Skip navigation
This discussion is locked

Lightroom 4 beta #1 test complete - final results.

Jan 31, 2012 1:11 PM

  Latest reply: Dave Merchant, Feb 27, 2012 9:12 PM
Replies 1 2 3 4 5 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 13, 2012 10:34 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Rob Cole wrote:

     

    I'll have to think about that - not sure what you mean just yet...

     

    Shadows in PV 2012 is also a wonderful thing...I suggest looking at the Basic controls beofre kneejerk reacting to Curves...(although Curves are a useful thing).

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 13, 2012 11:09 PM   in reply to Jeff Schewe

    Jeff Schewe wrote:

     

     

    Shadows in PV 2012 is also a wonderful thing...I suggest looking at the Basic controls beofre kneejerk reacting to Curves...(although Curves are a useful thing).

    hi jeff.....   mea culpa !! on being  a jerk with curves....so,,,are you saying that the nature of 'adaptivity' varies the shape of the contrast curve on an individual picture basis? and that by tweaking too early on the linear point curve one screws up the set points of the overall sliders? i've been using the sliders,, albeit in a diffrent sequence,,,they have a certain subtleness and usefulness for sure...just a bit confused on what is going on,,,?what's a function of what?....but i guess that's the genius of lr4 !!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 14, 2012 9:13 AM   in reply to decoyle

    Eric has indicated that the image adaptive adjustments in the Basic panel are upstream from curves processing in the pipeline. So, you won't get the benefit of the image adaptive adjustments if you don't set the Basic panel settings and use curves instead. I would suggest to optimize the tone settings in Basic and THEN tweak as needed in curves. I've also found less need for parametric curves in LR4 but still use the point curve editer at times to tease out highlight detail or clamp down on the blacks of a low contrast image (after adjusting the Basics).

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 14, 2012 11:10 PM   in reply to decoyle

    @Decoyle

     

    I'd call that pushing it to extremes. What a blast that looks like.

     

    Off topic - I was watching David Attenborough's BBC production Frozen  Planet last night, what a place to visit and shoot, enjoy and post a link to a gallery or website so we can see more of that part of the world.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 15, 2012 2:10 AM   in reply to Jeff Schewe

    Jeff Schewe wrote:

     

    I've also found less need for parametric curves in LR4 but still use the point curve editer at times to tease out highlight detail or clamp down on the blacks of a low contrast image (after adjusting the Basics).

    hi jeff,,,, while your on the subject of the parametric/point curves,,,,?why is it that the parametric curve updates it shape ( which i like ) with an adjustment from the point curve,,,,but the reverse not,,,an adjustment to the parametric is not reflected in the point curve?... i realize that it's a point curve ,,but they're easy enough to get....where's the trap? 

     

    tnx den

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 15, 2012 2:01 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Re: the tip for negative clarity

     

    I tried  negative clarity after reading your post.

    In a global adjustment (using a graduated filter) the negative clarity immediately produces a blur effect. This was a setting in the range of -10

     

    Since you included the words 'sloppily applied..i.e quickly' I now interprete that its a local brush application of a negative clarity.

    Since a blur has been attained in the  past and to date using -clarity and -sharpness combo is it that the -sharpness can be eliminated and get a similar blur effect?

     

    I have watched the result of applying a global + clarity up to amount 10 cause the histogram to spread and the dark blue black clipping appear. I have used +clarity, +contrast,+sharpening amounts with a local brush flow in the range of +25 to+35 and a feather and then I will see a lightness at the higher flow strength

     

    In your post further back with the review and 'final touch using locales' there is the suggestion to use -clarity to offset the brightness created by clarity- I assume you are not getting a blur in this situation.

     

     

     

     

    Rose

    (Shadows album with Lightroom v4 beta images Jan-Feb 2012)  http://rwalbum.gogaxdns.com/Albums/Shadows/index.html

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 15, 2012 4:20 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Well, the mud is being diluted and requires a filtration system at the moment <grin>

    SO.....

    I can see why the previously used -100 clarity and -85 sharpness even when used with a low level flow is MUCH stronger. I had got so accustomed to that procedure (brush or gradient) previously.

    It wasn't that I figured out that there was something radically different about clarity and its combinations I just did a 'knee-jerk' response and lowered the amounts in my favourite local brush. If your translation ends up being true then there will be some resaves of favourite brush presets.

     

    Who has time to investigate the book module, video etc?....I have those modules turned off because there is enough to absorb rewiring the brain for the develop changes.

     

    Have you noticed that if you go back and change an initial setting that it is VERY slow to refresh. Its also slow to display if testing out a setting and in that case the slider is continued to be moved because I think nothing has happened. I have resorted to typing in individual numbers rather than sliding. This also works because the slider will jump with  increments of 5 rather individual so an adjustment will go from 5 to 10 in one leap and all I wanted was perhaps 7.

     

    I've been thinking that those testing could upload images displaying their results whether to their own galleries or to the available Flickr or whatever. For me, it would be enlightening to see the results of develop settings used by others. Of course, doing the upload routine is another time consuming event but it would still be worthwhile <grin>

     

    Rose

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 19, 2012 4:17 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Rob Cole wrote:

    Bonus note:

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

    - If you find yourself progressively increasing highlights and shadows, it could be a sign you need to increase exposure instead.

      And the converse: If you find yourself progressively decreasing highlights and shadows, it could be a sign you need to decrease exposure instead.

     

     

    Mine - if you find highlights and shadows have different absolute values, you might need to split the difference and adjust exposure to compensate.  For example, if you have +50 shadows and -10 highlights, you might set them to +30 and -30 and then adjust exposure positive and see if you like the result better.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 19, 2012 8:26 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Rob Cole wrote:

     

    Sometimes just a few relatively small adjustments are made and the photo just dials right in, and it's like wow - that was it.!

     

     

    Yep...and not for nothing, this happens in PV 2012 a lot more than previous versions IMHO. I still hink paople are bring the previous toolset experience and fumbling when it comes to PV 2012. There are still times I long for Brightness...then remember it's gone and readjust my mindset.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 21, 2012 6:51 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Have  you included doing a 'soft proof' inspection while applying these coordinated adjustments?

     

    I fell upon your discovery by chance today because I'm testing out the soft proofing and the overlay results.

    Although the soft proof is supposed to be displaying the colours that are out of gamat (J.Kost beta video) there appears to be a connection if the balance of exposure and whites or contrast shadows highlights as you have described above.

     

    By going back and doing these type of adjustments to the basic sliders I could either remove any red overlay colours....OR...adjust in another direction and increase the overlay.

     

    At one point I got a blue colour overlay instead of the red and no one has mentioned that....or what it means.

     

    Eventually I found the happy medium and printed the red/orangish tulip....which looks very close to the soft proof version.

     

    There hasn't been much discussion on this forum about translating the soft proofing views

     

    Rose

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 21, 2012 7:30 PM   in reply to wdmn

    wdmn wrote:

     

    Have  you included doing a 'soft proof' inspection while applying these coordinated adjustments?

     

    Rose...good point. If the final output is intended to be a print, you DO need to consider soft proofing as part of the process. Combining PV 2012 with the optimizations made available with soft proofing is critical to getting the best print you can get...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 21, 2012 7:37 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Venturing into the soft proof screen might give you a total shock or a pleasant surprise....

     

    The suggestion in the J.Kost video is to local brush paint desaturation on the specific areas....

    ...very unscientific <grin>

    I tried that and desaturated too much

     

    Then after looking at the little areas that had 'red' overlay patches I started thinking as to WHY this colour range was unhappy....so I went back to the exposure contrast ...and other sliders, by chance arriving at patterns of adjustment that you have found....

     

    The JKost video displays 'red' as the overlay. I managed to produce an overlay with distinct dark blue (like the clipping triangle will display in the histogram) magneta pink and a little red. Then rearranging the basic settings removed that. So I'm concluding that the basic develop settings have an influence and that the result in the soft proofing is not JUST 'out of gamat' for the particular printer paper profile.

     

    But those 'who know' will correct or add to that 'perception' <grin>

    Rose

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 22, 2012 6:35 AM   in reply to Rob Cole

    I understand this is a very high level discussion of propper lightnint results. I'm photographing since like 2 months (using LR3 since a week) so take this with a grain of salt.

     

    Anyway, I made this portrait and messed around with fill light / recovery to get this very specific look (that is totally unrelated to getting a proper exposure and lighting) that I really like. I'm having a hard time reproducing this on LR4. What bothers me the most is that I'd get a specific aspect of it working, but at the same time I would overshoot somwhere else. Oftentimes I'd have to come back and make corrections on exposure level to correct for flaws that I produced while messing around with the silder. Also I'd be getting weird halos that I never saw on LR3. I'm a scrub at this and you can probably do it better, but honestly, why the trouble?

     

    came to ask why we just couldnt keep the old way of processing as an option? I understand that LR4 uses a new system that gets faster&better results in 99% of all cases and also improves compatibility across the Adobe range. You can always put a warning sticker out there saying something like USE WITH CAUTION! / NO COMPATIBILTY and obviously un-default it.

     

    Bottom line, its hard to understand why you would get rid of the old way of processing when there are obviously corner cases of where its superior (refering to some of the results posted in this thread, not my example I beg you). Yeah, the new system is more intuitive. I also get that fill / recovery and the new system is fundamentaly not compatible with each other. Just make a switch to change processing modes and hide it real deep in the expert settings. No harm done to anyone this way.

     

    0062.jpg

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 22, 2012 6:49 AM   in reply to cschenk599

    The old processing is still available as an option.  Go to Camera Calibration panel and choose "2010" from Process popup.

     

    (Its real purpose is backwards compatibility for legacy images, but of course you can use it if that's what you prefer.)

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 22, 2012 6:52 AM   in reply to MadManChan2000

    Oh dear, thats great. Thanks!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 23, 2012 5:54 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Well you are certainly not leaving the white and black adjustments until the last <grin> (Rule #5 broken already <grin>)

     

    Yesterday I  clicked a series of 20 images with over exposed by by .5 purposely just to have materials to develop that would likely require lowering exposure

    With the lowering of the exposure then the whites did get a little plus shove but I didn't do it as move exposure and then drop down to white. I followed the 'rules'   and did the white and the black as 4th and 5th step respectively.

    The conditions were overcast mixed with intermittent sun through the clouds and the aperture range was F4.5 -5.6 and a few 6.5. Using manual I bumped the EV one notch.

    I used AUTO once and the exposure automatically went to -1.2 or in that range....so quite the task to mess with all the other settings and get a representation of the grass stalk closeup.

     

    When I checked the image with soft proof I found that the 'relative' choice gave a closer result than the perceptive. The perceptive was quite washed out. It wasn't a colourful content....(dead decorative grass stalks that had orange hue although it looked white/yellow) 

     

    The image looked just fine if it were destined to be a resized jpg but it wasn't looking fine as a perceptual soft proof.....

    This image was exported from the print section as a file jpg (600ppi) and opening with Qimage printing software. It actually looks fine in the Qimage

     

    Seems to me that there is going to be the original image prep, make a virtual print copy and edit that. To date I am attempting to process the original dng so that the soft proof looks like it expect it in a print.

     

    Rose

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 23, 2012 7:54 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Rob Cole wrote:

     

    Your thoughts?

     

    If you want some insight into what the new PV 2012 controls in Basic are doing....see this. The main takaway from this is that LR4's new PV 2012 isn't a dumbing down of the Basic panel control but is actually very high tech and bleeding edge image processing. Pretty cool stuff actually...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 23, 2012 8:30 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Rob Cole wrote:

     

    (until I hit those problem photos... - sorry, I had to say it )

     

    And not for nothing, it would be useful to supply Eric and Sylvain example raws for eval. Not rendered images, that's useless, but private example raws–with snapshots for various settings and some method of indicating where PV 2012 is less good. Odds are real good it won't make it into LR4 GM, but rest assured, the example raws WILL be used for future eval.

     

    If you DON'T contribute to the greator good, then complaining isn't really an option...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 25, 2012 12:35 AM   in reply to Rob Cole

    "I was going to say more but I lost my train of thought, maybe later... - please stay tuned if you're finding this stuff useful, interesting, or at least entertaining, or pisses you off in a way that makes you feel superior..."

     

    Enough already. Just let this thread die. Posting every two days just to bump it up is getting a little sad!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 25, 2012 1:16 AM   in reply to Photo_op8

    Photo_op8 wrote:

     

    Enough already. Just let this thread die. Posting every two days just to bump it up is getting a little sad!

    Exactly the same thought just popped into my head when yet another email with the same title dropped into my inbox...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 25, 2012 2:38 AM   in reply to Keith_Reeder

    +1  Shows just how "final" the original post wasn't!!

     

    Bob Frost

     
    |
    Mark as:
Actions

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (1)

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