P: CMYK soft proofing needed

You really don't think it's necessary to challenge everyone who votes on this feature do you? Your position is understood, other people have other ideas.

>I think CMYK softproofing is a good idea and validates that LR is an end-to-end workflow solution for professionals... one of LR's most important constituencies.

So you’d soft proof CMYK, knowing you can’t get CMYK out of LR?

I think CMYK softproofing is a good idea and validates that LR is an end-to-end workflow solution for professionals... one of LR's most important constituencies.

+1

Editing photos in LR and soft proofing in PS makes no sense, at least if one has to edit material on a daily basis. You need to see the results in real time. Like you would do it within PS: Simply switch on the proof and keep on editing while in proof view. So recommending PS for soft proofing makes only sense if you stop editing your material in LR. And I think LRs intention is to bee a bit more than just a "iPhoto from Adobe".

And we are not asking for rocket science, there is even a LR plug in for such purposes (http://www.lightroom-plugins.com/Proo.... It's at least a compromise between the optimum (of having the proof fully integrated within LR) and the worst case (of having to do it clunky in PS).

Adding this proofing feature would be a further, strong enhancement of the biggest LR advantage: It's perfect workflow integration.

Books: I never asked for this feature. But as far as I know there are a lot of book printers offering a good profile support, which may be better than blurbs, but I don't know that.

What part of “LR has an RGB processing path” wasn’t clear? You’d be willing to have LR develop a big, ugly set of CMYK preferences as we have in Photoshop, only to soft proof and not convert the data?

You have two copies of PS, one more than you need to soft proof and convert.

What’s next, pop Illustrator or InDesign into LR?

The book feature isn’t going to fly here because there are no actual CMYK profiles for it to use (just one generic profile that doesn’t define the print process). Even if you could load the generic Blurb profile for an LR soft proof, what you were viewing would be incorrect. So that we have a book module, at least for this one provider doesn’t justify CMYK anything. If you can get Blurb to provide all the ICC output profiles for all CMYK processes, you’d be much closer to justify the ability to soft proof in Photoshop let alone LR.

I'm here with two copies of PS. I work a lot with LR every day with tons of pictures. And I ended up with using PS may be once a year. Adobe will not motivate me to buy a third copy by moving features from LR to PS.

Using PS just for proofing purposes is like hiring a submarine when you want to go fishing. It's no practical workflow! Move a slider in LR, export to PS, look at the picture, go back to LR, move another slider, export again, look at it in PS - one gets crazy. And thats dangerous because you start selling and distributing material thats not working well for any purposes other than being printed at home or put on a website.

So if one thinks he needs no CMYK proof within LR, he should

- never use LRs book feature
- not sell any pictures to agencies, newspapers etc. because you never know how you material will behave

etc.

Considering LR is a fully RGB processing path, it can’t convert to CMYK, what would be the point of soft proofing CMYK? You can (and should) do both in Photoshop.

With you here, even though 97% the printing that my work gets done is RGB