Lightroom: LR4 Beta: Softproof previews in Library Mode

  • 3
  • Idea
  • Updated 6 years ago
  • (Edited)
The problem:

Virtual copies made for softproofing are hard to work with in the Library because I don't see the corrected ("softprooved") photo. What I see is an often strange looking photo/thumbnail with too much saturation and contrast. Only by switching to Develop mode and pressing "S" I can see what the photo will look like.

I have two suggestions which might solve this problem:

1. Being able to press "S" and turn on "softproof" in the Library. The background color will change just like in the Develop mode but only for softproof virtual copies.

2. Or the possibility to freeze virtual copies specifically made for softproofs so that:
- thumbnails/photos (in the library etc) always show the softproof version

- when I go to develop such a vitual copie, it automatically switches to softproof mode

A second suggestion I have is an addtional option for the export window under "color space". I think it would be useful to have an option "softproof profile" so that the image is automatically exported in the softproof color space I have been working with.
At the moment I have to manually change it for every profile. A mistake here would ruin the photo. An automatic way would be faster and safer.
Photo of P W

P W

  • 3 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes

Posted 6 years ago

  • 3
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 476 Posts
  • 76 Reply Likes
Keep in mind that the previews in Library are not as accurate compared to previews in Develop. I suspect having soft proof on in Library might slow it down even more.

Now what could be an issue is a user who is viewing a VC with soft proof edits and decides to alter this in Library with Quick Develop. They are visually flying blind. So your request is something that needs to be looked into.
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 476 Posts
  • 76 Reply Likes
Playing around, I made a VC from a soft proof. I made edits (screwed with temp) and looked at this VC in Library. I do see the severe edit I made. The other differences between the original master and the VC without the edit, with soft proof on is pretty subtle. So now I wonder if this is an issue or not. IOW, if you make a VC to soft proof and do a good deal of editing on it (presuably to make it look more like the master anyway), then view in Library, I’m not sure the preview here is an issue although I’ll keep an open mind. True, I don’t see the paper and ink simulation but I don’t know that is an issue in Library.

There is no question that in Library, the soft proof isn’t shown. I have a profile I use for testing called “Bad Profile” that shows posterization. I applied that and saw the posterization in Develop but none in Library. I wonder if LR could just build a thumbnail after one sets the soft proof and burn that into what we see in Library.
Photo of P W

P W

  • 3 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Thanks for the comment. I like the idea about LR building extra thumbnails for soft proofs.

Concerning your comment about the master thumbnail:

For some icc profiles the differences are negligible and the master thumbnail is a good enough reference.
For some profiles/photos though it's not possible to make the soft proof VC look like the master even with severe editing. For other photos I intentionally change the look of the soft proof in order to accentuate the strengths/characteristics of the paper.
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 476 Posts
  • 76 Reply Likes
I think the solution if possible is LR just update the preview based on the soft proof as you suggest. It makes little sense to me that the VC would honor all color appearance based on editing the image but not the initial preview when the soft proof is first turned on. Where else in LR does this happen?

And there are other modules where this soft proof plus edited VC should show the full and current preview. While it doesn’t make a lot of sense to soft proof in an printer output space, then apply edits, then use that VC in say Web, the data is still in MelissaRGB and there is no reason why that color appearance could not be honored when used although under the surface, there would have to be some color conversion from native color space to selected output profile back to native color space (uploading a printer color space to a web gallery would be very bad).