Skip navigation

Develop basic sliders - truly zeroed?

Jan 10, 2012 5:43 AM

  Latest reply: Cornelia-I, Mar 1, 2012 12:31 PM
Replies 1 2 3 4 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 18, 2012 5:50 AM   in reply to Simon Full

    Hi Simon,

     

    We have indeed tweaked the Contrast implementation in PV 2012, compared to 2010.  Of course it doesn't offer the flexibility of the parametric & point curves.  On the other hand, it's good for getting the overall contrast about right, then going into parametric and/or point and doing refinements if needed.

     

    Eric

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 18, 2012 7:03 AM   in reply to MadManChan2000

    MadManChan2000 wrote:

     

    Hi Simon,

     

    We have indeed tweaked the Contrast implementation in PV 2012, compared to 2010.  Of course it doesn't offer the flexibility of the parametric & point curves.  On the other hand, it's good for getting the overall contrast about right, then going into parametric and/or point and doing refinements if needed.

     

    Eric

     

    Hey Eric

     

    This reminds me of a long standing question.  Do the parametric and point curves work simultaneously or is only one acting on the image?  The simplicity of the parametric curve is often welcome until more refinement is needed with the point.  Don't know if they're additive or exclusive.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 18, 2012 7:32 AM   in reply to Jay Mitchosky

    Parametric and point curve work together...it's not an either or situation.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 18, 2012 7:53 AM   in reply to Jeff Schewe

    What Jeff said. 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 18, 2012 9:03 AM   in reply to MadManChan2000

    MadManChan2000 wrote:

     

    Hi Simon,

     

    We have indeed tweaked the Contrast implementation in PV 2012, compared to 2010.  Of course it doesn't offer the flexibility of the parametric & point curves.  On the other hand, it's good for getting the overall contrast about right, then going into parametric and/or point and doing refinements if needed.

     

    Eric

    Ok then great, i'm seeing results which is all that matters at the end of the day. Bugs and slowness aside i'm happy where this beta is headed and look forward to the beta updates.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 18, 2012 9:21 AM   in reply to Simon Full

    Hmm think I found a new bug.

     

    If I convert a TIF to a lossless or normal DNG (without deleting original TIF) it not only removes the TIF from the library but I cannot even synchronize or re-import it due to suspected duplicate. Clearly there is no duplicate TIF only the new DNG with same filename.  I tried both a folder sync and import neither accept the TIF back into the library but it is there (where it should be) in finder.

     

    Make sense?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • TK2142
    407 posts
    Jan 20, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 20, 2012 3:29 AM   in reply to Jeff Schewe

    Jeff Schewe wrote:

     

    If you have something useful to contribute, you realize you need to download and install LR4...otherwise all you are really doing is wasting bandwidth...

     

    So you are one of those people who need to jump into a pool without water in order to check whether losing the water is a good idea or not?

     

    Seriously, if someone from Adobe tells me I'm wasting bandwith, I may take the hint. You, however, are not an Adobe employee, you are not an Adobe evangelist, you are not even a champ at the Adobe feedback site. I know about your Lightroom past, but that does not put you into a position from where you can declare someone's posts to be useless or not.

     

    Frankly, your unfriendly, aggressive manners make it an unpleasant experience to visit this forum. Additionally, you spread wrong information about alleged differences between "pixel pushing" vs "parametric editing" or stating that a bug report should be a "feature request" even though it turns out that a bug report was the correct approach since the Mac version already had "the feature" only the Windows version was broken.

     

    Please tone down your posts. I believe I wouldn't be the only one who'd be thankful.

     

    Regarding the feedback here: I hope Adobe is not just looking for requests like "Please add user-definable templates to the book module", i.e., things that were planned already. Listening to customers means taking concerns seriously, not just doing things as planned and cherry picking feedback to suppport one's old decisions. I'm not saying at all that this is happening! I truly hope that all feedback -- whether it aligns with old plans and onging implementation work or not -- will be considered.

     

    BTW, I'm only asking for the option to see the real settings. I'm not opposing to the availability of a "dumbed down" mode. Also, I'm not arguing against PV2012 per se. Only against the problematic paradigm shift that implies showing a dumbed down version of reality which makes it impossible for power users to know what is really going on. If I want Picasa-style interaction, I know where to find it. I believed Lightroom aspired to a more professional audience.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 20, 2012 4:03 PM   in reply to TK2142

    TK2142 wrote:

     

    BTW, I'm only asking for the option to see the real settings. I'm not opposing to the availability of a "dumbed down" mode. Also, I'm not arguing against PV2012 per se. Only against the problematic paradigm shift that implies showing a dumbed down version of reality which makes it impossible for power users to know what is really going on.

     

    So, exactly what do you think a raw capture is and exactly how do you think it should be interpreted? You realize what a true raw file would look like with zero adjustments applied? Pretty useless...to really see a raw image, one must make some assumptions about what the data means and apply some baseline adjustments to see a real "image" on screen. There are no "real settings"...there are default assumptions and adjustments applied just to see an image. PV 2012 makes some pretty advanced technical presumptions in an effort to advance the potential for image quality. Use it or not...

     

    BTW, I do think it's presumptuous to be posting about something you have not installed and evaluated...it makes your opinions less than useful to those people who are discussing and debating real experience instead of theoretical concepts.

     

    As for your opinions regarding me, well, I really couldn't care less. Attack concepts or ideas and leave the personal attacks at the door…they only make you look petty and petulant and help mitigate your arguments.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • TK2142
    407 posts
    Jan 20, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 20, 2012 5:58 PM   in reply to Jeff Schewe

    Jeff Schewe wrote:

     

    So, exactly what do you think a raw capture is and exactly how do you think it should be interpreted?

    I have written an experimental RAW converter. I know what I'm talking about.

     

     

    Jeff Schewe wrote:

     

    You realize what a true raw file would look like with zero adjustments applied?

    Of course I do. Of course the neutral point will never be the final point. But 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 understand you don't have that problem. Fine. It doesn't mean no one else has it.

     

    Jeff Schewe wrote:

     

    Attack concepts or ideas and leave the personal attacks at the door…they only make you look petty and petulant and help mitigate your arguments.

     

    I have been criticising concepts and ideas but have been met with generic "try it first" responses. Some people will want to try and jump into a pool without water, I don't need to.

     

    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?).

     

    P.S.: I chose to ignore your other personal comments. Let me just say that I didn't mean to attack you. Your style of conversation may be customary from where you come from. People from other parts of the worlds may perceive it as condescending, patronising and unfriendly. If you are interested in coming across as a friendly, helpful person, you may want to take this feedback into consideration.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 20, 2012 6:13 PM   in reply to TK2142

    TK2142 wrote:

     

    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?).

     

    Uh...what this is about is EXACTLY how the new controls work in LR4...PV 2012 is different than PV 2010...people who are actually using PV 2010 and are updating to PV 2012 would like to know how to use the new controls. Not argue with somebody who hasn't tested them...

     

    Having to listen to the quibbles of somebody who has not used the new controls only adds noise to the signal...

     

    Nothing has been "dumbed down" in PV 2012.

     

    In point of fact, the adaptive image adjustments are pretty smart–the result of extensive research at MIT (you may have heard about that place).

     

    It seems that it's YOU (who as far as I know STILL haven't actually experienced the new controls) who is debating without a basis of knowledge and experience...

     

    Let me know when you download, and test the new controls...then you tell me if PV 2012 is dumber than PV 2010.

     

    In the mean time, you're just noise bud...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • TK2142
    407 posts
    Jan 20, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 20, 2012 6:37 PM   in reply to Jeff Schewe

    Jeff Schewe wrote:

     

    ...people who are actually using PV 2010 and are updating to PV 2012 would like to know how to use the new controls. Not argue with somebody who hasn't tested them...

    Why don't you let these people speak for themselves?

     

    Jeff Schewe wrote:

     

    Nothing has been "dumbed down" in PV 2012.

     

    If a medium contrast tone curve is shown as a straight line, controls are shown with "zero" settings even though the real settings are not "zero" and an exposure control has been removed because people are thought to be overwhelmed when one slider affects the whole histogram instead of just a portion of it then I call that dumbed down.

     

    Fine if the new paradigm works for you. Please accept that there are other opinions. Please accept that it is possible to judge a GUI paradigm without playing with particular controls. Thank you.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 20, 2012 6:49 PM   in reply to TK2142

    TK2142 wrote:

     

    Fine if the new paradigm works for you. Please accept that there are other opinions. Please accept that it is possible to judge a GUI paradigm without playing with particular controls. Thank you.

     

    I'm perfectly happy discussing how to use the new paradigm with actual users instead of people who are arguing about the paradigm with zero actual experience...

     

    Just to be perfectly clear to the other readers in this thread, TK2142 hasn't actually bothered to download and test LR4 (correct?) but is arguing on a conceptual basis only–that the LR/ACR engineers are somehow taking control away from users by taking steps to improve the processing pipeline. TK2142 doesn't have any direct experience with LR4, but is simply flapping his gums because he thinks the ACR/LR engineers (who include Thomas Knoll, the guy who coauthored Photoshop and founded Camera Raw) couldn't possibly know something he doesn't know...

     

    Is this a fair assessment of your position? You haven't tried LR4 but you disagree with the changes–you haven't tried–on the basis that the ACR/LR engineers couldn't possibly know what they are doing?

     

    :~)

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 20, 2012 7:46 PM   in reply to TK2142

    If a medium contrast tone curve is shown as a straight line, controls are shown with "zero" settings even though the real settings are not "zero" and an exposure control has been removed because people are thought to be overwhelmed when one slider affects the whole histogram instead of just a portion of it then I call that dumbed down.

     

    Fine if the new paradigm works for you. Please accept that there are other opinions. Please accept that it is possible to judge a GUI paradigm without playing with particular controls. Thank you.

    This does sound like somebody who hasn't tried it out at all. The exposure control behaves almost identical to the old one and affects the entire histogram (try it and you'll see). It just rolls off in the really extreme highlights in a somewhat filmic way. It gives far more natural results than a digital exposure control with a hard blow-out knee on the top as was implemented before and it behaves much more like film behaves when you overexpose. The effect is very subtle but really helps retain detail in the whites where before you would just get blowout. I am extremely happy with it and I am just a user albeit one that knows a lot about digital imaging from a science perspective as well as a photography persepctive. This is a major advance in final image quality. The medium contrast curve that was used before probably was a holdover from early ACR and Lightroom 1 (i.e. before the camera profiles) and never should have been there as the camera profiles themselves contain another tone curve. The default should be an unmodified (i.e. linear) tone curve in which case you only get the tone curve from the camera profile applied. In earlier versions, the tone curve of the camera profile was being corrected for the expectation that there would be a medium contrast tone curve, 25/50 contrast/brightness, and 5 blacks. That made very little sense as you're correcting back and forth for no good reason but a historical one. The current interface is much cleaner and it is much easier to get to the best quality image.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 20, 2012 8:08 PM   in reply to Jao vdL

    Jao vdL wrote:

     

    This does sound like somebody who hasn't tried it out at all.

     

    Correct...as far as I know, TK2142 has stated that he has not downloaded LR4 beta but somehow thinks he/she/it can still contribute some sort of legitimate discussion on a conceptual basis with zero actual experience. He/she/it seems to dispute my contention that without actually trying it, the feedback is less that optimal (and not really useful). Take it for what it's worth...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 20, 2012 8:09 PM   in reply to Jao vdL

    Jao vdL wrote:

     

    The medium contrast curve that was used before probably was a holdover from early ACR and Lightroom 1 (i.e. before the camera profiles) and never should have been there as the camera profiles themselves contain another tone curve. The default should be an unmodified (i.e. linear) tone curve in which case you only get the tone curve from the camera profile applied. In earlier versions, the tone curve of the camera profile was being corrected for the expectation that there would be a medium contrast tone curve, 25/50 contrast/brightness, and 5 blacks. That made very little sense as you're correcting back and forth for no good reason but a historical one. The current interface is much cleaner and it is much easier to get to the best quality image.

     

    Bingo - nicely put.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • TK2142
    407 posts
    Jan 20, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 20, 2012 8:40 PM   in reply to Jeff Schewe

    Jeff Schewe wrote:

     

    I'm perfectly happy discussing how to use the new paradigm with actual users instead of people who are arguing about the paradigm with zero actual experience...

     

    You also seem perfectly happy to discuss with someone who (in your opinion) hasn't downloaded LR4 yet and (in your opinion) hasn't tried it yet.

     

     

    Jeff Schewe wrote:

     

    Is this a fair assessment of your position? You haven't tried LR4 but you disagree with the changes–you haven't tried–on the basis that the ACR/LR engineers couldn't possibly know what they are doing?

    That is not a fair assessment and is just as wrong as many other "contributions" you have made. I would have hoped for you that you had better things to do than to keep replying to someone who produces just "noise" and whose posts are useless.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • TK2142
    407 posts
    Jan 20, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 20, 2012 9:23 PM   in reply to Jao vdL

    Jao vdL wrote:

     

    The default should be an unmodified (i.e. linear) tone curve in which case you only get the tone curve from the camera profile applied.

    I fully agree. So why -- even though LR4 shows a linear curve -- is a medium contrast tone curve applied under the hood nevertheless? If things were as you say, I'd be happy, but they aren't according to Eric.

     

    Jao vdL wrote:

     

    The exposure control behaves almost identical to the old one and affects the entire histogram (try it and you'll see). It just rolls off in the really extreme highlights in a somewhat filmic way.

     

    It is great that you like that, but what if someone likes to regularly underexpose their images just to be on the safe side regarding blown out highlights? You may like a "filmic way" but it means that it is not possibly to simply undo the underexposure that was done by the camera. Every time I push an image back to its proper exposure, I'm rolling off the highlights whether I want it or not. That means I cannot underexpose in camera and easily undo that safety measure in post production as the overall result will be different.

     

    I fully see the point for "intuitive controls" and catering to the expectations for the majority of people, but catering to such people need not mean to compromise a tool for power users. I believe it is possible to allow both user groups to have a tool that allows them to take control as they wish.

     

    Jao vdL wrote:

     

    In earlier versions, the tone curve of the camera profile was being corrected for the expectation that there would be a medium contrast tone curve, 25/50 contrast/brightness, and 5 blacks.

    Do you have a source for this information?

    It does not appear to be plausible because in combination this would have meant that the default rendering with the default settings would have been a "neutral" rendering, i.e., look flat and dull, something that the default settings were meant to avoid.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 20, 2012 10:02 PM   in reply to TK2142

    TK2142 wrote:

     

    I would have hoped for you that you had better things to do than to keep replying to someone who produces just "noise" and whose posts are useless.

     

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not answering YOUR posts for any other reason that to keep other readers from failing down the same hole you seem to be in...unless and until you actually download and test LR4 yourself, I really couldn't care less what you may think.

     

    I'm only concerned other uses (real users) of LR4 reach their own legit and informed opinion of LR4's PV 2012 without a polluted (and uninformed) opinion clouding their judgement.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 20, 2012 10:54 PM   in reply to TK2142

    I fully agree. So why -- even though LR4 shows a linear curve -- is a medium contrast tone curve applied under the hood nevertheless? If things were as you say, I'd be happy, but they aren't according to Eric.

    No there is no extra hidden medium contrast tone curve being applied. You must have misunderstood Eric. What he probably meant to say is that the linear tone curve in PV 2012 gives the same result as using the medium contrast tone curve in 2010. This does NOT mean a medium contrast tone curve gets applied behind the scenes in PV 2012.

     

    I think you misunderstand how raw conversion works though. You start with a capture that is inherently linear. A CCD or CMOS chip is basically a photon counting device. The signal stored in the raw file represents the linear light intensity present in the capture. Since our eyes and brain operate completely differently and work logarithmically and dynamically interpret scenes, an actual linear presentation of this would look very very dark, like nothing you have ever seen. It also has a Bayer mosaic applied but let's ignore that. In order to get any reasonable representation, you have to both gamma correct and apply tone curves. In the ACR engine, a tone curve gets in the camera profile (Adobe standard or Camera profiles). This happens in a gamma corrected space. You can see the tone curve that gets applied at this stage by opening the profile in DNG profile editor and going to tone curve and checking "Show base tone curve". This tone curve is applied behind the scenes and different versions (depending on the profile you select in camera calibration) are ALWAYS applied. There is no profile that has a linear tone curve. They all have some curving to them (pun intended). This all happens before you even get to the tone curve in the Lightroom interface.

     

    It is great that you like that, but what if someone likes to regularly underexpose their images just to be on the safe side regarding blown out highlights? You may like a "filmic way" but it means that it is not possibly to simply undo the underexposure that was done by the camera. Every time I push an image back to its proper exposure, I'm rolling off the highlights whether I want it or not. That means I cannot underexpose in camera and easily undo that safety measure in post production as the overall result will be different.

    Just try it!!!!!!!!!!! If you indeed underexpose to protect against blown highlights as you say and redo the exposure in post, the result of the new process is a lot better than the old one. As in the old process you just ended up with the same result - ugly blown highlights whether you underexpose and lift in post or whether you expose with blown highlights from the start. The new process really deals with this very well. Not at all like HDR but very very natural and not giving posterized whites that are common with blown out (or lifted in post) digital capture. The difference is very very small (you really have to look for it) but makes your conversions significantly better.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 20, 2012 11:16 PM   in reply to Jao vdL

    Jao vdL wrote:

     

    Just try it!!!!!!!!!!!

     

    See, that's where TK2142 argument seems to fall apart. As far as I know, he/she/it refuses to actually download LR4 and test it in the real world...he/she/it makes the argument that "conceptually" the initial preview in ACR/LR should be "neutral" (whatever that means) and that Adobe should not take any opportunity to optimize the initial view of the image.

     

    That's the stage where  TK2142's argument falls off the table... he/she/it refuses refuses to actually test the PV 2012 results.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 21, 2012 6:01 AM   in reply to TK2142

    TK2142 wrote:

     

    I fully agree. So why -- even though LR4 shows a linear curve -- is a medium contrast tone curve applied under the hood nevertheless?

     

    Neither one is a linear tone curve.  They are just different curves.

     

     

    Jao vdL wrote:

     

    In earlier versions, the tone curve of the camera profile was being corrected for the expectation that there would be a medium contrast tone curve, 25/50 contrast/brightness, and 5 blacks.

    Do you have a source for this information?

    It does not appear to be plausible because in combination this would have meant that the default rendering with the default settings would have been a "neutral" rendering, i.e., look flat and dull, something that the default settings were meant to avoid.

     

    It's absolutely correct, and many people complained that the default rendering was flat and dull and that they wanted their out-of-camera rendering instead.  In fact, I'd say it was the most popular FAQ.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 21, 2012 9:44 AM   in reply to Lee Jay

    The sliders set to zero and linear tone curve now argee with Capture NX2 for NEF files when using the Camera profiles, I don't know about Canon RAW files and others.  I don't think there is an industry standard for a linear conversion of a RAW file since it requires a lot of modification to get to an acceptable image.  It appears to me that PV 2010 and earlier required Brightness = 50, contrast = 25, Black = 5, and medium contrast tone curve to get what Nikon defines as linear for their Picture control profiles and with PV 2012 they now agree.  The new sliders now give you control over specific tone ranges that you did not have with PV 2010. 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • TK2142
    407 posts
    Jan 20, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 22, 2012 3:47 AM   in reply to Jao vdL

    Jao vdL wrote:

     

    No there is no extra hidden medium contrast tone curve being applied. You must have misunderstood Eric.

    Eric wrote "the default tone rendering that you see for a raw file in 2012 with sliders zero'd (and Point Curve = Linear) is the same as in PV 2010 with Brightness 50, Contrast 25, and Point Curve = Medium Contrast". It seems unlikely that PV2012 does not use an underlying medium contrast tone curve but achieves this behaviour from PV2012 with slider settings only. Eric also wrote "If you want a linear starting point, you can use the DNG Profile Editor to make a custom profile with a linear tone curve (see 2nd tab of DNG PE). " Why would he suggest using the DNG Profile Editor to obtain a linear one curve if the "linear" tone curve were truly linear?

     

     

    Jao vdL wrote:

     

    I think you misunderstand how raw conversion works though.

    No, I don't. I've coded my own experimental RAW converter (to try out some binning ideas).  When I'm referring to a "linear tone curve", I'm talking of everything on top of the inevitable gamma encoding.

     

    Jao vdL wrote:

     

     

    Just try it!!!!!!!!!!!

    I did. The new controls are not as targeted to certain tonal sections as they appeared to be in the demos I've seen. With some images I achieved good results pretty quickly, with others I struggeled a lot more than I did with the old controls (I used the same images with both PVs). I guess with some more training, I could become effective with the new controls and master even the images that I found easier to edit with the old controls.

     

    All this, however, is beside the point. It was never about whether or not the new controls provide a satisfactory editing experience. The point has always been

    a) the desire to start from an image that has not been tweaked already,

    b) at least know what the default tweaks are, and

    c) the ability to turn off any "auto-whatever" behaviour.

     

    Auto black-point, permanent highlight recovery, adaptive image controls, etc. can be conducive to effective editing, but all these "helpers" should be optional, AFAIC. As much as they can be useful on average, they can also get in the way.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • TK2142
    407 posts
    Jan 20, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 22, 2012 3:17 AM   in reply to Lee Jay

    Lee Jay wrote:

     

     

    It's absolutely correct...

    Can you share how you know that LR3 camera tone curves were "being corrected for the expectation that there would be a medium contrast tone curve, 25/50 contrast/brightness, and 5 blacks."?

     

    It would have been an inappropriate approach. I'd be surprised if that information turned out to be true.

     

    Lee Jay wrote:

     

    ... many people complained that the default rendering was flat and dull and that they wanted their out-of-camera rendering instead. 

    Of course the LR3 default settings were not strong enough to approach typical camera JPG rendering options. That does not imply at all that the default rendering was neutral. From everything I've heard, "zero" and "linear" settings provided a neutral rendering in LR3 (which is of course even flatter and duller than what the LR3 default settings produce).

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 22, 2012 6:20 AM   in reply to jrsforums

    To move this discussion on. I should say first off that for my Nikon cameras the new raw conversion process is a major step forward.  The sometimes odd colour generated by the previous conversion process, that kept me with Capture NX has now gone, and so I would have no hesitation in using PV2012 for quite a lot of normal work.  (I am still wary of using the controls that attempt to emulate the manufacturer's camera-specifc Landscape, Portrait, Faithful, etc, settings.)

     

    However, some pictures require the full Photoshop treatment with more precise control of contrast distribution, partial colour cast removal, localised/masked adjustments, channel blending, etc.  For these, the need is as have as much headroom as possible to make the Photoshop moves, which means minimum contrast, low saturation, etc.  As I understand it, PV2012 provides a picture-specific adjustment to get something that is close to acceptable even with all sliders zeroed (and the curves are applied on top of that, which is why linear does not result in a truly linear contrast setting).  What would be good would be to have a "Neutral" curve setting that turns down the initial picture-specific adjustment.  (You could then rename the "Linear" setting to "Default" or "Standard", if that helped to made things clearer.)

     

    This would be akin to what Capture NX does with its Neutral v Standard settings (although I tend to reduce even the Neutral contrast on pictures that I am going to give the full Photoshop treatment).  In particular, from the neutral setting, I want maximum headroom, without having PV2012 do clever stuff with the highlights and shadows to provide it.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 22, 2012 8:32 AM   in reply to jp2012

    I must be missing something here.  If I process a D700 NEF file taken with all in camera settings at nominal and Active D Lighting off with both Capture NX2 and Lightroom 4 using Neutral in NX2 and Camera Neutral v4 in Lightroom 4 without making any adjustments in either (all sliders at zero), the results appear identical.  I have compared a large number of images, not just one.  Do you get different results? 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 22, 2012 8:33 AM   in reply to TK2142

    TK2142 wrote:

     

    Lee Jay wrote:

     

     

    It's absolutely correct...

    Can you share how you know that LR3 camera tone curves were "being corrected for the expectation that there would be a medium contrast tone curve, 25/50 contrast/brightness, and 5 blacks."?

     

    It would have been an inappropriate approach. I'd be surprised if that information turned out to be true.

     

    Lee Jay wrote:

     

    ... many people complained that the default rendering was flat and dull and that they wanted their out-of-camera rendering instead. 

    Of course the LR3 default settings were not strong enough to approach typical camera JPG rendering options. That does not imply at all that the default rendering was neutral. From everything I've heard, "zero" and "linear" settings provided a neutral rendering in LR3 (which is of course even flatter and duller than what the LR3 default settings produce).

     

    The team has said so in the past.

     

    The LR3 linear settings weren't "neutral", just even flatter than the defaults.  Nothing special about them.  It's like if the default for contrast was 25 and a different setting had it at 15.  Nothing special about 15 either.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 22, 2012 9:14 AM   in reply to TK2142

    >

    Eric wrote "*the default tone rendering that you see for a raw file in

    2012 with sliders zero'd (and Point Curve = Linear) is the same as in PV

    2010 with Brightness 50, Contrast 25, and Point Curve = Medium Contrast*".

    It seems unlikely that PV2012 does not use an underlying medium contrast

    tone curve but achieves this behaviour from PV2012 with slider settings

    only.

     

    Sure but what Eric wrote there clearly says that the result is the same,

    NOT that a tone curve is applied. ACR and Lightroom before LR 4 are setup

    to reproduce the camera profile's tone curve when you use the default

    settings. Eric as well as Thomas K. have said that many times on this forum

    but unfortunately this forum's search is broken for older posts so I

    googled for it and here is an example of Eric mentioning that:

    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=59688.msg48310 6#msg483106

    . You can find many instances of basically the same info all over the

    web.

     

    What that means is that the rendering engine with the introduction of the

    camera profiles is setup to reverse correct for the medium contrast tone

    curve that was the default. With LR 4 this is now simply circumvented and

    the camera profile's tone curve is now reproduced when you select a linear

    tone curve. This is much more sensible.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 22, 2012 9:19 AM   in reply to b2martin_a

    b2martin_a wrote:

     

    I must be missing something here.  If I process a D700 NEF file taken with all in camera settings at nominal and Active D Lighting off with both Capture NX2 and Lightroom 4 using Neutral in NX2 and Camera Neutral v4 in Lightroom 4 without making any adjustments in either (all sliders at zero), the results appear identical.  I have compared a large number of images, not just one.  Do you get different results? 

    You're not missing anything. That is exactly how it is designed. In LR4 you get close to identical rendering to in camera jpeg (or capture NX in this case) if you have everything at zero. In LR 3 you were supposed to set blacks to 5, brightness to 50, contrast to 25 and the tone curve to medium contrast to get the same result. So the current setup is much more logical as we now don't have any reverse corrections going on anymore.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 22, 2012 10:06 AM   in reply to jrsforums

    I want my RAW images to be flat and dull so i can start with a blank canvas and set my own ideas in motion, it's the whole point of shooting RAW in the first place.  The masses (my new word for hobbyists) are displeased with the outcome of their RAW files and we have to panda to them because making a RAW look like the JPG preview they know and love is clearly paramount.  If you want what's on the back of the camera then shoot JPG in the first place, simple.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Andrew Rodney
    1,387 posts
    Apr 16, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 22, 2012 10:23 AM   in reply to Simon Full

    Simon Full wrote:

     

    I want my RAW images to be flat and dull so i can start with a blank canvas and set my own ideas in motion, it's the whole point of shooting RAW in the first place.  T

    Then make a preset or LR default for this (Alt/Option on Reset in Develop). As to why you’d want to start with butt ugly rendering instead of reasonably OK rendering is kind of a mystery to me but whatever. There is no correct rendering of output referred data like this. It is totally subjective and you can start with any such rendering you want and alter to taste without any degradation. Flat or nice looking, this has no effect on your ability to set your own idea in motion.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 22, 2012 10:30 AM   in reply to Andrew Rodney

    It's always a mystery to the masses mate...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 22, 2012 10:41 AM   in reply to Jeff Schewe
    He/she/it

     

    IT !!

     

    You are way, way out of line with that comment, and do a disservice to your own reputation.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 22, 2012 10:43 AM   in reply to Simon Full

    Simon Full wrote:

     

    The masses (my new word for hobbyists) are displeased with the outcome of their RAW files and we have to panda to them because making a RAW look like the JPG preview they know and love is clearly paramount.  If you want what's on the back of the camera then shoot JPG in the first place, simple.

    Bit patronising, and in any case not correct.  Starting with a rendering similar to the out-of-camera jpeg is no less logical than starting with what Andrew Rodney described as a "butt ugly rendering", and probably rather more logical to most people.  Of course that doesn't mean people wanting an out-of-camera rendering as a starting point should shoot jpeg in the first place.

     

    And by the way, the word is "pander" not "panda".  It comes from Pandarus in Troilus and Cressida, not from the animal. 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 22, 2012 11:02 AM   in reply to Simon Full

    Simon Full wrote:

     

    It's always a mystery to the masses mate...

     

    Wow! ... feel superior much?

     

    I am always baffled by elitist attitude ... especially when they choose to pontificate from on high anonymously via the internet ... If these folks are indeed superior to "the masses" ... why are they even interested in splashing around in the shallow end of the pool with the riff raff of the world ... Why they don't take the time and effort to develop their own software solutions to meet their worthier needs rather than soil their hands with the status quo. After all, if they have all the answers ... they should be self sufficient enough to meet their own needs and requirements without the assistance of thrd party software developed for "hobbyists" ...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 22, 2012 12:40 PM   in reply to Butch_M

    Has a post been deleted from this thread - I recall a post from Simon Fuller, and if so, why? It seemed an innocuous post...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 22, 2012 12:54 PM   in reply to johnhawk666

    Here posts are almost never removed  so you must be mistaken or may have overlooked the missing one. The poster might also have edited the post of his own volition.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 22, 2012 12:57 PM   in reply to johnhawk666

    My email client tells a different story too. Something is fishy...

    It contained a link with a picture that is now removed too (never saw the original though).

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 22, 2012 1:06 PM   in reply to slarti3

    I saw it ... it's absence is of little consequence ... IMHO

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 22, 2012 1:09 PM   in reply to john beardsworth

    No, I don't think I'm mistaken - I remember that Simon Fuller, as well as making another comment, also quoted an email from Tom Hegarty (as a scanned picture, so this is probably what slarti3 can see traces of). Was this too much information...?

    Of course, Simon Fuller could have edited it out himself - if so, perhaps the gentleman in question could give his side of the story.

     
    |
    Mark as:
Actions

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