Digital BW, The Print

It appears I left the link out of yesterday's email on this topic. Sorry about that� here it is:

http://cdtobie.wordpress.com/2012/04/02/enhanced-functionalities-in-lightroom-4/

C. David Tobie
Global Product Technology Manager


Datacolor
5 Princess Road
Lawrenceville, NJ 08648, USA
609.924.2189
www.datacolor.com

Phone: 207.685.9248
Mobile: 207.312.0448
Fax: 207.685.4455
Email:  cdtobie@...
Skype: cdtobie



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

David:

I read and appreciated your article on Lr4. I have been using Lr4 since the beta came out though I had not used Lr earlier so I am not familiar with Lr3. I have the production release of Lr4 now. 

I agree with your observations that you can really wring out the lights and darks with the 2012 process but I have observed two situations where things come apart:

- I shot a number of seascapes in very hazy lighting. When I went to convert these to black and white I needed to significantly decrease the blue luminance to gain contrast. If you push this too far, you get a grainy effect, especially in clouds, that looks like streaking rain. I suspect this is due to the lack of red and green in the images. The cure is to back off a bit, though at the loss of contrast. 

- I also observed situations, in similar but not so blue images as noted above, where I got very grainy noise in the darks area of clouds, even though I was shooting low ISO. This 'noise' disappered when I went to 100% viewing but showed up in a print. It seems almost to be more of a display issue than an immage issue. I'm not sure exactly what is happening. 

Overall, though, a great product.

OK, much better to have the blog.

I discovered something when moving to LR4.x: some of my presets produced unexpected results. With the changes you point out, I assume LR3 presets that used the old tone controls might not work as designed?

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, C D Tobie <CDTobie@...> wrote:
>
> It appears I left the link out of yesterday's email on this topic. Sorry about that
 here it is:

> 
> http://cdtobie.wordpress.com/2012/04/02/enhanced-functionalities-in-lightroom-4/
> 
> C. David Tobie
> Global Product Technology Manager
> 
> 
> Datacolor
> 5 Princess Road
> Lawrenceville, NJ 08648, USA
> 609.924.2189
> www.datacolor.com
> 
> Phone: 207.685.9248
> Mobile: 207.312.0448
> Fax: 207.685.4455
> Email:  cdtobie@...
> Skype: cdtobie
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Hi Remononaz1:

I recommend that you experiment with the white balance and tint adjustments when converting to B&W. You will probably notice that noise will vary considerably as you move the slider (of course, the image tonality will also shift quite a bit depending on what the original colors are in the image). Also, one of the best things about LR4.1 (LR 3 as well) is the noise reduction tools. They are not just under noise reduction, but also in the detail slider in the Sharpening section. That can have a huge effect. The new selective noise adjustment tool in LR4 is also great since noise is often a problem just in select areas.

I recently posted some information about a Lightroom 4 workshop and included a before and after shot of a Nikon D800 image captured at ISO 6400. I was pretty amazed at how I was able to control noise and retain highlight detail even though my original capture was overexposed. You can see the post here:

http://tinyurl.com/8752ulh

All the best,

Andrew

Andrew Darlow
Editor, The Imaging Buffet
http://www.imagingbuffet.com
Author, 301 Inkjet Tips and Techniques:
An Essential Printing Resource for Photographers - http://www.inkjettips.com
facebook.com/andrewdarlow

On Apr 4, 2012, at 11:07 AM, remononaz1 wrote:

> David:
> 
> I read and appreciated your article on Lr4. I have been using Lr4 since the beta came out though I had not used Lr earlier so I am not familiar with Lr3. I have the production release of Lr4 now. 
> 
> I agree with your observations that you can really wring out the lights and darks with the 2012 process but I have observed two situations where things come apart:
> 
> - I shot a number of seascapes in very hazy lighting. When I went to convert these to black and white I needed to significantly decrease the blue luminance to gain contrast. If you push this too far, you get a grainy effect, especially in clouds, that looks like streaking rain. I suspect this is due to the lack of red and green in the images. The cure is to back off a bit, though at the loss of contrast. 
> 
> - I also observed situations, in similar but not so blue images as noted above, where I got very grainy noise in the darks area of clouds, even though I was shooting low ISO. This 'noise' disappered when I went to 100% viewing but showed up in a print. It seems almost to be more of a display issue than an immage issue. I'm not sure exactly what is happening. 
> 
> Overall, though, a great product. 
> 
>

On Apr 4, 2012, at 11:07 AM, remononaz1 wrote:

> I read and appreciated your article on Lr4. I have been using Lr4 since the beta came out though I had not used Lr earlier so I am not familiar with Lr3. I have the production release of Lr4 now. 

Thanks, glad I could add some perspective.
> 
> I agree with your observations that you can really wring out the lights and darks with the 2012 process but I have observed two situations where things come apart:
> 
> - I shot a number of seascapes in very hazy lighting. When I went to convert these to black and white I needed to significantly decrease the blue luminance to gain contrast. If you push this too far, you get a grainy effect, especially in clouds, that looks like streaking rain. I suspect this is due to the lack of red and green in the images. The cure is to back off a bit, though at the loss of contrast. 

Thats always been an issue; blues and noise� not sure we'll ever see an end to that...
> 
> - I also observed situations, in similar but not so blue images as noted above, where I got very grainy noise in the darks area of clouds, even though I was shooting low ISO. This 'noise' disappered when I went to 100% viewing but showed up in a print. It seems almost to be more of a display issue than an immage issue. I'm not sure exactly what is happening. 

If it shows up in print, its more than a display issue. But if its not there at 100% its a pretty subtle artifact. Sometimes there is need of more smoothing on that channel, which doesn't tend to hold much info anyways. Used to have to do that to every single sky, back in the early days...
> 
> Overall, though, a great product. 

Agreed. There have always been smaller, or standalone, RAW converters claiming they were better. Now that is probably moot, and we can feel comfortable using Lightroom for cataloging, processing, even printing� well, not the kind of printing popular on this list perhaps, but general color printing.

C. David Tobie
Global Product Technology Manager


Datacolor
5 Princess Road
Lawrenceville, NJ 08648, USA
609.924.2189
www.datacolor.com

Phone: 207.685.9248
Mobile: 207.312.0448
Fax: 207.685.4455
Email:  cdtobie@...
Skype: cdtobie



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Apr 4, 2012, at 11:42 AM, Jeff wrote:

> OK, much better to have the blog.

Yes, sorry it took me so long to notice...
> 
> I discovered something when moving to LR4.x: some of my presets produced unexpected results. With the changes you point out, I assume LR3 presets that used the old tone controls might not work as designed?

I think I may write a blog post on that today, if I have time. I'll be sure to let you know if I do, it will be of interest to those with images of various ages in their Lightroom catalog, because they show up with different controls!

C. David Tobie
Global Product Technology Manager


Datacolor
5 Princess Road
Lawrenceville, NJ 08648, USA
609.924.2189
www.datacolor.com

Phone: 207.685.9248
Mobile: 207.312.0448
Fax: 207.685.4455
Email:  cdtobie@...
Skype: cdtobie



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

can you set the presets to use a specific process model?

On 04/04/2012 16:42, Jeff wrote:
>
> OK, much better to have the blog.
>
> I discovered something when moving to LR4.x: some of my presets 
> produced unexpected results. With the changes you point out, I assume 
> LR3 presets that used the old tone controls might not work as designed?
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>, C D Tobie 
> <CDTobie@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> 

-- 
mike finley photography
http://www.mikefinley.co.uk
http://words.mikefinley.co.uk



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2012/04/updating-develop-presets-for-lightroom-4-2.html 
may help on the presets

London's May Queens: http://bit.ly/zQ7k7n
In Search of Atget: Paris 1984 http://is.gd/oRLosu
Still Occupied: A View of Hull 1977-85 http://is.gd/GwtO3o
Before the Olympics: The Lea Valley 1981-2010 http://is.gd/dp02K

Peter Marshall    -    Photographer, Writer: NUJ
petermarshall@...
>Re:PHOTO                       http://re-photo.co.uk
My London Diary                 http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
London's Industrial Heritage:   http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
The Buildings of London etc:    http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
River Lea/Lee Valley 1980-2010  http://river-lea.co.uk/
and elsewhere......

On 04/04/2012 17:03, Mike Finley wrote:
> can you set the presets to use a specific process model?
>
> On 04/04/2012 16:42, Jeff wrote:
>> OK, much better to have the blog.
>>
>> I discovered something when moving to LR4.x: some of my presets
>> produced unexpected results. With the changes you point out, I assume
>> LR3 presets that used the old tone controls might not work as designed?
>>
>> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>, C D Tobie
>> <CDTobie@...>  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>

It isn't entirely obviously and that was my first unexpected result. You can create a preset and when you save it, check "Process Version". But you can't tell later what process version you used when you created or modified it. So some of my images were reverting back to Process 2010.

This was a preset I use on import. I think the easy answer for me is to uncheck Process Version, resave and then new images will come in with the default (current) process version. I had not paid attention when I created it because the process has improved steadily and I use always use the latest.

If you want to save an explicit verseion you could create a preset after selecting that version you wanted on the current image. And then add that to the name of the preset.

Finally, it does not take much to manually edit your preset files. These are text files (to find them, Edit->Preferences->Presets and click on Show Lightroom Presets Folder...) in the Develop Presets\User Presets subfolder. Process version (matches Camera Raw!) is explicitly included like this:

	ProcessVersion = "6.7", << This is LR 4.1/4.1RC
	ProcessVersion = "5.7", << This is from LR 3.6

If you delete the line entirely, it is the same as unchecking the box when you save or update a preset.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Mike Finley <mike.finley@...> wrote:

>
> can you set the presets to use a specific process model?
> 
> On 04/04/2012 16:42, Jeff wrote:
> >
> > OK, much better to have the blog.
> >
> > I discovered something when moving to LR4.x: some of my presets 
> > produced unexpected results. With the changes you point out, I assume 
> > LR3 presets that used the old tone controls might not work as designed?
> >
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
> > <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>, C D Tobie 
> > <CDTobie@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> 
> -- 
> mike finley photography
> http://www.mikefinley.co.uk
> http://words.mikefinley.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>