Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

[LR 4.1] Graduated filter bug

Jul 8, 2012 5:48 AM

Tags: #image #bug #filter #graduated #whole



I have an image horizontally divided in two parts : 2/3 (sky) and 1/3 (ground). I have created 2 graduated filters, each fully and exactly covering one part of the image. I created the biggest one (2/3) first. The two graduated filters do not overlap.


When I apply effects to the first graduated filter, everything happens as expected : any change made to the exposure, saturation or whatever parameter only affects the area covered by the graduated filter.


When I (try to) apply effects to the second graduated filter (1/3 - covering the rest of the image), any change is applied to the whole image, as if the graduated filter was covering all the image.


It's too severe a bug to imagine that nobody noticed it until now. On the other hand, this behavior is not logical.


It's not specific to a particular image. I can reproduce this on any image.


Did I miss something obvious?


Anyone already seen this ?


Thanks in advance.

  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 8, 2012 6:15 AM   in reply to Samoreen

    Not often that I have to place two on the same photo, but I noticed the same thing a while back. I changed either the placement or the direction of drag and it corrected the problem. Don't have time to play this morning, but try either placing both filters so they are each dragged down, or place the bottom one so it has to be dragged up. Wish I could remember which one I did, but it was a simple fix for me.

    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 8, 2012 6:46 AM   in reply to Samoreen

    Not a bug. The filters are working as designed. The space between the lines is where the gradient happens. The space above the top line gets the full impact of the change, and everything below the bottom line gets none. With your smaller gradient, the full change gets done to everything above it, which includes the sky, hence your problem.


    Try flipping the smaller gradient upside down, so the bottom line goes to the top.



    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 8, 2012 8:02 AM   in reply to Samoreen

    By any chance did you not hit the "NEW" icon before doing the second grad filter?

    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 8, 2012 12:10 PM   in reply to Samoreen

    Samoreen wrote:



    So what if I want to apply say, a low saturation from a point located below the middle of the image, progressively returning to the normal saturation at the bottom of the image, without affecting the upper part of this image?



    !) Create two overlapping Gradient Filters dragged from the top-down, with one slightly below the other.


    2) Set the upper filter to + Saturation (+100) and  the bottom filter to an equal amount - Saturation (-100) value.


    3) It may take a bit of repositioning to get the desired effect, but it will work just fine and not disturb the top part of the image.


    Message was edited by: trshaner

    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 8, 2012 11:31 AM   in reply to Samoreen

    I tried to reproduce this.  I'm using LR 4.1 under Windows 7 64-bit.


    I opened the Graduated Filter Tool, and clicked in the middle of the image.  I dragged down about half way to the bottom of the image.  This created a graduated filter.  I played with graduated filter's exposure adjustment.  I found that the adjustments took full effect in the top half of the image - above the top line of the graduated filter.  It had no effect below the bottom line of the filter.  The effect varied smoothly in intensity between the top line and bottom line of the graduated filter.


    This is the normal and expected behavior.  I believe that you are saying that when you do this, the effect is identical across the whole image, regardless of the the 3 lines associated with the filter.  Is that correct?  If so, that is certainly not the expected behavior, and sounds like a bug.



    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 8, 2012 3:47 PM   in reply to Samoreen

    So while I admit that it's not a bug "per se", I realize that something is missing : the ability to apply the graduated effect in the reverse direction. Which is not the same as flipping the filter upside down.

    Either I am missing something, or flipping the filter upside down (or dragging upwards from the start) is exactly what you need - you only have to apply the inverse value of the effect you want to use.


    Example: You want to make the lower half of the image <i>brighter</i> (as opposed to the common case to make the upper half [sky] darker): Set exposure to a <i>positive</i> value and then drag upwards.


    But perhaps I didn't understand your point correctly...


    EDIT: Ok, perhaps now I understood: I looked again at your question: "So what if I want to apply say, a low saturation from a point located below the middle of the image, progressively returning to the normal saturation at the bottom of the image, without affecting the upper part of this image?": So you want to "reverse" the filter effect in such a way that it:

    • immediately (abruptly) starts at full strenght at line #1
    • gradually dropping to zero strengts at line #2

    Is that correct? If it is: No, that is not directly possible. Probably because the graduated filter are modelled after real-world filters, which cannot do such things (AFAIK). You have to use two filters together to get the desired effect, just like trshaner described above. Here is a quickly done example - hopefully this is exactly what you like to achive:



    For this example, I used a very thin GF (dragged upwards) at the line where the saturation sharply drops (set to -100) and a larger GF (also dragged upwards) spanning from the bottom of the picture to the first GF, with saturation +100, so it gradually counteracts the first GF.

    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 8, 2012 5:35 PM   in reply to Samoreen

    It's often much easier to use a brush instead. A large brush with a maximum feathered edge is a graduated filter that isn't limited to a straight line. Once it's in place you can erase it on one side using a much less feathered edge giving you an effect that's impossible to achieve with a graduated filter, example below.


    There are endless possibilities using this technique.



    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 9, 2012 2:25 AM   in reply to Samoreen

    Some real world filters can do this : reverse neutral density filters, for example. The video available here shows how to simulate such a filter in Lightroom by using a technique similar to what has been suggested above. Unfortunately, this doesn't work with all parameters. It works with exposure which is truly "reversible" but not for saturation.


    So I'd like the graduated filters to be able to optionally work like those reverse neutral density filters but for all parameters.

    I didn't know about these reverse neutral density filters - thanks for the video link.


    But I still don't understand why you think that it is not possible using saturation. My example shows that it is possible - and it is possible with any other paramter. EDIT: You posted your clarification just before I posted my reply - now I understand what you mean. From my experience, all paramter +/- values cancel themselves out perfectly (and it does not depend on the creation order), but you are right, a "native" support by LR would be safer and easier than using two GFs.


    P.S. The suggestion of martin-s is of course also a good alternative.

    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 9, 2012 6:38 AM   in reply to Samoreen

    oops, I miss read your note, you are correct... this issue "bug?" is a bit odd

    Mark as:

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