Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

Should I "Upgrade" from 2010 to 2012 process for existing finalized photos

Jun 16, 2012 12:32 AM

Tags: #upgrade #2010 #process #2012

I've just loaded LR4 on my machine, but I haven't opened my existing database in it.  I created a new one.  My concern is that by "upgrading" my LR3 catalog I will alter some or all of the finalized and print ready photo's I have painstakingly worked on and perfected using 2010 LR3 process and sliders.  LR4 2012 process will undoubtebly change the look of the photo's and I don't neccesarily want that.

 

How is everyone handling this?

 

  1. When I convert the library I'm assuming it will keep every photo in 2010 process and it will look identical to the way it did in LR3 unless and until I manually change that individual photo or pick a group of photos to change.  Correct?
  2. If I convert to 2012 process for any particular photo and decide I like the 2010 process that I finalized better, can I revert back to the 2010 process and get the exact same finalized photo back?  I'm assuming this would simply be available in the history tab, but I want to be sure.
  3. Should I just keep my entire existing LR3 catalog as an LR3 catalog and never use it in LR4 or should I upgrade it then try and find a way to store both the existing 2010 process and the 2012 process in the same catalog. 

 

Any suggestions or input would be appreciated.

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 16, 2012 12:43 AM   in reply to impactsystemsDT

    1. Correct.

    2. Right, but consider taking a snapshot of the PV2010 state before editing in PV2012 - not necessary, but may be comforting...

    3. Upgrading Lr3 catalog creates a *new* Lr4-compatible catalog. Your original Lr3 catalog will not be altered, but will take the role of backup, since you'll probably never need or want it again.

     

    To summarize:

    ===========

    No photos will look any different after upgrading your catalog, until you edit them.

     

    Most people don't convert photos from PV2010 to PV2012 unless they are planning to re-edit them immediately.

     

    Cheers,

    Rob

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

    In addition to Rob's comments you should also note that:

     

    1. The 'blacks' conversion from PV2010 to PV2012 can change quite significantly on some images (i.e. those where the blacks slider had been pushed up above 10). This can result in image lookng quite different after conversion, but is usually fairly easy to fix by readjusting the PV2012 black slider.

     

    2. The hue of natural yellows that tend towards the highlight end of the scale will tend to shift a little. Fixing this isn't that difficult and in some cases you may prefer the new rendering.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 16, 2012 1:33 AM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Just to add to what Rob and Ian said: if you convert from PV2010 to PV2012, the result usually looks unchanged.  However, sometimes the conversion may result in a slight or occasionally significant change in the appearance.  In my experience, it seems to be images with major changes in basic panel or tone curve that are likely to change in appearance. 

     

    My conclusion: let LR4 convert your entire catalog to its new format, which means it creates a new catalog (saving your old LR3 catalog) but with all images still in PV2010.  But don't convert images to PV2012 unless you're going to do further edits.  Converting on its own won't improve the picture, and may change it (which means make it worse, assuming you'd edited it to how it looked "best"). 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 16, 2012 3:20 AM   in reply to CSS Simon

    Simon,

     

    With exception of blacks, the other basic PV2010 adjustments should convert with little or no change. Changes resulting from tone curve adjustments ( i.e. point curve) are down to a bug in Lr4.0, which was fixed in Lr4.1.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 16, 2012 4:06 AM   in reply to impactsystemsDT

    Also, if you use camera-emulation profiles, consider updating profile after conversion: e.g. PV2012 likes Nikon's v4 profiles better...

     

    I use Dev-Correct/2012 which improves upon handling of blacks, updates profiles to latest version, and other stuff if you want...

     

    http://www.robcole.com/Rob/ProductsAndServices/DevCorrect2012LrPlugin

     

    Cheers,

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 16, 2012 4:43 AM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Hi Rob,

     

    I'm often tempted by your plugins, but when I tried various plugins a year or so ago (including one of yours), I found that there is no way of removing them completely from LR. Telling LR to remove a plugin only seems to stop it working, it doesn't remove all the stuff that the plugin has put in the catalog. I had to do that manually.

     

    So could you write a new script called 'ScrewPlugins', that tidies up after plugins, rather like a Registry Cleaner. 

     

    Bob Frost

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 16, 2012 6:51 AM   in reply to bob frost

    Good idea, Bob. Even better if the forum software could remove unnecessary mentions of plug-ins from here too....

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 16, 2012 8:45 AM   in reply to Ian Lyons

    Ian Lyons wrote:

     

    Simon,

     

    With exception of blacks, the other basic PV2010 adjustments should convert with little or no change. Changes resulting from tone curve adjustments ( i.e. point curve) are down to a bug in Lr4.0, which was fixed in Lr4.1.

    Ian, I'm sure you're generally right, but I have just one sunrise image (Nikon D300 raw, Camera Landscape profile) which was significantly different on conversion to PV2012, and that had no alteration to black.  However, it dod have a lot of black clipping, so maybe you mean the auto adjustment of PV2012?

     

    Rob, I quite agree about using "Camera... v4" profiles for those cameras that have them.  Big improvement in highlights in some images.  (For those that don't know: cameras that don't have v4 profiles don't need them.  It was to fix problems in earlier profiles for some Nikon cameras only.)

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 16, 2012 9:01 AM   in reply to impactsystemsDT

    Make a Vurtual Copy and change that, then you have two versions with little disk space used!!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 16, 2012 9:27 AM   in reply to impactsystemsDT

    Is making a snapshot or a virtual copy of the photo prior to conversion then stacking the two the best option?

     

     

    Yes. Put your mouse on the original import step in the history of the 2010 edited image and right click and create a virtual copy. This gives you a copy of the original unedited image, which you can now edit in 2012 and compare alongside your 2010 edited image.  It's always a good thing to create a snapshot of your finished 2010 image, as even if the history steps are lost, the shapshot will retain all the steps, even if it can't show them separately.

     

    You can, of course, make a snapshot of your 2010 edited image and then continue to edit it in 2012, but I prefer to make a clean start on a virtual copy with 2012 if I am going to re-edit an old image.

     

    Bob frost

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 16, 2012 12:20 PM   in reply to impactsystemsDT

    I would just say, don't upgrade all of your existing photos in one feel swoop to PV 2012.

    Do it on a one by one basis. In some cases you will like what PV 2012 does, and in some cases you will find that PV 2010 is better.

     

    If you want to get back from PV 2012 to PV 2010 you can do it in different ways:

    a) Immediately after the conversion you can press Ctrl / Cmd + Z;

    b) you can go back in the history panel to the step below (= previous) to the conversion to PV 2012;

    c) you can select PV 2010 at any time in the Develop Module, right side, bottom panel "Camera Calibration". At the top of this panel you can select the Process Version - see screen shot:

     

    PV.JPG

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 16, 2012 1:54 PM   in reply to bob frost

    But that would be way too much workload for the entirety of a LR3-catalog...

     

    Simply leave all images in PV2010 for which you liked your develop result.

     

    Touch only those for which you were not quite happy with the result.

     

    Having different process versions is only visible in develop module (or as a special filter result in library), so it is not really confusing.

     

    If you mark the less-than-satisfying PV2010-image while still in LR3 or after arrival in LR4-converted catalog makes no difference. Creating virtual copies or snapshots can be done at either stage in the same way.

     

    Cornelia

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 16, 2012 6:15 PM   in reply to bob frost

    bob frost wrote:

     

    ...I found that there is no way of removing them completely from LR...

     

    Plugin remnant data does not adversely effect performance (since catalog uses "random access", it doesn't need to "wade through" remants from previous plugin installations), but may significantly effect catalog size, depending on the plugin.

     

    Dev-Correct/2012 defines no custom metadata, and few preferences, so it's effect on the catalog in this case is negligible.

     

    Still, your point is well taken, and I have replied in greater detail via PM, to avoid further hi-jacking of this thread.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 16, 2012 6:26 PM   in reply to john beardsworth

    johnbeardy wrote:

     

    ...even better if the forum software could remove unnecessary mentions of plug-ins....

     

     

    Dev-Correct/2012 is useful to some people who've gotten tired of constantly adjusting blacks after every conversion, or who always want to start PV2012 editing with the latest profiles when available..., or who may otherwise be prone to forgetting to adjust essential things after conversion...

     

    That's why I mentioned it.

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 16, 2012 6:54 PM   in reply to CSS Simon

    CSS Simon wrote:

     

    ... I have just one sunrise image (Nikon D300 raw, Camera Landscape profile) which was significantly different on conversion to PV2012...

     

     

    Most of my images are significantly different in PV2012 (as I define "significant"). Blacks setting is the most blatant "offender", but also there are frequently other color and tone issues that need to be addressed (or are better as is).

     

     

    CSS Simon wrote:

     

    Rob, I quite agree about using "Camera... v4" profiles for those cameras that have them.  Big improvement in highlights in some images.  (For those that don't know: cameras that don't have v4 profiles don't need them.  It was to fix problems in earlier profiles for some Nikon cameras only.)

     

    Yeah, the v4 profiles may improve PV2010 photos too, but I consider them a necessity in PV2012. Some of the highlight color issues which are apparent immediately after conversion to PV2012 (e.g. yellows and other warm colors), can be improved immediately just by selecting the newer camera profile. But also, it is my sense that the PV2012 editing algorithms like these newer profiles better too, or maybe it's the vice o' that versa, or may be my imagination... Ditto for shadows...

     

     

    Cheers,

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 16, 2012 7:12 PM   in reply to impactsystemsDT

    impactsystemsDT wrote:

     

    I don't want to make the catalog confusing with all these different versions, but I guess I may have to.  Is making a snapshot or a virtual copy of the photo prior to conversion then stacking the two the best option?

     

    Entirely optional, in my opinion. As you've said, you can just convert to PV2012 and edit from there without blinking, and if you want to compare, use before/after. (assuming you don't inadvertently delete and have to re-import, at which point that ability is lost, unless you have a snapshot saved in xmp).

     

    I always make a snapshot (and mark the point in the edit history that it corresponds to) after I'm done with a round of edits for the time being, so no extra steps have been required.

     

    I recommend using virtual copies *only* for when you want to be able to export and maintain 2 different versions of the same photo (e.g. different croppages, different styles, 1-b&w, 1-color...) *not* for saving legacy states of a single version (e.g. old process versions) - that's what snapshots are for - YMMV.

     

    Cheers,

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 17, 2012 3:36 AM   in reply to bob frost

    bob frost wrote:

     

    I'm often tempted by your plugins, but when I tried various plugins a year or so ago (including one of yours), I found that there is no way of removing them completely from LR. Telling LR to remove a plugin only seems to stop it working, it doesn't remove all the stuff that the plugin has put in the catalog. I had to do that manually.

     

    Here ya go:

     

    Pretend

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 17, 2012 4:38 AM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Rob Cole wrote:

     

    CSS Simon wrote:

     

    ... I have just one sunrise image (Nikon D300 raw, Camera Landscape profile) which was significantly different on conversion to PV2012...

     

     

    Most of my images are significantly different in PV2012 (as I define "significant"). Blacks setting is the most blatant "offender", but also there are frequently other color and tone issues that need to be addressed (or are better as is).

    I picked on one where I hadn't altered Blacks, as Ian Lyons had mentioned that, but I agree with you.  It seems to me that the more you adjust in the Basic Panel in PV2010, the more likely it is that converting PV2010->PV2012 will make a visible difference.  Is that what you see?

     

    This emphasises the point: if you've edited an image in PV2010 and got it just right, then don't convert to PV2012 unless you want to spend time doing further tweaking just to get it back how it was, never mind improving it. 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 17, 2012 4:46 AM   in reply to CSS Simon

    CSS Simon wrote:

     

    It seems to me that the more you adjust in the Basic Panel in PV2010, the more likely it is that converting PV2010->PV2012 will make a visible difference.  Is that what you see?

     

     

    It seems differences come from 2 sources, besides black-point I mean:

     

    1. Editing (don't translate perfectly)

    2. Inherent differences in process versions (e.g. auto-highlight & auto-shadow recovery).

     

     

    CSS Simon wrote:

     

    This emphasises the point: if you've edited an image in PV2010 and got it just right, then don't convert to PV2012 unless you want to spend time doing further tweaking just to get it back how it was, never mind improving it. 

     

    I couldn't agree more .

     

     

    Cheers,

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 17, 2012 5:14 AM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Rob, feel free to invent a plugin to screw around with your own plug-ins' data. It's completely irresponsible of you to extend that to other peoples' plugins. Users beware.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 17, 2012 8:59 AM   in reply to impactsystemsDT

    impactsystemsDT wrote:

     

    LR4 2012 process will undoubtebly change the look of the photo's and I don't neccesarily want that.

     

    How is everyone handling this?

     

    1. When I convert the library I'm assuming it will keep every photo in 2010 process and it will look identical to the way it did in LR3 unless and until I manually change that individual photo or pick a group of photos to change.  Correct?

     

    This is true with one exception: 'Lens Corrections' CA tools:

     

    'Profile' Tools

    LR3 provides a 'C. Aberration' slider allowing adjustment of 'Amount' (0-200%) used for Lateral CA correction. This is helpful in LR3 if your lens copy has more or less CA than the lens used by Adobe, Canon, or Nikon to create the LR lens profile.

     

    LR4 uses only "automatic correction" with no adjustment amount (Remove Chromatic Aberration checkbox). It appears to work very well with most lenses, so no need for an 'Amount' slider in LR4.

     

    'Manual' Tools

    LR3 provides Red/Cyan and Blue Yellow CA sliders for manual adjustment of Lateral CA. This is useful for lenses that don't have a LR lens profile, or when a lens copy differs from the LR lens profile.

     

    LR4 has no 'Manual' sliders" for removing Lateral CA, but LR4's 'Remove Chromatic Aberration' tool performs as well or better without manual adjustment. It is available with both PV20102 and PV2012.

     

    LR3 has a 'Defringe' tool with three settings, Off, Highlight Edges, and All Edges. Typically I've found this tool only removes a small amount of fringing in highlight areas, which is typically due to Axial CA. It is not very effective.

     

    LR4 provides advanced 'Defringe' tools (under Color) for removal of Axial CA. It does a very good job, but requires experience to use properly. You may correct one area only to have it "over-correct" in other areas. Generally it does a remarkable job of removing Axial CA "fringing" that the 'Remove Chromatic Aberration' automatic tool can't remove. It is much better than LR3's 'Defringe' tool!

     

    Executive Overview

     

    So what do I need to do with the CA tools when importing my LR3 catalog into LR4?

     

    1) I have never used LR3's 'Manual' Red/Cyan and Blue Yellow CA sliders on any of my image files.

    There is nothing you need to do.

     

    2) I have used LR3's 'Manual' Red/Cyan and Blue Yellow CA sliders on some my image files.

    If you did this because a lens has no available LR lens profile, then LR4's automatic 'Remove Chromatic Aberration' tool will remove Lateral CA just as well. There is nothing you need to do.

     

    If you used these controls to remove fringing that was actually Axial CA, the image files will still exhibit fringing in LR4. Follow the instructions below for using LR4's global and local 'Defringe' tools.

     

    3) Make sure that your LR4's 'Default Develop Settings' are set with 'Remove Chromatic Aberration' enabled (box checked), and that it is applied to all your LR3 catalog image files (I don't remember if this is the LR4 default). If any images still have visible fringing consider using the LR4 'Defringe' 'Color' global tools.You can also apply local 'Defringe' using the spot tool to areas that need additional correction. Some tips on adding local 'Defringe' here: http://forums.adobe.com/message/4367005#4367005

     

    Message was edited by: trshaner Added sentence to Executive summary Sec. 1, Ref. Axial CA.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 17, 2012 10:27 AM   in reply to john beardsworth

    From: "johnbeardy

    Rob, feel free to invent a plugin to screw around with your own plug-ins'

    data. It's completely irresponsible of you to extend that to other

    peoples' plugins. Users beware.

     

    Hi John,

     

    It's my fault! I asked Rob if he could write a script that would remove the

    leftovers in the catalog and prefs from some/most plugins. Simply using

    Remove in LR doesn't clean up after a plugin has been installed as far as I

    can see. Some may - I haven't tried them all. So having something similar to

    a Registry Cleaner that got rid of all plugin leftovers is a good idea to

    me. Of course it wouldn't be necessary if plugins or LR did the job

    themselves. When troubleshooting, I like to clean out all the rubbish that

    might be causing trouble, or simply wasting space. I had to use SQLite

    browser to get rid of plugin leftovers, and create a new prefs file.

     

    I haven't tried Rob's creation yet; I'm not too keen on using plugins at the

    moment since I found I can't remove them without SQLite browser.

     

    Bob Frost

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 17, 2012 11:11 AM   in reply to bob frost

    I read that, Bob, and I don't blame you for not wanting to store mystery meat in the catalogue. No doubt Rob thinks he's being helpful, so when someone hacks aound in their catalogue, breaks a plug-in or loses custom metadata, I'm sure he will sort it out for them or reimburse them for their wasted time.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 17, 2012 2:37 PM   in reply to john beardsworth

    johnbeardy wrote:

     

    It's completely irresponsible of you to extend that to other peoples' plugins. Users beware.

     

    Au contrare - it is very responsible to support cleaning up after plugins the user no longer intends to use. Users who aren't confident enough to click 'Yes - I'm sure...' when prompted, won't be effected by this plugin.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 17, 2012 3:02 PM   in reply to john beardsworth

    johnbeardy wrote:

     

    ...Rob thinks he's being helpful..

     

    No - Rob *knows* he's being helpful.

     

    User's who don't want to "risk" cleaning up, don't download, install, run, and approve the prompts...

     

    Unlike "ScrewAutoSync", it uses only Adobe-approved SDK methods for accomplishing it's mission: no SQL...

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 17, 2012 2:47 PM   in reply to bob frost

    bob frost wrote:

     

    It's my fault!...

     

    I started this plugin a long time ago, and all pieces already existed. I have been using it's functionality for years, I had just not yet rolled it into a plugin and released for others to take advantage of too.

     

    Thank you for the urging.

     

    John Beardy's concerns about it do not it's usefulness diminish.

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 17, 2012 2:59 PM   in reply to trshaner

    Thanks trshaner, for pointing out these other potential gotchas of PV2012 conversion.

     

    PS - Dev-Correct/2012 detects each of these potential "gotchas" so you know to deal with them...

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 17, 2012 3:08 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    I don't have an axe grind on either side of this plugin issue, but Rob's contributions to the LR forum have been tremendously helpful to me. He has provided volumes of detailed information concerning transition from LR3 to LR4 and PV2012. Without a doubt he has provided more useful input on this subject than other LR forum member. Thanks Rob it is most appreciated!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 17, 2012 3:32 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    The lady doth protest too much, methinks....

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2012 1:14 AM   in reply to Rob Cole

    From: "Rob Cole

    I started this plugin a long time ago, and all pieces already existed. I

    have been using it's functionality for years, I had just not yet rolled it

    into a plugin and released for others to take advantage of too.

     

    Having looked at its innards, I did wonder how you had managed to work it

    all out in such as short time!!

     

    Bob Frost

     
    |
    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