P: ICC Table Profiles clipped shadows under OSX

[Max_Ramuschi]

Hi, I've just found a really bad issue occurring in Lr 5 (but also in all other Lightroom versions) under Mac OSX 10.9 with a calibrated monitor: dark shadows (from a value of 20 to 0) are all clipped (pure black with no detail and no textures) while the histogram remains ok, indicating NO clipped shadows at all. This issue afflics also ACR.

Photoshop for now is the only software under MAC that reproduces dark shadows correctly: Library Module shows a bit darker and shifted shadows than Ps but acceptable, Develop Module is really bad showing brutally clipped shadows (but you work in the Develop Module right?!).

The same problem occurred also in OSX 10.8 but it was related only to LUT profiles, creating a Matrix based profile problems were solved.

Now the issue occurs with both Matrix and LUT profiles, v2 and v4. There's no apparent way to make Lr working right.

Under Windows no problems at all: Bridge, Photoshop, ACR, Lr (Library Module and Develop Module) show the same correct NOT clipped shadows.

I tested 8 different Mac running 10.9 with different GPU, different monitors, different profiling Softwares (Color Eyes Display Pro, Eizo Color Navigator, BasICC Color, i1 Profiler). Same results.
I tried to change the gamma value (2.2, sRGB, L*) problems remain. I tried to change ICC version (v2, v4) problems reamain. I tried to change profile type (LUT, MATRIX) problems remain.

How can a photographer work professionally on RAW images if shadows are bad reproduced?

Why Photoshop can reproduce shadows correctly while Lr isn't able to do that?

Why this happens only on a Mac enviroment?

Is Lr based on ColorSync (that can't handle profiles correctly) while Ps isn't (because it can handle and it has no problem)?

Please Adobe, FIX IT for all professional photographers, we can’t use Lr for serious works under Mac.

Max Ramuschi
Adobe Certified Expert

p.s.: Added a 100% Crop screenshots that shows the problem, some photos are even worse...

[J453]

Can you share one of the profiles you're having trouble with?

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

thank you Ramushi for still mention this problem, its not solved. Im using Color Navigator and Eizo OS X 10.10.1

[MadManChan2000]

I'm not sure what's going on here.  I had one of the profiles with table-based gamma curve.  I tested that pretty carefully (as well as the polynomial-based gamma curve) with Lr 5.7, and did not see any meaningful visual difference on my system between the two cases.  I used the DigitalColor Meter on the Mac (useful system utility) to conduct color readouts, to be sure  (sometimes eyes can be fooled, even trained ones ...).  

It is possible there is some other system configuration or setup that I'm not replicating here, that is essential to reproducing the issue, when table-based profiles are concerned.

[Max_Ramuschi]

The issue is easily reproducible on every Mac with every table based profile, created with every profiling software. Assuming that now Library and Develop show the same shadows (this bug is fixed), you have to compare Lightroom and Photoshop to see the shadows difference. Before wiriting here that the bug has not been fixed, I retested carefully it on several Apple machines: same results with all. I used Eizo Color Navigator on my desktop Mac, and i1 Profiler on the other laptop computers. The issue is clearly evident on both my Eizo display (with Color Navigator table profile) and the LCD screen of laptops computer (with X-rite table profile). These computers have default OSX configurations. The same issue is showing on OSX 10.8, 10.9 and 10.10. If you want I can send you two table profiles (one created with EIzo and the other created with X-Rite software) and a test image.

[Max_Ramuschi]

To be more precise: Photoshop, Bridge and ACR (now ACR seems to be ok!) show correct shadows with table profiles, but Lightroom is still showing clipped shadows.

[nesys75]

I can confirm, issue not fixed on NEC Spectraview and table profiles. Please fix asap. Thank you very much

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

to Jeffrey or Eric. Here are ICC from my system, Color Navigator 6, OSX 10.10. The ICC profile are only 4 kb?? https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4...

[MadManChan2000]

Ok, I dug into this a little more.  All of the cases that I have seen so far with Lr 5.7 that have "too dark shadows" with table-based profiles have 1 thing in common:  they are using ICC version 4.x.  I also have examples of table-based profiles that don't have this problem, and they also have 1 thing in common:  they are using ICC version 2.x.

Therefore:   For those of you generating table-based color profiles and still experiencing issues with "too dark shadows" in Lr:  Can you please try using your color profile-building software (NEC, Eizo, X-Rite, etc.) to build "ICC version 2" profiles (instead of version 4)?

[Max_Ramuschi]

the profiles I sent are Eizo v2.2 and X-rite v2.1 and are too dark.

[MadManChan2000]

That's not what I found.  I used this exact profile (ICC version 2.1), compared with Lr and Ps, used the DigitalColor Meter software, and got the same values.  I also turned on/off soft proofing in Develop (the other workaround, to force Lr to use its own internal color management instead of the OS-level color management), and got the same color values.  

[Max_Ramuschi]

If I turn on soft proofing in Develop with that profile everything is fine (shadows and colors) but with soft proofing turned off shadows are blue and a little darker.

[Max_Ramuschi]

Nothing changes with the Eizo profile if I turn on and off soft proofing, shadows are way too dark. Can you confirm that the Eizo profile I sent is v2.2?

[MadManChan2000]

Yes, the Eizo profile I have from you is ICC version 2.1.  This profile matches Photoshop and ACR.

Are you sure (via your System Preferences) that your currently-active color profile is a version 2.1 profile?  I understand that you may have multiple profiles installed on your system, for testing and experimental purposes, but what matters here is which of those profiles is currently being used. 

[Max_Ramuschi]

to be more precise: with x-rite v2.1 profile and soft proof off there's a difference in shadows luminance of about L* 0,70 - 0,90 measured in the same area with OSX color meter and the dark tones are bluish. With soft proof on, the bluish cast disappears, but luminance difference remains.
With soft proofing on the difference between Ps and Lr are negligible, but with soft proofing off the two images differ too much.

[Max_Ramuschi]

Yes, in my desktop I have activated the same profile I sent via e-mail: Eizo Color Navigator activate it by default, I have no other profiles in that computer.

Same thing in my laptop, I only have the X-Rite one.

It sound incredible that my Eizo profile in your computer doesn't show darker shadows in LR. In my computer ACR, Photoshop and Bridge are perfect, but Lr isn't... is there something I missed in configuring Lightroom?

[Max_Ramuschi]

I sent two Eizo profiles: one was matrix and the other was table, are you looking at the right table profile?

[Max_Ramuschi]

Update: with the X-Rite table profile and soft proofing on to simulate the X-rite profile (previously soft proofing was set to simulate Adobe RGB) I have perfectly matching colors and shadows with Ps. With soft proofing off, the image in Lr remains too different.

[MadManChan2000]

Is the X-Rite table profile version 2.1 or version 4.x?

[Max_Ramuschi]

The X-rite table profile I am talking about is the same I sent to you, which is version 2.1. With this profile I can match Ps and ACR only turning on soft proofing.

With the Eizo 2.1 table profile there's no way to have correct shadows, they are always way too dark.

[Max_Ramuschi]

Update 2: I managed to match Ps shadows with the table Eizo profile enabling soft proofing to simulate the Eizo profile in use.

To recap: I can match Ps and ACR shadows with table profiles (both eizo and x-rite) only if I activate soft proofing in the Develop module and set it to simulate the monitor profile in use. At this point it seems that if we want Lightroom to work properly we should skip Colorsync which seems to not support correctly table based profiles. Is this right?

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

look here, I tried to accelerate the effect, so I did calibration with ultra low contrast
black level 2,0, contrast ratio becomes as low as 51:1
ICC (table?)profile version 2.2 Eizo color Navigator 6.4.7
OSX 10.10.

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

monitor contrast
I did an "weird" calibration with low contrast 2.0 cd, 51:1 contrast ratio (monitor get very low contrast)
Eizo Color navigator OSX 10.10, ICC profile 2.2
Is shadow clipping in LR even more visible then? see screenshot

If native contrast 0.2 cd Im sure the effect becomes more subtle. Perhaps most of us have native contrast and does not see the effect so easily. I usually prefer little less contrast on my Eizo, 0.3 - 0.4 cd/m2

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

I can confirm about soft proofing, its the only way to see the same in LR and Photoshop. Something is still wrong here

[Max_Ramuschi]

You probably have a table profile (Eizo creates this kind of profiles as default). Same behaviour here.

[Max_Ramuschi]

This problem is not solved, please change the feedback status.