2012 processing very flat compared to 2010...

Question

There are some differences in LR4 over LR3.5 or better said with 2010 processing against 2012 that I do not totally understand neither like.
For example, when import RAW files from the 5D MKIII they look totally diferent once loaded in LR than what they look on the Canon software or the JPgs out of the camera. They look very flat, like missing contrast.
shoud not Lightroom render the RAW images as similar as possible from what the camera or vendor render them with their software? if I select the 2010 processing, they look a lot more similar to what the Canon software renders and don't look flat at all.
Also, bright and contrast are gone, what is the equivalent of that now?
Thanks

Answer 1

There are 2 options
1. learn how to use the 2012 tools for your images
2. keep working with 2010 and miss out on so many powerful tools
3. aperture / bibble / ACDSEE / zonerStudio
I'm loving 2012, but it took about 200 photos from various scenarios to get my head around being able to set the shadows to more than +20 and not get noise like I would if I set the fill to more than +15.
The same applies for  boosting the whites and even lifting the blacks to +20 or more. Yes eventually you will get noise from pushing the blacks to more than +70 and the shadows the same, but hit auto, look at the photo and provided you have a well calibrated monitor, and time to experiment, you will learn to really work much faster with a more versatile tool.
Of course if you really don't want to use 2012 you can choose option 2, which is to not render the images in the 2012 calibration, but then you are missing out on a great tool.
Rob Cole has written reams and reams of posts about his experiences with  2012, he's had trite responses and unkind comments as he's documented his struggle with 2012. As you can see above, he's now a convert and loves it.
If you want to quickly learn to love 2012, push the clarity up to over 40, lift the blacks from wherever they are by 5-15 points and see the localised contrast just sing.
Its particually fabulous for male sports features - not so kind on female faces and skin.
Back to your comment about rendering images similar to the jpeg compressed and oversaturated oversharpened approximation of the photograph that you carefully composed. Nope, the jpeg is compressed, depending on your settings, over saturated and often over sharpened, its colour is often way off and a RAW image is largely a white canvas to work from.
Hit Auto tone and Auto White Balance and work from there. I find the Auto Tone can sometimes go crazy, other times its pretty close to where I want to be.
At the moment, I'm trying not to push the clarity above 15, but sometimes, it just has to be >40.
Play with it, dont consider that +20 shadows for one photo is the same as +20 for the next, cos its all relative - which is frustrating to begin with. However as photography is an art, nothing should be absolute.
It does take time, but like the models, its worth it