LR Discussion Continued

[bertrand]

@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.

I know the feeling! My A/C blower motor burned up, I had to turn off the computer for two days as it got over 90 degrees!

 

[smoke665]

I know the feeling! My A/C blower motor burned up, I had to turn off the computer for two days as it got over 90 degrees!

Power back on after 4hrs. Took them 3 1/2hrs, to get service truck out and 30mins to fix the down line. The joke is, we lose power everyone a mosquito sneezes

 

[smoke665]

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.

I'm well aware of your experience and have learned much from you, however your methodological techniques, are sadly lacking leaving out some important parts like comparing, analogy, and deduction before assuming a conclusion. The fact remains that personal experience without validation is still an unfounded opinion. With the availability of information available in today's internet world, if this were factual there would be corroborating content out there.

I'll repeat myself from above, "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 the term WB is irrelevant despite its interchangeable use with temperature, as both are merely data points in a digital file." There is no "Kelvin" in a digital file. There are numerous sites that confirm this, but here's an interesting read from FastRawViewer https://www.fastrawviewer.com/white...white balance is only,may change the RAW data. If you'll scroll back up to post 7 where I said "You corrected the Raw file to a known gray value, then tried to correct a JPEG which has data coordinates adjusted to some extent depending on the algorithms of the camera manufacturer", it's noted in the referenced link that a JPEG image has "modified " data which can result in differences when applying post adjustments to the file (especially in H,S,B points of colors). Why do you think all the recommendations say you get more accurate WB correction in Raw? Proper use of Color Checker is to use their software to first create a profile that matches all the colors for correct H,S,B and then apply the profile. I've also explained why you could have different responses to temperature adjustments in a Raw vs JPEG file, due to the underlying coordinates.

The most glaring thing missing is the comparison to date the only example submitted from C1 has been a simple image with a different WB profile applied to different parts of an image in what I'm assuming was a Raw file. I've yet to see any equally comparative images in C1 using a Raw file and JPEG. I don't have C1 or I'd do a comparison, I do have the latest update of Adobe CC, which has had a whole bunch of significant updates in the last 4 years. By the time our power came on yesterday, I was past doing anything, but I intend on digging deeper into this using my "current version" as time permits today.

 

[Ysarex]

I'm well aware of your experience and have learned much from you, however your methodological techniques, are sadly lacking leaving out some important parts like comparing, analogy, and deduction before assuming a conclusion. The fact remains that personal experience without validation is still an unfounded opinion. With the availability of information available in today's internet world, if this were factual there would be corroborating content out there.

I'll repeat myself from above, "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 the term WB is irrelevant despite its interchangeable use with temperature, as both are merely data points in a digital file." There is no "Kelvin" in a digital file. There are numerous sites that confirm this, but here's an interesting read from FastRawViewer https://www.fastrawviewer.com/white-balance-as-per-channel-exposure-https://www.fastrawviewer.com/white-balance-as-per-channel-exposure-correction#:~:text=Thus, white balance is only,may change the RAW data. If you'll scroll back up to post 7 where I said "You corrected the Raw file to a known gray value, then tried to correct a JPEG which has data coordinates adjusted to some extent depending on the algorithms of the camera manufacturer", it's noted in the referenced link that a JPEG image has "modified " data which can result in differences when applying post adjustments to the file (especially in H,S,B points of colors). Why do you think all the recommendations say you get more accurate WB correction in Raw?

Exactly. And this is what's happening in Adobe when you mask an area of an image that has already had the WB set and then change the color of the masked area. You can change the color but you're not setting a new WB. The RGB image that Adobe has generated from the raw file in which a WB has been set has the same "modified" data a JPEG has that results in differences when applying post adjustments. When you use the temp/tint sliders on a masked area Adobe doesn't allow you to set a new WB. As a result in the example I provided you can adjust grey in the masked area to neutral grey but you won't get the same colors that you'd get setting a raw WB because that's already been done and you're working on top of that.

Proper use of Color Checker is to use their software to first create a profile that matches all the colors for correct H,S,B and then apply the profile. I've also explained why you could have different responses to temperature adjustments in a Raw vs JPEG file, due to the underlying coordinates.

The most glaring thing missing is the comparison

I said if you do the same thing as I did using ACR in the example above with C1 you'd get identical colorcheckers because C1 will set a new WB for the masked area. You want to see it here it is:

I did exactly the same thing as I did in ACR above -- the results are not the same -- I have identical colorcheckers in C1 but not in ACR.

to date the only example submitted from C1 has been a simple image with a different WB profile applied to different parts of an image in what I'm assuming was a Raw file. I've yet to see any equally comparative images in C1 using a Raw file and JPEG. I don't have C1 or I'd do a comparison, I do have the latest update of Adobe CC, which has had a whole bunch of significant updates in the last 4 years. By the time our power came on yesterday, I was past doing anything, but I intend on digging deeper into this using my "current version" as time permits today.

 

[smoke665]

I have identical colorcheckers in C1 but not in ACR.

As I stated earlier, JPEG conversions create hard changes to the data points in the profile, adding adjustments to "changed" data will create different outcomes from the raw file. In your example above I checked the RGB and HSB values of the middle gray they are close but not "identical". I selected the middle gray in both files, applied and average filter to get a more accurate sample then took a reading, In the supposedly Raw file you have H=210,S=3b=29 with R=72,G=73,B=74, in the second image H=220,S=4,B=29 with R=72,G=73,B=75. RGB is close but as color is more represented by HSB, those few degrees off do make a difference. When checking the dark blue square at the bottom there were similar differences between HSB and RGB. I went back and checked your original example using an old version of ACR, there were slightly different numbers on the Original Raw vs JPEG to be exact H was off 20 vs 10, S was the same, and B was off 5 vs 0. RGB Values were more significant with R off 1, G off 21, and B off 4. Whether these differences were due to the differences in the alogrithms of the the softwares, the age of the software compared, differences contributed by the JPEG conversion I have no way of knowing as we are talking about images taken at two different times with two different cameras or two different methods of JPEG conversion. I suspect that it would be a little of "all of the above". To be accurate in the test requires to the same thing at the same time, not jumping around with different images.

An interesting side note to this I went into the files and pulled a previous Color Checker test shot, did a virtual copy, changed the WB to something way off. Then applied the Color Checker Profile for that set, it automatically matched each of the cards identical. However, when I converted the virtual copy to a JPEG and tried it, it would not sync the profile to the JPEG. So, apparently Color Checker calibration software recognizes and will only apply to a Raw file, which stands to reason, as it's not been altered by the JPEG conversion.

 

[Ysarex]

As I stated earlier, JPEG conversions create hard changes to the data points in the profile, adding adjustments to "changed" data will create different outcomes from the raw file. In your example above I checked the RGB and HSB values of the middle gray they are close but not "identical". I selected the middle gray in both files, applied and average filter to get a more accurate sample then took a reading, In the supposedly Raw file you have H=210,S=3b=29 with R=72,G=73,B=74, in the second image H=220,S=4,B=29 with R=72,G=73,B=75. RGB is close but as color is more represented by HSB, those few degrees off do make a difference. When checking the dark blue square at the bottom there were similar differences between HSB and RGB.

You selected the wrong patch. In setting the WB and in adjusting the grey patch under the mask I used the third patch from black. Open in ACR I adjusted the masked area grey patch using the temp/tint sliders until I got R, G, B values the same. From there the image had to be opened in PS and be saved as a JPEG. I assume any shift occurred in that additional processing. In the version without the masked area I used the WB sampler to click on the grey patch and went straight to opening the image in PS and saving as a JPEG.

In the JPEGs I have saved and that I posted here R, G, B values are the same for the image without a mask at 133 per reading a 5x5 average with the color picker. For the image with a mask over the colorchecker there is a one point discrepancy in R versus G and B: 134, 133, 133. No way does that account for the difference measured in the two blue squares, see values in illustration.

The variations visible in the color patches are not explainable by a one or two point R, G, B value discrepancy likely caused in the ACR to PS to JPEG conversion. Nothing like that happens with C1 -- the colorcheckers are the same. Using Adobe they are not. C1 sets a new WB for the masked area, Adobe does not but instead adjusts the color of the existing already white balanced RGB image and the results are not the same as setting a new WB.

I went back and checked your original example using an old version of ACR, there were slightly different numbers on the Original Raw vs JPEG to be exact H was off 20 vs 10, S was the same, and B was off 5 vs 0. RGB Values were more significant with R off 1, G off 21, and B off 4. Whether these differences were due to the differences in the alogrithms of the the softwares, the age of the software compared, differences contributed by the JPEG conversion I have no way of knowing as we are talking about images taken at two different times with two different cameras or two different methods of JPEG conversion. I suspect that it would be a little of "all of the above". To be accurate in the test requires to the same thing at the same time, not jumping around with different images.

An interesting side note to this I went into the files and pulled a previous Color Checker test shot, did a virtual copy, changed the WB to something way off. Then applied the Color Checker Profile for that set, it automatically matched each of the cards identical. However, when I converted the virtual copy to a JPEG and tried it, it would not sync the profile to the JPEG. So, apparently Color Checker calibration software recognizes and will only apply to a Raw file, which stands to reason, as it's not been altered by the JPEG conversion.

 

[smoke665]

@Ysarex busy day, so haven't been able to delve to deeply, but a thought occurred while driving, if you set a WB to gray it's dependent on the value assigned (IE 12%, 12.8% or 18%) and the color space you're in (IE sRGB, Adobe RGB or ProPhoto) in Adobe Products. From the C1 website, they use what appears to be a proprietary color space for processing, from their web page. It's also interesting to note that Color Checker uses standardized Lab numbers. Here's a refrence chart for you.

Also interesting to note that when I compared your photo below to the Lab number for the corresponding square above there was significant difference in both images. The middle line corresponds to L 52.0.0

Botom line there will always be differences between software in the alogrithms, in their color space, etc. The argument about who does what to editing a JPEG is in the end irrelevant for my processing as I don't edit JPEGS.

 

[Ysarex]

@Ysarex busy day, so haven't been able to delve to deeply, but a thought occurred while driving, if you set a WB to gray it's dependent on the value assigned (IE 12%, 12.8% or 18%) and the color space you're in (IE sRGB, Adobe RGB or ProPhoto) in Adobe Products. From the C1 website, they use what appears to be a proprietary color space for processing, from their web page. It's also interesting to note that Color Checker uses standardized Lab numbers. Here's a refrence chart for you.
View attachment 277667

Also interesting to note that when I compared your photo below to the Lab number for the corresponding square above there was significant difference in both images. The middle line corresponds to L 52.0.0
View attachment 277668

Botom line there will always be differences between software in the alogrithms, in their color space, etc.

Yep.

The argument about who does what to editing a JPEG is in the end irrelevant for my processing as I don't edit JPEGS.

This has nothing to do with editing JPEGs except that Adobe when editing the color within an adjustment brush area while editing a raw file handles the job for that raw file the same way it does for a JPEG -- with similar results. The image above is one raw file. When processed in ACR (LR) the color within an adjustment brush area can be changed using the temp/tint sliders but you can't assign a new WB. That editing of color then occurs relative to the already set WB for the file. Whereas C1 when editing the color within an adjustment layer can set new WB values different than the original WB set for the file. The results C1 then generates are different than what you get from Adobe.

 

[smoke665]

When processed in ACR (LR) the color within an adjustment brush area can be changed using the temp/tint sliders but you can't assign a new WB.

This has become a debate of Argued Subjectivity being fed by circular reasoning. There is no WB or Kelvin in a Raw file, only data coordinates, editing software uses those data points to color grade or correct all colors in the working color space to what it assumes is the neutral point for white. This point is not static but variable based on the luminosity of the target you're using, noise in the image, the white point/black point, monitor calibration setting and the algorithms used by an editing software. As I pointed out above in your example C1 didn't match the "actual specified color" for Colorchecker. In critical work I use Color Checker Calibrate software to create a Profile which considers all of the above.

I think I might have figured out the source of some of your reasoning. In ACR (or LR which uses ACR) there are two sources of global Color correction to a raw file, 1st are the temperature/tint sliders. My understanding is this is a nondestructive editing instruction which serves to alter all the coordinates of the Raw File. 2nd you have a Profile(custom instructions much like Presets, which don't alter sliders) also nondestructive which consists of editing instructions that alter all or part of the coordinates.

I havent used the adjustment brush in ages, in LR now they call it a layer approach but much like the Profile it is a superior set nondestructive instructions that targets specific areasI. From what I've read about C1 they maintain an open file and only apply any Profiles as a final step.

In ACR/LR, once a JPEG is created all the data coordinates are no longer available, color coordinates are fixed in a defined space, anything not needed is thrown away, and algorithms in the software alter colors based on the ICC profile you've assigned. You can make color adjustments, but you're no longer playing with a full deck. How C1 handles editing differently in a JPEG I have no idea, but coming back to my first sentence, it doesn't matter as most (myself included) don't edit JPEGS in real life.

 

[Ysarex]

This has become a debate of Argued Subjectivity being fed by circular reasoning. There is no WB or Kelvin in a Raw file, only data coordinates, editing software uses those data points to color grade or correct all colors in the working color space to what it assumes is the neutral point for white. This point is not static but variable based on the luminosity of the target you're using, noise in the image, the white point/black point, monitor calibration setting and the algorithms used by an editing software.

Setting WB is a specific task when processing a raw file. WB is a multiplier of the red, green and blue raw data values. A raw processor applies the WB multipliers and demosaics the raw data to arrive at the RGB values in the image it displays. Open a raw file in LR or PS and turn WB off. You can't, there is no option for none. Open a raw file in On1, ACDSee, C1, Photolab, SilkyPix, etc., etc. and turn WB off. You can't because there is no option for none. So if you select Daylight WB your processing app will multiply all of the raw data values by it's generic "daylight" WB values, create and display an RGB image.

A raw file can not be processed into a finished RGB image without application of WB multipliers.

What I originally said that you quoted above is that C1 allowed me to "...set a different WB for only the shadows (something LR can't do by the way)."

When a local area of the image is masked and you want to alter it's color C1 will allow you to apply new/different WB miltipliers to the raw data exclusively for the masked area. This results in more than one WB applied to the raw data in different areas of the photo. Adobe will not do the same. To alter the color in a masked area Adobe's adjustments are applied to the already white balanced RGB data. Adobe only permits 1 global set of WB multipliers per image. The tests I supplied above indicate that to be the case. The two different approaches produce different end results.

As I pointed out above in your example C1 didn't match the "actual specified color" for Colorchecker. In critical work I use Color Checker Calibrate software to create a Profile which considers all of the above.

I think I might have figured out the source of some of your reasoning. In ACR (or LR which uses ACR) there are two sources of global Color correction to a raw file, 1st are the temperature/tint sliders. My understanding is this is a nondestructive editing instruction which serves to alter all the coordinates of the Raw File. 2nd you have a Profile(custom instructions much like Presets, which don't alter sliders) also nondestructive which consists of editing instructions that alter all or part of the coordinates.

I havent used the adjustment brush in ages, in LR now they call it a layer approach but much like the Profile it is a superior set nondestructive instructions that targets specific areasI. From what I've read about C1 they maintain an open file and only apply any Profiles as a final step.

In ACR/LR, once a JPEG is created all the data coordinates are no longer available, color coordinates are fixed in a defined space, anything not needed is thrown away, and algorithms in the software alter colors based on the ICC profile you've assigned. You can make color adjustments, but you're no longer playing with a full deck. How C1 handles editing differently in a JPEG I have no idea, but coming back to my first sentence, it doesn't matter as most (myself included) don't edit JPEGS in real life.

 

[smoke665]

A raw file can not be processed into a finished RGB image without application of WB multipliers.

Again, baseless opinion without documentation to back it up. From Adobe -"The camera 'assumes*' a WB and writes this into the JPEG from the raw you may or may not keep, this is proprietary processing. WB in raw is really meaningless. It doesn't affect the raw data.Jan 30, 2023.

C1 will allow you to apply new/different WB miltipliers to the raw data exclusively for the masked area

Potato, tomato.....you keep referring to WB as if it is some sort of holy absolute, it's not, in a parametric editor, it's nothing more the application of adjustment instructions to the data coordinates, such that it makes the colors appear more realistic. Whether subsequent targeted adjustments are stacked or not is irrelevant, unless you're talking about a JPEG file, which I've already pointed out is affected by a wide range of things, and I doubt you'll find any expert out there that suggests setting your WB in a JPEG rather than a Raw file. I've also already shown you above that I can target individual areas of an image to selectively tone "non destructively" in LR. It doesn't mean diddly if you call it WB, tone mapping, or magic, the end result is the same.

 

[Ysarex]

Again, baseless opinion without documentation to back it up.

The image samples I presented back it up. You explain why the two blue patches I selected in the ACR processed images are so different while in the C1 processed images they are not.

LR guru agrees with me (1at response): Set actual value of temperature in local adjustment preset

From Adobe -"The camera 'assumes*' a WB and writes this into the JPEG from the raw you may or may not keep, this is proprietary processing. WB in raw is really meaningless. It doesn't affect the raw data.Jan 30, 2023.


Potato, tomato.....you keep referring to WB as if it is some sort of holy absolute, it's not, in a parametric editor, it's nothing more the application of adjustment instructions to the data coordinates, such that it makes the colors appear more realistic.

It's application of WB multipliers to raw data that Adobe will only apply one single set of while C1 will apply more than one set of in selected areas of a raw file. My original statement was and remains accurate.

Let's rephrase the point and that might help:

Simple fact: In a raw file that deliberately has a WB set for effect -- say very cool -- such that the greyscale of a colorchecker shows non-neutral cool grey patches it's not possible with ACR/LR to mask the colorchecker, and then use the temp/tint sliders to set the greyscale neutral and get close to correct color patches in the color checker. However using C1 it is possible. Any idea why?

Whether subsequent targeted adjustments are stacked or not is irrelevant, unless you're talking about a JPEG file, which I've already pointed out is affected by a wide range of things, and I doubt you'll find any expert out there that suggests setting your WB in a JPEG rather than a Raw file. I've also already shown you above that I can target individual areas of an image to selectively tone "non destructively" in LR. It doesn't mean diddly if you call it WB, tone mapping, or magic, the end result is the same.

 

[smoke665]

The image samples I presented back it up.

No documentation by others.

However using C1 it is possible. Any idea why?

As I already stated above - from C1 website, they use an open proprietary color space different from Adobe.

 

[Ysarex]

The image samples I presented back it up. You explain why the two blue patches I selected in the ACR processed images are so different while in the C1 processed images they are not.

It's application of WB multipliers to raw data that Adobe will only apply one single set of while C1 will apply more than one set of in selected areas of a raw file. My original statement was and remains accurate.

No documentation by others.

As I already stated above - from C1 website, they use an open proprietary color space different from Adobe.

That makes zero sense. What's Adobe's problem?

 

[Grandpa Ron]

Interesting discussion, but it is all a moot point if you can get what you want from the program you have. Otherwise, it is time for a change.

I can get maybe 100 mph out of my pick-up, but I would have a hard time driving a Farrari across a plowed muddy field.

I get most of what I need from old versions of Picasa, of Gimp. Others like to be on the cutting edge.