Lightroom + edit in external application

[Marquinius]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My workflow is mostly as follows: fast DPP in LR2, edit in CS2 (B&W conversion, deeper enhancement, add frame, etc), save to LR2 for final touches and printing. All in all I use LR as my home base. After a tip from a forum member (thanks Stephen), I work externally in PSD and not in TIFF.

 

I noticed that when I click "edit in external application" everything works as expected, except that the copy that is made by LR is slightly desaturated and sharpened. So I start out in CS2 with a different picture than the one I wanted to work on. You actually see it happening in LR just before it switches to CS.

 

I checked my setup and the tool bar in LR, but I'm not aware of any input that would cause this slight change. But perhaps I'm overlooking something, so please correct me if I'm wrong. Does it have to do with the raw converter? Is a PSD file that different from a DNG?

 

Any ideas? And if there's a good thread about this already: please point the way, I'm not shy of reading other peoples good ideas!

 

Marco

[johnwolf]

Hi Marco,

 

I'm no expert, but my first thought was a color space issue. My understanding is that LR's default profile is ProPhoto RGB. I believe when you open an LR file in PS, it sets that default profile in PS. You might check and see what color space is applied in PS when you open the file.

 

Also, perhaps you have a default soft proof set (In Windows: View > Proof Setup). I use Windows RGB and my LR and PS displays look exactly the same.

 

By the way, I used to use a workflow similar to yours, but with LR2's local adjustment tools, I find I'm using PS less and less. I'm still more comfortable with PS for soft-proofing and printing.

 

John

[Marquinius]

John,

 

That's good thinking: I'll go and check. I'm running a Mac and will see if both will accept Adobe RGB or somesuch.

 

BTW: I'm still not too handy with LR local adjustments. Furthermore I still use CS for B&W conversion. I have some presets for LR, but they still lack in depth and toning.

 

Color space, hmm. It must be something like that indeed.

 

Marco

[Guest WPalank]

Marco,

As John stated, it's most likely a Color space issue. If one simply loaded CS3 for example, the new default is "North America General Purpose 2" for Color Settings with an active working space of sRGB. No worries, it can easily be changed.

 

I'm on a Mac as well. In Photoshop go to Edit> Color Settings....

Below is the default pop-up Menu:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Simply set the Settings drop down to "North America Prepress 2" which will switch the active working space to "Adobe RGB (1998)". As shown below:

 

If you want Prophoto as your desired working space just select it in the RGB: drop down and the Settings become "Custom" as shown below:

 

Hit OK and you're good to go.

[Shootist]

I too think it is a color space mismatch.

In LR you can set the color space to use when going to a external editing program but if you don't have PS set up to the same color space and you have the warning turned off or have it set to convert any image opened in PS to a different color space without telling you, warnings, then the images could appear different.

 

LR itself does not have a default color space, at least none that I can find. It does use whatever the image is tagged as for a color space and for M8 images that tag is not set with RAW/DNG images.

[Marquinius]

Ahhh ... now this is INFORMATION!

 

I'll check and change PS (I suddenly recognize what you're saying, being a newbie and all) to match LR.

 

I googled "color space" ... now there's a topic you can fill books with.

 

Marco

[haribo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I too think it is a color space mismatch.

In LR you can set the color space to use when going to a external editing program but if you don't have PS set up to the same color space and you have the warning turned off or have it set to convert any image opened in PS to a different color space without telling you, warnings, then the images could appear different.

 

LR itself does not have a default color space, at least none that I can find. It does use whatever the image is tagged as for a color space and for M8 images that tag is not set with RAW/DNG images.

 

LR default color space is ProPhoto.

In LR preferences you can set the default color space to be used when editing externally, like with Photoshop or NoiseNinja (or whatever is your poison).

 

When you expert you again have the choice to choose a preferred color space to export in.

But the default color space to work in Lightroom (before exporting, may it be as final tiff or just to work in PS) is ProPhoto. This can't be changed.

 

PS: Once you changed the color space (let's say by editing in photoshop to Adobe RGB) you can't change it back to Prophoto. Once the color data has been clipped, it's gone for good.

[Shootist]

LR default color space is ProPhoto.

In LR preferences you can set the default color space to be used when editing externally, like with Photoshop or NoiseNinja (or whatever is your poison).

 

When you expert you again have the choice to choose a preferred color space to export in.

But the default color space to work in Lightroom (before exporting, may it be as final tiff or just to work in PS) is ProPhoto. This can't be changed.

 

PS: Once you changed the color space (let's say by editing in photoshop to Adobe RGB) you can't change it back to Prophoto. Once the color data has been clipped, it's gone for good.

 

Can you point me to this info. Nothing about it in the help, what help, files.

[haribo]

Can you point me to this info. Nothing about it in the help, what help, files.

 

Lightroom Tutorials by Luminous Landscape. Jeff Schewe, one of the foremost knowledgeable guys all things Adobe, says it at some point.

That's for sure a source i can remember. I'm certain, I read it elsewhere, too.

 

Frankly, this is nothing new. Since the original beta release of LR1 it was always common knowledge that LR's default color space is Prophoto. It could always be changed when editing or exporting.

[haribo]

Can you point me to this info. Nothing about it in the help, what help, files.

 

Here you go.

 

Adobe Lightroom

[Guest WPalank]

Can you point me to this info. Nothing about it in the help, what help, files.

 

From Scott Kelby's, Photoshop Lightroom for Digital Photographers, "....to match Lightroom's default color space of ProPhoto RGB."

[johnwolf]

Can you point me to this info. Nothing about it in the help, what help, files.

 

In LR2 (Windows): Edit > Preferences > External Editing

 

And from the LR help files: About color management

 

John

[roguewave]

LR default color space is ProPhoto.

In LR preferences you can set the default color space to be used when editing externally, like with Photoshop or NoiseNinja (or whatever is your poison).

 

When you expert you again have the choice to choose a preferred color space to export in.

But the default color space to work in Lightroom (before exporting, may it be as final tiff or just to work in PS) is ProPhoto. This can't be changed.

 

PS: Once you changed the color space (let's say by editing in photoshop to Adobe RGB) you can't change it back to Prophoto. Once the color data has been clipped, it's gone for good.

 

Harald and anyone else that is interested or knowledgeable, have you been able to discern what the pros & cons of each color space as exported to CS3?

 

In essence, if one makes initial adjustments/edits in LR2, exports to CS3 in either ProPhoto or Adobe RGB space & saves as either TIFF (my preference) or PSD, what are the ramifications/differences for further editing & processing in other colorspaces like LAB. I often make an initial exposure, WB or other adjustment in LR2, export to CS3 - ProPhoto, add some additional layer adjustments, than convert to LAB. make numerous adjustments and decide how to present final image; what colorspace, size ..etc. I await your comments. Thanks, Ben

[haribo]

Harald and anyone else that is interested or knowledgeable, have you been able to discern what the pros & cons of each color space as exported to CS3?

 

In essence, if one makes initial adjustments/edits in LR2, exports to CS3 in either ProPhoto or Adobe RGB space & saves as either TIFF (my preference) or PSD, what are the ramifications/differences for further editing & processing in other colorspaces like LAB. I often make an initial exposure, WB or other adjustment in LR2, export to CS3 - ProPhoto, add some additional layer adjustments, than convert to LAB. make numerous adjustments and decide how to present final image; what colorspace, size ..etc. I await your comments. Thanks, Ben

 

Well, it all depends on what your final goal/target is.

If your sole purpose would be to put up your work online, there would be no need for you to use anything but sRGB.

If you only print on an inkjet printer at home, feel free to use ProPhoto RGB. As long as your inkjet printer can handle the wider gamut (and with 9 - 10 color cartridges they can!) take advantage.

 

If you are producing photos for ad campaigns and such, your final photos will get converted to CMYK. In that case Adobe RGB would be your best bet. Simply because Prophoto would be too wide a gamut.

But even the conversion from Adobe RGB to CMYK is not an easy one. There is no 100% match possible. Be very happy if you get 80% close to your photo.

CMYK is a devise dependent (printing machine) conversion. Speaking in RGB terms (1-255) there is a threshold when going to CMYK. Everything below 11 has no detail left and there's nothing above 245 (no detail).

 

Bottomline is, use the biggest color space you can. It will only go downhill from there.

[roguewave]

Harald, there must be some different strategies when first shaping an image and then plotting a method to display, whether it's web or print. I guess I'm trying to see what is the best way to create files that can then be used to generate the necessary final product.

 

What are the benefits/losses of using TIFF vs PSD to start? Are there major changes + or - when converting to the various colorspaces for use other than printing? I'm trying to find the best basic platform to create the image I want, without applying the final touches, i.e. sharpening or other small adjustments, then extract the right size, form, colorspace, etc for each presentation platform, while preserving the "Home" image, that I can always return to.

 

I've been studying the conversions from LAB to CMYK for print. I believe that holds a lot more promise than RGB to CMYK, in the realm of predictability, reproduction and fidelity.

 

Thanks again for the informative dialog.

[haribo]

Harald, there must be some different strategies when first shaping an image and then plotting a method to display, whether it's web or print. I guess I'm trying to see what is the best way to create files that can then be used to generate the necessary final product.

 

What are the benefits/losses of using TIFF vs PSD to start? Are there major changes + or - when converting to the various colorspaces for use other than printing? I'm trying to find the best basic platform to create the image I want, without applying the final touches, i.e. sharpening or other small adjustments, then extract the right size, form, colorspace, etc for each presentation platform, while preserving the "Home" image, that I can always return to.

 

I've been studying the conversions from LAB to CMYK for print. I believe that holds a lot more promise than RGB to CMYK, in the realm of predictability, reproduction and fidelity.

 

Thanks again for the informative dialog.

 

Work in ProPhoto RGB.

If you allow layers in tiff and use no compression, there's no diff between tiff and psd.

Save a Master (flattened) tiff (if you like keep another file with layers) from which you then work your way to the different end results.

 

Otherwise, there's no other magic to it.

Once you convert to a lesser color space all data gets clipped irreversibly. Period.

If you need as end result a CMYK file for production, get used to the fact that the cmyk file will not match your original rgb file. Count yourself lucky if you get 80% close to it.

Btw, when everything is printed you'll most likely find it lost again in quality.

That's life.

 

On a positive note, some publishing companies are switching to a new technology. They print with a flexible raster point (sorry, forgot what it's called).

LFI magazine employs this new technique. The results look way better.

 

Reg. LAB. I am not that familiar with it. I know, it's very interesting but tough to learn.

Believe, it's only useful if your end target is CMYK.

Need to find some good learning material about it myself.

Am not sure though if it wouldn't be easier to simply hire someone with tons of expertise to do final conversations.....

(Believing Wikipedia it's rather scary stuff Lab color space - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )

[roguewave]

Reg. LAB. I am not that familiar with it. I know, it's very interesting but tough to learn.

Believe, it's only useful if your end target is CMYK.

Need to find some good learning material about it myself.

Am not sure though if it wouldn't be easier to simply hire someone with tons of expertise to do final conversations.....

(Believing Wikipedia it's rather scary stuff Lab color space - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )

 

Nothing could be further from the truth. LAB is NOT voodoo. In fact it's the only colorspace that has an internal consistent numerical system. Once you understand it, it becomes easy to balance & REPLICATE exactly what you want, because you can key in the exact numbers that determine key elements of the image, i.e. contrast, brightness, slope of curves, tonal gradients, colors....

 

In fact, in doing conversions from color to B&W, once you do the adjustments in RGB, in which profiles can be established numerically, you have the basis to build a library of LAB profiles, even with the presents in LAB space. There's much more LOGIC in LAB than any other colorspace. It also provides some amazing ways to view your image and to replicate that look without having to reinvent the wheel

[haribo]

Nothing could be further from the truth. LAB is NOT voodoo. In fact it's the only colorspace that has an internal consistent numerical system. Once you understand it, it becomes easy to balance & REPLICATE exactly what you want, because you can key in the exact numbers that determine key elements of the image, i.e. contrast, brightness, slope of curves, tonal gradients, colors....

 

In fact, in doing conversions from color to B&W, once you do the adjustments in RGB, in which profiles can be established numerically, you have the basis to build a library of LAB profiles, even with the presents in LAB space. There's much more LOGIC in LAB than any other colorspace. It also provides some amazing ways to view your image and to replicate that look without having to reinvent the wheel

 

Well, my Wiki comment was rather tongue in cheek.

Anyhow, could you please point me towards material (books or whatever) to learn all about LAB? thanks.

[roguewave]

Well, my Wiki comment was rather tongue in cheek.

Anyhow, could you please point me towards material (books or whatever) to learn all about LAB? thanks.

 

 

There's only one real source, Dan Margulis. He is the creator of the current version of LAB used by Adobe. His book, "Photoshop LAB Color: The Canyon Conundrum.." is the bible. Yes there are sections that are dry & esoteric, but Dan has at least laid out all the fundamentals & systematized it for readers. Dan has some videos & tutorials associated with Steve Kelby's website that I have found useful as well. This, I believe is the future.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[haribo]

There's only one real source, Dan Margulis. He is the creator of the current version of LAB used by Adobe. His book, "Photoshop LAB Color: The Canyon Conundrum.." is the bible. Yes there are sections that are dry & esoteric, but Dan has at least laid out all the fundamentals & systematized it for readers. Dan has some videos & tutorials associated with Steve Kelby's website that I have found useful as well. This, I believe is the future.

 

Thanks. Just ordered the book.