It's coming from converting a PV2010 Linear curve into PV2012.

I saw the same thing.  It's what's stored in your Camera Raw defaults.  Where did they come from?  Chances are you had saved a set of PV2010 Camera Raw Defaults at one time in the past, and which were migrated to become PV2012 Camera Raw Defaults.

You can reset it to Linear as you like, simply by saving new Camera Raw defaults.

-Noel

PV2012 linear is equivalent to PV2010 medium contrast.

So, if you want a PV2010 linear equivalent in PV2012, you'll have to brew your own. I gave a recipe for how to do this using DNG Profile Editor in another thread, but not sure where that is now. This approach has the advantage that you start without a bunch of points already on your curve in ACR.

But if you select linear in PV2010 then convert to PV2012 - that's the equivalent, which can be saved as a preset, if you don't mind having all those points...

Cheers,

Rob

I'm not sure you'll find a satifying rationale - it has been discussed extensively and debated passionately in the Lightroom beta forum, among other forums.

I think people who tend to like contrastier images aren't fretting as much as the lower contrast (starting point) preferrers.

I usually just crank contrast down, then maybe adjust tone curve to taste, when need be...

Cheers,

Rob

Highly unlikely, me-thinks.

But again, you can do it yourself using DNG Profile Editor.

I wish I could find the link, or the data you need, but can't.

But here is what I did: I used PV2010 linear in Lightroom, clicked PV2012, then saved a preset (does ACR support presets?) checking only tone/point curve, then using a text editor, converted it to the format required in DNG Profile Editor (recipe), and inserted it into a recipe file.

On the other hand, you can accomplish something close to the linear equivalent point curve using -contrast.

Found it - replace tone curve in dcpr file (DPE recipe) with this and you've got linear equivalent:

<dngclr:ToneCurve rdf:parseType="Resource">

    <dngclr:Edit0 rdf:parseType="Resource">

       <dngclr:X>0</dngclr:X>

       <dngclr:Y>0</dngclr:Y>

    </dngclr:Edit0>

    <dngclr:Edit1 rdf:parseType="Resource">

       <dngclr:X>17</dngclr:X>

       <dngclr:Y>26</dngclr:Y>

    </dngclr:Edit1>

    <dngclr:Edit2 rdf:parseType="Resource">

       <dngclr:X>34</dngclr:X>

       <dngclr:Y>44</dngclr:Y>

    </dngclr:Edit2>

    <dngclr:Edit3 rdf:parseType="Resource">

       <dngclr:X>51</dngclr:X>

       <dngclr:Y>60</dngclr:Y>

    </dngclr:Edit3>

    <dngclr:Edit4 rdf:parseType="Resource">

       <dngclr:X>68</dngclr:X>

       <dngclr:Y>74</dngclr:Y>

    </dngclr:Edit4>

    <dngclr:Edit5 rdf:parseType="Resource">

       <dngclr:X>85</dngclr:X>

       <dngclr:Y>89</dngclr:Y>

    </dngclr:Edit5>

    <dngclr:Edit6 rdf:parseType="Resource">

       <dngclr:X>102</dngclr:X>

       <dngclr:Y>105</dngclr:Y>

    </dngclr:Edit6>

    <dngclr:Edit7 rdf:parseType="Resource">

       <dngclr:X>119</dngclr:X>

       <dngclr:Y>120</dngclr:Y>

    </dngclr:Edit7>

    <dngclr:Edit8 rdf:parseType="Resource">

       <dngclr:X>136</dngclr:X>

       <dngclr:Y>135</dngclr:Y>

    </dngclr:Edit8>

    <dngclr:Edit9 rdf:parseType="Resource">

       <dngclr:X>153</dngclr:X>

       <dngclr:Y>151</dngclr:Y>

    </dngclr:Edit9>

    <dngclr:Edit10 rdf:parseType="Resource">

       <dngclr:X>170</dngclr:X>

       <dngclr:Y>167</dngclr:Y>

    </dngclr:Edit10>

    <dngclr:Edit11 rdf:parseType="Resource">

       <dngclr:X>187</dngclr:X>

       <dngclr:Y>183</dngclr:Y>

    </dngclr:Edit11>

    <dngclr:Edit12 rdf:parseType="Resource">

       <dngclr:X>204</dngclr:X>

       <dngclr:Y>200</dngclr:Y>

    </dngclr:Edit12>

    <dngclr:Edit13 rdf:parseType="Resource">

       <dngclr:X>221</dngclr:X>

       <dngclr:Y>218</dngclr:Y>

    </dngclr:Edit13>

    <dngclr:Edit14 rdf:parseType="Resource">

       <dngclr:X>238</dngclr:X>

       <dngclr:Y>236</dngclr:Y>

    </dngclr:Edit14>

    <dngclr:Edit15 rdf:parseType="Resource">

       <dngclr:X>255</dngclr:X>

       <dngclr:Y>255</dngclr:Y>

    </dngclr:Edit15>

</dngclr:ToneCurve>

So make your own inverted S curve that makes your images look less contrasty, and just the way you want.  I don't see the problem.

This is all "touchy feely" stuff.  The interface doesn't lend itself well to overthinking.  Think like this:  Fool with controls until you like what you see in the preview pane.

Do this with a bunch of different images to evaluate your choices for defaults.

-Noel

I think you have a misconception...  You cannot see "the linear camera data".  If you sent a debayered conversion with no tone curve nor gamma correction applied to your monitor it would look essentially black, with a few light spots where the highlights are.  I think it's more a psychological issue that you feel what you were seeing before was somehow a more basic starting point than it really was.  Adobe has now defined their default tone curve as a straight line, and we get to adjust it to taste.

All the controls on the first page of the converter's Basic page seem to do various things to the tone curve as well, stretching it this way and that.

"Touchy feely" works with this software.  There doesn't seem to be another method forthcoming.

-Noel

PIXIllate22 wrote:

 

What was once a linear point curve labled linear is now a medium contrast curve labeled and drawn to appear as a linear point curve.

It is not a psycological issue. The fact is there is now a hidden curve built in to the point curve setting labled linear.

No..it is more of a psycological issue...the linear tone curve in the previous PV 2010 was NOT a true linear curve. It was still a modified gamma curve even is the adjustment was mild. If you set the PV 2010 tone curve to linear and set brightness and contrast you would come closer to a linear rendering but it STILL had a non-linear gamma adjustment because it was normalized for viewing and adjustments. Some people fell in love with the flat low contrast starting point. Some people also only used point curves and no basic panel adjustments. That is not an optimal approach now with PV 2012 because it bypasses a lot of tone mapping that the new Basic panel can do.

You can use DNG Profile Editor to modify a DNG profile for you camera and get back to a more linear (not perfectly linear, only more linear) if that's what you want but you can't do it with any command in LR4/ACR7 now without getting negative Exposure and Contrast settings and multiple pointson te curve to adjust the new default curve to be more linear (but still not exactly linear).

As to why they converted the old medium contrast and set it now as a default linear curve, that was to have no baseline curve set in the ACR/LR default so that curves could be applied to raw, tiff and even 32-bit float images and use the same default starting point. The normalized medium contrast curve still lives in the DNG profile and that's where you have to change the curve from medium to linear in a custom DNG profile. Bottom line, greatest good was the motive...some people don't like the change but they are not gonna change back because the people who don't like it are a very small minority.

Out of curiosity, what do you feel you lose by just dialing-in an inverse S curve and saving it as your Camera Raw default, so that it starts out with a conversion pleasing to you?

-Noel

I still don't see why Adobe didn't just leave the legacy 2010 linear

curve in there as a selectable option for those who prefer it but there is

no sense in discussing that any further if it isn't ever going to happen.

Because, even if I was happy with the default medium contrast curve,

everytime I wanted to tweak it, I first had to clean it up of existing

points. That was annoying. Starting with default curve that is a straight

line seems much more natural.

Options that I don't use have no effect on my workflow.

Consider making a feature request ("Idea") on the feedback site, if there isn't one already (and if there is, vote for it / add comment...):

http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/new