Lightroom vs. Apertu Curves

In article , PeterN
wrote:


You need to download a CODEC to view an nEF file in Windows. If you have
made adjustments to the image in ACR, you will not see the adjustments
in Windows, unless there is some sort of export or conversion.

there's no need to download anything on a mac to view a raw since raw
decoding is built into the system.

It's no big deal to DL a CODEC.

it's more of a deal than having the functionality already built in and
have it 'just work' with the tap of a space bar.

plus most people wouldn't know where to even look for a codec, let
alone know what it means. not everyone is technical.

Are you saying that: If I adjust an NEF file in ACR, the MSC o/s will
read the NEF file as adjusted?

no.

In article , PeterN
wrote:


The only reason I even start is that he often conveys misinformation.
his latest, you cannot see a 1/2 stop exposure adjustmnet.

i *never* said anything of the sort.

stop lying and spreading misinformation.

what i said was that you can't tell the difference between a 1/2 stop
adjustment made in the camera versus a 1/2 stop adjustment made in
lightroom.

it *might* be noticeable by pixel peeping, but if you have to go to
such lengths to detect a difference, then my point stands.

the goal of the exposure control was to be like changing the real
exposure and eric did a *very* good job of it.

On 8/17/2014 6:01 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Sandman
wrote:

LR could be 256 bit internally and it wouldn't change a thing. The output
to the display is always 8 bit, and in the case of LR, it's not due to
lacking support in the OS, LR always outputs 8 bit, regardless of monitor,
graphics cards or drivers.

it absolutely is due to the os because of its limitations.
photoshop doesn't do 10 bit yet because the support on macs is a bit
buggy. it's ready to go once it's fixed. lightroom will at some point,
but it's not as high a priority as other things.


Exactly where is this information about Adobe priorities available for
verification.

If it is no public information I see two possibilities:
You have violated an NDA with your posting; or
You are speculating.


--
PeterN

On 8/17/2014 12:08 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-08-17 15:42:22 +0000, PeterN said:

On 8/16/2014 10:46 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

You need to download a CODEC to view an nEF file in Windows. If you
have
made adjustments to the image in ACR, you will not see the adjustments
in Windows, unless there is some sort of export or conversion.

there's no need to download anything on a mac to view a raw since raw
decoding is built into the system.


It's no big deal to DL a CODEC.

Are you saying that: If I adjust an NEF file in ACR, the MSC o/s will
read the NEF file as adjusted?

An unconverted NEF adjusted in ACR, and where the "Done" is clicked,
will remain unmolested. However, it will be paired with an XMP file in
which all those adjustments are recorded. No conversion has taken place.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_849.jpg
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_850.jpg

Thats how it works in Windows.

...and I have no idea of how MS and Windows would deal with that.



--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

LR could be 256 bit internally and it wouldn't change a thing. The output
to the display is always 8 bit, and in the case of LR, it's not due to
lacking support in the OS, LR always outputs 8 bit, regardless of monitor,
graphics cards or drivers.

it absolutely is due to the os because of its limitations.
photoshop doesn't do 10 bit yet because the support on macs is a bit
buggy. it's ready to go once it's fixed. lightroom will at some point,
but it's not as high a priority as other things.

Exactly where is this information about Adobe priorities available for
verification.

i didn't say anything about their priorities.

stop lying and twisting what i say.

If it is no public information I see two possibilities:
You have violated an NDA with your posting; or
You are speculating.

i see two incorrect guesses.

a possibility you did not consider is that i read a *lot* more than you
do about what goes on in this industry and/or know people involved.

adding to that, there are forums other than this newsgroup where 10 bit
has come up and adobe staff and others in the know, such as at least
one author of the books mentioned in this insane thread (maybe more,
not sure offhand), has discussed the issues and that they're waiting on
apple.

also, for the record, i do not break ndas, period. i am also not bound
by any at this particular moment other than apple's blanket developer
nda which was substantially relaxed that this year. they basically said
talk all you want just no screen shots since some things may change. in
fact, all of the developer conference videos are available to download
by *anyone*, whether or not they're actually a developer.

On 8/17/2014 12:12 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:


The only reason I even start is that he often conveys misinformation.
his latest, you cannot see a 1/2 stop exposure adjustmnet.

i *never* said anything of the sort.

stop lying and spreading misinformation.

what i said was that you can't tell the difference between a 1/2 stop
adjustment made in the camera versus a 1/2 stop adjustment made in
lightroom.

That is NOT what you said:

You said: "as i said, for me, it's usually less than 1/2 stop.

that's not anything anyone is going to notice whether it was done in
camera or in post. "

Looks like a different statement to me.


--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

The only reason I even start is that he often conveys misinformation.
his latest, you cannot see a 1/2 stop exposure adjustmnet.

i *never* said anything of the sort.

stop lying and spreading misinformation.

what i said was that you can't tell the difference between a 1/2 stop
adjustment made in the camera versus a 1/2 stop adjustment made in
lightroom.

That is NOT what you said:

You said: "as i said, for me, it's usually less than 1/2 stop.

that's not anything anyone is going to notice whether it was done in
camera or in post. "

Looks like a different statement to me.

read it again.

just what do you think:
that's not anything anyone is going to notice whether it was done in
camera or in post. "
means?

pay attention to: 'in camera or in post'.
see where i mentioned *both* and compared them?

as for the 1/2 stop adjust, that's because i generally get the exposure
right in camera or very close to it, but regardless, sometimes i tweak
it a little bit.

nobody is going to notice a 1/2 stop adjustment versus reshooting,
which is not always possible anyway.

On 8/17/2014 12:28 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

LR could be 256 bit internally and it wouldn't change a thing. The output
to the display is always 8 bit, and in the case of LR, it's not due to
lacking support in the OS, LR always outputs 8 bit, regardless of monitor,
graphics cards or drivers.

it absolutely is due to the os because of its limitations.
photoshop doesn't do 10 bit yet because the support on macs is a bit
buggy. it's ready to go once it's fixed. lightroom will at some point,
but it's not as high a priority as other things.

Exactly where is this information about Adobe priorities available for
verification.

i didn't say anything about their priorities.

stop lying and twisting what i say.

If it is no public information I see two possibilities:
You have violated an NDA with your posting; or
You are speculating.

i see two incorrect guesses.

a possibility you did not consider is that i read a *lot* more than you
do about what goes on in this industry and/or know people involved.

If you read it, the information is pubic. If the priority infornmation
is published, say so and privide a reference. It is covered by my first
statement. No problem.

If yu heard it from "people involved," then they trusted you with the
information. Even worse than violating an NDA, is exposing others to a
potential problem.



adding to that, there are forums other than this newsgroup where 10 bit
has come up and adobe staff and others in the know, such as at least
one author of the books mentioned in this insane thread (maybe more,
not sure offhand), has discussed the issues and that they're waiting on
apple.


also, for the record, i do not break ndas, period. i am also not bound
by any at this particular moment other than apple's blanket developer
nda which was substantially relaxed that this year. they basically said
talk all you want just no screen shots since some things may change. in
fact, all of the developer conference videos are available to download
by *anyone*, whether or not they're actually a developer.


OK simply provide a direct link to your reference, or admit that you are
speculating.


--
PeterN

On 8/17/2014 12:39 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

The only reason I even start is that he often conveys misinformation.
his latest, you cannot see a 1/2 stop exposure adjustmnet.

i *never* said anything of the sort.

stop lying and spreading misinformation.

what i said was that you can't tell the difference between a 1/2 stop
adjustment made in the camera versus a 1/2 stop adjustment made in
lightroom.

That is NOT what you said:

You said: "as i said, for me, it's usually less than 1/2 stop.

that's not anything anyone is going to notice whether it was done in
camera or in post. "

Looks like a different statement to me.

read it again.

just what do you think:
that's not anything anyone is going to notice whether it was done in
camera or in post. "
means?

pay attention to: 'in camera or in post'.
see where i mentioned *both* and compared them?

as for the 1/2 stop adjust, that's because i generally get the exposure
right in camera or very close to it, but regardless, sometimes i tweak
it a little bit.

nobody is going to notice a 1/2 stop adjustment versus reshooting,
which is not always possible anyway.


I already answered that question. The readers can decide the answer for
themselves. Your statement is, at best for your case, ambiguous.


--
PeterN

Sandman wrote:
In article , sid wrote:

nospam:
that's one reason why lightroom's exposure control is not a
simple brightness adjust.

sid:
It hasn't been said that it is a simple brightness adjust

nospam:
yes it has. floyd did, for one.

No he didn't. You are mistaking Floyds use of the words exposure,
brightness, contrast etc to mean whatever Adobe has used those terms
for on sliders within Lightroom.

As usual, you're incorrect.

Again, you are absolutely wrong.

Floyd L. Davidson
08/12/2014

"Isn't that rather obvious from what I said. "Exposure" can
only be changed with shutter speed and aperture, before the
picture is taken. Which does not stop several software
programs from incorrectly labeling the brightness adjustment
as "exposure"."

Here he is saying that the exposure slider is a brightness slider. Not that
it affects brightness, but that it is a brightness slider. I.e. moving it
to the right increases brightness and vice versa.

This is, of course, incorrect. The Exposure slider will make an image
birghter or darker, but it is not a brightness slider.

Only in some fantasy sense where "exposure" and
"brightness" are defined by what Adobe says this slider
does as opposed to what that slider does.

"Exposure" is how many photons are collected and cannot
be changed in software. "Brightness" has a well defined
meaning across the entire industry, and regardless of
what Abobe labels as an "exposure" slider, there are
only two changes to the data that make an image
brighter: brightness and gamma.

If you graph the tone values from black to white, on any
segment of the curve a change in brightness raises or
lowers the curve, and a gamma tool changes the slope of
the curve. Thus brightness makes an equal change at all
levels, and gamma changes some differently than others.

A true brightness slider will uniformly make pixels brighter or darker
across the entire range.

By which you are stating that a "true brightness" slider
adjusts only brightness and not gamma.

And we could say then that a "true gamma" slider adjusts
only gamma and not brightness.

And we could say that only an idiot would suggest that a
slider that does both is changing how many photons were
captured when the image was taken. (With the exception,
of course, of Abobe marketing droids, who are not idiots
but merely people who understand idiots.)

You came in to the late thread and thought you knew what had been said. You
didn't. Now step away slowly.

Abobe's marketing droids love you.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)