digitaldog

It isn't an either-or. They are differing tools. One is a raw processor with true nondestructive editing; the other is a pixel editor. I simply prefer to do as much work parametrically as I can, and I can often do 100% or most in Lightroom Classic/ACR. 

The new AI features in PS (which will eventually migrate to the Adobe Camera Raw engine) is amazing. If you need to extend the canvas, if you need to do precise pixel editing, you're tool will be Photoshop. 

At least with Adobe PIE apps, the processing is done in 'best order', not user edit order. What the exact order is for everything, isn't told to those outside Adobe. But everything is done in a set order. That order is the same every time, no matter the order in which you touch the controls - e.g., if you apply Curves first, then White Balance, White Balance is processed before Curves because that's the order of the processing pipeline.
Some order is known such as the first is White Balance, Exposure, etc. Adobe recommends working (in Adobe Camera Raw) top down, left to right. In Lightroom Classic the order is presented in a similar fashion. You don't have to follow that order, but doing so will often make editing a lot easier (fix/edit the big global areas first). For example, you could alter saturation first, then Tint/Temp but that's a bit counterproductive. But you can. The final processing pipeline is then under Adobe's control when you render the image. 

I've gone half a year (or more) without printing on several Epson-pigmented printers in the dry Southwest environment without a clog. 

That said, I always run a nozzle check, worth the tiny amount of ink and one piece of plain paper to test. 

I don't buy cheap ink. 

This should read: Yeah, IF you don't use color; it severely limits the conversion to B&W options available to you.

Shoot (raw) color! Convert in Lightroom Classic. Simple. 

At its core, Lightroom Classic and Adobe Camera Raw are nothing like Photoshop. They are parametric editors, not pixel editors like Photoshop. They are primarily raw processors, although existing rendered images can be parametrically edited too; that isn't true and totally nondestructive editing. 

See: https://www.dpbestflow.org/image-editing/parametric-image-editing

Lightroom Classic has multiple modules; the Develop module is really akin (and if on version parity the same) as Adobe Camera Raw. It is also a full DAM with a catalog/database at its heart. If you print, LR's Print Module is worth the price of admission alone. 

With a PIE editor, the edits are applied in the best processing order, not user order which is also a big difference between these two products and Photoshop. 

No, LR doesn't offer what Photoshop does and vise versa. They are different tools with differing strengths and weaknesses but I can say as a raw shooter, a good 90% of my work can and is done in LR and in many cases, never needs to be opened in Photoshop. YMMV. 

Convert color to B&W: Photoshop, Lightroom Classic. 

http://www.schewephoto.com/workshop/Art-Black-White-DPP.pdf

Yeah, don't use color; it severely limits the conversion to B&W options available to you. 

My P900 arrived today, set it up, and made a few prints, no issues. But at least I know have a unit and if necessary, can trade notes. 

Man, coming from a P800, this new unit is SO slick! 

Flickering issue: Try enabling "Deactivate Native Canvas" in General Preferences and restarting Photoshop; better?

16 minutes ago, AlanKlein said:

see Paddlers 4 post.  Adjust the brightness.  That's measured in cd/m2. 

That is a measure of luminance. What you perceive is brightness.

“The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter. ‘tis the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.” - Mark Twain 

1 minute ago, AlanKlein said:

+1 

I found the same problem with too dark pictures happens when using Blurb to make a photo book.  Fortunately, they allowed me to redo it at no additional charge. 

The book was too dark?

You made the images too dark due to your incorrect display calibration? 

If anyone isn't a subscriber and can't get to Michael's original article he wrote: 

3 minutes ago, frans_waterlander said:

Totally agree, but I used that as an example of how people might perceive the idea of optimal exposure. 

If their perception is wrong, we teach them. As has been done in photography schools or elsewhere for like 200 years. 🤔

And if they say: "Do not fully expose as the resulting brightness might by more than what you want your final image to look like." let them know again exposure isn't brightness (and why) and that Brightness is a perceptual phenomenon one controls through processing (of the raw).

Brightness isn't exposure and is an attributes of the (raw) processing. As Michael explained and called “normalization” in his original article.

14 minutes ago, frans_waterlander said:

How about something like: "Full exposure results in the best SNR (signal-to-noise ratio); as exposure is lowered, the SNR gets worse."?
SNR is what really counts and "full exposure" sounds, in my opinion, better and is less provokative than e.g. ETTR, although it comes down to the same thing. This statement also includes both the absolute best possible case and what happens when you lower exposure. "Underexposure" in this context means "less-than-full exposure".

Any constructive comments?

ETTR is not a good term, but at the time, Michael wrote his story and explained it not too bad. He was using compensation of the lie of a Histogram for JPEG and suggesting one expose to the right of that for raw. Not that any well-trained photographer ever needed a Histogram to optimally expose film, even tricky transparencies. 

Full exposure is OK but a bit vague, but optimal exposure is better, IMHO. Optimal (correct, ideal) exposure is nothing new, and photography 101. Something some of us produced for decades long before Histograms and raw data existed. 
"Optimal exposure results in the best SNR (signal-to-noise ratio); as exposure is lowered, the SNR gets worse"?

EDIT: Optimal exposure is also subjective and something the photographer should control. Clip highlights? Sure, if you want to. Block shadows? Sure, if you want to. 

There is no relationship between the two displays; they are entirely independent of each other: calibration (brightness in cd/m2, color gamut, TRC/Gamma, even backlight technology). Both need calibration and a profile where calibration places the device into a desired behavior, and the profile defines that behavior for color-managed applications. So now we come to whatever OmniFocus is. And is it color-managed? If so, what you see there and in all other color-managed applications like Photoshop or a color-managed web browser* will match. If it isn't color managed, they will not, and you should either ignore the previews or use something else. 

* You may have heard or may soon be told, "The web is sRGB" which is hogwash. The 'web' is no different than any other way of dealing with 1s and zeros; the app used to access numbers is either color-managed so the numbers have a meaning and the display previews are managed, or they are not. 

Without the raws and viewing a raw Histogram, impossible to comment on their exposure.

Point your spot meter at a white dog on snow: massive under-exposure.

Point it at a black cat on coal: maybe over-exposure for the JPEG and maybe a very optimal exposure for the raw.

Just now, httpwww.photo.netbarry said:

 I tend to expose for the highlights in digital photos as I don't like blown out skis etc., and often like the shapes of shadows.

But for what kind of data and how? 

Articles on exposing for raw:
http://www.onezone.photos
http://schewephoto.com/ETTR/
https://luminous-landscape.com/the-optimum-digital-exposure/
http://digitaldog.net/files/ExposeForRaw.pdf
https://www.fastrawviewer.com/blog/mystic-exposure-triangle
https://www.fastrawviewer.com/blog/red_flowers_photography_to-see-the-real-picture
https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/exposure-for-raw-or-for-jpegs
https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/beware-histogram
https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/calibrate-exposure-meter-to-improve-dynamic-range

For general viewing, pick the widest gamut your Eizo supports (likely Adobe RGB (1998)) and your Mac (DCI-P3) and leave everything else alone; that's what I have set for my wide gamut display smart display system. In color-managed app's and web browsers, it will all be just fine. 

For general viewing, pick the widest gamut your Eizo supports (likely Adobe RGB (1998)) and your Mac (DCI-P3) and leave everything else alone; that's what I have set for my wide gamut display smart display system. In color-managed app's and web browsers, it will all be just fine. 

With the generous help (privately) of the fellow (who should go unnamed) that started this by suggesting my text was iffy**, we have come to a better understanding (for me) to come up with this simple statement:

The relative amount of noise changes with exposure. Underexposure produces more noise. If you underexpose, you'll produce more noise.

The statement below was, from his scientific perspective, sloppy. And I now have to agree. But I'm still open to comments unless we can put this to bed.  

**My iffy/sloppy statement was: Underexposure causes noise. His correction was Underexposure DOES NOT PRODUCE NOISE.

7 minutes ago, rconey said:

I feel like I could get flamed really badly here, but.....

No reason to do so. The reason for the discussion is mainly to define the reason for the noise and dismiss the idea "High ISO causes noise". 

Bracketing: If you can do it, great! Often I can't if I am shooting portraits, sports, action, etc. That's a good deal of what I shoot (note, I shot the 1984 Olympics on Transparency film: no Histograms, nothing that could produce any more than a few frames per second etc: IOW, an old fart). But sure, if you can bracket, go for it. 

Noise isn't a major factor again, thanks to new processing like Denoise. But if I can avoid it in the first place with optimal exposure, I will (and can). 

The goal isn't to make it (overall) technical. The goal is a sentence or two, for those who keep thinking and saying that they love NR because they shoot high ISO. That isn't the cause of the noise; how do we educate them without getting too technical, which I think would ideally bypass, if possible S/N ratios, photons, amplification etc. Might not be possible. 

If turning OFF the GPU works, it's a GPU bug, and you need to contact the manufacturer or find out if there's an updated driver for it. This is why disabling GPU is an option as more and more functionality moves to the GPU in newer versions of many Adobe products.
Also see: 

https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom-classic/kb/lightroom-gpu-faq.html

https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb/photoshop-cc-gpu-card-faq.html

https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb/acr-gpu-faq.html

Disable third-party graphics accelerators. Third-party GPU overclocking utilities and haxies aren't supported.
 

This could all boil down to semantics and *some* trying to be precise (which I can't fault).  Three different sentences from three different posters:

1. "Underexposure DOES NOT PRODUCE NOISE. That is NOT how the physics works"
2. "The effect of lowering exposure is to lower the amount of signal but not the amount of read or amplification noise. So, underexposing results in noise being a higher percentage of the total output".
3.  "Less exposure, less light, more noise".

Photographers state far too often: "I shot at a high ISO and the images are noisy".

Most here seem to agree that ISO isn't the cause of the noise. 

Most here seem to agree that less exposure results in more (visible) noise. 

What is a simple sentence or maybe paragraph to provide to those photographers that seem to think, higher ISO produces the noise? Clearly, this is an exposure issue. If underexposure doesn't produce noise, what is the message that can be stated that is both easy for them to understand and makes the scientist happy? Is that even possible?