christianbobak wrote:

 

Does Lightroom offer refunds?

Sorry you're unhappy - dunno about refunds.

Lr3 fill does have some special qualities that are sometimes unmatchable in Lr4, but the vice of that versa is also true - I've been able to fill shadows with Lr4 that were too tough for Lr3's fill.

And Lr4 highlight recovery is just way better than Lr3 - hands down, no contest...

Brightness you can get used to accomplishing with exposure and highlights/shadows sliders. Brightening this way is more flexible and will not wash out your image, unlike brightness slider in Lr3.

Do what ya gotta do, but also consider learning PV2012 if you get "stuck" with Lr4 - it's well worth the effort, in my opinion, even if you rely on PV2010 as you become proficient...

Rob

christianbobak wrote:

 

The Recovery feature would take care of that, but they removed it.

 

Highlights slider can knock down any overbrightening at the top end due to increased exposure - the new version of exposure is sortofa cross between old exposure and old brightness - designed to work hand-in-hand with the highlights slider (and shadows slider).

christianbobak wrote:

 

...why the "heck" would anyone get rid of Fill Light...

You can fill shadows nicely using the shadows slider in conjunction with the blacks slider. If it's not reaching far enough into the midtones then it's 'cause you've got exposure set too low.

Again, not trying to sell, but really the controls are all there - you just haven't learned to recognize them yet...

Rob

We have a saying here in the UK "don't buy a pig in a poke" which means not buying something without viewing it or understanding what it is you are buying. Whilst I accept this version of Lightroom may not suit everybody, as Adobe offered a beta of LR 4.0 and also offer a 30-day trial of the product - not to mention the tutorials from various decent sources discussing all aspects of the product, surely it is unreasonable to grumble about it now? The poke could be opened and the pig could be seen, touched and considered quite thoroughly before commiting to a purchase.

Anthony.

I suppose what I am not getting is the fact that there are demands for refunds on purchases within the timeframe of the 30-day trial which could have been used to ascertain how attractive (or not) the product is to an individual.

I like to think that I have offered helpful advice on these forums from time-to-time, but as far as invalidating problems goes, I don't think complaining about missing or changed features comes under the heading of problems - especially as those things could have been discovered at no cost ahead of making a purchase. And I do say that there has been ample opportunity for people to discover "what they were getting into"; at least enough information to delay making a purchase if they felt after reading about and trying out the program, they were in any way unsure.

But there you go... opinions differ.

Anthony.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one I think. I was satisfied with LR3.6 but thought it both interesting and prudent to try the LR4 beta when it became available. If I had been unsure of LR4 beta, I would have downloaded the trial of the full release before proceeding - that is just me; however, I was confident that LR4 was worth the upgrade and therefore proceeded. Likewise, I am checking out the PS6 beta to see if I want to upgrade from CS5. If I am unsure, I will use the trial to confirm whether or not I want to proceed.

Whilst I can uderstand and agree about not expecting to have to check a beta - why should you? I do think reading about, viewing tutorials on and, if necessary downloading a free trial to find out for oneself what the reported shortcomings were, would make sense, particularly as a program like LR can be a critical part of ones work.

Anthony.

Christian,

Let me first say that I whole-heartedly agree with you: The inability to create the same results in PV2012 as many people were used to getting in PV2010 represents a weakness/limitation of current process version design, especially when it comes to extreme fill-light (I also have issues in the highlight department). That said, note: the original poster and many others have come to grips with this by learning how to get close using the existing controls. Lr3-fill=100 can be approximated in PV2012 via shadows=+100 and blacks=+100 with a compensatory tone curve, and a dose of new clarity... I use a "cookmark preset" (see Deep Fill link on Cookmarks plugin page for exact formula) to accomplish this, but others have used regular presets as well. Coupled with locals if need be, one can get almost as good or better results in PV2012. And of course you can also just switch to PV2010 for some photos.

Summary:

========

I feel ya, but also I have gotten such amazing results on so many photos that I am pretty enamored with PV2012 at this point, granted it has been tricky to master.

Truth is: I still use PV2010 on some photos m'self, when the original tonal distribution and/or the results I want don't jive so well in PV2012, but I would never give up Lr4 for Lr3 - never in a million years...

Highlight recovery in Lr4 is phenomenal (totally blows Lr3 away), and "Lr3-brightness" is totally extraneous once one learns how to balance the other sliders for the results one wants brightness-wise. So the limitations come in the form of fill algorithm / handling of deepest blacks, and highest highlights, which for most photos is also awesome and flexible, but for other photos - not so much. If you primarily edit such photos, I can see where PV2012 would be nothing short of a pisser - fortunately for me, those photos are in a minority. YMMV...

Just my .02,

Rob

tgutgu wrote:

 

If you don't use Lightroom 4, which still has the capabilities to use PV 2010, you shot yourself in your foot deeply. And no, not everybody has performance issues with LR 4.

That's the part I'd hate to see Christian miss out on.

I mean, if the vast majority of your photo processing relies on PV2010 fill-light effects..., and you don't use the other features of Lr4, then by all means, wait and hope for Lr5...

Otherwise, reverting to Lr3 is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, cutting off your nose to spite your face, and shooting yourself in the foot...

Rob

Hi Rob

Thank you for your tips!

To what extent is it possible to achieve the adjustments made with the sliders, using the Tone Curve alone?

Hi Eric.

You're welcome...

I think it's best to get as close as possible using the basic sliders before heading for the tone curve.

Tone curve can only expand tones in one section whilst compressing them in another.

Basic sliders can expand tones in one section whilst maintaining contrast in another section.

There is a lot of sophisticated and helpful programming behind those (not so) "basic" sliders, that do all of their magic before presenting the image data to the tone curve for final adjustment.

Depends on the situation I 'spose, but in general your image will look less "washed out' or 'flat' by doing it this way.

Rob

Listen, whoever you are - people are trying to get you to understand that the LR3 sliders are still there.

Here's how you get them back:

1. Start with an image with no adjustments
2. In Develop, Camera Calibration, choose 2010 from the Process (this is "PV2010")
3. Hold down Alt or Option on the keyboard and the bottom right button changes from Reset to Set Default
4. Click this. From now on, all your pictures will default to LR3 sliders.

You use one process version per photo.

if you process photo x using PV2010 then it works just like Lr3, for that photo - recovery & fill & brightness, but no highlights and no shadows sliders...

if you process photo y using PV2012 then it's the new process version - highlights & shadows..., no fill, no recovery, no brightness...

You get that PV2012's highlights and/or whites sliders serves the same purpose as PV2010's recovery slider, right?, and likewise the functionality of PV2010's fill-light is still present in PV2012, just divvied up into a different set of sliders with different characteristics... - right?

Anyway, I get that for some kinds of photos PV2010's fill-light characteristics are more favorable. And I prefer PV2010's highlight handling on some photos too. Of course PV2012's "fill" & "recovery" & "brightness" are superior to PV2010 on other photos... But also, a big part is just the learning curve - PV2012 is a lot more capable than it may seem at first. For example, photos with very dark darks and very light lights but not much in between respond better to blacks & whites sliders, and photos with a more even distribution of tones respond better to shadow and highlights sliders, for fill & recovery. Others respond best to a mixture of the aforementioned. Not as simple, more flexible, and I acknowlege not as well suited for some results that may be desired.

maps & books are independent of process version used to develop photos...

eh?

R

christianbobak wrote:

 

But the majority of my shots are taken in dark venues at high ISO settings with poor and erratic lighting conditions, so the Recovery and Fill Light features are absolutely crucial to me.

No they aren't.

First of all, Recovery never worked very well.  It didn't recover texture very well, and it caused hue shifts.  Highlights is much, much better.  Second, you can still do fill - with even more power - with the new tools.  You just do it differently (+Exposure and -Highlights is like Fill).  Finally, the new local adjustments, especially local white balance and local noise reduction, are perfectly suited to difficult lighting conditions, especially high-contrast lighting with mixed colors.

I also shoot in dark conditions much of the time.  I was recently shooting a concert in horrible multi-colored stage lighting with a 5D and 35/1.4L, mostly at f/1.4 and ISOs from 1000 to 3200.  LR4's new tools were really the only way to get these images looking the way I wanted them.

@Anthony.Ralph   --   You make a good point.  I did not try Lightroom 4 during the beta process and therefore, did not realize key features would be removed.  I trusted Adobe to have a photog's best interest at heart.  I have never questioned Adobe and have bought multiple versions of several products as new realeases are available (what is that --- 3-4 new upgrades a year??).  I've spent a pretty penny on Adobe and I expect that they are looking out for my intrest as a photographer --- because if they don't look out for their customers, who will buy their products?  I'd been lulled into believing that Adobe was adding features for Lightroom 4 --- I trusted Adobe -- therefore, I did not do the "try before you buy option".  I paid for an upgrade and now I am sorry that I did.  I love the new features that are accisible when using the Adjustment Brush and Graduated Filter - but these additional features DO NOT make up for a simple Fill Light slider.  NOT even close.

tropicaldiva wrote:

 

I had to completely re-buy all Adobe products for my Mac (photoshop, lightroom. etc...) - cost me a pretty penny when I moved to a Mac machine.

 

When you purchase LR (at least in the case of the boxed version), you get both Mac & Windows versions of the software. As I understand it, you can then use your licence key on either platform, so long as you meet the requirements (e.g. not installed on more than two machines, etc). Also, I know for a fact that Adobe will allow you to transfer a licence for Photoshop from one platform to the other, although you need to contact them directly in order to organise this. So, you didn't actually need to spend all that money.

I had a bit of trouble getting used to not have fill light, but now there's no way I'd go back to PV2010: PV2012 is far superior. Just takes some time to adjust. But, as already stated elsewhere in this thread, you can just switch over to PV2010 if you really want to; no need to go across to your parents house to use LR3. The feature hasn't been removed, it's just not present in PV2012.

M

tropicaldiva wrote:

 

Here is my new post processing process:  ANY photos that need fill light - save to a jump drive.  Walk across street to my parents home.  Plug jump drive into my parents computer where I have a license for Lightroon 3 (windows) . Adjust photos with Fill slider.  Save to jump drive.  Walk back home and upload to Mac machine.  Argue with Mac machine (on occasion) about reading a Windows file. 

 

WTF??? 

I agree with that last part.

Why not just switch LR 4 to PV2010 for a moment if you really need it.  Or, better, just learn to use the new tools.

christianbobak wrote:

 

Can I uninstall Lightroom 4 and get a refund? I knew 30 seconds in that I was unhappy with the product.

No, you didn't.  If you knew that 30 seconds it your judgement was not sound.

I don't understand all these comments that refer to "learning the new tools" and how "tricky" they can be. There is nothing tricky or difficult about the new tools (of which there are few anyway), and I have zero issue with them. My issue, as I clearly stated, is the removal of two very important tools that I use constantly. The methods used to "replicate" Fill Light do not actually replicate Fill Light very well at all, and they are a poor substitute. Maybe the substitute methods work fine for you guys, but they don't work fine for me. They are a poor substitute. You can make glib, idiotic comments such as "no you don't" in response to my statement that I do need those tools, or that I have "poor judgment," but that doesn't actually make it true. I know what I need and why, you don't. I rarely take photos of still objects in broad daylight in perfect conditions. I take photos of moving objects in poor and unpredictable lighting conditions, apparently, something no one here has any experience with. The Recovery tool changes hue? Right. I need that most times, because most of my photos contain oversaturated hues, colours and mild-to-moderate blowouts from cheap pot lighting in small rock clubs. The Recovery tool is usually the first tool I go to, and now it's gone. Now all the different spots have to be fixed by hand, individually, increasing my editing time and producing somewhat different results. The Fill Light is crucial for when I get too much backlighting. I don't get to set the shots up, and I don't get to change the lighting. If that's the shot I get, that's the shot I get. There's a lot of improvement in Lightroom 4, but it comes at the cost of two irreplacable tools for me. I have been using it for the last month now, and I have yet to be able to properly replicate those two tools, and it isn't because I don't understand how to use them, it's because they simply do not work in the way I need them to.

You can all you want about how you think I simply don't understand, or how you think I don't need them anyway, but that won't make it true.

you can actually have the best of both worlds because you can always start of processing using process 2010 then change to process 2012. If you try this you will see that the values you set in 2010 will be converted to values in the 2012 process. This can also be a good way to learn how the sliders in the 2010 process equate to those in 2012.

Learning should always be a joyful activity!!

tropicaldiva wrote:

 

Here is my new post processing process:  ANY photos that need fill light - save to a jump drive.  Walk across street to my parents home.  Plug jump drive into my parents computer where I have a license for Lightroon 3 (windows) . Adjust photos with Fill slider.  Save to jump drive.  Walk back home and upload to Mac machine.  Argue with Mac machine (on occasion) about reading a Windows file. 

 

WTF???  Just give me my trusted Fill slider back!! 

I don't normally flame people on forums like this, and I may not have standing to even do it here, but this is quite simply one of the most stunningly ignorant things I have ever heard of.   There is a little drop down box in the camera calibration section of the Develop module.  With that drop down, you can choose to use PV2010, which will give you the exact same controls and features as LR3.  There is no need to walk across the street to your parents house.  There have been about 4 posts in this thread alone where people have posted this, but so many of you are too busy being outraged to stop and understand what the people that are trying to help you are saying.

I am now convinced that there is a personality type that actually chooses to be outraged.  I think Adobe put the ultimate protection in for people that didn't want to change, they left the LR3 controls in place, they don't force you to upgrade your existing images and you are allowed to switch back and forth at will.  And they even took it a step further by recording the conversion as a history step, so if you switch and you don't linke it, reverting your image is as simple as Ctrl-Z or clicking the mouse once in the history panel.  You all really need to cut the drama and get over yourselves. 

christianbobak wrote:

 

The photos I started editing in 4 are looking better in 3 because I have Fill Light and Recovery in 3. It's as simple as that. I need Recovery and Fill Light. I use them all the time.

Learn how to use the new tools, and it's unlikely that you'll be doing better in PV2010 than in PV2012.  This learning process takes time.  Also, realize that "3" is in "4" - just change the process version in 4 and you'll have Fill Light and Recovery back, with all the baggage they bring along.