Skip navigation

Please bring back the Fill Light slider!!!

Mar 8, 2012 8:18 AM

Tags: #fill #light #lr4
  Latest reply: Rob Cole, May 8, 2012 3:28 PM
Replies 1 2 3 4 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 12, 2012 2:50 PM   in reply to Joerollerblade

    Good to hear - thanks for reporting back.

     

    Yeah, unlike Lr3's fill slider, Lr4's shadow slider is intended to affect a more limited range of tones - those considered "shadows", which varies from image to image:

    * not blacks, although it affects them too since they are adjacent.

    * not midtones, although it affects those too by virtue of being adjacent.

     

    Once people get that:

     

    * +blacks sometimes needs to be used too to boost the deeper tones more (and tone curve compensation to reseat blacks may be required).

    * exposure needs to be used too to set the midtones (and in Lr4 needs to be adjusted repeatedly, before attempting to finalize shadow tone, since it's the PV2012 centerpiece - critical to all other toning aspects in PV2012, not just fill), since shadows slider is designed to have minimum impact on the mids/highlight tones.

     

    Things really start to click fill-wise.

     

    My opinion: In most cases Lr4 "fill" is superior to Lr3-fill, but there are also some corner cases where Lr4-fill is not as good as Lr3-fill (not as many such cases as people think at first, but it happens...). I may still be using PV2010 for some of those cases.

     

    PS - Lr3-fill did not preserve color integrity in the shadows as well as Lr4 does. The results were actually a boost in saturation along with some interesting hue shifts that were sometimes just delightful. That has been fixed in Lr4, mostly for better, but is sometimes one of those happy imperfections that is actually missed... And speaking of clarity, it does brighten some tones along with it's darkening. I never figured out whether the apparent saturation loss is due to the brightening part or the tonal tweaking - any ideas?  This aspect seems better in Lr4.0 than the beta, but I can't tell whether it's just due to less brightening or there were actually some color handling improvements specifically added (?)

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 1, 2012 6:18 PM   in reply to Joerollerblade

    I, too, am pissed off at having bought the Lightroom 4 upgrade without realising that Recovery, Fill light and Brightness had been removed. I use the first two all the time, and have no idea how or why I should be compensating. I will definitely switch back to Lightroom 3. This was a stupid move on Adobe's part.

     

    Also, what is "PV2010" and "PV2012." I don't know what those are.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 1, 2012 6:20 PM   in reply to christianbobak

    christianbobak wrote:

     

    Also, what is "PV2010" and "PV2012." I don't know what those are.

     

    PV2010 is the control set from LR3, PV2012 is the updated and imporived control set. If you really don't want to get the benefit of PV 2012, you can keep using PV2010. Course, it's your loss as the new controls are much improved (if you spend the time to learn them).

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 1, 2012 6:23 PM   in reply to christianbobak

    There are some very good free tutorials at the link posted below that explain the new features in LR 4. Its worth having a look

     

    http://tv.adobe.com/product/lightroom/

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 1, 2012 6:25 PM   in reply to christianbobak

    Can I uninstall Lightroom 4 and get a refund? I knew 30 seconds in that I was unhappy with the product. I like the spot noise reduction but not at the expense of two features I use all the time and are very important to me.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 1, 2012 6:29 PM   in reply to DdeGannes

    With all due respect Jeff and DdeGannes, I don't need a tutorial on the new features and have no problem with them. The problem is that three features were taken away, two of which I use all the time. I need the old features back. I've already switched back to 3 and have no interest in returning to 4. I want to uninstall it and get my money back.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 1, 2012 6:31 PM   in reply to Jeff Schewe

    Jeff, do you mean I can switch from "PV2012" to "PV2010" within Lightroom 4?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 1, 2012 6:35 PM   in reply to christianbobak

    The new controls take some getting use to, but one can get even better results in Lr4 than Lr3, once one gets the hang of it...

     

    Forcing us to learn a new set of controls was a bold move, to be sure, but I wouldn't say it was stupid.

     

    There are some occasions when Lr3 fill light may still be preferable but in most cases Lr4 does everything better.

     

    More tips & tricks can be found here:

     

    http://forums.adobe.com/message/4259091#4259091

    http://forums.adobe.com/thread/968940?tstart=0

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 1, 2012 6:38 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Seriously, I don't need tips and tricks, I need the old features back. Does Lightroom offer refunds?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 1, 2012 6:40 PM   in reply to christianbobak

    The photos I started editing in 4 are looking better in 3 because I have Fill Light and Recovery in 3. It's as simple as that. I need Recovery and Fill Light. I use them all the time.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 1, 2012 6:40 PM   in reply to christianbobak

    christianbobak wrote:

     

    ...do you mean I can switch from "PV2012" to "PV2010" within Lightroom 4?

     

    See the Camera Calibration section in the Develop Module - Process :

     

    Continuing to use PV2010 may be a good way to cope during the transition, but once you learn PV2012, you'll never want to go back to PV2010, except maybe for special cases...

     

    Just my opinion - not pushin' ...

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 1, 2012 7:47 PM   in reply to christianbobak

    christianbobak wrote:

     

    Does Lightroom offer refunds?

     

    Sorry you're unhappy - dunno about refunds.

     

    Lr3 fill does have some special qualities that are sometimes unmatchable in Lr4, but the vice of that versa is also true - I've been able to fill shadows with Lr4 that were too tough for Lr3's fill.

     

    And Lr4 highlight recovery is just way better than Lr3 - hands down, no contest...

     

    Brightness you can get used to accomplishing with exposure and highlights/shadows sliders. Brightening this way is more flexible and will not wash out your image, unlike brightness slider in Lr3.

     

    Do what ya gotta do, but also consider learning PV2012 if you get "stuck" with Lr4 - it's well worth the effort, in my opinion, even if you rely on PV2010 as you become proficient...

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 1, 2012 7:50 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    I don't understand the need to remove features when adding new ones. WTF is that all about, anyway, and why does every company do that now? Why the hell would anyone get rid of Fill Light and Recovery? Raising exposure to brighten a picture up results in hotspots and washout. The Recovery feature would take care of that, but they removed it. Sounds like we now have to do twice as much work in 4 trying to accomplish something that had a single slider in 3 but is now gone.

     

    Tomorrow, I call Adobe and ask for my money back.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 1, 2012 10:39 PM   in reply to christianbobak

    christianbobak wrote:

     

    The Recovery feature would take care of that, but they removed it.

     

     

    Highlights slider can knock down any overbrightening at the top end due to increased exposure - the new version of exposure is sortofa cross between old exposure and old brightness - designed to work hand-in-hand with the highlights slider (and shadows slider).

     

     

    christianbobak wrote:

     

    ...why the "heck" would anyone get rid of Fill Light...

     

    You can fill shadows nicely using the shadows slider in conjunction with the blacks slider. If it's not reaching far enough into the midtones then it's 'cause you've got exposure set too low.

     

     

    Again, not trying to sell, but really the controls are all there - you just haven't learned to recognize them yet...

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 2, 2012 2:28 AM   in reply to Rob Cole

    I for one have asked Amazon for a refund of this appaling software and gone back to 3.6. I'll let you know if I get my refund.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 2, 2012 2:46 AM   in reply to howmanypigginnamesdoitry

    We have a saying here in the UK "don't buy a pig in a poke" which means not buying something without viewing it or understanding what it is you are buying. Whilst I accept this version of Lightroom may not suit everybody, as Adobe offered a beta of LR 4.0 and also offer a 30-day trial of the product - not to mention the tutorials from various decent sources discussing all aspects of the product, surely it is unreasonable to grumble about it now? The poke could be opened and the pig could be seen, touched and considered quite thoroughly before commiting to a purchase.

     

    Anthony.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 2, 2012 3:26 AM   in reply to Anthony.Ralph

    Anthony I think that's slightly unfair trying to invalidate people's problems by making that comment.

    Firstly, I did try the beta I had it for 2 months, and I have to say it was slightly faster than V 4 RC is.

    Aside from that, you expect problem with a beta, that's what it's for, to identify them so that they can be resolved prior to full release.

    Sometimes people are put off learning a new program because it is so fundamentally bad that there is no motivation to learn anything, and that's hwo I read the OP's post.

    I think the breadth and sheer number of problems shows that the program is sloppy and ism't yet ready for general release, and you can't say to everyone "You knew what you were getting."
    If you don't like it being knocked, don't read the forum, but the forum exists so that those of us with problems can try to get them resolved, not to be told that we should not moan because we knew what we were getting into.

    Adobe is a mega rich company with years of experience in producing high end software for a global market. Given that history, I think this is an appaling release with no real regard to the user base.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 2, 2012 4:07 AM   in reply to howmanypigginnamesdoitry

    I suppose what I am not getting is the fact that there are demands for refunds on purchases within the timeframe of the 30-day trial which could have been used to ascertain how attractive (or not) the product is to an individual.

     

    I like to think that I have offered helpful advice on these forums from time-to-time, but as far as invalidating problems goes, I don't think complaining about missing or changed features comes under the heading of problems - especially as those things could have been discovered at no cost ahead of making a purchase. And I do say that there has been ample opportunity for people to discover "what they were getting into"; at least enough information to delay making a purchase if they felt after reading about and trying out the program, they were in any way unsure.

     

    But there you go... opinions differ.

     

    Anthony.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 2, 2012 5:09 AM   in reply to Anthony.Ralph

    Guess what, Anthony? I've been using Lightroom since version 2, and each upgrade has brought spectacular new improvements. As well, Adobe is a premier software company with global recognition and stellar reputation. It would never occur to me to want to use the Beta version first before deciding to buy the upgrade because I have 100% trust that version 4 will automatically be better than version 3. Most importantly, it never occurred to me that Adobe would remove key editing features while introducing new ones. All I heard was that they had spot noise reduction, a feature I've been anxiously awaiting. I never heard anything about the removal of three different key features, two of which I depend on frequently. Had I heard about that, I most certainly would not have upgraded. Now, of course, my trust has been abused, and I will have to try Beta versions before purchasing future upgrades, but I fail to see why I should have to do that with a product that has always been so dependable and trustworthy until recently.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 2, 2012 5:45 AM   in reply to christianbobak

    We will have to agree to disagree on this one I think. I was satisfied with LR3.6 but thought it both interesting and prudent to try the LR4 beta when it became available. If I had been unsure of LR4 beta, I would have downloaded the trial of the full release before proceeding - that is just me; however, I was confident that LR4 was worth the upgrade and therefore proceeded. Likewise, I am checking out the PS6 beta to see if I want to upgrade from CS5. If I am unsure, I will use the trial to confirm whether or not I want to proceed.

     

    Whilst I can uderstand and agree about not expecting to have to check a beta - why should you? I do think reading about, viewing tutorials on and, if necessary downloading a free trial to find out for oneself what the reported shortcomings were, would make sense, particularly as a program like LR can be a critical part of ones work.

     

    Anthony.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 2, 2012 6:08 AM   in reply to christianbobak

    christianbobak wrote:

     

    I never heard anything about the removal of three different key features, two of which I depend on frequently.

    Which features are those?  You refer previously to Fill Light and Recovery, so I assume those are two of the three.  But those features are still there.  Nothing to stop you using PV2010.  But if you're not happy to do that, good luck with your refund. 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 2, 2012 1:31 PM   in reply to christianbobak

    Christian,

     

    Let me first say that I whole-heartedly agree with you: The inability to create the same results in PV2012 as many people were used to getting in PV2010 represents a weakness/limitation of current process version design, especially when it comes to extreme fill-light (I also have issues in the highlight department). That said, note: the original poster and many others have come to grips with this by learning how to get close using the existing controls. Lr3-fill=100 can be approximated in PV2012 via shadows=+100 and blacks=+100 with a compensatory tone curve, and a dose of new clarity... I use a "cookmark preset" (see Deep Fill link on Cookmarks plugin page for exact formula) to accomplish this, but others have used regular presets as well. Coupled with locals if need be, one can get almost as good or better results in PV2012. And of course you can also just switch to PV2010 for some photos.

     

    Summary:

    ========

    I feel ya, but also I have gotten such amazing results on so many photos that I am pretty enamored with PV2012 at this point, granted it has been tricky to master.

     

    Truth is: I still use PV2010 on some photos m'self, when the original tonal distribution and/or the results I want don't jive so well in PV2012, but I would never give up Lr4 for Lr3 - never in a million years...

     

    Highlight recovery in Lr4 is phenomenal (totally blows Lr3 away), and "Lr3-brightness" is totally extraneous once one learns how to balance the other sliders for the results one wants brightness-wise. So the limitations come in the form of fill algorithm / handling of deepest blacks, and highest highlights, which for most photos is also awesome and flexible, but for other photos - not so much. If you primarily edit such photos, I can see where PV2012 would be nothing short of a pisser - fortunately for me, those photos are in a minority. YMMV...

     

    Just my .02,

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 2, 2012 2:50 PM   in reply to christianbobak

    Christian,

     

    I think with your rudeness and refusal to accept any well-meant advice, you go too far.

     

    Process version 2012 is much better than PV 2010. After installing the beta, I could within 15 minutes see, how much highlight revovery and image processing in general have been improved. No double contours and other bad artefacts anymore on images, which where processed with recovery in version 2010.

    For the most part, the results of the old process version can be easily achieved with the much better controls of PV 2012. I could learn the basics of the new version within less than a day. As Rob Cole mentioned, there are a few PV 2010 results, which you can't reproduce with PV 2012 completely but it is possible to come up with a close enough alternative result in PV 2012.

     

    If you don't use Lightroom 4, which still has the capabilities to use PV 2010, you shot yourself in your foot deeply. And no, not everybody has performance issues with LR 4.

     

    I can only say, that Adobe made a good step changing the controls for PV 2012. I would never miss the old controls, and reject that Adobe reintroduces Fill Light and Recovery in PV 2012 (wich ain't gonna happen anyway).

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 2, 2012 3:11 PM   in reply to tgutgu

    tgutgu wrote:

     

    If you don't use Lightroom 4, which still has the capabilities to use PV 2010, you shot yourself in your foot deeply. And no, not everybody has performance issues with LR 4.

     

    That's the part I'd hate to see Christian miss out on.

     

    I mean, if the vast majority of your photo processing relies on PV2010 fill-light effects..., and you don't use the other features of Lr4, then by all means, wait and hope for Lr5...

     

    Otherwise, reverting to Lr3 is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, cutting off your nose to spite your face, and shooting yourself in the foot...

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 2, 2012 4:28 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Rob Cole wrote:

     

    ...and you don't use the other features of Lr4, then by all means, wait and hope for Lr5...

     

     

    Actually, the odds of a new PV 20xx are actually much greator than Fill Light returning. Not saying there will be a new PV in LR5, but the odds of Fill Light returning to be mixed in and blended with PV2012 are nil.

     

    The whole purpose of the Process Versions are to maintain user's ability to keep their images in previous versions. To take advantage of the image processing progress (and PV 2012 is progress) Adobe had to draw a line in the sand, which resulted in creating an all new set of Basic panel controls.

     

    Some people have kicked and screamed initially at the changes, only to find that for the vast majority of images, PV2012 is a bif win. For those images where the old Fill Light haloing and artifacts actually "helped" images, you still have the option of using PV2010. That's why the PV concept was created...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 2, 2012 7:47 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Hi Rob

     

    Thank you for your tips!

     

    To what extent is it possible to achieve the adjustments made with the sliders, using the Tone Curve alone?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 2, 2012 8:03 PM   in reply to Jeff Schewe

    Jeff,

     

    I can always create equal or better images in PV2012 than I can in PV2010.

     

    However, I can often create acceptable images faster in PV2010 than in PV2012.  That's why I created those Fill-Light like presets for myself, and shared them on this forum.  They contain a lot of slider movements to mimic what the Fill Light slider did with a single slider.

     

    Many of us have to process hundreds or thousands of images quickly, and Fill Light made that easier than the new controls in PV2012 do, and it worked impressively like using an actual fill flash so it was very "photographic".

     

    I believe I was the first to file a bug called the "Fill Light mask bug", identifying at least one problem with that method, and I'm quite familiar with how PV2012 finally stamped that out effectively, and I'm grateful for it.  That said, I think the team should consider ways to recover the speedy and "photographic" workflow that Fill-Light afforded those that enjoyed it - without the associated downsides like the Fill Light mask bug.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 2, 2012 8:35 PM   in reply to EricBier

    Hi Eric.

     

    You're welcome...

     

    I think it's best to get as close as possible using the basic sliders before heading for the tone curve.

     

    Tone curve can only expand tones in one section whilst compressing them in another.

     

    Basic sliders can expand tones in one section whilst maintaining contrast in another section.

     

    There is a lot of sophisticated and helpful programming behind those (not so) "basic" sliders, that do all of their magic before presenting the image data to the tone curve for final adjustment.

     

    Depends on the situation I 'spose, but in general your image will look less "washed out' or 'flat' by doing it this way.

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 2, 2012 10:22 PM   in reply to christianbobak

    christianbobak wrote:

     

    I, too, am pissed off at having bought the Lightroom 4 upgrade without realising that Recovery, Fill light and Brightness had been removed.

    Hard to have any sympathy for someone who pays first, then "tests", given the 30 days we're allowed in which to evaluate the software before having to spend money on it.

    This was a stupid move on Adobe's part.

    On Adobe's part? You might not like the new processing, but for many of us (those of us that have taken the time to figure it out) it's a Godsend.

     

    You chose to buy Lr 4 without ensuring it fit your purposes. That's not Adobe's fault.

     

    Take some personal responsibilty for your own screw-up here, and stop blaming the rest of the world for a mistake you made.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 3, 2012 2:23 AM   in reply to christianbobak

    Listen, whoever you are - people are trying to get you to understand that the LR3 sliders are still there.

     

    Here's how you get them back:

     

    1. Start with an image with no adjustments
    2. In Develop, Camera Calibration, choose 2010 from the Process (this is "PV2010")
    3. Hold down Alt or Option on the keyboard and the bottom right button changes from Reset to Set Default
    4. Click this. From now on, all your pictures will default to LR3 sliders.
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 3, 2012 2:29 AM   in reply to john beardsworth

    Thank you, John, I get it. My question is: Do I still have the new features when reverting back to the "PV2010"?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 3, 2012 3:10 AM   in reply to christianbobak

    You use one process version per photo.

     

    if you process photo x using PV2010 then it works just like Lr3, for that photo - recovery & fill & brightness, but no highlights and no shadows sliders...

    if you process photo y using PV2012 then it's the new process version - highlights & shadows..., no fill, no recovery, no brightness...

     

    You get that PV2012's highlights and/or whites sliders serves the same purpose as PV2010's recovery slider, right?, and likewise the functionality of PV2010's fill-light is still present in PV2012, just divvied up into a different set of sliders with different characteristics... - right?

     

    Anyway, I get that for some kinds of photos PV2010's fill-light characteristics are more favorable. And I prefer PV2010's highlight handling on some photos too. Of course PV2012's "fill" & "recovery" & "brightness" are superior to PV2010 on other photos... But also, a big part is just the learning curve - PV2012 is a lot more capable than it may seem at first. For example, photos with very dark darks and very light lights but not much in between respond better to blacks & whites sliders, and photos with a more even distribution of tones respond better to shadow and highlights sliders, for fill & recovery. Others respond best to a mixture of the aforementioned. Not as simple, more flexible, and I acknowlege not as well suited for some results that may be desired.

     

    maps & books are independent of process version used to develop photos...

     

    eh?

    R

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 3, 2012 2:43 AM   in reply to christianbobak

    Thank you, John, I get it. My question is: Do I still have the new features when reverting back to the "PV2010"?

     

    Other new features, yes. Those Develop features associated with PV2012, no, so you won't have good stuff like local WB and local moire.

     

    What I'd recommend you do is simply leave existing images as they are in PV2010 - there's no need to update them to the LR4 sliders / PV 2010. If you're pushed for time, changing the default will mean new images will be adjusted with the familiar LR3 sliders.

     

    But at least give the new sliders a chance by putting some effort into learning their advantages. Why not try LR4/PV2012 with specific pictures - choose those with difficult highlights because that's where the new sliders and processing really offers the biggest improvement in image quality.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 3, 2012 6:18 AM   in reply to christianbobak

    christianbobak wrote:

     

    But the majority of my shots are taken in dark venues at high ISO settings with poor and erratic lighting conditions, so the Recovery and Fill Light features are absolutely crucial to me.

     

    No they aren't.

     

    First of all, Recovery never worked very well.  It didn't recover texture very well, and it caused hue shifts.  Highlights is much, much better.  Second, you can still do fill - with even more power - with the new tools.  You just do it differently (+Exposure and -Highlights is like Fill).  Finally, the new local adjustments, especially local white balance and local noise reduction, are perfectly suited to difficult lighting conditions, especially high-contrast lighting with mixed colors.

     

    I also shoot in dark conditions much of the time.  I was recently shooting a concert in horrible multi-colored stage lighting with a 5D and 35/1.4L, mostly at f/1.4 and ISOs from 1000 to 3200.  LR4's new tools were really the only way to get these images looking the way I wanted them.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 2, 2012 12:40 AM   in reply to Joerollerblade

    I have purchased so many Adobe products, I think I deserve an Adobe building named after me.  I have 4 computers in my household - 1 mac and 3 Windows.  I use my Lightroom license on 2 Window machines. I had to completely re-buy all Adobe products for my Mac (photoshop, lightroom. etc...) - cost me a pretty penny when I moved to a Mac machine.

     

    THEN - this thread offers many, many suggestions on how to r"e-create" the fill slider requiring more steps in the process flow....   HELLO????   Trying to be a professional photog and the last thing I need is more workflow steps!!!!!!! 

     

    I am highly disappointed in Lightroom 4 for taking away one of the features that I used the most.  With miimal effort, I was able to use Lightroom 3 to bring out the forefront detail. 

     

    Here is my new post processing process:  ANY photos that need fill light - save to a jump drive.  Walk across street to my parents home.  Plug jump drive into my parents computer where I have a license for Lightroon 3 (windows) . Adjust photos with Fill slider.  Save to jump drive.  Walk back home and upload to Mac machine.  Argue with Mac machine (on occasion) about reading a Windows file. 

     

    WTF???  Just give me my trusted Fill slider back!! 

     

    Adobe ---- a poor mistake on your part.  I should be getting a hefty discount on Lightroom 4 for upgrading and having a PRIME feature taken away.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 2, 2012 12:56 AM   in reply to Anthony.Ralph

    @Anthony.Ralph   --   You make a good point.  I did not try Lightroom 4 during the beta process and therefore, did not realize key features would be removed.  I trusted Adobe to have a photog's best interest at heart.  I have never questioned Adobe and have bought multiple versions of several products as new realeases are available (what is that --- 3-4 new upgrades a year??).  I've spent a pretty penny on Adobe and I expect that they are looking out for my intrest as a photographer --- because if they don't look out for their customers, who will buy their products?  I'd been lulled into believing that Adobe was adding features for Lightroom 4 --- I trusted Adobe -- therefore, I did not do the "try before you buy option".  I paid for an upgrade and now I am sorry that I did.  I love the new features that are accisible when using the Adjustment Brush and Graduated Filter - but these additional features DO NOT make up for a simple Fill Light slider.  NOT even close.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 2, 2012 1:29 AM   in reply to tropicaldiva

    tropicaldiva,

     

    Your characterisation of the changes in LR4 is not how I see it.  In my view, they haven't removed functionality, they've changed how the functionality is used.  In fact, they've added signficantly to the functionality in the basic panel.  I can get much better results (in PV2012) with high-contrast pictures, and can easily get more detail in highlights and shadows.  Does that extra functionality require changing the interface a bit?  Clearly Adobe think so, but they've kept PV2010 for those that don't agree. 

     

    I'm no automatic defender of Adobe - I think the new upgrade policy for Photoshop stinks, for example - but I'm with them on this issue.  I really don't want to be tied to a user interface that is non-optimal for the new functionality, especially when the old interface is still there in PV2010. 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 2, 2012 1:13 AM   in reply to tropicaldiva

    tropicaldiva wrote:

     

    I had to completely re-buy all Adobe products for my Mac (photoshop, lightroom. etc...) - cost me a pretty penny when I moved to a Mac machine.

     

    When you purchase LR (at least in the case of the boxed version), you get both Mac & Windows versions of the software. As I understand it, you can then use your licence key on either platform, so long as you meet the requirements (e.g. not installed on more than two machines, etc). Also, I know for a fact that Adobe will allow you to transfer a licence for Photoshop from one platform to the other, although you need to contact them directly in order to organise this. So, you didn't actually need to spend all that money.

     

    I had a bit of trouble getting used to not have fill light, but now there's no way I'd go back to PV2010: PV2012 is far superior. Just takes some time to adjust. But, as already stated elsewhere in this thread, you can just switch over to PV2010 if you really want to; no need to go across to your parents house to use LR3. The feature hasn't been removed, it's just not present in PV2012.

     

    M

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 2, 2012 6:06 AM   in reply to Lee Jay

    Lee Jay wrote:

     

    You just do it differently (+Exposure and -Highlights is like Fill).

     

    And of course, you may want to toss some +Shadows (and/or +Blacks) in there along with that +Exposure & -Highlights.

     

    R

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 2, 2012 6:08 AM   in reply to tropicaldiva

    tropicaldiva wrote:

     

    Here is my new post processing process:  ANY photos that need fill light - save to a jump drive.  Walk across street to my parents home.  Plug jump drive into my parents computer where I have a license for Lightroon 3 (windows) . Adjust photos with Fill slider.  Save to jump drive.  Walk back home and upload to Mac machine.  Argue with Mac machine (on occasion) about reading a Windows file. 

     

    WTF??? 

     

    I agree with that last part.

     

    Why not just switch LR 4 to PV2010 for a moment if you really need it.  Or, better, just learn to use the new tools.

     
    |
    Mark as:
Actions

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (2)

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