Rob,

In order to be able to discuss with you, could you PLEASE, backup your claims with some examples, shown here publicly. You apparently have some findings, but without example, I can neither understand nor reproduce anything what you say.

tgutgu wrote:

 

In order to be able to discuss with you, could you PLEASE, backup your claims with some examples, shown here publicly.

Have you seen the example in this thread:

http://forums.adobe.com/message/4179562

?

Seems to show that a small and quick set of adjustments with PV2010 take a very long time to reproduce with PV2012.

Disclaimer: I haven't looked at this example in detail, but it may be what you are looking for.

TK2142 wrote:

 

BTW, what professional body has deemed Mark Hamburg's education as being compliant to an "engineering" standard? 

Let's see ... I Googled "Mark Hamburg" and received 78,100,000 results ... with the vast majority of refernces pointing to Adobe, Photoshop and Lightroom ...

I Googled TK2142 and received 13,200 results with the first page containing links to Turkish airlines, ebay and more or less gibberish.

Perhaps before you question or otherwise attempt to sully the credibility of someone very publicly linked to an endeavor ... you could legitimize your own identiy beyond a vauge collection of alpha-numeric symbols ...

Until then, Mr. Hamburg's contributions to the cause will carry considerably much more weight than your comments here ....

This whole thread is such a waste of server space ...

IF Mr. Cole had expressed his findings and opinions as succintly and concisely as he did in his most recent contribution to this thread ... without his prior offerings of conjecture, speculation and editorializing his own self-proclamied importance ... there would be little to no contraversy on the matter.

There is no doubt that Lr4b and pv 2012 is NOT perfect ... I don't think anyone involved expected the beta to be so ... however, the incredulous contempt shown by some over those who are offering the opportunity for us to test Lr4 is beyond comprehension.

BETAS ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE PERFECT! If they were, there would be no purpose whatsoever for public beta testing. Betas are a starting point so the engineers may receive feedback to enable them to fine-tune for the final relaese. Expecting more, or placing too much importance on the findings of individual testers goes far beyond the intended means ...

The issue here are not about the credibilty, motives or work environment of those Adobe employees tasked with presenting the software ... it is for us to test, evaluate and trial the capabilities of the software as presented, then report back our issues, problems and concerns after putting it through the paces ... anything more that we may want to offer beyond that is pointless and counter to the cause. Whether or not we as individuals question particular team members as "qualified" for their job titles is meaningless ... I'm sure Adobe doesn't make a habit of hiring "posers" to work on such important projects.

Beta testing feedback should be based upon results, or the lack thereof and not emotionaly induced narrative ... so if you want to question Adobe staff selction, their academic or professional accreditation, you actually may want to consider another venue for that cause. ... And ... if you want to proclaim your own sel-importance you may be better off joining the blogoshpere and take your chances there to make an impact ... because thumping on Mr. Hamburg and Mr Chan here ... ain't gonna getcha very far ...

...even if being a computer science engineer myself, is it really relevant to the discussion?

I can't see the point in that, apart from being offensive.

Jeff probably just uses the term because it sounds butch.

Butch_M wrote:

Let's see ... I Googled "Mark Hamburg" and received 78,100,000 results ... with the vast majority of refernces pointing to Adobe, Photoshop and Lightroom ...

Why not look at the Lightroom AND Photoshop splash screens for a hint.

TK2142 wrote:g offensive.

 

If I had written that from what I have gleaned from the Adobe LR podcasts that Thomas Knoll comes across as someone who really knows what he is doing, while this is much less the case for Mark Hamburg, then I would have understood that someone said this could regard this as being "offensive". But I didn't. I merely asked a question about whether Jeff Schewe is correct in referring to Mark Hamburg as an engineer.

Yes,,,Mark is a software engineer....but he's actually much more than that. He was the #2 engineer to work on Photoshop with Thomas. He has been named an Adobe Fellow. He was the founding engineer and designer of Lightroom. Many of the functions in Develop came directly from Mark such as; HSL/Grayscale, Parametric Curves, Split Tone. Thomas was impressed enough with Mark's work to incorporate those functions into Camera Raw. Mark left Adobe for a while to work on UI and usability at MSFT but came back to Adobe. Rather than go back to work on Lightroom, he decied to do a consumer app–Revel.

Mark has always thought that ACR/LR has had too many controls (ironic since he added 24 HSL controls) so when he worked on Revel, he decided to try to distill a lot of functionality into less controls. But trying to understand the team's motives from the outside is a waste of time.

To be honest: I love every aspect of the PV2012 algorithm. But, as you all stated, that's personally. For me it works.

It's also easy for me to reproduce the colors EXACTLY as they should be in real life.

- I calibrated my monitor with the X-Rite i1 Display Pro

- I took a photo of the X-Rite ColorChecker Passport, with the lighting exactly as my calibrated Sekonic 758-DR Lightmeter told me

- I profiled the photo of the ColorChecker Passport and applied the profile

- I verified the custom white balance (although I already custom made it in camera via the Passport)

- I downloaded and opened this PDF: http://www.babelcolor.com/download/RGB%20Coordinates%20of%20the%20Macb eth%20ColorChecker.pdf

- I adjusted all the controls 'till the numbers matched in LR4 with this settings:

Exposure: 0,00

Contrast: -33

Highlights: 0

Shadows: 0

Whites: 0

Blacks: +25

Clarity: 0

Vibrance: 0

Saturation: 0

Tone Curve: Linear

The values on my ColorChecker matched the values in the PDF. Of course, it looks more dull. I saved those settings as a new preset. I applied it on other images with the ColorChecker (with different backgrounds but every image with perfect light metering) and the values were consistent as stated in the PDF.

I calibrated my screen at D65 2.2 and have calibrated norm lights in my post processing rooms. Comparing the ColorChecker with my calibrated screen and the adjustments in LR4 gives me an exact match.

PV2012 gives me a good and flexible starting point, I'm happy with it.

Andrew Rodney wrote:

 

Why not look at the Lightroom AND Photoshop splash screens for a hint.

Andrew, that would be way too obvious ... I just wanted to contrast the search results for a well-known individual who has been a integral component in the development and production of Photoshop and Lightroom ... to ... an anonymous forum poster fixated on the credibility of a job title ... which really has little to do with this discussion or the advancements in the Lr product ...

Why some think it more important to focus on speculation and conjecture ... or the personal motivations of Adobe employess ... rather than the software itself escapes me ...

A follow up question for Eric,

Putting aside the technology, can you explain whether LR makes a different creative assumption than LR3 in terms of a starting point. For instance it's apparent, and many have commented on the highlight recovery change. While it can be argued that LR4 develop controls may ultimately provide the same or greater range of aesthetic control, I'm keen to know whether your default "treatment" has changed.

Let's say I like to shoot high key and don't mind some blown highlights. Will achieving that look be at odds with LR4's default assumptions, and require more effort to achieve?

I believe this is related to Rob's questions. As a workflow product initially conceived to address volume (in contrast to PS's pursuit of ultimate creative expression for individual images) it is completely legitimate to be concerned about the throughput implications of the develop changes and whether the starting creative assumptions of LR4 are harder to undo than those of LR3. To be clear I'm not asking about the "zeroed baseline" that was discussed in other threads, I accept the fact that assumptions have to made, I just want you to characterize the assumptions of the LR4 process relative to LR3, if in fact they are different.

thanks

False alarm... :-)

http://forums.adobe.com/message/4189984#4189984

ROb...

WIth all respect....you are not helping yourself....or us, for that matter.

TYpe 1, type2....category 1,2,3,4......?????

MAybe it is just me, but I have no idea what you are talking about....without some illustrative examples.

ALso...what is the reference to a "Beta#2"?  Do you have some knowledge the rest of us do not have?  I have no idea, but if I were a betting man, I would suspect....sort of a last second "Oh, sh*t"....beta2 will be LR 4.0

Rob Cole wrote:

 

I have already prepared myself that the same will not be the case with PV2012, assuming no significant changes are made before final release...

Reasons that's a stupid decision:

- First, the obvious.  You have a big assumption in there, that's already known to be wrong.

- Second, you've spent years and years getting used to and comfortable with PV2010 and PV2003.  You've spent only weeks messing with PV2012.  You can't expect to learn all the tricks that quickly.

- Third, any tiny amount of experience you've obtained from the last weeks has been marred by a little bit of beta-itis.

- Fourth, you haven't been trying very hard to following the workflow suggestions you've been given.  Once you do (if you do), you may find your conclusions were wrong.

- Lastly, it's not necessary to duplicate the "look" of PV2010 if you can get an equivalently good or superior but different look in PV2012.