Photoshop not seeing export color space setting in Lightroom 4

[howdego]

MY LR or PS programs are not acting as expected.

When my Lightroom 4 is set to export to Photoshop in either the sRGB color space or the AdobeRGB color space, and Photoshop is set for the sRGB space, Photoshop gives a color mismatch error in both cases, saying the image is an AdobeRGB embedded image.  However, if the color space in PS is set for AdobeRGB, even if the export setting in Lightroom is sRGB, there is no mismatch error. 

Apparently, PS sees every image as embedded with AdobeRGB.

I have a Sony NEX6 camera.  I have taken pictures in the camera sRGB color space and the AdobeRGB space, which I used for this test. Since I shoot in RAW, this should not matter, so I don’t think it is the issue, and, in fact, I get the same result no matter which color space the camera is in.

If LR export and PS color space are the same, why should there be a mismatch, and why is PS not seeing the sRGB space?  Might there be a setting in Lightroom or Photoshop that I am missing?

[howdego]

TRShaner, reply 57

"I suggest NOT doing any resizing or output sharpening in PS for your Proshow images. Save the full-size PS edited file and do the resizing and output sharpening using LRs Export module. The actual image size for use in Proshow should be larger than the target screen size (1920 x 1080). Many of the effects provided in Proshow use image "zoom," which enlarges the screen image up to 2X. If your image file is only 1920 x1080 it will noticebaly "soften" with these zoom effects due to interpolation (upsizing)."

Well this is certainly a different approach than I have been using.  I am under the impression that PS has the best downsizing algorithms so that is what I have been using for that step.  Also, the leading writers say that we should downsize first, then sharpen, and that PS has excellent sharpening algorithms, thereby driving me to downsize and sharpen in PS.  In addition, I was told by Photodex help desk a while ago that while the lightroom plugin can reduce the size of photos it processes, if that option is chosen, it does not do any output sharpening.  Only the export command, which you are using, can do output sharpening.  So, If I use the plugin, whichj makes building the show easier, I will not have any output sharpening, just resizing.   And if I don't resize in PS, and sharpen in PS, than I am not using the sequence recommended by Schewe, Kelby, etc.  So that is a dilemma.  Perhaps some testing on my part might help resolve this.

However, your recommendation for the resize settings is a revelation for me.  I used 1920 X 1080 from PS in my last video, and felt there was something wrong when I displayed in on my new 1080p LED tv. That could be the problem, along with a bit too much sharpening in PS or LR.   I will definetely do a test using 2800 by 1575 from PS to see if there is a difference in quality (more like the 16 X 9 aspect ratio of the TV than 2800 X 2800).  But I guess I should do the calibration first.

[Todd Shaner]

I agree, this post is losing its focus with too many different subjects being discussed! That said I'll try to address some of the issues.

howdego wrote:

Well this is certainly a different approach than I have been using.  I am under the impression that PS has the best downsizing algorithms so that is what I have been using for that step.  Also, the leading writers say that we should downsize first, then sharpen, and that PS has excellent sharpening algorithms......

If you're going to do "additional editing" to a LR image inside PS why throw away file resolution you may need in the future by downsizing the image. LR's Output Resizing and Sharpening tools are as good as PS's, at least for a slideshow that will be viewed on a 1080p TV screen.

howdego wrote:

In addition, I was told by Photodex help desk a while ago that while the lightroom plugin can reduce the size of photos it processes, if that option is chosen, it does not do any output sharpening.  Only the export command, which you are using, can do output sharpening.  So, If I use the plugin, whichj makes building the show easier, I will not have any output sharpening, just resizing.   And if I don't resize in PS, and sharpen in PS, than I am not using the sequence recommended by Schewe, Kelby, etc.  So that is a dilemma.  Perhaps some testing on my part might help resolve this.

I confirmed that the Proshow plugin does not add any sharpening to resized images, which is a huge oversight on their part! They also use a "fixed" 60 JPEG Quality that equates to the dreaded PS 7 Quality setting. I have never used the Proshow plugin from day one, maybe just instinct. It seems very restricting and offers  little benefit to my preferred workflow. Either way you need to create resized and sharpened JPEGs saved to a separate folder, which can be done very easily using the LR Export module. ALL of the other functions provided in the plugin (and more) are available from inside Proshow. In light of this information I'd steer clear of the Proshow plugin.

howdego wrote:

However, your recommendation for the resize settings is a revelation for me.  I used 1920 X 1080 from PS in my last video, and felt there was something wrong when I displayed in on my new 1080p LED tv. That could be the problem, along with a bit too much sharpening in PS or LR.   I will definetely do a test using 2800 by 1575 from PS to see if there is a difference in quality (more like the 16 X 9 aspect ratio of the TV than 2800 X 2800).

Don't concern yourself with the aspect ratio unless your trying to completely fill the 16:9 screen with a 16:9 cropped  image. 1920 x 1080 resize width & height works fine with all aspect ratio images if you aren't using any zoom effects in Proshow. For normal crop DSLR (2:3) aspect ratio images try using 2430 x 1620 width & height settings in LR. This will restrict portrait images to 1620 long side, which makes them 1.5x larger (same as 2430 landscape images). I use Screen Standard or Low for Output Sharpening in LR for 1080p Proshow videos, but do your own tests!

howdego wrote:

But I guess I should do the calibration first.

If necessary please put your results and issues in a new post and put a reply in this thread with the link. That's a whole other can of worms that needs to be addressed separately!

[TheDigitalDog]

howdego wrote:

I recognize that TRShaner recommends using TIFF, but I am not yet convinced that PSD format would not serve just as well.   

Aside from Duotone support, there isn't anything a PSD provides that a TIFF can't. PSD is a proprietary Adobe format and any other company that wants to support it must pay to do so. TIFF is an open format (controlled by Adobe) that has no such restrictions on 3rd party companies. If you care about the ability to access your data in the future, you'll abandon PSD ASAP <g>.

[howdego]

Andrew, reply 58

Since I use only adobe products for editing, PSD works ok. I assume that if I need an image in TIFF format so I can access it from a program that does not support PSD, I could convert it within PS.   However, if you have thoughts that Adobe might stop supporting PSD in the near future, that is another matter.  Have you heard rumor or evidence of that happening?

[ssprengel]

Adobe going belly-up or your computer not supporting Adobe products is more likely than Adobe not supporting PSDs, but any of these situations would make your PSDs in accessible.

[TheDigitalDog]

howdego wrote:

Since I use only adobe products for editing, PSD works ok. I assume that if I need an image in TIFF format so I can access it from a program that does not support PSD, I could convert it within PS. 

Yes, you could convert, but there's no reason to have to do so and it could be rather time consuming to do this on all your documents.

[ssprengel]

The discussion about TIF vs PSD is a side issue as are many things in this thread.

I think the idea would be to do new work in TIF format instead of PSDs so at least any future situation necessitating conversion of the PSDs to another format wouldn’t have even more files to worry about.

[ssprengel]

twenty_one  Reply #49:

You're not testing LR-integration with an older Photoshop, you're testing what happens with any third-party photo-editor, like Corel XP or Microsoft Photo Editor, etc.

When LR is using Edit-In with a third-party editor it only sends the filename, there is no Photoshop-interation-protcol that passes XMP-settings and color-profile to PS so PS can call ACR with them.

The only thing LR passes to a third-party photo-editor, even if it is photoshop.exe, is the filename and those options you're seeing are the three possibilties for any third-party photo-editor file:  the original non-raw image file (i.e. JPG or PSD), a copy of the original non-raw image file (i.e. JPG or PSD), or a rendered file, perhaps a TIF that LR produces by applying its edits to the original image file.

You're seeing a TIF file open in ACR because that is how you have configured PS to act when opening a TIF file, and if you turn off the Prefer ACR for TIF/JPG then PS will just open the file w/o usign ACR, right?

To test a newer LR and an older PS you'd need to uninstall the newer PS and only have the older PS installed and so that older PS would be what LR uses in the top section in the External File Handling preferences tab. 

[D Fosse]

ssprengel wrote:

You're not testing LR-integration with an older Photoshop, you're testing what happens with any third-party photo-editor

Ah. That makes sense.

Actually I was in a hurry and didn't adhere strictly to scientific protocol, it was just an interesting issue. Apparently I didn't read everybody's posts (trshaner) properly either...

Good thing there's always someone here to set you straight

[ssprengel]

Now having seen what the OP’s ACR workflow options were set to, I AM NOW SEEING what was reported initially, using LR’s Edit In PS, and here is my summary of how things are working:

If you use LR 5.2 and PS-CC/ACR 8.2, the Edit In works as expected, using ACR 8.2 on the way into Photoshop and picking up the LR settings for color-space and overriding the ACR workflow options.

If (as the OP is doing) you use the slightly-obsolete LR 4.4 and PS-CC/ACR 8.2, the Edit In uses ACR, but unexpectedly uses the ACR workflow options not the LR Edit-In settings.

If you use the more obsolete LR 4.3 and PS-CC/ACR 8.2, Edit In always renders to a TIF using the LR settings, since ACR isn’t involved.

My guess is that with LR 4.4 an attempt was made to integrate with PS-CC’s ACR 8.x, but things didn’t work completely right, as the OP has discovered. Either LR isn’t passing along its color-profile information or ACR is ignoring it—the bug could be in either product.

With LR 5.x things do work ok, so if the OP wants things to work, then update LR to match PS-CC’s Camera Raw version.

[howdego]

HMMM!  My Lr is using ACR 74., but PS is using 8.2.  I think LR 4.4 only supports ACR 7.4.  Any edea if that is true?  And if they are different, why would that cause the mismatch in only one color space?

[D Fosse]

HMMM!  My Lr is using ACR 74., but PS is using 8.2.  I think LR 4.4 only supports ACR 7.4.  Any edea if that is true?  And if they are different, why would that cause the mismatch in only one color space?

Lightroom 4.4 is ACR 7.4. It's the same engine, only in a different wrapping (Photoshop plugin vs. standalone application).

Wait a second. With "Edit in Photoshop" it's actually ACR that does the rendering into Photoshop. That's why you get the warning if you have a version mismatch. Lightroom just passes on its settings.

So trshaner is onto something: open ACR and change the workflow setting there. I bet that will clear it.

[howdego]

Tstraner, comment 25.

OY!  That is a big job.   Just after getting CS6, I had a color tone mismatch problem between PS and LR.  After a loooooooong talk with adobe, I reinstalled photoshop, and the problem went away.  If I had to guess, I can see that LR might be the culprit here, as PS will open an sRGB file properly after "exporting" it to my hard drive.

[howdego]

To ssprengel, comment 24:

I use LR4.4 and CS6.  I am not sure how long this problem has been there.  I just noticed it, as I previously had LR set to edit in PS adobeRGB. 

[ssprengel]

I have tested the same scenarios with LR 4.4.1 and PS-CC 14.1.2/ACR 8.2 and I get sRGB as my color-space coming into PS using both Edit In and Export with PP-action set to PS-CC.

What versions of LR and PS/ACR are you using that give you the problem?

[TheDigitalDog]

howdego wrote:

Anyway, I still don't have a resolution for my embedded profile problem!

Do you see any difference in Edit in Photoshop command (set the preferences to what you wish for a color space) versus Export (again setting the desired color space)?

[howdego]

Andrew,

Not sure what you mean.  The "export command" in LR  opens a long dialog box, which I currently have set to export images as sRGB PSDs.  The "edit in" > photoshop cs6 pull down just opens in PS.  If i go to open the "exported" image from PS, it opens as an sRGB image as expected.  If I edit in CS6 using the pull down menu, I get a mismatch warning saying the image is adobeRGB.