Replying to Rikk Flohr . . .
Thank you for explaining the logic behind this, which I now follow and understand (up to a point.)
However, since the introduction of the profile browser Adobe may have become a victim of its own success. Please allow me to explain!
At the time, I believe the conventional workflow assumption was (and probably still is) that the photographer would first select their profile and start editing from there.
However, once I discovered the extremely opaque and fiddly formula for converting presets into profiles (which was beyond everybody on this forum, by the way) suddenly the real value of this feature became apparent:
a) My 'presets' were now nested amongst the Develop panels (ie in Profiles) so they are much quicker to access and use;
b) Even more importantly, their strength is now infinitely adjustable on the slider (default 100). You can't do this with presets without a very clunky (by comparison) plug-in called Opal. For example, I often use a Kodak film simulation that is highly saturated by nature. Now if I wish I can dial it down to 75% in real time and while observing the effect.
The result, as you will already have gathered by looking at my screenshots, is that over time I have so far converted nearly all of my precious (long discontinued) VSCO presets into profiles, amounting to several hundred over their nine 'packs'. (However, I still believe that even more casual preset users would benefit from a conversion to profiles for the reasons given.)
Therefore, in my humble capacity as a daily Lightroom user, I would urge you to take another look at this whole subject and consider whether indeed the original preset concept and application has moved on somewhat in the light of recent advances in the program. (Also, perhaps, a far less cumbersome method for doing the conversion itself!)
In so doing, maybe along the way my present issue would be addressed.
Would be most grateful for your consideration and comments.
8
Replies
AdChoices
