Lightroom Classic 14.2 and Lightroom 8.2 are available - Adaptive Profiles

dj_paige said:

I watched Anthony Morganti's new youtube video

about adaptive profiles. I didn't really watch the rest of the video.

Morganti takes an incredibly boring photo and compares Adaptive Color to Adobe Color; and compares Adaptive B&W to Adobe Monochrome.

In this video, the color photo with Adaptive Color plus some manual edits was brighter than the same photo with Adobe Color after manual edits as if this is an insurmountable difference and as if this was proof of the benefit of Adaptive Color. I wanted to yell at the screen "WE KNOW HOW TO CHANGE BRIGHTNESS". He admits that there isn't much visible difference between the Adaptive B&W plus manual edits versus the Adobe Monochrome with manual edits.

He then says on the basis of this comparison that sometimes Adaptive Profiles will help, and sometimes they will not help. Leaving me wondering if anyone has a good example of a SDR photo (not HDR, I don't have that hardware) where the Adaptive Profiles with additional manual edits really do make a difference. If you see such a video that shows an SDR photo where Adaptive Profiles really make a difference, please let me know here in this thread.

Click to expand...

dj_paige said:

I watched Anthony Morganti's new youtube video

about adaptive profiles. I didn't really watch the rest of the video.

Morganti takes an incredibly boring photo and compares Adaptive Color to Adobe Color; and compares Adaptive B&W to Adobe Monochrome.

In this video, the color photo with Adaptive Color plus some manual edits was brighter than the same photo with Adobe Color after manual edits as if this is an insurmountable difference and as if this was proof of the benefit of Adaptive Color. I wanted to yell at the screen "WE KNOW HOW TO CHANGE BRIGHTNESS". He admits that there isn't much visible difference between the Adaptive B&W plus manual edits versus the Adobe Monochrome with manual edits.

He then says on the basis of this comparison that sometimes Adaptive Profiles will help, and sometimes they will not help. Leaving me wondering if anyone has a good example of a SDR photo (not HDR, I don't have that hardware) where the Adaptive Profiles with additional manual edits really do make a difference. If you see such a video that shows an SDR photo where Adaptive Profiles really make a difference, please let me know here in this thread.

Click to expand...

jrsforums said:

dj_paige said:

I watched Anthony Morganti's new youtube video

about adaptive profiles. I didn't really watch the rest of the video.

Morganti takes an incredibly boring photo and compares Adaptive Color to Adobe Color; and compares Adaptive B&W to Adobe Monochrome.

In this video, the color photo with Adaptive Color plus some manual edits was brighter than the same photo with Adobe Color after manual edits as if this is an insurmountable difference and as if this was proof of the benefit of Adaptive Color. I wanted to yell at the screen "WE KNOW HOW TO CHANGE BRIGHTNESS". He admits that there isn't much visible difference between the Adaptive B&W plus manual edits versus the Adobe Monochrome with manual edits.

He then says on the basis of this comparison that sometimes Adaptive Profiles will help, and sometimes they will not help. Leaving me wondering if anyone has a good example of a SDR photo (not HDR, I don't have that hardware) where the Adaptive Profiles with additional manual edits really do make a difference. If you see such a video that shows an SDR photo where Adaptive Profiles really make a difference, please let me know here in this thread.

Click to expand...

You could start with many different profiles….for example, Adobe Standard or neutral or Color.and with adjustments get to essentially the same end result. The idea of a using different profiles is to get closer to the point the YOU want more quickly and with fewer adjustments needed. There is no hard and fast solution…and definitely not one which will meet the needs and desired final image for the tastes of all the people. Think of adaptive as another tool to chose from….then decide what works for you. That said….so far I like it and will continue to use it and see how it meets my needs…which so far, I for many of my current images….but not all.

Click to expand...

dj_paige said:

Is it all about getting a "better" starting point for additional edits? Or is the final edit truly better with Adaptive Color (or Adaptive B&W)?

Click to expand...

dj_paige said:

jrsforums said:

dj_paige said:

I watched Anthony Morganti's new youtube video

about adaptive profiles. I didn't really watch the rest of the video.

Morganti takes an incredibly boring photo and compares Adaptive Color to Adobe Color; and compares Adaptive B&W to Adobe Monochrome.

In this video, the color photo with Adaptive Color plus some manual edits was brighter than the same photo with Adobe Color after manual edits as if this is an insurmountable difference and as if this was proof of the benefit of Adaptive Color. I wanted to yell at the screen "WE KNOW HOW TO CHANGE BRIGHTNESS". He admits that there isn't much visible difference between the Adaptive B&W plus manual edits versus the Adobe Monochrome with manual edits.

He then says on the basis of this comparison that sometimes Adaptive Profiles will help, and sometimes they will not help. Leaving me wondering if anyone has a good example of a SDR photo (not HDR, I don't have that hardware) where the Adaptive Profiles with additional manual edits really do make a difference. If you see such a video that shows an SDR photo where Adaptive Profiles really make a difference, please let me know here in this thread.

Click to expand...

You could start with many different profiles….for example, Adobe Standard or neutral or Color.and with adjustments get to essentially the same end result. The idea of a using different profiles is to get closer to the point the YOU want more quickly and with fewer adjustments needed. There is no hard and fast solution…and definitely not one which will meet the needs and desired final image for the tastes of all the people. Think of adaptive as another tool to chose from….then decide what works for you. That said….so far I like it and will continue to use it and see how it meets my needs…which so far, I for many of my current images….but not all.

Click to expand...

All of that I have figured out myself, and at least one person (Anthony Morganti) has come to the same conclusion as I have. I would still like to hear and see specific examples that people have come across where Adaptive Color (or Adaptive B&W) produces the best results, better than other profiles.

Is it all about getting a "better" starting point for additional edits? Or is the final edit truly better with Adaptive Color (or Adaptive B&W)?

Click to expand...

jrsforums said:

dj_paige said:

Is it all about getting a "better" starting point for additional edits? Or is the final edit truly better with Adaptive Color (or Adaptive B&W)?

Click to expand...

You are getting into very subjective territory, which is not worth arguing.

I assume you have read the Adobe blog article: The Adaptive Profile

based on that, the Adaptive Profiles have the potential to provide a truly better end result, but again, that will be in the eye of the individual view and their preconceived/trained expectations or desires.

however, I say that, still based on getting to an end result quicker. One could still do similar adjustments to sky, background, subject, as the AI Adaptive profiles try to do, and get similar or same…or better for you…results. In the end, some one will always be able to say….well, I could have done that…as in “I know where the brightness slider is”.

Click to expand...

dj_paige said:

jrsforums said:

dj_paige said:

Is it all about getting a "better" starting point for additional edits? Or is the final edit truly better with Adaptive Color (or Adaptive B&W)?

Click to expand...

You are getting into very subjective territory, which is not worth arguing.

I assume you have read the Adobe blog article: The Adaptive Profile

based on that, the Adaptive Profiles have the potential to provide a truly better end result, but again, that will be in the eye of the individual view and their preconceived/trained expectations or desires.

however, I say that, still based on getting to an end result quicker. One could still do similar adjustments to sky, background, subject, as the AI Adaptive profiles try to do, and get similar or same…or better for you…results. In the end, some one will always be able to say….well, I could have done that…as in “I know where the brightness slider is”.

Click to expand...

So, "quicker" is not something I have heard about Adaptive Profiles, and that point didn't come across in the video from Anthony Morganti. He, as I did, seems to apply the Adaptive Profile and then changes the sliders as he normally would to get to the end result. No speed improvement shown. (Sometimes, relying on "experts" on YouTube doesn't get you an "expert" answer).

I can see how if you can skip the step of masking the subject, or masking the sky (or whatever) because the Adaptive Profile is doing the equivalent of that for you, that this can speed up the entire editing process. So I will have to play with it more.

Click to expand...

dj_paige said:

jrsforums said:

dj_paige said:

I watched Anthony Morganti's new youtube video

about adaptive profiles. I didn't really watch the rest of the video.

Morganti takes an incredibly boring photo and compares Adaptive Color to Adobe Color; and compares Adaptive B&W to Adobe Monochrome.

In this video, the color photo with Adaptive Color plus some manual edits was brighter than the same photo with Adobe Color after manual edits as if this is an insurmountable difference and as if this was proof of the benefit of Adaptive Color. I wanted to yell at the screen "WE KNOW HOW TO CHANGE BRIGHTNESS". He admits that there isn't much visible difference between the Adaptive B&W plus manual edits versus the Adobe Monochrome with manual edits.

He then says on the basis of this comparison that sometimes Adaptive Profiles will help, and sometimes they will not help. Leaving me wondering if anyone has a good example of a SDR photo (not HDR, I don't have that hardware) where the Adaptive Profiles with additional manual edits really do make a difference. If you see such a video that shows an SDR photo where Adaptive Profiles really make a difference, please let me know here in this thread.

Click to expand...

You could start with many different profiles….for example, Adobe Standard or neutral or Color.and with adjustments get to essentially the same end result. The idea of a using different profiles is to get closer to the point the YOU want more quickly and with fewer adjustments needed. There is no hard and fast solution…and definitely not one which will meet the needs and desired final image for the tastes of all the people. Think of adaptive as another tool to chose from….then decide what works for you. That said….so far I like it and will continue to use it and see how it meets my needs…which so far, I for many of my current images….but not all.

Click to expand...

All of that I have figured out myself, and at least one person (Anthony Morganti) has come to the same conclusion as I have. I would still like to hear and see specific examples that people have come across where Adaptive Color (or Adaptive B&W) produces the best results, better than other profiles.

Is it all about getting a "better" starting point for additional edits? Or is the final edit truly better with Adaptive Color (or Adaptive B&W)?

Click to expand...

jrsforums said:

dj_paige said:

jrsforums said:

dj_paige said:

Is it all about getting a "better" starting point for additional edits? Or is the final edit truly better with Adaptive Color (or Adaptive B&W)?

Click to expand...

You are getting into very subjective territory, which is not worth arguing.

I assume you have read the Adobe blog article: The Adaptive Profile

based on that, the Adaptive Profiles have the potential to provide a truly better end result, but again, that will be in the eye of the individual view and their preconceived/trained expectations or desires.

however, I say that, still based on getting to an end result quicker. One could still do similar adjustments to sky, background, subject, as the AI Adaptive profiles try to do, and get similar or same…or better for you…results. In the end, some one will always be able to say….well, I could have done that…as in “I know where the brightness slider is”.

Click to expand...

So, "quicker" is not something I have heard about Adaptive Profiles, and that point didn't come across in the video from Anthony Morganti. He, as I did, seems to apply the Adaptive Profile and then changes the sliders as he normally would to get to the end result. No speed improvement shown. (Sometimes, relying on "experts" on YouTube doesn't get you an "expert" answer).

I can see how if you can skip the step of masking the subject, or masking the sky (or whatever) because the Adaptive Profile is doing the equivalent of that for you, that this can speed up the entire editing process. So I will have to play with it more.

Click to expand...

Exactly! The important thing is to try it and see if it works for you!….or where it works for you!

Click to expand...

jrsforums said:

dj_paige said:

Is it all about getting a "better" starting point for additional edits? Or is the final edit truly better with Adaptive Color (or Adaptive B&W)?

Click to expand...

You are getting into very subjective territory, which is not worth arguing.

I assume you have read the Adobe blog article: The Adaptive Profile

based on that, the Adaptive Profiles have the potential to provide a truly better end result, but again, that will be in the eye of the individual view and their preconceived/trained expectations or desires.

however, I say that, still based on getting to an end result quicker. One could still do similar adjustments to sky, background, subject, as the AI Adaptive profiles try to do, and get similar or same…or better for you…results. In the end, some one will always be able to say….well, I could have done that…as in “I know where the brightness slider is”.

Click to expand...

Zeee said:

jrsforums said:

dj_paige said:

jrsforums said:

dj_paige said:

Is it all about getting a "better" starting point for additional edits? Or is the final edit truly better with Adaptive Color (or Adaptive B&W)?

Click to expand...

You are getting into very subjective territory, which is not worth arguing.

I assume you have read the Adobe blog article: The Adaptive Profile

based on that, the Adaptive Profiles have the potential to provide a truly better end result, but again, that will be in the eye of the individual view and their preconceived/trained expectations or desires.

however, I say that, still based on getting to an end result quicker. One could still do similar adjustments to sky, background, subject, as the AI Adaptive profiles try to do, and get similar or same…or better for you…results. In the end, some one will always be able to say….well, I could have done that…as in “I know where the brightness slider is”.

Click to expand...

So, "quicker" is not something I have heard about Adaptive Profiles, and that point didn't come across in the video from Anthony Morganti. He, as I did, seems to apply the Adaptive Profile and then changes the sliders as he normally would to get to the end result. No speed improvement shown. (Sometimes, relying on "experts" on YouTube doesn't get you an "expert" answer).

I can see how if you can skip the step of masking the subject, or masking the sky (or whatever) because the Adaptive Profile is doing the equivalent of that for you, that this can speed up the entire editing process. So I will have to play with it more.

Click to expand...

Exactly! The important thing is to try it and see if it works for you!….or where it works for you!

Click to expand...

I imported a bunch of files and the more I work with it the more I'm liking. The amount slider really helps. I like the sky it produces.

Click to expand...