Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: Schewe on February 23, 2012, 11:15:24 pm
-
If you want to know a bit more about the image adaptive adjustments now in LR4's PV 2012 in the Basic panel, check this out (http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2012/02/magic-or-local-laplacian-filters.html). It's pretty deep, but the bottom line is that LR4's Basic panel adjustments in PV 2012 is pretty darn high tech. (and pretty cool)
-
Thank you for the link. I didn't know the work on LR4 was so cutting edge. I got as far as discovering that a tone mapping operator based on a generic set of spatially-invariant wavelets is indeed suitable for edge-aware processing.
The bleeding will stop soon and am now just looking at the pretty pictures.
-
" The ability to recover shadow and highlight detail with a straightforward set of controls without introducing artifacts or over-the-top faux-HDR effects"
For me the example on the far right of that page is too faux HDR looking.
It's the one aspect that I don't like about the 2012 process, far too many examples I've seen from it look over processed.
Even Julieanne Kost said in her video on the new develop module that it was easy to get a faux HDR look as if that was a good thing.
-
"It's the one aspect that I don't like about the 2012 process, far too many examples I've seen from it look over processed."
Surely that is a problem with people's use of the process, not with the process itself. The fact that it can be pushed too far in some cases may be an unavoidable consequence of its capacity to extract the maximum detail from a wide range of RAW files.
-
Surely that is a problem with people's use of the process, not with the process itself.
True, but in the past Adobe have made the tools foolproof by limiting their range, eg the parametric curve adjustments.
I just find it rather bizarre that one part of Adobe is saying you can't make faux HDR with the new process, but then another part is saying that being able to make faux HDR is a good new feature.
-
True, but in the past Adobe have made the tools foolproof by limiting their range, eg the parametric curve adjustments.
I don't think it needs to be foolproof as it's not targeted at fools. I prefer some wider ranges of adjustments as it just gives you more flexibility. It shouldn't be Adobe's job to limit the tools such that some form that one can only produce images which look "proper" according to some "real" photographer.
Sorry for the rant ;)
-
I guess they are trying to cater to all tastes. Some people like that kind of thing. The clarity slider is the main offender - push it all the way to the right for an instant hideous faux-HD effect. On the other hand, I have found that a high clarity setting on a small selection brush can be useful, in combination with other adjustments, so I am glad it is available.
-
True, but in the past Adobe have made the tools foolproof by limiting their range, eg the parametric curve adjustments.
I just find it rather bizarre that one part of Adobe is saying you can't make faux HDR with the new process, but then another part is saying that being able to make faux HDR is a good new feature.
I don't think I want it "foolproof" if that means Adobe, rather than me, decides how far I can take my image. I don't like the faux HDR look, either, but feel it should be the photographer's choice, not Adobe's.
-
Adobe needs to support the product, though, and if they give tools that average users might not undertand then there's a cost to Adobe to help those users. Sometimes, that means not including that functionality to avoid the cost of supporting it. It sometimes means introducing it later, once they find a better way to control it.
-
Adobe needs to support the product, though, and if they give tools that average users might not undertand then there's a cost to Adobe to help those users. Sometimes, that means not including that functionality to avoid the cost of supporting it. It sometimes means introducing it later, once they find a better way to control it.
Yeah, but it's not like a checkbox that blows up your image if you check it. It's a slider, you can see what's happening as you slide. If someone wants to make their image look like crap, that's not something *Adobe* needs to help them about.
-
Yeah I agree with that in principle. I tend to allow that there might be other issues behind the scenes that we don't know about, too. Not saying we shouldn't express our preferences to them either :-)
-
If someone wants to make their image look like crap, that's not something *Adobe* needs to help them about.
Adobe "fixed" the clarity slider, that had similarly image destructive tendencies.
-
Adobe "fixed" the clarity slider, that had similarly image destructive tendencies.
They toned it down a bit, but "fixed" - not sure about that. It can still screw your image good, if that's what you like ::)
-
Jeff, in your new Lula Lightroom4 "Develop: Basic 02" video, you mentioned Thomas designed the “Basic” panel to be worked from top down.
Around the 10 minute mark in the video, you mentioned to Michael about “squandering the image adapted adjustments in the upper portion of the Basic controls" if you were to find “white" and "black" point first.
My question is, “Do you 'squander the image adapted adjustments' if you use “Auto” tone as the first step in processing PV 2012?
Thanks,
Bob