Thoughts on Adobe Photoshop Lightroom, V1.0

I used Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 1.0 for the first time on a commercial job not long ago, and I must say I found it, in all, very slick indeed on the RAW processing side. Certainly it is not without its flaws, and certainly it is missing some major features still, but it's fast, responsive, easy to use, and overall produces excellent quality results. I'd really like it to be my default RAW converter, but there's a few show-stopper problems currently that prevent this from being the case.

In terms of its ability to quickly sort, preview, and apply high quality raw adjustments, Lightroom is second to none. Capture One is still faster, but has a far less intuitive and elegant interface in my opinion (and is noticeably pricier), so I really think Lightroom takes the cake in this regard. Rarely have I found a product so easy to use without reference to any form of instruction - I simply plugged my camera in, and immediately started downloading raw files. I was then able to make, in front of the clients, and in very little time, high quality adjustments to white balance, exposure, contrast, density and colour. I could even fix up dust bunnies without leaving the raw converter. Fantastic!

However, when it came to completion of the job, Lightroom proved itself noticeably flawed in a number of areas - the biggest and most problematic area being colour management (and thus printing), and the second big bugaboo being print resolution/sharpening. Let me explain why I think Lightroom is currently fundamentally flawed, despite its overall polish....

First, I tried to make printer profiles using targets printed from Lightroom (which requires the target's colours to be printed without any change), and found this is simply not possible. I tried everything I could think of - including what SHOULD be the solution, i.e. zeroing all the settings in the Develop module, without success. It is, as far as I can tell (and web research supports), impossible to print a target file from Lightroom without it manipulating the colours. That is, it is impossible to print non-raw files from Lightroom in the same way (i.e. with the same colour accuracy) as from Photoshop or any other Adobe application. Apparently, Lightroom assumes any image without an embedded RGB file is in sRGB, which it then converts to its own internal colour space (Lightroom RGB, also known as MelissaRGB). In general this is a good policy - most untagged files probably ARE supposed to be in sRGB - but to give you no control over this process, and to simply assume this, is bad design.

(If anyone thinks they can successfully print a profile target from Photoshop following our instructions, and another from Lightroom V1 that matches exactly, I'm very happy to offer a free custom profile for the secret!!)

Of course this isn't an issue for actual raw files processed from the outset in Lightroom. But here we find another of Lightroom's flaws. Lightroom internally uses a colour space called MelissaRGB, a variation of ProPhoto with linear gamma more suitable for raw processing. However, for its onscreen histogram and colours, it always assumes you are using sRGB (wrong, see red text below) ! And you can't change this!! This is a big problem. One of the nicest things about RAW converters is that rather than you having to choose a default working space, they show you what colour space each individual image requires (with the principle being the smallest colour space that does not saturation clip is the one you should use, for more in depth discussion on this see this section of the Digital Fine Print Notes).

However, if the onscreen histogram and RGB values assume sRGB and can't be changed, then you can't use any other colour space in Lightroom with any real accuracy. Sure, you can export the file to Photoshop in one of three spaces they deign to let you use, and work it out there, but that kind of defeats the purpose of a high quality raw converter, and this is a barmy decision on the part of Lightroom's designers.

Correction: The above paragraph is wrong, and apologies for the mistake - the onscreen histogram is in fact a wide gamut histogram (presumably essentially ProPhoto). I checked the above with a particular file but there was an error in my methodology that led me to false conclusions. This just reinforces the point below, though, that it is near impossible to tell what Lightroom is doing to your files since the documentation and the program itself both do not tell you! You still need to export the images into Photoshop to see a histogram in the final output colour space, and the RGB values Lightroom show you are next to useless because without a clear definition of what the colourspace is, you can't know the absolute colours these RGB values correspond to.

(Why only three colour spaces?? Why not let the user choose any one they like?! Adobe Camera Raw at least updates its histogram depending on what colour space you are using, and so the more basic, free, chucked in with Photoshop raw converter in fact remains more useful - although it too won't let you use just any colour space you actually want - you have to use the ones they let you use!)

It's part of a general approach in Lightroom to simplify the problem of digital imaging. But I think in many ways they've gone too far with this - the program has become rigid in its approach where many people need flexibility. I think it's a good idea to hide this complexity from the average user, and from the average program use experience (lets face it Photoshop is a hideous mess of unneeded options, for the most part), but to remove this useful complexity altogether is a bad decision which limits the use of the program in any serious professional context where high quality colour is your goal.

Another example of this rigidity is in the print dialogue box - you must specify the print DPI. However it does not tell you what it actually means here - does it mean the file's PPI, or does it mean the printer's native resolution? In fact, it seems to mean neither, as simple testing will show that it will NOT print a file without resampling the image (i.e., resampling artifacts are visible on ANY print from Lightroom - supply it a 300 PPI file, set this switch to 300 PPI, and it still resamples!).

This is not so drastic a problem with RAW files (which get re-sampled quite effectively from the raw data), but a huge problem if you want to let Lightroom print TIFFs for you (which show obvious damage to quality from re-sampling, even when Lightroom is set to 360 PPI!). Again, there is no way to disable this default re-sampling that I can find, and no way to find out explicitly what is actually happening in the background. And with print sharpening, the level of control is simply not enough - there is no choice in the sharpening algorithm, no real control over the amount of sharpening (low, medium and high is all you get), and no ability to mask off the area you want to sharpen - all fundamental parts of effective sharpening technique.

These major flaws negate the usefulness of Lightroom for me, in any other context than sorting and previewing, and basic edits. Quite simply they have a large, easily noticeable negative impact on the quality of results that can be achieved both in terms of colour accuracy and image texture - two things absolutely fundamental to the really high quality print. It forces me to move all shots into Photoshop anyway, for all but the initial adjustments. Which, especially in a commercial, speed critical context, is a bit of problem!

In the end, Lightroom as it stands is all style and no substance, at this stage. Very little effort would be required to make it quite wonderful, though. Here's hoping version two fixes these problems and is not far away.

Incidentally, in researching this mini-article, I've found it very difficult indeed to find out what is really going on in Lightroom. The documentation is feeble, and the product pages etc are no better. The program itself does not identify what it is doing anywhere. The forums don't seem to offer any useful answers. I say it's a conspiracy!! That said, it really is so easy to use, that for the most part this is not a problem.

The PC is better than the Mac!

Yes, I'm going to court controversy here - and point out one area the PC platform is clearly much better than the Mac platform. But fortunately for you Mac owners, this will change with the release of OSX 10.5 in the near future.

Windows, unlike OS X, is capable of using any resolution PPI for a monitor. That is, it does not assume the pixel density of monitor is 72 PPI. Which is a good thing, because for a good long while now, the pixel density of monitors has been significantly higher than that - with values of 95 to 110 pixels per inch being quite common.

If you want to work out the pixel density of your monitor, just find out what resolution you're using (in your display preferences) and divide it by the physical size of your display. As an example, my monitor has a horizontal display resolution of 1680 pixels, and about 45 cm (or 17.5 inches) wide. Thus 1680/17.5 is 96 - my monitor is a 96 pixel per inch display. So in Display Preferences (Settings->Advanced) I tell Windows the PPI of my monitor is 96.

On the Mac platform, there is no way to specify your screen's PPI value. You're stuck with a default value of 72 PPI. However, 10.5 will support variable screen PPI, although it will probably take some time (a year or two) for actual applications to catch up with this.

What does having an accurate screen PPI get me? I'm glad you asked. The key thing it gets you is accuracy in screen sizes - that is, 12 point fonts at 100% are actually 12 point (meaning text is legible on larger screens).

Even more importantly, when I choose the 'Print Size' view in Photoshop, the image is displayed on screen at the actual print size (try it and measure the on screen image - it all is set up correctly it will be exactly the size the print will be). This is important because print size has a big effect on print aesthetics. Most of us know that, despite the modern fashion for printing everything at enormous sizes (in the vain hope this super sizing will bring some nebulous feeling of 'impact' to a weaker image), each image has its own ideal size.

Try it with a few of your own favourite images - simply print them at 5 different sizes, from a basic 6 by 4 all the way to the largest print you can do or afford, and blu-tac them up around your house for a week. Walk by them and you will soon see that the different print sizes can in themselves substantially alter the mood and feeling of an image. Ask your clients, family and friends if they have a preference. You will find that each image simply works best at a certain size. Of course not everyone will agree on this (or anything else!), but you'll almost certainly form your own opinion based on what you're trying to achieve with the image.

In fact, experience has shown that for different sizes, different retouching of an image may be required. For example, in big prints, shadows tend to open up dramatically, and so often need to be placed lower on the tonal scale than those same shadow regions in smaller prints, to really give a substantial feeling of shadow - of those lovely rich tones right on the edge of visibility that can make shadow regions so beautiful (and one area the new era of modern inkjet printers and amazing fibre based papers like Crane Silver Rag, with their remarkable tonal range, have really changed what's achievable in photography).

If you have an accurately sized on screen preview of your image, the feeling of your image at a particular size is far easier to assess. Furthermore, I've found that sharpening is easier to judge when looking at the actual print size. In the end, it's still no substitute for a test print (no screen, and no amount of colour management, ever will be), but I've found overall it gives a much better perception of what will come out of your printer than any other view. And in this one area, the PC is clearly better than the Mac - for now.