Lightroom vs. Apertu Curves

In article 2014081218362558874-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

One other area where *nospam* is correct, is you have no idea of how
Lightroom functions, or just how folks use it either as a primary
editor, or as a RAW convertor, or both. These days I seldom use ACR in
my RAW workflow except as a Photoshop filter

which is why it's hilarious that he thinks he knows more about
lightroom than those who actually use it.

he's never used it, and it shows.

he has made similar glaring errors when he talked about photoshop.

In article 2014081217184870530-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

But if it has been converted, and is now being edited...

it hasn't been converted. all adjustments are applied to the raw data.

Hilarious.

Actually Floyd, this time *nospam* is sort of, but not entirely correct.

what parts aren't?

Most of us who use Lightroom, import RAW files and we choose to either
maintain them as original RAW files, or convert to DNG. All
edits/adjustments are applied to those imported, unconverted RAW files.
All of these adjustments/edits are recorded and stored in the Lightroom
data base as XMP files.

correct.

I usually make my adjustments to a "Virtual Copy" of the imported
original, and I can have several virtual copies each as a different
rendition.

virtual copies are a benefit from keeping everything in raw, but it's
not required to use it.

Agreed, but it is easy enough to do and there is no time cost involved
to do so. That is how I do things.

a slight cost, but my question is if you only have just one version,
why make a virtual copy?

you can always revert to original and back at any time.

i make a virtual copy when i want to have multiple versions of one
image but most of the time there's no need.

there is no jpeg until the user exports one, and that's if they decide
to do that. they might not, which means there won't ever be a jpeg.

Also "everything is done in raw" is just not true.

you're wrong. it is true.

that's how lightroom (and aperture) works.

That is an abjectly ignorant statement.

I have no JPEGs in Lightroom, I only produce JPEGs from NEFs, DNGs,
PSDs, and TIFs in Lightroom when I use the LR export dialog and use one
of my presets to resize, convert to 8-bit JPEG, and sRGB to store in
the location I choose.

that's a typical workflow.

Here is that export dialog, and as you can see I have quite a few
options including file type, size, dimensions, color space, levels of
metadata I can include, etc.
So in this case the 108 MB, ProPhoto RGB, 4952x3569, _DNC2923-edit.tif
is exported to my Dropbox Public folder as the 817kb, sRGB, 1304x940,
_DNC2923-edit-1.jpg
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_842.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/_DNC2923-Edit-1.jpg

All the adjustments made in Lightroom are to RAW files unless an
external processor such as Photoshop has been used then Lightroom acts
as a RAW processor and converts, usually to 16-bit TIF with a preferred
color space of ProPhoto RGB. A TIF, or PSD would be saved back to
Lightroom from the external editor.

in some cases, it does not need an interim file since adobe makes both
apps.

If you are making the round trip LR-PS-LR you will get a TIF opening
in PS, and a TIF/ or layered PSD saved back to LR. There is no way to
take an unconverted RAW file from LR to PS. LR is the RAW convertor in
this case.

You can forego the interim file if you are working with a JPEG, TIF, or PSD.

https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1154874
When Photoshop is an older version than what Lightroom is looking
for, Lightroom will create a TIF or PSD file that includes all of the
Lightroom adjustments. This is the file that Lightroom will send to
Photoshop. It will be fully compatible with Photoshop, and it will
include all of your Lightroom adjustments.
*
When both Lightroom and Photoshop are the current version, the image
data will be sent from Lightroom to Photoshop and the creation of
that TIF or PSD file will be postponed until the end of the Photoshop
session. Regardless of whether you are using current versions are
not, editing in Photoshop will always result in the creation of the
additional file. The only difference is the point at which the file
is created.

so there isn't always an interim file as i said, but there is a result
file, which is automatically tracked.

either way, lightroom manages everything and the user does not need to
worry about what goes on under the hood. it all 'just works'.

Inquiring minds want to know, that way we can know when we are sniffing BS.

see above.

There is
not color space for raw sensor data either.

the colour space used is pro photo rgb.

Not for raw sensor data it isn't.

ProPhoto RGB is recommended for use by Lightroom when it is used to
convert an adjusted RAW file for use in an external editor such as
Photoshop, or any of a number of plug-ins which Lightroom sees as
external editors. There is no colorspace reference when
editing/adjusting RAW files in Lightroom/ Any JPEGS which find their
way to LR are adjusted in the colorspace that was used in their
creation.

there is no colourspace for raw. it's basically just a sensor dump and
some additional information.

Exactly that is what Floyd was saying and you insisted his position was
not true.

i didn't say raw had a colour space.

i said lightroom uses pro photo internally, which is not the same thing.

it's also not exactly correct.

it does use an internal colour space as i said, but it's a variant of
pro photo rgb and not pro photo rgb. it's also an insignificant
difference.

pro photo is what lightroom uses internally for all calculations.

Only for those files which are to be used in an external editor such as
PS, and have made the return trip to be further adjusted in LR.

nope.

it uses its own internal colour space for all calculations, unless the
image was already tagged, such as a jpeg.

you don't get to choose the colourspace until you export a file or
generate an interim file.

Yup!

if you don't do either, it's all pro photo.

Nope, this is where you are wrong. there is no colorspace assigned to
RAW or DNG files being adjusted in LR just as there is none used for
ACR. when making adjustments to RAW files prior to conversion. The
colorspace is only set on conversion.

this is where it gets confusing.

i'm correct that it does have a colour space for its raw calculations.

that is not the same as tagging raw data.

i'm wrong that it uses pro photo rgb, however, it's very close to it,
and it's also more than just one, depending on what it's doing.

https://forums.adobe.com/message/6228569
Melissa RGB is the name of the color space that represents the
histogram and RGB values in Develop (soft proofing off). This is not
the same color space used for processing. Melissa RGB uses ProPhoto
primaries with an actual 2.2 Tone Response Curve (TRC) like sRGB's
TRC. The internal processing space is a linear (1.0 TRC) space with
the same ProPhoto RGB primaries. This internal color space has no
name.

the former is common, the latter only if the image is round-tripped to
an external editor (and even then not always).

Huh?

exporting images is very common, to web sites, printing, etc.

round-tripping to external editors is not, and many times is not done
at all.

the colourspace you choose on export for a given file is separate and
relevant to only the file(s) you're exporting. a conversion is done at
the time of export from pro photo rgb, typically to srgb for posting
online. interim files are almost always pro photo rgb, and no
conversion is needed.

You do understand I do this on a daily basis, don't you?
...and like you I have been using LR since the Beta.

BTW: your spelling of "colourspace" seems to indicate that you have
origins other than the USA. Are you perhaps a resident of the Great
White North, or an ex-pat from Fair Albion, or other lands with an
anglo education?

neither. i prefer that spelling.

nospam wrote:
In article 2014081217184870530-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:
there is no colourspace for raw. it's basically just a sensor dump and
some additional information.

Exactly that is what Floyd was saying and you insisted his position was
not true.

i didn't say raw had a colour space.

You did previously, and below you do again.

i said lightroom uses pro photo internally, which is not the same thing.

it's also not exactly correct.

it does use an internal colour space as i said, but it's a variant of
pro photo rgb and not pro photo rgb. it's also an insignificant
difference.

pro photo is what lightroom uses internally for all calculations.

Only for those files which are to be used in an external editor such as
PS, and have made the return trip to be further adjusted in LR.

nope.

it uses its own internal colour space for all calculations, unless the
image was already tagged, such as a jpeg.

you don't get to choose the colourspace until you export a file or
generate an interim file.

Yup!

if you don't do either, it's all pro photo.

Nope, this is where you are wrong. there is no colorspace assigned to
RAW or DNG files being adjusted in LR just as there is none used for
ACR. when making adjustments to RAW files prior to conversion. The
colorspace is only set on conversion.

this is where it gets confusing.

i'm correct that it does have a colour space for its raw calculations.

It need not, and indeed cannot, have a color space for
"raw calculations". Color space doesn't mean anything
in relation to raw sensor data.

that is not the same as tagging raw data.

Whatever it is you mean by "tagging raw data", the "raw
calculations" are done on raw sensor data. There is no
color space at all.

i'm wrong that it uses pro photo rgb, however, it's very close to it,
and it's also more than just one, depending on what it's doing.

That is what it applies to the RGB data set produced by demosaicing
the raw data.

https://forums.adobe.com/message/6228569
Melissa RGB is the name of the color space that represents the
histogram and RGB values in Develop (soft proofing off). This is not
the same color space used for processing. Melissa RGB uses ProPhoto
primaries with an actual 2.2 Tone Response Curve (TRC) like sRGB's
TRC. The internal processing space is a linear (1.0 TRC) space with
the same ProPhoto RGB primaries. This internal color space has no
name.

Notice the "RGB" everywhere, and nothing about "raw sensor data" anywhere.

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

nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

But if it has been converted, and is now being edited...

it hasn't been converted. all adjustments are applied to the raw data.

Hilarious.

indeed it is, but not in the way you might think.

what i described is how lightroom, aperture and photos work. this is a
fact, whether you want to laugh or not.

once again, you've never used any of these apps and don't know what the
hell you're talking about.

that makes everything *you* say about the apps totally hilarious.

It isn't a fact at all.

it is.

that's how lightroom works.

"All adjustments" are applied *after*
the data is demosaiced. It *cannot* be appled to the raw data.

the demosaicing is a step that's automatically included and your
nitpicking does not change anything.

it is *not* a separate step as far as the user is concerned (which is
all that matters).

Sure it isn't.

That's an interesting weasel squirm, but your lack of
understanding shows fairly well when you don't even know
what the basic steps are, or that they even are basic steps!

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

On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 16:47:54 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

blown out in 8 bit but not in 11, 12 or 14 bits. If this was a
Hasselblad shot, there would be even more data hiding in the
extended range outside the scope of your monitor.

It has nothing to do with color space.

When working with the RAW conversion stage, set brightness (or
"exposure" if they call it that) correctly. Gamma and other
parameters may interact with it to some degree.

The primary reason for adjusting brightness and gamma, or in fact
for using a curves tool too, in the converter stage rather than
later, is because interpolation the RAW data produces a 16 bit depth
RGB image. If the image is or has been converted to JPEG it is in
an 8 bit format. But, even in a 16 bit format the histogram will
almost always show values of 0 to 255 (8 bit depth) even if the
actual data set being edited is larger.

Captain obvious has emerged again. So, what's the problem here, you can't
understand what you read or just don't care?

The mere concept of having the information presented via a "curves"
tool is what is confusing you. They might well show it to you in
that context, but what they are doing is allowing you to go back to
the RAW converter and change brightness. If you are aware of that,
conceptually, it isn't at all hard to understand.

No one is trying to "understand" anything here, ignorant Floyd. You're just
posting obvious basic stuff that no one asked about because you can't read
to save your life.

Same old, same old, ey?

Yep, same old ****. It's pretty obvious who does
understand it and who does not.

something which becomes clearer with each post you make.

you're talking about software you've never used and are trying to tell
people who have been using it for many years that they don't understand
it.

that's really ****ed up.

I've been out of the loop for a while and I've only just started
reading the thread. I think part of the problem is that each
contributor has a different idea of what is going on and the result is
everybody is at cross purposes.

I don't think we are going to get on if we start shouting at each
other. I,m sure the problem is amenable to analysis. However, I want
to do a little more research before I try to make a contribution. It
would be nice to make progress just for once.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:


"All adjustments" are applied *after*
the data is demosaiced. It *cannot* be appled to the raw data.

the demosaicing is a step that's automatically included and your
nitpicking does not change anything.

it is *not* a separate step as far as the user is concerned (which is
all that matters).

Sure it isn't.

it isn't.

the user imports a raw, adjusts and exports the results. there is no
conversion to anything intermediate. the raw stays raw the entire time.

lightroom will process it as needed to get the results the user wants.
that's all that matters.

users don't care what happens under the hood. they want gorgeous photos
with the least amount of work.

That's an interesting weasel squirm, but your lack of
understanding shows fairly well when you don't even know
what the basic steps are, or that they even are basic steps!

i know quite well what the steps are since i've been using lightroom
for years. i can do it in my sleep.

you've never used lightroom and are incorrectly assuming it can only
work the way the gimp or other apps you've used works. it doesn't.

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

there is no colourspace for raw. it's basically just a sensor dump and
some additional information.

Exactly that is what Floyd was saying and you insisted his position was
not true.

i didn't say raw had a colour space.

You did previously, and below you do again.

wrong.

i said lightroom uses pro photo internally, which is not the same thing.

it's also not exactly correct.

it does use an internal colour space as i said, but it's a variant of
pro photo rgb and not pro photo rgb. it's also an insignificant
difference.

pro photo is what lightroom uses internally for all calculations.

Only for those files which are to be used in an external editor such as
PS, and have made the return trip to be further adjusted in LR.

nope.

it uses its own internal colour space for all calculations, unless the
image was already tagged, such as a jpeg.

you don't get to choose the colourspace until you export a file or
generate an interim file.

Yup!

if you don't do either, it's all pro photo.

Nope, this is where you are wrong. there is no colorspace assigned to
RAW or DNG files being adjusted in LR just as there is none used for
ACR. when making adjustments to RAW files prior to conversion. The
colorspace is only set on conversion.

this is where it gets confusing.

i'm correct that it does have a colour space for its raw calculations.

It need not, and indeed cannot, have a color space for
"raw calculations". Color space doesn't mean anything
in relation to raw sensor data.

it does.

learn something for a change:

https://forums.adobe.com/message/6228569

Melissa RGB is the name of the color space that represents the
histogram and RGB values in Develop (soft proofing off). This is not
the same color space used for processing. Melissa RGB uses ProPhoto
primaries with an actual 2.2 Tone Response Curve (TRC) like sRGB's
TRC. The internal processing space is a linear (1.0 TRC) space with
the same ProPhoto RGB primaries. This internal color space has no
name.

the key sentence is:
The internal processing space is a linear (1.0 TRC) space with
the same ProPhoto RGB primaries. This internal color space has no
name.

that is not the same as tagging raw data.

Whatever it is you mean by "tagging raw data", the "raw
calculations" are done on raw sensor data. There is no
color space at all.

the raw data doesn't have a space as it's basically a sensor dump, but
the calculations done with that data are done in lightroom's colour
space, which is a variant of pro photo rgb.

that's just how it is.

i'm wrong that it uses pro photo rgb, however, it's very close to it,
and it's also more than just one, depending on what it's doing.

That is what it applies to the RGB data set produced by demosaicing
the raw data.

so you agree it uses a colour space internally.

https://forums.adobe.com/message/6228569
Melissa RGB is the name of the color space that represents the
histogram and RGB values in Develop (soft proofing off). This is not
the same color space used for processing. Melissa RGB uses ProPhoto
primaries with an actual 2.2 Tone Response Curve (TRC) like sRGB's
TRC. The internal processing space is a linear (1.0 TRC) space with
the same ProPhoto RGB primaries. This internal color space has no
name.

Notice the "RGB" everywhere, and nothing about "raw sensor data" anywhere.

notice that doesn't matter to end users.

users want results. they don't care about micromanaging every step of
the way.

they import raws, they adjust them and they export works of art
(sometimes).

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Yep, same old ****. It's pretty obvious who does
understand it and who does not.

something which becomes clearer with each post you make.

you're talking about software you've never used and are trying to tell
people who have been using it for many years that they don't understand
it.

that's really ****ed up.

I've been out of the loop for a while and I've only just started
reading the thread. I think part of the problem is that each
contributor has a different idea of what is going on and the result is
everybody is at cross purposes.

pretty much.

floyd apparently thinks lightroom iworks similar to the gimp/ufraw, but
it's nothing remotely close.

he is also micromanaging every little step which is why he insists
nothing can be done to raw. users want results. they don't care what
happens on the inside.

I don't think we are going to get on if we start shouting at each
other. I,m sure the problem is amenable to analysis. However, I want
to do a little more research before I try to make a contribution. It
would be nice to make progress just for once.

it would.

i've provided some links. there are many books and other resources on
lightroom.

keep in mind that floyd has never used lightroom.

Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-08-13 00:37:53 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:
Those adjustments are *never* applied to the raw sensor
data. They are applied to the RGB data produced by
converting the Bayer Color Filter Array encoded color to
RGB encoded color.

In Lightroom there is no conversion of the RAW file
until the adjusted image file is converted for use in an
external editor.
For those RAW files not converted they, remain
unmolested and the adjustments and edits are retained in
XMP files.

No conversion until after the data that doesn't exist is
adjusted????

Come on... let get really silly.

The RAW file is never "molested", but the data from the
file is used to generate an RGB data set. That is what
demosaicing means. Until that RGB data set exists there
is no image to view and no data to "adjust" with things
like brightness, gamma curves, and color space. The
first step is necessarily to convert raw sensor data to
RGB pixel data.

The "adjusted image file" is *never* "converted" for
anything in the same sense that "converted" is used to
describe demosiacing the raw sensor data. The values of
the image pixels are not changed, they are formatted in
a given way. With raw sensor data there are no pixel
values and the data values that are "converted" do not
have the same value or even meaning in a new format.
Instead they have a totally new kind of value (a pixel
value as opposed to sensor location values).

I have no JPEGs in Lightroom, I only produce JPEGs
from
NEFs, DNGs, PSDs, and TIFs in Lightroom when I use the
LR export dialog and use one of my presets to resize,
convert to 8-bit JPEG, and sRGB to store in the location
I choose.
Irrelevant to the discussion.

Not really.

Absolutely irrelevant. While you don't, the facility
for you to do it that way is there. It makes no
difference whether your workflow uses it or not.

Here is that export dialog, and as you can see I have
quite a few options including file type, size,
dimensions, color space, levels of metadata I can
include, etc.
What you can export is of no significance.

Ok.

What can you import? (Not what *do* you import, but what *can* you
import.)

NEF, CR2, RAF, AFW, DNG and other RAW files in addition
to all the usual suspects JPEG, JPEG2000, PSD, TIFF,
PNG, GIF, et al.

See! And when you import an NEF or other raw file it
necessarily must be converted to an RGB data set before
any color space or other such adjustment can be made.
None of that is done to raw sensor data, ever.

But you can import an image data set without having to
convert it from raw sensor data.

So in this case the 108 MB, ProPhoto RGB, 4952x3569,
_DNC2923-edit.tif is exported to my Dropbox Public
folder as the 817kb, sRGB, 1304x940,
_DNC2923-edit-1.jpg
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_842.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/_DNC2923-Edit-1.jpg
All the adjustments made in Lightroom are to RAW files
But that is not the issue, though you aren't quite
correct
anyway.

Well all the adjustments I make in Lightroom are made to the RAW file.

No, the adjustments are made to RGB data. If you input
a RAW file Lightroom cannot do a thing to raw sensor
data until it first converts it to RGB data.

If you input a JPEG that is not the case.

All color, brightness, and gamma adjustments are made to
an RGB data set. You are saying that your workflow
always involves deriving the RGB data set from a RAW
file that is first converted.

I didn't say that.

That is exactly what you are saying. You just don't realize
that is what happens.

I apply the adjustments to an
unconverted RAW file, for all of its life in my
Lightroom library it remains the same unmolested RAW
file with th adjustments recorded in an XMP file. It is
converted if I choose to use an external editor.

You *cannot* make an adjustment to the raw sensor data.
Only to the RGB data set generated from that raw sensor
data by a demosaicing process. Until that has been done
there is nothing to adjust.

What was claimed is that the adjustments are applied
to the raw sensor data from
the RAW file *before* it is converted to RGB data. That
does not happen with anything relating to color.

In Lightroom it does.

It can't.

unless an external processor such as Photoshop has been
used then Lightroom acts as a RAW processor and
converts, usually to 16-bit TIF with a preferred color
space of ProPhoto RGB. A TIF, or PSD would be saved back
to Lightroom from the external editor.
Yes, but that isn't what is at issue.

If you don't want it to be, so be it.

Where is there an issue?

ProPhoto RGB is recommended for use by Lightroom when
it
is used to convert an adjusted RAW file for use in an
It is applied to RGB image data, not to the RAW file's
raw sensor data. The fact that it was used might get
written to the RAW file, but the RGB image data is never
written back to the RAW file (by external converters, as
opposed to the in camera RAW converter that does embed
JPEG images).

Agreed, the RAW file remains intact as it was
imported. The adjustments are applied to and recorded in
an XML file much as they would be in ACR prior to
conversion.

They are not applied to the XML file. What is applied
to the RGB data set is recorded in the XML file.

One other area where *nospam* is correct, is you have no
idea of how Lightroom functions, or just how folks use
it either as a primary editor, or as a RAW convertor, or
both. These days I seldom use ACR in my RAW workflow
except as a Photoshop filter

Seems that I understand the underlying processes better
than either of you. I hate to be the one to tell you,
but using a software package doesn't help you that much
in knowing how it works.

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

nospam wrote:
my statements are accurate.

Well, lets see...


the user does not make a separate conversion to rgb.

Trivially wrong, and significantly so.

they import a raw, adjust various parameters and lightroom does the
necessary calculations.

So, obviously the user does cause a conversion to rgb. And it is
not an insignificant step that can be ignored.

I have no JPEGs in Lightroom, I only produce JPEGs from
NEFs, DNGs, PSDs, and TIFs in Lightroom when I use the
LR export dialog and use one of my presets to resize,
convert to 8-bit JPEG, and sRGB to store in the location
I choose.

Irrelevant to the discussion.

actually it is relevant.

Not making use of a functionality doesn't mean it isn't there.

What you can export is of no significance.

it is, because it shows that the data is never converted until it's
exported.

And you make adjustments to what, an image you imagine? Or is
there any chance that you actually do see it? Just maybe it
does exist...

Some of this is just too trivially silly...

What can you
import? (Not what *do* you import, but what *can* you
import.)

that does not matter whatsoever.

Sigh.

Another idiocy.

nevertheless, lightroom can import all known raw file formats, jpeg,
tiff, dng, standard video formats and more.

it doesn't care and the workflow is the same (other than video for
obvious reasons).

Sure, it demosaics JPEG files, but doesn't do that to raw sensor
data... You are so funny.

There were more, but this exchange with you is worthless.

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