howdego wrote: If I keep the monitor in AdobeRGB mode, will selection of the softproof option in LR, after completing my editing in LR and before I send the pictures to Proshow, properly show me what the photo will look like in sRGB format Yes, if you softproof to sRGB the gamut will be limited to sRGB on-screen (even if the monitor is capable of a larger gamut), so that's perfectly safe. Setting the monitor to sRGB mode is only required in a non-color managed environment. Sending an image with sRGB numbers to a wide gamut monitor, without a remapping of those values into the monitor profile (color management), will result in oversaturation and garish colors. But Lightroom wil do that monitor profile conversion in any case, soft proof or not. The soft proof merely limits the gamut to the proof profile, which is what you want. You should always calibrate and profile the monitor with its full native capabilities. The monitor setting that Dell calls "Adobe RGB" is actually not a perfect match to Adobe RGB, but an emulation/approximation. If the monitor has a "custom" or "native" setting that would be even better, that way you get the most out of it. ... View more

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 ... View more

trshaner wrote: These problems can all be avoided by simply synchronizing color settings across all Adobe applications. Well, yes and no. ACR doesn't honor those settings anyway, it goes its own way. And I believe it's far more important to have all color management policies set to "Preserve". I have my color settings deliberately unsynchronized between Ps and Id/Ai, for specific reasons, but that causes no problems as long as all incoming RGB profiles are honored. I don't even need to have the mismatch warnings on. (For CMYK it's a little more complicated. Id and Ai are set to preserve numbers, not profiles. That's to avoid some common pitfalls such as 100 K black turning into 4 color black). ... View more

It gets even more interesting: With the opposite scenario, new Lr / old Photoshop, you no longer get the three options "Render Using Lightroom/Open Anyway" etc. I set Lr 5.2 to use CS 5.1 as additional editor and got this: If you then go ahead it opens in ACR: However, if you already have Photoshop CC open, it opens in ACR 8.1: So clearly there's been an integration attempt, and the profile issue is an oversight/bug. EDIT: actually it just occurred to me that on this machine Lr / ACR haven't yet been updated to .2 (just postponed because of a slow internet connection). So the dot numbers aren't correct above, but the main point is still that the fundamental version mismatch behavior has changed. ... View more

The version mismatch seems to be the issue. With both current versions (5.2 and CC) everything behaves as expected: Ctrl + E to Edit in Photoshop opens the image in the color space set in Lightroom preferences - irrespective of what the ACR workflow options say. But then I opened my Lr 4.4 copy and did the same, Edit in Photoshop CC. This time, the ACR workflow setting consistently overruled the Lightroom setting, every combination. Bug or feature? I don't know. It seems reasonable that with a version mismatch Lightroom relinquishes all control and hands everything over to ACR. I'v mostly had versions in step, so I haven't much experience with these scenarios. EDIT: beat by a second again . Yes, we're seeing exactly the same thing. ... View more

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. ... View more

I'm itching to get my hands on this computer, to find out what the heck is going on here... We need to back up a little and plug every hole here, so bear with me: Is the Camera Raw plugin involved at any point in this process? Because that's the only thing that can override the settings in Lightroom or Photoshop. Glitches in expected behavior can happen, but I've never heard of or seen a case where a full preferences reset didn't fix it. That's supposed to return the application to its pristine factory state. Edit: trshaner beat me to it. ... View more

If you have reset Lr preferences (moved/renamed) and reset Ps preferences (ctrl/alt/shift - you did get the confirmation?), there must be something we've overlooked, because this isn't supposed to happen. So just to cover the obvious - this is "edit in" (ctrl + E), not Export? And not "additional editor" (ctrl + alt + E)? One thing you can do in Photoshop to keep track, is to set the notification area at the bottom of the image frame. This way you have instant confirmation: And again: With "preserve embedded" Photoshop will honor any incoming profile. There is no need to "set" Photoshop for anything. ... View more

You say you reset all the tools in Photoshop, but that won't do anything. Reset preferences is what you want. Hold ctrl + alt + shift and launch. If you do it right you'll get a confirmation dialog. howdego wrote: if PS is set for the sRGB color space Just to be clear, the Photoshop working space only affects new documents created in Photoshop. It doesn't affect existing or incoming documents, as long as you have PS color management policies set to "preserve embedded profiles" (which as already mentioned is the only sensible setting). ... View more

From time to time you see this argument that "there is no one single right way" to do things. Well, sometimes there is. Saving over your originals is plain wrong, and it shouldn't be encouraged. If the Lr engineers provided such an option it would go against the whole idea of Lightroom, and so it can safely be established once and for all that it will never happen. Now, what people do on their own time is their own business. If they want to hold a match to their negatives they can do so. But this is a forum dedicated to best practices, and so people would be advised to do this to a copy, not the original. ... View more

What's not "inevitably subjective and ambiguous" about keywords? Why would a folder name be any different from a keyword in this respect? Anyway, I'm not here to argue. My whole point was that this is something there really is no reason to argue over. ... View more

What's wrong with having the best of both worlds? Files organized in a folder structure and organized by metadata? I can't think of a single problem with that, in fact it renders this whole discussion moot. When you import it has to go into some folder or another. Whether that folder is a fishtank or a dedicated folder with a name, sitting in a tree, is honestly not of any practical consequence. You still keyword the same way. What does make a difference is that the files are easier to find if for example the keywords you first assigned aren't quite functional. Or a thousand other reasons. Knowing where the files are physically makes me sleep better. ... View more

Viewing angle isn't about where your head is. It's about the top of the screen being too dark, and the bottom washed out. Don't even consider TN as long as you have a choice. As I said, and I repeat it here, gamut is the least of your concerns. And that goes for any display. Calibrate (and calibrate to a workable luminance, somewhere around 100 - 120 cd/m2), and you'll be fine. ... View more

Go down to Color Management Policies and choose "Preserve Embedded Profiles". Then the document will open using US web coated SWOP, since that's the embedded profile. The .csf color settings file is just a preset of choices for working spaces/icc profiles. You can choose whatever you like and save that as a new preset. The real solution is to know the exact printing conditions and use the correct CMYK profile (which may not be US web coated SWOP). ... View more

If you can return it, do so. Color gamut is really the least of your concerns - a good standard gamut display beats a mediocre wide gamut one any day. I'm  wondering how important 95% color gamut is when I don't know at exactly  what angle I'm actually seeing the colors at their most accurate  rendering. You hit the nail on the head. This really sums up the whole question. TN panels are not suitable for photography work, they're for gaming and office use. I have wide gamut at work and standard gamut at home, and I work between them without missing a step. Wide gamut is nice as an added bonus, but by no means necessary. The important thing is that you calibrate, so that the colors it can display are accurate. ... View more

Yes, I did that later when I found out about it (because I always insist on having a backup installer handy in case I have to reinstall) - but it's not exactly obvious, is it? I find it very strange that I have to go to a third-party site for this. ... View more

BTJ wrote: I then deinstalled Photoshop CS6 and that is when I noticed the problem. This is an installer bug that has existed with all Photoshop Windows versions at least since CS2 > CS3, when I first encountered it. Uninstalling an older version may mess up file associations in the new version, and there is no easy way to fix it. It happens often enough to be a regular and recurring question in the forums, and certainly often enough to qualify as a bug with flying colors. And yet I see Adobe officials repeatedly state here and elsewhere that it's perfectly safe to uninstall CS6 after installing CC. Well, it isn't. I cringe when I see that. This is what happens. A bit late for those affected here, but the general advice is to always uninstall everything in reverse version order, then reinstall the new version. ... View more

When you do, keep in mind that it's all actually quite simple. A lot of people tend to overcomplicate it (none of those present here, I hasten to add), and in forums you often get answers such as "it's too complicated to explain here". That doesn't help any, it's just the signal to noise ratio rapidly deteriorating and adding to the general confusion. The mechanics may be complex, but in use it's very simple. The profile connection space is a key concept. That's where all the numeric values in different profiles are defined as actual, specific colors. Lab 59/62/70 is a particular orangy red, the same everywhere. It translates to 217/85/20 in Adobe RGB, but 247/90/36 in the particular monitor profile I'm using here. That's how an Adobe RGB document displays on this particular monitor. The numbers would be different with another monitor. And for proofing to sRGB on this monitor, it would go an extra round into sRGB to limit the gamut, and then into the monitor profile. ... View more

Basic display color management goes like this: Document profile > Monitor profile. That's it, it's no more complicated than that. Photoshop working space doesn't enter into it, that's just a default if there is no embedded profile in the document. Technically, it goes like this: Document profile > Lab/CIE XYZ > Monitor profile.  The Lab/XYZ bit is the profile connection space; that's internal under the hood and not visible to the user. For proof, it's a little more complicated: Document profile > Lab/XYZ > Proof profile > Lab/XYZ > Monitor profile. The extra round limits the gamut to the proof profile. And I have to repeat this: No monitor ever made matches sRGB completely. It doesn't have to. ... View more

You need to uncheck "preserve RGB numbers". This is the equivalent of convert to monitor RGB. Checked, it's the equivalent of assign. ... View more

Your specific question here has already been answered, but I assume this is connected to your other recent thread. So I just want to say this: If you are using a laptop screen for image editing, the gamut of that screen compared to sRGB (which is what you're trying to find out, right?) is the least of your concerns. Laptop screens are usually cheap TN panels with a host of problems: Very limited viewing angle, to the point where the top of the screen is dark and the bottom washed out. Only a thin stripe across the center of the screen will be theoretically correct - if you can find it. Uneven illumination in general. Very poor highlight and shadow separation. Anything above 240-245 will appear white, anything below 10-15 will appear black. 6-bit color depth (with some tricks to simulate 8-bit). That means color and brightness banding/posterization. In short, a laptop screen simply can't be trusted to be accurate. Calibration will improve it, but there's still a way to go. So don't spend too much energy on the gamut issue - it's a red herring (lovely expression BTW : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring ) In that article you linked to in the other thread, the author seems to consider display gamut the final word: "If you find that your monitor can't even adequately encompass the sRGB space, it's futile and dangerous to work in Adobe RGB". When I read something like that, I simply don't know where to start. I can only attribute it to extreme ignorance. Should you throw all that information out just because you happen to have a shitty monitor this month? That's ridiculous. Don't trust everything you read on the web. Including this ... View more

If I may be blunt, Robs and Jeffs' versions are the only ones so far who managed to make it look natural and credible - even if it isn't. In my book, edits shouldn't be visible. There are many other interesting interpretations here, but to me they don't make it because burns and dodges and graduated filters are too obvious. No disrespect to the others, this was a tough one. I'm not too happy with my own contribution either. ... View more

Yeah, I lost some detail in the moon. Probably because I made a point of not bringing this into PS, where it's easy to fix (all done in ACR 7.4). I like frans' pale moon version too (except the too-obvious burning in the lower half of the moon). Just thought I'd do something slightly different. ... View more

Whoa...very weak black level in the one I posted above. It was done with blazing sun outside. Forget that one, here's how it was meant to be: ... View more

Here's my bid. Now I'm curious to see how others will interpret it, I'm sure it will be very different... I'm in a sort of purple mood today, so...what the heck. I'll probably hate it tomorrow. ... View more

All right. All these things considered, how about simply splitting the problem in two? First develop for the full image, with all the special tricks necessary for bringing out the mountains, while ignoring the moon (and glare). Then a second development for the moon. Since George has Photoshop, this should be a fairly simple masking job there (but I would still keep the moon in the upper range, close to blow-out). I'm just throwing this out since I still don't have the original. BTW I thought I saw a subtle glow on the peaks in George's second example, which is what made the shot "snap" for me. But maybe it was just an artifact from extreme development. ... View more