Victoria Bampton wrote:

 

Yes, on all counts.

 

1. Clarity is stronger and now tone-mapped, so it is a different effect.  You'll need different values.

 

2.  Definitely don't batch convert if you don't want to reprocess.  The new look is so different that the automated upgrade is a starting point at best.

 

3.  Excellent!!!

 

4.  It's sampling the area you can see in the loupe, so when you're zoomed out, you're sampling over a larger area which is useful for noisy images.

 

5.  No, you're right. 

 

6.  Yep, that sounds right.

 

White/black clipping - yes, that's the 'proper' name for the sliders, there just wasn't enough space.

 

Noise - yes, probably a space issue again

About nr 4. I devised a simple test, and it doesn't seem to use the whole loupe area. I sampled from a white area with a green line through it.

When I sample just next to the green line I get a fairly reasonable WB value:

However, if I center the picker over the green line I get a very different value. (Taking care to move the cursor only horizontally, to keep the amount of green in the loupe ~constant.)

This is repeatable too.

Would be great to hear from someone who knows how this actually works. (Would be even better if it actually did use the entire area.)

slarti3 wrote:

 

I did a quick test with an artificial TIFF image:

 

 

I cannot do the exact math, but the tool seems to be behave exactly as it is now supposed to.

If the area is all gray, then I can use any location in the image, even close to the other color and I get the same WB. But as soon as the sample window gets polluted with the purple pixels, the WB changes.

Sample window size also behaves as it should.

 

So, this is perfect for me

This is really strange. I'm testing myself now with the following image, and it makes no difference if the blue line is directly under the cross-hair or somewhere else in the loupe.

So with TIFFs at least it seems to work perfectly as intended. I need to go back and test on more raw files, I know I wasn't imagining what I saw before! (And still can see in the screenshots above...)

So I created an 8-bit tiff image with a neutral grey (~80% brightness) background, the same size as my 7D file (5184x3456) and drew a 1 pixel red line down the middle.

I re-did the test at 1:16 zoom and loupe size 17x17.

Strangely, the red line (very faint in the zoomed out image) only affected WB when it was either dead center or directly to the left of the cross hair.

If the red line was directly right of the cross hair the WB went back to 0/0 again:

Now, if you think that was weird, have a look at this.

If I scroll the loupe to 5x5, or in fact any other size than 17x17, the red line doesn't affect WB even if it is right under the cross hair:

Zoom 1:8

With the line directly left of the cross hair, it only affected WB at loupe size 17x17. I got the same result with the line directly to the right.

With the line centered under the cross hair it affected WB more and more the smaller the loupe size. Here 5x5:

Zoom 1:4

Now the red line affects WB when it enters the middle 5x5. But only at loupe size 17x17! (And it then affects WB equally wherever it is in the middle 5x5.)

With the line directly left or right of the cross hair it affects WB at loupe sizes 17x17 down to 9x9, but not 7x7 or 5x5!

With the line centered under the cross hair it affected WB more and more the smaller the loupe size.

Zoom 1:3

At loupe size 17x17 the red line now affects WB in the 3 lines to the left, the center, but only 2 lines to the right:

The results for the other loupe sizes were equally weird and erratic, I can't really be bothered to list them all.

Zoom 1:2

At loupe 17x17 the red line now affects WB in the middle 9 lines.

With the 5x5 loupe the line affects WB in the middle 3 lines.

Zoom 1:1

The red line now (finally!!) affects WB in all positions, at all loupe sizes. Here 13x13:

Conclusion:

I have no idea!! Pls help me.

Edit:

Ok, well one conclusion is this. At zoom 1:1 Lightroom seems to actually use the full loupe for the WB picker. However, at all other smaller zoom levels (1:2 ... 1:16) Lightroom only uses a smaller section of the loupe. And the number of boxes used in the loupe varies with loupe size!

This is weird beyond belief.

Lee Jay wrote:

 

davidnaylor83 wrote:

 

OK, I think I finally worked it out!

 

Zoom level doesn't affect the actual number of pixels sampled, only loupe size does. So the number of image pixels sampled is always = the number of boxes in the loupe.

 

The problem is, zoom level affects the view in the loupe. (Loupe shows display pixels, not image pixels.) However, the WB sample size is always the loupe size in image pixels.

 

 

Was that even remotely comprehensible?

 

That sounds like exactly what it's supposed to do.

From the release notes:

"White balance sample area is now zoom-level dependent"