# Stacking, Keywords and Metadata



## ATJ-renamed (Mar 1, 2008)

I have only recently started using Lightroom and I don't know if I'm missing something obvious... 

Since starting to use Lightroom I have been shooting raw+jpg mainly because I don't like the way Lightroom handles the raw images.  Having the jpg there means I know what the image really looks like (at least based on my camera settings which I make good use of).

When I come back from a shoot I import all the images, both raw and jpg.  I then Auto-Stack the images based on Capture Time and collapse all stacks.  My first question *is there any way to make Lightroom always put the jpg on top?*  At the moment, I get a mix and I have to select all the stacks with the NEF on top and move them down.

Once I have all the JPEGs on top, I can then work through my images and review them.  If I want to set metadata or keywords, they only end up applying to the top image, which is the JPEG.  *Is there any way to get Lightroom to apply the metadata and keywords to all images in a collapsed stack?*


----------



## DonRicklin (Mar 1, 2008)

ATJ;96'' said:
			
		

> I have only recently started using Lightroom and I don't know if I'm missing something obvious...
> 
> Since starting to use Lightroom I have been shooting raw+jpg mainly because I don't like the way Lightroom handles the raw images.  Having the jpg there means I know what the image really looks like (at least based on my camera settings which I make good use of).
> 
> When I come back from a shoot I import all the images, both raw and jpg.  I then Auto-Stack the images based on Capture Time and collapse all stacks.  My first question *is there any way to make Lightroom always put the jpg on top?*  At the moment, I get a mix and I have to select all the stacks with the NEF on top and move them down.


No,  AFAIK.


> Once I have all the JPEGs on top, I can then work through my images and review them.  If I want to set metadata or keywords, they only end up applying to the top image, which is the JPEG.  *Is there any way to get Lightroom to apply the metadata and keywords to all images in a collapsed stack?*


No, not without opening the stack. Press 's' to open. Keyword and press 's' again.

Please take a moment to fill in your Signature with System, OS and Gear.

Don


----------



## Katherine Mann (Mar 1, 2008)

I'm curious as to what you mean when you say that you don't like the way Lr handles the raw images. 

As for jpg on top - I think you have to do it yourself by making it the most selected of the group.


----------



## ATJ-renamed (Mar 1, 2008)

Katherine Mann said:


> I'm curious as to what you mean when you say that you don't like the way Lr handles the raw images.


Perhaps being a Canon shooter you don't have the same problem, but with Nikon, Lightroom does an appalling job of handling the raw images.  

I also have Nikon CaptureNX.  My raw images display exactly as I want them to if I open them with that product.  I rarely have to adjust anything and when I do, it is only a slight adjustment.  If I shoot raw+jpg, the two images appear identical in CaptureNX because CaptureNX uses the camera settings to render the raw image.

In Lightroom, the jpg looks great but the raw image looks like cr*p.  If I use "Default Settings" the images have ridiculously too much contrast.  If I use "General Zeroed" they are too flat.  I have tried making my own preset but I was not able to match what I get "out of the camera".  I can get the brightness and contrast the same and even some of the colours are the same, but other colours are wrong.

Note that I am not the only one to complain, the web is full of people who are unhappy with Lightroom's raw processing of Nikon images.


----------



## Kiwigeoff (Mar 1, 2008)

ATJ said:


> Perhaps being a Canon shooter you don't have the same problem, but with Nikon, Lightroom does an appalling job of handling the raw images.
> 
> I also have Nikon CaptureNX.  My raw images display exactly as I want them to if I open them with that product.  I rarely have to adjust anything and when I do, it is only a slight adjustment.  If I shoot raw+jpg, the two images appear identical in CaptureNX because CaptureNX uses the camera settings to render the raw image.
> 
> ...



Andrew, you statements are simply not correct. LR/ACR rendering of NEF's is what it is and how you see it is simply your view and opinion and it would be appreciated if you state things as such, thanks.
Now in my opinion LR does a fantastic job, I am sure that this is due in some part to my having it set up to give results that suit me (this is an ongoing fine tuning by the way!) and my experience with LR.
If you like what you get out of the camera, that's fine just use Nikon software as that is the only way to get the in camera look precisely.
Personally having worked with Gretag in developing digital photo printers in the 9''s and with Adobe ever since, I know that what is presented as a first impression by either a print from film or a cameras rendering of an image on a monitor or camera display has a powerful influence on our mind. However what we see is only an interpretation and to consider that one interpretation is better than another is simply not correct - all they are is different and then there is our view/opinion of the differences.
I think that you could learn a bit more about how LR works and read the LR header at the top of the pages - we are forums dedicated to the support of LR - not bashers.
Now with that out of the way, how can we help you to attain what you want?


----------



## DonRicklin (Mar 1, 2008)

All excellent points, Geoff. Well said. 

Andrew, let us help you get to where your Nikon shots look the way you want them to look in Lightroom, even though that may not be exactly how a jpeg straight out of that camera looks.

Don


----------



## ATJ-renamed (Mar 1, 2008)

I was asked a question and I was simply answering it.  I was not intending to bash Lightroom but simply tell it how I see it.

I'm happy for you that you think Lightroom does a good job on raw conversion.  In my opinion it does not and surely I am entitled to my opinion or are you suggesting that I must be wrong because my opinion differs form yours?

Anyway, let me give you some specific examples.

Here's the straight jpg file (resized and watermarked):






Here is the raw file from Lightroom using "General Zeroed":





Here is the raw file from Lightroom using "Default Settings":





And here is my attempt at a preset in Lightroom:





As you can see with my attempt, I am very close on the general exposure, brightness and contrast but the cyan is just not right.  I can't see how I can correct that and still maintain the neutral grey.

I have worked hard to make the camera record shots the way I want.  I don't want to have to spend hours on the computer "fixing" them.  There are a lot of features in Lightroom that I like and want to use, but the raw processing is just not one of them.


----------



## DonRicklin (Mar 1, 2008)

To my eye the first and third images look alot alike, with the latter being only slightly punchier on saturation. 

But that, as you say, is just my opinion. 

You are welcome to your position. But we are here to help users with LR. You don't have to use LR. But if you do, we are here to help you get more out of it.

'tude, Dood, as Jeff Schewe says, wont get you there.


Don


----------



## ATJ-renamed (Mar 1, 2008)

This whole discussion has gone down an unintended path.  I do want to use Lightroom but after many hours of trying (as well as reading a lot on the web and here) I realise that Lightroom is not going to do the raw processing I want it to do (my opinion).  I have resigned myself to that which is why I am now shooting raw+jpg so I get images out of the camera the way I want them to be (again my opinion).

The purpose of this thread was for me to get more out of Lightroom when shooting raw+jpg (my chosen route) by hopefully learning how to work with the stacked images better.

I will try to remember to keep my opinions to myself in future.


----------



## Kiwigeoff (Mar 1, 2008)

Andrew, back to your original question about stacking.
When you import the files, have they been in any other application prior to LR?
The reason I ask this is, when I import and I just tested this, the jpegs come in before the NEFs. Maybe this is because they are written first? I don't know!!
So it is easy to stack them by capture time and them using shift-] command move the jpeg down the stack.
What I don't understand is how your files are in mixed sequence.


----------



## ATJ-renamed (Mar 1, 2008)

Geoff,

They were imported directly from the CompactFlash card using Lightroom's "Import from device" and copied to the directory I specified.  For some reason the order was mixed and I would get JPG, NEF, JPG, NEF, NEF, JPG, etc.


----------



## Kiwigeoff (Mar 2, 2008)

ATJ said:


> I was asked a question and I was simply answering it.  I was not intending to bash Lightroom but simply tell it how I see it.
> 
> I'm happy for you that you think Lightroom does a good job on raw conversion.  In my opinion it does not and surely I am entitled to my opinion or are you suggesting that I must be wrong because my opinion differs form yours?
> 
> ...



This example would need a densitometer to read the squares on the card and see what the are in relationship to your files. That relationship is what matters not what they "look" like - I might be off in my perception of colour:lol::lol: Although saying that what it looks like to you in the end is all important, just not from a technical comparative standpoint.
However if you want to send me your two files, I will come up with a calibration that will "correct" the cyan. All I can say is that that calibration/preset would be most applicable for tests. Let me know.


----------



## Kiwigeoff (Mar 2, 2008)

ATJ said:


> Geoff,
> 
> They were imported directly from the CompactFlash card using Lightroom's "Import from device" and copied to the directory I specified.  For some reason the order was mixed and I would get JPG, NEF, JPG, NEF, NEF, JPG, etc.



Mmmmmm, I wonder if this is a PC issue as LR uses OS stuff for import and I use Mac and haven't seen that. Can you do a test and copy some files from a card and then import them into LR from the HD please.


----------



## ATJ-renamed (Mar 2, 2008)

Geoff,

I will do that later today.  The camera has just been packed into its housing for a dive in a few hours so I can't really test now.  I should, however, come home armed with a large number of files for testing.

I will be copying the files from the card to hard disk using Nikon Transfer since I like to backup the images on copy and Lightroom adds an unwanted subdirectory to backup directory: http://www.lightroomqueen.com/community/showthread.php?t=1353  Anyway, I'll see if Nikon Transfer has them in the correct order.


----------



## Guy Scharf (Mar 2, 2008)

I'll add my own question to this thread, as I have a metadata problem associated with stacking.

I also shoot NEF+JPG.  I ingest the files using Downloader Pro and then import them into Lightroom.  Lightroom "stacks" the NEF and JPG files together, and the thumbnail is shown as filename.NEF+JPG.  When I keyword the files, the keywords are applied only to the XMP sidecar to the NEF file, and not to the JPG files.

While I guess this "NEF+JPG" is called a stack, this appears to be some kind of special stack, as I cannot unstack the images.  Selecting "Stacking->Expand all stacks" does nothing.  "Stacking->Unstack" is disabled.


How can I get the keywords applied to the JPG files?

Thanks.


----------



## DonRicklin (Mar 2, 2008)

Guy, they are not applied to the jpeg because it is not in LR. The NEF+JPG designation is just to remind you that the jpegs are there in the directory with the raw file. To see them in LR go to Preferences... and under Import check the third item. Treat JPEG files next to Raw files as seperate photos. Then go back and import them from the directories. They will then be in LR and stackable with the NEFs.
Don


----------



## ATJ-renamed (Mar 2, 2008)

OK, I copied 47 pairs of images (raw+jpg) to the hard disk using Nikon Transfer and then imported them to Lightroom.  This time in all cases the JPEGs were listed before the raw files.


----------



## Kiwigeoff (Mar 2, 2008)

ATJ said:


> OK, I copied 47 pairs of images (raw+jpg) to the hard disk using Nikon Transfer and then imported them to Lightroom.  This time in all cases the JPEGs were listed before the raw files.



Thanks for that Andrew, I had a suspicion along those lines.
Are you using a card reader or direct connect?
Can you try just copying files to your HD from the card by drag and drop and then import please.


----------



## MLKimages (Mar 3, 2008)

*D300 Import Preset.*

The Lightroom "Default" import settings are useless in my opinion. Kind of like shooting in Auto mode all the time.

Your problem is pretty simple - the import "Preset" you are using is not correct or better stated not set up to match you taste. You just need to adjust you import preset and you'll be good to go.

You are welcome to try my D3'' preset (I attached my D2'' and D3'' Presets below) - not saying it will match exactly what you want, but it's worth a try to see if it is better than what you are currently using. I made these so images from the D2'' and D3'' matched as well as each looked how I like my jpeg created images. 

Michael





ATJ said:


> I was asked a question and I was simply answering it. I was not intending to bash Lightroom but simply tell it how I see it.
> 
> I'm happy for you that you think Lightroom does a good job on raw conversion. In my opinion it does not and surely I am entitled to my opinion or are you suggesting that I must be wrong because my opinion differs form yours?
> 
> ...


----------



## ATJ-renamed (Mar 3, 2008)

Kiwigeoff said:


> Are you using a card reader or direct connect?


Card reader.


Kiwigeoff said:


> Can you try just copying files to your HD from the card by drag and drop and then import please.


I haven't yet had a chance to test this as I have been busy with work and actually trying to process my images from Sunday.

While attempting to process my images from Sunday I have come up against 2 new problems.

1) If I select images by keyword, stacking is disabled (every choice in the stacking menu is greyed out).  It appears stacking only works after the initial import or if you display all photographs.

2) Exported images do not appear as they do in Lightroom.  This one is the most troubling as it means I don't see what I get (and probably accounts for some of the differing opinions in my sampling images above as I didn't realise this was happening until I started processing my images from my dive).

Until I started using Lightroom, my workflow was to review my images with ViewNX, open images to be processed in CaptureNX and then export them to PaintShopPro 9 for final adjustment.  In many cases I did no actual processing in CNX and simply used it to convert the NEF to TIF so PSP9 could read it.  In PSP9 I would crop, resize, sharpen, add a watermark and update the EXIF with description and copyright details.

I have been very happy with the results of the images, but after seeing Lightroom, I really like the streamlined approach, keywording and automation.  Plus I wanted to be able to do everything in the one tool.

As I mentioned above, I have been unhappy with the presets and the fact that I can't get my images to look like they come out of the camera.  My alternative was to shoot NEF+JPG and process the JPG in most cases and use the NEF with CNX if I had problems.  Well, now I can't even get that to work satisfactorily.  Please note, I am not bashing the product but simply trying to get it to work to my satisfaction.

Here's an image from Sunday which I processed using my previous workflow (mainly CNX and PSP9).  I made no adjustments in CNX and in PSP9 I only resized, sharpened, watermarked and added EXIF.






It is not a fantastic image, but does demonstrate my problem.

Here's how the JPG appears in Lightroom:





To my eyes on my calibrated monitor, it looks the same as the processed image.

This is what I get if I export the image with Lightroom.  Note that I'm using LR/Mogrify but I get the same result using just export but without the sharpening and watermarks.





To my eyes and on my monitor, this looks lighter and has lost some impact.

I tried it again by converting the NEF to a TIF in CNX and processing the TIF in Lightroom, but I get the same result:





I'm not sure if the problem is related to changing the colour profiles on export.  The exported version has an sRGB profile.

How can I get the exported images to look the same as they do when being viewed in Lightroom?


----------



## Brad Snyder (Mar 3, 2008)

Andrew, some info I think we'll need:

If I understand your narrative three of the four captures are not LR, only the second one from top ?
What application is displaying the others, and is it color managed?


----------



## ATJ-renamed (Mar 3, 2008)

Michael,


MLKimages said:


> The Lightroom "Default" import settings are useless in my opinion. Kind of like shooting in Auto mode all the time.


While I agree with you about the default settings, I don't agree that it SHOULD be like shooting in Auto mode.  I take great pains (specifically not shooting in Auto mode) to ensure I get my images to look the way I want them at the time I take them so as not to spend a lot of time fiddling during post processing.  I shot slides for 2' years so I know how important it is to get it right first go.



MLKimages said:


> Your problem is pretty simple - the import "Preset" you are using is not correct or better stated not set up to match you taste. You just need to adjust you import preset and you'll be good to go.


Is it possible to have a "one size fits all" preset or am I going to have to craft a number of presets depending on how and where I'm shooting?  I shoot nature photographs and a lot of underwater shots.  As I said above, I set up my gear so that my images are pretty much good to go out of the camera using my pre-Lightroom workflow (ViewNX, CaptureNX, PaintShopPro 9).



MLKimages said:


> You are welcome to try my D3'' preset (I attached my D2'' and D3'' Presets below) - not saying it will match exactly what you want, but it's worth a try to see if it is better than what you are currently using. I made these so images from the D2'' and D3'' matched as well as each looked how I like my jpeg created images.


I'll give them a go.  Thanks.


----------



## ATJ-renamed (Mar 3, 2008)

Brad Snyder;974' said:
			
		

> Andrew, some info I think we'll need:
> 
> If I understand your narrative three of the four captures are not LR, only the second one from top ?
> What application is displaying the others, and is it color managed?


First image is not Lightroom at all.  The NEF was converted to TIF in CaptureNX loaded into PaintShopPro 9 and saved as a JPG.

Second image is a screen capture of the Lightroom screen pasted into PSP9, resized and saved as a JPG.

Third image is 1''% processed in Lightroom starting with the JPG straight from the camera.

Fourth image is 1''% processed in Lightroom starting with a TIF image created by saving the NEF in CaptureNX with no other processing.

The JPG and the TIF look identical in Lightroom and look the same in CaptureNX - at least to my eyes on my monitor.  The two exports from Lightroom look different.

I'm not sure what you mean by "color managed".  I think I said they were exported as sRGB.


----------



## Kiwigeoff (Mar 3, 2008)

ATJ said:


> First image is not Lightroom at all.  The NEF was converted to TIF in CaptureNX loaded into PaintShopPro 9 and saved as a JPG.
> 
> Second image is a screen capture of the Lightroom screen pasted into PSP9, resized and saved as a JPG.
> 
> ...



Andrew, gidday!!
What Brad is asking is what application are you viewing the exported images with? Is that application colour managed?

And for the presets issue, no one preset will give optimum results in all conditions - just as there is/was multitude of slide films with each having particular conditions which suited best.
I generally use one and then may fine tune images in batches.


----------



## Denis Pagé (Mar 3, 2008)

ATJ said:


> ... I'm not sure what you mean by "color managed".  I think I said they were exported as sRGB.


I think you just pinpointed the problem! 

Knowing color management is KEY prior to using a program such as Lightroom. If so many pros are turning to Lightroom, it shouldn't be that bad after all...

OK. Lets dig into it: A "color managed" application _(or program)_ is an application aware of color profiles _(you may hear ICC profiles sometimes)_ and using it to convert from one to the other. Each device should have a color profile: Your monitor, your scanner, your printer etc.

JASC's Paint Shop Pro 9 is a "color managed" application *BUT* only if you tell it to be! Here is how: In the menu, go to File -> Preferences -> Color Management... There will be a dialog box appearing. There you may see _"Image, Graphics or Text managed by: sRGB Color Space"_ and an unchecked box underneath it with everything grayed out below. If this is the case. Your Paint Shop Pro 9 program IS NOT COLOR MANAGED! :shock:

This raise me a question: When you say that you monitor is calibrated, do you mean it was calibrated using PaintShopPro9 utility or that you used a colorimeter/software bundle plugged into your computer? One way to know is by going back to the "Color Management" dialog box cited above and look under the box labeled _"Screen Profile"_ on the left side. If it say _<None>_ then you are out of luck because this mean that your monitor will be more or less well calibrated in Paint Shop Pro only and not elsewhere like when you go out of it or into Lightroom!

Once back in this dialog box, you will notice a question mark button atop right of the title bar. Click it an choose a row in the dialog box to get help for each one. This should all be understood.

Looking at your underwater shot tell me that with such nice photographs, it is well worth that you take all the time needed to understand color management principles.

Welcome to the forum,


----------



## ATJ-renamed (Mar 1, 2008)

I have only recently started using Lightroom and I don't know if I'm missing something obvious... 

Since starting to use Lightroom I have been shooting raw+jpg mainly because I don't like the way Lightroom handles the raw images.  Having the jpg there means I know what the image really looks like (at least based on my camera settings which I make good use of).

When I come back from a shoot I import all the images, both raw and jpg.  I then Auto-Stack the images based on Capture Time and collapse all stacks.  My first question *is there any way to make Lightroom always put the jpg on top?*  At the moment, I get a mix and I have to select all the stacks with the NEF on top and move them down.

Once I have all the JPEGs on top, I can then work through my images and review them.  If I want to set metadata or keywords, they only end up applying to the top image, which is the JPEG.  *Is there any way to get Lightroom to apply the metadata and keywords to all images in a collapsed stack?*


----------



## ATJ-renamed (Mar 3, 2008)

Kiwigeoff said:


> Andrew, gidday!!
> What Brad is asking is what application are you viewing the exported images with? Is that application colour managed?


I am viewing the images in Firefox.  The target is to display them on the web.  I didn't think browsers were "colour managed" per se.


----------



## ATJ-renamed (Mar 4, 2008)

Denis Pagé said:


> JASC's Paint Shop Pro 9 is a "color managed" application *BUT* only if you tell it to be! Here is how: In the menu, go to File -> Preferences -> Color Management... There will be a dialog box appearing. There you may see _"Image, Graphics or Text managed by: sRGB Color Space"_ and an unchecked box underneath it with everything grayed out below. If this is the case. Your Paint Shop Pro 9 program IS NOT COLOR MANAGED! :shock:


I have colour management turned off in PSP9.  I did this on purpose because I was finding that the files I saved from PSP9 looked different when I used a web browser (e.g. Firefox) than they did it PSP9.  My main purpose (at the moment) is to display my pictures on the web so having them look "right" is my main concern.



Denis Pagé said:


> This raise me a question: When you say that you monitor is calibrated, do you mean it was calibrated using PaintShopPro9 utility or that you used a colorimeter/software bundle plugged into your computer?


I use gretagmacbeth Display Eye One to calibrate my monitor.


----------



## Kiwigeoff (Mar 4, 2008)

There is something not quite right here Andrew, however as I use a Mac I'll defer to PC users now.


----------



## Denis Pagé (Mar 4, 2008)

Kiwigeoff said:


> I use a Mac I'll defer to PC users now.


And do not forget to wash your hands :lol::mrgreen:
Not related but did you saw your PMs recently?


----------



## Denis Pagé (Mar 4, 2008)

ATJ said:


> I use gretagmacbeth Display Eye One to calibrate my monitor.


So, it created a color profile file in your system.

In Paint Shop Pro, go back to that Color Management dialog box and activate color management. Choose the Gretagmacbeth created profile under Monitor Profile. But this is not all! You also want it outside Paint Shop so, right click your desktop, choose Properties -> Paremeters -> Advanced and the Color Management tab. There you should see you Display One created profile selected. Otherwise, add it.

For WEB display purpose, it is only at the moment of exporting/saving your images that you specify the needed color space (sRGB in this case). BTW, I just gave a visit to your site. Those photos are very nice and again worth the steep color management learning curve.


----------



## Brad Snyder (Mar 4, 2008)

Denis has answered very well for me. That's exactly what I suspected, and where I was trying to get to.


----------



## ATJ-renamed (Mar 4, 2008)

Denis Pagé;976' said:
			
		

> You also want it outside Paint Shop so, right click your desktop, choose Properties -> Paremeters -> Advanced and the Color Management tab. There you should see you Display One created profile selected.


This is done automatically by Display One and I have been using the latest created profile on my system since I have had the Display One, about a year now.  I calibrate around once per month.



			
				Denis Pagé;976' said:
			
		

> In Paint Shop Pro, go back to that Color Management dialog box and activate color management. Choose the Gretagmacbeth created profile under Monitor Profile.


I have done this in the past and get unsatisfactory results.  With PSP9 set to use the monitor profile, what PSP9 displays is different from what I get after I save the JPG for the web (much like the problem I have now for Lightroom).  With it set to sRGB, the images look the same:
NEF in CaptureNX
TIF in PSP9
JPG in Firefox.

Maybe the way I have it is wrong, but is seems to work.



			
				Denis Pagé;976' said:
			
		

> For WEB display purpose, it is only at the moment of exporting/saving your images that you specify the needed color space (sRGB in this case). BTW, I just gave a visit to your site. Those photos are very nice and again worth the steep color management learning curve.


Maybe I need to try this all again, but as I said it has been working for me up until now.


----------



## ATJ-renamed (Mar 4, 2008)

OK, I just changed PSP9 to use the monitor profile and reloaded the same image.  It does not look the same in PSP9 as it does in ViewNX or CaptureNX. However, when I save the image as a JPG, the end result is the same.  It seems that the only "value" I get from setting the monitor profile in PSP9 is that I don't get to see how the JPG will look with Firefox.


----------



## Denis Pagé (Mar 4, 2008)

ATJ said:


> OK, I just changed PSP9 to use the monitor profile and reloaded the same image.  It does not look the same in PSP9 as it does in ViewNX or CaptureNX. However, when I save the image as a JPG, the end result is the same.  It seems that the only "value" I get from setting the monitor profile in PSP9 is that I don't get to see how the JPG will look with Firefox.


OK. Did you followed my advice of reading help for each line using the [?] button? It seem that you choose the radio button "Basic color management" wich is just relating how the images look on screen and printer. So, the last part of the Color Management dialog box is still grayed out isn't it?

Choose the second radio button beneath titled "Correction". Beside it, it says that it is to see images on screen/printer as they would apper on another peripheral or something like that _(I have a french version)_. Then it will _ungray_ the "Emulated Peripheral Profile" where you can choose "sRGB Color Space Profile" among ±3' profiles.


----------



## ATJ-renamed (Mar 4, 2008)

This is what I have







Under Monitor Profile I only get the following three choices:
* CalibratedMonitorProfile
* IBM P96 ICC Profile
* sRGB Color Space Profile


----------



## Denis Pagé (Mar 4, 2008)

ATJ said:


> This is what I have


:shock: So you are asking your monitor to emulate your monitor?

First: When you go to your desktop properties advanced... What is your choosen monitor profile? "CalibratedMonitorProfile" or "Monitor_3-'3-2''8_2"? The answer to this question should appear under "Monitor profile". Then, under "Emulated device profile" you want to emulate "sRBG Color Space".


----------



## Denis Pagé (Mar 4, 2008)

OOPS! I missed that you had only those three choices.
I am confused then. Maybe the only profile appearing in your desktop dialog box is "CalibratedMonitorProfile"? So, where the other one is coming from? Why is it not listed in the available profiles on the desktop?...


----------



## ATJ-renamed (Mar 4, 2008)

Denis Pagé said:


> :shock: So you are asking your monitor to emulate your monitor?


Yes.  Pretty silly, but that was the only place I could select the monitor profile.



Denis Pagé said:


> First: When you go to your desktop properties advanced... What is your choosen monitor profile? "CalibratedMonitorProfile" or "Monitor_3-'3-2''8_2"? The answer to this question should appear under "Monitor profile". Then, under "Emulated device profile" you want to emulate "sRBG Color Space".


"Monitor_3-'3-2''8_2"



			
				Denis Pagé;977' said:
			
		

> OOPS! I missed that you had only those three choices.
> I am confused then. Maybe the only profile appearing in your desktop dialog box is "CalibratedMonitorProfile"? So, where the other one is coming from? Why is it not listed in the available profiles on the desktop?...


Of the three choices I have, 2 of them are listed in C:\WINDOWS\system32\spool\drivers\color and on the Color Management dialog in Windows.  "CalibratedMonitorProfile" does not appear in the dialog but is in the directory.

I have never been able to get colour management to work in PSP9 which is why I have disabled it and things have been pretty much working correctly - or at least how I expect it to work.


----------



## ATJ-renamed (Mar 4, 2008)

I just did something sneaky.  I backed up CalibratedMonitorProfile.icc and then copied Monitor_3-'3-2''8_2.icc over the top of CalibratedMonitorProfile.icc.  I guess this will work.


----------



## ATJ-renamed (Mar 4, 2008)

OK, with PSP9 set to "CalibratedMonitorProfile" which is basically "Monitor_3-'3-2''8_2" under the covers, I still don't have WYSIWYG.  The TIF file when loaded in to PSP9 looks different to what it looked like in CaptureNX.  But, when I save as a JPG, I get a file which looks identical to what I had before when I had coloour management turned off.  Also, if I choose "sRGB Color Space Profile" as the Monitor Profile, everything "works" i.e. I get WYSIWYG.


----------



## ATJ-renamed (Mar 4, 2008)

Anyway, all this is getting off the track.  I want to know how to make Lightroom show me how the export will look.  If the export is different from what appears in Lightroom, I don't see the point.

Also, why can't I stack when I select images by keyword?


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Mar 4, 2008)

Andrew, I've only skimmed over this thread, as it appears to have gone off on a variety of tangents, but try this for me:

Open your tif in Lightroom.  Export to jpeg, sRGB, and import that into Lightroom.  Does it match?

I'f you'd like me to investigate more thoroughly, feel free to drop the files on my FTP server (http://photoshopservices.dyndns.org:8'8')

And stacking is only available in Folders at this point in time.  Hopefully it'll be added to other functions in future.


----------



## ATJ-renamed (Mar 4, 2008)

Victoria Bampton said:


> Open your tif in Lightroom.  Export to jpeg, sRGB, and import that into Lightroom.  Does it match?


When imported into Lightroom the JPEG looks closer to the TIFF than when JPEG is displayed with Firefox/IE, but there are some subtle differences (although they may be compression artifacts?).


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Mar 4, 2008)

What colour space is the original tiff set to?  I'm wondering whether the difference you're noticing between the original and the sRGB imported into LR are down to the difference is gamut.

I'm not familiar with PSP's colour management setup, but it would be fairly easy to test in PS.


----------



## ATJ-renamed (Mar 4, 2008)

Victoria,

The TIFF was created in CaptureNX by saving from the original NEF.  How do I query the colour space of the TIFF?


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Mar 4, 2008)

Phew, it's a few years since I've worked on a Windows system.  Try finding in Windows Explorer > right click > Properties > I'd guess Advanced - and see if it tells you Colour Space anywhere.

Or go into Capture NX, assuming you haven't changed the settings since, and look for 'Output Space', possibly in preferences, maybe an output dialog.

Or just drop me the file.


----------



## ATJ-renamed (Mar 4, 2008)

It's OK.  I worked out how.  CaptureNX tells me if I reload the file.

The TIFF was saved with my monitor profile.  I changed it so it was saved with the embedded profile from the NEF (Nikon sRGB 4.'.'.3''1) and it is exactly the same in Lightroom. 

Before I change the profile of the TIF I exported a full size 1''% JPEG and it is almost identical to the original TIF (with the monitor profile) as well as the new one with Nikon sRGB.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Mar 4, 2008)

Well done Andrew!

Hang on, so are we sorted or not?

You definitely don't want to be using a monitor profile as an image colour space, so that's useful to have found out.  Use either AdobeRGB, sRGB or ProPhotoRGB as your working space.  There are lots of pros and cons on each, but your Nikon sRGB will do nicely for now.


----------



## ATJ-renamed (Mar 4, 2008)

Victoria,

No.  I am nowhere near sorted.  All I determined was the colour space in CaptureNX makes little or no difference to how the created TIFF appears in Lightroom.  I have also established that if I create a JPEG with sRGB from the TIFF using Lightroom, the JPEG looks nearly identical (just a very slight difference in the histogram) as the TIFF when both a viewed in Lightroom.

I am still left with the problem that the same JPEG looks different when viewed with Firefox or IE compared to how the TIFF and the same JPEG looks in Lightroom.  i.e. I'm not getting WSYSIWYG.  This means I will not know what my final images will look like while working on them in Lightroom.


----------



## Kiwigeoff (Mar 4, 2008)

ATJ said:


> Victoria,
> 
> No.  I am nowhere near sorted.  All I determined was the colour space in CaptureNX makes little or no difference to how the created TIFF appears in Lightroom.  I have also established that if I create a JPEG with sRGB from the TIFF using Lightroom, the JPEG looks nearly identical (just a very slight difference in the histogram) as the TIFF when both a viewed in Lightroom.
> 
> I am still left with the problem that the same JPEG looks different when viewed with Firefox or IE compared to how the TIFF and the same JPEG looks in Lightroom.  i.e. I'm not getting WSYSIWYG.  This means I will not know what my final images will look like while working on them in Lightroom.



Andrew, one of the difficulties is the "language" each application uses or speaks. LR uses the colour managed language while IE and Firefox (I understand this is changing)speak unmanaged. What this means is the browsers are unaware of colour and display accordingly. It is something that not a lot can be done about except post process to bring them to what you want to see in say IE. Of course no other person will see the same as each monitor/system will display differently unless all are calibrated to a known value, colour managed applications are used, viewing conditions are the same, etc. There are just too many variations to get what you want. You may get a feel for what they will look like after you export from LR, personally I get them how I want them to look in LR and export as jpeg/sRGB for web posting and don't know what they look like elsewhere. I use a Mac with Safari which is colour managed/aware. You may want to try out Safari to see if that lets you see what you want, it is available for PC now. It still won't help with others viewing though!


----------



## ATJ-renamed (Mar 1, 2008)

I have only recently started using Lightroom and I don't know if I'm missing something obvious... 

Since starting to use Lightroom I have been shooting raw+jpg mainly because I don't like the way Lightroom handles the raw images.  Having the jpg there means I know what the image really looks like (at least based on my camera settings which I make good use of).

When I come back from a shoot I import all the images, both raw and jpg.  I then Auto-Stack the images based on Capture Time and collapse all stacks.  My first question *is there any way to make Lightroom always put the jpg on top?*  At the moment, I get a mix and I have to select all the stacks with the NEF on top and move them down.

Once I have all the JPEGs on top, I can then work through my images and review them.  If I want to set metadata or keywords, they only end up applying to the top image, which is the JPEG.  *Is there any way to get Lightroom to apply the metadata and keywords to all images in a collapsed stack?*


----------



## ATJ-renamed (Mar 4, 2008)

Geoff,

When I process my images through CaptureNX then PaintShopPro 9, the resulting JPEG looks nearly identical in Firefox and IE as it did in CaptureNX and PSP9.  Perhaps I have it all wrong but it has been working for me.  When I have seen my images on the screens of other PCs, they have still looked right to my eyes.  I can't say I have ever looked at one of my images on another screen and felt that it looked wrong.  Maybe everyone I know has a calibrated monitor.

I do realise that if someone's monitor isn't calibrated the images may not look as good but I'm not sure I want to spend a lot of time tweaking an image to make it look the way I want only to have it look different the moment I export it.


----------



## Kiwigeoff (Mar 4, 2008)

ATJ said:


> Geoff,
> 
> When I process my images through CaptureNX then PaintShopPro 9, the resulting JPEG looks nearly identical in Firefox and IE as it did in CaptureNX and PSP9.  Perhaps I have it all wrong but it has been working for me.  When I have seen my images on the screens of other PCs, they have still looked right to my eyes.  I can't say I have ever looked at one of my images on another screen and felt that it looked wrong.  Maybe everyone I know has a calibrated monitor.
> 
> I do realise that if someone's monitor isn't calibrated the images may not look as good but I'm not sure I want to spend a lot of time tweaking an image to make it look the way I want only to have it look different the moment I export it.



That is how it works for me too, so there must be something else at play here. You are exporting from LR as sRGB?


----------



## DonRicklin (Mar 4, 2008)

Are you sure you are exporting JPEGs (or Tiffs) from LR as sRGB for this viewing. See Jeff'rey Fiedl's Blog post Digital-Image Color Spaces for why!

DOn


----------



## ATJ-renamed (Mar 4, 2008)

I am sure I am telling Lightroom to export them as sRGB.  When I open the JPEG in CaptureNX it tells me it is sRGB.

This is the export preset I created to show exactly what I'm doing.

s = {
    internalName = "full size JPEGs",
    title = "full size JPEGs",
    type = "Export",
    value = {
        exportServiceProvider = "com.adobe.ag.export.file",
        exportServiceProviderTitle = "Export Files to Disk",
        export_addCopyrightWatermark = false,
        export_colorSpace = "sRGB",
        export_destinationPathPrefix = "C:\\atj.com.au",
        export_destinationPathSuffix = "Untitled Export",
        export_useSubfolder = false,
        format = "JPEG",
        initialSequenceNumber = 1,
        jpeg_quality = 1,
        metadata_keywordOptions = "lightroomHierarchical",
        minimizeEmbeddedMetadata = false,
        size_doConstrain = false,
        size_resolution = 72,
        size_resolutionUnits = "inch",
        tokenCustomString = "",
        tokens = "{{image_name}}",
    },
    version = ',
}


----------



## DonRicklin (Mar 4, 2008)

Okay, just checking. That alone can be the source of what you are seeing.



Don


----------



## Kiwigeoff (Mar 4, 2008)

Andrew can you email me one of your jpeg exports please.
serviceatvillageimagedotcodotnz


----------



## ATJ-renamed (Mar 4, 2008)

Kiwigeoff said:


> Andrew can you email me one of your jpeg exports please.


I have sent it.


----------



## ATJ-renamed (Mar 6, 2008)

Kiwigeoff said:


> Can you try just copying files to your HD from the card by drag and drop and then import please.


I haven't done the drag and drop thing yet, but I did copy using copy and xcopy at a command line and each time the JPG was copied before the NEF which results in them being stacked correctly.


----------



## ATJ-renamed (Mar 6, 2008)

OK, after doing some experimenting and reading Jeffrey Friedl's blog I think I know what's happening, although I am still a little confused.

The way I had PSP9 set up, it was not embedding a colour profile at all and would not have been modifying the colour space used in the image.  Seeing as Firefox and IE aren't colour managed, the images would have looked exactly the same as they did in CNX and PSP.  So I think that explains that one.

The Lightroom exports were using and embedding (I believe) sRGB.  This is why if I load them with Lightroom they look right as LR will read an honour the embedded profile.  That explains that bit.

Now, as Firefox and IE are not colour managed, they won't read the embedded profile, but what I don't understand is why sRGB doesn't give me something that looks correct.  Based on what Jeffery Freidl recommends, sRGB should give me something close to being right in a non-colour managed application.  Instead the test image looks quite flat - it does look "right" with Safari.

Is it possible that my *sRGB Color Space Profile.icm* is somehow wrong? 

As my images appear to look correct with IE and Firefox when they were encoded for my monitor profile, I'm wondering if I'm better off embedding that instead.  (I know that Jeffery Friedl doesn't recommend this.)  My thinking is that for non-colour managed browsers like Firefox and IE I might get better representation of my images and for people with colour managed browsers the embedded profile will be used.


----------



## ATJ-renamed (Mar 6, 2008)

I knocked this up to demonstrate what I mean:

http://andrewtrevor-jones.com/embeddedcolourspaces.html


----------



## Mark Sirota (Mar 6, 2008)

ATJ;99'9 said:
			
		

> Now, as Firefox and IE are not colour managed, they won't read the embedded profile, but what I don't understand is why sRGB doesn't give me something that looks correct.  Based on what Jeffery Freidl recommends, sRGB should give me something close to being right in a non-colour managed application.  Instead the test image looks quite flat - it does look "right" with Safari.
> 
> As my images appear to look correct with IE and Firefox when they were encoded for my monitor profile, I'm wondering if I'm better off embedding that instead.  (I know that Jeffery Friedl doesn't recommend this.)  My thinking is that for non-colour managed browsers like Firefox and IE I might get better representation of my images and for people with colour managed browsers the embedded profile will be used.



If you use your monitor profile, it will (evidently) look better in a non-color-managed application on your system, but there's no reason to expect that this will be the case for everyone.

The nature of non-color-managed environments is that every one is different.  Trying to make things look good in these environments is tilting at windmills.

The best you can do is to ensure that it looks good in color-managed, calibrated environments, and use sRGB so it at least has a fighting chance in other environments.  And then encourage people who look at your images to use color-managed applications (and to insist that their vendors provide them) and calibrate too.


----------

