Lightroom vs. Apertu Curves

Here's an example of a feature I'm missing in Lightroom.

I use curves extensively, it's the holy grail of exposure editing. If
you're not using it, start using it!

So here it is in Apertu

http://sandman.net/files/aperture_curves.png

On a slightly (deliberately) overexposed image from Gotland. See the
"Range:" popup? It can be set to "extended", and it looks like this:

http://sandman.net/files/aperture_extended.png

It shows a larger spectrum of image data than can be displayed on your
monitor, i.e. a higher dynamic range. This is only populated if you're
shooting with RAW files of course. You then have more bits of image data
than JPG or your display can show. Using this, I can move the qhite point
*up*:

http://sandman.net/files/apterture_extended2.png

And you can instantly see the result. You suddenly have more image data in
the monitor-visible spectrum! Amazing, isn't it? Now, this may have been a
poor image to show this with since we don't have all that much *useful*
data in the upper range either way. But it's super useful for a lot of
bright images to get more data from the file.

Unfortunately, Lightroom doesn't seem to support this. Default it shows you
a poor-mans version of curves:

http://sandman.net/files/lightroom_poorcurves.png

And at first I wondered what the hell this curve was on about, it had these
stupid limits and regions. So you have to click the bottom right icon to
get to the real curves:

http://sandman.net/files/lightroom_curves.png

But, alas, no extended range here (or with the poorer version of curves) so
no way - as far as I can make out - to actually access all that glorious
image data from within Lightroom.

Anyone knows if I've missed something?


--
Sandman[.net]

On 2014-08-11 14:17:06 +0000, Sandman said:

Here's an example of a feature I'm missing in Lightroom.

I use curves extensively, it's the holy grail of exposure editing. If
you're not using it, start using it!

So here it is in Apertu

http://sandman.net/files/aperture_curves.png

On a slightly (deliberately) overexposed image from Gotland. See the
"Range:" popup? It can be set to "extended", and it looks like this:

http://sandman.net/files/aperture_extended.png

It shows a larger spectrum of image data than can be displayed on your
monitor, i.e. a higher dynamic range. This is only populated if you're
shooting with RAW files of course. You then have more bits of image data
than JPG or your display can show. Using this, I can move the qhite point
*up*:

I am not going to get into a major Aperture vs. Lightroom argument
here, but why on earth would you want to move the white point "up"?
All that is going to do is clip the data on the right.

http://sandman.net/files/apterture_extended2.png

And you can instantly see the result. You suddenly have more image data in
the monitor-visible spectrum! Amazing, isn't it? Now, this may have been a
poor image to show this with since we don't have all that much *useful*
data in the upper range either way. But it's super useful for a lot of
bright images to get more data from the file.

I can see that this might be beneficial in an image with deep shadows
and you might want to artificially stretch the DR, but with the example
you have used all you achieve is clipping. There is no additional image
data visible to me, and I would guess anybody else.

Unfortunately, Lightroom doesn't seem to support this. Default it shows you
a poor-mans version of curves:

http://sandman.net/files/lightroom_poorcurves.png

And at first I wondered what the hell this curve was on about, it had these
stupid limits and regions. So you have to click the bottom right icon to
get to the real curves:

http://sandman.net/files/lightroom_curves.png

But, alas, no extended range here (or with the poorer version of curves) so
no way - as far as I can make out - to actually access all that glorious
image data from within Lightroom.

Anyone knows if I've missed something?

From what I can see you are calling the Lightroom implementation of a
Tone Curves adjustment a "poorer version of curves" because it doesn't
have this extended feature. However, it doesn't really do what you
claim on the right of the histogram where it leads to clipping. It can
help in the shadows and mid-tones, but for the most part there are
other tools which can deal with those issues.
They are two apps with similar goals, but different implementation,
don't expect them to mirror each other in every way. They won't.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 2014081108430694198-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote:

Sandman:
Here's an example of a feature I'm missing in Lightroom.

I use curves extensively, it's the holy grail of exposure editing.
If you're not using it, start using it!

So here it is in Apertu

http://sandman.net/files/aperture_curves.png

On a slightly (deliberately) overexposed image from Gotland. See
the "Range:" popup? It can be set to "extended", and it looks like
this:

http://sandman.net/files/aperture_extended.png

It shows a larger spectrum of image data than can be displayed on
your monitor, i.e. a higher dynamic range. This is only populated
if you're shooting with RAW files of course. You then have more
bits of image data than JPG or your display can show. Using this,
I can move the qhite point *up*:

I am not going to get into a major Aperture vs. Lightroom argument
here, but why on earth would you want to move the white point "up"?
All that is going to do is clip the data on the right.

Uhm, what I meant was to move the white point to the right, i.e. increase
it, to span a greater range, hence the "up". Might have been a bit ambigous
yes, but the screenshots showed what I meant.

Sandman:
http://sandman.net/files/apterture_extended2.png

And you can instantly see the result. You suddenly have more image
data in the monitor-visible spectrum! Amazing, isn't it? Now, this
may have been a poor image to show this with since we don't have
all that much *useful* data in the upper range either way. But
it's super useful for a lot of bright images to get more data from
the file.

I can see that this might be beneficial in an image with deep
shadows and you might want to artificially stretch the DR, but with
the example you have used all you achieve is clipping. There is no
additional image data visible to me, and I would guess anybody else.

Huh? Look again, when moving the whitepoint to the right, I get *more* data
into the visible range, and you see the horizon, which was blocked out in
the earlier image. More data, not blocked. The opposite of blocked.

Sandman:
Unfortunately, Lightroom doesn't seem to support this. Default it
shows you a poor-mans version of curves:

http://sandman.net/files/lightroom_poorcurves.png

And at first I wondered what the hell this curve was on about, it
had these stupid limits and regions. So you have to click the
bottom right icon to get to the real curves:

http://sandman.net/files/lightroom_curves.png

But, alas, no extended range here (or with the poorer version of
curves) so no way - as far as I can make out - to actually access
all that glorious image data from within Lightroom.

Anyone knows if I've missed something?

From what I can see you are calling the Lightroom implementation of
a Tone Curves adjustment a "poorer version of curves" because it
doesn't have this extended feature.

No, limited feature, where it sets limit on how much you can edit the
curve. It's like a "Curve for beginners" with safe limits so you won't
ruin your image too much.

However, it doesn't really do what you claim on the right of the
histogram where it leads to clipping. It can help in the shadows and
mid-tones, but for the most part there are other tools which can deal
with those issues. They are two apps with similar goals, but different
implementation, don't expect them to mirror each other in every way. They
won't.

All I am saying is that Aperture has a way to access image data that is
outside the 8 bit scope of your monitor, like any HDR tool also can.

The Sony A7 has 11 bit color depth information in the raw file, which your
monitor can't show, so compressing that dynamic range down to 8 bit allows
for that, which Aperture supports in its Curbes implementation, but as far
as I can make out, Lightroom has no way for me to access that data.


--
Sandman[.net]

On 11 Aug 2014 14:17:06 GMT, Sandman wrote:

Here's an example of a feature I'm missing in Lightroom.

I use curves extensively, it's the holy grail of exposure editing. If
you're not using it, start using it!

So here it is in Apertu

http://sandman.net/files/aperture_curves.png

On a slightly (deliberately) overexposed image from Gotland. See the
"Range:" popup? It can be set to "extended", and it looks like this:

http://sandman.net/files/aperture_extended.png

It shows a larger spectrum of image data than can be displayed on your
monitor, i.e. a higher dynamic range. This is only populated if you're
shooting with RAW files of course. You then have more bits of image data
than JPG or your display can show. Using this, I can move the qhite point
*up*:

http://sandman.net/files/apterture_extended2.png

And you can instantly see the result. You suddenly have more image data in
the monitor-visible spectrum! Amazing, isn't it? Now, this may have been a
poor image to show this with since we don't have all that much *useful*
data in the upper range either way. But it's super useful for a lot of
bright images to get more data from the file.

Unfortunately, Lightroom doesn't seem to support this. Default it shows you
a poor-mans version of curves:

http://sandman.net/files/lightroom_poorcurves.png

And at first I wondered what the hell this curve was on about, it had these
stupid limits and regions. So you have to click the bottom right icon to
get to the real curves:

http://sandman.net/files/lightroom_curves.png

But, alas, no extended range here (or with the poorer version of curves) so
no way - as far as I can make out - to actually access all that glorious
image data from within Lightroom.

Anyone knows if I've missed something?

Before I comment, I would like to try another approach. Can you post a
copy of the original in an editable form?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

But, alas, no extended range here (or with the poorer version of
curves) so no way - as far as I can make out - to actually access
all that glorious image data from within Lightroom.

Anyone knows if I've missed something?

Before I comment, I would like to try another approach. Can you post
a copy of the original in an editable form?

Certainly.

http://sandman.net/files/DSC01476.ARW


--
Sandman[.net]

On 2014-08-12 11:47:45 +0000, Sandman said:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

But, alas, no extended range here (or with the poorer version of
curves) so no way - as far as I can make out - to actually access
all that glorious image data from within Lightroom.

Anyone knows if I've missed something?

Before I comment, I would like to try another approach. Can you post
a copy of the original in an editable form?

Certainly.

http://sandman.net/files/DSC01476.ARW


After looking at that RAW file I can see the problem came from a need
for a -4 Grad ND filter. Shooting wide open at f/1.8 & ISO 100 didn’t
help. It looks as if you metered on the tree or roof in the center, and
that led to those exposure settings and the blown highlights. If
anything this might have been a case for HDR, or at least some exposure
bracketing to play with. There is no getting away from the serious
clipping.
You were correct there was data further to the right in the histogram,
but it was useless as the clipping had mostly blanketed it.

I tried a rendition and came up with this:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/DSC01476-Edit-1.jpg
--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2014-08-12 13:38:07 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2014-08-12 11:47:45 +0000, Sandman said:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

But, alas, no extended range here (or with the poorer version of
curves) so no way - as far as I can make out - to actually access
all that glorious image data from within Lightroom.

Anyone knows if I've missed something?

Before I comment, I would like to try another approach. Can you post
a copy of the original in an editable form?

Certainly.

http://sandman.net/files/DSC01476.ARW


After looking at that RAW file I can see the problem came from a need
for a -4 Grad ND filter. Shooting wide open at f/1.8 & ISO 100 didn’t
help. It looks as if you metered on the tree or roof in the center, and
that led to those exposure settings and the blown highlights. If
anything this might have been a case for HDR, or at least some exposure
bracketing to play with. There is no getting away from the serious
clipping.
You were correct there was data further to the right in the histogram,
but it was useless as the clipping had mostly blanketed it.

I tried a rendition and came up with this:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/DSC01476-Edit-1.jpg

....or perhaps this one;
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/DSC01476-Edit2-1.jpg

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 201408120638074435-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote:

On 2014-08-12 11:47:45 +0000, Sandman said:

Sandman:
But, alas, no extended range here (or with the poorer version
of curves) so no way - as far as I can make out - to actually
access all that glorious image data from within Lightroom.

Anyone knows if I've missed something?

Eric Stevens:
Before I comment, I would like to try another approach. Can you
post a copy of the original in an editable form?

Sandman:
Certainly.

http://sandman.net/files/DSC01476.ARW

After looking at that RAW file I can see the problem came from a
need for a -4 Grad ND filter. Shooting wide open at f/1.8 & ISO 100
didn’t help. It looks as if you metered on the tree or roof in the
center, and that led to those exposure settings and the blown
highlights. If anything this might have been a case for HDR, or at
least some exposure bracketing to play with. There is no getting
away from the serious clipping. You were correct there was data
further to the right in the histogram, but it was useless as the
clipping had mostly blanketed it.

The topic is not this image and what is truly clipped from it or not. The
topic is accessing image data that is outside the 8 bit spectrum of the
Lightroom histogram, which can be done in Aperture.

This was not a thread about how I save this one image, the image is
irrelevant to the topic and was just an example. You're focusing on the
wrong thing.

There is data in that image not represented by the Lightroom histogram. Or
the Aperture histogram. There is a method in Aperture to *access* that data
by shrinking the 11 bit actual histogram to fit a 8 bit histogram.

As far as I can make out, there is no way to do this in Lightroom. Correct?



--
Sandman[.net]

On 2014-08-12 14:21:28 +0000, Sandman said:

In article 201408120638074435-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote:

On 2014-08-12 11:47:45 +0000, Sandman said:

Sandman:
But, alas, no extended range here (or with the poorer version
of curves) so no way - as far as I can make out - to actually
access all that glorious image data from within Lightroom.

Anyone knows if I've missed something?

Eric Stevens:
Before I comment, I would like to try another approach. Can you
post a copy of the original in an editable form?

Sandman:
Certainly.

http://sandman.net/files/DSC01476.ARW

After looking at that RAW file I can see the problem came from a
need for a -4 Grad ND filter. Shooting wide open at f/1.8 & ISO 100
didn’t help. It looks as if you metered on the tree or roof in the
center, and that led to those exposure settings and the blown
highlights. If anything this might have been a case for HDR, or at
least some exposure bracketing to play with. There is no getting
away from the serious clipping. You were correct there was data
further to the right in the histogram, but it was useless as the
clipping had mostly blanketed it.

The topic is not this image and what is truly clipped from it or not. The
topic is accessing image data that is outside the 8 bit spectrum of the
Lightroom histogram, which can be done in Aperture.

OK.

This was not a thread about how I save this one image, the image is
irrelevant to the topic and was just an example. You're focusing on the
wrong thing.

OK.

There is data in that image not represented by the Lightroom histogram. Or
the Aperture histogram. There is a method in Aperture to *access* that data
by shrinking the 11 bit actual histogram to fit a 8 bit histogram.

Well there is little point in showing data which is blown beyond the WP
clipping spike. It is useless no matter what you do or what magic you
blow on it.

As far as I can make out, there is no way to do this in Lightroom. Correct?

Correct for LR on its own, but your extended histogram is visible if
you take the round trip to PS. However, that is irrelevant in the case
of this image, beyond the clipping spike, that data is blown anyway.
When opened in PS and the curves histogram is checked you will see it
extended beyond the clipping spike and it is beyond recovery.

Perhaps a different example where you didn't have blown highlights
might have been better for the purposes of this discussion. The image
you used had too many exposure issues (see above) to truly illustrate
your point.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2014-08-12, Sandman wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

But, alas, no extended range here (or with the poorer version of
curves) so no way - as far as I can make out - to actually access
all that glorious image data from within Lightroom.

Anyone knows if I've missed something?

Before I comment, I would like to try another approach. Can you post
a copy of the original in an editable form?

Certainly.

http://sandman.net/files/DSC01476.ARW

First: thanks for bringing some photo discutions back in this group.


I have a few newbie questions. Not criticicsms, no openings for a religious
debate, just a few questions from someone with more knowledge in IT than in
photo...

You put that image in ARW format, which - as far as I can see - is a Sony
'raw' format, right?

Now, from my IT point of view (opening, interpreting, converting the file) a
'raw' format is NOT a format. Not in the sense that there is a clear unique
data format definition. Every manufacturor has their own 'raw' format, some
even different ones in different models/generations of their camera's.
Of course, the ARW format seems to be from Sony (even my Linux tells me so),
and probably doesn't pretend to be universal. But:

1. is the ARW format that common that you would assume anyone can read it, or
do you happen to know that he also has a Sony ?

2. I once saw a definition for a type of an open raw format, supposedly
independant from manufactorors: DNG. It had a few flaws, but the idea was
there. Is there still no tendency to go to such formats in exchanges, or has
everyone just given in and accept that each brand talks it's own language?


--
When in doubt, use brute force.
-- Ken Thompson