An visual illustration of my problem with V4's "process 2012"

Question

Tonight's sunset taken with a Nikon D700 w/400mm f2.8 lens. Here is the same photo and its virtual copy with very little done to them yet except one is set to 2012 and the other set to 2010. both were left at Adobe Standard, then set to auto tone to get the fairest comparison possible:
2012. Notice the thick yellow transition of mostly one color. While the background looks a little clearer, you must butcher it to death in order to smooth out that ugly band. 
And I am pretty sure the shadow color is very slightly "off".  I realize that "off" is relative, but I would call this one "off" because it is the newer process. This 2012 color might actually look slightly better, but that's not the point --it should look identical to 2010 "as shot". But I can live with that --the big issue is what is causing the thick ugly band.
2010:   Notice that the gradient from bright to dark is much smoother (and easier to work with). This is a much easier start point for developing.  I'd say 10 steps max would turn this into a decent image.  I have no idea if it could even be done in 2012.
This is the core of my problem with 2012 --the contrast does not work evenly across all brightnesses.  They made some things look good at the great expense of others. You cannot adjust one brightness range of a photo without thoroughly trashing another. 
2012 appears to work great on perfect auto-matrix-exposed photos of medium dynamic range.  Another kind of photo I take are action event photos in uneven arena lighting which are all deliberately underexposed because there is no second chance to capture a winning moment (a blown-out photo will not get used by an exhibitor -- this camera body is quite forgiving of underexposure). These are similarly difficult to work with in 2012 for the same reasons.
How many types of different photos (e.g., action, portrait, landscape, various exposure extremes, etc)  was this alpha version tested on?  And who do they have evaluating these test results, software engineers or actual artists?
One answer might be to just keep using 2010 --that is not the point I am trying to make.  That would mean this product is no longer improving for me, the user.
Any constructive feedback, suggestions, links, history lessons, etc. would be very appreciated.

Answer 1

Hi George,
You're welcome. And, nice view from your backyard!
Yeah, I think it's a common mistake to dive into the shadows or highlights slider before taking a good-enough whack at exposure. And, in my opinion, nothing wrong with doing that, as long as you remember that exposure is a very key adjustment in PV2012, and it should always be revisited before finalizing / fine tuning. It's always good to take a whack at contrast too before hitting highlights and shadows, but in my opinion, it is far less critical to overall tonability than exposure is. Once exposure is set correctly, you can fine tune contrast & highlights/shadows with relative impunity, but it does not work so well to try and set contrast/highlights/shadow and then fine tune exposure.
Also, it's possible that exposure needs to be set higher on average than most newerbies realize, and if it's too bright knock it down with -highlights and -blacks. The opposite may also be true for some people, I don't know. But for me, in Lr3, I was very careful not to set exposure too high for fear of blowing out the highlights (and not being a big fan of Lr3 highlight recovery), *and* I was careful not to set brightness too high to keep from washing out the midtones. Which left fill-light, which I used to brighten, but Lr3 fill would often degrade quality if pushed too hard. So, I often lived with not optimally brightened photos, brightened here or there with a touch of tone curve (and/or locals).
That same technique does not work so well in Lr4, since shadows slider may not have enough kick to it until exposure is boosted - one of the reasons people coming from Lr3 often complain about Lr4 shadows slider, before they've really learned how to set exposure.
In Lr4, highlight recovery is sorta like an improved right-side version of Lr3 fill. i.e. one can "over-brighten", and rely on highlights slider to check it (analogous to "under-brightening" in Lr3 and using fill to compensate). -whites is more akin to Lr3 highlight recovery, only different...
Another thing: I almost always start out editing with the exact same values for -highlights as +shadows. And only during fine tuning, maybe choose to diverge. It's surprising how often having those values equal and opposite can allow one to find the correct exposure, and only then, maybe, skew highlights/shadows, as a fine tuning thing.
Also, for concert photos, or any other situation when there is a big lump of really dark tones that are important, and a small lump of really light tones that are important (e.g. concert lights), and a dearth of midtones, -whites and +blacks sliders can play bigger roles than -highlights and +shadows for "recovery & fill", than in other more "normal" photos.
Lastly, my Lr4 tone curves, more often than not (and more often than in Lr3), have a debrightening shape to them, since sometimes it seems good to set exposure higher than I really want in order to achieve overall "tonability", then drop brightness strategically using the curve (and/or locals).
I'm sure other people do things differently with equal success.
PS - Where should I send the DNG? (you can contact me via PM or my website).
Final thoughts:
The "recipe" I've given here (-blacks, +whites, relatively high exposure & contrast, fairly strong -highlight = +shadows, a modicum of clarity) makes for a very punchy photo with highly detailed shadows, midtones, and highlights. I tend to like such a look on many photos - shooting landscapes and macros, etc... But it can be a bit too intense for portraits or if for whatever reason you prefer a more subtle "natural"/neutral look. One of the awesome things about PV2012 is that you can control the style of look you get. If you want the opposite, then do the opposite, e.g. easy on the -blacks or even use +blacks instead of +shadows, back off on the contrast and exposure so you need less -highlights, use whites = 0 or -whites. You can end up with a very old-school photo kinda look that way - more subtle and gentle, softer...
Rule 5: Enjoy!
Cheers,
Rob