Shadow slider banding artifacts in PV2012

I've been pixel peeping the same images I have uploaded in this post (it is still available for download) and found some artiafcts. Note the banding in the shadow under the ski tip:
Click the image to view at 100%.
I've been dragging a lot of sliders back and forth and found that the Shadow seem to be the root cause. Though, resampling caused by Lens Corrections seems to make matters worse. Also, high Noise Reduction seems to exaggerate the issue, wiping the noise that naturally interferes with the banding artifacts.

FYI, it's been fixed in the final release.

Similar Messages

Shadows slider in Elements 7 ACR 5.6

I started shooting in jpeg + raw with my Nikon D90. I’m trying to learn how to make my images as accurate as possible. I bought a book about using camera raw that seemed to be aimed at the version of Photoshop Elements I use, Version 7. However, in addition to dealing with acr in Photoshop Elements 7, it also deals with similar versions of both Photoshop and Lightroom.
I’m trying to optimize an action shot of a fourth grade football team, taken between 12pm-1pm with daylight saving time, so the lighting would be 11am-12pm standard time. I figured this would be a good image to play with because the white balance would be fairly easy to set.
One team had white pants, white helmets, and deep red jerseys while the other team had white pants, white helmets, and white jerseys. Because it was basically bright noonday sun, it is a high contrast scene, with both shadows and highlights clipped. I realize the image is beyond the dynamic range of the camera senor, but I want to get it as close as possible. I’ll probably have to let a few highlights go, in addition to specular highlights that occur on the helmets and white uniforms.
In a section of the book dealing with shadow and highlight clipping, there is a reference to a “shadows” slider. However, my acr, version 5.6, has no shadow slider. Which slider in my acr interface is the equivalent slider? As far as I can tell, the book makes no mention of either the recovery or fill light sliders that are on my acr interface, except to show them within a figure.
I want to use the “alt key” option to view the clipped shadow and highlights to help optimize the exposure and other things.
Your assistance is very much appreciated.

Try the Blacks slider, right under Fill Light.

Noise brought up with the Shadows slider in ACR vs. Curves in PS

Is there any difference in the amount of noise brought up when I lighten dark tones (the same amount) with the Shadows slider in ACR vs. using Curves in PS?
Thanks!

I think what you meant to say was “When the range of the brightnesses in the scene”.
But even then, it is not very practical. Not all the parts of scene need to be reproduced. Some can be plugged, while some can be clipped.
Now, if the range of brightnesses for the important part of the scene exceeds the DR of the sensor and shadows are plugged at image capture, no shadow lifting can help. In fact, such an action results in murky shadows with more visible noise and blotches.
I think your estimation of 99% is a strong hyperbole. Kodak determined that close to 8 stops is enough for most of the situations, and if they were wrong their film business would never have existed in the first place.

Re iPhoto 9.4 shadow slider problem:

Has anyone noticed the changed behaviour of what used to be (in iPhoto 08) a useful tool? It used to brighten only shadows, now it brightens just about everything. Is there any way to get it to work the way it used to?

John,
for me the Highlights and Shadows sliders work like before. They increase the brightness of the shadow areas.
Are you using iPhoto 9.4.2?
Do you see the problem only with specific photos, for example underexposed photos, or with all photos?
If you look at the histogram while moving the "Shadows" slider, you will see that it will stretch the contrast of pixels that are darker than 50% of the maximum intensity level. If your photo is badly underexposed, and all pixels are in this range, then all levels will be raised by the slider.
One way to solve this for underexposed photos is to adjust the exposure before using the "Highlights and Shadows" sliders.
Does it not work for you like this? Then please explain in more detail, what you see. Perhaps a screenshot will help.
Regards
Léonie

Shadow slider acting odd / RED workflow

I’m experiencing something odd with the shadow slider.
I’ll describe my problem, then the workflow.
I use the shadow slider to bring down the blacks, I’m watching the waveform, and when the trace gets to the 10-15ire mark, it starts moving very quickly*. What I end up getting is a bit of posterization in the shadows.
Usually, I adjust the Master lift in the Primary room first (sometimes I just use the shadow slider). I bring shadows down to 0, then tweak master gain and gamma. I experience the same thing with Master Lift.
I’ve noticed that in the [Settings 2] tab, if I change Override the header from Linear to Film, the shadows seem to behave how I am accustomed to. (with other footage, ProRes422, that I’ve graded in color)
I am working with R3D files. I’ve been experimenting with the RED tab, and nothing I do in there seems to effect the shadow.
I feel like there is something fundamental that I am missing, and I’d LOVE to know what that is.
Can anyone help? Do you need more info?
I feel like the problem lies in the header settings, but I don’t know enough about that to do something intelligently. And if I change something, what the repercussions might be.
Thanks
*I’m used to an even movement as I watch the trace move down the WFM.

jPo
JP Owens wrote:
any LUT (such as color space settings) that the crew may have dialed in on set, are thrown out
I thought the Primary In RED tab settings are whatever the metadata settings were when the R3D file was created... feel free to correct me on this.
I'm not certain of this... I know the proxies take on this look (sort of) as to ProRes imports via the L&T tool in FCP. However I haven't worked with much footage where they were was a DIT actually applying looks into the metadata. I've yet to look at proxies that look close to right (however I cut with them as offline 99% of the time), and when I tested the "Native" workflow and sent to Color, the look did not translate, it came in looking closer to the way raw looks in Redcine.
not sure what the crew was monitoring holds any bering on what your doing inside Color.
This is becoming a bone of contention, because users are getting confused about what it is exactly that they ARE recording.
I think the histogram is the most important thing here, and the rest of the workflow should be more akin to 35-mm production, where the DP comes to the Colorist session if he/she is so inclined. The rest should be though of as video assist, because to date the technology doesn't exist to where the look can be accurately baked into the footage and maintained via the raw file. IMHO... prores is not an acceptable workflow for online finishing, and there is always the need for final color correction.
using Camera RGB as color space and Redlog as gamma space.
Might be the "flattest' possible rendition coming into the application. But part of the charm of RED is that the R3D is a Bayer pattern rendition of whatever stimulated the photo receptor and you can re-define that as long as it wasn't oversaturated.
Explain a bit more here Jp... I thought it was a bayer pattern in it's raw state, and you debayer it into what ever color/gamma space you choose. How does the color/gamma space effect how the raw is debayered specifically, wouldn't that be handled the same way regardless, if it's based on the compressed raw codec?
In your opinion, wouldn't you want to start with the flattest rendition, rather than a 'good looking' contrasty image like 601 produces?

Get strange banding/artifacting whenever camera moves

Hello,
I'm trying to build a simple DVD of a movie project I edited in Final Cut Pro. I have been doing this for several years and don't recall ever coming across this sort of problem.
On a static shot the image looks fine. But whenever there is camera movement I am getting this awful banding or artifacting (not sure how to describe it really) in the edges of the subject on the screen. Especially if both the camera and subject are moving simultaneously. Once the camera lands it looks ok again.
My normal workflow is to export a self contained Quicktime movie out of Final Cut, Import into Compressor, then create the files for DVDSP.
I have experimented with different compression methods:H264, Photo JPEG, Apple Pro Res, etc. All of the movie files look great playing in Quicktime or FCP, but then when I use Compressor to convert to AC3 and M2V for DVDSP4 this issue occurs. I am using the DVD Best Quality 90 Minute preset in Compressor. I see it both on my Apple 30" Display as well as both of my Flat Screen TV's (one is LCD and one is Plasma).
I have experimented with DVDSP bit rates and still get it.
Any ideas?
Many Thanks,
Peter

Ok, then you need to do as I described in the previous post.
After dropping the 4:3 timeline into the 16:9 timeline, scale it to 133% (you have to sacrifice resolution if you want to fill the 16:9 frame). You may need to vertically re-position certain parts of your content. Do it by moving the clip up or down in the 16:9 timeline, not in your original 4:3 timeline. After you are done, export using "current settings" and encode in compressor. If you stay within the DV-domain, and use same framerate and lower field in both timelines, field order will not get swapped, and your m2v will look fine.
Another edit:
A little late, maybe, but - if this is only watched on a computer monitor, nothing of what I have written will change what you see. This only applies when played on an interlaced TV. Still very important to get right tho.
If you want to lose the fields and thus fake a progressive image, you need to apply the de-interlace filter to all your footage in FCP.

Lightroom 4 - Banding/Posterization in shadows

Hi,
Ever since I upgraded to LR4, I've noticed severe banding/posterization in the shadow areas when using the graduated filter with reduced exposure or using the vignette to on Amount -100.
I previously used these tools in LR3 to create fade to black areas in my shots, but have noticed that now, instead of a nice smooth gradient, I get a hard black edge, with a green band stippled into the black before returning to (in this particular case) a grey backdrop rather than a smooth transition from black (like I used to get with LR3).
Initially I thought it was my GFX card as my main one died and I temporarily replaced it with an older card. However, I recently purchased an Nvidia GEForce 630 as a replacement and it's still an issue. I also exported a file and viewed it on my partner's HP latop and the issue was still there.
I googled LR4 shadow banding to try and find answers but didn't have much luck. Is any one else experiencing this issue, or do I just have some sort anomoly?
Tech info::
Windows 7 64bit
Lightroom 4.1
Dell 2408 WFP monitor
GeForce GT630
Spyder 3 Calibration
Any help would be appreciated as at this point I'm not sure whether it's something with my system or LR4.
Thanks in advance.

There is an issue with the 'local tools' in that they are applied before the global tools, which can reduce dynamic range in the highlight and shadow areas. This may also be the case for the Post-Crop Vignetting tool, but I haven't tested it.
http://forums.adobe.com/message/4612100#4612100
Why it only shows up with certain cameras is probably due to the available dynamic range in the individual raw image files.
Another possible issue that could be contributing to the "banding" artifacts is your Dell 2408WFP wide gamut monitor. Using a wide gamut monitor with 24 bit display data stretches the available gradations (16,777,216 colors) over a wider range, and provides less smoothness (i.e. banding). Many wide gamut monitor users will argue that this is NOT the case for them and that may be true. But anytime you use "extreme settings" in LR (100% settings, two graduated filters/spot tools) you're setting up a situation where banding may become visible. Try exporting an image with banding using TIFF, ProPhoto RGB profile, and 16 bit data, and then view it on another system equipped with a standard gamut display. You can also download this Ramp test file from AMD's site, import it into LR, and see if you have visible banding:
http://www.amd.com/us/Documents/ramp.psd
Photoshop supports a full 30 bit display data path when using a 30 bit graphics card, but Lightroom only supports 24 bit display data.
In short you have multiple things in LR that may be causing the artifacts you are seeing. My best advice is to use the global controls more heavily (Highlights, Shadows) and lighten up on the locals, since they can reduce the dynamic range in your image.

Really bad banding and artifacts in 16-bit layered greyscale file. Bad banding is retained when converted to 8-bit with No flattening. Flatten 16-bit image and banding and artifacts disappear even with no dither or noise layer. Is this a known bug?

Has anyone else experienced this?
I thought it was a monitor problem at first, but I'm using a 10-bit per channel Eizo. It seems to be a Photoshop bug based on many layers interacting with each other. When I flatten everything is fine. But I need to work on this image with layers and decent fidelity. Interestingly when I convert to 8-bit without flattening (and utilising the dither function to potentially reduce banding even further), it uses the terrible artifact laden/banding to do the conversion even though when I zoom into 1:1 in my 16-bit document it looks fine. But 50% or 25% zoom I suddenly get these awful artifacts.
Here's some screenshots to clarify. Please note I've used Photoshop for 24 years so I'm no slouch but this is the first time I've seen this. The problem is I need to do some subtle airbrush and texture work on this and it's almost unusable unless I flatten (please note, it does the same in the original 8-bit file and just to say I Gaussian-Blurred every layer with a 30px radius after converting to 16-bit so the there's no longer any 8-bit information in there or reasons for banding/artifacts). I can only think it is some of bug in Photoshop's layering engine.
Has anyone seen this before - dealt with this before?
Thanks in advance.
Not sure these embedded images will work.
8% zoomed - see all the strange banding and triangular artifacts
<a href="http://imgur.com/izrGuia"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/izrGuia.png" title="source: imgur.com" /></a>
Flattened view - all smooth:
<a href="http://imgur.com/Pn35IAK"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/Pn35IAK.png" title="source: imgur.com" /></a>
50% zoom, still there:
<a href="http://imgur.com/Z207hFd"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/Z207hFd.png" title="source: imgur.com" /></a>
100% artifacts disappear:
<a href="http://imgur.com/6aGOz0V"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/6aGOz0V.png" title="source: imgur.com" /></a>
100% 16-bit layered
<a href="http://imgur.com/0XJfe5e"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/0XJfe5e.png" title="source: imgur.com" /></a>
and finally 8-bit layered converted from 16-bit with dither.
<a href="http://imgur.com/PSxiu43"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/PSxiu43.png" title="source: imgur.com" /></a>
help!

I can't speak to why, perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I can speak to that. But if it only happens at certain views then it's purely a display issue; it won't happen in print or when you downsample to display size. Such banding issues have always disappeared for me when I output to 8 bit.
I'd assume that it's because of your monitor; it can't display all the colors and when zoomed out there's too wide of a range in a small area so banding occurs. But that's just my guess.

PV2012 locals sometimes don't behave well...

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

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 .

Shadows and Highlights

Working on an image this evening, vintage car detail shot with a Canon 5D MKII, in ACR 7.1 trying to get some more detail of a grill, and noticed that playing with the Shadow slider it removed the clipping from a very specular highlight. Would not have thought that would have happened, but I have been wrong before. The highlight in particular was located in a high value area, so that was my thinking the Shadow control should not have pulled down the highlight?
Amother interesting factoid if I push the shadow slider all the way to the left the highlight clipping indicator comes back on, push a small way to the right and the clipping indicator shows no clipping.
MK

MadManChan2000 wrote:
Some day (and that day may never come ...) I'll do a white paper or blog post about it. But until that day ...
Me hopeful, but not expectant...
MadManChan2000 wrote:
... my general advice is to use the sliders top-down...
I'm sure, in general, that's good advice - thanks Eric.
But, I would caution people against being too rigid, procedurally (order-wise).
I just went back and processed one of my favorite shots, that I had done in my earlier days with PV2012. It was a very low contrast shot; my settings were:
* exposure: -.2
* contrast: 100
* highlights: +35
* shadows: -50
* whites +30
* blacks -20
* clarity 10
After reprocessing, the main difference being the use of whites & blacks before contrast, are:
* exposure: +.3
* contrast: 65
* highlights: -10
* shadows: +20
* whites: +50
* blacks: -60
* clarity: 0
The overall tonality is approximately the same, but the reprocessed result is significantly better (PV2012 rocks!). Note: there were also some local adjustments, and tone curve, not listed.
My point is that, in this case, doing contrast first inevitably leads one to max out contrast, which is still not enough, then resort to highlights & shadows to get additional "contrast", then take it the rest of the way, contrast-wise, using whites & blacks. As re-processed, there is less compression of highlight and shadow tones, yet still plenty of midtone contrast: clarity absolutely not needed nor desirable with this much tonal separation via the other controls.
Moral of the story: Heed Eric's wisdom, but be light on your feet too!
PS - although this was not a "normal" photo, my point still stands.
Final notes: I always watch exposure like a hawk in PV2012, regardless of what I start with, and in the reprocessed case, the tone curve is a de-brightening one, since it seems PV2012 tonability is sometimes enhanced with greater than "ultimately-preferred" exposure.
Before ( no adjustments ) - AdobeRGB, not sRGB, which means you must click for a properly displayed view, since this website ignores color profile in inline view:
After final adjustments: (AdobeRGB, not sRGB, which means you must click for a properly displayed view, since this website ignores color profile in inline view):
This picture was taken outdoors, in the evening, long after sundown, no flash (nor any other form of added light, except Lightroom ).
Cheers,
Rob

Problem with Chroma/Lume Keys while using Drop Shadows

I have been using the box now for almost two years and I still am getting problems with green/blue/purples artifacts showing up after a chroma/luma key has been applied with a drop shadow. The artifacts do not show up under a preview but only when the sequence has been rendered. As soon as I take the drop shadow off, the artifacts go away. This is happening with both still graphics with or without Alphas and green/blue screen video. Please help, am I just missing something or is there a work around that I could be using.
Thanks,
Alex

c'mon, Bogie - tell us what you really feel - don't hold back... < </div>
Oh, Patrick, buddy, I am so totally torqued out of shape today. Don't get me started. Too late. FCP's insane render handler is dropping my files, seemingly at random. The nests, Motion and LiveType material are not rendering in the correct order which makes the effects all wonky.
I add drop shadows in the last stage and FCP just ain't holding it together. I get glitches. And then I keep getting these Media Offline notices because FCP cant' track the render files that are actually in use in the upstream nests.
I'll certainly admit a likely a user error. I just don't know what it could be. I've somehow told FCP to destroy its children.
bogiesan

2.1: problem with Highlights & Shadows

The 2.1 update is amazing. But there seems to be a pretty serious problem with the H&S brick: pushing the Mid Contrast slider too high now results in what looks like solarized blacks. Here's an example: http://homepage.mac.com/leary/Bug/large-1.html
Obviously this is pushed way too high, but the problem is apparent even at lower values and is new to 2.1.
This is from a RAW D40 file but the problem is the same on D80 and D300.
Anyone else seeing this?

Also, with proper use of the recovery and black point sliders, I'd think it would be pretty rare to really crank those "Advanced" values.
There's a creative side to this brick that I find goes beyond simple recovery. I admit to using it less now that we have the definition slider, but it still allows for a certain "look" that I can't get with the other controls. For that, I use the advanced settings a lot and this is a problem that is entirely new to 2.1.
The problem seems to only be dependent on the Mid slider - the amount in the Shadow slider doesn't seem to matter at all. Even at 1.0 on the Shadow slider, pushing Mid C creates this effect.
Obviously going back to Black Point Comp can alleviate the problem, but there's a limit that didn't exist before.
I just noticed that playing with Radius affects it as well. Of course all of this is tied to the black levels in the picture but again, it didn't used to be this way.

How to do 'shadow'?

When I was using Adobe Bridge on my PC (i'm a recent Mac OSX 'switcher'), it was using Adobe Camera Raw and had something called 'Shadows' - along with Exposure, Brightness, Contrast and Saturation.
I'm sure it's just a combined effect, but I'd like to know how to accomplish the same thing using Aperture.
Thanks!

Lars - the Shadow slider in ACR is the opposite of the Exposure slider - it sets the point at which things go black. Nothing to do with shadow/highlight recovery, rather the opposite!
aamic - just use the leftmost control in the Levels adjustment tool (probably best to use the Luminance model).
Ian

Brightening shadows darkens highlights

Download DNG.
Check out the attached file and try to play with the Shadows slider. To me, it behaves somewhat unintuitively: instead of just affecting shadows, increasing the shadows also darkens the snow and vice versa — decreasing the shadows value brightens the snow.
Is it a bug or expected behaviour?
The long(er) story
I got this photo of my daughter skiing... under some very flat light and was trying to get some contrast: overall and especially in the snow.
First, I went what seemed the intuitive route: boosted Contrast to the max, along with setting the white and black points, then brought down highlights and lifted shadows. (That is snapshot "1-Normal" in the original). It looked fine, but I thought I'd try to get more definition in the snow.
So, I went on and realized that I have to stretch the highlights with -Exposure and +Whites (snapshots 2 and 3 in the original). The problem is, that under these condition, the Shadows slider starts to not behave itself, as described above.
Also, check out the faint large black halos and small white halos around the objects (flags and my daughter).
Both of these problems get worse the further you push the Exposure and White sliders aside in their respective directions.

Hi Dorin,
I have downloaded your DNG. To notice the halos you mention I had to go for 2:1 magnification. At 1:1 I did not see them at first, now with the knowledge where to look I can detect them.
The shadow slider seems to do an overall compression or expansion of the whole histogram, at least once -highlights are maximized and -exposure considerably. Not so much discernible on your snapshot 1-Normal.
I knew that shadows affects all regions, not just its own, but was not aware of the "opposite or compressing direction" before you pointed it out.
(My test samples have not been of such a nature yet to go for extreme settings.)
I guess your best expert so far could be Rob Cole, at least he is the one who has shared in most thorough detail what his develop experiences are.
He gruntled a lot at first about *unintuitivity*, but learned to like the results.
I looked in his current thread http://forums.adobe.com/thread/968940?tstart=0, but there he does not (yet?) give details to the behaviour of the shadow-slider alone.
He has observed new halos as well, hopefully Eric Chan might be looking at it.
There may be more info in this thread http://forums.adobe.com/thread/956844?tstart=30, but it is so polluted with insults that Dave Merchant mercifully locked it.
If the shadow slider would behave as you and I would *intuitively* expect, we might run into another problem: if the snow would also get brightened i.o. darkened by lifting shadows, there might not be enough headroom left to counteract with the other sliders (-whites -highlights) ?
So I see some merit in what I can observe in your example.
Bug or Feature?
Cornelia

Shadow noise amplification with new Clarity adjustment

Many of my images require a big boost to the shadow areas, which I've typically done using a hefty dose of PV2010's Fill Light. Getting results I like using PV2012 is often helped by a judicious application of Clarity, which brings out shadow detail nicely.
However, PV2012's Clarity seems to amplify luminance noise in deep shadow regions pretty aggressively. When I use Clarity in PV2012 to boost shadow detail, I often find myself having to increase the level of Noise Reduction beyond what I'd used in PV2010.
Can anything be done to make PV2012's Clarity adjustment more noise-intelligent, so that real image features are enhanced, but noise is not?

HI Tony, (long time no post ).
I know exactly what you mean. Clarity clarifies fine detail as well as coarse "detail" (for lack of a better word).
I too would like more control over its effect.
I mean, the effect that is offensive when illuminating dark dancer parts is the same effect that is most wanted when trying to bring textural detail out of the rocky mountains.
Maybe Adobe can tweak algorithm for some overall improvement, but unless Adobe surprises me/us come Lr4-final, the only recourse I can think of is:
* Local cleanup by way of a brush.
But then, I'm sure you already thought of that...
Rob

Shadow slider banding artifacts in PV2012

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for