PV2012 locals sometimes don't behave well...

Question

Here's one example:
The squiggles are due to local paint with highlights = -30.
Note: global highlight reduction of same, or greater strength, does not result in so much darkness, nor so much desaturation.
Note2: marked darkening/grayness/desaturation occurs even at much lower values for -highlights, e.g. -5 (I increased value to exagerate the problem).
Here is the raw+xmp, zipped:
http://www.robcole.com/LrForumSupport/20120505RC193027NB4328.O.zip
I have noticed many other less extreme but similarly-flavored cases.
Others have reported similar "unexpected" (to the layman) behaviors too, e.g.
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1214206
(see posts about white bed-sheet made "gray-ish" by applying -exposure local, such did not occur when reducing exposure globally)
Rob

Answer 1

Previous text here was deleted...
[edit]:
OK, after more experimental painting, I see that the grayness is really only in the parts that were nearest to over-exposure - which was the *only* part painted initially (I think you tried to tell me that - sorry it took so long for me to arrive there...). Still, I'm not sure why the color would be so different in the brightest parts like that, I mean *none* of the channels were blown, right? Oh well, at least I have a better handle on it than I did before.
Question: it was near-to-impossible to get the paint to lay down the same way as originally painted - has there been some change to the paint-flow algorithm, or was it just me...?
[/edit]
[edit #2]:
OK, so I was pretty much wrong about part 2 also, wasn't I? - local effect and strength is close to the global... Cr@p - I hate being wrong! . The bottom line is that the behavior of highlights slider when the tonal distribution is as it is in this photo is very "squirrelly" (for lack of a better word) - highlights adjustment is extremely sensitive and reaches way past the midline into the shadows - way more so than exposure does, which seems counter-intuitive, but is not entirely out of character for pv12, this is just a very extreme case...
[/edit #2]
Anyway, here are some snapshots which illustrate the phenomenon
http://www.robcole.com/Rob/Personal/Pictures/LrForumSupport.cfm?embedSWF&openDir=Bad%20Moo n&openFile=20120505RC193027NB4328.O._v_Copy%201.jpg
Note: you may have to context-click the link and choose "Open Link in New...".
Tip: use the big button, the full button, and the i button; click the next button repeatedly to compare.
[edit #3]:
Original settings, with snail trails:
note: Global basics did most of the heavy lifting, but there is also a subtle tone curve and some other subtle adjustments.
As finished:
note: Global basics did most of the heavy lifting, but there is also a subtle tone curve and some other subtle adjustments.
Note: Nikon D300, ISO2000.
Explanation:
* Exposure was brought up to brighten the sky without relying soley on shadows slider.
* Contrast was brought down to decompress/debrighten moon and decompress/brighten dark tones: note: there are no midtones, per se, and contrast could be even more negative, but if too negative, there is a loss of richness that is hard to regain using +vib/sat/clarity...
* Highlights negative to de-brighten the moon, which was already over-bright, and to compensate for raised exposure.
* Shadows positive to assist exposure in brightening the sky.
* Whites negative to keep moon from being over-bright, -highlights alone does not suffice... (moon had "vividness" to spare, so to speak, and a little "dulling" via -whites was actually a plus in this case). Worth noting: -highlights darkens the sky too, a lot (even though not in the highlight tonal range as most people would think of it), -whites: not so much. It was primarily the "hyper-sensitive" (and non intuitive) behavior of the highlights slider, which made this photo such a challenge to edit in PV2012 (original edit was during Lr4 beta, before I had as much experience with pv12).
* Blacks must be negative to keep trees from being under-black and over-noisy - I wanted them to be silohuette black... Also, -blacks had the (in this case fortunate) side effect of bringing out (exagerating) the blue in the night sky.
* Clarity primarily to enhance moon detail (could have used local on the moon, e.g. radial gradient in Lr5). There was already sufficient tree/sky separation due to the -blacks +shadows combo, and one of the subtle locals was to decrease shadow strength around the tree/sky line, for a more natural look.
* Saturation because, well, I like color... (and strong negative contrast robs some color, no pun intended).
Note: I experimented with "less extreme" settings, and there were other combos that were ok-ish, but without strong adjustments, as I was able to make them, this photo just couldn't make the cut, as I judged it, and would have been discarded.
[/edit]
PS - I am open to seeing an interpretation of this photo which employs "less extreme" (more moderate) settings, if anybody else is willing to give it a whorl...
~R.
Message was edited (3 times) by: Rob Cole
PPS - big thanks to Vit .