If you indicate what exact version of ACR or Photoshop you are using someone here may be able to direct you to the ACR Camera Calibration tab where you can choose a Process Version method that will show you the Fill Light slider, which is what I assume you're referencing.
The process version is the technology that Camera Raw uses to adjust and render photos. Depending on which process version you use, different options and settings area available to you in the Basic tab and when you make local adjustments.
Process Version 2012
Images edited for the first time in Camera Raw 7 use process version 2012. PV2012 offers new tone controls and new tone-mapping algorithms for high-contrast images. With PV2012, you can adjust Highlights, Shadows, Whites, Blacks, Exposure, and Contrast in the Basic panel. You can also apply local corrections for white balance (Temp and Tint), Highlights, Shadows, Noise, and Moiré.
Process Version 2010
Images edited in Camera Raw 6 used PV2010 by default. PV2010 offers improved sharpening and noise-reduction from the previous process version, PV2003.
Process Version 2003
The original processing engine, used by Camera Raw versions 5.x and earlier.
To take advantage of the newer processing, you can update previously edited photos to the current process version.
To update a photo to the Camera Raw 7 process (PV2012), do either of the following:
- Click the Update to Current Process button (the exclamation-point icon) in the lower-right corner of the image preview.
- In the Camera Calibration tab, choose Process > 2012 (Current).
To apply an older process version to a photo, go to the Camera Calibration tab and choose Process > 2010 or Process > 2003.
Such a long, boring post just to ask how to access the Process Version?
Read the documentation and save your fellow users the rant. You are not addressing Adobe here.
And then Adobe (operating in tunnel vision mode) killed this control because of artifacts when used at _extreme_ settings.
You make it sound a lot stupider than it was (it's more than that). PV2012 can also improve quality when there are no adjustments (due to auto-highlight/shadow recovery) or moderate adjustments - due to improved algorithms.
Anyway, I sympathisze with your frustration. The new process version often requires a tweak to multiple sliders and some un-learning & re-experience to know best which ones.
That said, presets may help.
if you just need a little fill, sometimes:
+exposure -highlights +shadows
will do it - equal values for highlights & shadows (but opposite signs) often strikes a nice balance.
However, I often end up with something more like this:
+exposure -contrast -highlights +shadows +clarity +vibrance +saturation -blacks +whites.
when fill is needed. -contrast allows for smaller values of -highlights & +shadows, which may look more natural, granted you may lose a little "richness" (e.g. saturation, dynamic range..) - thus the other compensations.
If -contrast isn't cutting it (despite +clarity +vibrance +saturation -blacks +whites compensations), then leave it out, or bump it up instead...
(i.e. if you have strong -blacks you may need less clarity, or conversely, if you crank up the blacks, you can have more clarity without it looking "over-clarified").
PS - for some photos, +whites -exposure is a worthwhile trade off, dunno about your interiors with bright light coming in through the windows..
I usually reserve -whites for photos which I want to have a more muted look - e.g. full (over-bright) moon shots, or foggy beach scenes.., opting instead for -highlights (and often +whites).
That said, if -highlights not quite cutting it to tame those highlights you may need -whites. If so, consider some +exposure and +contrast (and/or +clarity..) to go with it, if you're not happy with the muted look of -whites alone..
You may ask: why all this talk about highlights in the context of fill, but in PV2012 all (or more) adjustments may be needed.. - you can't have Lr3-like fill without increasing exposure (typically along with +shadows), and you can't increase exposure without decreasing highlights (assuming photo is already fully exposed at the top end).
* sometimes it's hard to get PV2012 (basics) right all the way to the endpoints, in which case it pays to move the endpoints in (especially white point) using the point curve. (and of course the tone curve itself is a tool meant to be used when called for..).
* locals are sometimes needed to fix-up areas that aren't perfect, e.g. if using strong +contrast -highlights +shadows (in the interest of maintaining maximum midtone contrast without over-dark shadows & over-bright highlights) - you may need to "mitigate" some places. Or conversely, one could go easier on the global +contrast in favor of locally applied contrast (and avoid using +clarity if not working in your photo..).
Read my post #1.
You are as unaware as the OP. (I was going to type clueless. )
Rob Cole wrote:
…Anyway, I sympathisze with your frustration. The new process version often requires a tweak to multiple sliders and some un-learning & re-experience to know best which ones.
With the older version of camera RAW import plug-in a slight tweak of the fill control was all I needed for the great majority of photos.
You can still do that. In Camera Raw, click on the Camera Calibration tab (Ctrl-Alt-8), and change Process to "2010". Bingo, your old controls are back.
You are as clueless as the OP.
I guess so - I have no idea why you would say (or think) such a thing . However I'm pretty sure I understand completely where the OP is coming from, and my post was an attempt to address the OP's issue, albeit by trying to encourage him or her to use PV2012 despite his or her difficulties to date, rather than falling back to a legacy process version. I'm guessing you misunderstood somehow..
Anyway, if customizer2 does not care to change course, then (thanks to you & Yammer) he/she now knows how to fall back to PV2010 without down-grading ACR. Nevertheless, I encourage customizer2 to continue to practice with PV2012, and ween from legacy processing, even if only gradually..
One can even fall back to an even earlier Process version than 2010. 2003, I think? Not at my regular workstation now.
One can even fall back to an even earlier Process version than 2010. 2003, I think?
Yes, all previous process versions are supported by current software, however there wouldn't be much point in choosing 2003 over 2010 for new photos - it's more so old photos don't change until you change 'em.
customizer2 - have you left the building? (how about a little feedback now..).
I end up importing images that look listless... the mids are left hanging out there.
So, is it your belief that you can't get as good results with PV2012, or are you just not willing to fiddle to get there..?
* PV2010 fill tends to alter saturation (especially darker colors) in a fashion that is not necessarily true, but is often delightful - I think PV2012 colors are more accurate, although not necessarily more pleasing.
* You "should" be able to get those mids in shape by using the adjustments I outline previously - note: if lack of midtone contrast is the issue, you should be able to boost it (+contrast), as long as you keep highlights & shadows in check via -highlights +shadows. If "listlessness" is more due to color than contrast, then you may just need a saturation and/or vibrance boost. But also note: -blacks & +whites will also increase midtone contrast - so make sure you're keeping full dynamic range - PV2012 handles clipping nicely - I often employ *more* shadow clipping (highlight clipping too sometimes) in PV2012 than with legacy process versions. On the other hand, if you're cranking contrast up for the sake of those midtones, then you don't need so much -blacks.
* PV2010 fill has a sorta built in "clarity" - consider supplementing contrast with a little clarity (and a vib/sat boost maybe).
Also, if your supplemental lighting always results in a particular tonal arrangement which is part of the problem, consider saving a more optimal tone curve as preset or part of a camera calibration profile.
Not sure what else to say, except:
* there are fundamental differences in look n' feel that require psychological adaptation (and you may forever prefer PV2010 - dunno).
* there are fundamental differences in editing techniques - PV2012 is trickier, but in my opinion worth the effort.
So to reiterate my question: are your issues more due to differences in look and feel even when image is optimally edited, or are the issues due to difficulty (or complexity of, or impossibility of) editing optimally in PV2012?
Any feedback you can offer is appreciated,