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.

Christian,

There is no doubt, PV2012 can not replicate, exactly, the look of PV2010 fill / recovery. This has been proven in a number of threads starting with the beta.

I know a guy whose business rotated around a certain look he'd gotten from them. A kindof "signature look" - reminds me of what another guy accomplished using Lucis Art (not the same look, but a "signature/characteristic" look). We worked together to try and replicate the look in PV2012, and got very close, in some ways better, and with the help of some locals, exceeded what he'd done using PV2010, but it was trickier, and took extra work, and in some ways, was still not liked as well as the PV2010 results.

PV2012 can competently fill shadows, and recover highlights, but even with months of experience, the look will not always be the same as PV2010.

If I were you, I'd just use PV2010 when you can't get the results you want from PV2012. I still think, the number of cases where you can't get the results you want in PV2012 will decline over time - certainly that's been true in my case.

Good luck with it.

Rob

christianbobak wrote:

 

I should have everything I had before plus new features, not new features at the expense of old ones.

Because the underlying processing algorithms of PV 2012 are fundamentally different than PV 2010, that's impossible. Pure and simple. There is no way to make Shadows behave like Fill Light. Fill Light actually had several undesirable side effects (haloing in particular) that was the reason behind the redesign of PV 2012 from the ground up.

The engineers made the choice to start over with the new algorithms which was a line in the sand with the old ones. That's why they created a new process version. You can't mix and match. If you really need PV 2010, LR 4 still has those algorithms, but you will be giving up the rest of the PV 2012 processing. Bottom line, you can't have your cake and eat it too. It's an either/or proposition...you choose.

And PV2010 sucked, how? What were you using to edit your digital photos 15 years ago? Oh, that's right. Nothing.

Christian,

I feel your pain. And, I'm not an Adobe defender, but I do understand Lightroom design, to some extent. It's not like some programs where each tool acts independently of the rest. The Lr pipeline is optimized around the PV.

I'm not saying it would have been impossible to have kept fill-light & recovery in PV2012, only that it's understandable why they were not included.

Maybe one day, Adobe will redesign Lightroom, but until then - don't get too attached to the PV2012 sliders either - they may be gone in Lr5! .

Cheers,

Rob

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.