Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

Develop basic sliders - truly zeroed?

Jan 10, 2012 5:43 AM

Are the sliders truly zeroed....or do they embedded brightness, contrast, and black already applied.

 

If the settings are imbedded, how can one get a flat RAW image?

 

Thanks...John

 
Replies 1 2 3 4 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 10, 2012 8:20 AM   in reply to jrsforums

    What is a flat Raw image? Linear?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 10, 2012 8:39 AM   in reply to Dorin Nicolaescu-Musteață

    The default tone rendering for raw hasn't changed in PV 2012.  It's just the baseline for the slider values that have changed.  So, the default tone rendering that you see for a raw file in 2012 with sliders zero'd (and Point Curve = Linear) is the same as in PV 2010 with Brightness 50, Contrast 25, and Point Curve = Medium Contrast.  The fact that the sliders are zero'd in 2012 for both raw & jpeg for the Basic controls makes syncing between them meaningful (same with sharing presets).

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 10, 2012 12:28 PM   in reply to jrsforums

    The basic premise of PV 2012 hasn't changed relative to 2010.  We try to provide good starting points with the defaults.  (The default setting in 2012 just happens to have "0" for all the Basic sliders.)  That said, it's unlikely that our default is going to please everybody.  Photographers have personal preferences, after all. 

     

    This is the reason why we make it possible to establish custom defaults.  For example, if the default image contrast is too high (even at the Contrast setting of 0), try reducing the Contrast slider (e.g., to -10).  If you like that better, and you find that works better for you on several of your images, consider saving a custom camera default with that new Contrast setting.

     

    You may find that, while you're learning the 2012 controls, that you need to spend a bit more time to find your preferred sweet spot.  That's understandable.  But the ability to establish your own personal starting point remains, and I encourage you to use it.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 10, 2012 12:36 PM   in reply to jrsforums

    Is it possible that some RAW files might have a standard exposure compensation applied?

    I installed LR 4 and created a new catalog, then imported some old original (no XMP file) RAW images from my PowerShot S95.

     

    The images now all have -0.20 exposure applied, even if I reset everything.

     

    The same thing doesn't hold true for the D7000 and 5DMII RAW files.

     

    Also, I justed tested on another computer and then imported a file directly from the camera: 0 exposure compensation.

     

    What's going ong?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 10, 2012 12:55 PM   in reply to slarti3

    Do you have a custom camera default saved for your S95?  If so, try resetting your camera defaults.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 10, 2012 6:45 PM   in reply to jrsforums

    You were right, of course there was a preset.

     

    I guess it was stupid of me to think that LR 4 beta would install blank-slate like. Instead, it of course used the LR 3 settings and presets I already had.

    More to my misfortune and confusion, the preset didn't change the Exposure but rather the Brightness, which doesn't exist anymore.

    Thx.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • TK2142
    407 posts
    Jan 20, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 10, 2012 7:10 PM   in reply to MadManChan2000

    I have great difficulty accepting that the "linear" setting for the tone curve implies a "medium" contrast enhancement. Maybe you should call that 2010-medium tone curve "default" or "neutral", but "linear" can only mean "no tone curve manipulation whatsoever".

     

    I find it very disturbing to be shown a linear tone curve while under the hood some tone curve changes are taking place. Why not just show the real tone curve? Why lie about the actual tone curve behaviour?

     

    Likewise, I found it much better that the PV2010 showed actual non-zero values for the default settings (which weren't neutral). This allowed me to dial in neutral values (zero settings) first and then work from there to find my own defaults. If "0" in PV2012 does not mean zero, but refers to some hidden internal default adjustment, I'm working in the dark as to where the really neutral settings are.

     

    I'm sympathetic to the idea of starting with "0" values as the default, but it seems that the LR4 designers wanted to have their cake ("0" values) and eat it too (non-neutral defaults). That's not working for me at all.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 13, 2012 12:54 PM   in reply to TK2142

    TK2142, I too have difficulty accepting the new "linear" tone curve. It's clearly not linear. The new defaults in the Basic panel are easier to deal with. If you want the equivalent of Lightroom 3's zeroed settings, you can set (in Lightroom 4 beta) Exposure to -1.00, Contrast to -33, and Blacks to +25. But the only way to get a true linear tone curve is to make a reverse S-curve, which is a really wierd and difficult starting place. From there it's difficult to set the end points properly, and make a nice smooth s-curve.

     

    ADOBE: GIVE US BACK A REAL LINEAR TONE CURVE!

     

    I understand why you want the default Basic panel settings to be zero. It's strange in a way to have defaults be other than zero. I think you have the wrong defaults, but I won't go into that now. But to make that Medium Contrast tone curve now "Linear" is a disservice to serious photographers who value the control that Curves gives them. If you simply go back to the old point curve, with linear truly linear, but make the (old) "Medium Contrast" curve the default, most Lightroom users would never know the difference, and there would be no source of confusion for them, like there might be with the non-zero defaults in the Basic panel. Most users never look at the Point Curve, or change it from the default. And if they did, and wanted to get back to it, it's easy to simply select Medium Contrast from the little Point Curve pull-down menu. You could even call it "Medium Contrast (default)" to make it clear.

     

    Michael Frye

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 13, 2012 1:29 PM   in reply to Check-raise Charley

    If you want a linear starting point, you can use the DNG Profile Editor to make a custom profile with a linear tone curve (see 2nd tab of DNG PE). 

     

    But frankly, I think it would be more productive if you used the controls (sliders, curves, or combo of both) to get a look that you like, and save that as either a preset or a custom default for your camera.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 13, 2012 1:31 PM   in reply to MadManChan2000

    MadManChan2000 wrote:

     

    If you want a linear starting point, you can use the DNG Profile Editor to make a custom profile with a linear tone curve (see 2nd tab of DNG PE). 

     

    But frankly, I think it would be more productive if you used the controls (sliders, curves, or combo of both) to get a look that you like, and save that as either a preset or a custom default for your camera.

     

    Eric, would this work?

     

    Set an image to PV2010.  Set the tone curve to linear.  Switch to PV2012.  Save the converted tone curve.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 13, 2012 1:44 PM   in reply to Lee Jay

    Lee Jay et al., there's more to the tone rendering than just setting the point curve.  That's why the suggestions about just changing the point curve in PV 2010 and then switching to 2012 and re-saving the presets are not going to work fully.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 13, 2012 2:00 PM   in reply to MadManChan2000

    Sorry i have to agree with others, the new linear is pretty contrasty this time around and seems to get more so with every point release of LR.  Apple added insult to injury when they adopted the crappy PC gamma a few years back. This is all fine for outdoors but in the studio it's really annoying. God knows what kind of photographer would use the medium and high settings they're outrageously heavy handed.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 13, 2012 2:12 PM   in reply to Lee Jay

    ManManChan2000 - I'm trying your suggestion for using the DNG profile editor, but stuck at how to install the profile. The online instructions say, "Then run the installer software and follow the on-screen instructions." But what installer software are they talking about.?

     

    Thanks!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 13, 2012 2:41 PM   in reply to Check-raise Charley

    Hi,

     

    Once you're in the DNG Profile Editor interface, you can choose Export Profile... from the File menu (the last item in that menu).  That should bring up a "save" dialog box, and it should default to the installation folder for the profiles on your computer.  If you then restart Lightroom, it should pick up the profile automatically (i.e., show up in the Profile popup in the Camera Calibration panel).

     

    To carry out this step, you would want to choose "Linear" from the 2nd tab in the DNG PE, and probably give the profile a recognizable name in the Options tab ("Profile name" field), since that's how you would identify it in the UI in Lightroom.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 13, 2012 2:45 PM   in reply to Simon Full

    Actually, the new defaults in PV 2012 are the same as the old defaults in PV 2010 rendering-wise, with the minor exception of the (now auto-calculated) black point.  So, PV 2012 should not in general be any more contrasty by default than PV 2010 was.

     

    Even if PV 2012 did provide a higher contrast by default than you prefer, I believe it is straightforward to fix that (e.g., slide Contrast to the left, or use Parametric/Point curves if you prefer finer control).  Then, save that as your custom default, and you'll never have to do it again.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 13, 2012 3:01 PM   in reply to MadManChan2000

    MadManChan2000 wrote:

     

    Lee Jay et al., there's more to the tone rendering than just setting the point curve.  That's why the suggestions about just changing the point curve in PV 2010 and then switching to 2012 and re-saving the presets are not going to work fully.

     

    True, but if you set the Basic panel in PV 2010 to a zero Brightness and zero Contrast and the the tone curve to Linear, you will get a PV 2010 > PV 2012 that is very close *subject to some subtle differences based on the adaptive functionality). For the purposes of starting with a flat original, you can create a template that contains only the Basic panel and Curves subset and be able to very quickly adjust an image to be essentally zeroed out. Yes, the tone curve will get populated with a bunch of points...but that allows for great precision when adjusting the tone curve.

     

    I also think that in the long run, people just coming into LR 4 from earlier version need to be willing to change onld habits and adapt to the new functionality. I find it FAR easier to accomplish what I want to do in PV 2012 than 2010. Yes, you have to use the tools defferently because the new adjustments are different, but they are, I believe, far more functional.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • TK2142
    407 posts
    Jan 20, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 13, 2012 7:33 PM   in reply to MadManChan2000

    MadManChan2000 wrote:

     

    Actually, the new defaults in PV 2012 are the same as the old defaults in PV 2010 rendering-wise, with the minor exception of the (now auto-calculated) black point. 

    I found the old default in PV 2012 to be inadequate, so the above is not helpful to me and every other person who changed the PV2010 defaults.

     

     

    MadManChan2000 wrote:

     

    Even if PV 2012 did provide a higher contrast by default than you prefer, I believe it is straightforward to fix that (e.g., slide Contrast to the left, or use Parametric/Point curves if you prefer finer control).  Then, save that as your custom default, and you'll never have to do it again.

    If I slide the contrast slider to the left, the overall effect will be a tone curve response that is pretty wiggely. Why would I have to end up with a compensation that is most unlikely to lead to an appropriate cancellation of the initial issue (non-linear curve), with the overall result being something that may roughly look like a linear response but actually will have wiggles at the end areas of the curve? Or are you saying there is a negative contrast setting that will lead to an exactly linear response overall?

     

    Editing the tone curve so that it really becomes linear, not only looks linear, will never be accurate either. It would be quite laborious to figure out the exact compensation points needed.

     

    Also, I'd end up with a curve that already has control points in it which means that future manipulations to that curve will be more complicated that they would be if I started from a linear curve.

     

    Again, why lie -- I repeat "lie"! -- about the actual response by showing a linear curve and using a "linear" label for something that is clearly not linear? No matter what good reasons you may have for a non-linear default curve, pretending that it is "linear" will always remain wrong, not matter the excuses / explanations.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 13, 2012 7:39 PM   in reply to TK2142

    TK2142 wrote:

     

    If I slide the contrast slider to the left, the overall effect will be a tone curve response that is pretty wiggely. Why would I have to end up with a compensation that is most unlikely to lead to an appropriate cancellation of the initial issue (non-linear curve), with the overall result being something that may roughly look like a linear response but actually will have wiggles at the end areas of the curve?

     

    Editing the tone curve so that it really becomes linear, not only looks linear, will never be accurate either. It would be quite laborious to figure out the exact compensation points needed.

     

    Also, I'd end up with a curve that already has control points in it which means that future manipulations to that curve will be more complicated that they would be if I started from a linear curve.

     

     

    Have you tried taking a PV 2010 set to linear with brightness to zero and contrast to zero and make a template with Basic and Tone curves set as subsets?

     

     

    The only real downside  (aside from the image looking flat and ugly) is that Exposure and Contrast will have translated values and the tone curve has points–which in point of fact can be as useful as having none. If the tone curve tweaks are subtle, you already have control points propagated for you. That could actually be considered a feature...

     

    Look, if you want to use PV 2012, you'll need to adapt to the new functionality...if you don't, you can stay with PV 2010. I like PV 2012...I don't mind adapting to the new functionality.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 13, 2012 7:40 PM   in reply to TK2142

    What is a linear tone curve?  Gamma = 1?  Gamma = 2?  Something else?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 13, 2012 8:11 PM   in reply to Lee Jay

    The "Linear" in the point curve tone curve name refers to the fact that the editable point curve is a straight line.  That's all.

     

    Starting a tone curve edit from truly linear data, in a linear editing space, is a  very bad idea because the spacing of control points would be perceptually very non-linear.  You'd need a ton of controls point near the shadows, and very few near the highlights.  You would have very little precision in the shadows (i.e., a small increment leads to a big jump in the shadows).  Not good.

     

    It's not clear to me what you're trying to achieve.  There's plenty of freedom in the current control set in PV 2012 to adjust tonality, and lots of precision.  If you disagree, please post an example image and we can work through it.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • TK2142
    407 posts
    Jan 20, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 13, 2012 9:15 PM   in reply to MadManChan2000

    MadManChan2000 wrote:

     

    The "Linear" in the point curve tone curve name refers to the fact that the editable point curve is a straight line. 

    That's fine but it is misleading to have a medium contrast boost implied by the straight line.

    I still don't know what would be so bad about either a) showing the actual medium contrast boost as the S-curve it is and calling this default setting "medium contrast", or b) letting a linear appearance actually mean linear response.

     

    Can you not leave the default tone curve "linear" (i.e., shape & response) and achieve the medium contrast boost you are after as a default response by some offset to the "contrast" slider? If that's not possible for technical reasons, BTW, than it is not possible undo the "medium tone curve response" with a negative contrast. If it is possible, I could at least start from a negative contrast setting (the one that actually means "0").

     

    MadManChan2000 wrote:

     

    Starting a tone curve edit from truly linear data, in a linear editing space, is a  very bad idea ...

    I did not argue for a linear editing / coding space. I understand that a non-linear encoding is required to achieve a perceptually linear editing space. This has very little to do whether or not the tone curve shows the actual contrast boost applied or not.

     

     

    MadManChan2000 wrote:

     

    It's not clear to me what you're trying to achieve. 

    I'd look to start from a neutral position. I'm aware that this neutral setting won't look good at all and is not practical to keep as a starting point, but I want it as a starting point to find my own settings.

     

    When I started with LR3, I initially struggled to get the image look like I wanted (it wasn't as easy as with other software I used before). I struggled until I realised that the default LR settings were not neutral, that they implied some default editing already. In previous attempts to obtain the look I want, I hence unknowingly fought this initial settings. Once I set everything to neutral, I was able to found a starting point that worked for me; from which I could get the look I wanted easily.

     

    I know that I could play with PV2012 until I find a starting point that will work for me, but

    a) I do not feel comfortable fighting the default adjustments without knowing what they are,

    b) I'll never know wheter starting from a truly neutral point would have got me a better default point for me, and

    c) I prefer the tone curve to be "two way", i.e., that I can not only use it to influence the tone response, but also see what the current tone response is.

     

    As a matter of fact, I would love a mode where the tone curve shows me the overall, absolute effective response, including dark point, white point, contrast, etc. The tone curve would thus change while I use sliders. This is probably not realistic as you are probably using image masks and the effect of the sliders cannot be expressed by a tone curve alone (at least that was the case with "Fill Light"), but nevertheless, to the extent the sliders change the tone response, I'd like to see it in the curve.

     

    I think both views make sense:

    a) relative -> only user editing is shown which means a straight line is shown even if the true response is not linear and

    b) absolute -> the curve shape reflects the actual response, i.e., it cannot be a straight line if there is a medium contrast boost.

     

    One final use case for showing an accurate tone curve is to allow users to understand what pixel values displayed by the white balancing tool mean. In LR3 it was (I believe) possible to set everything to neutral so that you had predictability about the values, i.e., for checking a ColorChecker image. In LR4 it does not seem to be possible to achieve an overall neutral conversion anymore, unless you apply workarounds such as producing special DNG profiles. BTW, the special DNG files do not seem to be helpful for finding an overall neutral starting point if you also want to work with a camera profile that you produced with the ColorChecker plugin.

     

    @LeeJay: I understand the color space in LR uses gamma = 2.2, but that is a bit beside the real issue.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 13, 2012 9:29 PM   in reply to TK2142

    TK2142 wrote:

     

    I'd look to start from a neutral position. I'm aware that this neutral setting won't look good at all and is not practical to keep as a starting point, but I want it as a starting point to find my own settings.

     

    So..have you actually tried to create a neutral setting in LR4?

     

    When you do, get back to us...until you learn to use the PV 2012 approach, it's really a matter of complaining about change...adapt or adopt or use PV 2010. It ain't gonna change so get used to it...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • TK2142
    407 posts
    Jan 20, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 13, 2012 9:36 PM   in reply to Jeff Schewe

    Jeff Schewe wrote:

     

    Have you tried taking a PV 2010 set to linear with brightness to zero and contrast to zero and make a template with Basic and Tone curves set as subsets?

    No, I haven't tried that yet. If that would be a way to get an overall neutral response from LR4, that'll be very useful. Thanks for the suggestion.

     

    Jeff Schewe wrote:


    If the tone curve tweaks are subtle, you already have control points propagated for you. That could actually be considered a feature...

    Maybe, I'll have a look.

    In general, though, I prefer tools that show me the actual facts, not some illusion intended to pamper me and guard me from the ugly truth. Take that approach too far and you end up with Microsoft's approach to helping people to use Word. Most of the time I keep undoing what Word thought it should do based on what it thought I wanted to achieve.

     

    Jeff Schewe wrote:

     

    Look, if you want to use PV 2012, you'll need to adapt to the new functionality...if you don't, you can stay with PV 2010. I like PV 2012...I don't mind adapting to the new functionality.

    I don't want to come across as greedy, but ideally I could have the new PV 2012 functionality without a paradigm shift that presents "neutral" when the reality is not neutral at all.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 13, 2012 11:52 PM   in reply to TK2142

    I've not fully read the whole thread however I think I've justcome up against the same problem so I'm adding my 2 cents.

    All Raw images have a color profile applied that makes the raw image look "normal", contrast/ brightness etc.

    Lightroom 3 reflected this by having a tone curve  applied along with  non zero values for black levels and Brightness/contrast.

     

    by hitting the "zeroed" preset, all vales would go to zero and you'd get an image with out pre calculated values applied.

     

    in LR4 as all values are Zero to start with it's not a true reflection of what LR is doing under the hood to an image.

    This means its hard to get an flat uncorrected image easily.

    I'd suggest that while have\ing sliders tha start at zero may make sense to some, it's really a misrepresentation of what LR is doing to a Raw file.

     

    for example I often find bright sunny images have too much contrast and often apply the zeroed preset so I can develop my own image starting from scratch.

     

    I think Adobe needs to go back to the previous version of for the basic sliders or find some other way to allow users to eaily remove any profiles from an image to see a fat linear representation of a raw file.

    Ideally zero values should mean a linear raw file.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 14, 2012 12:35 AM   in reply to rawlins5

    rawlins5 wrote:

     

    Ideally zero values should mean a linear raw file.

     

    And that is meaningless...PV 2012 has all settings at zero but that's only the baseline starting point (which is essentually the same as PV 2010 but with zero for all basic settings). From the normalized basline, YOU decide what settings to adjust. For the purposes of Presets, it important to have all settings start at zero as a baseline. This allows preserts for raw and TIFF/JPEG images to be exchanged. There's a reason for Adobe's madness...get used to it and movel on.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • TK2142
    407 posts
    Jan 20, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 14, 2012 2:23 AM   in reply to MadManChan2000

    MadManChan2000 wrote:

     

    ... (now auto-calculated) black point...

     

    Is it true that LR4 automatically sets the black point and white point?

     

    I would strongly suggest to make this behaviour optional. Users who appreciate such instant "fixes" should be able to opt in with an "Auto" option but everyone else should not be forced to undo automatically calculated settings. The worst scenario, from my perspective, would be if the calculated auto settings would be shown as "0". Bad, but slightler better would be to auto-set the levels but show the calculated values. The only proper solution, AFAIC, is to not impose anything on the user unless the user opts in by activating an "Auto BP / WP" setting.

     

    Please don't dumb down LR's interface. Please do not turn it to something which caters to the casual user but forces power users to work against it.

     

    P.S.: I've yet to try out LR4 myself. I've been using XP and am just migrating. Looking forward to giving LR4 a spin. I'm hoping that anything "Auto" will be optional.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 14, 2012 2:23 AM   in reply to TK2142

    TK2142 wrote:

    Is it true that LR4 automatically sets the black point and white point?

     

    LR 4's setting are indeed image adaptive...it doesn't set the white/black point automatically but does optimize the image settings for various settings automatically. Do you have any images whose settings are not optimal at the baseline? If so, post them...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 14, 2012 2:26 AM   in reply to TK2142

    TK2142 wrote

     

    P.S.: I've yet to try out LR4 myself.

     

    Well, upgrde to an OS that is compatible, download LR4 ad try it...and then let us know. Otherwise, you're just wasting bandwidth (and posting uselessly).

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • TK2142
    407 posts
    Jan 20, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 14, 2012 3:19 AM   in reply to Jeff Schewe

    Jeff Schewe wrote:

     

    Well, upgrde to an OS that is compatible, download LR4 ad try it...and then let us know. Otherwise, you're just wasting bandwidth (and posting uselessly).

     

    I do not need to run LR4 to know that I don't want software to make decisions for me. I want to be in control and know what I'm achieving with a certain value for a setting. If any magical adaptations / default changes happen  under the hood, I a) do not know what's happening and b) potentially have to fight the imposed "optimisations" but without any means to know how to.

     

    Even if the optimisations work for many images, there will be some images where the fact that you are not starting from a neutral point will cause a lot of frustration because you just cannot get what you want without realising that you'll first have to undo what has been done "for you".  I worked with the LR3 defaults for quite a bit because they weren't terrible as starting points. Only after struggeling with some images I noticed what was going on and have been happy with my own defaults (which I obtained from starting with neutral settings) ever since. I believe that even for non-problematic images, my own defaults lead to quicker results than the original LR3 defaults (for me anyway).

     

    BTW, I'm not posting uselessly. Whether or not software attempts to be cleverer than the user pertains to principles of UI design. If a software can automate something that I'd have to do manually the very same way then by all means it should do it (for instance, no one should be forced to first create a snapshot from a video, then a preset from develop settings applied to that snapshot and then apply the preset to the video. All that stuff should be done by the software under the hood, because it can be done without any harm to the user). But if the software cannot know what I'd be doing, it should keep its hands off. Otherwise people who know what they are doing, who know what to expect from certain settings, are potentially forced to fight the auto adjustments.

     

    With the exception of the fact that I do not know whether LR4 does the auto-adaptations with or without telling the user through settings values, everything I remarked pertains to basic principles of UI design. I do not need to run LR4 to know that the ideas of "doing things for the user" and "pretending simplicity where accuracy is more useful" are flawed. I've used enough software where these ideas may help some beginners to achieve something not very impressive they could not have achieved without some reading of the manual but are nothing but a total royal pain for everyone who knows what they are doing.

     

    Would you want your camera to give you pre-denoised RAW images? Would you want the manufacturer of your camera decide for you which noise reduction level is the correct one depending on the ISO level? Of course you don't. Would you want your camera manufacturer to leave the RAW data alone but include metadata for RAW processors so that they apply appropriate denoising depending on the ISO level? Would you want the RAW processors  to show each such pre-set noise reduction level as "zero" because their idea of what the correct level of noise reduction depending on the ISO setting is the "gold standard"? Would you want to be forced to use an *unknown* amount of negative noise reduction to go back to "no noise reduction at all" because you want to deal with noise in a different manner (perhaps with a plugin)? Wouldn't it be far better if "zero" meant zero and the camera would only suggest an optimal amount of noise reduction but by supplying an absolute non-zero noise reduction level? I'd be surprised if you would wanted anything else but the last option from your camera. The question of whether or not "zero" means zero, "linear" means linear, or decisions are made for you by LR4 is nothing but the "Should my camera impose its noise reduction philosophy on me?" question in a different context.

     

    I'm happy for a P&S camera to make noise reduction decisions for me. I'm not happy for my DSLR to make noise reduction decisions for me. I'm happy for Picasa to give me a dumbed down approach to image editing. I'm not happy for LR to give me a dumbed down approach to image editing.

     

    Software should make it easy for people who know what they are doing to achieve what they want and make it easy for beginners to become people who know what they are doing. Software should not pretend that things are simpler as they are (make things as simple as possible but no simpler) and should not attempt to be cleverer than the user.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • TK2142
    407 posts
    Jan 20, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 14, 2012 3:37 AM   in reply to jrsforums

    The same discussion is taking place here: http://forums.adobe.com/thread/948951

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 14, 2012 6:55 AM   in reply to jrsforums

    I find it amazing seeing these suggestions and workarounds for establishing a truly linear tone curve.  With all the efforts made towards making LR an intuitive, easy to use program this is fairly ridiculous.  Make linear linear, make a curve a curve. 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 14, 2012 6:59 AM   in reply to TK2142

    For the record, all six central Basic controls in PV 2012 (Exposure thru Blacks) are image adaptive.  But then again, Recovery, Fill Light, and Clarity in earlier versions of Lr (and in PV 2003/2010 in Lr 4 Beta) were also image adaptive.  They auto-adjusted their behavior internally based on image content.  In PV 2012 we've simply extended that idea to the rest of the Basic controls.  Don't let that scare you, and don't get hung up on the terminology. Remember: the goal is better images.  I think in PV 2012 we've provided a better and faster way to do that.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 15, 2012 1:35 AM   in reply to TK2142

    TK2142 wrote:

     

    I do not need to run LR4 to know that I don't want software to make decisions for me.

     

    Uh huh...so, you are saying you have NOT downloaded and installed LR 4 but you are perfectly willing to pass judgement on the results of PV 2012...really? You realize that your posts must be automatically discounted, as being pretty close to useless, right?

     

    If you have something useful to contribute, you realize you need to download and install LR4...otherwise all you are really doing is wasting bandwidth...

     

    If you do indeed download LR4 Beta and have an opinion, post it here...if you are simply complaining on the basis of "you don't approve" then you really need to move on and educate yourself to offer any sort of useful input...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 17, 2012 12:40 PM   in reply to jrsforums

    I second the requirement to be able to easily start from a linear tone curve. A linear tone curve is fully defined by the camera sensor's response curve and the monitor's gamma curve. No need to ask questions here.

     

    Moreover, I request an easy way to adjust what I would call effective ISO: a linear shift of the entire tone curve to darker or brighter in exactly the same way a change of in-camera ISO would have done.

     

    Both was relatively easy to do in LR3 and is gone in LR4 (AFAICS). If this remains so, I will not recommend LR4 to others.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 17, 2012 12:50 PM   in reply to FalkLumo

    Actually, neither was possible in LR 3.  LR 4 is similar in this regard.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 17, 2012 9:02 PM   in reply to MadManChan2000

    MadManChan2000 wrote:

     

    Actually, the new defaults in PV 2012 are the same as the old defaults in PV 2010 rendering-wise, with the minor exception of the (now auto-calculated) black point.  So, PV 2012 should not in general be any more contrasty by default than PV 2010 was.

     

    Even if PV 2012 did provide a higher contrast by default than you prefer, I believe it is straightforward to fix that (e.g., slide Contrast to the left, or use Parametric/Point curves if you prefer finer control).  Then, save that as your custom default, and you'll never have to do it again.

    Thanks Eric, I noticed the new contrast slider seems to be a little more forgiving than before or is that just a placebo?  I favoured the Parametric curve and got something good and it's out of sight so it doesn't bug me so much.  I think the hardware is probably more to blame with screens becoming more vivid and glossy by default.

     
    |
    Mark as:
1 2 3 4 Previous Next
Actions

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