Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

Zeroed Defaults vs. Zeroed RAW File?

Jan 13, 2012 9:12 AM

It occurs to me that, while the new 0 values are a welcome change for the defaults (more intuitive than what appeared arbitray before), there is a limitation: how do I display a zeroed, uncorrected RAW file?  The LR4 zero'ing would appear to be similar to the previous LR defaults (allowing for changes in the process version), just with a more logical starting point; there is still an inherent adjustment, no?  But what if I want to start at the flat RAW file.  This would include contrast adjustments at the tonal curve (is the new linear the old medium?).

 
Replies 1 2 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 13, 2012 9:28 AM   in reply to Jay Mitchosky

    There's not an easy to do this in Lr 4 in PV 2012.  We understood this would be the case when we designed the PV 2012 controls, but we considered it ok (since a truly scene-referred image is generally not a useful starting point for edits).

     

     

    You can of course go back to PV 2010 and use the old zero'd settings. But that's not useful if your intention is to use PV 2012 controls ...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Victoria Bampton
    5,302 posts
    Apr 1, 2008
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 13, 2012 11:47 AM   in reply to MadManChan2000

    Eric, if you take a PV2010 file with linear tone curve and update it to PV2012, you get a reverse S point curve.  If you were to save that as a tone curve preset, could you use that to be the equivalent of the old linear, or have I missed a step somewhere?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 13, 2012 12:08 PM   in reply to Victoria Bampton

    Yes, Victoria, you can use a scene-referred starting point in PV 2010, update to PV 2012, and save that result (not just the point curve in the Tone Curve tab, but also the other resulting settings in the Basic panel) as a preset.  That will be close to a scene-referred starting point for PV 2012.  It won't be exact for a few reasons (e.g., highlight recovery is always enabled in PV 2012), but in many cases it may be close enough.

     

    To be honest, I see this approach as simply a preset that gives you a different starting point than the default ACR one.  I don't think there's anything special or magical about the unrendered scene-referred state, from the point of view of adjusting an image.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 13, 2012 12:10 PM   in reply to Jay Mitchosky

    Not that I will ever need it (dcraw works even better for scientific stuff), one suggestion would be to add a little button next to "reset tone" that sets the tone to true zero.

    Maybe even hide it when not pressing alt?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Victoria Bampton
    5,302 posts
    Apr 1, 2008
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 13, 2012 12:24 PM   in reply to MadManChan2000

    MadManChan2000 wrote:

     

    To be honest, I see this approach as simply a preset that gives you a different starting point than the default ACR one.  I don't think there's anything special or magical about the unrendered scene-referred state, from the point of view of adjusting an image.

     

    I'd agree, I've never seen the appeal of a dull lifeless image myself!  But nice to know what's possible, for those who do.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 13, 2012 1:43 PM   in reply to Jay Mitchosky

    I never said the vendor defaults are the right starting point (though some people think they are, and that's fine).

     

    My claim is that an image that looks pretty good to your eyes is the right starting point.   That means it's reasonably close to where you want the image to end up, so that means less work editing.  In most cases, a scene-referring rendering is very far from where you want to end up.  It's a consistent starting point, but it's no more consistent than any other pre-defined starting point.  Like I said earlier, there's nothing special about a scene-referred rendering for the purposes of adjusting images, whether it be for fine art workflow or any other workflow. 

     

    Lightroom has to provide some default.  We recognize that there's no way 1 default is going to be right for everyone.  That's why we provide you the tools to define your own defaults (either use a Develop preset at import, or define a custom camera default -- I do the latter).

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 13, 2012 2:33 PM   in reply to MadManChan2000

    I would agree with Eric Chan. There has to be one default, and that should the one that pleases most Lightroom users. Switching over from LR3, I was at first surprised about the new settings, but I quickly came up with a standard preset for base ISO, which I also set as a custom camera default. For the other ISO levels, I reverted the images to the standard presets, tweaked them mostly at sharpening and noise reduction levels, and finally set custom camera defaults for each ISO level.

     

    Having all this done, I get the feeling that I can get much easier and quicker to the final result than before. The reason is, as Eric explained, most likely that the PV2012 improved so much, that with good defaults, tweaking is far less necessary. I feel that especially the treatment of highlights is the time saver here, I spend more time dealing with them before, and never got a result as pleasing as PV2012.

     

    Thanks, Eric, for giving us detailed insight about the details and the motivation for the new "behavior" of PV2012.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • TK2142
    407 posts
    Jan 20, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 14, 2012 3:49 AM   in reply to MadManChan2000

    MadManChan2000 wrote:

     

    My claim is that an image that looks pretty good to your eyes is the right starting point. 

    But one has to know why that image looks "pretty good". If one does not and is not able to get it too look really good then the reason could be that one is not aware about the fact that the starting point already contained some edits that one would not have made this way initially.

     

    This issue obviously becomes worse, if the starting point is adaptive, i.e., if LR4 choses some initial settings depending on the image (-> e.g., auto black point). Then undoing those initial adjustments becomes even harder.

     

    Earlier you wrote "I don't think there's anything special or magical about the unrendered scene-referred state, from the point of view of adjusting an image." With all due respect, but that does not mean that others would not benefit from being able to start from a truly clean slate. Of course an image rendered with truly neutral develop settings will look bad. But one then knows which adjustments are required, because one isn't fooled by some unknown default adjustments which in the worst case are even depending on the individual image. One then does not waste time trying to make the image look good by going a wrong route. One does not waste time by trying to find the true neutral starting point, i.e., undoing the auto/implicit adjustments without any way of knowing what they were and with what intensity they have been applied.

     

    On the one hand I can see how the new approach is meant to be helpful. On the other hand, I'm strongly arguing for making it possible for power users to disable any auto adjustments and see what is actually happening rather than be given an oversimplified picture (e.g., be shown a "linear" curve where the real curve is anything but linear).

     

    If no default settings work for every user, why not use a truly neutral default? It will work for a subset, just as any other. You'll get the "My image previews change from 'great' to 'flat' looking during imports" comment with non-neutral defaults anyhow. You can make canned non-neutral defaults available, but let users see in what way they are not neutral, i.e., show a "medium contrast" curve instead of (implicitly) pretending there is no adjustment to the tone curve.

     

    Finally, if the initial motivation was alignment with JPG defaults, why not make the JPG defaults non-zero? If you must lie to the user about setting values, why not give the RAW shooters the true picture ("zero" means zero) and the JPG shooters the lie? This way, the lie wouldn't be as bad because a JPG will have some adjustments baked in. They will not correspond to the non-zero default values LR would be showing but at least there would be some correspondence. I personally would prefer to let "zero" mean "zero" everywhere and would not care that JPG defaults are different to RAW defaults, but if you must lie, I reckon the JPG shooters would mind less.

     

    P.S.: The same discussion is taking place here: http://forums.adobe.com/thread/946966?tstart=0

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 14, 2012 4:26 AM   in reply to TK2142

    I too would add my vote to having a "neutral" setting.  This will be particularly important for Adobe Camera RAW.  That way I can have maximum headroom for allocating contrast by channel from Photoshop's curves (and now LR4 RGB curves), applying local contrast enhancements, etc.  It's a different workflow, but can give better results once you get used to the approach.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 14, 2012 6:51 AM   in reply to jp2012

    Based on our experience and the feedback we've gathered from many users, "zero" on a slider is a much more logical starting point for edits.  That's why we chose to re-center the sliders/controls for raw.  (Long-time ACR/Lr users may have gotten accustomed to seeing Brightness 50, Contrast 25, etc. for raw defaults, but that's confusing to a lot of new users.)

     

    We don't use a linear rendition as a default because that generally looks much worse by default.  There's no benefit in doing so.  It's much more useful to give users tools to define their own default (which is what we've done).

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 18, 2012 5:14 PM   in reply to TK2142

    Are not "Zeroed" and "Neutral" relative terms anyway?

    There is a substantial difference between real raw data captured on the sensor and what each person's perception of a neutral starting point is. (Have a look at your base tone curve in the DNG Profile Editor)

     

    I think, with time, once we have a better understanding of how the current controls will auto adjust the image, we can all set our own defaults or use a preset to create our "neutral" and stop trying to force the Adobe engineers to implement what we deem to be correct for all images across all photographers.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • TK2142
    407 posts
    Jan 20, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 20, 2012 3:48 AM   in reply to Jason Meintjes

    Jason Meintjes wrote:

     

    Are not "Zeroed" and "Neutral" relative terms anyway?

    No, they are not relative terms. You can demosaic a RAW image without contrast boost, noise reduction, etc. You need to assume a white balance setting, but that's orthogonal to the discussion here.

     

    Jason Meintjes wrote:

     

    I think, with time, once we have a better understanding of how the current controls will auto adjust the image, we can all set our own defaults or use a preset to create our "neutral" and stop trying to force the Adobe engineers to implement what we deem to be correct for all images across all photographers.

    With all due respect, you've got that the wrong way round. Adobe is currently trying to argue that they have the "one" (non-neutral) setting that is a suitable/correct starting point for everyone. It may even be the best starting point for many, but all we are asking for is to be given the option of a truly neutral starting point.

     

    I find the attitude strange that assumes me to work from an unknown starting point, tweaking as I see fit. It is like giving you a boat and a destination but not telling you from where you are starting. All you get is the assurance that it is "a useful place to start from" (which may or may not be true, depending on the image and what you want to achieve with it).

     

    Granted, the "neutral" harbour is not a nice place, but at least I know from where I'm starting from and do not need to navigate into unknown directions to find it first. Because if I don't find it first, I'll be fighting my initial (unknown) starting point to get to my destination, potentially leading to suboptimal settings and thus a suboptimal destination. I've experienced that first hand, so I know what I'm talking about.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 20, 2012 6:42 AM   in reply to TK2142

    TK2142 wrote:

     

    No, they are not relative terms. You can demosaic a RAW image without contrast boost, noise reduction, etc. You need to assume a white balance setting, but that's orthogonal to the discussion here.

     

    Do you know what a truely neutral raw image looks like?  Here's just a rough simulation of a properly exposed daylight scene.  You may think you want "neutral", but you don't.

     

    T2i_5353.jpg

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • TK2142
    407 posts
    Jan 20, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 20, 2012 6:05 PM   in reply to Lee Jay

    Of course the neutral point will never be the final point. Please note that I wrote above "Granted, the "neutral" harbour is not a nice place".

     

    But a neutral starting point it is a much better starting point for doing my own adjustments than some canned pre-adjustments of which I have no knowledge of what they are doing.

     

    Imagine a moody, subdued scene featuring fog that is supposed to have low contrast. If I have to start from a point that already includes a contrast boost, I'll have to undo the contrast boost. Most likely I will not manage to precisely undo it (e.g,. I may fiddle with the tone curve whereas shifting the contrast slider would have been the correct "undo" action). As a result, I will need more time and may not get the result I want because I wasn't able to start from a neutral point.

     

    I had this problem with the default settings of LR3. It is a real problem and I'd appreciate if people could consider accepting it as a problem for some. Fortunately, in LR3 I could undo all the canned, pre-defined develop setttings and use a clean slate to define my own default settings. This solved my problem, because a) my default settings worked better for me out of the box than the LR3 defaults and b) I know what my default settings are and why they are this way. If ever they are not adequeat, I know what to do to undo them. This option appears to be lost in LR4.

     

    BTW, this is not about how the new controls work in LR4; I anticipate that the new controls will be more useful than the old ones (to a point; not having a general "ISO/exposure" slider may prove to be a problem), but about principles of UI design (do you show what is going on, or do you lie to present a dumbed down reality to let things appear simpler than they really are?).

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 20, 2012 6:18 PM   in reply to TK2142

    TK2142 wrote:

     

    Fortunately, in LR3 I could undo all the canned, pre-defined develop setttings and use a clean slate to define my own default settings.

     

    Then simply create what you think is neuatrl in PV 2010, update to PV 2012 and create a preset from the results...you can even create and save a new Default for PN 2012...

     

    Really, it would be more useful to try it and then comment on it...once you learn how to use LR4, perhaps your tune will change (or not...)

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • TK2142
    407 posts
    Jan 20, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 20, 2012 6:22 PM   in reply to MadManChan2000

    MadManChan2000 wrote:

     

    Based on our experience and the feedback we've gathered from many users, "zero" on a slider is a much more logical starting point for edits.
    ...

    We don't use a linear rendition as a default because that generally looks much worse by default. 

    But you cannot have your cake (have "zero" default settings) and eat it too (have a non "zero" rendition). If you do that, you are selling oranges as apples.

     

    Now that wouldn't be the end of the world, if people at least knew the settings that yielded a linear rendition. These people, who prefer to start from a neutral starting point, would then have non "zero" settings. Unfortunately, it does not appear possible to achieve this in LR4 or only through custom camera profiles which would preclude the use of a camera calibration profile as produced by the ColorChecker plugin for LR. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

     

     

    MadManChan2000 wrote:

     

    We don't use a linear rendition as a default because that generally looks much worse by default.  There's no benefit in doing so.  It's much more useful to give users tools to define their own default (which is what we've done).

    There is benefit in allowing users to start from a linear rendition. Please, by all means make the default settings so that they do not result in a linear rendition. But please also give users the option to reject your default settings and develop their own defaults from a truly neutral starting point.

     

    IMHO, you cannot state "which is what we've done", unless you give users the option to start from a clean slate. Users will never be able to precisely undo your default settings and hence will produce non-optimal compensation settings.

     

    I appreciate the motivation to cater to non-power users. That's fine. But that doesn't mean you should make the life of power users harder. If you really go down that path, you'll end up with a Microsoft style GUI. Have you never been annoyed by an office wizard or default behaviour that made your life harder instead of easier? Have you never been annoyed by Windows default settings which prevent you from finding system files, for instance? At least Microsoft allows me to turn off most if not all of the "protect the dummies" stuff. I believe Adobe should not think they know what is best for their users because any assumption will only be correct for a subset of users.

     

    Give users training wheels but do not weld them to the bycicle, allow them to be taken off by anyone who feels they are better of without them.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 20, 2012 6:30 PM   in reply to TK2142

    TK2142 wrote:

     

    Please, by all means make the default settings so that they do not result in a linear rendition. But please also give users the option to reject your default settings and develop their own defaults from a truly neutral starting point.

     

    I already told you how to match PV 2010 "neutral" (although that's meaningless) to PV 2012 and hot to create a preset or change the Default...try it and get back to us–course that means you actually have to download, install and TRY LR4 to provide meaningful input...

     

    And, just to be perfectly clear, the changes in PV 2012 have NOT been done to "cater to non-power users" but to actually get better image quality...PV 2012 ain't a set of "training wheels" but a substantial improvement in the processing pipeline (once you learn how to actually use it).

     

    Download, install and try PV 2012 and then get back to us...it's not particularly useful to listen to your opinions that are not based on direct experience...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 20, 2012 6:50 PM   in reply to TK2142

    TK2142 wrote:

     

    But a neutral starting point it is a much better starting point for doing my own adjustments than some canned pre-adjustments of which I have no knowledge of what they are doing.

     

    My point is, there is no neutral starting point.  There's just a starting point.  There's always a color profile and some sort of tone curve or the image isn't even usable as a starting point.  One set of starting points for color and tone are no more "right" or "neutral" than another (for photographic purposes, it's another story for scientific purposes), they are just different.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 20, 2012 6:55 PM   in reply to Lee Jay

    Lee Jay wrote:

    My point is, there is no neutral starting point.  There's just a starting point.  There's always a color profile and some sort of tone curve or the image isn't even usable as a starting point.

     

    Correct...thanks Lee Jay.

     

    A raw file is as yet, undetermined...it is subject to the controls and adjustments that the user want to put on it. There is no "right" or "neutral" settings for a raw file. There's simply the starting point...make it what you will. The end result is dictated only be the skill of the user adjusting the image–compared to the "look" that the camera maker might decide your image should look like.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • TK2142
    407 posts
    Jan 20, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 20, 2012 8:59 PM   in reply to Lee Jay

    Lee Jay wrote:

     

    My point is, there is no neutral starting point.  There's just a starting point. 

    Lee Jay, are you seriously arguing that my negative experience with the LR3 default settings is invalid? That I had to initially (unknowingly) fight them and didn't get the results I wanted as quickly as I expected them does not count?

     

    You are entitled to your opinion that starting points do not matter, but rest assured that I find it much easier to start adjustments from a clean slate. You cannot argue away my negative experiences with the non-neutral LR3 defaults. Note also, that the OP (Jay Mitchosky) also asked for a neutral starting point.

     

    And if it is really true that starting points do not matter than why not provide a neutral one? It is simply not true that all renderings are arbitrary. And if a neutral one is deemed to be too an unsatisfactory starting point for most, give those people default adjustments without denying others the possibility of starting from a neutral point. Eric said himself "There's not an easy [way] to do this in Lr 4 in PV 2012." He provided reasons as to why the team thought it is not a problem but I am not alone in arguing that the reasons are not valid for everyone.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • TK2142
    407 posts
    Jan 20, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 20, 2012 9:16 PM   in reply to Jeff Schewe

    Jeff Schewe wrote:

     

    There's simply the starting point...make it what you will.

    I wish I could. The problem with PV2012 is that it is very hard or even impossible(?) to achieve a neutral starting point. Obviously you and other's do not understand the value of a neutral starting point. That doesn't mean that there is none (for others).

     

    In general, I am puzzled by the idea of non-Adobe employees arguing against feedback from others. Just leave that feedback at face value and fight your own fights, please.

     

    This is a LR4 beta feedback forum. It should be OK for future users to post their feedback whatever it is. One would hope that the invited feedback is not restricted to bug reports and wishlist items for features that are currently being implemented anyway. One would hope that the LR developers have an open ear even for concerns that pertain to changes they believed to be improvements only.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • LuxMirabilis
    43 posts
    Jun 8, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 20, 2012 10:02 PM   in reply to TK2142

    TK2142 wrote:

     

    Jeff Schewe wrote:

     

    There's simply the starting point...make it what you will.

    I wish I could. The problem with PV2012 is that it is very hard or even impossible(?) to achieve a neutral starting point. Obviously you and other's do not understand the value of a neutral starting point. That doesn't mean that there is none (for others).

     

    In general, I am puzzled by the idea of non-Adobe employees arguing against feedback from others. Just leave that feedback at face value and fight your own fights, please.

     

    This is a LR4 beta feedback forum. It should be OK for future users to post their feedback whatever it is. One would hope that the invited feedback is not restricted to bug reports and wishlist items for features that are currently being implemented anyway. One would hope that the LR developers have an open ear even for concerns that pertain to changes they believed to be improvements only.

     

    This reminds me of the early RAW processing discussions around 2002 or so. Standalone RAW processors, linear processing, et al. Your position is valid if you want to start at zero and process the data from there [demosaic routines, camera profile (iluminant dependent), gamma curve, and on, and on]. IMHO, that is not what Lr is. Lr has a long evolution road, which started with ACR as a PS plugin and several generations. The core design team built its unique RAW processing engine and evolved it over time. Of course, they make initial assumptions (its their engine) and then provide editing tools for the end-user. I am afraid, you have to decide if this is the horse you want to ride or ride some other one.

     

    You may not like PV2012 but many (myself included) find it quite impressive. The non-linear/adaptive filtering now offered in the Basic Panel is very powerful and image friendly. This is the first set of routines, I've seen, capable of doing single-image HDR that looks real. It is often more realistic than most (multi-image) HDR exercises all arount the Net.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 20, 2012 9:55 PM   in reply to TK2142

    TK2142 wrote:

     

    In general, I am puzzled by the idea of non-Adobe employees arguing against feedback from others. Just leave that feedback at face value and fight your own fights, please.

     

    Guess you don't really understand software development with Adobe, huh?

     

    While I don't work FOR Adobe, I do sometimes work WITH Adobe.

     

    The capture sharpening and output sharpening in LR has a little something to do with development I've been directly involved with–Adobe worked with PixelGenius (a company I'm involved in) to incorporate PhotoKit Output Sharpening into Lightroom 2+. I've worked directly with Thomas Knoll and Eric Chan of Adobe to advance the capture sharpening in LR/ACR. I worked directly with the LR engineers to get our output sharpening in the LR Print module.

     

    Many/most of the changes in LR4's PV 2012 have been vetted by a large number of 3rd party testers. I'm not the only person who has tested, very, very hard, the current PV 2012.

     

    To have some yoyo come along and diss the advancements the ACR/LR engineers have made–particularly PV 2012–without even taking the time to download and test is, well, better judgement precludes me from saying what I fell like saying...

     

    When you take the time and effort to download and test and have a legit feedback to offer, let me know...in the mean time, all you are adding is noise to the LR4 testing signal.

     

    Really bud, you won't win this debate until and unless you actually take the time to test what you think you are talking about. The readers who happen to come accross this thread can make their own decisions–ideally based on real and actual experience.

     

    Ball is in your court...don't drop it :~)

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 20, 2012 10:10 PM   in reply to LuxMirabilis

    LuxMirabilis wrote:

     

    This reminds me of the early RAW processing discussions around 2002 or so. Standalone RAW processors, linear processing, et al.

     

    Actually, the debate occurred a bit later....

     

    ACR 1.0 only shipped Feb 19th, 2003.

     

    It took a couple of after the ship date before ACR really caught on...Lightroom didn't ship until Feb 19th, 2007.

     

    So this debate about what constitutes a legit "default" raw rendering is relatively recent–not an age old problem.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • LuxMirabilis
    43 posts
    Jun 8, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 20, 2012 10:18 PM   in reply to Jeff Schewe

    Jeff Schewe wrote:

     

    LuxMirabilis wrote:

     

    This reminds me of the early RAW processing discussions around 2002 or so. Standalone RAW processors, linear processing, et al.

     

    Actually, the debate occurred a bit later....

     

    ACR 1.0 only shipped Feb 19th, 2003.

     

    It took a couple of after the ship date before ACR really caught on...Lightroom didn't ship until Feb 19th, 2007.

     

    So this debate about what constitutes a legit "default" raw rendering is relatively recent–not an age old problem.

     

    The debate I was referring to is prior to ACR, with other applications...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 20, 2012 10:29 PM   in reply to LuxMirabilis

    LuxMirabilis wrote:

     

    The debate I was referring to is prior to ACR, with other applications...

     

    Sorry...I only got involved in shooting raw in the year BEFORE ACR 1.0 shipped (and was developed). I do remember the ire of a lot of pro shooters that Canon had a pretty bad raw processing software for converting raw files to 16bit TIFFs. A lot of that was addressed by the shipping of ACR 1.0 for Photoshop 7. I still have raw files from a Canon D30 that were supported in ACR 1.0 (and subsiquent versions) that really suck big time in Canon's software at the time. In fact, if you want to learn a bit about how and why ACR 1.0 was developed, read this. In broad strokes, it's accurate...

     

    :~)

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • LuxMirabilis
    43 posts
    Jun 8, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 20, 2012 10:53 PM   in reply to Jeff Schewe

    Jeff Schewe wrote:

     

    ... if you want to learn a bit about how and why ACR 1.0 was developed, read this. In broad strokes, it's accurate...

     

    :~)

     

    Very familiar with that story. TK did an excellent job developping the ACR engine. That first Rev 1 was quite raw (pun intended) but time paid off.

     

     

    Prior to that there was David Coffin, Michael Tapes (YarcPlus), Magne Nielsen, Michael Jonsson (CaptureOne and later Rawshooter), all early contributors to RAW processing. Some of us, worked with them all.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 21, 2012 5:58 AM   in reply to TK2142

    TK2142 wrote:

     

    You are entitled to your opinion that starting points do not matter, but rest assured that I find it much easier to start adjustments from a clean slate.

     

    I didn't say starting points don't matter, I said there's no such thing as a neutral starting point.  Starting points are starting points and they can be different, but that doesn't mean there's some magical "neutral" out there.  Certainly, none of them in LR3 were truely neutral, just different from each other.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 21, 2012 12:15 PM   in reply to Jay Mitchosky

    Eric /Jeff,

     

    By defauIt, is each RAW image receiving a different starting point/rendering interpretation depending on image content?...or do all images imported i.e. from a single shoot (same camera, same lens, possibly different EVs, ISOs, apertures, etc.) start from the same, in this case 'neutral' internal set of 'adaptive' (to what?) adjustments?

     

    If each image is interpreted individually by default, is it true then that I could create a personal (me, my assistant, etc.) or camera (or camera+lens, camera+lens+ISO, etc.) specific default in order to have such a 'neutral' starting point for my own, personal workflow? (which could then make this whole issue discussed here really a non-issue because you can then easily create your own "neutral"!...)

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 21, 2012 11:17 PM   in reply to TK2142

    Can you give us a little more insight as to how you processed or where  you started from in LR3? Camera Calibration settings, tone curve, etc.

    I think the bottom line of the forums is to inform and educate rather than sling mud so lets try to get to a solution.

     

    I've done limited testing and compared files processed in PV2010 and PV2012.

    Using a 'custom' (if you can call it that?) camera profile created in DNG PE with a LINEAR tone curve, zeroed settings in LR3/PV2010 yield the expected flat, dim result yet the clipped highlights remain.

    Updating these settings to PV2012 gives a much flatter, less contrasted result WITHOUT clipped highlights. If you recall where we were in regard to clipped highlights just a little while ago, this is AMAZING.

     

    Isn't this even closer to where you are looking to start? Forgive me if I've misunderstood but you are looking for the most neutral point to start from so as to have control over as much as possible from that point on? This now gives you more highlight and shadow information to use than before.

     

    At this point you can now add back everything you would like.

    You could set these settings as your defaults per camera, iso, lens or any combination thereof so you never have to think about them or input them again.

     

    I understand your reluctance to have anything 'auto' in your workflow, I find myself fighting it as well, but we aren't truly free from that in LR3 or any of the proprietary software for that matter.

    Even in camera settings like "Faithful" or "Neutral" are just interpretations on the same raw data as settings like "Landscape" or "Vivid".

     

    Should you wish to get absolute control over your sensor level data, perhaps LR isn't for you?

    Please let me know if I've overlooked something, I don't really consider myself a "power-user" just yet...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 25, 2012 5:48 PM   in reply to Jay Mitchosky

    I'm with you Jay.

     

    I love some features about LR 4. RGB curves, new clarity, whites and black sliders behave like a real white and black point. Pretty sweet.

     

    I'll be honest, I think the non-zeroing out of raw files is disappointing. it's even worse that you have to add settings in and mess with the parametric curve to get to a point that you can use the linear tone curve. So it seems, to me anyway, that you have to add curves to counteract curves that adobe puts on there to start with. Not a recipe for image quality. Especially if you pushed the ISO a little.

     

    As much as i like using the tone curve im advocating for the photographers who start from scratch. There's a lot of photographers who advocate starting at the lowest contrast point as possible then making the image ourselves. I'm sorry but it's the difference between baking a cake from scratch and opening a box. Both are ok and both make good cakes but what if the from scratch method of craftsmanship suddenly went away?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 25, 2012 6:06 PM   in reply to john fallavollita

    john fallavollita wrote:

     

    As much as i like using the tone curve im advocating for the photographers who start from scratch. There's a lot of photographers who advocate starting at the lowest contrast point as possible then making the image ourselves. I'm sorry but it's the difference between baking a cake from scratch and opening a box. Both are ok and both make good cakes but what if the from scratch method of craftsmanship suddenly went away?

     

    If you absolutely have to have the 0 Brightness, 0 Contrast and "Linear" tone curve of PV 2010, set an image to that in PV 2010 then update to PV 2012 and make a preset of the result using the Exposure, Contrast and Tone Curve as subsets. Yes, it'll come in with non-zero Exposure and Contrast in PV 2012 and it will also add point to the Point Curve it could be argued that propagating the curve with points could be a feature since it makes it easier to tweak the individual points.

     

    The zeroed out Basic adjustments were done for a purpose...it makes it possible now to exchange presets across raw and non-raw files as well as videos. It also simplifies the processing pipeline for other applications that use the ACR pipeline such as ACR and After Effects and even Adobe's Revel consumer app (not that we care much about that :~).

     

    So, PV 2012 is pretty much locked in. There is still time for the engineers to "tweak" the actual algorithms though. So rather than kvetch about the new controls and settings, if you find images where the new controls don't work well, that would be useful to post...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • TK2142
    407 posts
    Jan 20, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 25, 2012 7:39 PM   in reply to Jeff Schewe

    Jeff Schewe wrote:

     

    It also simplifies the processing pipeline for other applications that use the ACR pipeline such as ACR and After Effects and even Adobe's Revel consumer app (not that we care much about that :~).

    According to Tom Hogarty (http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/16/lr4interview):

     

    "One of the primary goals with Lightroom 4 was to simplify the user experience for new customers, Hogarty says. This can be seen in the overhaul of the Basic panel's tools that accompany the new processing options that come with the latest 2012 process version (PV). This decision grew out of internal feedback from Adobe's Revel (formerly Carousel) team as they explored Lightroom's interface to integrate it with their services."

    So it seems that the feedback from the Revel team was even the primary motivation to change the basic panel controls. The feedback certainly wasn't vocal from Lightroom users (see the feedback forum where better retouching support dramatically tops all requests and the reaction of Lightroom ambassadors like Matt Kloskowski who didn't know why a change was needed).

     

    Jeff Schewe wrote:

     

    So rather than kvetch about the new controls and settings, if you find images where the new controls don't work well, that would be useful to post...

     

    "Kvetch..."?!

     

    What a way of letting us know what you believe Adobe regards as acceptable feedback and what not. BTW, referring to one of your earlier posts, protecting the investment of book authors in already prepared documentation has got to be one of the worst reasons not to reconsider product decisions. AFAIC, the user base counts, not a few book authors whose publication dates would be delayed.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 25, 2012 8:24 PM   in reply to TK2142

    TK2142 wrote:

     

    "Kvetch..."?!

     

    What a way of letting us know what you believe Adobe regards as acceptable feedback and what not. BTW, referring to one of your earlier posts, protecting the investment of book authors in already prepared documentation has got to be one of the worst reasons not to reconsider product decisions. AFAIC, the user base counts, not a few book authors whose publication dates would be delayed.

     

    Uh huh...so do you have any images where PV 2012 is less optimal for producing the best results? Have you posted any of them? Unless you do, verbal discourse is less optimal than actual images...that's something the engineers can chew on.

     

    Let us know when you have real examples...ok?

     

    As far as Adobe's determination of UI freeze, that's a long standing relationship that Adobe has with authors and other training pros...if you don't understand that then I suggest you think about the implications. Are you a trainer? Do you invest lots of resources planing on a version release? If you don't then I suggest you really don't understand the industry. UI freeze is a reality in any software release. Deal with it...

     
    |
    Mark as:
1 2 Previous Next

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points