Skip navigation
manzico
Currently Being Moderated

photos different between PS CC and LR 5

Jul 11, 2013 11:41 PM

Tags: #lightroom #photoshop #artifacts #lr5 #lightroom_5 #photoshop_cc #blockiness

I think this problem has persisted for a while (dating back to at least CS6/LR4).  Photos look different when opened in PS and when opened in LR.  Bear with me on this because the story may be a little long:

 

I have a folder of jpg versions of images that I have my Mac use as rotating backgrounds on my desktops.  These jpg files were created from the original files without converting them from their default color spaces, so the jpgs are still in that color space.  The original files are 16-bit ProPhoto RGB files at very high resolutions.  The images were downsized, then saved as jpgs... that's it.  What I noticed was some weird blockiness (like jpg artifacts) in the smooth regions of one of my backgrounds when it came up on my desktop.  I opened the jpg in CC and sure enough there were the blocks.  I thought it might be a color space thing, and I remembered that I had converted all my wallpaper files to sRGB versions using LR (converted from the ProPhotoRGB jpgs, not the original files).  Opening one of those converted files in Photoshop CC showed no blockiness.  That made no sense to me since the original ProPhotoRGB jpg that created the new sRGB jpg (via Lightroom) did seem to have those blocks.  So I opened up Lightroom and looked at the original ProPhotoRGB jpg.  This is where I'm baffled by the whole thing.  How can the file show blockiness when viewed via the OS, and when viewed via CC, but not when viewed via Lightroom?  Furthermore, how can lightroom take a file that has these blocks in it (as shown by CC and OS X) and display it without blocks, and create a block free version of it in another color space?

 

Just for the hell of it, I went back to CC and the original high res ProPhoto PSD image, converted to sRGB before resizing and saving as a jpg, and sure enough the resulting image has no blockiness.  I can buy that... something in the processing pipeline in CC works when you manually do the conversion, but is automatically taken care of in Lightroom, but why is the same file being displayed oddly in CC (with the blocks), when Lightroom doesn't show the problem (and can create a new version of the file without the problem that opens just fine in CC)?

 

Here's a 200% screen shot of what photoshop shows when it opens the ProPhoto jpg file (the blocks are pretty evident in the blue of the sky):

Photoshop.png

 

Here is the same exact file opened and displayed (at 200%) in Lightroom:

Lightroom.png

 

Totally confused.

 

Thanks,

 

Dave

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 12, 2013 5:01 PM   in reply to manzico

    Hi Dave,

     

    This is caused usually by a mismatch in colors is due to either incorrect color profile settings or a corrupted monitor profile. With that said, all you need to do is calibrate your color profiles so that Photoshop and Lightroom are using the same settings.

     

    Please refer to the link below for additional help:

    Why do my photos look different in Photoshop and Lightroom?

     

    Hope this helps!

    Clarice

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 12, 2013 5:36 PM   in reply to claricechan

    The above link doesn't work. It has http:// in there twice.

     

    Try this link: http://www.lightroomqueen.com/2009/01/02/why-do-my-photos-look-differe nt-in-photoshop/

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 13, 2013 1:20 AM   in reply to manzico

    manzico,

     

    It's pointless and futile to attempt to compare images viewed at zoom levels other than 100%.  That's because the only accurate and true representation of your image is when viewed at 1:1, i.e. 100%, which shows the true pixels in it.

     

    At any other percentage zoom, either pixels are discarded or they have to be made up, invented.

     

    In the case of your two screen shots, however, they happen to be absolutely identical.

     

    I confirmed my visual observation by downloading your images, placing one over the other as layers and setting the blending mode to DIFFERENCE.  The result was a pure pitch-black image, meaning the differece is ZERO.

     

    I even added a threshhold adjustment to maximize any pixel differences, setting the threshhold even at an extreme level of 8 (yikes!), and there's just no difference between the two whatsoever.

     

    Screen Shot 2013-07-13 at 12.35.05 AM.png

     

    Thus, at this point I have no clue as to what you are seeing.

     

    Since screenshots are really not taken from the monitor's screen at all but from the digital signal sent to it and before any monitor profile correction is applied, I can only surmise that your monitor profile is bad.

     

    Remember that Photoshop is a color-managed application, while Apple's Preview.app is not.  Photoshop uses your monitor profile to convert the image before showing it to you; non-color-managed applications like Preview.app do not do that.

     

    I won't comment beyond that because of two personal, subjective opinions of mine get in the way:  (1) I don't think much of iMac screens, and (2) I detest Lightroom and have no desire to go into a discussion of how it shows you the images on screen. 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 13, 2013 1:23 AM   in reply to manzico

    I should ask one more question, though:  does your iMac have one of those new Retina screens?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 14, 2013 2:09 AM   in reply to manzico

    No, I didn't "accidentally downloaded the same file twice", give me some credit, man.  The images are labeled different by you.  I can even tell you that both of your images have the same color profile embedded: "iMac_Cal_Feb_17_2013".  The one labeled "Photoshop.png" is 403 x 569 pixels; the one labeled "Lightroom.png" is larger at 420 x 618 pixels.

      

    Geeze… 

     

    Screen Shot 2013-07-14 at 1.45.37 AM.png

     

    I know the images on the screen were not the same size.  I had to align the two layers very, very carefully to position them so they were at the exact same place in order to get the true difference.

     

    I cropped accordingly when drawing the frame for my screen shot, just like I did for this new screen shot in this post.

     

    From your latest screen shot, it's clear that's something you neglected to do, reposition the layers. 

     

    Message was edited by: station_two

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 14, 2013 2:05 AM   in reply to manzico

    manzico wrote:

     

    …Totally confused…

     

    Yes, you are, Dave. 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 14, 2013 2:11 AM   in reply to manzico

    Please note I edited my  post #8 to add one line.  Edits are not broadcast by email.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 14, 2013 2:14 AM   in reply to manzico

    manzico wrote:

     

    …Those are the blocks I'm talking about…  They look to be about 8 pixels on a side…

     

    …which in my opinion points to the typical iMac screen.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 14, 2013 3:28 AM   in reply to manzico

    manzico wrote:

     

    I certainly didn't align them perfectly, but it's immaterial…

     

    Oh, brother…    Why do I even bother with you then?  Immaterial??  From the back of which cereal box did you learn that wisdom from? 

     

    manzico wrote:

     

    …I can see the difference between them in your screen shot above (with the yellow ovals indicating the file names…

     

    There is no difference between the sky in each of those two images which are being displayed side by side in a single screenshot of one and the same Bridge Preview window.

     

    manzico wrote:

     

    …I appreciate your disdain for the iMac monitor, but I can't really do anything about that…

     

    Neither can I. 

     

    manzico wrote:

     

    As far as I understand it, both LR and PS are color managed…

     

    As I said before, I don't know about Lightroom.  But, let's assume that for now.

    manzico wrote:

     

    …I'm also aware that LR uses a modified version of ProPhotoRGB under the hood…

     

    Only as far as the raw conversion pipeline is concerned, and the same is also 100% true in the case of Adobe Camera Raw.  Both of them use a linear (no gamma applied = gamma 1.0) version of ProPhoto RGB as their working space in the raw conversion.  That has nothing to do with anything.  You yourself said that the raw conversions from both applications look fine (the same) to you in both the ACR conversion in Photoshop and the Lightroom conversion.

     

    So now it turns out that the difference you perceive is only in the JPEG, and that means I have utterly wasted my time here, even if the difference—that you perceive and I don't—were real.

     

    For one, there's no guarantee that Photoshop and Lightroom use or have to use the same file compression scheme; but, two, who cares about a gosh-darned JPEG?!  I certainly do not deal with JPEGs unless specifically demanded by an uninformed third party.  JPEGs are, by definition, always lossy, even at the lowest compression and highest quality level.

     

    In other words, this discussion is akin to two bald men fighting over a comb. 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 14, 2013 3:41 AM   in reply to manzico

    Incidentally, I won't even offer to examine your original raw file, because I have neither Photoshop 14.x ("CC, the Cash Cow subscription) nor any version of Lightroom any more.

     

    I'm staying put with Photoshop 13.0.5 ("CS6") and ACR 8.1 until either my computers or I give up the ghost—whatever comes first.

     

     

    If you showed the terms of the contract Adobe is tendering to you for the CC subscription model  to any attorney worth his/her salt, you would undoubtedly be advised not to enter into it.  As an example, read the part that flatly states that Adobe reserves the right to modify or even discontinue "the service" at their will and for any reason whatsoever at any time and you will have absolutely no recourse.

     

    I have to question the sanity and/or mental acuity of anyone who would agree to that.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 14, 2013 4:58 AM   in reply to manzico

    Repeated the above test from scratch.  Downloaded each posted image fresh. Did not crop the layers, so the repositioning of the "Photoshop" layer to align the two layers is shown.

     

    Again ZERO difference, even with an extreme Threshhold Adjustment of 8.

     

    Screen-Shot-2013-07-14-at-3.51.25-AM.png

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 14, 2013 2:15 PM   in reply to manzico

    Even a threshold level of 8, which I used, is an extreme that would bring out any meaningful differences.  It did not.

     

    By going down to zero like you did, you're absolutely seeing the inevitable JPEG compression artifacts.   This will be different even between two JPEGs generated by one and the same application from the same uncompressed file at different sessions.

     

    You will find an ever more pronounced difference between a PSD (or TIFF) and a JPEG produced from the same raw file in the same application and at the highest level of quality (lowest compression setting).

     

    That is normal, totally expected behavior.  It's the very nature of the JPEG format.  It has been discussed ad nauseam in these forums in the eleven years or so I've been here.  It has been explained by respected authors and top Adobe engineers.

     

     

    You were the one who first injected animosity into this discussion with your preposterous claim that I would have been stupid enough to download the same file twice and then compared it to itself.

     

    Through your own words you have demonstrated that you're not a stickler for image quality.  Setting a color image as your desktop will inevitably lead to a false perception of color in your work.

     

    This is what my extended desktop looks like across dual, side-by-side monitors (WARNING:  very wide image, 3208 x 1200 pixels):

     

      Desktop_3200x1200.jpg

     

    I don't even tolerate the obnoxious candy-colored buttons of the "Blue" Macintosh interface and set my system to the Graphite interface so as not to let the colored buttons distract from my tested, and proven, accurate color perception.

    Screen Shot 2013-07-14 at 2.07.30 PM.png

    Of course at this time anything I say will be construed as unhelpful by you.  You think you know everything and you refuse to consider the possibility that you are seeing a problem where there is none.  I can't possibly help you, and I doubt anyone else can or will.

     

    I'll ignore your personal attacks and criticisms.  You're entitled to your opinion(s)—not, however, to your own set of facts.  I have no problem at all with your right to have and to express those opinions, no matter how unfounded.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 14, 2013 6:19 PM   in reply to ter_minus

    As I said earlier, by going down to the lowest possible threshold level, as you suggest, you will of course bring out the JPEG compression artifacts.  No need to comment on that.

     

    Apple's Preview.app throws Monitor RGB at any untagged image file.  That's not what a truly color-managed application does.  As a mater of fact, all Apple applications do that, from the Finder itself to Safari, and including Preview.  That's not color management in my book, that's color fudging.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 14, 2013 3:58 PM   in reply to station_two

    station_two wrote:

     

    "The tenor of your post speaks for itself, Mr. First Poster, (yeah, right; welcome to the forum.)

     

     

     

    My tenor seemed appropriate in response to your obnoxious arrogance throughout the thread. Now you've experienced what it's like to be on the receiving end of such unpleasantness.

     

    What's the "Mr. First Poster" for? Is the count of my posts of some importance to you.

     

     

    "As I said earlier, by going down to the lowest possible threshold level, as you suggest, you will of course bring out the JPEG compression artifacts.  No need to comment on that."

     

    As was abundantly clear from the quotations embeded in my post, I was refuting your garbage claims of the screenshots being "absolutely identical", "differece [sic] is zero" and "there's just no difference between the two whatsoever." Don't you understand the statements which you write?

     

    The OP is seeking an explanation for the differing artifacts when viewing a given JPEG with different programs when no visible (or measurable) differences are expected. The absolute level of difference is immaterial. The fact that there are differences at all is the puzzle!

     

    Are you beginning to see the light yet?

     

     

    "Apple's Preview.app throws Monitor RGB at any untagged image file.  That's not what a truly color-managed application does.  As a mater of fact, all Apple applications do that, from the Finder itself to Safari, and including Preview.  That's not color management in my book, that's color fudging."

     

    Garbage again. Preview and Finder are color-managed in modern versions of OS X. Safari on OS X has been color-managed for many versions now. Where do you get your nonsense?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 14, 2013 6:17 PM   in reply to ter_minus

    ter_minus wrote:

     

    The OP is seeking an explanation for the differing artifacts when viewing a given JPEG with different programs when no visible (or measurable) differences are expected. The absolute level of difference is immaterial. The fact that there are differences at all is the puzzle!

     

    Many authorities would dispute that.  Of course there are differences to be expected in compressed JPEGs derived from one and the same file, especially coming from two different applications.

     

    I won't waste my time doing your legwork for you.  It has been discussed more than once in these forums by top Adobe engineers and recognized and respected authors, and there are plenty of references in the easily available standard literature on JPEGs.

     

    JPEGs are always lossy, and often in unpredictable ways.  Notice, for instance, that some dialog boxes in Photoshop and image processor scripts remain at a level labeled "Maximum Quality" regardless of whether the numbers are set at 10 ir at 12.  That gives you a clue.

     

    If I were wrong in highlighting and doubting your first poster status, I would sincerely apologize for bringing it up.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 14, 2013 4:45 PM   in reply to station_two

    Not only were you blind to the clearly visible differences in the OP's screenshots, you completely misunderstand the puzzle.

     

    The puzzle isn't why various JPEG creation settings in different programs result in different files with varying artifacts. That's no puzzle at all.

     

    The puzzle is the complete opposite! It's about an already existing JPEG being displayed differently by different programs.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 14, 2013 4:48 PM   in reply to ter_minus

    Well, thank you for the correction then.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 14, 2013 4:53 PM   in reply to station_two

    The comment below applies to point applications within the so-called "creative suites", but it's at least equally pertinent—if not more so—to differences between Photoshop and Lightroom, for which there are two separate engineering and development teams too.

     

    Inconsistency between or among applications in the artificial "suites" should come as no surprise.

     

    The "suite" concept is a fabrication of Adobe marketing and bean-counting types.  The engineering teams are totally independent of each other, they are not only in different buildings but in different cities and states of the American Union, even in different countries.

     

    The fact that they have little if any communication among them is highlighted by requests occasionally made in these forums by top Adobe engineers to let the other teams know when there are problems in one application that impact our workflow in another one.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 14, 2013 6:20 PM   in reply to station_two

    Someone, and definitely not me, has erased my first post in this thread. The post which pointed out all the errors in your first post, station_two. Do you or a friend of yours have administrative powers in this forum?

     

    [ no, but administrators do get reports from users who report abusive and insulting behavior in threads, then the admins have to clean up the mess - admin ]

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 14, 2013 6:21 PM   in reply to ter_minus

    ter_minus wrote:

     

    …Do you or a friend of yours have administrative powers in this forum?

    No, no such administrative powers here.  If I had them you wouldn't be posting here any more.

     

    There is however, auto moderation in these forums, where certain expressions often used by abusers, and others phrases common to spammers, are automatically flagged for moderation.

    [ or just several users flagging the same posts and same topic several times - admin ]

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 14, 2013 6:13 PM   in reply to ter_minus

    Here's a repeat of the post which was erased, except for the insults.

     

     

    station_two wrote:

     

    "In the case of your two screen shots, however, they happen to be absolutely identical."

     

    Wrong. The skies in the screenshots are clearly visibly different when viewed on a reasonably well-calibrated system and with [ eyes ].

     

     

    "I confirmed my visual observation by downloading your images, placing one over the other as layers and setting the blending mode to DIFFERENCE.  The result was a pure pitch-black image, meaning the differece [sic] is ZERO."

     

    Wrong. The vast majority of pixels contain a different value from one screenshot to the other when the screenshots are aligned. Very few pixels are "pure pitch-black" when a difference blend is applied.

     

     

    "I even added a threshold adjustment to maximize any pixel differences, setting the threshold even at an extreme level of 8 (yikes!), and there's just no difference between the two whatsoever."

     

    An invalid method and wrong conclusion. You converted the screenshots' profiles to ProPhoto RGB, which changed the pixel values and the differences, and then used a nonsensical threshold of 8 (instead of 1) to test for identicality. Hence you failed to reveal the thousands of pixels which differed in luminosity by 1 to 6. And if you hadn't converted to ProPhoto the differences would have ranged up to 11. In any case, a threshold check is a thoughtless and invalid method to check for identicality of RGB images since many RGB values translate to a given luminosity value. Of course, the differences should have been visible to you without any differencing and measuring!

     

     

    "Remember that Photoshop is a color-managed application, while Apple's Preview.app is not."

     

    Wrong. Apple's Preview definitely is color-managed.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 14, 2013 5:21 PM   in reply to ter_minus

    Already addressed all of that.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 14, 2013 5:41 PM   in reply to station_two

    station_two wrote:

     

    Already addressed all of that.

     

    You did respond with further misunderstandings and errors.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 14, 2013 6:12 PM   in reply to station_two

    Can we please calm down and avoid personal insults here?

     

    This topic has gotten several moderation requests today. And really, my idea of an enjoyable weekend does not include editing other people's personal attacks.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 14, 2013 6:19 PM   in reply to Chris Cox

    Thank you, guru Cox.  Truly appreciated.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 14, 2013 6:43 PM   in reply to manzico

    Reviewed your images in post #17 again, including your video.

     

    It's clear to me that you did not align your layers closely enough.  You seem to be doing that manually in the video, rather than nudging them a pixel at a time in each direction with the arrow keys like I did.

     

    I went back to my PSD layer-comparison file and rought down the threshold adjustment level all the way down to 1, which is absurdly extreme.

     

    The JPEG compression artifacts are a bit noticeable now, but nothing beyond the normal artifacts expected from two JPEGs being displayed by two entirely separate applications developed by completely separate engineering teams.

     

    One cannot expect to get closer results than this.

     

    Screen Shot 2013-07-14 at 6.26.39 PM.png

     

     

    You may want to try your test with TIFF files converted directly from a digital raw file and tell us whether you see any any differences between what each application displays at 100@ view.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 14, 2013 6:48 PM   in reply to manzico

    Without a Threshold Adjustment, there is absolutely no viewable difference between the two exactly aligned layers:

     

    Screen Shot 2013-07-14 at 3.51.25 AM.png

     
    |
    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points