[stevebrot]

I am just trying to replicate the reversal film process and it's so tough.

I think the issue is that DCU, in order to do the Reversal Film emulation, is doing pixel level alterations to the image that LR is not capable of doing.

Yep.

You may have to use DCU or a tool other than LR. I have found it very difficult to replicate in-camera JPEG in LR. It may be possible, but not be worth the effort. What you are describing is selective tone mapping, something that LR does at a low level, but does not expose through its user interface. If want to do that sort of thing in conjunction with LR, you can use the "edit in" feature and work from a 16-bit TIFF using Photoshop, The GIMP, or any other pixel level editor along with LR.


Steve

---

Last edited by stevebrot; 01-29-2016 at 10:39 AM.

[Irfanintekhab]

Then you may have to use DCU or a tool other than LR. I have found it very difficult to replicate in-camera JPEG in LR. It may be possible, but not be worth the effort. What you are describing is selective tone mapping, something that LR does at a low level, but does not expose through its user interface. If want to do that sort of thing in conjunction with LR, you can use the "edit in" feature and work from a 16-bit TIFF using Photoshop, The GIMP, or any other pixel level editor along with LR.


Steve

Hmm maybe but as you said that doesn't sound worth the effort

[stevebrot]

You might also find this Darktable article useful. It explains some of why things are as they are.

https://www.darktable.org/2013/10/about-basecurves/


Steve

[Irfanintekhab]

You might also find this Darktable article useful. It explains some of why things are as they are.



https://www.darktable.org/2013/10/about-basecurves/





Steve

That's alot will read it

[stevebrot]

Hmm maybe but as you said that doesn't sound worth the effort

Replication is never easy.


Morningstar Vegie Bacon Strips



(They taste better than they look, but no, not like bacon...)


Steve

[Irfanintekhab]

Replication is never easy.


Morningstar Vegie Bacon Strips



(They taste better than they look, but no, not like bacon...)


Steve

Lol nice one

[Alex645]

Are you using the default sRGB on your camera settings for Color Space/Mode or AdobeRGB? I have found that shooting in AdobeRGB when post processing in LR or PS makes a difference. Of course, you must change your preferences in LR for the correct color space.
Here's a link that helps to explain: https://fstoppers.com/pictures/adobergb-vs-srgb-3167
And if you want to get confused with highly biased opinion for why you should keep shooting sRGB, read this link:
sRGB vs. Adobe RGB

The bottomline is that AdobeRGB gives you a wider gamut of colors which is desired if you are working with LR or PS and printing your images. sRGB will get you better images if your final destination is the web or exclusively monitor viewing.

[Irfanintekhab]

Are you using the default sRGB on your camera settings for Color Space/Mode or AdobeRGB? I have found that shooting in AdobeRGB when post processing in LR or PS makes a difference. Of course, you must change your preferences in LR for the correct color space.

Here's a link that helps to explain: https://fstoppers.com/pictures/adobergb-vs-srgb-3167

And if you want to get confused with highly biased opinion for why you should keep shooting sRGB, read this link:

sRGB vs. Adobe RGB



The bottomline is that AdobeRGB gives you a wider gamut of colors which is desired if you are working with LR or PS and printing your images. sRGB will get you better images if your final destination is the web or exclusively monitor viewing.

Hahaha. That's nice. So Much to read tonight

[house]

I'm pretty sure its technically possible to recreate the look in lightroom. The pixel level editing issue is a red herring.

I use darktable and couldn't replicate in camera images until I used a computational tool that comes with the software. It compares lots of jpg/raw pairs and generates a profile. Won't be light room compatible though.

These profiles generate images very close to the in cam jpgs.

Achieving it "manually" is near impossible.

[Irfanintekhab]

I'm pretty sure its technically possible to recreate the look in lightroom. The pixel level editing issue is a red herring.



I use darktable and couldn't replicate in camera images until I used a computational tool that comes with the software. It compares lots of jpg/raw pairs and generates a profile. Won't be light room compatible though.



These profiles generate images very close to the in cam jpgs.



Achieving it "manually" is near impossible.

I see. I really love the reversal film though. I guess my best bet would be to just use the jpegs or maybe DCU. When I want to get that look

[Mahadragon]

Adobe Lightroom is really the bottom of the barrel when it comes to their algorithms (for raw image organizers/editors). If you look at head to head comparisons, even with software like Aperture which isn't even available anymore, they are lacking in many ways. Try another software.

You can try Capture One for a month see if it works. The algorithms for this software completely blow Lightroom out of the water. Capture One is the undisputed leader for raw editors.

If they have your camera, you can try DXO Optics Pro. I have it and I'm frustrated because they don't have a camera module for my Pentax KS2 and I can't do edits for it (I'm just using Aperture for now).

[clackers]

Irfan, concentrate on the skin tones you want.

You say there's too much orange-red at the moment.

Click on a pixel with the eyedropper tool.

You might like a separation between the R and B values of only 20 points.

Drag the orange saturation slider back until you get this, or perhaps a combination of the temperature/tint sliders if you've selected just the face instead of the whole picture.

You chose a pretty bad sample to illustrate your point, it must be said. That orange umbrella makes for a bad position to have your subject in! ☺

[Irfanintekhab]

Irfan, concentrate on the skin tones you want.

You say there's too much orange-red at the moment.

Click on a pixel with the eyedropper tool.

You might like a separation between the R and B values of only 20 points.

Drag the orange saturation slider back until you get this, or perhaps a combination of the temperature/tint sliders if you've selected just the face instead of the whole picture.

You chose a pretty bad sample to illustrate your point, it must be said. That orange umbrella makes for a bad position to have your subject! ☺

Hahahaha I know. I was just amazed as to how DCU and my camera was able to get that orange out and still manage to make it look better, but not lightroom. I get the point now though. Pixel level

[stevebrot]

I use darktable and couldn't replicate in camera images until I used a computational tool that comes with the software. It compares lots of jpg/raw pairs and generates a profile. Won't be light room compatible though.

These profiles generate images very close to the in cam jpgs.

Yes, too bad that Adobe does not provide a similar tool.


Steve

[stevebrot]

The bottomline is that AdobeRGB gives you a wider gamut of colors which is desired if you are working with LR or PS and printing your images. sRGB will get you better images if your final destination is the web or exclusively monitor viewing.

Yes, sort of. "Better" may or may not be the case. The conventional wisdom and a working rule of thumb is to publish to the target device and when you don't know the device, use sRGB. The reasoning is that sRGB has the broadest support across all devices and most devices will default to sRGB if the actual color space is not known. As a result, sRBG is the safest choice when publishing to the Web.

Note: The gamut hierarchy goes like this: ProPhoto RGB > Adobe RGB > sRGB with sRGB having the narrowest gamut and being the most commonly supported.

So, why not use sRGB for everything? Often enough that is a good idea, but if given a choice using a broader gamut may result in better results in post processing and more flexibility when working with print shops and publishers and may ultimately yield the best quality. The bullet points for that approach go like this:

• Capture at high bit depth using RAW
• Process at broad gamut (e.g. Adobe RGB or ProPhoto RGB)
• Work in a color managed environment
• A well-calibrated monitor with wide intrinsic gamut is important
• Use color aware tools
• Publish at bit depth and color space to match the target device or service
• Gamut mismatch may result in disaster. A good example might be a PEG entry on this site some time ago. The entry was published as ProPhoto RGB with an appropriate embedded profile, but the forum software ignored the embedded profiles and created sRGB thumbnails with a badly coerced gamut. What the judges saw in the judging pane was yucky. To make things worse, if Internet Explorer or Chrome were used to view the original, it too looked yucky. I left a comment to the photographer suggesting he resubmit using sRGB with much better results.

Now, what about the camera menu setting for sRGB vs. Adobe RGB? Here are things to remember:

• Mostly applicable to in-camera JPEG and TIFF
• RAW data has no color space
• The color space setting is included in the file meta data as a processing clue for RAW converter software such as Pentax DCU, but is ignored by Lightroom

What about Lightroom?

• Adobe products operate as a color managed environment
• In the case of Lightroom, all but one view displays at a fairly broad gamut using using Adobe RGB
• The develop module uses a broader gamut, a modified version of ProPhoto RGB
• Color space on import is irrelevant
• Both color space and bit depth are options on export

This tutorial at the Cambridge In Color Web site has a pretty good explanation in case the above does not make sense:

Tutorials on Color Management & Printing


Steve