Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

2012 processing very flat compared to 2010...

Apr 24, 2012 6:40 PM

There are some differences in LR4 over LR3.5 or better said with 2010 processing against 2012 that I do not totally understand neither like.

 

For example, when import RAW files from the 5D MKIII they look totally diferent once loaded in LR than what they look on the Canon software or the JPgs out of the camera. They look very flat, like missing contrast.

 

shoud not Lightroom render the RAW images as similar as possible from what the camera or vendor render them with their software? if I select the 2010 processing, they look a lot more similar to what the Canon software renders and don't look flat at all.

 

Also, bright and contrast are gone, what is the equivalent of that now?

 

Thanks

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 24, 2012 6:53 PM   in reply to Victor Wolansky

    Victor Wolansky wrote:


    For example, when import RAW files from the 5D MKIII they look totally diferent once loaded in LR than what they look on the Canon software or the JPgs out of the camera. They look very flat, like missing contrast.

     

    That's right, and that's no different between PV 2010 and PV 2012.

     

    shoud not Lightroom render the RAW images as similar as possible from what the camera or vendor render them with their software?

     

    No, they should not.

     

    if I select the 2010 processing, they look a lot more similar to what the Canon software renders and don't look flat at all.

     

    If true, you've probably selected a camera-matching profile and made it a default.

     

    Also, bright and contrast are gone, what is the equivalent of that now?

     

    Exposure is a lot like Brightness used to me, and Contrast is still there.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 25, 2012 1:15 AM   in reply to Victor Wolansky

    its a different process version so you have to make different adjustments.

    the forum is full with threads about it.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 25, 2012 5:40 AM   in reply to Victor Wolansky

    Victor Wolansky wrote:

     

    Actually I'm comparing on the same installation of LR 4 RC1. When I switch to the 2010 version, thigs are a lot more contrasted, blacks are deeper and less noisy. And all with the same Adobe Standard profle, so I'm not selecting any camera matching profile. The difference is big.

     

    There should be very little difference between PV2010 and PV2012 at defaults (and, in fact that's the case for me in most cases).  The only difference is the auto black point math, which can make a minor difference in the deepest blacks in some cases.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 26, 2012 2:52 AM   in reply to Lee Jay

    Sorrry I may be wrong but I thought PV2012 imported images with a flat/ linear curve rather than one with medium contrast. This is what I found with LR 4RC anyway.

     

    Surely this is where the OP is having issues?

     

    John

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 26, 2012 4:09 AM   in reply to Victor Wolansky

    I'm shooting with a Canon 5D MKII and see very little difference between PV 2010 versus PV 2012 using Adobe Standard profile and the LR default develop settings. Would you please post PV 2010 and PV 2012 images created using Adobe standard profile and LR default Develop settings (i.e. Hit  the 'Reset' button at the bottom of the right develop panel). Export both as full-size TIFF, 16 bit, Pro Photo RGB profile, use LR's Compare tool, and create a screen shot.

     

    There may very well be an issue with the Adobe standard profile created for the new 5D MKIII. Here's a CR2 file from my 5D MKII, which shows very little difference between PV 2010 and 2012:

     

    Double-click on the picture to see full-size.

    Process 2010 versus 2012.jpg

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 26, 2012 6:31 AM   in reply to quantum 123

    quantum 123 wrote:

     

    Sorrry I may be wrong but I thought PV2012 imported images with a flat/ linear curve rather than one with medium contrast.

     

    The new linear curve is the same as the old medium contrast curve.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 26, 2012 5:47 PM   in reply to Victor Wolansky

    PV2010 blacks 5 and medium contrast is the same as PV2012 blacks 0 and linear.

     

    They inverted the blacks so that all sliders would go the same direction (left = darker, right = brighter).

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 26, 2012 6:40 PM   in reply to Victor Wolansky

    PV2012 recovers some of the clipped shadows automatically, PV2010 doesn't. This is the reason PV2010 blacks = 0 (instead of 5) may seem like a closer match to PV2012 at zero.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 27, 2012 7:01 AM   in reply to Victor Wolansky

    As explained by Lee Jay and Rob Cole PV2012 is completely different than PV2010. The major difference is that PV2012 "automatically" detects and sets the Black and White clipping points in your image. Here is the Histogram display for the image I posted above using LR4.1 RC with default Develop settings and Adobe Standard profile:

     

    Process Histogram.jpg

    You can see that the PV2010 image has substantial Shadow clipping and some Highlight clipping. The PV2012 image Black and White points have been reset (automatically) to remove the clipping. Other than that the two Histograms are very similar. The best approach in LR4 is to use the Develop module's Basic controls from the top down to adjust the image. Once you have more experience with LR4's PV2012 process you can certainly change any of the Develop module "default settings" using Develop>Set Default to better suit your images. But I would suggest you hold off doing that until you have a lot more experience using PV2012.

     

    Below is the best imaging I could achieve using PV2010 and PV2102 Basic Develop panel controls (i.e. no Tone Curve changes). I could have improved the PV2010 image using the Tone Curve tools, which just indicates PV2012's Basic controls are doing a much better job  recovering shadow and highlight detail. Here are the images and adjustments used.

     

    Double-click the picture to see full-size:

    Process 2010 versus 2012_Adjusted.jpg

    IMHO - PV2012's ability to pull out highlight detail is truly remarkable, and something I always had difficulty achieving with LR3's PV2010 Develop tools.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 27, 2012 12:15 PM   in reply to trshaner

    Thanks trshaner.

     

    Good example.

     

    When I first started using Lightroom, I could almost always come up with better results using NX2, since that was what I was used to using, and those were the results I was used to getting. After a while I started to prefer the results from Lightroom (PV2010) and stopped comparing to NX2.

     

    When I first started using Lr4/PV2012, I could often come up with results I liked better using PV2010, since that was what I was used to using, and those were the results I had gotten used to liking. I've stopped comparing to PV2010 now, but I just went back and processed a recent pic with 2010. I like the 2012 rendition a lot better. It was a flower with some bright highlights that were impossible to bring to life with PV2010. Also, new clarity actually looked better since it didn't create the "heavy/harsh" look that PV2010 clarity sometimes does when applied to flowers, and it clarified some of the darker parts of flower's interiors. The 2012 background lacked the saturation of the 2010 background, due to 2010 fill light's saturation shift, which is an effect I actually liked in the background, but the leaves looked more natural in PV2012 without it. Also the background has more definition in PV2012. It's something I would have been bothered by in the earlier days of PV2012 adaptation, since the flowers in the foreground are the subject matter, but the flowers have better definition in PV2012 too... I had to use more locals in PV2012 to subdue some over-emphasized aspects in PV2012 which I did not like, but it's easier in PV2012 because the locals better isolate targeted tones than is possible in PV2010.

     

    Summary: I may have prefered the 2010 rendition before, and even now there are some aspects I like better, but overall the PV2012 rendition is better.

     

    Put another way, the PV2010 rendition is like looking at the flower through a closed window - nice, but looks more like a 2D painting, but in 2012 it's like looking at the flower with the window open, like you could reach out and touch it - has depth almost like 3D...

     

    Cheers,

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 27, 2012 12:41 PM   in reply to Victor Wolansky

    There are 2 options

     

     

    1. learn how to use the 2012 tools for your images

    2. keep working with 2010 and miss out on so many powerful tools

    3. aperture / bibble / ACDSEE / zonerStudio

     

     

     

    I'm loving 2012, but it took about 200 photos from various scenarios to get my head around being able to set the shadows to more than +20 and not get noise like I would if I set the fill to more than +15.

    The same applies for  boosting the whites and even lifting the blacks to +20 or more. Yes eventually you will get noise from pushing the blacks to more than +70 and the shadows the same, but hit auto, look at the photo and provided you have a well calibrated monitor, and time to experiment, you will learn to really work much faster with a more versatile tool.

     

    Of course if you really don't want to use 2012 you can choose option 2, which is to not render the images in the 2012 calibration, but then you are missing out on a great tool.

     

     

    Rob Cole has written reams and reams of posts about his experiences with  2012, he's had trite responses and unkind comments as he's documented his struggle with 2012. As you can see above, he's now a convert and loves it.

     

     

     

    If you want to quickly learn to love 2012, push the clarity up to over 40, lift the blacks from wherever they are by 5-15 points and see the localised contrast just sing.

     

    Its particually fabulous for male sports features - not so kind on female faces and skin.

     

    Back to your comment about rendering images similar to the jpeg compressed and oversaturated oversharpened approximation of the photograph that you carefully composed. Nope, the jpeg is compressed, depending on your settings, over saturated and often over sharpened, its colour is often way off and a RAW image is largely a white canvas to work from.

     

    Hit Auto tone and Auto White Balance and work from there. I find the Auto Tone can sometimes go crazy, other times its pretty close to where I want to be.

     

    At the moment, I'm trying not to push the clarity above 15, but sometimes, it just has to be >40.

     

     

    Play with it, dont consider that +20 shadows for one photo is the same as +20 for the next, cos its all relative - which is frustrating to begin with. However as photography is an art, nothing should be absolute.

     

    It does take time, but like the models, its worth it

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 27, 2012 2:03 PM   in reply to hamish niven

    hamish niven wrote:

     

     

    Rob Cole has written reams and reams of posts about his experiences with  2012, he's had trite responses and unkind comments as he's documented his struggle with 2012. As you can see above, he's now a convert and loves it.

     

     

    Verbose? - Yeah, sorry 'bout that. Unkind? - I prefer the term "honest"... But trite? - I'm offended!

     

     

    hamish niven wrote:

     

    If you want to quickly learn to love 2012, push the clarity up to over 40, lift the blacks from wherever they are by 5-15 points and see the localised contrast just sing.

     

    People who haven't learned to love new clarity yet, really need to be aware of the +blacks compensation that sometimes complements it so nicely. That, and some strategic local de-clarification to subdue any distracting over-emphasis... Also, you may need a saturation boost to go with a hefty dose of new clarity.

     

     

    Cheers,

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 27, 2012 2:47 PM   in reply to Victor Wolansky

    In addition to (or instead of) +clarity +blacks +saturation for reducing "flatness", try:

     

    -blacks +whites and/or

    +contrast -highlights +shadows

     

    But be sure exposure is set optimally, since that is of #1 importance in PV2012.

     

    And if you really want to match the in-camera jpeg after importing, use:

     

    * ExifMeta to define smart collections based on picture style and any other critical camera settings.

    * CollectionPreseter to assign Canon matching profiles and default settings to those collections.

     

    R

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 27, 2012 11:05 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Rob

     

    You misread my post,

    I said you'd written loads - not implying verbosity, and had received some trite and unkind comments back from others based on your observations.

    (grin)

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 27, 2012 11:41 PM   in reply to hamish niven

    Gentlemen just let the OP get the message in a simple and clear manner.

    Hijacking threads is a killjoy.

     

    Thanks

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 27, 2012 11:48 PM   in reply to Geoff the kiwi

    ............

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 28, 2012 12:10 AM   in reply to hamish niven

    Sorry Hamish - Indeed I had misunderstood.

     

    No worries .

     

    Long live PV2012!

     

    R

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 28, 2012 4:39 PM   in reply to Victor Wolansky

    Victor Wolansky wrote:

     

    There are some differences in LR4 over LR3.5 or better said with 2010 processing against 2012 that I do not totally understand neither like.

     

    Also, bright and contrast are gone, what is the equivalent of that now?

     

     

    There are no 1-1 equivalents in PV2012 to any of the basic sliders in PV2010.

     

    Perhaps the biggest mistake people make is trying to map their existing PV2010 knowlege onto PV2012. To learn PV2012, it's best to try and unlearn everything you think you know about PV2010. - make no assumptions...

     

    * While some of the sliders have similar purposes, their behavior is not consistent from image to image (they're "image adaptive"...), and their behavior can change even within the same image as additional adjustments are made. Also, there are big differences in how PV2012 handles the endpoints ("roll-off"...).

     

    With that in mind, here are some approximations:

     

    PV2010 -> PV2012

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

    +brightness -> +exposure -highlights

    +fill -> +exposure +shadows -highlights

    +recovery -> -highlights (and/or -whites)

     

    Note: PV2010 contrast is pretty similar to PV2012 contrast.

     

    Also, in PV2010, fill and recovery (and blacks) only went one way, in PV2012 they go both ways :-)

     

    Note: There is nothing similar to +whites in PV2010, but it can help reduce that flatness you were talking about :-)

    If it makes the highlights too bright, then -highlights. If it makes the midtones too bright, -exposure...

     

    More tips here:

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

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

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

     

    PV2012 rocks!,

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 28, 2012 5:38 PM   in reply to trshaner

    trshaner wrote:

     

    Process Histogram.jpg

    The PV2012 image Black and White points have been reset (automatically) to remove the clipping. Other than that the two Histograms are very similar.

     

    To further elaborate on this, its more than just automatically adjusting white/black point (as per traditional tone-curve speak). It's actually totally reshaping the blacks and whites to "integrate" the automatically recovered highlights and shadows, and roll off the endpoints more gracefully...

     

    This is one of PV2012's most awesome new features, but is not always ideal for every photo. Controlling the tone at the furthest endpoints can sometimes be a challenge in PV2012 - the design characteristic that tries to keep deep shadows deep and light highlights light (to maintain intra-shadow & intra-highlight contrast - which is usually a good thing), and also the persistent roll-off (also usually a good thing) can result in what I call "blind" spots, or "stuck" regions at the endpoints...

     

    R

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 29, 2012 12:58 AM   in reply to Rob Cole

    I just upgraded to 4, applied the 2012 process and YIKES!   --I can see what it is trying to accomplish, but it appears to be at considerable cost to the photos overall presentation.  2012 appears to do (quickly) what I will spend an hour messing with only to decide that the viewership wont notice it, but they will notice higher contrast (so I undo it and opt for higher contrast). 

     

    2012 is a worthwhile starting point for developing, IMO, but I should have left it off and applied it to only new imports.   2010 made no perceivable difference so 2012 caught me by surprise.  I have already done enough editing such that re-converting from backup is not an option. I will just have to undo 2012 for every photo that someone requests for republishing.

     

    I have no idea why they renamed all the contrast-related controls. And made some of them slide the opposite direction    I had learned not to touch the "Highlight Recovery" too much, but now it appears to have morphed into a control you have to touch.  It seems they merely duplicated what the Tone Curve does.

     

    Just some random observations.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 29, 2012 1:15 AM   in reply to George in Seattle

    Yeah, you don't want to convert 2010 photos to 2012 unless you plan to spend a while editing, or even start from scratch.

     

    The controls are different, that's why they're renamed. I think you'll find the consistent direction is all good once you get used to it.

     

    Highlight recovery in PV2012 is awesome! - Do not fear it!!

     

    The new basics are smart - the tone curve isn't.

     

    Give it a chance until your photos start to dance...

     

    PV2012

    -R

     
    |
    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