4.1 Beta 9 - Issue with copy and paste of tool stack

Posting rules: It shouldn't need saying, but... play nice. Please keep your discussions civil. You can disagree, just don't be disagreeable. And, of course, all of the usual stuff like no spamming. Tex adds: I'll be rigorously enforcing this as we go along. We're probably going to be a small community in a little lifeboat, so we can't have members at each others' throats. This is for the sake of the project as a whole. So when you post, pretend you're speaking in person with your very wealthy auntie who has always treated you wonderfully and currently lists you prominently in her will. I won't be tossing anyone out of the forums because we are all in this together (except spammers: immediate membership cancelation), but I'll delete suspect posts right away.

5 posts / 0 new
Last post
4.1 Beta 9 - Issue with copy and paste of tool stack

Copying and pasting of tool stack from raw source files results in double stack of "RAW Adjustments" tool layer and causes exaggerated chroma levels and distortions.

  • Mac OS X 10.6.8
  • LightZone 4.1.0~beta9 (d0e9a0d)
  • Canon D60 shooting RAW (CRW) format

Starting with bracketed exposures shot from tripod, I can apply exposure adjustments, relight tool, and spot removal tool layers with multiple defined regions on spot removal layer. In LightZone 4.0.0 (e947c80), I can copy my tool stack from my first image edits to subsequent camera raw exposures and adjust exposure and relight tools as needed without having to adjust or re-create the multiple spot removal regions.

The same process in 4.1b9 results in two "RAW Adjustments" layers, neither of which can be deleted. It seems that doubling the color temperature processing layers creates a very strange result. I can create a workaround by saving the spot removal and relight layers as a style and apply that style to subsequent exposure edits rather than copying the entire toolstack.

The workaround is not difficult, but copying and pasting the toolstack seems somewhat broken in this respect.

There was a similar problem

There was a similar problem discussed a few month ago.


Here is a link to the important post in thread.




That problem was to do with the naming convention  for the .lzt Tone Mapper file.


It was believed that all identified problem files had been found and fixed which makes me wonder if this is one that somehow was missed or if some other but similar effect is in play.


It may be worth reading the whole thread to see if any of it applies in some way. If it does we should be able to work out a fix for the current process and the dev team can check the internal files.


Are these problems related to images that you have processed previously or new images being processed for the first time?








The key was in your last

The key was in your last question... The original files had been processed previously.  By examining metadata I discovered that the toolstack in the matching _lzn.jpg was originally created by my first version of LightZone - 3.6.1.


I successfully recreated my workflow directly from camera raw files with LightZone 4.0, 4.1b7, and 4.1b9. In any 4x version, if I start editing from scratch, the tool stacks will copy and paste properly within the same version of LightZone - with the exception that the _lzn suffix convention is dropped from the resulting .jpg file. Copying a tool stack that originated in 4.0 (or earlier) to a raw file in 4.1b7 or 4.1b9 does not work properly.


This makes sense in the context that the RAW Adjustments layer has been enhanced in the 4.1 beta versions; however, from an editing perspective 4.1b9 seems perfectly capable of reading and working with the tool stack from older versions. The problem only presents itself when pasting an old tool stack on a raw file in a LightZone 4.x version. Would it be feasible to code an error check in the paste tool stack operation that would detect the older somewhat incompatible RAW Adjustment layer and give the user the option to either toss out the data from the old RAW Adjustment layer and gain the control of the RAW Adjustment (V2) OR keep the old RAW Adjustment layer and not apply the newer RAW Adjustment layer to the tool stack? Alternatively, would it be possible in the edit window to allow either RAW Adjustment layer to be unlocked and subsequently deleted from the tool stack?


Thank you for helping me isolate my issue, considering my ramblings, and keeping this great software alive.

The Lift and Apply option (or

The Lift and Apply option (or any batch style application that by-passes the editor "Save" process) has always resulted in jpg edit files without the _lzn suffix ini the file name. Whilst this seems odd I find it quite useful to distinguish between 'hand crafted' _lzn edits and those mass produced by copy and paste.


For the wider problem one immediate solution (assuming you are not revisiting thousands of old images!) might be to open the original edit and save the tool stack, without the RAW Adjustment tool, as a Style. Then re-open the CRW as a new edit and apply the style or simply apply the style directly from the browser.


As far as I know either of those options should work but obviously you should test the theory for yourself rather than take my word for it!






Thanks Grant,

Thanks Grant,

I never thought about looking at the absence of the _lzn suffix as a feature to differentiate between LightZone editor originals and batch applied edits - thanks for the new perspective.

Saving the tool stack (sans raw adjustments) as a style and applying the style works perfectly, from within the editor and from the browser context menu.

I am going through old images from 2009 with the intention of purging content I'll never use again. I thought some of the images would make good subjects for reprocessing with LightZone beta and providing feedback.

I'm still using the same 6.3 megapixel Canon D60 I was using in 2009 and I've had excellent results processing through LightZone over the years. Some photos I shot last month I thought were terrible misses with manual flash and exposure settings, but they turned out quite good after processing with LightZone 4.0. I'm just so thankful that you guys didn't let the software die when LightCrafts closed.