Recovery by Whites and Highlights makes an image look bland and flat. That's how your recovered image lookes to me. I think you should use shadows and darks as well since your overexposed image completely lacked those..
BTW, moving Highlights to 100 doesn't only affect highlights. It affects mids as well.
Both of you seem to be ignoring the fact that you can do local adjustments to highlights etc with the Adjustment Brush. It has most of the Develop options and they can just be brushed on where needed, instead of blanket adjustments.
How very dare you come on this forum and start praising the product. Don't you know this space is reserved only for complaints, rants and general shows of spleen...
Great! Yes, most of post are just runts and complaints! I think this forum can use an exception.
Especially along the lines of "I have no scientific data whatsoever, but I KNOW that LR X.X is moar slower than LR Y.Y. I have 1024 GBz of RAM!!!!1oneone!"
(When will people understand that processor power is much more important to Lightroom speed than RAM?)
What I do know is that with LR4 I can get detail especially in highlights and shadows that I can't get with LR3 (or Nikon Capture NX2).
- Details in cloud higlights, breaking waves and snow.
- Getting good results from very high-contrast raw images.
- Recovering slightly burned-out highlights in flowers
I've lost count of the number of old images where I've gone back to them with LR4 and in a couple of minutes produced markedly better results. In theory one should be able to get the same results with tone curves in LR3 or Nikon NX2 - but I've gone back to LR3 and NX2 with a number of photos, and been unable to replicate the LR4 results without considerable effort, if at all.
Did you mean to say I was complaining about Lightroom's Highligh recovery capabilities? Actually no. I was talking about the way you excersise those capabilities. How come that wasn't clear from my post?