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 25, 2012 3:01 AM   in reply to Photo_op8

    Photo_op8 wrote:

     

    "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!

     

    +1 Even sadder when someone's thinking up this stuff in bed.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 26, 2012 5:17 AM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Much as it's appreciated to hear the opinions of users about beta products, if this thread continues to degrade into personal insults we will close it. All those posting here are reminded that personal attacks are a violation of the forum terms of use, and may result in your account being suspended.

     

    These forums allow users to talk about Adobe software and related subjects, and nobody said you have to use a question/answer format when posting. Rob's entitled to report on what he is discovering about the new behaviors in LR4 in 'blog style', and if other users don't find it interesting they can simply ignore the posts. I don't have a problem with him replying to his own message if he has something new and relevant to say - that is not "bumping", and is better for the forum structure than posting a new discussion each time.

     

    I'm glad that people are expressing opinions about LR4 (both positive and negative), and without them the products cannot evolve. Feel free to disagree with each other, but keep it professional.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 26, 2012 10:47 AM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Re: getting the mid-tone punch

    Are these arrangements a type of replacement for the previous extreme settings used with clarity and vibrance?

    When these punchy settings are put in place what is the response in the soft proofing?

    Now, I'll open Lightroom and try them out <grin> relative to soft proofing.

    (After much fiddling with printing images completed in Lr4 I'm, finally, going to order a calibration software for monitor and printer to replace the Lutlcurve software and the Win7 provision for monitor settings)

    Rose

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 26, 2012 1:10 PM   in reply to Dave Merchant

    Dave Merchant... thank you, that statement of principle was right on the money.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 26, 2012 6:05 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Rob Cole wrote:


    PV2010 clarity is a midtone contrast enhancer ...

     

    PV2010 clarity is a LOCAL contrast enhancer.  It's effect is confined spacially, not toneally.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 26, 2012 6:29 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Rob Cole wrote:

     

    I understand how they are not exactly the same, but

     

    +contrast -highlights +shadows will produce an effect in some ways more like old clarity than new clarity will, despite new clarity being more like old clarity as LOCAL spacially confined contrast enhancer.

     

    I used old clarity (globally) in >50% of photos - it was very much a key part in basic toning for me.

    I use new clarity (globally) in <10% - I could almost see relegating it to the "effects" section.

     

    R

     

    Don't forget, Eric has adjusted PV2012 Clarity post-Beta.  So your opinion might change after you get to work with it.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 26, 2012 11:38 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Rob Cole wrote:

     

    Hi Den,

     

    Some comments:

     

    Very low detail in both highlights and shadows.

    If your intent was to focus attention on the "macro chiaroscuro", and not be distracted by detail, then mission accomplished.

     

    hi rob,,, well i will say that you are as persistent as a pit bull so i'll throw ya a bone

     

    let me just set this picx up for you,, as it's been mentioned that sometimes you just get lucky,,,

    it's twilight on the 23,jan,, -30F probably lower,, high slack tide of 20+ ft, alot! of water has just rolled in the last six hours,,i'm at the mouth of a river which is pouring yet more water and warmer into the inlet,,so what normally would be a vapor fog is an ice fog,,,it's dense!!! gear ? ha! leave it in the truck,,something inevitably wants to break..so it's a warm canon G10 from inside the jacket @ iso200 4.5/125 +1...but spectacular light and contrasting clouds...really sweet..clickitiy click and move on...it's frigid and that sun is down..

    so back in lr4 what have you got...so so.it doen't pop out of the camera..but the contrast is there,,just hidden in hte fog...been here before and me being about curves i just rip into it to cut through the ice fog, there's no other way to clear this up and i end up with...

    j23.png

    ugly yet contrasty ...where do i want to go..well get rid of most of that hideous color first..use non-linear vibrance for saturation adj -100,,left with almost b/w with a ting of metallic copper on the water,,,tweak the color controls to separate the magenta and blues in the clouds,,then used the basics to add more tone separation for this

     

    j23f.png

    added that -contrast after this to darken the top cloud,,, other than printing a proof i haven't finish with this edit ,i've been viewing everything on a 13" mbp, waiting for the final release,,,hopefully this week!! and if we can get this calibration software for this hp2480 monitor of mine out of beta things will be superb.

    Rob Cole wrote:

     

    try something more like (disclaimer: I have not checked these settings, but if you pass me your raw I can better show you what I mean):

     

    contrast +80 (or less if you want reduced midtone contrast, or more...).

    highlights = -70 (I'm just wingin' it here - see disclaimer above) - but the point is more negative than 26, to compensate for other settings that would otherwise overboost and/or reduce detail in the highlights.

    shadows = +40 (again, see disclaimer, but +whites -exposure will compress shadows, this is compensatory and won't create much intra-shadow contrast).

    whites = 30 (this will keep your whites bright, and stretch out + pull up the highlights, as well as left-shifting & stretching midtones, plus compressing shadows)

    exposure = -0.3 (this will keep your mids low)

    blacks to make it work out...

     

    No tone curve should be required, or in any case, only a simpler subtler one.

     

    you apparently have way more 'vision' with these 'numbers' than i..i need! a picture... well the contrast slider in lr4 appears to me to be the same as lr3 and it doesn't fit my style, too global.... highlights and shadows in lr4 are the cat's meow..i'm just now starting to sense the outrageous subtety of these controls,truely a sweet spot of this software,,,and with the +clarity tied in with the new algorithm,,wow! this is going to be fun!! i know your heavy into the whites and blacks but i'm finding that i'm not using them much for most picx...you really need to use the channels in the point curve and not just for color cast although that is sweet,,,,although they don't have a threshold view option as per photoshop and as the exposure slider does with the option key,,,if you close the basic panel and turn on the the clipping views in the histogram you can set your 'color' clipping points for shadows/highlights while viewing the clipping box in the histogram....really sweet !!! and then of course use the curves to get the overall color as you like,,,,this is a super feature!! ... and i think that you will find that the white slider will be used less if at all,,black is a tad subtler..

     

    so why don't you snap a foggy view of that golden gate there and "show" what those numbers really are saying !! i think you would give your views sooo much more credence... maybe deflect some of this negativism that runs through this thread....personally i couldn't handle what has been thrown at you...

     

    all the best, den

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 27, 2012 5:22 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    It would be useful to start a new thread and let this one wither...at 176 posts it's sort of polluted. Not sure many people will click only to the most recent post and the stuff in between isn't really all that useful for most readers.

     

    People reading this thread really should start with the most recent posts and then work backwards if they are interested...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 27, 2012 6:40 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Rob Cole wrote:

     

    It has definitely been tricky to learn to be proficient, but once it clicks, spectacular results are achievable quickly,

     

    Advise from above, when you were being highly negative:

     

    "...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."

     

    You might have saved yourself (and all of us) a good bit of negativity by just listening to that advice in the first place.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 27, 2012 9:12 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Sorry folks, but with yet more reported instances of personal insults, this thread is now locked.

     
    |
    Mark as:
1 2 3 4 5 Previous Next
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