LR Discussion Continued

[smoke665]

I had a discussion with one of the more knowledgeable members on the merits of LR vs C1 rather than hijack a thread any further, I opened this one, because it's an interesting debate that needs further discussion not only for my understanding but for others who might be in the market to purchase either. On this thread, it will be limited to LR vs C1 only. If I have time I'll open another one on the C1 vs PS.

In that thread @Ysarex said the following " C1 also uses a layer model. The two changes I made to that file were to open an already existing layer that contained a mask for the sky and I decided to darken the sky a little more. The big change was to create a new luminosity layer for the shadow area of the image and set a different WB for only the shadows (something LR can't do by the way)." I respect Joe on his knowledge on the technical side, but I'm going to disagree with the last part of this. The relatively recent addition of masking/layers in LR has changed the playing field considerably on what you can do non-destructively.

This first image is a completely unedited file of a shot from the Smokies.

Going back to Joe's statement "The two changes I made to that file were to open an already existing layer that contained a mask for the sky and I decided to darken the sky a little more. The big change was to create a new luminosity layer for the shadow area of the image and set a different WB for only the shadows". Here is the above shot edited as I normally would, except with a color range mask, I could have used a luminosity mask but it would have required additional manual adjustment with a brush on the foreground, because of the similarity in the luminosity of the sky and foreground. I darkened only the sky, and changed the temperature of only the shadows of the clouds. It's exaggerated for better visibility.

I then went back and changed the temperature only of the cloud shadows to this, by clicking on the mask, and using the temperature sliders only (no need to touch the mask), and got this.

Again these are exaggerated changes for clarity, and rather down and dirty selections with very little refinement. I should add that each mask in LR has the ability to refine with wide range of options from broad selections like sky, subject, etc, to things like more luminosity masking, color ranges, gradients etc. giving you unlimited editing options. As to the last sentence in the quote,it appears to me that LR could easily and quickly do the change you made, plus a whole lot more.

 

[Ysarex]

I had a discussion with one of the more knowledgeable members on the merits of LR vs C1 rather than hijack a thread any further, I opened this one, because it's an interesting debate that needs further discussion not only for my understanding but for others who might be in the market to purchase either. On this thread, it will be limited to LR vs C1 only. If I have time I'll open another one on the C1 vs PS.

In that thread @Ysarex said the following " C1 also uses a layer model. The two changes I made to that file were to open an already existing layer that contained a mask for the sky and I decided to darken the sky a little more. The big change was to create a new luminosity layer for the shadow area of the image and set a different WB for only the shadows (something LR can't do by the way)." I respect Joe on his knowledge on the technical side, but I'm going to disagree with the last part of this. The relatively recent addition of masking/layers in LR has changed the playing field considerably on what you can do non-destructively.

This first image is a completely unedited file of a shot from the Smokies.
View attachment 277577

Going back to Joe's statement "The two changes I made to that file were to open an already existing layer that contained a mask for the sky and I decided to darken the sky a little more. The big change was to create a new luminosity layer for the shadow area of the image and set a different WB for only the shadows". Here is the above shot edited as I normally would, except with a color range mask, I could have used a luminosity mask but it would have required additional manual adjustment with a brush on the foreground, because of the similarity in the luminosity of the sky and foreground. I darkened only the sky, and changed the temperature of only the shadows of the clouds. It's exaggerated for better visibility.
View attachment 277578

I then went back and changed the temperature only of the cloud shadows to this, by clicking on the mask, and using the temperature sliders only (no need to touch the mask), and got this.
View attachment 277579

Again these are exaggerated changes for clarity, and rather down and dirty selections with very little refinement. I should add that each mask in LR has the ability to refine with wide range of options from broad selections like sky, subject, etc, to things like more luminosity masking, color ranges, gradients etc. giving you unlimited editing options. As to the last sentence in the quote,it appears to me that LR could easily and quickly do the change you made, plus a whole lot more.

LR has always (at least for a long time) allowed you to mask a section of the photo and then adjust the temp and tint sliders to alter only the masked area's color. What C1 does that's not exactly the same is allow you to mask a section of the photo and then set an entirely different WB for only the masked area.

To do the same in LR set the image's WB and note the temp and tint values eg. 5250 temp and 4.5 tint. Now mask an area of the photo and change the temp value from 5250 to 5900. That you can't do in LR. There's a subtle difference.

 

[smoke665]

To do the same in LR set the image's WB and note the temp and tint values eg. 5250 temp and 4.5 tint. Now mask an area of the photo and change the temp value from 5250 to 5900. That you can't do in LR. There's a subtle difference.

Okay here's the original before any editing.

And the WB right out of camera

Now here a quick unrefined mask of the sky with temp and tint adjusted all the way right.

And when I go back to Develop mode, the WB of the the image remained unchanged.

What I believe you're missing is that when you click on mask mode you get a Mask Develop module that includes most of the things in the Develop Module, but they are arranged differently (don't ask me why). In mask mode there is a Color Panel which includes Termp, Tint, and Saturation sliders they do exactly the same thing as the WB slider and the Saturation Slider in the Develop Mode but changes made in the mask mode ONLY apply to the masked area.

Not sure how long it's been since you worked in LR, but there have been a boat load of updates over the past year.

 

[Ysarex]

Okay here's the original before any editing.
View attachment 277585

And the WB right out of camera
View attachment 277582


Now here a quick unrefined mask of the sky with temp and tint adjusted all the way right.
View attachment 277583
View attachment 277584

And when I go back to Develop mode, the WB of the the image remained unchanged.
View attachment 277582

What I believe you're missing is that when you click on mask mode you get a Mask Develop module that includes most of the things in the Develop Module, but they are arranged differently (don't ask me why). In mask mode there is a Color Panel which includes Termp, Tint, and Saturation sliders they do exactly the same thing as the WB slider and the Saturation Slider in the Develop Mode

I don't think they do exactly the same thing. They don't allow you to set a new WB but rather they alter color on top of the already set WB. It is as I said a subtle difference. You can't set a new temp value in degrees K. Whereas C1 let's you set two or more distinctly different white balances for different parts of an image.

but changes made in the mask mode ONLY apply to the masked area.

Not sure how long it's been since you worked in LR, but there have been a boat load of updates over the past year.

 

[smoke665]

I don't think they do exactly the same thing. They don't allow you to set a new WB but rather they alter color on top of the already set WB. It is as I said a subtle difference. You can't set a new temp value in degrees K. Whereas C1 let's you set two or more distinctly different white balances for different parts of an image.

Potatoes, tomatoes, the end result is the same. You're embellishing what the term WB actually is. WB is the adjustment to make colors look more realistic, to set a neutral wherein whites appear white, but once you change any part of the image tone you no longer have the original neutral of that area. Here I took the same sample of the foreground from the original and the sky changed image, averaged the samples to get an accurate reading. The numbers on each are the same, so the "WB"in that area did not change in that area.

I could do the same on the sky, but it's obvious they will be different, because only it was changed.

You are correct though that you can only set Kelvin in the Basic Panel on LR, however I doubt most would need such an exacting entry, so I'm still not seeing your point, unless you're talking about tone mapping but then I'm working with HSB in PS.

I have no experience in C1, this is a discussion on the merits, and we're both from MO.........so show me! Let's see some C1 examples, convince me of your point.

 

[Ysarex]

Potatoes, tomatoes, the end result is the same.

The end result is not the same. You get different results setting actual WB values for a raw file versus starting with an RGB image that has already had the WB set and then trying to moderate that -- basically trying to adjust WB on top of a pre-existing WB. And I believe that's what's happening with LR and why LR won't let you set temp values for a masked area. The image is already converted to RGB and with a WB already set.

Arguably if all you're trying to do is shift the color of the sky you're going to do that visually and it isn't going to matter. So LR accomplishes that task well enough.

To see the difference:

I took a photo with the camera WB deliberately off (meaningless for a raw file). The image your left is the camera JPEG. I opened the raw file and set the WB by selecting the 3rd greyscale square from the bottom. I don't have a copy of LR any longer but I do have an older copy of PS. I opened the JPEG in ACR (same as I did for the raw file, I used ACR) and set the WB exactly as I had for the raw file selecting the 3rd greyscale square from the bottom. You don't even have to download the file and measure the greyscale patches. You can see the failure immediately in the lighter greyscale patches of the JPEG your right. Compare the blue patches top two rows between the raw file and the JPEG your right -- ouch, the end result is not the same.

 

[smoke665]

@Ysarex

1. Your comparison has nothing to do with the original parameters or statement at the beginning of this thread. From your quote "The big change was to create a new luminosity layer for the shadow area of the image and set a different WB for only the shadows (something LR can't do by the way)." Your response has nothing to do with that.

2. The question or challenge was to offer up proof on how C1 handled the original parameters. Instead you've gone off the topic then used LR/PS and offered nothing of useful comparison on C1.

3.Even then your comparison is skewed. You corrected the Raw file to a know gray value which is a good start, then tried to correct a JPEG which has already been adjusted to some extent depending on the algorithms of the camera manufacturer, and finally you tried correcting the WB on files with two very different luminosity and expected the colors to be the same. The 4 basic properties of color are hue, luminosity, chromaticity, and saturation, when you leave out one of the elements it affects the color. Here's an example of what happens when you don't first set your exposure level before setting your WB. I picked this image because the counter in the background is actually gray.Top left was the original Raw File. Bottom center WB with no exposure adjustment. Top right is WB with exposure adjustment first.

 

[Ysarex]

@Ysarex

1. Your comparison has nothing to do with the original parameters or statement at the beginning of this thread. From your quote "The big change was to create a new luminosity layer for the shadow area of the image and set a different WB for only the shadows (something LR can't do by the way)." Your response has nothing to do with that.

I disagree. I'm trying to explain why if you use LR's temp/tint controls to alter the color of a masked area you don't get the same result as if you were able to set a different WB value, which C1 can do. The issue then is that when you have a masked area in LR the temp slider won't accept degree K values. What LR is doing is applying a change on top of an existing WB already set. Just like trying to change the temp slider in ACR when editing a JPEG. That doesn't produce the same result as a different WB value applied to a raw file.

2. The question or challenge was to offer up proof on how C1 handled the original parameters. Instead you've gone off the topic then used LR/PS and offered nothing of useful comparison on C1.

3.Even then your comparison is skewed. You corrected the Raw file to a know gray value which is a good start, then tried to correct a JPEG which has already been adjusted to some extent depending on the algorithms of the camera manufacturer, and finally you tried correcting the WB on files with two very different luminosity and expected the colors to be the same. The 4 basic properties of color are hue, luminosity, chromaticity, and saturation, when you leave out one of the elements it affects the color. Here's an example of what happens when you don't first set your exposure level before setting your WB. I picked this image because the counter in the background is actually gray.Top left was the original Raw File. Bottom center WB with no exposure adjustment. Top right is WB with exposure adjustment first.
View attachment 277604

 

[smoke665]

I disagree. I'm trying to explain why if you use LR's temp/tint controls to alter the color of a masked area you don't get the same result as if you were able to set a different WB value, which C1 can do.

Okay so you disagree, but you have yet offered no corroborating evidence of anything other than a skewed example that had no bearing on the topic. I've admitted that I have no knowledge of the workings of C1, so far you've offered nothing up but opinion, and no examples of C1 to backup your opinions.

What LR is doing is applying a change on top of an existing WB already set.

Is this just another opinion, or do you have verification of this?

 

[Ysarex]

Okay so you disagree, but you have yet offered no corroborating evidence of anything other than a skewed example that had no bearing on the topic. I've admitted that I have no knowledge of the workings of C1, so far you've offered nothing up but opinion, and no examples of C1 to backup your opinions.

Here's a C1 example. I frequently set two (even more) white balances for an image when processing a raw file. The condition occurs frequently naturally. In the illustration below I took two screen shots and combined them inserting the toolbar from the 2nd screenshot where the focus was changed from the background layer to Adjustment Layer 1 (the scene background in full sun).

Is this just another opinion, or do you have verification of this?

 

[smoke665]

@Ysarex interesting, you don't see Kelvin other than in the Basic Module, even if you reopen ACR in PS there's only the option to adjust the sliders(+/-) from the original setting. I am assuming that the adjustment layer also includes some type of mask???? Otherwise a WB adjustment would change the whole image, or do they use some other method to target the change?

 

[Ysarex]

@Ysarex interesting, you don't see Kelvin other than in the Basic Module, even if you reopen ACR in PS there's only the option to adjust the sliders(+/-) from the original setting.

Adobe only permits one global WB per image. Any method of altering color then is accomplished on top of that foundation WB setting.

I am assuming that the adjustment layer also includes some type of mask????

Yes, the mask was applied to the sunlit background.

Otherwise a WB adjustment would change the whole image, or do they use some other method to target the change?

 

[smoke665]

Adobe only permits one global WB per image. Any method of altering color then is accomplished on top of that foundation WB setting.

Yes, the mask was applied to the sunlit background.

You keep saying this, but to date you've not offered up any documentation to support that LR or C1 for that matter, do/don't do this. I've searched my sources and can't find anything to either refute or confirm your statement. My understanding of any parametric editor that uses masking is that the mask either reveals or hides the editing instructions from the underlying data file, and does not actually create a layer in the sense of a raster layer like PS. So unless you can provide documentation to the contrary your statement remains an unfounded opinion.

What I have found in several articles is that WB is not recorded as Kelvins in a Raw file - it's recorded as coordinates in a color profile which is then translated back to degrees by a processing software. The actual measured temperature of light is what's reflected off the source. Once recorded on a medium, it's fixed, so even the term WB is irrelevant despite its interchangeable use with temperature, as both are merely data points in a digital file.

As to using Kelvin or a temperature/tint slider for post editing, the basis for your argument is irrelevant as they are both, as noted above, merely editing functions, after the fact, (I actually use neither in studio, instead I create color profile using Color Checker, which is applied post in LR). Any adjustments, made in any software, color/hue, luminosity, saturation, etc, are just adjustments to the recorded data, so whether the software does that via algorithms that use Kelvin or sliders as a marker, doesn't really matter.

 

[Ysarex]

You keep saying this, but to date you've not offered up any documentation to support that LR or C1 for that matter, do/don't do this.

I've known this for decades from experience. I originally encountered the issue dealing with the topic of editing JPEGs. The question then was can you set a different WB when editing a JPEG and get the same results as you would editing a raw file. The answer is no. The reason is because you're trying to set a WB on top of a pre-existing WB and you don't get the same results when you try that.

Here it is: I don't have a current copy of LR but I do have an older copy of PS which does as I expect. I expect LR still works the same way but I don't know for sure. I haven't had a copy of LR for 4 years now. The photo below was shot and saved as a raw file. In ACR I set the WB from the colorchecker third grey patch from black. The colorchecker looks good and the color of the fish vase is correct.

In the second photo below I opened the same raw file and deliberately set an incorrect WB. I then used the adjustment brush to mask the colorchecker and proceeded to painstakingly adjust the temp and tint sliders (which no longer show temp) until the third grey patch from black had the same value for R, G, B -- grey. Manually doing what a sample WB would do. The colorcheckers do not match -- not the same result. There are some pretty severe discrepancies. The blue patches in the colorchecker second photo show a noticeable purple tint. That's because ACR is applying a color change on top of an existing WB and not setting a new WB. If I do this in C1 I get identical colorcheckers because C1 sets a new WB for the masked colorchecker.

I've searched my sources and can't find anything to either refute or confirm your statement. My understanding of any parametric editor that uses masking is that the mask either reveals or hides the editing instructions from the underlying data file, and does not actually create a layer in the sense of a raster layer like PS. So unless you can provide documentation to the contrary your statement remains an unfounded opinion.

What I have found in several articles is that WB is not recorded as Kelvins in a Raw file - it's recorded as coordinates in a color profile which is then translated back to degrees by a processing software. The actual measured temperature of light is what's reflected off the source. Once recorded on a medium, it's fixed, so even the term WB is irrelevant despite its interchangeable use with temperature, as both are merely data points in a digital file.

As to using Kelvin or a temperature/tint slider for post editing, the basis for your argument is irrelevant as they are both, as noted above, merely editing functions, after the fact, (I actually use neither in studio, instead I create color profile using Color Checker, which is applied post in LR). Any adjustments, made in any software, color/hue, luminosity, saturation, etc, are just adjustments to the recorded data, so whether the software does that via algorithms that use Kelvin or sliders as a marker, doesn't really matter.

 

[smoke665]

@Ysarex not able to respond properly, for the second time in as many days our power is out. I'm beyond P****d with AL Power and their 50 yr old grid in our area. No storms, no wind, just old lines and not maintaing their right of ways.