digitaldog

It is good to see you cleaned up your claims above from what you wrote on LuLa after someone asked for specifics of the claims: https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=141868.msg1250339#msg1250339 "Sylvania MR16 TruWave LED 40929 lamps are a direct replacement* for 4700K or 5000K SoLux bulbs. Fits directly into existing 12V MR16 fixtures. The TruWave Technology suppresses** the nasty blue peak present in most other LED lamps." *indeed, they do fit. Like all MR16 bulbs..... **"Suppresss" and eliminate the spike (peak); as seen here: big difference.

Someone needs to study SPDs (specifically Solux bulbs) before embracing one from a manufacturer, not one they didn't and cannot independently measure and provide to readers. Fortunatel, someone here can:

And you have and tested colorimetrically to back this up: yes or no???“replacement” only by virtue of fitting and they are not close to identical to Solux bulb which are not obsolete.

And: https://helpx.adobe.com/in/lightroom-classic/help/image-tone-color.html Last updated on 24 Jan 2023 https://focus.picfair.com/articles/how-to-create-beautiful-black-and-white-photos "There are many ways to convert your image to monochrome, and the only ‘right’ way is the one that gives you the result you’re after."

https://photopxl.com/black-white-conversion-in-lightroom-pxl-print-series/

Well there are zillions of presets (some free, some not) for B&W conversions, or you can make your own, all within the raw processing engine. Frankly, I'd prefer to roll my own but I don't do that much color to B&W conversions. And I'd much prefer to do everything parametrically and using Virtual Copies all inside LR. I suppose you'd have to test your own conversions vs. Efex and weigh the pro's and cons. But for me, I want to do as much with the raw data as humanly possible. And I don't find the tools for conversions (some outlined in the Schewe video I referenced), in the Adobe Camera Raw engine limited. I can't imagine how there's more "powerful brightness and contrast controls (e.g., Dynamic Brightness, Soft Contrast)" than what's in the raw itself. Yes, some controls may be more difficult to deal with in LR itself, but the data isn't any 'better' the DR isn't any greater in Efex.

Did you see this? The price is right: https://www.northlandscapes.com/free-black-and-white-lightroom-presets-for-landscape-photography

Try a different USB port. It might not supply enough power. There should be an X-rite diagnostics software you can download and test the hardware.

Edits the original.

Some clarifications of above: "Well, until we save it (or use Save As...) it's not really a document. (BTW, round tripping from LR to PS always Save, not Save As...)" You can of course use Save As... but if you expect LR to catalog the location of the save, always use Save. In an external editor, this may differ but Save should again allow LR to know the location next to the original and catalog it. "LR will render it with the edit and now send it to Silver Efex and after one 'saves' there, it will be a non-virtual document that is now 'stored' in the Catalog" NO images are stored IN a catalog hence the quotes. Their location, the previews, edits and more are stored in the catalog. Which is why anything you can do from outside LR (rename documents, move them, delete them, copy them) should always be done inside LR which can provide the same options. Not mentioned with respect to Alan's screen capture: Edit a Copy. I'd hope that option is obvious with respect to the other two options.

Alan's caveats are "Klein" confusions. 🤪 There is one Lightroom Classic caveat and it concerns Layers but more about that later. Let's look at how Lightroom Classic and most parametric editors really work. Let's do so with rendered images (TIFFs, JPEGs, PSDs, PSB) to make it clear; this includes such documents as well as raws. Let's make a Photoshop document that is 5x5 pixels (25 pixels), 8-bit per color, sRGB, and all 25 pixels are RGB 50/50/50. Let’s save it to the desktop. Let's import it into Lightroom Classic. The catalog now knows the document's location. It builds a few previews (they differ in type and size depending on a number of factors that don't apply to this discussion). We have some tool in Lightroom Classic to edit ONE pixel, so instead of RGB 50/50/50, it is now 60/60/60. We zoom in and can see yes, one pixel is lighter than all the others. We know open that document in Photoshop (or anywhere we could). What we see is all 25 pixels are the same. There is no one pixel that differs from the others. WFT? Well, of course, the edit is parametric! It wasn't rendered into a NEW document! We can do this a number of ways in LR (Export, in which case the color space, bit depth, and even number of pixels can be changed), we can use Edit in Photoshop, we can use Edit in (an external editor). Now the fun part. Do we open the original just as we did a minute ago, or use the LR edits? The latter renders the parametric edits with the original data. Say we open it in Photoshop with the rendering. Now what? Well, until we save it (or use Save As...) it's not really a document. We can use the Export command and maintain the exact same attributes (number of pixels, bit depth, color space) and save off a JPEG from the TIFF or whatever; the new edit is now rendered in the new document. (BTW, round tripping from LR to PS always Save, not Save As...). Let's say we use the Edit in External Editor (Alan's Silver Efex and his screen capture that isn't a caveat but simply an option the user should understand). Do you want the original (the desktop saved document) to be sent for editing to this product OR do you want the virtual document that has the one pixel edit sent to the product? This will only be an option IF Lightroom Classic detects a parametric edit. That document with the pixel edit doesn't exist. It is virtual. LR will render it with the edit and now send it to Silver Efex and after one 'saves' there, it will be a non-virtual document that is now 'stored' in the Catalog (database/DAM). Nothing to worry about, no caveat, simply an option the user should attempt to understand (which image do you want to be sent where?). The real caveat has to do with layers. You have this test document above, but now it has layers. You mistakenly believe, like Joe, that the one edit is non-destructive because you altered the one pixel on its own layer. Now it is cataloged in LR, and you want to send it to Efex. Well, now you are provided the option Alan shows, you want to edit WITH Lightroom Adjustments. Boom; the layer is flattened (destructive edit) just to apply the 60/60/60 edit of one pixel. It gets rendered and sent to Efex. Based upon the preferences for bit depth, color space etc. So the question becomes, what to do with layers? The answer for me is to draw a line in the sand when doing parametric edits and pixel edits. Going full circle to this "debate" where Joe and maybe others don't feel it's necessary to understand the mammoth difference between pixel editing and parametric editing! I do all parametric editing, and when I am ready to render and create layers or do pixel editing, I'm done doing parametric editing. BTW, going parametric from LR to Adobe Camera Raw isn't an issue; they use the same engine and edit IF (real caveat) they are on version parity. Also, be aware when you use Edit in Photoshop from LR, it is Adobe Camera Raw that renders the edits, NOT LR! Again, they should be on version parity which is the case if you subscribe to the two products. If the two are not on version parity, LR will pop a dialog telling you this and allow LR to render and send to Photoshop. Newer features in LR that don't exist in Adobe Camera Raw will not be applied! The parametric edits are text (metadata), and they are stored in the document (DNG, TIFF, PSD, JPEG) and/or the LR catalog. If you open the image with the 60/60/60 edit from a TIFF from LR in anything but LR or Adobe Camera Raw that has this edit, it will not appear, but the edit is there. The edit you see in LR/ACR is shown in its preview. But it isn’t a pixel edit. Not until it is rendered by the engine that created it. Make a parametric edit in Capture One, open it in Adobe Camera Raw or LR; you will not see it. It is a proprietary edit not understood outside its ecosystem.

Your caveat is rather unclear. All the edits here, as we've discussed are parametric. They are proprietary. Raws are read only. Lightroom has to send Sliver Efex or anything else, a rendered image (a TIFF, JPEG, PSD), or maybe, maybe a linear DNG. The "original" file is raw so what are you proposing and warning us what? A "new photo file" has to be produced to move edits from LR to anything outside LR (expect ACR, they share the same engine and parametric effects). Do you have and use Lightroom Classic?

Yes. They create previews to show you an adjustment/edit you'll get that matches the finished (rendered) image. This differs somewhat in Lightroom Classic depending on the module (most accurate previews are in Develop). After all, this is what a raw image really looks like when you view the raw data in a product like RawDigger.

Another expert (and very good photographer albeit not a pro) Karl Lang in his superb article referenced above discussing rendering raw data: Like a negative, the Raw file is not of much use until it has been rendered. To perform the task of rendering the Raw file on a desktop computer, we need a software application called a Raw processor. The Camera Raw engine used in Adobe Photoshop and Adobe Lightroom is an example of one such application. There are already many others. Just as there are myriad types of film, paper, enlargers, and chemistry, there are different Raw processors. Each application provides its own set of tools or “controls” to adjust the rendering of the print. Just as there was no single “correct” set of darkroom equipment, there is no single right way to design a Raw processor. What the raw processor needs to do is well understood. The controls offered to adjust the various parameters in Raw processing are determined by the individual application designer. Each Raw processor has different tools, and new tools are constantly being developed. These applications are in their infancy and will evolve rapidly over the next few years. A key point to remember is that you can always return to the Raw file and re-render it. As Raw processors become more sophisticated, new tools will allow more control and exciting new methods of rendering. Just as better chemistry and papers allow us to make prints of old negatives that are far superior to what was done at the time, new rendering tools will allow you to go back and improve a modern digital print that is rendered from the raw data. Further down for someone that may have difficulty getting through this superb white paper: When opening a raw file, the processing software produces a neutral rendering of the image, a starting point to begin the process. This is not the same as the automated rendering in the camera. It’s designed to utilize the full range of the source scene in a predictable way, to provide a reference. An experienced photo printer can look at a negative and know what to do, and likewise, a Raw print maker learns to look at the “neutral” rendering of the Raw software. From it he can see what’s possible, and know just what controls will realize his vision for the print. It’s also important to understand that there is no correct way to realize the neutral rendering. In fact, just like the camera JPEG it will vary by manufacturer. In the darkroom, you learn how the the brand of paper you work with acts. In the same way, with experience you will learn how your Raw processing software acts, and you will be better able to process satisfying render- ings from your Raw digital captures. Raw processing software provides more control over the rendering of a print than any process in the history of photography. The tools now available control aspects of the print that weren’t possible with traditional photography.

Expect when it's not.

I said no such thing. And yes, the process creates pixels! This process isn’t magic. Magic is the word you used** to describe a process you don’t understand and then write assumptions about the process. A process you could have understood if you read the article I posted discussing PIE from a professional photographer and industry expert in this subject. Now that’s two such experts you’ve failed to read and comprehend both inside and outside the forums! It isn’t magic, and yes, new, virgin pixels are created (rendered; a new term for you Joe?), with parametric editing. You clearly missed or didn’t understand this from Peter’s article: Non-destructive workflow Since you cannot alter raw files, PIEware doesn’t even try. With PIEware, all changes you make to images are simply instructions, or parameters, to interpret the source data differently. In order to return to an image in its default state, you simply get rid of the rendering instructions (or tell the software not to pay attention to them, if the software allows that). Explained in the article you didn't read or understand. When I asked (I don’t know if you are purposely trying not to understand this, or if you are really struggling with it.) it is now clear you're really struggling. Paddler's reply was spot on, it's obvious (if you actually read and try to understand from experts, how stuff works). In all Adobe Raw converters (that includes LR Joe) and, for that matter, virtually all raw converters, raw is read-only! The results are rendered RGB data from raw. Here is another article you should slowly read a few times: http://www.digitaldog.net/files/Langs_Render_to_Print.pdf These are the facts of how PIE software works: Flinging the complete panoply of fallacious arguments back at me doesn't alter those facts Joe. "Facts are facts and will not disappear on account of your likes." -Jawaharlal Nehru Understanding the vast difference between PIE (parametric editing) and pixel editing is a matter of education and choice. And I'm sure I'm not the only person that's been using PhotoShop since version 1.0.7 on macOS (years before it was able to be run on Windows), while writing multiple dozens of articles on this subject in peer-reviewed magazines, journals, and symposiums all over the world. How about you Joe; you one of those? There’s no transparency on your PhotoNet page that tells us anything about your experience in this field; care to share? **

Upload the raw as DNG which include all your edits to something like Dropbox to allow a masking attempt.

If you want to falsely believe it's magic Joe, go for it*. It's a new(er) kind of image editing. It has a name, many dozens of software vendors (those who supply raw processors) use it, it's not destructive and it has a name: Parametric editing. If you want to go to the ASMP site provided, or suggest to Peter Krogh who wrote that article for the ASMP several decades ago, your new name 'non-permanent' is more appropriate, again, go for it Joe; seems you have a lot of time on your hands to try changing the industry. As for whe way you assume most people work (instead of speaking just for your own workflow), might I suggest: "If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."-Bertrand Russell Undo in History isn't non destructive editing! It's undoing, there's no edit applied. Layers are not non destructive editing either. You want to print the document, you want to save it as a TIFF or JPEG to upload or present that to someone outside of Photoshop's handling of layers, you have to flatten it. It isn't non destructive! Parametric editing is, completely non destructive because you want to believe its magic. I don’t know if you are purposely trying not to understand this, or if you are really struggling with it. *"Tell people that there’s an invisible man in the sky who created the universe, and the vast majority will believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." - George Carlin

You can make up a new term (non-permanent editing) to replace a well know and historically understood term (parametric editing), if you wish Joe. But the whole statement is kinda like, "Which is better for removing a brain tumor? A Black and Decker cordless screwdriver, or the thingie on Swiss Army Knives for taking stones outta horses' hooves?" Parametric editing doesn't burn anything into the original! It is used to create pixels. It doesn't push them, it only reads them as raw data. A color print from a negative isn't much different. The neg is read only. Adobe (and others) treat raw parametric editing as read only. Again, raw is raw and remains raw. Yes, the rest is a workflow choice; some make better choices based on the understanding of the workflow and the data treatment, than others. 🤔

Parametric editing actually is non destructive editing. https://www.dpbestflow.org/image-editing/parametric-image-editing No, it's “not all” non destructive editing. But parametric editing is.

Watch, there are few better ones: https://photopxl.com/black-white-conversion-in-lightroom-pxl-print-series/

The pluses in LR (or ACR) is it's totally non destructive (parametric edits), you can build as many Virtual Copies (iterations) as you wish with no overhead, the edits are always applied in best processing (not user order), and your color (raw) data is never touched. If you saw a video that said better tonal range, ignore it! Raw is raw. The DR of the data is what it is there.

At a price yes, something like this might work depending on your 'rig' for capture. https://heritage-digitaltransitions.com/product/8-x-10-framed-multi-format-anti-newton-glass-film-carrier/ https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/4676-REG/Beseler_8072_Universal_Anti_Newton_Glass_Negative.html?srsltid=Ad5pg_HZsml5jZNAfjLFQtnNQYN4_ayZHhCcBm_nG-UyAiasBD7W01YNaVY

It wasn’t a sharpening tool but one designed to ‘fix’ camera shake. It was removed for whatever reasons. Adobe rarely does this and there were those who suggeted it wasn’t any good (and those who complained it was removed). But it’s now gone.

Shake Reduction in Photoshop is gone if thats what you’re referring to.