17 Replies Latest reply: Nov 14, 2009 7:32 AM by SimonTindemans RSS

    Soft proofing - implementation suggestions

    SimonTindemans Community Member

      Reading this thread it seems the Lightroom team is seriously considering or actually implementing soft proofing for LR3.0. Since it's not in the current beta, the users cannot give feedback on the implementation. Instead, let's use this thread to give suggestions on how soft proofing should work.

       

      Here are my suggestions:

      1. availability: soft proofing should be available in all modules: you need it for print and web output, but the necessary corrections are made in the develop and library modules.
      2. UI placement: the film strip seems to be a logical place for a tool that can be used from within all modules.
      3. features: soft proofing would need an on/off toggle, a clipping indicator toggle and a list menu to select/create soft proofing profiles (with a choice of relative/perceptual; black point would be nice but doesn't fit the 'lightroom way').
      4. monitor proofing: make it easy for users to select the profile corresponding to their monitor. That way they get a warning that their monitor may be 'cheating' them (especially on laptops).
      5. further: the tool could show a warning if it is switched on with the 'wrong' profile for the active module. For example, for web you should only use sRGB, for print the same as selected for the printer and for the slideshow perhaps only the monitor profile.

       

      Anyone else?

       

      Simon

        • 1. Re: Soft proofing - implementation suggestions
          SimonTindemans Community Member

          In fact, I just realized that it may be more useful and clear to have a separate button to give monitor profile out-of-gamut warnings (overlay). There are two reasons. First, for careful editing it may be a good idea to have both the monitor and print profile gamut warnings enabled at the same time. Second, it would be conceptually easier for the user, because gamut limitations of the monitor and the output process have different implications (don't know what you're doing vs. can't do what you want).

           

          This would lead to an interface with three buttons and a selector:

          1. monitor out-of-gamut overlay

          2. selected profile soft proofing

          3. selected profile out-of-gamut overlay

          4. menu to select profile and intent (with presets)

           

          Simon

          • 2. Re: Soft proofing - implementation suggestions
            Scott Martin Community Member

            Point 1) I agree that we need soft proofing in all modules! This is essential for a) consistency across the workflow (when appropriate) and b) for soft proofing flexibility (print proofing in the Develop and Print modules, and sRGB proofing in the web module for example). Express Digital's Darkroom application has had soft proofing across all of their "modules" for years now and the consistency across the workflow is great, relative to LR. Soft proofing in LR's Slideshow mode will be very important for portrait photographers that show work to clients in anticipation of print sales.

             

            Point 2) While the filmstrip is consistent across all modules, the Toolbar (at the bottom of the center panel) is module specific and might be a better place for soft proofing tools.

             

            Point 3) Well said. It is important to keep it simple and easy to use. Does there rendering intent and BPC below here or hidden in the preferences or a separate dialog?

             

            Point 4) Neat idea. Couldn't lightroom just refer to the active profile as seen in the Display Control Panel? Having users select a monitor and printer profile might be heavy.

             

            Point 5) Good thought. I like the sRGB Web module warning. Perhapes the soft proofing could be linked to the printer profile in the Print module? Slideshow uses may very well want to engage print soft proofing so that their clients don't fall in love with color they can't deliver on their printing process.

             

            Good ideas!

            • 3. Re: Soft proofing - implementation suggestions
              SimonTindemans Community Member

              Scott T Martin wrote:

               

              Point 3) Well said. It is important to keep it simple and easy to use. Does there rendering intent and BPC below here or hidden in the preferences or a separate dialog?

               

              Point 4) Neat idea. Couldn't lightroom just refer to the active profile as seen in the Display Control Panel? Having users select a monitor and printer profile might be heavy.

               

              On 3, I imagine one could use a drop-down list box with soft-proofing profiles and one extra menu option named 'Edit...' that calls up a menu.

               

              Lightroom already detects the monitor profile and uses it for display color management, so a separate selection won't be necessary.

              • 5. Re: Soft proofing - implementation suggestions
                b_gossweiler Community Member

                Without going into the details, I really would like to see softproofing implemented in LR. I am a PSE user, not owning CS4, so softproofing is not available to me at this point of time.

                 

                Beat Gossweiler

                Switzerland

                • 6. Re: Soft proofing - implementation suggestions
                  Scott Martin Community Member

                  Soft Proofing is at the top of Adobe's list. What they are looking for right now are the *details* about how it should work/be implemented.

                   

                  Scott Martin

                  www.on-sight.com

                  • 7. Re: Soft proofing - implementation suggestions
                    MadManChan2000 Adobe Employee

                    I do appreciate the enthusiasm. But to be honest, at this time we're really only looking at feedback for the items that are currently in LR 3 public beta. Thanks.

                    • 8. Re: Soft proofing - implementation suggestions
                      SimonTindemans Community Member

                      MadManChan2000 wrote:

                       

                      I do appreciate the enthusiasm. But to be honest, at this time we're really only looking at feedback for the items that are currently in LR 3 public beta. Thanks.

                       

                      That's ok. This thread is in the feature request forum, ready for when the team does want to get ideas for soft proofing.

                      • 9. Re: Soft proofing - implementation suggestions
                        swebster350

                        It seems to me the implementation may be a tad tricky (which I'm sure is why it hasn't shown up yet).  I would think Soft Proofing will require its own module and own database with a parsed down version of some develop tools (HSL, curves, clarity and others) because I would be making output adjustments in addition to the develop adjustments I've made in order to get the output image the way I want it looking on my screen.  I would like to be able to see my original image from the develop module and the soft proofed version side by side as I make adjustments so I can judge how close I can get the output version to match what I've created on the screen. 

                         

                        When printing, a "soft proof" section would be nice that lists all "Soft Proofed" versions of the image I'm printing and I'm able to select the image version I want to print.  It would be ideal if in the Soft Proof module I selected the printer profile for which I'm creating the soft proof and that selection made it over to the Print Module and was automatically changed when I select which Soft Proof version of an image I'm printing.

                        • 10. Re: Soft proofing - implementation suggestions
                          ICP_DML

                          I would prefer to see the Soft Proof/Output profile menu together with the Input Profile menu (currently in the Camera Calibration Tab in the develop module). However, I would like to see both of these menus right underneath the histogram in the Develop Module as an indication that you should set them both before you start adjusting an image...

                          • 11. Re: Soft proofing - implementation suggestions
                            Jeff Schewe Community Member

                            ICP_DML wrote:

                             

                            However, I would like to see both of these menus right underneath the histogram in the Develop Module as an indication that you should set them both before you start adjusting an image...

                             

                            Naw, ya see...you just don't grasp the concept of scene referred color and output referred color. (do a Google on both...)

                             

                            For the purposes of this discussion (soft proofing OUTPUT) you need to COMPLETELY divorce yourself from input having ANYTHING to do with output.

                             

                            The whole concept of parametric editing (Camera Raw and Lightroom) is to completely separate input from output. The moment you try to conjoin input with output, you are totally missing the point. Seriously...

                             

                            You have a use-neutral well processed (adjusted) image in Lightroom...you want to make a print without changing your use neutral settings–whatta ya gonna do? Whatta ya WANT to do?

                             

                            Don't you really want to make an input based adjustments based on your output profile? Do you really wanna screw up up your "use neutral" master?

                             

                            Come on dooode, get with the *******' program...ADD something to the discussion!!!!

                             

                            Move this stuff along!

                            • 12. Re: Soft proofing - implementation suggestions
                              ICP_DML Community Member

                              Jeff,

                               

                              Thats not what I mean... And no I don't want to confuse the two, but...

                               

                              In a practical workflow: You have an unedited image you want to process and output with a specific profile. When in the workflow would you choose the input/camera profile? Before or after adjusting the image? When would you set up your soft proof? Before or after you adjust your image? Separate issues, yes but when and where would you chose them? What is your suggestion???

                               

                              Guess there is no way of  improving that language of yours...

                              • 13. Re: Soft proofing - implementation suggestions
                                SimonTindemans Community Member

                                Jeff, I tend to think of the 'ideal' raw processing pipeline as a two-step process. An initial step in which you try to correct for the camera's and sensor's intrinsic peculiarities (the input step) and a second creative stage in which you process the resulting scene-referred image to your liking. I have written a short essay about this workflow here.

                                 

                                It is tempting to further decompose the second step into a 'creative' and an 'output' part, as has been proposed for sharpening. However, I don't think such a division can be made in general, because often the output medium dictates some of the creative choices you make. For example, the aspect ratio of your paper may determine your crop, the dynamic range of the printing process may determine the tone curve and the output gamut may affect the 'punch' you are trying to achieve. In an extreme example, a grayscale printer will obviously dictate a grayscale image.

                                 

                                In a practical workflow, this means you will often start by making a single master (what you call a neutral master) that is in some sense optimized for your display. Generally, this image will incorporate the 'input' corrections that will remain similar for most uses of the image. From this master you can then derive specific versions for various output processes. These may or may not require extensive changes to the processing, but I expect most of the 'input' settings to remain unchanged. Of course, this produces the problem that if you want to change any of these 'input' parameters, you'll have to apply them to all versions individually.

                                 

                                Applied to Lightroom, I think that the color profile is primarily an input control, and hence shouldn't be changed very often. Unfortunately, this classification is confused a little because the DNG profiles also incorporate a 'look' that is designed to make the images conform to certain output expectations. Nevertheless, I think it's fine to leave the input profile buried at the bottom of the develop settings, where it is located now.

                                 

                                The soft proofing system is not a processing element, but really an evaluation tool. Hence, it shouldn't be part of the develop settings, but it should be placed in a more generic part of the interface. The histogram disappears in the print and web modules, so that's not really an option, although it's of course possible to make a different interface for the various modules. My suggestion would be to place it on the film strip.

                                 

                                The trickiest part is how to manage the various output-referred renderings. These would be created as virtual copies, but the current 'stacks' implementation is woefully inadequate to efficiently deal with such relations. For example, one cannot view stacks in collections, and it's impossible to simply synchronize settings with stack members. To help overcome this problem, I suggest a couple of features:

                                • Currently, in the Library module, the 'sync' buttons are greyed out when a single image is selected. You can change them to 'sync with virtual copies'.
                                • The develop module should offer a 'sync to virtual copies' button.
                                • It should be possible to access the virtual copies of an image through the context menu, regardless of whether you are in a collection or folder, and from the filmstrip. Some of these images may not be part of the current selection, so selecting (some of) these would necessarily take you to a 'special' collection of virtual copies (including the master). Within this special collection, you could easily select a few of the copies and sync settings between them as required.

                                 

                                Simon

                                • 14. Re: Soft proofing - implementation suggestions
                                  Jeff Schewe Community Member

                                  SimonTindemans wrote:

                                   

                                  The soft proofing system is not a processing element, but really an evaluation tool. Hence, it shouldn't be part of the develop settings, but it should be placed in a more generic part of the interface.

                                   

                                  I disagree for several reason: 1) the Develop module is the ONLY color accurate viewing environment, 2) Develop already has a before/after built in that can be adapted to the task of showing a before and an after with the after representing the output space. 3) the Develop module allows the creation and or selection of Develop templates as well as snapshots. Snapshots might make an excellent vehicle for carrying image adjustments.

                                   

                                  Also note that while Develop might be the place for adjusting the image for the output, the creation of an output adjustment might be best called up in Print (or Export). So you might create a saved preset that contains the output device, the specific profile, the rendering intent and whatever output based adjustments the image (or images) may need. That could be done directly in the Print module...

                                   

                                  The three main factors that soft proofed adjustments require is a change in the tone curve required by differences in dynamic range or outputs, hue and saturation adjustments to counter or alter the way a profile may render a certain (or several) colors and a local area contrast adjustment in the form of Clarity. Ideally, the soft proofing tools should contain a soft proofed histogram, color samples in the output space and tone/color adjustments suited for correcting for the output condition.

                                   

                                  Don't forget that Lightroom, unlike Photoshop is designed to be used with and for multiple images....so, it makes sense that in the Print module, the soft proofed adjustments (various) should be able to be applied on an image by image basis and all of the image output as a single command–printing either one by one or in a picture package mode.

                                   

                                  The same output conditions need to be able to be applied to images when they are run through an export. There it gets trickier to work out the functionality to select output conditions image by image unless output gets an image preview similar to the import module.

                                   

                                  So, just to be clear, there has already been a lot of discussion on how to do soft proofing in Lightroom...and the solution needs to be a solution that works for all aspects of image output. It's a lot of work to get it right...

                                  • 15. Re: Soft proofing - implementation suggestions
                                    Jeff Schewe Community Member

                                    ICP_DML wrote:

                                     

                                    In a practical workflow: You have an unedited image you want to process and output with a specific profile. When in the workflow would you choose the input/camera profile? Before or after adjusting the image? When would you set up your soft proof? Before or after you adjust your image?

                                    If I have an unedited image the editing and adjustment of that image to produce what I call a use neutral master has ZERO reliance on the output cause the odds are I don't know that. I also strongly dispute the "choosing" of various input profiles (I presume you are talking DNG Profiles here, right?) because I'm not a big believer in swapping out and using various DNG profiles as a color correction technique...maybe I'm lucky but I don't have a real problem using the Adobe Standard DNG profile in 98% of the cases. Granted I'm not in the position where I need a specific color rendering to match a client color tat can be helped by using an edited DNG profile.

                                     

                                    So, in the grand scheme of things, all I really need to do to an unedited image is make it look the way I want it. That sets the tone for the base image curve and the way the colors render. From THER and only there would I want to soft proof to see exactly how THAT rendering of my image might output. Since ICC output profiles really only have 2 useful rendering intents: perceptural and relative colorimetric, I want to be able to see which will work best with that image. Yes, I would guess that 75-80% I'll end up using relcol, but sometimes I'm suprised.

                                     

                                    The next purpose of the soft proofing is to make output specific image adjustments only for the purpose of better matching what the master image looks like. Those adjustments require a tone curve adjustment and an HSL based adjustment as well as a local area contrast adjustment.

                                     

                                    Admittedly, there might be an aesthetic requirement for further tweaking that might require more work...perhaps some local work either in brush or gradient form. Not sure that stuff could ever be anything other than the regular tools and very image specific so that would require some other method os storage...I'm thinking snapshots would work.

                                    • 16. Re: Soft proofing - implementation suggestions
                                      ICP_DML Community Member

                                      Thanks for the response Jeff. There are many different workflows and I what I hope for is that the soft proofing in LR gets implemented taking a few of them into account. Not saying it has to be perfect for all but saying that neither should it necessarily be based on a single workflow.

                                       

                                      If I have an unedited image the editing and adjustment of that image to produce what I call a use neutral master has ZERO reliance on the output cause the odds are I don't know that.

                                       

                                      I often (but not always) work with soft proof at a very early stage. This is due to the fact that I produce bodies of work where the specific output is known from the start. If I have to print 20-30 images for a portfolio or exhibition I will process those images from start to finish with the specific output in mind. Creating a "ZERO" and then reprocess the images could take me longer and might also break the consistency and style I develop while working through them. With that said, if I at a later point would need to produce these images for a different output I would have more work to do then if I had created a good "ZERO".

                                       

                                      I also strongly dispute the "choosing" of various input profiles (I presume you are talking DNG Profiles here, right?) because I'm not a big believer in swapping out and using various DNG profiles as a color correction technique...maybe I'm lucky but I don't have a real problem using the Adobe Standard DNG profile in 98% of the cases.

                                      I agree that swapping profiles around as a way of color correcting is not a brilliant idea. I also believe that in most cases sticking to a the Default input profile is a good idea. Having said that, some photographers like to modify DNG profiles to differentiate their images from other photographers. Yes they could create that style/differentiation through adjustments is LR so in a sense they are just creating a form of preset but some just prefer to work that way. They create one profile they like and then often stick to it instead of using a default profile.

                                      DNG Profile Editor aside RAW files from some cameras will give you a choice of profile in LR by default. With the 5D Mark II you get a choice of 6 different profiles. For that camera I usually prefer to the Camera Standard profile rather then the Adobe Standard profile. Last but not least we have the ColorChecker Passport in which case people would start generating a large amount of profiles for various shooting environments. Bottom-line is if a specific workflow requires you to change the input profile from the default setting it is something you would do before you start adjusting your images and hence the ideal place for the drop down menu might not be the Calibration tab at the bottom of the developing module.

                                       

                                      Since ICC output profiles really only have 2 useful rendering intents: perceptural and relative colorimetric, I want to be able to see which will work best with that image. Yes, I would guess that 75-80% I'll end up using relcol, but sometimes I'm suprised.

                                      Yes I agree, on low gamut matte papers I often just stick to perceptual though.

                                       

                                      Admittedly, there might be an aesthetic requirement for further tweaking that might require more work...perhaps some local work either in brush or gradient form.

                                      That is normally about 95% of the work I do, admittedly not in LR but in PS. Point is if I set the soft proof up after I am done with all my adjustment layers and masks and I need to go back and correct some of those adjustments due to the shift in proof setup I am in real trouble. This is obviously not as much of a LR issues as it is a PS issue but it serves to illustrate why in my workflow I like to use Proof Setup at an early stage. As a note until I reach final print I would normally have produced a few hard proofs at various stages of the process. Soft Proof is after all never perfect.

                                      • 17. Re: Soft proofing - implementation suggestions
                                        SimonTindemans Community Member

                                        Jeff Schewe wrote:

                                         

                                        I disagree for several reason: 1) the Develop module is the ONLY color accurate viewing environment, 2) Develop already has a before/after built in that can be adapted to the task of showing a before and an after with the after representing the output space. 3) the Develop module allows the creation and or selection of Develop templates as well as snapshots. Snapshots might make an excellent vehicle for carrying image adjustments.

                                         

                                        I am not sure what you mean by the develop module being the only color accurate viewing environment. I just checked it by setting my monitor gamma to 1.0, and all modules applied the necessary adjustments to the images. The only difference I could find is that the other modules use heavily compressed JPGs, leading to the occasional artifact when viewing at 1:1.

                                         

                                        I really believe that soft proofing itself is fundamentally an analysis tool that should be accessible from all modules, and not necessarily be linked to image adjustment tools. If someone wants to work on a set of images for a particular output process, he/she should be able to make all necessary changes with soft proofing turned on, and have the effects visible in all modules. Of course, in practice many users will want to target different output media for the same image, and such tools are important, but need not be a show-stopper for soft-proofing to appear.

                                         

                                        On your number (2), I personally don't find before/after view essential, or even that useful, when making adjustments for printing. When you want to compress an image into the gamut of a printer, I tend to make small adjustments in the context of that particular image, not with a reference to some master image. The exception to this case would be if you really have something which you would call the 'master' (say, some really famous image), and you want the output to be as close as possible on more restricted printing process. In any case, I wouldn't consider a before/after view as essential. And when it's needed, it could be implemented by an on/off toggle as well, IMO.

                                         

                                        I find snapshots quite cumbersome, and especially for the purpose of keeping track of such 'output versions'. The problem is that they exist inside the develop module, they are 'all or nothing', and there is no easy way to transfer partial settings between snapshots. For example, suppose I have three 'output versions' of an image, and I decide to change some of the underlying settings (say, the white balance). Then I don't have an easy way to synchronize these changes between the output versions. Another issue is that there is no easy way to recall snapshots from outside the develop module. If I want to print a couple of images for which I have the necessary adjustments at some other time, I have to go in and select the appropriate snapshot for each of them. In the context of these 'output versions', this is something that should be possible from the library module, where you select the versions you have worked on before.

                                         

                                        Also note that while Develop might be the place for adjusting the image for the output, the creation of an output adjustment might be best called up in Print (or Export). So you might create a saved preset that contains the output device, the specific profile, the rendering intent and whatever output based adjustments the image (or images) may need. That could be done directly in the Print module...

                                         

                                        The three main factors that soft proofed adjustments require is a change in the tone curve required by differences in dynamic range or outputs, hue and saturation adjustments to counter or alter the way a profile may render a certain (or several) colors and a local area contrast adjustment in the form of Clarity. Ideally, the soft proofing tools should contain a soft proofed histogram, color samples in the output space and tone/color adjustments suited for correcting for the output condition.

                                         

                                        Ok, I can see a benefit to a separate output adjustment tool that is specifically aimed for the type of adjustments you'd make when soft-proofing. The settings for this tool could be linked to the output device and profile, so that they would switch automatically according to the profile that is selected. When soft-proofing is turned on in the library module, there could be an icon in the images for which a particular output transformation is defined. And because soft-proofing would be fully functional in the develop module, you could inspect which other images need further adjustments.

                                         

                                        I don't think it's very useful to have a 'preset' for this tool for a particular output profile and rendering intent, independent of the image. That's the job of the profile itself. However, it should be possible to easily copy-paste such settings between images. For example, if I have shots a number of images in bright green grass, I will probably need similar adjustments for all of them. Also, settings should be copyable to serve as a starting point for use with a different profile.

                                         

                                        The 'output adjustment tool' itself should IMO contain two things:

                                        1) Photoshop-like hue/sat control (with selectable color ranges) [most important]

                                        2) Manual tone curve adjustments.

                                        I wouldn't mind if the tool is only accessible from within the develop module, as long as you can see the soft-proof from all modules. The soft-proofing functionality (separate from this tool) should also take care of adjusting the histogram in the library and develop modules.

                                         

                                         

                                        Summarinzing, I see room for two separate tool sets that do not necessarily need to be implemented at the same time. The first is an overarching soft-proofing solution that makes the effects of the output transformation visible throughout the workflow. The second is a separate output adjustment tool in the develop module, that is able to link it's settings to the currently selected output device/profile.

                                         

                                        Simon