This content has been marked as final. Show 5 replies
you should be seeing the exact same results in DNG PE and LR as long as you're using the default image settings in LR. You probably made some image adjustments in LR which is what's causing the difference.
> you should be seeing the exact same results in DNG PE and LR as long as you're using the default image settings in LR. You probably made some image adjustments in LR which is what's causing the difference.
I assumed the same, and I would have thought the PE option to disable "apply CR adjustments" would have disabled any Lr2 settings(?)
I used Lr2 to "export to DNG", and the DNG then went straight to PE. Admittedly the original ORF had been examined, leastwise subject to default Lr2 default adjustments (and profile), but these were minimal while I tried to configure for the new profile(s) and default Lr2 settings. I was even trying to minimize the Lr2 contrast setting by putting the punch in the profile. Would the DNG conversion have been any less affected if I used the stand-alone DNG converter?
The Lr2 develop module settings for the ORF before conversion were:
Wb = as shot
Exp = 0
Rec = 0
Fill = 0
Blac = 5
Brig = 50
Cont = 25
Tone ~ = linear
All else either flat, 0 or linear, including cal settings.
I just tried DNG converter to see if it was any different, but no. When viewed on the same monitor, the differences as shown by Lr2 and PE are subtle -- ie, no differences can be seen in most of the image for normal colors (eg, within the sRGB gamut), but differences in detail can be seen in saturated reds, For example I can see the petal adges when viewed with Lr2, but in PE almost the entire flower is beyond my monitor's gamut. Looking at the RGB values, the reds aren't clipped - it's more like PE isn't properly compensating for my monitor - leastwise Lr2 and PE are compensating differently.
Lastly, if the DNG converion process is somehow referencing to a profile (given to the ORF by Lr2), AND I am referencing the same profile in PE, is there a chance that its being doubly referenced? How would I avoid that?
Thanx again for this excellent support - I realize its beyond the scope of these user-to-user forums :o)
When you say Tone ~= linear, are you referring to the parametric curve or point curve? (Even though you cannot edit the specific point curve in LR, you still get to choose one from the popup.) Note that Medium Contrast is the default for the point curve, not linear.
Please email me (email@example.com) your converted DNG file. That way I can open it in both LR2 and PE and tell you what I find. That way I will also be able to see what your settings are (they will be contained in the DNG metadata).
> When you say Tone ~= linear ...
Sorry to have abbreviated beyond ambiguity -- I was simply referring to Lr2's "Tone Curve", which has been set to linear as default for my image projects.
DNG on its way, and I've included a small TIF which focuses on the red's I'm speaking of.
Altho there may still be a problem, I've figured out what's going on and why a DNG is not appearing the same in DNG PE relative to ACR (in my case Lr2). To back up, I was attributing differences to what I was seeing in very saturated flower reds as being over-saturated in PE relative to what Lr2 was showing. That is, I was seeing detail in Lr2 and not seeing the same detail in PE - hence no detail due to saturation beyond monitor gamut - possibly due to monitor compensation.
Eric Chan implied all I need do is enable the PE option 'Apply ACR adjustments'. He had my files and it worked for him. However, this still did not work for me.
Eric went further and implied the problem was due to my changing the CR tone curve default from "medium contrast" to "linear". This is still in question, and I believe Eric would be best to describe why PE should necessarily reference its it tone curve to the ACR TC default, "medium contrast", while I believe it should be "linear" -- but as it turns out, that's not the problem ...
The problem turns out to be better attributed to detail and not color. That is, I moved the CR noise and sharpening sliders from their defaults to 'zero', and both image are now the same. It would appear that the PE option 'Apply ACR adjustments' properly compensated for the noise and sharpening adjustments on Eric's computer (Mac?) but not in my Windows XP install.
Thanx again to the PE team for "going the extra mile" (or Km) :)