Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

Thoughts about the new clarity

Jan 16, 2012 5:22 AM

The good: The halos are gone! Great!

The bad: The effect is way stronger and it changes the images tonality.

 

The PV2010 is great as it make the image stronger without bringing too much details. You may use it for hazes.

The PV2012 is much more about details (the radius must be way smaller). It looks much more like the "Definition" slider in Aperture. It is hard on details but doesn't give the smooth punch as the PV2010 one. Plus it changes the image clarity and you have to go back to the tonality sliders to correct it.

 

Romain

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 16, 2012 9:22 AM   in reply to Romain_Th

    There used to be a thread in this forum about exaclty this. It was quite lenghty, but I seriously cannot find it anymore.

    It even had almost exactly the same title.

     

    Do some thread sometimes get deleted or am I just stupid?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 16, 2012 9:29 AM   in reply to slarti3

    Google finds one message of the thread, but the site is dead.

     

    And I checked every single page in the discussion board: gone.

     

    Does somebody delete threads here?

     

    btw: the title was "Thoughts on new Clarity Adjustment".

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Victoria Bampton
    5,302 posts
    Apr 1, 2008
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 16, 2012 9:46 AM   in reply to Romain_Th

    The forums was having "issues" at the end of last week.  I don't think it was intentionally deleted but it may have gone walkabout.  I can't find it either.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 19, 2012 6:43 PM   in reply to Romain_Th

    Just trying the clarity sliders... I wish they put another slider that resambles de one PV2010.. well maybe I need to try it more, it makes some amazing things but some old looks are hard to do the way Clarity slider works now.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 8, 2012 5:55 PM   in reply to Romain_Th

    I agree the clarity slider does seem to increase the expose in areas, which is disappointing. Not sure what the benefit is of that. Is this a bug or the way it is supposed to be?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 8, 2012 6:06 PM   in reply to Dan Ro

    Hi Dan,

     

    As a result of the thread refered to above by slarti3, Eric Chan of Adobe said he was going to make some tweaks to clarity - dunno what they will be, but some comments were regarding the brightening effect.

     

    I'm sure it's not a bug.

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 8, 2012 6:08 PM   in reply to MANTHX1138

    MANTHX1138 wrote:

     

    Just trying the clarity sliders... I wish they put another slider that resambles de one PV2010.. well maybe I need to try it more, it makes some amazing things but some old looks are hard to do the way Clarity slider works now.

     

    I'm with ya - overall I'd consider the new clarity an improvement, but I miss the effects of old clarity too sometimes.

     

    Cheers,

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 14, 2012 7:23 PM   in reply to Romain_Th

    I used to want it to not brighten so much - now I'm not so sure...

     

    Reason:

     

    - clarity is no longer needed for the majority of photos since Lr4 produces very clear pictures without it.

    - negative clarity is a very effective means for debrightening and smoothing tones when Lr4 has brightened some stuff a little more than I'd like in a particular region of a photo. Not only that but it will brighten adjacent overdark areas a little bit too.

     

    new +clarity is almost like a local adaptive contrast exagerator, and

    -clarity is almost like a local adaptive contrast attenuator, sorta-ish.

     

    If no big changes are made to new clarity, I expect I'll be using global +clarity only occasionally, and local -clarity a lot.

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 14, 2012 8:10 PM   in reply to Romain_Th

    The PV2012 is much more about details (the radius must be way smaller).

    I dunno, there are some pretty big broad areas of brightening / darkening with new clarity more reminiscent of "large radius". Not so sure new clarity maps to either big or small radius - it's both and neither...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 15, 2012 2:52 PM   in reply to Romain_Th

    Sure would like to have a control act like it used to (I know, in LR4, everything is different). It seems like there are other controls that can do "debrightening". If photos don't need clarity any more because of new processes in Lr4, that's fine, but why change what it used to do? I don't get it.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 15, 2012 3:08 PM   in reply to Dan Ro

    Dan Ro wrote:

     

    If photos don't need clarity any more because of new processes in Lr4, that's fine, but why change what it used to do? I don't get it.

     

    Because the old Clarity causes halos...the new Clarity doesn't. Also note that the overall strength of Clarity in PV 2012 is about 2X the strength in PV 2010 (because it caused halos). As a result, if you want it to look more like PV 2010, cut the strength by half of what you used to do.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 15, 2012 4:07 PM   in reply to Jeff Schewe

    Jeff Schewe wrote:

     

    Dan Ro wrote:

     

    If photos don't need clarity any more because of new processes in Lr4, that's fine, but why change what it used to do? I don't get it.

     

    Because the old Clarity causes halos...the new Clarity doesn't.

     

    Don't underestimate how important this is.

     

    See if you can guess which one is without clarity, with clarity in PV2010, and with clarity in PV2012.

     

    Clarity-halos.gif

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 15, 2012 4:12 PM   in reply to Dan Ro

    I think it's because of the process version.

     

    fill light doesn't fit into the new PV - neither does old clarity.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 15, 2012 10:09 PM   in reply to Romain_Th

    The new clarity along with highlights produces amazing results for me, especially for painting model's hair.  It's aggressive compared to the previous one but that only means you have to slide it less.  This was the problem for me regarding many sliders in LR3, their wasn't enough range but now that most of the tools have made an experience in the adjustment brush section that problem has largely been solved.

     

    I now only need Photoshop for liquify, cloning and healing.

     

    Good job!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 16, 2012 12:10 AM   in reply to Lee Jay

    Nicely done Jay Lee, but pretty obvious as all you've done there is to show over processed clarity for both settings, and the 2012 process is especially ugly as the local contrasts are remenicent of badly done HDR.

    Its not a fair test of clarity comparison for each process version

     

     

    Q. the without clarity was that image processed in LR3 or LR4?

     

    A much better and fairer way of comparing /contrasting process versions of clarity would be to prepare 4 variations

    1. w/o clarity LR3
    2. w/o clarity LR4
    3. best edit 2010 clarity (LR3)
    4. best edit 2012 clarity (LR4)

     

    and then share them, then you've got 2 controls and 2 examples of clarity having been used to the best effect possible.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 16, 2012 3:08 AM   in reply to hamish niven

    Although I appreciate all the improvements in new clarity, sometimes it just looks ugly to me - not sure how else to put it. And, sometimes it looks great...

     

    Summary:

    ------------

    Sometimes old clarity looks better, maybe with some local declarity to tone down the "overemphasis".

    Sometimes new clarity looks better, maybe with some local declarity to tone down the "ugliness".

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 16, 2012 5:56 AM   in reply to hamish niven

    All this was done in LR4, PV10 and PV12.  Yes, I had clarity set to 100 in PV10 which is too much, just to show how bad the halos can get.  I had it set to 50 in PV12 which is a comparable value.  Both are too much, but here's the thing - the "right" amount for the best looking image in PV10 is too much to keep the halos under control, thus the amount I can apply is limited by the halos not by how much I actually want.  Not so in PV12.

     

    You can't just image quality from an 800 pixel animated gif anyway.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 16, 2012 2:09 PM   in reply to Romain_Th

    If you add its much greater effect in the shadows, and it's slightly greater effect in the highlights, and factor in it's much stronger brightening effect, then sum-total clarity could be thought of as being 2X stronger, but to me it's like comparing apples to oranges - it's stronger some places in some ways, but weaker in others.

     

    Note: Adobe does not halfen clarity when converting PV2010 photos to PV2012.

     

    I mean even in the airplane example overall clarity looks much greater to me in PV10@100 than PV12@50. Try setting PV2010 clarity to 50 so it matches the PV2012 version (numerically), then pass a -clarity brush over the halo-y areas - now which do you like best? (My point stands regardless of your answer to this question for this particular case).

     

    Don't get me wrong - "no halos" is a feature (as is clarifying of shadows...), but sometimes new clarity just looks uglier - I wish I didn't feel that way, but I'm willing to use it on far less photos than old clarity because of it. Or when I do, I often do extensive declarification (or just apply locally in the first place). Cleanup of halos with old clarity was generally much quicker than cleanup of the "over-clarification" due to new clarity.

     

    Summary:

    ------------

    Sometimes new clarity is a huge improvement in some photos. But other times: not so much...

     

    I'd be curious to know if new clarity is really an interdependent part of PV2012, or relatively independent.

    i.e. would it even be "possible" to have both? If so, could they be used at the same time?...

    (I realize this won't happen before Lr4 is released, just curious...)

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 16, 2012 2:54 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    I totally agree with the apples and the oranges. I consider them both to be quite different effects. They are like two orthogonal vectors, or maybe 70 degrees in between ^^

    And since PV2010 will still be available and mostly does a decent enough job, I have decided to simply use it whenever the offects of 2010 clarity are much wanted.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 16, 2012 3:15 PM   in reply to slarti3

    slarti3 wrote:

     

    They are like two orthogonal vectors

     

    I think you're exagerating .

     

     

     

    slarti3 wrote:

     

    ...maybe 70 degrees in between ^^

     

    I can go along with that .

     

     

     

    slarti3 wrote:

     

    And since PV2010 will still be available and mostly does a decent enough job, I have decided to simply use it whenever the offects of 2010 clarity are much wanted.

     

    I really hope to not have to do that, but as I alluded to in a previous thread "I am prepared for it" (emotionally/psychologically...).

     

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 16, 2012 4:02 PM   in reply to Romain_Th

    To be really happy it should be a square to choose to check or uncheck in de Basic panel and in the Local adjustment: "Regular"(PV2010) and "Improved" (PV2012)... yep? ... be able to choose (I like options). I think that could work fine.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 16, 2012 4:17 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Rob Cole wrote:

     

    I'd be curious to know if new clarity is really an interdependent part of PV2012, or relatively independent.

    i.e. would it even be "possible" to have both?

     

    PV 2012 Clarity is a whole different algorithm when set to plus (negative Clarity in PV 2012 is the same as 2010). So, it's an either/or situation with no possibility to having an option in the Basic panel. Either you accespt PV 2012 and the new stuff or you accept PV 2010.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 16, 2012 4:21 PM   in reply to MANTHX1138

    I can't help but think that clarity needs to expose more control to user. Maybe something like:

     

    - micro vs. macro clarity (small radius vs large radius). Sometimes I want fine clarity like coarse sharpening, sometimes I want the sweeping big-area stuff, although the "radical" redistribution of big-area tones in new clarity is sometimes a little much. Old clarity was "smoother".

    - emphasis on dark tones & halo control (in my opinion zero haloing or darkening edges for emphasis... is not always optimal).

    - brightening bias - sometimes brightening effect is good, sometimes not.

    - amount in highlights vs midtones vs shadows.

     

    So far, my focus has been mostly on the basic controls - I'm just starting to evaluate clarity more closely. So these things have not been thought through all that well - take with salt...

     

    But even the choice of one or the other without having to switch PV would be good, if it's feasible...

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 16, 2012 4:34 PM   in reply to Jeff Schewe

    Jeff Schewe wrote:

     

    ...no possibility to having an option in the Basic panel...

     

    I get that it's too late now for Lr4, but I think Adobe should keep in mind for the future that some of us want to be able to increase the amount slider and have a nice result much of the time, but then proceed to adjust the other sliders to fine tune for optimal results at other times.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 16, 2012 4:47 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Rob Cole wrote:

     

    I get that it's too late now for Lr4, but I think Adobe should keep in mind for the future that some of us want to be able to increase the amount slider and have a nice result much of the time, but then proceed to adjust the other sliders to fine tune for optimal results at other times.

     

    Ain't gonna happen...there's no traction here. Unless you can post example raws for eval, no changes will be made. That's not to say the LR5 won't change the ground rules (and maybe yet another Process Version), but that's a "Feature Request" (which doesn't have much chance of being implemented).

     

    So, you might as well get good at using PV 2012...or not and stick to PV 2010.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 16, 2012 5:14 PM   in reply to Jeff Schewe

    And I think we should not forget that Adobe would like to sell Photoshop to us as well... So we probably cannot expect too much fine tuning for image improving processes...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 16, 2012 7:55 PM   in reply to slarti3

    slarti3 wrote:

     

    And I think we should not forget that Adobe would like to sell Photoshop to us as well... So we probably cannot expect too much fine tuning for image improving processes...

     

    And that would be a foolish position...LR/ACR has already had 2 major Process Version updates and now with LR4, a 3rd. What part of the substantial improvements in processing and image quality in acr/LR don't you grasp? Look, ACR and LR are designed for raw image processing...it'll prolly never have a lot of the tools in Photoshop because for raw image processing, they aren't needed. LR is designed as a raw processing workflow, something Photoshop isn't really very good at.

     

    The things that Photoshop is really good at; substantial retouching and compositing would not work well in LR. That's why Adobe sells both–use the tool you need to get your work done.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 16, 2012 9:10 PM   in reply to slarti3

    I don't think that Photoshop even comes into the equation.  LR still has healthy competition with C1, Aperture, Bibble and others and so far from what i can see LR3 'fine tunes' a whole lot better and faster.

     

    The days when the competition can master competent layering, Liquify, masking, cloning and healing in only mids, lights or darks are a long, long way away.

     

    I'm sure photoshop will be cannibalized in some part but only in a tablet/laptop kinda way, the money still goes in the Adobe bank and Photoshop is still very much an integral part of the graphic and web world.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 2:19 AM   in reply to Romain_Th

    First impression of newest clarity:

     

    Just what the doctor ordered - it seems like Eric did just the right things to clarity, and now it perfectly complements the rest of PV2012. Another big thank you to Adobe!!!

     

    Is it my imagination or does it unravel the auto-shadow recovery as you crank it up?

     

    It may darken some parts a little more than some would like now, but for me I think it's gonna be just fine fine fine - no more uglies! (less brightening obviously, but also I think less fine detail and noise enhancement - less "grungy").

     

    For me it has earned it's place back with the basics (I had previously relegated it to "special effects" in Lr4b).

     

    This story still unfolding... .

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:

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