9, which come through correctly processed. But this is sub-optimal, and one of the primary reasons for settling on the G9 was to have the raw images. Afetr all, how many 12MP compact cameras out there produce raw image files, eh? :)
If nothing else, perhaps this conversation will prompt some research and eventually correct processing of CR2 will emerge.

Request / Observations / Thoughts on LR4

1 It would be so great to have additional color spaces available on "Preferences" -> "External Editing", not only ProPhoto, Adobe & sRGB, I'm sure that there are many photographers working with different color spaces, Chromespace & DCam JHolmes for example. Then I could change my whole workflow.
2 Scrolling over the left and right navigation panel does not work after running the development module, to scroll/browse the folder panel you have to hoover the mouse over the scroll bar, have had this with LR3 as well (Win7 x64, Mouse Razer Lachesis).
3 After clicking through some folders and images in the grid mode, the mouse arrow turnes into a "<-->" arrow on the folder panel, selecting one image in the grid turnes the cursor back to a "<--" (normal).
4 Keywording seems to have some problems, when I select images by a keyword, I receive the message "no photos match the filter", while filters have been turned of. Adding GPS data to some of the old keyworded images made the selection work again.
5 Fullscreen mode (F), would be nice to have more room if it would be possible to have a FS mode without the panel sliders / bar (triangle icons) on the left, right, top and bottom. I work with the shotcuts to show or hide the panels (t, tab...) This would give more workspace on a 15.6 FullHD laptop.
6 UI color, perhaps a darker or custom UI color, like PS6 Superstition now allows - finally!
7 Compared to CaptureOne (sorry), fit to screen images in LR look less crispy, I don't know how they do that, but I like it and it would be great in LR as well.
8 Cropping my 4x5 scans (~100 Mpix) seems to be slow and after defining and moving the crop, LR shows a much tighter crop for a fraction of a second, then goes back to the applied crop, this happens everytime when you adjust the cropping (same on LR3).
9 Grid view, selecting on image to view it seems to be sluggish, slower than LR3 (Win7 x64, 32GB Ram, SSD, Quadro 2000, Core7 Quad)
10 Perhaps an internal EXIF Editor, I prefer to add Exif data to my scanned images and I have to use an external editor at the moment.
Thanks for your patience and bringing Lightroom to us,
Sandy Lunitz

1 It would be so great to have additional color spaces available on "Preferences" -> "External Editing", not only ProPhoto, Adobe & sRGB, I'm sure that there are many photographers working with different color spaces, Chromespace & DCam JHolmes for example. Then I could change my whole workflow.
2 Scrolling over the left and right navigation panel does not work after running the development module, to scroll/browse the folder panel you have to hoover the mouse over the scroll bar, have had this with LR3 as well (Win7 x64, Mouse Razer Lachesis).
3 After clicking through some folders and images in the grid mode, the mouse arrow turnes into a "<-->" arrow on the folder panel, selecting one image in the grid turnes the cursor back to a "<--" (normal).
4 Keywording seems to have some problems, when I select images by a keyword, I receive the message "no photos match the filter", while filters have been turned of. Adding GPS data to some of the old keyworded images made the selection work again.
5 Fullscreen mode (F), would be nice to have more room if it would be possible to have a FS mode without the panel sliders / bar (triangle icons) on the left, right, top and bottom. I work with the shotcuts to show or hide the panels (t, tab...) This would give more workspace on a 15.6 FullHD laptop.
6 UI color, perhaps a darker or custom UI color, like PS6 Superstition now allows - finally!
7 Compared to CaptureOne (sorry), fit to screen images in LR look less crispy, I don't know how they do that, but I like it and it would be great in LR as well.
8 Cropping my 4x5 scans (~100 Mpix) seems to be slow and after defining and moving the crop, LR shows a much tighter crop for a fraction of a second, then goes back to the applied crop, this happens everytime when you adjust the cropping (same on LR3).
9 Grid view, selecting on image to view it seems to be sluggish, slower than LR3 (Win7 x64, 32GB Ram, SSD, Quadro 2000, Core7 Quad)
10 Perhaps an internal EXIF Editor, I prefer to add Exif data to my scanned images and I have to use an external editor at the moment.
Thanks for your patience and bringing Lightroom to us,
Sandy Lunitz

PNG colour profiles - and this format for print

I know it's taboo to talk about PNG for printing.
But I can't find and I've searched the forums - there was a post made about embedding colour profiles a while ago.
I know PNG is a RGB only format, but I'm 36.8% sure I read something about embedding either RGB or ... wait for it CMYK profiles into PNG files.
If anyone can shed any light on this - and how about PNG for print - I've been against it for a long time - but it is a lossless format, it can carry 64 bit data.
I know I know - but I thought I'd ask anyway - see what people think.

You can't save a PNG with a profile out of Photoshop, but it looks like you can embed one via the image events scripts that ship with OSX (/Library/Scripts/ColorSync/embed). Unfortunately ID ignores the embedded profile and uses the document's assigned profile instead. PNGs do respond to ID's RGB profile and the RGB profile will have an effect on the CMYK separation when it happens.
Here's ProPhoto and sRGB:
From your ID document you can also assign a profile, which conflicts with the doc's profile, by selecting the png and choosing Image Color Settings.... So, you could assign AdobeRGB as your doc's profile and assign sRGB to all your pngs.

Multiple Imperative Feature Requests

I am a MN Photographer and have been using PS Lightroom through 2 betas and 2 release versions. I have been amazed at the improvements Adobe has added, but from my point of view, they need to add a few more features to make LR more robust and efficient!
I love the way LR makes terrific web galleries!
I am running LR from a Seagate Barracuda 300 External Hard Drive with Firewire connection. I am using a Mac Powerbook (1GHz Processor) with 60GB HD and 55% free, w/ 2GB DRAM, and an Apple Cinema Display. I can't complain about slow downs, but keep my permissions tuned once a week, both on the Mac PB and all EHDs.
LIGHTROOM FEATURE REQUESTS
1. From the Web module, there is only one option for adding Copyright Info to images in the Web Galleries, either ON or OFF. It would be a great addition to have this option variable by type size, type placement on images, and opacity. I last generated a web gallery and some of the images said, "2007 Alex Bachnick All Rights Reserved," but many of the images said, "Alex Bachnick All Rights Reserved," without a year. A few images said, "Copyright 2007 Alex Bachnick All Rights Reserved," like it is supposed to! The LR application has been inconsistent so far in this area. By adding a line of copy that can be saved, and by varying the opacity and placement on images would be a huge step forward!
2. It is IMPERATIVE that you embed metadata into the Web gallery images. This is primarily for adding keywords and copyright information, but LR is inconsistent so far. Sometimes metadata is preserved, but it doesn't always get embedded when exporting images.
3. When I generated a Flash Web Gallery, some of the color was good, some of it was terrible. I have suggested before that you write into the action that takes the original image, reduces it in size, then convert to profile from Prophoto to sRGB. I suspect that you have a script in there "Save for Web". This script is denigrating the color when Convert to Profile would preserve the color. Admittedly Safari is the primary web browser I use, and it's color-centric, whereas most of the others IE, Netscape, and Mozilla, aren't.
4. When I use HTML for the web galleries, the color is spot on, but a young friend told me it would be better to hit one button to go through the images as in a rapidly advancing slide show, rather than hitting each image, and then wait for it to enlarge. This could be another marked improvement, if you made the output a slideshow from the Web Module.
5. I tried generating a slideshow from the Lightroom menu, and had about 200 images in a collection. The application went through the motions, but I tried opening the slideshow but it didn't work. I tried it in PDF format and it output a 135MB file that ADobe Acrobat couldn't open. It is still not working. I have also used a third party application Photo to Movie (www.LQGraphics.com). This is a $50 application that you can add music to and vary the zooms and dissolves and this works incredibly well!!!
6. One of my biggest problems so far is the sort mechanism. I have about 9500 images in my library, and about 5% of those were made from about 2004 and on. My images are sorted by "capture time," but the images shot back in CY 2004--2005 are mixed in somewhere way down in the pile. There are some bugs in the program for reading the capture time, and so far this is not working accurately!
7. From the Lightroom Library module, several times I have exported images for 3rd party needs and the application puts out varying results. In March I output some images for Communication Arts magazine. They specified file size and format, and it took me several times to export the images to their specifications. I recently exported some images for submission to a UK based stock photography agent. The images came from 5 different cameras~~Hasselblad w/ Imacon Digital Back, Kodak DCS-14, Canon 1ds MkII, and Canon D-20. There were 10 images that needed to be output as JPEGs (

1. LR uses what was written in the copyright field so it's your data entry that is inconsistent.
2. Are you 100% certain this is not working reliably under 1.1? It definitely wasn't working at all under 1.0 and Adobe responded to complaints. Since 1.1, I've taken large numbers of Web-generated pictures into iView and not found any cases where the metadata was missing. "Sometimes" is too vague. How exactly can you prove it? What programs prove it?
3. Not sure, but isn't this a problem because of Flash? Also the browser you use is not important - it's the browser that your visitor uses that you need to focus on.
4. Realistically, Flash is better for this. You can always get someone to write/modify HTML templates to do such a slideshow, but the built-in templates are already very complex and this suggestion would add another layer of browser incompatibility.
7. This isn't a feature request. Raise this in the main forum - and be specific (your post was also too long and got truncated). How can anyone help you if you say "varying results"? It's unlikely that any variation is random.
John

Seeing the unseeable in ACR

I work mainly in Bridge and Camera Raw, and sometimes finish images with a bit of retouching in Photoshop. Mainly, I'm either looking at Bridge's Essentials workspace and its full-screen preview, or Camera Raw.
I usually work in either ProPhoto or Adobe RGB, depending on the task in hand. I've got a moderate grasp on the joys of colour management, but I'm a bit confused with the way it's displayed in Adobe Bridge and Camera Raw. I have a calibrated/profiled HP 'wide-gamut' LCD monitor.
I have been working with a raw image of red tulips. Its reds and greens are pretty rich and it doesn't translate well to sRGB at all. It fairs better with Adobe RGB, but still falls short of the full image gamut. The Bridge full-screen preview looks pretty similar to the sRGB version. In fact, no matter which working colourspace you choose, the full-screen previews of the resulting JPEGs all look the same, so I'm guessing Bridge renders all previews in the sRGB colour space. Is this right?
The thing I really can't get my head around is the Camera Raw preview of the tulips in ProPhoto RGB mode. It's almost as if I'm seeing the full gamut. But I can't be seeing the full thing on my HP monitor, which is supposedly similar to the AdobeRGB gamut. How is Camera Raw displaying out-of-monitor-gamut colour in the ProPhoto RGB preview?
ProPhoto
AdobeRGB
sRGB
(you might need to save these to disk to see them properly colour-managed)

Many thanks, Jeff. I often have trouble getting my head around things like this, especially when I'm dealing with colours I'm not supposed to see!
I suspect that the deep reds in the tulip are actually outside AdobeRGB but within my monitor's gamut. I think I assume that one colour space would always fit inside another, but they probably often overlap.
I assume that the ACR histogram represents the working colour space, as it changes shape depending on the current choice. But, if the preview is an RC rendering to the monitor profile (which is bound to be a smaller gamut), I'd expect visual clipping to occur before histogram clipping.
I'm just thinking out loud here because there's already too much noise inside my head I'm a hoot at parties. Feel free to correct me, if I'm lost in the woods again.

Lightroom 1.2 WHEN?

Ok we have all added our 2 cents for fine tuning Lightroom 1.1. Fall and heavy business is coming. When will 1.2 be released?

Hello all;
I am a MN Photographer and have been using PS Lightroom through 2 betas and 2 release versions. I have been amazed at the improvements Adobe has added, but from my point of view, they need to add a few more features to make LR the star that it will become!
I love the way LR makes terrific web galleries!
I am running LR from a Seagate Barracuda 300 External Hard Drive with Firewire connection. I am using a Mac Powerbook (1GHz Processor) with 60GB HD and 45% free, w/ 2GB DRAM, and an Apple Cinema Display. I can't complain about slow downs, but keep my permissions tuned once a week, both on the Mac PB and all EHDs.
LIGHTROOM FEATURE REQUESTS
1. From the Web module, there is only one option for adding Copyright Info to images in the Web Galleries, either ON or OFF. It would be a great addition to have this option variable by type size, type placement on images, and opacity. I last generated a web gallery and some of the images said, "2007 Alex Bachnick All Rights Reserved," but many of the images said, "Alex Bachnick All Rights Reserved," without a year. A few images said, "Copyright 2007 Alex Bachnick All Rights Reserved," like it is supposed to! The LR application has been inconsistent so far in this area. By adding a line of copy that can be saved, and by varying the opacity and placement on images would be a huge step forward!
2. It is IMPERATIVE that the application allows you to embed metadata into the Web gallery images. This is primarily for adding keywords and copyright information, but LR is inconsistent so far. Sometimes metadata is preserved, but it doesn't always get embedded when exporting images.
3. When I generated a Flash Web Gallery, some of the color was good, some of it was terrible. I have suggested before that Adobe writes into the action that takes the original image, reduces it in size, then convert to profile from Prophoto to sRGB. I suspect that you have a script in there "Save for Web". This script is denigrating the color when Convert to Profile would preserve the color. Admittedly Safari is the primary web browser I use, and it's color-centric, whereas most of the others IE, Netscape, and Mozilla, aren't.
4. When I use HTML for the web galleries, the color is spot on, but a young friend told me it would be better to hit one button to go through the images as in a rapidly advancing slide show (w/ variable show speeds indicated in control panel), rather than hitting each image, and then wait for it to enlarge. This could be another marked improvement, if you could make the output a slideshow from the Web Module.
5. I tried generating a slideshow from the Lightroom menu, and had about 200 images in a collection. The application went through the motions, but I tried opening the slideshow but it didn't work. I tried it in PDF format and it output a 135MB file that ADobe Acrobat couldn't open. It is still not working. I have also used a third party application Photo to Movie (www.LQGraphics.com). This is a $50 application that you can add music to and vary the zooms and dissolves and this works incredibly well!!!
6. One of my biggest problems so far is the sort mechanism. I have about 9500 images in my library, and about 5% of those were made from about 2004 and earlier. My images are sorted by "capture time," but the images shot back in CY 2004--2005 are mixed in somewhere way down in the pile. There are some bugs in the program for reading the capture time, and so far this is not working to my satisfaction!
7. From the Lightroom Library module, several times I have exported images for 3rd party needs and the application puts out varying results. In March I output some images for Communication Arts magazine. They specified file size and format, and it took me several times to export the images to their specifications. I recently exported some images for submission to a UK based stock photography agent. The images came from 5 different cameras~~Hasselblad w/ Imacon Digital Back, Kodak DCS-14, Canon 1ds MkII, and Canon D-20, and Canon S-3. There were 10 images that needed to be output as JPEGs (their specs), but again, the copyright info and keywords had to be added to the files in Photoshop afterwards. Half the images needed to be resized, because the images were supposed to be 48MB files! I spent an hour doing what LR should have but didn't!!! This application is supposed to be saving me time, but in this case, I spent more time in PS CS2 getting it right.
Finally, Adobe folks have worked really hard to get us working photographers an application that works across multiple platforms. Can we all work together to get these much needed improvements into the LR application? Please? Please? Please? Pretty please w/ sugar and honey!!!
I talked to a friend yesterday who submits work to various magazines and stock agencies and is using Photomechanic and IViewMedia Pro to add metadata, captions, and keywords. These 2 applications are doing what Lightroom should be able to do~~consistently adding copyright info to files as embedded metadata.
Lightroom has a ways to go, and I will be glad to get eventually a "one-stop-shopping" program that fulfills all my image output needs!
Thanks,
[email protected]

Colour cast and darkening on import

I've just imported photographs taken with a new camera (Canon 7D). The photos look fine at first, whilst rendering the preview and the histogram is "calculating ...", but then change, becoming darker, with an orange cast. This is not happening to all the photos, but all were taken in the same lighting, with flash. I've seen this happen with importing photographs from other Canon cameras (300D, 400D), but never to such an extent.
I'm using LR2 V2.6 RC (625842).
Computer is a MacBook Pro, Intel Core Duo. Screen is calibrated regularly.

A few things I might want to add/comment on the different posts:
ambienttroutmask wrote:
... Colour profiles are specific to a device, and are such things as ACR 4, Camera Landscape, or however they are named for your particular camera. The colour space that Lightroom uses is a special version of Kodak ProPhoto RGB (called Mellisa, named after its developer). When you export an image you must give it a space (usually sRGB) . You would attach a profile for a specific device (such as a printer profile). Your monitor should also have its own profile (set by the device and software you use for calibration).
I don't quite agree:
What you refer to as Colour profiles are called Camera (Calibration) Profiles (ACR 4, Camera Landscape etc.)
Color profiles (also known as ICC profiles) are used to describe the relation of data in the so called profile connection space (PCS) to either a specific device's color space or another specific color space (e.g. ProPhoto RGB, sRGB, ...)
ChuckTribolet wrote:
If you set the camera to, say, vivid, LR shoud respect that WHEN RENDERING. It shouldn't mess with the raw data. It would just be the first few lines of the devolop history. If you want LR to not do that, set the camera to its defaults, or fix it in develop later. It's still 100% under your control.
Agree, that this would need an ideal world where the camera manufacturers documented their formats.
If LR would have to respect a specific camera setting when rendering, it would have to implement/reengineer all possible presets (Picture Styles, Picture Controls, ....) for all manufacturers and all models of cameras. Presently, Adobe only provides several camera profiles for Canon and Nikon.
ChuckTribolet wrote:
Raw is raw. White balance, color saturation, contrast, and sharpness settings, etc., do not change the raw data at all, other than coming along for the ride as metadata. IMHO, programs like LR should respect those metadatal values when rendering.
LR does respect the white balance setting active at the time of the shot and adapt it to its rendering. Other settings, like saturation, contrast, sharpness etc. do not have an effect on LRs rendering.
Beat Gossweiler
Switzerland

Losing saturation when exporting from 1.3

Hello!
I need some help. I just started noticing that when I export my jpegs from Lightroom that I am losing saturation in my images. What am I doing wrong? Do I need to change my settings to something else?
Is anyone else having this problem?
I am exporting as RGB.
Thanks!
Jen

Chaps,
I'm with Jao on this one.
Here's how it is:
|----------------------| ProPhoto Gamut
|-------------------| Camera Gamut
|----------------| Monitor Gamut
If you're in control of your colour management, you are exporting a ProPhoto file and then transforming it to sRGB:
|----------------------| ProPhoto Gamut
|                | ^
|                | |_ "Clipped" data lost in transform
|                |
|----------------| sRGB Gamut
In this case "80% ProPhoto red" maps to "100% sRGB red" and the picture looks right, although it may be clipped. You can't see this clipping on the monitor though. The monitor can't tell the difference between "80% ProPhoto red" and "100% ProPhoto red". You understand I'm making it up with my "80%" and "100%", that's why they're in quotes.
If you're not in control of your colour management, you are exporting a ProPhoto file and then assigning sRGB to it:
|----------------------| ProPhoto Gamut
|                     /
|                    /
|                   /   <- Squeeze down assigning sRGB to ProPhoto pic
|                  /
|                 /
|                /
|----------------| sRGB Gamut
That produces exactly the symptoms you describe. Something that was "80% red" in ProPhoto should map to something "100% red" in sRGB as described above. With bad colour management, one maps "80% ProPhoto red" to "80% sRGB red" and they look nothing like each other.
Note that so-called
color stupid applications - like Preview on Windows, for example - do exactly that.
However, both Photoshop CS3 and Lightroom are not color stupid.
I can easily force CS3 into doing it by a) not embedding the colour space when I save the file and/or b) "applying" a profile instead of "converting to" a profile.
Lightroom does neither of these things by default on my machine.
Your mileage may vary.
Damian
PS I don't work for Adobe.

Colour Managment I How could that be?

Hello Folks,
Just a serious Problem: If I make a Screenshot of my Desktop Theme and copy it in my Photoshop there is a slight colour mismatching! I Think the Photoshop Copy has less red in it. I mean, how could this be?
Same thing with saving JPGs. I pick a picture in Lightroom handle it with Photoshop (change the colour Profile from ProPhoto to sRGB etc.) saving it its a mess. I always have to go back to Lightroom and Export JPG (I mean simple JPG file) to preserve the colour.
What's wrong with me? =(
Thanks for you're time.
J.

Silbecue wrote:
If I make a Screenshot of my Desktop Theme and copy it in my Photoshop there is a slight colour mismatching! I Think the Photoshop Copy has less red in it. I mean, how could this be?
It sounds as if it's working as expected. You might want to read this thread:
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/909806
Your desktop is displayed on your monitor in your monitor's color space. If you want it to match when shown in a standard color space, such as sRGB, do this:
1. Capture your screen.
2. Assign the monitor color profile to it when you create a document containing the image in Photoshop.
3. Convert the image to the standard profile, e.g., sRGB.
Some people prefer ease of use and more consistency between color-managed and non-color-managed apps over accuracy. In that case you can skip steps 2 and 3 by using sRGB as your monitor color profile.
-Noel

How do you assign profile in a format plugin read sequence

I have a format plugin that will read various image formats. I know what the source colorspace or profile (i.e. ProPhoto RGB, sRGB, AdobeRGB, whatever) is. I haven't figured out how to do the equivalent to Assign Profile from with my Read sequence in my Format Plugin.
Surely there is a way to do this. ACR does it.
Any clues will be greatly appreciated!

Well, it appears that you just fill in the iCCprofileData/iCCprofileSize fields with an ICC profile.
You can read the ICC profile for a filter plugin and you can specify an ICC profile for a format plugin read sequence.

Changing color spaces/profiles

How do I change the color profile of files that were processed using ProPhoto color space to sRGB? Thanks in advance.

Thanks Lundberg02. So if I want to change the color space of some files from ProPhoto to sRGB for web use, I should be converting and not assigning the color space, correct?

Aperture 3 bug:Failed to create bitmap context color transform

*Aperture 3 error*: Aperture[2000] <Error> Failed to create bitmap context color transform
Aperture[2000] <Error> CGBitmapContextCreateWithData: failed to create delegate
Using Aperture 3.03 and Mac OS 10.6.4, all updates included.
This is the Console Message indicating the bug where Aperture 3.x cannot display in its viewer an image with an *embedded color profile*. These images (regardless whether tiff or jpegs) were displayed without problems in Aperture 2.x and do not pose any problems with Preview, Photoshop or Graphic Converter. If one converts the color profile to lets say ProPhoto or sRGB, Aperture works -
but this is no solution as colors are different then.
Is there any clue - based on the console message above - where the problem might be? The bug can be reproduced on different Mac Models with Aperture 3.x and vanishes with Aperture 2.x
is not dependen

Dear DLScreative,
please let us not fight over words - fact is, that with at least 2 totally different users and 4 different Mac computers Aperture 3.x behaves totally different (i.e. cannot display these images) than Aperture 2.x. The special color profile is embedded because 15.000 images were scanned with a Nikon LS5000
scanner. I don't know how to upload this color profile (which has been tested to be correct) to this
forum. Would you care if I sent you an E-Mail with the special profile attached so you could yourself
try and see?
Regards,

ProPhoto to sRGB strangeness

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for