Rob Cole wrote: trshaner wrote: The biggest limitation is the shooting distance. My 18-200 vignette correction is significantly/noticably off using Adobe's lens profile, and spot-on in DxO. Any idea why? Rob Is the difference seen in images shot at or near infinity focus, or all images? You can PM me or post a link to an example NEF and I'll try to determine what's happening. ... View more

Rob Cole wrote: I still wonder if it's possible for a user  to do a better job using the downloadable kit, or if there are inherent limitations / imperfections in the algorithm / technology being used. Download the Adobe Lens Profile Creator and read the Shooting Guide. The biggest limitation is the shooting distance. You are optimizing the lens profile for these specific shooting distances from the calibration targets, which is much, much less than infinity: The focus distance positions will include (1 × minimum focus distance), (2 × minimum focus distance) and (5 × minimum focus distance). So far no problems here with my Canon EF and EF-S Adobe Lens Profiles at infinity. ... View more

Rob Cole wrote: PPS - I know how to use the defringing tools, but some photos can not be properly corrected without resorting to local defringing too, or instead, regardless of skill at setting globals. Adobe obviously agrees or such local control would not exist. My expereince with the Defringe tools has been primarily with the two lenses I mentioned, Canon 8-15mm F4L and 85mm F1.8. I did try the Defringe tools today on images shot with a Canon 18-55mm IS II lens images from a 600D. This lens only exhibits a very small amount of axial CA in bright areas when wide open at F3.5, which is more likely sensor "blooming". It was quite a bit more difficult to eliminate fringing without also causing deaturation in normal picture areas. I finally found a setting that worked well without desaturating any other areas (Purple 5, 37/47). I'm sure there are some images that exhibit axial CA and/or blooming that require use of the Local Defrige tool to prevent desaturating normal picture areas. Thankfully I haven't encountered any yet.....maybe a testiment to Canon's lens designs? Cheers, Todd ... View more

Pbeck1 wrote: I will just say that in the images that Lightroom gets wrong down by 18mm, the Nikon in camera Jpegs and also DxO always seem to instead get right. So i think it's a problem with the lightroom lens profile, rather than being any kind of manufacturing tolerance defect. I'm not insinuating your lens has a manufacturing defect.   What I am trying to convey is that ALL lenses have manufacturing tolerances, which are normally within the manufacturer's Quality Control specifications. This means that a lens meeting the specification may have measured distortion within say 0% to 3%. If Adobe used a sample of your lens model with 3% distortion at 18mm and your lens has only 2% distortion, then the Adobe Lens Profile will "over-correct" your images by 1%. This is about what I'm seeing in the posted image, 1% or less distortion with the profile applied. One simple solution as I suggested is to simply reduce the Lens Profile Distortion setting amount from 100 to a lower value and then check the other zoom focal lengths with this setting. You do not mention actually trying this....Why not? Pbeck1 wrote: I'm going to find a nice straight building (glass or metal) with a nice corner too and take some test shots again and fully document how lightroom, ViewNX and DxO all handle the lens distortions (straight lines) at the different distances and lengths, and i will compile a list of what manual distortion adjustments would need to be applied in Lightroom each time for those images too. I suggest NOT using the manual adjustments, except if the raw converter doesn't provide manual adjustment of the lens profile distortion. The Manual Distortion control in LR is "linear," meaning it applies a uniform correction across the image field. Most zoom lenses use one or more aspherical lens elements that cause the image to exhibit a "non-linear" moustache shaped distortion. In the case of LR simply first lower or raise the Lens Profile Distortion amount. Then if the image still exhibits distortion in some areas  try adding the Manual Distortion control on top of the Lens Profile Corrections. You may need to go back-and-forth between the two Distortion controls. Please let us know you results, it should be an interesting experiment! ... View more

Understood, and there's no way to simply change the Lens profile settings for the single 18mm focal length. Did you try reducing the Lens Profile Distortion setting from 100 to perhaps 80 or whatever is necessary until the sag disappears in the 18mm shot? Then check images using the "reduced" Distortion setting at other zoom focal lengths. Based upon what you've stated a "balance" between 18mm performance and all other focal lengths can probably be established using a Distortion setting <100. Lenses and all mass-produced items have well established "manufacturing tolerances" to keep cost of manufacturing low and to maintain specified quality standards. In the case of a low-cost "kit lens" like the 18-55mm these tolerances will be understandably higher, resulting in more sample-to-sample variation for both image sharpness AND things like distortion. There's a very good possibility that if you tried another 18-15mm lens of the same model that it might be better or even worse with Adobe's lens profile. I suggest trying the Adobe Lens Profile Downloader at the links provided. I see four (4) lens profiles listed under '18-55mm f/3.5-5.6' for 1.5 crop camera. It doesn't state which model 18-55mm lens, but I'd download all four and try them all! There are another four (4) profiles available listed under 'Nikon DX AF-S NIKKOR 18-55mm 3.6-5.6G II ED,' but each one is for a single focal length. Not sure why and probably less useful. Lastly you can create your own lens profile if so inclined. Out of curiosity do you shoot using any other lenses, and if so how do they perform with Adobe's Lens Profiles? ... View more

Rob Cole wrote: It's not about over/under, it's about right/wrong. I mean, I do use different percentage of correction depending on lens - some are better than the others. The problem is: how good or bad for a given lens depends greatly on focal length - PS - to combine manual with auto lens corrections, do auto such that the inner-most region is closest, but edges and corners: not so much, then bring up or down the outer-most (or next outer-most "ring") using manual lens corrections. If need be, apply paint to finish... Rob, I only have experience with Canon DSLR lenses and Adobe's lens profiles for these lenses. I have no  issues and in fact if I try using the Manual Distortion control it makes distortion worse for most of lenses, since the distortion is "complex" moustache shaped. Hers's an example image using my Canon 17-40mm F4L at it's worst zoom setting (17mm), It's also my "worst" lens for distortion.The image on the left has Lens Profile Distortion at '0' and on the right at '100.' I also set Manual Vertical to '17' on the right image to correct perspective distortion. The grid lines should be visible in the full-size image. I see no "visible" distortion, even with the grid lines present.  I'm not seeing an issue with the Adobe Canon lens profile, do you? (Click on image to see full-size) Something else to remember is that the subjects you are shooting may not be geometrically perfect! The roofline in the OPs first image could very well have a small percentage of "out of plumb" area in the image center. If so LR's lens profile correction is actually more acurrate! The amount of distortion visible in the OPs image with LR correction is <1.0%, which is pretty darn small. Is that old roofline really flat to <<1%? Get out your laser-level or you'll never know for sure. Regardless, simply backing off on the LR Lens Profile Distortion setting would easily correct the "visible" sag. Again, this is why I set my Lens Profile Distortion default setting to '0' and only adjust to correct images that actually have "visible" distortion. YMMV and you may find a default setting of 50 or what ever works better. At least give it a try mate! Rob Cole wrote: trshaner wrote: I've never seen any artifacts caused by the LR Defringe tools There were plenty of posts about it when it was first introduced - remember? (and it hasn't been improved since then). Anyway, it sometimes leaves blocky areas devoid of color around the corrected regions, rather than blending or something, for lack of a better way to describe it. IMHO, Lr's (global) defringing is *far* from perfect - perhaps we should just agree to disagree? FWIW - I'm totally happy with the auto-lateral-CA correction, which some people also deem "far from perfect". I agree with you 100%, I thought you meant something else concerning "artifacts." Yes, the Defringe tools are very "tricky." Fortunately I only have two lenses that exhibit any serious axial CA (Canon EF 8-15mm F4L and EF 85mm F1.8). Eric Chan wrote a very lengthy primer on how to use the Defringe tools with examples. The best takeaway is to hold down the ALT or Option key when adjusting the Defringe controls, which "color highlights" the image areas that are being desaturated. If you see an area that is NOT CA try reducing the Amount slider or changing the Hue sliders. There's plenty of instructional information here: http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2012/04/new-color-fringe-correction-controls.html ... View more

Rob Cole wrote: Hi Paul, I'm really not sure exactly what DxO outputs when you choose DNG: It's not raw data, yet preserves some ability to do raw things in Lightroom, like white balance and camera profiles. I dunno about pulling from highlight/shadow "reserves", but note: it's different than a DNG-wrapped tif or jpeg, it may be able to pull from the highlight/shadow reserves as can be done via the DNG used for smart previews - I just don't know. trshaner: do you know for sure that a DxO DNG hard-clips shadows/highlights, or are you just "extrapolating/assuming/educatedly-guessing"? Regardless, DxO has some auto shadow/highlight recovery (for those extreme black/white tones) that is quite good - don't sell it short. Google 'dxo linear dng highlights.' Here's one that supports what I said: http://forums.adobe.com/thread/663428 I've tried using Canon's DPP for the same purpose with TIFF output AND with DPP's highlight recovery. I can't get the same highlight recovery with the TIFF as compared to the raw inside LR with PV2012. Rob Cole wrote: I still think about it when Lr's lens corrections are wonky. But my problem with Lr's lens corrections have more to do with vignetting than distortion (because I mostly shoot nature, not buildings...), and I can add manual correction and/or a dab of paint to the automatic corrections, which saves me the complication of front-ending via DxO. If distortion is your primary concern, consider balancing auto with manual distortion corrections (I've not done much of that, so no guarantee...). Also, there's the upright feature in Lr5... What's wrong with simply changing the Lens Profile 'Amount' settings from 100 if a specific lens profiles is "over-correcting" or "under-correcting? Don't forget most zoom lenses have a "complex" moustache shaped distortion, which is NOT easily corrected with LR's Manual Distortion control. You can certainly try both, but there's no way to save the Manual Distortion "correction" setting to a specific lens profile's defaults. Rob Cole wrote: PPS - DxO's purple fringe tool will get the fringe out without the artifacts of Lr's global defringer, however it may also take away real image color sometimes, and can't be done locally, so one may ultimately get better results in Lr if willing to spend a while painting local defringing. I've never seen any artifacts caused by the LR Defringe tools (see image posted of Canon 8-15mm Fisheye lens CA), but you do need to be very careful concerning the actually settings used. After using the eyedropper tool to sample a fringe area I fine tune the settings to eliminate desaturation of areas that have similar color as the fringe area. Once you have the correct settings save it to a Develop preset for manual application. For example with my Canon 8-15mm F4L Fisheye zoom I have two (2) Develop presets of 8-12mm (Purple 2, 30/55) and 13-15mm (Purple 4, 30/55). There is no need to use Local controls with Defringe if you follow my suggestions for manually tuning the settings to prevent desaturation in like colored areas. IMHO the LR CA and Defringe tools are darn near perfect when you use them correctly! ... View more

Once a raw image has demosaic processing applied you lose the ability to do any further highlight recovery. It appears DxO Linear DNGs fall into this category and perhaps another reason to stick with a 100% LR or 100% DxO workflow. Other than for critical copy work a small amount of residual lens distortion should not detract from the image, except of course unless you draw a red line across the image..... ... View more

Pbeck1 wrote: After reading some peoples replies on here, I fully understand why some would want less than 100% perfect lens corrections (if any at all). I will just say that my own personal preference is perfect straight lines in the image (even at the costs mentioned above). I think i'm quite seduced with the perfect lens corrections that DxO can give, but equally seduced by all the other great stuff Lightroom can do too. If that's the only reason for using DxO you're cutting yourself short and complicating your workflow. In the image you posted LR is "over-correcting" the distortion with the current 18-55mm  lens profile. It may be a simple matter of changing the default setting from 100 to a lower value. You would have to test it across the zoom range, but that may very well be all you need to do. Try it and then download a trial of DxO Optics Pro and compare images shot across the zoom range with both before making your decision. ... View more

Personally I'd concentrate on learning how to better use the lens correction tools already in LR! With the new Defringe tools in LR4/5 I'm getting outstanding lens corrections. Here's a screenshot of an image shot with a Canon 8-15mm F4L lens, which while an excellent lens exhibits high CA. I  doubt DxO can do any better! (click on image to see full-size)       W/O Lens Corrections                    With 'Remove CA' and Defringe Pbeck1 you want the 'Lens Profile Downloader,' not the 'Lens Profile Creator:' Windows Version Mac OS X Version Just keep in mind that correcting distortion and vignetting by 100% (i.e. Perfect?) is generally not necessary and can even cause image degradation. Distortion correction forces cropping of the image to retain straight borders, otherwise they would appear bowed. You will need to account for that during the shoot, since you are effectively increasing the lens focal length. When using ultrawide angle lenses it can also cause elongation or stretching of objects near the image edges and  image softening in these areas. In most cases this can look worse than simple geometric distortion. When Vignetting is corrected 100% it can cause the image to take on a less natural appearance, since we are used to seeing some vignetting in most pictures. Ultrawide angle and fast lenses (F2 and wider) tend to have significant vignetting (up to -3EV). With 100% vignetting correction you are increasing the exposure significantly across the image, which raises noise levels and makes CA, astigmatism and other aberrations much more visible. In short it can noticeably deteriorate the image quality. This is why I set my Lens Profile "defaults" for Vignetting at 50% and Distortion at 0% and only set higher for images that "visually" require it. ... View more

There are also two versions of this lens, a VR and a II designation. I don't for sure which one Adoeb used. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Distortion.aspx?Lens=662&Camera=614&FLI=1&LensComp=663&CameraComp=614&FLIComp=1 You also use the Adobe Lens Profile Downloader and see a better profile is available for thios lens. There's no free lunch with these Lens corrections, which can increase noise, cause undesirable image stretching in the corners, and image cropping. This is especially true with super wide-angle zooms. I usually set Vignetting at 50% and Distortion at 0% and only set higher for images that "visually" require it. ... View more

I downloaded the TIFF file and tested with IPP 2.3.1 using various settings. I can NOT confirm the issue with loss of transparency using PS CS6 on  my Windows 7 system. Can you provide a screenshot of IPP 2.3.1 showing the settings and description of any actions you are running inside IPP on these files? That might reveal something we're missing. ... View more

You can create a free account on HIGHTAIL and upload a TIFF file with the issue: https://www.hightail.com/ Post the  link here and I can check it on my Windows 7 system with IPP. Someone with a Mac OS X system should check it as well. ... View more

Possible causes: 1) It probably has nothing to do with your image files, but you won't know until someone else tests one of them. You could create a small 50% gray TIFF file with transparency and post it, assuming you know it exhibits the issue with IPP. 2) At the download link you provided: http://www.russellbrown.com/scripts.html There are two installers for Image Processor (CS5 and CS6). Did you download and install the CS6 Version Installer? 3) Another possible solution other than modifying the script is to reset the PS Preferences file. When strange things happen in PS with no explanation this usually fixes them. My PS CS6 was inflating  all new files by 1.4MB. After examining one of the files it turned out PS was inserting a Costco printer profile into every new file. So don't automatically assume your PS image files are not somehow being corrupted and causing loss of transparency in IPP. Creating a new Preferences file resolved my issue: http://forums.adobe.com/thread/375776 You may want to record your old Preferences settings prior to creating a new one, but test it first with the default settings. ... View more

It also may be related to something in your original image files. If you could also post one of the image files that is losing transparency I can check that as well. I use a HIGHTAIL free account, which allows up to 50 MB file size and 2GB of online storage. ... View more

I've tried numerous combinations of settings and have been unable to duplicate this issue on my Windows 7 system with PS CS6 13.0.1.2. It's either Mac OS X platform dependent or something with the files. Perhaps the OP could post one of the original files with this issue for download and testing. ... View more

I am running Photoshop CS6 with recent update to 13.0.1.2 on Windows 7 64 bit and I am not encountering the problem with transparency using PS 64 bit or 32 bit versions. Open a file with transparency, open Image Processor Pro, select  Save TIFF with 'Flatten Image' unchecked, and 'Resize tp Fit.' Transparency is retained in the new file. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the issue? ... View more

http://photoshopnews.com/2006/11/28/new-adobe-digital-photography-primers/ Photoshopnews.com appears to be an archived website last updated April 2010. There may be an index on Adobe.com to these primers, but I couldn't find one. ... View more

I use both LR and Bridge for project asset management. LR has keywording benefits, but can't import many file formats such as PDF, AI, INDD, etc. Neither can LR read, write, or filter the metadata of these other file formats to organize, search, and find ALL project file types. LR is also limited as to the metadata fields it can display in the Grid and Loupe views. MWildcard wrote: Another point that hasn't been brought up: I wonder, does Lightroom add its keywords to the actual metadata of the image files you are tagging?  Or does it just store the keyword data in its database like iPhoto?  I recently found out that iPhoto does NOT add keywords to the actual metadata of the file, so if you ever move away from iPhoto any work you have done in tagging your photos will be wasted.  Bridge DOES change the metadata of the actual image files, besides keeping a database/cache. Lightrom has the ability to write keywords to the file or raw XMP sidecar using CTRL+S keys in the Libray module view. You can also change the Catalog Settings  to 'Automatically Write changes Into XMP,' which will also write metadata to JPEG and TIF files. It would be great if Adobe would offer a CC version of LR that is better integrated with all of the other "suite" applications. I do almost all of my InDesign layout image rendering with LR, including scanner images, but LR lacks certain basic capabilities. I have posted a LR Feature Request that address some of these limitations, including ability to display key metadata fields. This allows properly resizing images for an InDesign layout or Web application, and viewing and filtering on key metadata fields from inside LR. Please review this feature request, add your comments there, and a +1 vote if you feel the changes would be beneficial. http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/gw73zjy55amnv Thank You, Todd ... View more

I have just posted this as a Photoshop Family Feature Request: Add ability to read and use 'EXIF Resolution’ and ‘Scale By %’ in the Image Sizing Panel Please review the suggestions, add your comments, and a +1 vote if you feel the changes would be beneficial. Thank you, Todd ... View more

Richard I appreciate your viewpoint and suggestions. Please let me explain why I think provding ability to view Resolution and Dimensions is useful with scanner image files. Below is a screenshot of Adobe Bridge showing two 35mm slide scans, a 10.8" x 7.2" photograph scan, and two Canon 5D MKII camera image files. (click on image to see full-size) In the above Adobe Bridge screenshot file 'IMG_0043.CR2 only shows the file dimensions in pixels, with Untagged Color Profile, and 16 bit/color data. This correlates with the your observation and statements NOT to display ppi or dimensions. The reason for this is camera image files usually contain 3D objects and for 2D objects (i.e. camera photo copying) there is insufficient EXIF information to accurately determine the width & height dimensions. This probably explains why most camera manufacturers simply insert 72 ppi in the EXIF Resolution filed, since that is the industry standard screen resolution. On the other hand scanner image files contain the actual physical dimensions of the captured negative, transparency, photograph, or other 2D document. This information allows you to accurately display and print the image at a specific ppi in its actual physical dimensions.  The majority of my InDesign layout work and photo printing is done at 300 dpi. Scans are done at resolutions varying from 150 dpi to 7,000 dpi based on media type and objectives, so it's necessary to "resize" the scan image files using the target 300 dpi resolution. I normally place scanned photo images at their "actual size," which requires reducing the resolution to 300 dpi and retaining the inch dimensions. Your suggested feature of "scale by percentage' would work, but it requires the ability to sort and view the image files by 'Resolution.' Having used both PS and LR to process scanner image files I have found that the majority of my work can done using only LR, with  the exception of this "resizing issue. Having the ability to do ALL of the scan image file processing from within LR would greatly simplify the workflow. LR users who do not process scanner image files can simply not select 'Resolution' and 'Dimensions' Info items for display in the Grid or Loupe views if they find them confusing. If anything I would also like to see Color Profile and Bit Depth as LR View Option selections. If you don't need them don't select them. The current LR default View items can be retained to help prevent confusion. I think we've made some progress by working on this together. The changes would allow users to process camera and scanner image files in LR without the need to use PS simply to retain the original EXIF 'Resolution' and 'Dimension' values during export. It can be implemented with minimal change to the user interface and no affect to existing work. Please let me know what you think. ... View more

Thank you Richard for the detailed explanation supporting of DdeGannes reply, "First and foremost Lightroom is software designed to process raw files from digital cameras." After thinking about this some more last night I came to the same conclusion and your suggestions are spot-on. The PS 'Image Size' tool can only process the single currently selected image file, and the LR 'Image Sizing' tool is "tailored" for resizing multiple image files of varying orientation and size (megapixels). In fact PS's batch processing 'Image Processor' tool is actually more similar to LR's 'Image Sizing' tool. The OP's original specific request was 'How can I export images from Lightroom 4, without changing Resolution?' In order to accommodate this request LR needs to have the ability to read and use the image file's EXIF 'Resolution' metadata in the Export module 'Imaging Sizing' panel. Based upon this single request I suggest the following: 1) Add ability to read the image file’s EXIF ‘Resolution’ and display the value in the Metadata panel in ppi or ppcm. Allow changing the value and option to write the new value back to the image file or XMP sidecar using ‘Save Metadata to File’ or ‘Automatically write changes into XMP.’ 2) Add display of the LR ‘Resolution’ metadata field in the ‘Grid View and ‘Loupe View’ info fields using pixel dimensions (5616 x 3744 @ 72 ppi) and in/cm dimensions (78.0” x 52.0” @ 72 ppi). 3) Add ability to sort by ‘Resolution’ and ‘Megapixels’ in the Filter Bar. (NOTE: The current Grid and Loupe view info provide for display of ‘Megapixels,’ but not filtering.) 4)  Add an option checkbox to the Export module ‘Image Sizing’ panel titled ‘Use EXIF Resolution.’ When this option is selected the LR ‘Resolution’ metadata value for each image file should be automatically entered into the ‘Image Sizing’ ‘Resolution’ box. The ‘Resolution’ box should be grayed-out to indicate it cannot be changed. When the ‘Use EXIF Resolution’ checkbox is unselected the “last used” value should appear as it does currently. The following should address both of your other two suggestions: 5) Add the ability in the Export module ‘Image Sizing’ panel for “scaling” the image size by a percentage such as 50%. The ppi value entered in the ‘Resolution:’ field should be maintained. If the ‘Use EXIF Resolution’ option is selected both the image pixel ‘Dimensions’ and ‘Resolution’ should be scaled to preserve the original “life-size” image dimensions. This allows maintaining the actual size of scanned media such as film, pictures and other 2D objects in the scaled exported image file metadata. ... View more

DdeGannes thank you for your response. This is the type of feedback I am looking for so that I can better present my suggestions to Adobe as a 'Feature Request.' I have been a Photoshop user since 1994 (3.0) and a Lightroom user since 2007 (1.0). I currently work with the Adobe CS6 Design Standard applications, Lightroom 4, and numerous other non-Adobe editing applications. In my work I process both digital camera images and scanner image files of film, photos and other documents. I used to do ALL of my image processing work in PS, but that changed with the introduction of Adobe Photoshop Lightroom in 2007. I migrated all of my digital camera images into LR and then realized it was also a good tool for processing scanner image files. Lightroom and Photoshop work seamlessly together for processing camera image files using the 'Edit In Photoshop' "export tool to do "additional processing" not available in LR. When processing scanner image TIF files I start with PS and then save the edited file for further processing in LR. This process in many cases is iterative with the TIF file non-destructively edited in LR and then the TIF file reopened in PS to do additional spot removal, content aware cloning, etc. The TIF file is resaved for further editing in LR, and the  PS updates appear automatically inside LR. The image at this point has both destructive pixel editing applied and LR non-destructive editing applied. The only way to use the PS/LR processed image with InDesign or any other application is to output it from LR using 'Edit In Photoshop' or the Export module. Since no further editing is required in PS choosing the Export module makes the most sense. ERGO: My proposed Feature Request. DdeGannes wrote: First and foremost Lightroom is software designed to process raw files from digital cameras. So its design is structured in such a way that the workflow is optimized for this purpose. It is true that Lightroom was designed with the single objective of processing digital camera images, but that shouldn't prevent it from being used to process scanner image files. In fact processing of camera JPEG image files inside LR is virtually identical to processing scanner image files.  The changes I am suggesting do not change the current functionality of the LR 'Imaging Sizing tools in the Export module. In fact the requested changes are beneficial for processing scanner AND camera image files: REQUEST 1 With ‘Resize to Fit’ not checked show the EXIF Resolution with Width and Height for that value. Allow all values to be manually changed with the others updated to reflect the change. BENEFIT Currently LR shows the last used values, which are most likely incorrect for the current image being exported. By showing the current image values it shows real-time information about the actual exported file, which the user can manipulate to see the effect of changing Resolution, etc. The only changes that will be applied to the exported file is the EXIF' Resolution data, which is identical to how it operates currently. REQUEST 2 When ‘Resize to Fit’ is checked allow Resolution, Width and Height values to be manually entered with no linking. When the W:__ H:__ selector is changed from ‘in’ or ‘cm’ to ‘pixels’ reflect these changes made in the pixel values, and vice-versa. Changes made to the W:__ H:__ values should NOT cause the ‘Resolution’ value to change. ‘Constrain Proportions’ for W:___ H:___, such that changing one value is automatically updated in the other value. BENEFIT Currently LR shows the last used values, which are most likely incorrect for the current image being exported. Implementation of REQUEST 1 displays the actual image data as your starting point, which is very helpful. You can then make your changes with some "intelligence" concerning if the image will be downsized, upsized, and by how much. By automatically applying 'Constrain Proportions' the actual exported image width & height values are displayed. For users who prefer the current LR 'Image Sizing' tool behavior Adobe can provide an option checkbox  titled 'Retain Current Settings.' With this option selected the last used values will be retained for  future exports. If you find any "flaws" or have suggestions please  provide specific details, not simply "It's not good for camera image workflow," My objective is to make the LR 'Image Sizing'  tool more useful for both scanner and camera image file processing. Thank You, Todd Message was edited by: trshaner Changed 'Lock Settings' to 'Retain Current Settings' ... View more

FEATURE REQUEST DRAFT After careful consideration and review of PS's 'Image Size' tool, below is my proposal for "improving" functionality of the LR Export 'Image Sizing' tool. It appears most cameras set the EXIF 'Resolution' to 72 ppi, which is of limited usefulness. I also suggest that Adobe add the cability to read, use, and change the EXIF 'Resolution' data and option to write it to the file or XMP sidecar. This would make it very useful with the below suggested changes to the LR 'Image Size' tool. I believe these changes, if implemented by Adobe, will be beneficial to all LR users. Your comments and suggestions are appreciated. Click on image to see full-size: I've repeated the text here: ‘Resize to Fit’ not checked With ‘Resize to Fit’ not checked show the EXIF Resolution with Width and Height for that value. Allow all values to be manually changed with the others updated to reflect the change. (If image file has no EXIF Resolution use the current default value ‘240.’) This is how the Photoshop ‘Image Size’ tools works when the ‘Resample Image’ box is not checked. ‘Resize to Fit’ is checked When ‘Resize to Fit’ is checked allow Resolution, Width and Height values to be manually entered with no linking. When the W:__ H:__ selector is changed from ‘in’ or ‘cm’ to ‘pixels’ reflect these changes made in the pixel values, and vice-versa. Changes made to the W:__ H:__  values should NOT cause the ‘Resolution’ value to change. ‘Constrain Proportions’ for W:___ H:___, such that changing one value is automatically updated in the other value. This is how the Photoshop ‘Image Size’ tools works when the ‘Resample Image’  and ‘Constrain Proportions’ options are checked. ... View more

Thanks Rob. I can work around the current LR 'Image Sizing' tool behavior, it's just that it doesn't follow PS's 'Image Size' logic. The CS applications Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign all have very similar user interfaces and the controls behave similarly. I realize that LR is NOT a CS application, but some of LR's tools are simply different without any good reason. The LR 'Image Sizing' tool is a very good example. In addition there appears to be a bug with the LR Export Resolution setting, which has a default value of 240. I use 300 ppi 99% of the time, but got bit today because it somehow had reverted from my "last used" 300 ppi setting to the default 240 setting. You can read my post for more details. I'll be posting a revised suggestion for modifications to the 'Image Sizing" tool that better coorelate to how the similar PS 'Image Size' tool works. That's really my objective and it would be useful for everyone, even if they don't use PS. ... View more

MGianninibcw wrote: I was hoping that with 'Resize to fit' unchecked that the resolution would be ignored, but it's not.  The default of 240 is stored in the resulting TIF file.   If I were in Photoshop, and I cropped an image, and saved it with a new name, it would retain the original Resolution/DPI value. I just got bit by this issue with a Blurb book I am creating using InDesign. I am "placing" scans of old photos and letters into my layout, which I want to appear "life-size" same as the originals. I normally scan these types of documents at 600 ppi, do cropping and spot removal in PS, and everything else in LR. Once the image has been processed in LR I Export to TIFF format with "Resize to fit" checked, desired layout dimensions entered,  'Resolution' setting of 300 pixels per inch, and printer specific 'Sharpening' settings. Today I processed some photos using LR4.4 that were scanned at 300 ppi. After making tonal and color adjustments I exported them without resizing thinking the images would simply be exported with the LR adjustments and original file's 300 ppi resolution. When I placed these images inside InDesign they were larger than the originals. I never had problems placing LR exported images previously, so why were these images behaving differently? After doing some research on the web I ran across this post, which now explains why. I normally set LR's Export> Image Resizing> Resolution to 300 pixels per inch, since that's the resolution I always use. Somehow the 'Resolution' reverted back to the LR default of 240 pixels per inch causing the exported images to place larger than life-size inside InDesign. So there are two issues that need to be "fixed" inside LR's Export module: 1) Provide an option checkbox titled 'Use Original File Resolution' next to the current 'Don't Enlarge' checkbox. When processing raw camera files this checkbox could (should?) be grayed out and unselected to prevent setting it. For all other files such as JPEG, TIFF, and PNG (LR5 only) the check box should be available. By implementing the option this way it may be less likely to cause problems for users who simply don't need or use it. I checked my Canon camera files in Adobe Bridge and the raw files show no ppi and JPEG files show 72 ppi. The EXIF data for both shows XResolution and YResolution as '72' and Resolution Unit as 'inches.' I don't believe this can be changed using an "in-camera" setting. 2) The second issue is for Adobe to determine why LR's Export> Image Resizing> Resolution does not "stick" when set to a value other than the default 240 pixels per inch setting. If necessary Adobe can add this as a 'Preferences' setting so that it will "stick, but I leave that decision to Adobe. I am not sure if I should add this information to MGianninibcw's  Feature Request, or create a new one. Any suggestions and/or comments are welcomed. Message was edited by: trshaner Changed wording for clarification of 'Use Original File Resolution' checkbox functionality. ... View more

Adobe and most others in this forum suggest NOT using you original image files and your LR4 catalog can not be imported onto LR5 beta. I created copies of a select few of my current folders for "testing" and placed them inside a new main folder titled 'Lightroom 5 Beta.' On launch of LR5 beta you will create a new catalog. You can then import the top level folder 'Lightroom 5 Beta' with your "test" image files into the new catalog. I suggest not using LR5 beta for any production or serious work, since Adobe does not guarantee it will import the same into LR5 final release. I never import any files with work done in a LR beta to the final release and I have had very few problems transitioning to a new version using this procedure. ... View more

Here's a DNG with my LR5 beta adjustments. I'm sure you can get it closer to what you're envisioning. https://www.yousendit.com/download/UVJoZGluTWNHa05WeHNUQw Make sure to use copies of your original image files saved to a separate folder for "testing" LR 5 beta. The long 400mm telephoto perspective is really what makes this beautiful landscape shot unique. My only other suggestion is to look at ways to increase the overall image sharpness in future shots.  Anyone who has shot with a 300mm or longer lens knows it can be challenging to get good focus and prevent vibration from degrading the image sharpness at slow shutter speeds. With this heavy-weight lens use a strudy tripod, live-view mode with manual focusing, and a remote shutter release or self timer for hands-off shutter release. Fog and general atmospheric conditions get amplified with long telephotos so this may be unavoidable, but it does give the image a unique look. LR5 works magic with even the worst images–I'm stoked and looking forward to the final release! ... View more

I agree. Having made this discovery I'd love to see Adobe add another control to the Adjustment Brush, Radial Filter and perhaps Graduated Filter to allow fine tuning the gradient region. It looks like the Adjustment Brush and Graduated Filter use a near linear gradient and the Radial Filter something closer to an exponential gradient. I sometimes find the feathering capability of the Graduated Filter and Adjustment Brush make it difficult to hide the transition zone. Being able to fine-tune the gradient transition may help to "blend" and hide the transition area. I'll be interested to see how the Radial Filter feathering works in LR5 final release. At least we know the current near exponential gradient will be reatined. Great stuff! ... View more

Rob Cole wrote: Eric Chan said the feathering will be "increasable" in Lr5-final, but backward compatible with the beta. R That's good to hear as it will give the Radial Filter even more flexibility for this type of correction. Here's a Canon CR2 raw file shot of a white ceiling (~50% Gray) with an Adjustment Brush and Radial Filter applied. It clearly demonstrates the difference in feathering. I couldn't achieve the same gradient using the Adjustment Brush with any  combination of settings. This one's the closest, but quite different:       Adjustment Brush                                                     Radial Filter Exp. +4EV, Size 50, Feather 50,                   Exp. +4, Feather 100, Invert Mask Flow & Density 100 The other difference about the Radial Filter is that you can change its Location, Shape, Size, and Feather after the application. This makes it easier and faster to apply than the Adjustment Brush. But there's a place for both tools! ... View more