Skip navigation

Please bring back the Fill Light slider!!!

Mar 8, 2012 8:18 AM

Tags: #fill #light #lr4
  Latest reply: Rob Cole, May 8, 2012 3:28 PM
Replies 1 2 3 4 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 5, 2012 11:48 PM   in reply to christianbobak

    christianbobak wrote:

     

    Interesting. I have no halos and artifacting in any of my edited photos, but you apparently seem to know so much more about my photos than I do, so I'm assuming this is the part where I'm supposed to bow down and grovel before your vast knowledge and intellect.

     

    Like it or not Adobe have done this because it gives better results, and it does.

     

    One can't help thinking those who constantly resort to the fill-light slider might be better off getting their exposures and fill lights right in-camera instead

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 6, 2012 12:08 AM   in reply to christianbobak

    christianbobak wrote:

     

    ...but you apparently seem to know so much more about my photos than I do, so I'm assuming this is the part where I'm supposed to bow down and grovel before your vast knowledge and intellect.

     

    Yes...since I seem to know just a bit more than you do...just sayin'.

     

    Either adopt PV 2012 or punt and use PV 2010. YMMV (my image quality is much better with PV 2012). Don't know about your's...

     

    Either way you have a choice...either stick your head in the sand and stick with PV 2010 or use PV 2012...that's your choice. Sorry bud, but either adapt and adopt or piss$moan. PV 2012 ain't gonna change because of you. Deal with it...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 6, 2012 12:30 AM   in reply to christianbobak

    Lapsing into casual racism does rather show up the kind of person you obviously are Christian

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 6, 2012 1:11 AM   in reply to christianbobak

    christianbobak wrote:

     

    Otay, mista Jeff, suh. You de man, suh.

     

    Guess you don't really "grok" this stuff huh?

     

    I've been the co-author of Real World Camera Raw since version CS3. I've been directly involved in the development of Lightroom as well as Camera Raw (don't work FOR Adobe but I sometimes work WITH Adobe). Particularly with the image sharpening of ACR 4.X and LR 3.X. The output sharpening in LR 3.x is based on the routines of PixelGenius PhotoKit Sharpener (which I am a founding member of).

     

    So, yes bud...what you think you know and what I actually know is a bit different...you want to measure creds? You lose...

     

    So get over yourself...PV 2012 is a MAJOR advance...what you THINK you've lost is minimal (at best) and what you've received in it's place is major...

     

    But, hey, YOU be the judge.,if you don't like PV 2012, just use PV 2010...and if you think you've been ripped off on the upgrade, Adobe has a 30 day return policy...get your *******' money back doode...

     

    Guess your life sucks huh?

     

    Move on...PV 2012 ain't gonna change because you are "displeased"...you can keep posting if ya want...ain't gonna change a thing (and I suspect you know that). You keep trying to one up me, ain't gonna happen....

     

    Move along...these aren't the droids you are looking for...

    (and if that don't work, you are, well, a dummy–sorry to be blunt, but, well, that's the truth bud).

     

    You won't win this battle so only an idiot would keep banging his head against a brick wall. Keep banging your head if ya want...no skin off my nose.

     

    PV 2012 is a vast improvement and it requires that you relearn what you think you know...(and no, there's no real indication you really know how to use PV 2012 even if you think you know–you don't dooode).

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 6, 2012 2:26 AM   in reply to Jeff Schewe

    Jeff Schewe wrote:

     

     

    Guess you don't really "grok" this stuff huh?

     

     

    Thanks Jeff, it's Sunday and I just learned a new word!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 6, 2012 2:48 AM   in reply to christianbobak

    As if your ignorant beligerent arrogance wasn't enough Christian, we get your RACISM (which I have reported) now?

     

    Just learn to use the damn' tool, accept that you're bang out of order about all of this - you're just plain wrong - and shut up.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 6, 2012 6:26 AM   in reply to Joerollerblade

    A number of replies in this thread have been deleted because of abusive content. Unless this discussion returns to a polite and professional conversation about the software, it will be locked.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 6, 2012 9:31 AM   in reply to christianbobak

    christianbobak wrote:

     

    I did learn how to use the tools. You don't understand. The learning process did not take much time for me. I get it all, and the new tools work amazingly for what they do, but they do not properly replicate the tools that Adobe took away. I'm not sure what you don't get about that, why you don't believe me, or why you don't understand.

     

    Perhaps because I've processed about 12,000 images with the new tools, and can consistently get better results with the new tools than the old ones.  And, yes, I regularly shoot in exceptionally difficult shooting conditions.

     

    I'd say figuring out how to get the best results from the new tools took processing perhaps 6,000-10,000 images, and I'm certainly still learning.  But that's not unexpected considering I had processed more than 100,000 images over many years with the old tools.

     

    If the learning process didn't take much time for you, I'd say you didn't learn it.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 6, 2012 9:41 AM   in reply to Lee Jay

    Lee Jay wrote:

     

    If the learning process didn't take much time for you, I'd say you didn't learn it.

     

     

     

    Really?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 6, 2012 9:47 AM   in reply to Lee Jay

    Hi Lee

     

    Please post some examples or refer to a web site where I can see comparasions of your improved results with PV2012. 

     

    I am reprocessing many photos, and I getting much better results, but I am not sure why.  Your examples will help me focus in on what is causing the improvement, and I hope to be able to use the new tools more efficiently.

     

    Thank you.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 6, 2012 3:28 PM   in reply to EricBier

    My Lr3 photos: run a little dim. Why? because I tended to keep exposure/brightness/recovery low to protect the highlights, and because Lr3 fill light often can't be pushed too hard before it breaks down - masking artifacts and color aberration. Limit to how much contrast can be added via tone curve without flatening in other places.

     

    My Lr4 photos: fully brightened, detailed, with fully recovered highlights, and shadows lit as desired. They look like somebody washed the window I was looking at my Lr3 photos through. Most benefit comes from the new tone controls, but new clarity is also awesome, albeit may need some local tempering.

     

    I thought I had PV2012 mastered after several hundred photos - I was wrong. Mastery takes thousands.

     

    Note: Lr4 can be especially challenging for photos with lots of very dark tones, but some critical tones that are very bright too - like concert photos. Highlight slider affects a larger range of tones than seems like should be considered highlights, and shadows slider a narrower range than other photos. Thus the balance between exposure highlights and shadows is trickier than for photos with bell-shaped curves, or even 2-hump camel curves... Also, these photos often require an optimal blend of blacks & whites which adds to the complexity.

     

    Summary:

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

    I never said PV2012 was always easy to obtain optimal results with, but if one can tame the beast, the results are awesome!!!

     

    PV2012 .

    R

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 6, 2012 4:33 PM   in reply to EricBier

    See attached two images.  These represent about the best I could squeeze out of each.

     

    The differences are somewhat subtle, but the PV2012 image has a little more local and global contrast while at the same time having fewer blown pixels.  Put them on top of each other and flip back and forth and you'll see what I mean.

     

    PV2010:

    PV2010.jpg

    PV2012:

    PV2012.jpg

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 6, 2012 5:12 PM   in reply to Lee Jay

    Lee,

     

    Thank you, I definitely see what I consider to be an improvement in the contrast in PV2012.

     

    Rob,

     

    I have also been feeling like someone washed the windows.  PV2010 seemed so good, I could not imagine how it could be improved.  For me, PV2012 is a vast improvement, especially because I like clear, sharp images.  Again, it is hard to imagine that PV2012 can be improved, but I can't wait for PV2014!

     

    Michael Frye has an excellent tutorial that shows how he obtains amazing improvements in highlight contrast:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Eqb7W0sus8&feature=player_embedded

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 6, 2012 6:21 PM   in reply to EricBier

    At the risk of sounding melodramatic, PV2012 often gives me goose bumps, shivers, and a stupid smile that explodes into a big grin, followed by a goofy laugh. (but I still have my challenges with it as well)

     

    Can't wait for PV2014

     

    Cheers,

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 6, 2012 8:20 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    I am asking this here because the discussion is on the missing fill slider.  I used this fairly often in LR 3 to add a fill flash in cases where there were shadows on the subject because of being forced to take photos where there was non optimum location due to sunlight.

     

    I did not have a flash unit with me to add fill flash so I have some poor results.  What can I do in LR 4 to replace the effects of the fill slider not present in LR 4?

     

    Henry 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 7, 2012 1:10 AM   in reply to grandpahenry

    +exposure +shadows.

    if that don't get it, +blacks

    also consider -contrast.

    adjust highlights/whites as desired.

    maybe finish with a touch of clarity.

    tone curve and/or locals to fine tune, if need be.

     

    Bonus exercise:

    - Increment exposure by .1, and do the rest all over again, and repeat: increment exposure by .1... (say 10 times)

    - Decrement exposure by .1, and do the rest all over again, and repeat: decrement exposure by .1... (another 10 times)

    Save as virtual copy in between each iteration, then compare all 21.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 7, 2012 7:02 AM   in reply to grandpahenry

    I would start by increasing the exposure to correct the exposure in the

    areas you want to brighten, and then fine tune by darkening the highlights

    and brightening the shadows.

     

    This is a private communication sent from my mobile device.  If you are not

    the intended recipient, please delete this message from both your email and

    your memory banks.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 7, 2012 7:20 AM   in reply to gregkmeyer

    Actually the problem is shadows on the faces and arms of the subjects caused by a bad choice in location.  The subjects were pretty much facing the sun.  We did not have time to find a better location for these few shots.

     

     

     

    How can I deal with the shadows on the skin of the subject.

     

     

     

    Henry

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 7, 2012 9:24 AM   in reply to grandpahenry

    grandpahenry wrote:

     

    How can I deal with the shadows on the skin of the subject.

     

    If the shots are really important and worth taking time over I would do two RAW conversions for each, one with correct exposure and one lighter one with the shadows lifted and combine them in PS and then paint in the lighter areas.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 7, 2012 9:31 AM   in reply to dhphoto2012

    I just did the same thing on a series of photos for my daughter's family.  And I simply use the adjustment brush in Lightroom with increased exposure to brush over the faces that have heavy shadows.  In my opinion, it works very well.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 8, 2012 3:28 PM   in reply to JimHess

    Yeah, I think the new basics have taken the spotlight since Lr4 released, but also the local (highlights and) shadows adjustments are awesome for this kind of thing... - maybe toss in some -contrast too. That way you can kill 2 birds with one stone: the same brush will pull the highlights down whilst raising the shadows up...

     

    In Lr3 my most frequently applied brush was -contrast - it was my "highlight recovery" and "shadows" brush (generally mixed with several other things to help target desired tones only...).

     

    Now I frequently brush with -highlights and/or +shadows instead - kinda does the same thing as -contrast, except preserves midtone contrast in the doing. And along with Lightroom's design criteria of keeping high's high and lows, low - these new locals don't generally leave the same washed-out/dull look as -contrast in Lr3 would. Clarity and others can still be mixed in to taste...

     
    |
    Mark as:
1 2 3 4 Previous Next
Actions

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (2)

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