2012 Process Version Alters Exposure/Contrast/Tone Curve

In working with the LR4 beta, I've come across a couple odd results.  I imported some image folders containing raw, tiff and jpeg.  The images were updated to the 2012 Process Version on import.  I noticed that I had not saved out the metadata on the raw files for earlier edits in LR3.  I closed LR4, opened LR3, saved out the metadata, reopened LR4, read the metadata from the files and this, unsurprisingly, reverted them back to the 2010 Process Version.  When I update the raw images to the 2012 Process Version, the Exposure is reduced by 1 stop and Contrast is set to -33.  Additionally, a significant Tone Curve adjustment is made.  No such alterations occur to tiff or jpeg files in toggling back and forth between 2010 and 2012.
Please advise.
Thanks.

Eric, I guess what I'm trying to figure out is if they aren't going to 'look' the same then why would that be.  Further, if no changes to the file were made (i.e., exposure, recovery, curves, etc) then why would there be such a radical change to the image on updating to a new process version? 
As I noted earlier, I don't recall that updating to the 2010PV from the prior made such a change to images.  In fact I just tried it.  I switched back to 2003, then to 2010 then to 2012.  No change to the image going from 2003 to 2010.  Big change going from either 2003 to 2012 or 2010 to 2012.  To my way of thinking, if I take an image processed with the 2010PV and am happy with the way it looks (it's displayed on my website, I've printed and sold it, etc.) then I update to the 2012 PV I shouldn't have to re-edit the image to get the same 'look'.  I understand that due to the different controls some of the positions of the sliders may be different.  But the two images shouldn't 'look' different.  Take another example.  If I've got a set of images from a commercial shoot, have edited them in LR and provided to the client, then I update those images to the 2012PV in LR 4 and the resulting images aren't the same, I've got to spend time (and money) re-editing to get back to what I had before.  Does that seem right?  It sure doesn't to me.  It seems, actually, the exact opposite of what should be. 
In the screen grabs above, this is a marked change to the image.  It's categorically not just a difference in slider/control positions to get the same 'look'.  It's a completely different image with a completely different look.  The file has been radically altered.  To me, that shouldn't be the case.
EDIT:  I guess we were posting at the same time, Eric.  Sorry, I understand the explanation but it just doesn't make a lot of sense. 

Similar Messages

  • Clarity slider and tone curve in LR4

    Why does the clarity slider seem different to me in LR4 (4.1 RC actually)? IN LR3 I loved that thing. I would ramp it up quite a bit with many photos. It would give it a nice crisp look. Now it seems as if it just makes my shots look like they have too much contrast. Also, when using the clarity brush, many times it seems as if where I paint it on it actually lightens it up. I havce had to look as see if I had the exposure tool on instead.
    Also, I swear a "medium contrast" tone curve setting is different now as well. This was the default setting in LR3. Now default is linear. But if I apply a medium curve from the drop down, it looks over cooked? What the heck? Are these things just me? BTW I am working RAW files. Thanks

    If you want a PV2010 linear tone curve for PV2012, using the DNG Profile Editor (DPE):
    * convert any raw file to DNG (if not already DNG)
    * load it into the DPE
    * Edit things if you want, except for the tone curve.
    * Save the recipe.
    * Load it (dcpr file) into a text editor.
    * Replace the tone curve with this:
    <dngclr:ToneCurve rdf:parseType="Resource">
    <dngclr:Edit0 rdf:parseType="Resource">
    <dngclr:X>0</dngclr:X>
    <dngclr:Y>0</dngclr:Y>
    </dngclr:Edit0>
    <dngclr:Edit1 rdf:parseType="Resource">
    <dngclr:X>17</dngclr:X>
    <dngclr:Y>26</dngclr:Y>
    </dngclr:Edit1>
    <dngclr:Edit2 rdf:parseType="Resource">
    <dngclr:X>34</dngclr:X>
    <dngclr:Y>44</dngclr:Y>
    </dngclr:Edit2>
    <dngclr:Edit3 rdf:parseType="Resource">
    <dngclr:X>51</dngclr:X>
    <dngclr:Y>60</dngclr:Y>
    </dngclr:Edit3>
    <dngclr:Edit4 rdf:parseType="Resource">
    <dngclr:X>68</dngclr:X>
    <dngclr:Y>74</dngclr:Y>
    </dngclr:Edit4>
    <dngclr:Edit5 rdf:parseType="Resource">
    <dngclr:X>85</dngclr:X>
    <dngclr:Y>89</dngclr:Y>
    </dngclr:Edit5>
    <dngclr:Edit6 rdf:parseType="Resource">
    <dngclr:X>102</dngclr:X>
    <dngclr:Y>105</dngclr:Y>
    </dngclr:Edit6>
    <dngclr:Edit7 rdf:parseType="Resource">
    <dngclr:X>119</dngclr:X>
    <dngclr:Y>120</dngclr:Y>
    </dngclr:Edit7>
    <dngclr:Edit8 rdf:parseType="Resource">
    <dngclr:X>136</dngclr:X>
    <dngclr:Y>135</dngclr:Y>
    </dngclr:Edit8>
    <dngclr:Edit9 rdf:parseType="Resource">
    <dngclr:X>153</dngclr:X>
    <dngclr:Y>151</dngclr:Y>
    </dngclr:Edit9>
    <dngclr:Edit10 rdf:parseType="Resource">
    <dngclr:X>170</dngclr:X>
    <dngclr:Y>167</dngclr:Y>
    </dngclr:Edit10>
    <dngclr:Edit11 rdf:parseType="Resource">
    <dngclr:X>187</dngclr:X>
    <dngclr:Y>183</dngclr:Y>
    </dngclr:Edit11>
    <dngclr:Edit12 rdf:parseType="Resource">
    <dngclr:X>204</dngclr:X>
    <dngclr:Y>200</dngclr:Y>
    </dngclr:Edit12>
    <dngclr:Edit13 rdf:parseType="Resource">
    <dngclr:X>221</dngclr:X>
    <dngclr:Y>218</dngclr:Y>
    </dngclr:Edit13>
    <dngclr:Edit14 rdf:parseType="Resource">
    <dngclr:X>238</dngclr:X>
    <dngclr:Y>236</dngclr:Y>
    </dngclr:Edit14>
    <dngclr:Edit15 rdf:parseType="Resource">
    <dngclr:X>255</dngclr:X>
    <dngclr:Y>255</dngclr:Y>
    </dngclr:Edit15>
    </dngclr:ToneCurve>
    * Re-save the file in your text editor
    * Re-load the changed recipe in DPE
    * Export a profile with a tone curve equivalent to PV2010 linear.
    Note: The tone/point curve in Lightroom will not have any points on it that way.
    PS - This procedure assumes you will be using the "Base Profile" for "Base Tone Curve" in order to achieve equivalence with PV2010 linear in PV2012 (for the same Cam-cal profile(s)). If what you want is a truly linear tone curve, select "Linear" as "Base Tone Curve".
    Rob

  • When updating to PV2012, is it expected to see modifications in existing tone curves?

    Just looking for clarifiication here: I realize PV2012 must make adjustments in order to emulate previous editing.
    When I update the process version of a previously processed image I notice the tone curve is changed as well. Is that typical?
    Thanks,
    Bob

    rjmooreii wrote:
    Thanks for that, Rob.
    You're welcome .
    rjmooreii wrote:
    but with the Shadows boosted a notch. This is what spurred my question.
    There may be something going on that I am not aware of. If difference is +/- 1 it could be chalked up as numerical roundoff, but if more than that, then it sounds like there is something else going on that I am not aware of, in which case consider posting examples that include numerical values.
    Thanks for bringing this to my/our attention.
    Rob

  • I was processing pictures and the Basic function on the right has disapeared ( the one that has Exposure etc) I know see the Histogram, then Tone Curve, HSL/Color/B

    I was processing pictures and the Basic function on the right has disappeared, the one that contains Exposure, Contrast etc. I now have only the Histogram, Paint Brush etc, then it goes to Tone Curve, HSL/Color/B&W and all others down to Camera Calibration. How can I recuperate Basic ?? Thanks for your help

    i have now found where the OS permission is located but cannot find a way to change it. Here is what I have done:
    - Selected the Local Disk Folder
    - Chose  File>Get Info
    - Click on Sharing and Permissions (It shows Read Only)
    Now this is where I am stuck, the instruction in Apple Support says "Select a user or Group from the Name Column then choose the following Pop-Up menu in the Priviliges column(this is where the Read &Write option should be. I can't choose a user or group under the name column, all I have in the Name column is "Local Disk"
    Can someone help me from here to convert to Read & Write, thanks

  • Process version 2010 to 2012 update differences...why?

    I am a retired computer professional and I have used LR since V3 first came out and have recently updated my photos from process version 2010 to PV2012.  I used the batch process as I have ~200 GB of photos. My batch process is as follows:
    In the Library module, I clicked on > Library> select Show Photos in Subfolders. I then selected the Develop module, opened a folder and selected the first photo and manually clicked on the ! icon to Update to Current Process (2012).  I then added all the photos in the filmstrip to my selection.  I then clicked on Sync button to open the Synchronize Settings dialog and clicked on Check None and then check marked only Process Version and clicked on Synchronize.
    I noticed that the batch process zeroed out all my settings in the Develop module Basic dialog.  I no longer have my previous 2010 settings listed for the photo and in some cases it looks like some of the images have defaulted to an unprocessed state (under or overexposed, lack of color saturation).  If  I select a photo in the Develop module and go History and select the setting just prior to the "Synchronize Settings"  to render it back to PV2010 and click on the image ! icon to update just that one photo, I get a totally different result.  I retain the previous settings in the Basic tab and only the new LR4 tool settings are changed.and the History then states "Update to Current Process (2012)".
    1.  Why the different labeled result in History for the two processes? 
    2.  Why are completely different results achieved in Develop module between the batch vs the manual update processes?
    3.  Have the photos really been updated from process version 2010 to PV2012 using the batch process listed above?  As far as I know, I did the batch process correctly, as I even double checked online prior to processing in batch.
    4.  Can the images be "batched" back to PV2010?   Would they change the photos that have been added since acquiring LR4 that are in PV2012?  I can load last weeks backup PV2010 LR4 catalog, but I have added new photos since then and it would be a hassle to process them over again.
    I am NOT happy with the results of my process update due to the loss of  Develop Module Basic settings and in the completely different results achieved between the batch vs the manual update processes.  I would like to keep my old settings that are not impacted by the PV2012 change and now they are gone in my current catalog. 
    Adobe, is this a BUG or a FEATURE?

    In my opinion: not a good idea to convert old photos en-batch.
    Recommend: convert (hand-selected photos) one at a time, or just use PV2012 on new photos.
    There are more than one reason:
    * As you know, process conversion yields very different results (if photo has been substantially edited).
    * It takes some time to polish your PV2012 editing skills.
    * Often when you are comparing PV2012 results to previous PV2010 results (which you've become familiar with, and like...), you may interpret differences in a more negative light, than if you were using PV2012 without comparing to a previous PV2010 version.
    This last one can not be over-stated. Numerous times I have converted and been disappointed, at least initially. Recovered highlights can seem like loss of contrast. Detail in shadows can be distracting after initial conversion, until you step back for a while, then re-look at it...
    Also, the process version itself (results I mean) takes some getting used to (even when not comparing to a previous legacy-pv edit). e.g. if you've become attached to the over-saturated shadows in previous process version, the shadows seem under-saturated in PV2012, etc...
    Rob

  • Which do you prefer: Increasing exposure or adjusting  the tone curve?

    I'd like to know how people here handle their images.
    I use a Nikon D7100 in camera RAW. In camera my images are always in balance. In LR, if I select Auto Tone in Basics invariably it will adjust the exposure. I tend to adjust exposure near last in my workflow because I assume my camera had the exposure setting right. When I feel I need to adjust the exposure my first stop is the Tone Curve. I'm wondering a couple of things:
    1) I know we edit by the specifics of each photo, but generally do you make adjustments to Exposure or the Tone Curve first?
    2) Is there a reason or a time to prefer one over the other?
    Thanks,

    My recommendation:
    (note: I am interpreting "exposure", in your question, to mean "dynamic range at right wall of histogram", i.e. white point)
    Adjust basics exposure first (before tone/point curve), but note: you may not be able to go all the way using the exposure slider. Next stop (if necessary): +whites, but note: it may not be optimal to go all the way using whites. Final stop (if necessary): cinch in the the exposure by dragging white point to the left via the point curve.
    Rationale: basics have some intelligence and magic that tone curve does not. If you do tone curve first, you've missed some opportunities..
    Still a begging question: how much exposure vs. whites vs. tone curve (point curve).
    Note: go easy on the contrast at first, and assure blacks are sufficiently seated using blacks slider (and maybe tone/point curve).
    Likewise, cranking whites up will increase global contrast, so if you take a shot at blacks and whites before contrast, then you may avoid a common mistake: radically wrong contrast due to adjusting before establishing ballpark black & white slider values.
    Anyway, be aware that increased PV2012 exposure (and/or whites) is designed to be used with -highlights (note: there is no "brightness" slider), and to avoid making things too washed out (or over-jamming the highlights) it may be desirable to substitute +whites and/or +shadows for some +exposure.
    Note: tones may gang up (on the right side of the histogram) in a non-optimal way when using +exposure and/or +whites, in which case it may be better to use point curve for white point adjustment (e.g. leftward drag). For example, sometimes the whites will be overly compressed if you don't bring white point in on the curve instead.
    Rules of thumb:
    Most of my normal photos end up with:
    +exposure (to fully brighten)
    +whites (for full dynamic range without excessive exposure setting)
    -highlights (for dialing back +exposure and/or +whites)
    +shadows (so -blacks and doesn't leave image with overly dark shadows)
    -blacks (for full dynamic range without needing as much contrast)
    *contrast: depends - if overly contrasty to begin with (or a lot of -blacks and/or +whites are employed), this usually gets dialed back; if underly contrasty to begin with (or +blacks and/or -whites have been employed), this usually gets bumped up.
    (for abnormal photos or when desiring abnormal results - anything goes..).
    Other common mistakes (in addition to wrong contrast and/or non-optimal balance between exposure & whites..):
    trying to recover highlights via -whites. try -highlights (and maybe +whites) before -whites.
    Warning signs:
    if you have very high values for +shadows and -highlights, you may have contrast set too high.
    if you have a positive value for highlights, you may have contrast/exposure/whites too low.
    if you have a negative value for shadows, you may have contrast too low, or blacks/exposure too high.
    Miscellaneous:
    Try +clarity and +saturation (and/or +vibrance) to pump it up, if reduced contrast and/or increased exposure has left it looking a little washed out.. (likewise, -saturation if +contrast has left it looking a little too "rich"..).
    You already know this, but for the sake of completeness (and other readers): you can learn by clicking 'Auto Tone' "button". You may need to dial back the exposure afterward etc. but it can be very educational none-the-less..
    Of course, you can always fine-tune tone using tone curve (e.g. if image is just way overbright, like some snow shots, try tugging the midpoint downward..).
    Don't forget the locals for final spot toning.
    In case you haven't gleaned yet, adjusting via PV2012 is not the same as you might think at first - you don't just set exposure/black/white points and leave them, and then adjust everything else. e.g. -highlights pulls white point down more than -whites does (but +whites brings white point back up, which means you usually need to adjust in tandem..), so be prepared for a lot of back n' forth, to lessen with experience..
    PS - There are tutorial videos galore, but at the risk of opposing Adobe and their sycophants, be forewarned: some are geared to how they wished PV2012 was (simple), and not to how it really is (interdependent image-dependent settings..)   - examples:
    top-down is touted, but that ignores black/white point issues which can lead to radically wrong contrast (and/or exposure) setting.
    often, adjustment of blacks is considered optional/fine-tuning, but blacks sometimes need large value adjustment, and dramatically impacts contrast & shadow brightness..
    often, adjustment of whites is considered optional/fine-tuning, but sometimes optimal toning can only be had by using a large whites value adjustment, which dramatically impacts contrast, and exposure..
    cteavin wrote:
    I tend to adjust exposure near last in my workflow because I assume my camera had the exposure setting right.
    In case not clear yet, adjusting exposure and/or whites (and/or white point on curve) and all the rest is often done to turn an image "with potential" into a very nice image, not just to compensate for in-camera exposure imperfection. I have lots of under-exposed images that end with -exposure (granted, usually +whites), and vice-versas.. That said, if you don't know whether to crank it up or down, there is something to be said for passing until you do..
    Lastly, for emphasis: exposure slider is an intelligent slider. It behaves more like normal exposure adjusters at lower values, and more like brightness adjusters at higher values (has clipping protection and highlight roll-off logic which kicks in as you crank it up..). So, it's a mistake to think of adjusting it just to make up for non-optimal camera exposure setting.
    Sorry for verbose answer, but there is really no short answer which doesn't run the risk of being bad advice: best way to adjust "exposure" depends...
    Cheers,
    Rob

  • How do I retrieve the tone panel in Lightroom 5 (with the sliders for exposure, contrast, vibrancy etc which sits under the crop, red eye etc icons)

    How do I retrieve the tone panel in Lightroom 5 ( with the sliders for exposure, contrast, vibrancy etc which sits under the icons for cropping, red eye etc)?

    On a PC, right-click (Mac Cmd-click) on one of the other panel headings such as Tone Curve, Detail, etc. In the context menu that displays, make sure there is a checkmark in Basic. Another quick way to do it is Ctrl->1  or Cmd->1.

  • Changing between process version 2012 to 2010 in LR4

    I know that the sharpening and noise reduction was improved for the 2010 process version.  Were they improved more for the 2012 version?  I would love to swich back to 2010 but I just want to make sure I don't loose the better quality of the sharpening and noise reduction.  Thank you for any insight!!

    Lauren424 wrote:
    I would love to swich back to 2010
    I realize you didn't ask for help with PV2012 (or a lecture about how it's better...), but I can't help but wonder: Why?
    But to answer your question more specifically:
    * Clarity was improved in PV2012, but sharpening and NR are same as PV2010.
    Rob

  • Process Version 2012 - LR5

    Button in the lower-right corner of the photo to update to Current Process 2012 is gone in LR5?

    Thank you very much for your kind and insightful response.
    Could you help me with this other question:
    I noticed a odd behavior with regard photos imported em February 2013 with
    previous version or LR4:
    •             photos already adjusted have a new history step line: "From
    Metadata";
    •             photos not yet adjusted have the new history step line "Reset
    Settings" after the "import (dd-mm-yy hh:mm:ss)".
    Thanks in advance for your help.
    Daniel Bastos
    2013/8/24 ssprengel <[email protected]>
       Re: Process Version 2012 - LR5  created by ssprengel<http://forums.adobe.com/people/ssprengel>in
    Photoshop Lightroom - View the full discussion<http://forums.adobe.com/message/5623364#5623364

  • LR4: tone curve settings lost after upgrade

    I've find an annoying bug in this new version that makes me really crazy.
    I've a Nikon D300S and a D7000.
    After the importation of the catalog in the new Lightroom 4 all the D7000 .dng files have lost all the tone curve settings (I normally use linear).
    The D300S files instead retain the tone curve settings.
    It's a very strange behaviour: I've lost more than half of my old photo settings.
    It's really frustrating.
    Will be resolve soon this problem?
    Until that day, for my older works I'll be obliged to continue to use LR3.

    I've probably found a sort of workaround!
    I've made some "organized" tests and here I report my findings.
    Using LR3.5, I prepared a "test catalog" using 4 images from 7 different cameras (28 images total): for each of them, I used both the original nef and the dng converted file (56 files in the catalog), all develop process was set to "2010".
    The cameras were Nikon D70, D90, D200, D300s, D700, D5000, D7000.
    I applied a strong tone curve to each image in a way that the appearance was heavily characterized.
    Before exit LR3.5, I SAVED ALL THE METADATA TO THE FILES.
    Opening and converting the catalog using LR4, doesn't show any visual change until I zoom in library or open the develop module: both these operation lead to a flat image with the strong tone curve lost.
    Curiously, the history retains the original steps but they are ineffective: histogram and tone curve changes according to the visual change but for some camera the "new" tone curve is "medium contrast", for others (D5000, D90) is "linear", for D300s is "custom" (linear with blacks cut at 9.8%, and this explain my initial impression that D300s's curves were untouched, sorry). This last behavior may depend on the fact that I've different default develop settings depending on the camera serial number.
    Finally, the update to the 2012 process only minimally changes the visual appearance and surely doesn't restore the lost tone curves.
    And here is the UNEXPECTED WORKAROUND: doing a READ METADATA FROM FILES IT RESTORES THE TONE CURVES (and the 2010 process)! Upgrading the process to 2012 minimally changes the visual appearance again but now the strong tone curve is present and evident.

  • Tone curve RGB

    I am trying to alter individual RGB channels within the tone curve box, but I don't get a pop up dialoge box. I saw a mention of PV 2010 and PV 2003, but I don't know what these are, or if one can convert to them.

    Look in the camera calibration panel and it will tell you. Alternatively, if you're seeing the current set of sliders in the basic panel (e.g. highlights, shadows, etc.) then that would confirm you're using PV2012.
    Go to tone curve, click on the little curves button at the bottom, and you'll be in point curve mode. Click on the RGB button to choose a colour channel.
    As you're on the web, I recommend searching for "process version Lightroom" to find out more about that side of things.
    M

  • Tone Curve in Profile Help

    Hey all,
    Hoping the more talented tech gurus can help me out a bit here?
    I have custom camera profiles for each of my cameras, so that my colour is consistent across bodies.  They're all dual illuminant, some made in the old DNG profile editor, more recent ones in the Lightroom plug in from Xrite (Passport).
    The colour is excellent, but I always find the tone to be too contrasty for my preference.  When I look at the values on the step chart (greyscale patches) part of the McBeth checker they are not uniform / linear but rather already hold a contrast adding tone curve.  What I do in Lightroom is to take the TAT tool in the curves panel and move these points per patch until they are almost "linear" again.  In effect I apply a custom inverse S or reverse S to the image.  I then save this curve per camera and invoke it on import setting along with the colour profile.  I LOVE, LOVE the files I now get with this calibration, skin tones especially.
    BUT
    I now have my curve area of Lightroom being used essentially for calibration purposes, which robs me of it's use for creative purposes.  Thus, I'd like to do this tonal adjustment at the profile stage, in the .dcp file to free me up to use the curve panel to suit my artistic vision.
    SO
    The question is how do I visually target the tone curve in DNG Editor (or passport) to match those which I have created in the curve panel now?  I can eyeball it so they look similar, but it's a bit vague.  Either that or a way to visually adjust the tone curve while viewing the grey swatches within the DNG editor?
    The result should be the same as my custom camera profile plus my bespoke lightroom tone curve but all done in the .DCP file.
    Am I missing something?  Willing to be schooled always!
    Many thanks if you made it this far.
    (Note: I have posted this in LuLa too, so apologies to those who may frequent both)

    Here's a Lightroom tone curve (saved):
    <x:xmpmeta xmlns:x="adobe:ns:meta/" x:xmptk="Adobe XMP Core 5.5-c002 1.148022, 2012/07/15-18:06:45   
    ">
    <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
      <rdf:Description rdf:about=""
    xmlns:crs="http://ns.adobe.com/camera-raw-settings/1.0/"
       crs:Version="8.1"
       crs:ToneCurveName="Custom">
       <crs:ToneCurve>
    <rdf:Seq>
    <rdf:li>0, 0</rdf:li>
    <rdf:li>99, 92</rdf:li>
    <rdf:li>166, 156</rdf:li>
    <rdf:li>231, 223</rdf:li>
    <rdf:li>255, 255</rdf:li>
    </rdf:Seq>
       </crs:ToneCurve>
      </rdf:Description>
    </rdf:RDF>
    </x:xmpmeta>
    and here's the same tone curve in a .dcpr file:
    <dngclr:ToneCurve rdf:parseType="Resource">
        <dngclr:Edit0 rdf:parseType="Resource">
           <dngclr:X>0</dngclr:X>
           <dngclr:Y>0</dngclr:Y>
        </dngclr:Edit0>
        <dngclr:Edit1 rdf:parseType="Resource">
           <dngclr:X>99</dngclr:X>
           <dngclr:Y>92</dngclr:Y>
        </dngclr:Edit1>
        <dngclr:Edit2 rdf:parseType="Resource">
           <dngclr:X>166</dngclr:X>
           <dngclr:Y>156</dngclr:Y>
        </dngclr:Edit2>
        <dngclr:Edit3 rdf:parseType="Resource">
           <dngclr:X>231</dngclr:X>
           <dngclr:Y>223</dngclr:Y>
        </dngclr:Edit3>
        <dngclr:Edit4 rdf:parseType="Resource">
           <dngclr:X>255</dngclr:X>
           <dngclr:Y>255</dngclr:Y>
        </dngclr:Edit4>
    </dngclr:ToneCurve>
    If that's not enough to go on, do tell..

  • Process Version 2010

    I'm just curious how many other people out there are like me and still use Process Version 2010?  I find that I cannot achieve the same quality results using PV 2012 - those controls simply do not offer me the flexibilty and overal tonal control that I have with PV2010.  I shoot and edit fashion photography professionally, and I have very specific needs regarding tonality adjustments. I find I am reliant on Recovery, Fill Light, Blacks and Brightness sliders in order to fine tune lighting falloff on skin and clothing.  I have tried numerous times to use PV2012 but the results are far inferior to PV2010 for my needs.  Anyone else out there feel the same?  In case you're wondering, you can see examples of my PV 2010 work on pretty much all the photos on my website (davidwalden dot com). I just can't get these results with PV2012. 
    Out of curiosity, is there a technical reason why Adobe can't combine both process version controls, and offer all sliders from both versions in one layout?
    thanks,
    d

    trshaner wrote:
    Combining PV2012's and PV2010's controls would be like adding a 10-band audio frequency equalizer to your sound system and then still using the Bass and Treble controls. They simply wouldn't play (pun) together very well and would make PV2012 even more difficult to use.
    That's one way of looking at it, but I don't think the difference is that straighfroward. It's more like they've replaced some controls with other controls that they deem "superior", but honestly the 2 sets of controls yield completely difference results.  Based on the results that you want, you might prefer one set of controls over the other.  I definitely do not think that having both sets in one interface would make it more difficult - it would be the best solution.  That would be the 10-band equalizer you mentioned
    Highlights and Whites is supposed to be a more refined version of Recovery. I get that, and probably in some situations it is superior (architecture and nature photography). Btw, I looked at the Siggraph paper and yes, once again they are using architecture and naturally lit environments to show how much detail can be recovered.  Recovering detail, in a very basic sense, is only one (limited) use of a photo editing toolset.  Another (more important imho) use is controlling color and contrast on human skin at different tonality ranges.  This is my primary concern during photo editing, and architecture and nature photo editing does not address these concerns. I find that the contrast that I get in highlight regions using Recovery gives me better results. Also, I use this in combination with the ToneCurve - Lights and Highlights sliders - to tweak the highlight ratios.
    It is interesting that the 2012 Basic controls nearly mirror the ToneCurve sliders - Highlights, Lights, Darks and Shadows.  Now we have 2 sets of controls in 2012 - Basic and ToneCurve - that affect similar regions.  Is this redundant at all?  Perhaps.  I find that the ToneCurve and 2010 Basic controls actually compliment each other better, because they have distinct functional differences.   For example, the Blacks slider is more akin to setting a black points using a Levels adjustment in Photoshop.  This is different from using the Shadows slider in the ToneCurve, and different from setting the ToneCurve black point manually - these things yield different results. From my experience it is better to use the Blacks slider for this, and then tweak the value using the ToneCurve black point manually (although I typically use the the manual ToneCurve points for adjusting contrast, not for setting black points - that's why an additional Levels adjustment widget would be a superior solution imho).
    Also, getting back to my earlier point about contrast at different tonalities, one thing that I have historically used Blacks and Fill Light in PV2010 is for adding/controlling *mid-tone* contrast.  Increasing these together has the effect of increasing contrast in mid-tonal regions where previously no contrast was perceptible. This is an important part of color correction process. I have tried to replicate this effect in PV2012, but the mid-tones loose the contrast and detail. Adjusting the PV2012 Shadows and Blacks sliders from my experience produces "smooth" results, but not "desireable" results. Meaning that, the darker tonalities are lifted, but the contrast and detail is lost.
    I will try to post one or more examples showing some of these concerns.  I appreciate all the feedback you guys give.
    -d

  • Lightroom 5 Tone Curve

    Hey  i m really a newbie to lightroom 5 and i sometimes come across a issue while using a tone curve ... that for some images the Tone curve displays "Channel" options and for some not ... my question is how to make it visible for all images .. please help ..and thanks

    Make sure the process version on the image is set to 2012. Look in Camera Calibration.

  • Natural Tone Curve

    Hi
    I try to find a "Natural Tone Curve", meaning a tone curve which accounts for the non-linearity of human vision, but no pleasant tweaks added. I wonder in how far the interacting tone curve combo of PE/CR is such curve.
    1-in the PE:
    In
    Eric Chan, "Starting profile for ColorChecker calibration in PE" #1, 24 Oct 2008 6:01 am
    you (Eric) state that
    "The Chart Wizard is designed to produce a reasonably accurate scene-referred color profile (within the technical limits of the input data)."
    I wonder if this includes the little indent to the right at the base of the base curve? Or should I flatten this out, setting the starting point to 0/0? The indent seems to correspond to the Blacks +5 setting in CR.
    2-in CR:
    Is the Medium Contrast S-curve really part of the difference between human vision and linearity? Or should I set it to linear to be most natural?
    In particular, again, the part reflecting the deepest shadows seems to be quite deliberately tweaked.
    Thank you for your input.

    Hi Eric,
    thank you for a VERY fast reply! -
    I learn that perceptual linearity is handled by ICC profiles, not by tone curves in the PE or in ACR. -
    The advice you give to avoid pleasant tweaks is the recipe for a linear image, as you have given it to Brent Townshend
    http://www.adobeforums.com/webx/.59b71da3/0
    This was not what I had in mind. I am aware of that a linear image will not look natural.
    In terms of the scene referred workflow as described by Tindemans
    http://21stcenturyshoebox.com/essays/scenereferredworkflow.html
    what I search for might be described as a subdivision of step 2 (called creative processing). There must be an area between linear and purely arbitrary, we might call it natural. The fact that this area can not be easily defined let alone measured objectively ought not to preclude us from at least identifying and naming it. As it is now, we can not even in terms separate between natural, and beautified ad libitum. Arbitrariness is being presented as unavoidable.
    So my question aimed at: (How) can I make a base curve that is natural, but not beautified (by exaggerating the contrast)?
    "The Chart Wizard is designed to produce a reasonably accurate *scene-referred* color profile" - but how is the "rendering intent" of the Base Curve?
    I tried your advice with the linear curve in the PE + lightening in ACR on both the ColorChecker image and a real scene. The CC could be made look reasonable. But this is an image where the histogram has headroom on either side. So I experienced it like you said: this may work with an image whose DR matches that of the medium. With the real scene, whose histogram stretched end-to-end in the first place, using the Exposure slider led to highlight clipping at once, as exspected; instead, I had to use the Brightness slider - that is increase the contrast, if I understand it correctly.
    So it looks like-:
    1-The task of the Base Curve is to map the DR of an image to that of the screen
    2-If there is any answer to my question, it is image-dependent. On the other hand: the PE uses ONE Base Curve. So the question may be allowed: What is the "rendering intent" of that curve?
    Kind regards - Hening.

Maybe you are looking for