Checking out Process Version 4

[peterwgallagher]

I was curious about the differences between Process 2012 (the former default in Lightroom CC) and the new "Process Version 4" in "Lightroom Classic" (I still can't see the new Lightroom CC listed in my CC Desktop app... and yes, I've tried restarting it).

Well, it turns out Adobe has included a neat facility for comparing Process 2012 (or whatever you are using) with Version 4. If you open a raw image processed in an earlier version in the Develop Module and look at the Histogram you'll see a small "lightning" icon in the bottom right of the pane. This brings up a dialog that offers the option of comparing the current image in the earlier process and in Version 4 using the "before/after" comparison view.

I found it quite interesting to look at a few images in each version side-by-side at 100%. I really like what they've tweaked with Process Version 4. They say (somewhere?) there's less shadow noise in the shadows. I can certainly see a lot more definition and detail in the shadows. I can also see (at <100%) much smoother gradations in e.g. sky highlights. There is better roll-off from highlights to mid-tones, too, I think. This seems to deliver more credible details.

I'm sure there's more to remark (like the option in the dialog to convert all the 'filmstrip' images). Also, this facility might have been widely remarked: but I hadn't seen any mention. Please excuse me if this is old-news to you.

Best, P

[john beardsworth]

I wouldn't expect to see any visible difference in Version 4 - the new process version is to handle the data for the local adjustment range masking. Also, remember that Adobe sometimes make changes to processing without needing to change the headline PV - the most obvious case was with Fuji raw files last year.

[peterwgallagher]

I wouldn't expect to see any visible difference in Version 4

Hello John: It’s possible, of course, that I’m kidding myself about being able to see “improvements” in the “before” and “after”. There’s a sucker born every minute 

Still, different process versions in the past have certainly resulted in different appearances of a converted raw image. The process versions seem to be a compilation of otherwise unacknowleged, behind-the-scenes settings in the ‘default’ ACR conversion. Anyone who has taken the trouble to create a “zeroed” conversion preset in LR or ACR will be familiar with the changes in the exposure, tone curve, sharpening etc that 2010 & 2012 introduced. In my experience, they’re quite marked.

Your point may, still, be correct. It’s possible that this version adds only changes that appear only when a local adjustment has been made. Short of Adobe telling us (perhaps they are your source?), I guess there’s only one way to gather evidence on this. That is, to ask others if they share my impression that there has been some change in e.g. the detail in shadows.

Peter.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I wouldn't expect to see any visible difference in Version 4 - the new process version is to handle the data for the local adjustment range masking. Also, remember that Adobe sometimes make changes to processing without needing to change the headline PV - the most obvious case was with Fuji raw files last year.

Interesting, but then why the apparent change in noise reduction that Peter mentions? Or did Peter notice this on Fuji files? I assume that he noticed this change at identical noise reduction dialog settings. Noise reduction goes beyond straight demosaicing, it's usually already a postprocessing step. It's a bit strange that this change has not been mentioned by the official spokespersons.

Cheers,
Bart

[john beardsworth]

In the past, yes, PV changes produced obviously-different results. I don't think you will see it this time, Peter, but I'm sure you won't be the only person to be misled by this numbering. 

[john beardsworth]

Interesting, but then why the apparent change in noise reduction that Peter mentions? Or did Peter notice this on Fuji files? I assume that he noticed this change at identical noise reduction dialog settings. Noise reduction goes beyond straight demosaicing, it's usually already a postprocessing step. It's a bit strange that this change has not been mentioned by the official spokespersons.

They've got their hands full with other things

[Stephen G]

Just noticed something: take an image processed with Version 3. As soon as you add a local adjustment it automatically switches to Version 4. No range masking needed, just add a brush stroke, or a radial/graduated filter.

Edit: and if you take a Version 3 image with existing local adjustments it will stay Version 3 until you try to introduce a Range Mask. Then it flips the process version to 4, which makes sense, from what John has written about Version 4

[peterwgallagher]

Interesting, but then why the apparent change in noise reduction that Peter mentions? Or did Peter notice this on Fuji files?

These are Olympus PEN-F files. John B. is right that the files I looked at both used local adjustments in the shadows. P4 looked better to me than P2102 on my Eizo monitor, even when I deleted the adjustments.

I guess I need to do more testing. But it’s late here, so...

Best, P

[Denis de Gannes]

Just noticed something: take an image processed with Version 3. As soon as you add a local adjustment it automatically switches to Version 4. No range masking needed, just add a brush stroke, or a radial/graduated filter.

Edit: and if you take a Version 3 image with existing local adjustments it will stay Version 3 until you try to introduce a Range Mask. Then it flips the process version to 4, which makes sense, from what John has written about Version 4

Soon as I make any adjustment in the develop module basic panel it immediately changes to 4.

[peterwgallagher]

I now think John Beardsworth is right. More testing on a range of images with both luminance and colour noise in the shadows and the sky shows me that my initial impression was mistaken. V4 alone does not seem to make a difference in either the shadow detail or highlight fall-off. Apologies for the red-herring.

Perhaps THAT's why Adobe included the comparison tool: to show that the change (which is automatic once you move any of the 'Basic' tools or the Tone Curve or any of the local adjustment brushes) is invisible.

Best, Peter.

[Hoggy]

I now think John Beardsworth is right. More testing on a range of images with both luminance and colour noise in the shadows and the sky shows me that my initial impression was mistaken. V4 alone does not seem to make a difference in either the shadow detail or highlight fall-off. Apologies for the red-herring.

Perhaps THAT's why Adobe included the comparison tool: to show that the change (which is automatic once you move any of the 'Basic' tools or the Tone Curve or any of the local adjustment brushes) is invisible.

Well, don't feel too bad..  You weren't the only one that was being fooled by that buzz word "process version".  I too thought I saw the same things you were seeing.  But after some more checking it just seems to be more a matter of how directional some LCD's tend to be.

BTW, I think that comparison 'tool' has been there for prior process version changes as well..  All it does is automatically change to comparison view, set the 'before' side to the prior step, and the 'after' side to the current step.
---------------
OT (aka: can't figure out how to work it into other current conversations. ):
A downside for me is that I replaced the 2015.10 version I had to revert back to from 2015.12, that worked with my AMD for GPU acceleration (I still can't find release notes that would have stated 'known issues', for Classic)..  It has still not been fixed by Classic.However, in regards to that - 2015.12 wasn't nearly as slow as Classic is without GPU acceleration. Classic is a pure snail in comparison - many times several seconds for a change to show up..  So now I'm kinda screwed.     And I won't be able to afford a new laptop/computer for a LONG time to come.
Sooo... Given that, as well as the change to RansomWare, on top of the indicative/predictive(?) 'hard to find anything about Classic on Adobe's website' issue -- I'm kinda out while I consider on whether to switch to something that's not going to be RansomWare.  Adobe ****ABSOLUTELY NEEDS**** to offer an option to keep a current snapshot if deciding/needing to stop paying the ransom..  One where the edit and map modules still work, of course - say, after having subscribed for such and such a time period.. I'm sure someone smarter than me could figure out the details.  Only then, will people feel a bit more confident in sticking with Adobe at this point.  I'm currently on CC, but I think it's thoroughly despicable how they've reneged on their 'promise' of keeping a perpetual version - that was always a safety net for me until now.

The biggest reasons why I wouldn't switch to something like C1 [right now] is the horrendous catalog speed, no scene-referred HDR and panorama [DNG], no map module, and lousy support for DNG.  There are many others, of course, but those are probably the biggest for me - as being on the serious amateur/hobbyist side.There's also ON1 raw and ACDSee, but there are similar issues with those.  It's tough deciding, when all one's past images are already edited in the Adobe non-destructive engine instructions - of course the same could be said if I was using one of the others.
<sigh> They really NEED to make it possible to keep a current snapshot if they're going to switch to pure unadulterated RansomWare.

[Hoggy]

^^^^  I swear I'm putting line breaks in there that just aren't showing up for some reason.  Not even subsequent edits are getting them in there.