the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

  • site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge
You are here: Home / The Last Word / Lightroom and Photoshop Exposure controls, Part 7

Lightroom and Photoshop Exposure controls, Part 7

April 25, 2013 JimK Leave a Comment

I was unable to figure out why Lightroom is boosting the brightness and chroma of 32-bit floating point TIFFs imported into it, so I reluctantly decided to use the correctly-exposed synthetic image with the minus one-stop Lightroom Exposure adjustment as the reference and compute errors from it.

I computed the CIEL*a*b* Delta-E stats of the differences in the Lab values of the 121 patches in each of the “underexposed and compensated stop for stop less one stop for the Lightroom processing” patches. They’re similar to what I have measured in real camera testing, but with far less noise.

The overall stats:

For reference, a 3D look at the difference between the baseline exposure and itself expressed as displacements of the original target values:

A 3D look at the image that was exposed 4-stops under and corrected four stops more than the baseline in LR, processed the same way:

A 2D look at the same image:

The one, two, and three stop under plots are boring; they’re virtually the same as the four stop under graphs above.

These are fairly small errors. Still, it’s nice to look at how they break down.

Here’s a set of Delta-H curves, the basic CIEL*a*b* difference metric that measures hue error:

And the chroma error:

There’s more chroma error than hue error (that’s a good thing) and the chroma error is mostly in the direction of increasing the chroma (could be a good thing, could be a bad thing).

Looking at the hue angle errors, we see no bias in direction:

And finally, here are the results using the CIE Delta-E2000 Color-Difference Formula:

Thanks to Gaurav Sharma, Wencheng Wu, and Edul N. Dala for the Matlab code to implement this measurement.

This color difference formula is new to me, and fairly new to the color science community. It is supposed to be more accurate than the old Delta-E formula. Assuming that it is, it is telling us that the errors we are seeing are nothing to worry about, since half a Delta-E is said to be one just-noticeable difference in the new metric (down from the 1 Delta-E which was supposed to be one JND in the old CIELab Delta-E.

The Last Word

← Lightroom and Photoshop Exposure controls, Part 6 CPA Raw Processing Panel →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

March 2023
S M T W T F S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  
« Jan    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • Good 35-70 MF lens
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S pixel shift, visuals
  • Sarmed Mirza on Fujifilm GFX 100S pixel shift, visuals
  • lancej on Two ways to improve the Q2 handling
  • JimK on Sony 135 STF on GFX-50R, sharpness
  • K on Sony 135 STF on GFX-50R, sharpness
  • Mal Paso on Christmas tree light bokeh with the XCD 38V on the X2D
  • Sebastian on More on tilted adapters
  • JimK on On microlens size in the GFX 100 and GFX 50R/S
  • Kyle Krug on On microlens size in the GFX 100 and GFX 50R/S
  • JimK on Hasselblad X2D electronic shutter scan time

Archives

Copyright © 2023 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.