Yellow Cast in Lightroom 5 Develop Window

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Greg Berchin, Apr 16, 2014.

  1. Greg Berchin

    Greg Berchin Guest

    I'm just learning how to use Lightroom 5. When converting from color to
    B&W, I find that the image preview in the Develop window has a
    pronounced yellow cast. I actually took a screen capture of the
    Lightroom preview and viewed it in PaintShop Pro -- found that a gray
    area of the previewed image that is actually 236:236:236 RGB is
    displayed in Lightroom as 254:232:189. What can I do to get Lightroom to
    display "gray" as "gray"? Thanks.
     
    Greg Berchin, Apr 16, 2014
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Greg Berchin

    Greg Berchin Guest

    I don't think that's the issue. As I mentioned, I can open the same
    monochrome image in Lightroom and in PaintShop. In Lightroom the image
    is displayed with a yellow cast. In PaintShop it is not. If I take a
    screen capture of the Lightroom display and view that in PaintShop, I
    can move the cursor over the image and have it display the actual pixel
    RGB values. The values displayed confirm the yellow cast that my eyes
    see.

    Unless ... is there something in a Preferences menu where Lightroom
    tries to do color compensation for some generic monitor? If so, then I
    need to change the compensation settings.
    They start as Canon .CR2 files. For the comparison in PaintShop above, I
    exported them as PSD.
    On the right side, I click "B&W". A set of sliders appears: Red, Orange,
    Yellow, etc. I do not change any of them.
    Auto seems to be applied automatically (no pun intended) when I click
    "B&W". The values that come up on the particular image that I am looking
    at right now are
    Red -11
    Orange -20
    Yellow -24
    Green -28
    Aqua -16
    Blue +14
    Purple +18
    Magenta +4
    That is what I am trying to eliminate -- any sort of toning effect. I
    want to see grayscale.
    Not in my version. See above. Even if I manually move all of the sliders
    to 0, the displayed image still has a strong yellow cast. Again, despite
    the yellow cast when displayed in Lightroom, if I export the image and
    open it in any other photo editor, the colors display correctly as
    shades of gray, and the pixel values verify that.

    Thanks,
    Greg
     
    Greg Berchin, Apr 16, 2014
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Greg Berchin

    Greg Berchin Guest

    Ah! That is where the B&W "auto" settings were set to be applied
    automatically.
    Importing directly. In general, I work directly with the .CR2 files in
    LR5, then save as (export) TIFF, PSD, or JPEG after modification. I do
    not ever change the actual .CR2 files.
    I looked through all of the preferences, found nothing that would
    explain the color cast. Thanks, I'll contact Adobe.

    Greg
     
    Greg Berchin, Apr 16, 2014
    #3
  4. Greg Berchin

    Greg Berchin Guest

    Found the answer in the Adobe Forum, here:
    http://forums.adobe.com/message/3160925#3160925. The color profile for
    the monitor must be set to sRGB. I had mine set to the manufacturer's
    default, and Lightroom was trying to compensate. Switched to sRGB and
    now gray is truly gray.

    Thanks for your help.
     
    Greg Berchin, Apr 17, 2014
    #4
  5. Greg Berchin

    Greg Berchin Guest

    Yes. It is set in the Windows Control Panel. I don't know how Macs
    handle it.
    As I mentioned, I am still learning to use Lightroom. At this point it
    looks like my workflow will be to convert CR2 to B&W in LR, export to
    PSD or TIFF, and then crop, resize, and convert to PNG or JPEG in an
    external editor.

    Wow. Seven acronyms in one sentence.
     
    Greg Berchin, Apr 17, 2014
    #5
  6. Greg Berchin

    Guest Guest

    it's in the displays system preference panel, which is essentially the
    same thing.
    do all of that in lightroom and then export the results in whatever
    size and format you want. there's no need for an external editor unless
    you are doing extensive and non-trivial retouching.

    the point of lightroom is to put everything you need in one app.

    and don't forget that lightroom is non-destructive, which means you can
    change the cropping at any time, as well as anything else you do.
     
    Guest, Apr 17, 2014
    #6
  7. Greg Berchin

    J. Clarke Guest

    I'm curious as to why you would use an external editor for this.
     
    J. Clarke, Apr 17, 2014
    #7
  8. Greg Berchin

    Greg Berchin Guest

    Bingo! I'm just not up to that lesson in the tutorials, yet.

    As far as I have been able to determine, LR only lets me export
    losslessly in PSD or TIFF. When I share photos, I like to use PNG. Is
    there a way to do that in LR?
     
    Greg Berchin, Apr 17, 2014
    #8
  9. Greg Berchin

    Guest Guest

    in the lightroom export window (file menu), you can export jpg, png,
    tiff, dng or the original format, with the images renamed as needed
    (leaving the originals untouched), with a watermark and/or additional
    sharpening if desired.

    part of a non-destructive workflow is keep everything raw until the
    very end, where you decide what format and what size is needed, and
    then export it as appropriate.
     
    Guest, Apr 17, 2014
    #9
  10. Greg Berchin

    Guest Guest

    Export as PNG is not an export option in LR5. If it is you need to
    explain just how to get there.
    < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_659.jpg >[/QUOTE]

    so it is. i even checked to see what formats export had before listing
    them, looking at that very same list.
     
    Guest, Apr 17, 2014
    #10
  11. Greg Berchin

    Guest Guest

    Show me.
    I don't seem to have that option on the LR 5.4 the latest update on this Mac.
    ...and I have been using LR since the original beta.

    I suggest you look again. PNG does not exist in LR unless you import an
    original PNG. Then and only then can you export from LR as a PNG. (that
    would be the *original* option)[/QUOTE]

    you misread what i wrote. i checked before i posted to list what was
    there, but somehow png snuck in. as you said (and your screenshot
    shows) it's not there.
     
    Guest, Apr 17, 2014
    #11
  12. As another point of reference, my experience is similar to Mr. Duck's.
    As to .png, I ask "Why bother"? JPGs are the universal format. PNGs were
    supposed to do something great five years ago or more, but are used only
    in some situations- don't know which ones call for it.
     
    John McWilliams, Apr 17, 2014
    #12
  13. Greg Berchin

    android Guest

    ° PNGs are lossless with little metadata
    ° JPGs are lossy with full metadata

    => PNG is an efficient web format...
     
    android, Apr 17, 2014
    #13
  14. Greg Berchin

    Guest Guest

    ° PNGs are lossless with little metadata
    ° JPGs are lossy with full metadata

    => PNG is an efficient web format...[/QUOTE]

    actually it isn't because png is much bigger than jpeg, making it
    *less* efficient, and nobody is going to notice any difference anyway
    (unless the jpeg is really crappy).

    where png is useful is for the alpha channel & transparency. it's also
    useful for line art or similar graphics with high frequency
    transitions, where jpeg will have problems.
     
    Guest, Apr 17, 2014
    #14
  15. Greg Berchin

    android Guest

    actually it isn't because png is much bigger than jpeg, making it
    *less* efficient, and nobody is going to notice any difference anyway
    (unless the jpeg is really crappy).[/QUOTE]

    Oki... That's an opinion. I don't like lossy stuff and pngs are less
    expensive than tiffs and would render faster than those. I like pngs.
     
    android, Apr 17, 2014
    #15
  16. Greg Berchin

    Guest Guest

    Oki... That's an opinion. I don't like lossy stuff and pngs are less
    expensive than tiffs and would render faster than those. I like pngs.[/QUOTE]

    less expensive? there's no cost to use png or jpg or tiff.

    there's nothing to render, but if you mean size and time to download by
    'expensive', then jpeg would win because it's the smallest so the
    download time is fastest, making the web page quicker to load.
     
    Guest, Apr 17, 2014
    #16
  17. Greg Berchin

    J. Clarke Guest

    FWIW there's a freeware plugin that supports PNG. Haven't used it so no
    idea how well it works:

    <https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/exchange/index.cfm?
    event=extensionDetail&extid=3275022>
     
    J. Clarke, Apr 17, 2014
    #17
  18. Greg Berchin

    android Guest

    less expensive? there's no cost to use png or jpg or tiff.

    there's nothing to render, but if you mean size and time to download by
    'expensive', then jpeg would win because it's the smallest so the
    download time is fastest, making the web page quicker to load.[/QUOTE]

    Your case for jpegs is nonsense if you don't like lossy. But again, if
    you want metadata than jpgs it is...
     
    android, Apr 17, 2014
    #18
  19. Greg Berchin

    Guest Guest

    you won't notice the loss unless it's a low quality jpeg (or line art,
    which is not suitable for jpeg, as i said).

    this is easy to test. make a jpeg from a tiff or png and paste it into
    the original as a second layer in photoshop and then subtract the two.

    what you'll see is what's lost. if they were 100% identical (no loss),
    you'd see nothing. with a high quality jpeg, you'll see *very* little
    and would have to pixel peep the actual image to even notice it.
     
    Guest, Apr 17, 2014
    #19
  20. Greg Berchin

    PeterN Guest

    I know I'm late for this thread. But, I suspect that, and you confirm
    there is an ICC profile issue. If you want to print your images they
    could be substantially off if you don't set the ICC profile to match the
    profile of the paper. I learned this the hard way when my former
    printing service would not give me the ICC profile for the paper he was
    using. If your monitor is properly calibrated what you see on your
    monitor will be a fairly close match to your print, or other viewing
    device. e.g. A printed made on one particular paper will probably look
    different than the same print, printed on a different paper, unless you
    convert to the ICC profile for each paper. Soft proofing will come
    pretty close to showing-what you may expect the print to look like.
    The same principle-applies to different viewing devices.
     
    PeterN, Apr 17, 2014
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.