Skip to main content
Adobe Photoshop Family

65 Messages

 • 

800 Points

Fri, Dec 27, 2013 10:37 AM

Acknowledged

Lightroom 5: ICC Table Profiles clipped shadows under OSX

Hi, I've just found a really bad issue occurring in Lr 5 (but also in all other Lightroom versions) under Mac OSX 10.9 with a calibrated monitor: dark shadows (from a value of 20 to 0) are all clipped (pure black with no detail and no textures) while the histogram remains ok, indicating NO clipped shadows at all. This issue afflics also ACR.

Photoshop for now is the only software under MAC that reproduces dark shadows correctly: Library Module shows a bit darker and shifted shadows than Ps but acceptable, Develop Module is really bad showing brutally clipped shadows (but you work in the Develop Module right?!).

The same problem occurred also in OSX 10.8 but it was related only to LUT profiles, creating a Matrix based profile problems were solved.

Now the issue occurs with both Matrix and LUT profiles, v2 and v4. There's no apparent way to make Lr working right.

Under Windows no problems at all: Bridge, Photoshop, ACR, Lr (Library Module and Develop Module) show the same correct NOT clipped shadows.

I tested 8 different Mac running 10.9 with different GPU, different monitors, different profiling Softwares (Color Eyes Display Pro, Eizo Color Navigator, BasICC Color, i1 Profiler). Same results.
I tried to change the gamma value (2.2, sRGB, L*) problems remain. I tried to change ICC version (v2, v4) problems reamain. I tried to change profile type (LUT, MATRIX) problems remain.

How can a photographer work professionally on RAW images if shadows are bad reproduced?

Why Photoshop can reproduce shadows correctly while Lr isn't able to do that?

Why this happens only on a Mac enviroment?

Is Lr based on ColorSync (that can't handle profiles correctly) while Ps isn't (because it can handle and it has no problem)?

Please Adobe, FIX IT for all professional photographers, we can’t use Lr for serious works under Mac.

Max Ramuschi
Adobe Certified Expert

p.s.: Added a 100% Crop screenshots that shows the problem, some photos are even worse...

Responses

Adobe Administrator

 • 

15.1K Messages

 • 

287.8K Points

6 years ago

We're hoping to sneak this into the next update. Won't be too much longer. Stay tuned.

Sr. Product Manager, Adobe Digital Imaging

4 Messages

 • 

90 Points

6 years ago

I'm having the same issue. Is ir related to ICC versions? (ver. 2 vs. ver. 4). My problem is particularly noticeable when comparing the same image in PS CS6 (or CC 2014) and LR 5. Wondering if LR5 is still operating on ICC ver. 2? Asking because when I switch monitor profiles to those generated via Apple profiler (rather than those generated by ColorMunki), crushed shadows dissipate and image looks the same in both programs. W/ ColorMunki profile, LR 5 crushes shadows andimage is very different than in PS.

Employee

 • 

628 Messages

 • 

11.5K Points

Hi Cole, 

No, I do not believe this is related to ICC profile versions.  This issue has to do with specific details of how the gamma encoding curve is represented in the profile.  (Multiple ICC profile versions, including 2.x and 4.x, support the affected gamma curve representations; this is why I do not think the version is relevant here.)  We should have a fix soon.

65 Messages

 • 

800 Points

6 years ago

Eric is right: EVERY kind of profile is affected. I tried all combinations, v2, v4, table, matrix, etc. Shadows are bad in all cases. And it occurs viewing all kind of images: tiff, jpg, dng, etc.

4 Messages

 • 

90 Points

6 years ago

OK, I'll go w/ that and hope it gets fixed soon. In the meantime, I'll go w/ PS version for printing. Not t be a pest...but if ICC versions are not the culprit, I can't figure out why the visual difference goes away when I revert to older monitor profiles? Here is an older discussion that initially lead me in that direction:

https://forums.adobe.com/message/4440968

Employee

 • 

628 Messages

 • 

11.5K Points

It is possible that the older profiles use a different type of gamma curve representation.  I believe it is the internals (how the profile correction data is represented) that is at the heart of the issue, rather than things like the profile version or other basic metadata.

4 Messages

 • 

90 Points

Thanks for the explanation.

4 Messages

 • 

90 Points

6 years ago

Hi Eric,

for whatever it's worth, I just reprofiled my monitor w/ Colormunki, using version 2 ICC and LR 5 now matches w/ PS 6. Don't know if this helps or hurts but figured I'd post it. Cheers, Cole

3 Messages

 • 

110 Points

6 years ago

This is another 10 days later after a fix was promised. Any news?

32 Messages

 • 

820 Points

Same question. Refreshing the Adobe Labs page automatically twice an hour for many weeks and also that RSS feed on high priority, and monitoring all the Twitter thingies and also this forum... but still nothing. :(
Maybe for Christmas?

251 Messages

 • 

6K Points

6 years ago

Thanks. I tested it and it seems to fix the problem at least for me. Very happy.

Employee

 • 

628 Messages

 • 

11.5K Points

Thanks for following up, Jao.

65 Messages

 • 

800 Points

Fix does not work for table gamma profiles.

23 Messages

 • 

372 Points

6 years ago

tested and not worked for me :-(
still much darker shadows...

23 Messages

 • 

372 Points

and different colors also, I think LR doesn't "see" the calibrated profile at all and using the native factory Eizo profile

23 Messages

 • 

372 Points

if I set Adobe 98 as monitor profile, (well, testing only..) both LR and Photoshop is 100% same. Eizo CX 240

65 Messages

 • 

800 Points

You're probably using a table gamma based profile, like me, and the fix isn't working for us. Adobe has still a lot of work to do to make Lr work properly.

23 Messages

 • 

372 Points

thank you Ramushi for still mention this problem, its not solved. Im using Color Navigator and Eizo OS X 10.10.1

32 Messages

 • 

820 Points

6 years ago

Thank you Adobe! :)
The shadows problem is 100% fixed here, now the fun begins. I can migrate back to Lightroom. Bye bye Capture One!

Employee

 • 

628 Messages

 • 

11.5K Points

Thanks for the update, Hans.

65 Messages

 • 

800 Points

Fix doesn't work for table gamma based profiles. Ligtroom is still unusable for users who work with professional monitors which use these kind of profiles (eizo color edge and Nec Spectraview).

65 Messages

 • 

800 Points

6 years ago

Jeffrey and Eric, the problem is NOT solved: matrix (polynomial) gamma based ICC profiles are now ok, BUT table gamma based profiles are exactly like before! Crushed black tones with no details! It seems you've found and solved one of the bugs, but not the other!

Again, with table gamma based ICC profiles, Lr shows dark, clipped shadows while Photoshop is ok.

Please moderators, change the status of this thread: it's not solved. This thread is about table based gamma profiles, and they are still not well supported.

I'm waiting for a response.

Adobe Administrator

 • 

15.1K Messages

 • 

287.8K Points

Can you share one of the profiles you're having trouble with?

Sr. Product Manager, Adobe Digital Imaging

Employee

 • 

628 Messages

 • 

11.5K Points

I'm not sure what's going on here.  I had one of the profiles with table-based gamma curve.  I tested that pretty carefully (as well as the polynomial-based gamma curve) with Lr 5.7, and did not see any meaningful visual difference on my system between the two cases.  I used the DigitalColor Meter on the Mac (useful system utility) to conduct color readouts, to be sure  (sometimes eyes can be fooled, even trained ones ...).  

It is possible there is some other system configuration or setup that I'm not replicating here, that is essential to reproducing the issue, when table-based profiles are concerned.

65 Messages

 • 

800 Points

The issue is easily reproducible on every Mac with every table based profile, created with every profiling software. Assuming that now Library and Develop show the same shadows (this bug is fixed), you have to compare Lightroom and Photoshop to see the shadows difference. Before wiriting here that the bug has not been fixed, I retested carefully it on several Apple machines: same results with all. I used Eizo Color Navigator on my desktop Mac, and i1 Profiler on the other laptop computers. The issue is clearly evident on both my Eizo display (with Color Navigator table profile) and the LCD screen of laptops computer (with X-rite table profile). These computers have default OSX configurations. The same issue is showing on OSX 10.8, 10.9 and 10.10. If you want I can send you two table profiles (one created with EIzo and the other created with X-Rite software) and a test image.

65 Messages

 • 

800 Points

To be more precise: Photoshop, Bridge and ACR (now ACR seems to be ok!) show correct shadows with table profiles, but Lightroom is still showing clipped shadows.

23 Messages

 • 

372 Points

to Jeffrey or Eric. Here are ICC from my system, Color Navigator 6, OSX 10.10. The ICC profile are only 4 kb?? https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4...

14 Messages

 • 

190 Points

6 years ago

I can confirm, issue not fixed on NEC Spectraview and table profiles. Please fix asap. Thank you very much

Employee

 • 

628 Messages

 • 

11.5K Points

6 years ago

Ok, I dug into this a little more.  All of the cases that I have seen so far with Lr 5.7 that have "too dark shadows" with table-based profiles have 1 thing in common:  they are using ICC version 4.x.  I also have examples of table-based profiles that don't have this problem, and they also have 1 thing in common:  they are using ICC version 2.x.

Therefore:   For those of you generating table-based color profiles and still experiencing issues with "too dark shadows" in Lr:  Can you please try using your color profile-building software (NEC, Eizo, X-Rite, etc.) to build "ICC version 2" profiles (instead of version 4)?

65 Messages

 • 

800 Points

the profiles I sent are Eizo v2.2 and X-rite v2.1 and are too dark.

Employee

 • 

628 Messages

 • 

11.5K Points

That's not what I found.  I used this exact profile (ICC version 2.1), compared with Lr and Ps, used the DigitalColor Meter software, and got the same values.  I also turned on/off soft proofing in Develop (the other workaround, to force Lr to use its own internal color management instead of the OS-level color management), and got the same color values.  

65 Messages

 • 

800 Points

If I turn on soft proofing in Develop with that profile everything is fine (shadows and colors) but with soft proofing turned off shadows are blue and a little darker.

65 Messages

 • 

800 Points

Nothing changes with the Eizo profile if I turn on and off soft proofing, shadows are way too dark. Can you confirm that the Eizo profile I sent is v2.2?

Employee

 • 

628 Messages

 • 

11.5K Points

Yes, the Eizo profile I have from you is ICC version 2.1.  This profile matches Photoshop and ACR.

Are you sure (via your System Preferences) that your currently-active color profile is a version 2.1 profile?  I understand that you may have multiple profiles installed on your system, for testing and experimental purposes, but what matters here is which of those profiles is currently being used. 

65 Messages

 • 

800 Points

to be more precise: with x-rite v2.1 profile and soft proof off there's a difference in shadows luminance of about L* 0,70 - 0,90 measured in the same area with OSX color meter and the dark tones are bluish. With soft proof on, the bluish cast disappears, but luminance difference remains.
With soft proofing on the difference between Ps and Lr are negligible, but with soft proofing off the two images differ too much.

65 Messages

 • 

800 Points

Yes, in my desktop I have activated the same profile I sent via e-mail: Eizo Color Navigator activate it by default, I have no other profiles in that computer.

Same thing in my laptop, I only have the X-Rite one.

It sound incredible that my Eizo profile in your computer doesn't show darker shadows in LR. In my computer ACR, Photoshop and Bridge are perfect, but Lr isn't... is there something I missed in configuring Lightroom?

65 Messages

 • 

800 Points

I sent two Eizo profiles: one was matrix and the other was table, are you looking at the right table profile?

65 Messages

 • 

800 Points

Update: with the X-Rite table profile and soft proofing on to simulate the X-rite profile (previously soft proofing was set to simulate Adobe RGB) I have perfectly matching colors and shadows with Ps. With soft proofing off, the image in Lr remains too different.

Employee

 • 

628 Messages

 • 

11.5K Points

Is the X-Rite table profile version 2.1 or version 4.x?

65 Messages

 • 

800 Points

The X-rite table profile I am talking about is the same I sent to you, which is version 2.1. With this profile I can match Ps and ACR only turning on soft proofing.

With the Eizo 2.1 table profile there's no way to have correct shadows, they are always way too dark.

65 Messages

 • 

800 Points

Update 2: I managed to match Ps shadows with the table Eizo profile enabling soft proofing to simulate the Eizo profile in use.

To recap: I can match Ps and ACR shadows with table profiles (both eizo and x-rite) only if I activate soft proofing in the Develop module and set it to simulate the monitor profile in use. At this point it seems that if we want Lightroom to work properly we should skip Colorsync which seems to not support correctly table based profiles. Is this right?

23 Messages

 • 

372 Points

I can confirm about soft proofing, its the only way to see the same in LR and Photoshop. Something is still wrong here

23 Messages

 • 

372 Points

6 years ago

look here, I tried to accelerate the effect, so I did calibration with ultra low contrast
black level 2,0, contrast ratio becomes as low as 51:1
ICC (table?)profile version 2.2 Eizo color Navigator 6.4.7
OSX 10.10.

23 Messages

 • 

372 Points

6 years ago

monitor contrast
I did an "weird" calibration with low contrast 2.0 cd, 51:1 contrast ratio (monitor get very low contrast)
Eizo Color navigator OSX 10.10, ICC profile 2.2
Is shadow clipping in LR even more visible then? see screenshot

If native contrast 0.2 cd Im sure the effect becomes more subtle. Perhaps most of us have native contrast and does not see the effect so easily. I usually prefer little less contrast on my Eizo, 0.3 - 0.4 cd/m2

65 Messages

 • 

800 Points

You probably have a table profile (Eizo creates this kind of profiles as default). Same behaviour here.

65 Messages

 • 

800 Points

6 years ago

This problem is not solved, please change the feedback status.