Getting a FLAT settings state in LR4?

[jljonathan]

The default in previous versions of LR had the sliders set to various positions on import ie. Brightness 50 etc. You could zero out the sliders by setting them at 0 and see a FLAT image. Now with LR4 and the sliders set to 0,  LR is adding a default processing. For instance, in LR3, at default the sliders were set to settings that included Brightness 50,Contrast 25, Clarity 10, Tone curve medium etc. The sliders and tone curve were actually set to these points for default but you could zero everything out and arrive at a FLAT image. Now, with LR4 these defaults are set by LR inside, BUT  the sliders are zeroed out to start.  Is there a way  in LR4 to to get to that same FLAT state that you could achieve in LR3?

[Schewe]

Answered in the Adobe LR forum...the answer is no...

[wolfnowl]

To expand on Jeff's Adobe LR forum answer, "No, not directly...you could set the sliders to zero with a linear curve in an image with PV 2010 and then convert the image to PV 2012. You'll end up with a minus Exposure of some number and a tone curve with multiple points already set to map the curve. But the image will have settings, no "zero'ed" as it was in PV 2010."

If this is REALLY what you want, what you could do would be to follow his instructions as above, then go to Develop/Set Default Settings.  Haven't tried it so I don't know if it would give you what you're looking for.  In LR3 my preference was to set all of the Develop settings at zero and I then made that my default.  So far I'm happy with leaving LR4 'zeroed'.

Mike.

[Schewe]

If this is REALLY what you want...

There is a school of thought that dictates that the user start with a flat (not not at all neutral) set of settings...fact is, the whole approach is flawed because well, a "neutral" starting point is a fallacy...

I true "neutral" starting point is a linear conversion of an un-demisiaced file, which is useless. It's way too dark and will require substantial tone curve adjustment to be in the least bit usable.

Some people tried setting the tone curve to linear and set the brightness and contrast to zero...which was supposed to be some sort of flat, neutral starting point.–which has been totally blown out of the water for PV 2012.

Personally, I disputed the original concept of trying to arrive at some sort of flat, neutral "starting point". Heck, I often use Auto to see what the ACR/LR engineers thing is optimal (and often changed the final results).

Personally, I think the whole "flat and neutral" is wrong headed...

[jjj]

Not to mention that camera calibration can have a marked effect and you can't not have a calibration setting.
 

[Schewe]

Not to mention that camera calibration can have a marked effect and you can't not have a calibration setting.

But you CAN edit a DNG profile to have the tone curve you want...

[hjulenissen]

Personally, I disputed the original concept of trying to arrive at some sort of flat, neutral "starting point". Heck, I often use Auto to see what the ACR/LR engineers thing is optimal (and often changed the final results).

I also use Auto a lot.

I do think that a "neutral" setting, or something that attempts to recreate the look of the original scene (limited by camera and display) is a nice to have.

-h

[stamper]

At the default setting of .....Brightness 50,Contrast 25, Clarity 10, Tone curve medium etc. .... it is possible to import an image that shows the flashing red on the highlights that makes you think that the image was overexposed in the first place. The reality being it wasn't and the default is to blame. This may cause you to use Recovery to lower the exposure that didn't need lowering. Is it not better to build up from the "bottom" rather than start of with a "guess" from the Adobe engineers?

[jjj]

But you CAN edit a DNG profile to have the tone curve you want...

To get a completely neutral profile?

[Schewe]

To get a completely neutral profile?

To pretty much match the PV 2010 linear, yes...see this post.

Is is an EXACT match? No...but it's very, very close. Actually, it might be argued to be a better starting point with PV 2012 and a linear DNG profile. If you like that sort of starting point.

Really, this is all much ado about nothing...start you image settings anywhere you want. The odds are really good, the results in PV 2012 will be better regardless of where you start.

[jjj]

To pretty much match the PV 2010 linear, yes...see this post.

Ta muchly.

Really, this is all much ado about nothing...start you image settings anywhere you want. The odds are really good, the results in PV 2012 will be better regardless of where you start.

Better is a possibly a vague term in this instance. I agree wholeheartedly that PV2012 is markedly better than PV2010, which was a vast improvement on PV2003 in a technical sense. The ability to retrieve data from RAW files is incredible. I've finally managed to get a decent version of a photo I took back in 2006 where the flash didn't work and sky was blown.
Do the photos always look nicer though? No. Some of the attributes of poor processing or image capture is what makes some photos look good, so I may well continue to use PV2010 with some images and PV2012 on others.
Having to update all my presets would also be a nightmare and users will have to recalibrate themselves to the new tools and behaviours.

[Pete_G]

I've been looking at this too, just out of interest, as I agree with Jeff that the notion of a flat RAW file is not too important.

This is from another forum, a post by Eric Chan:

"The basic premise of PV 2012 hasn't changed relative to 2010.  We try to provide good starting points with the defaults.  (The default setting in 2012 just happens to have "0" for all the Basic sliders.)  That said, it's unlikely that our default is going to please everybody.  Photographers have personal preferences, after all.
 
This is the reason why we make it possible to establish custom defaults.  For example, if the default image contrast is too high (even at the Contrast setting of 0), try reducing the Contrast slider (e.g., to -10).  If you like that better, and you find that works better for you on several of your images, consider saving a custom camera default with that new Contrast setting.
 
You may find that, while you're learning the 2012 controls, that you need to spend a bit more time to find your preferred sweet spot.  That's understandable.  But the ability to establish your own personal starting point remains, and I encourage you to use it."

I tested it, same file, in LR3 and LR 4. Rendered tifs with all settings set to zero, or defaults in the case of LR3, are exactly the same.

[stamper]

the whole approach is flawed because well, a "neutral" starting point is a fallacy...

Please explain why. You shouldn't make "neutral" statements without some explanation.

[hjulenissen]

the whole approach is flawed because well, a "neutral" starting point is a fallacy...

"Neutral" from a dsp-point-of-view may be impossible, but "neutral" from a practical photographers point-of-view may be more practical, with some caveats.

I think that moderate end-to-end sharpening, a linear tone-curve, no noise-reduction, a moderate color-matrix, are all properties that photographers would tend to view as neutral (but not necessarily "good looking", or "what suits the image").

If one always views images with cranked-up saturation and excessive sharpening, there is a chance that your eyes and perception will get used to it and eventually expect it. I think that some photographers are aware of such issues, and wants to counteract it by starting every image "flat" looking.

-h

[stamper]

Well said.

[Eruditass]

To quote Jeff Schewe:

*subject to some subtle differences based on the adaptive functionality

If this means that 0 on one image is different than 0 on another image, this is ridiculous.  A major point of shooting manual is to have control of exposure so when I go in and process, I edit the first image to taste, and apply it to the rest of the images.  If the baseline is not the same, then applying the sliders to the other images will not have the desired effect. 

[stamper]

To quote Jeff Schewe:

If this means that 0 on one image is different than 0 on another image, this is ridiculous.  A major point of shooting manual is to have control of exposure so when I go in and process, I edit the first image to taste, and apply it to the rest of the images.  If the baseline is not the same, then applying the sliders to the other images will not have the desired effect.  

I find this bizarre. You can control exposure just as well using aperture and shutter priority so using manual isn't an advantage in your work flow.
I would have thought that the exposure of every image was different but you then apply the same settings to every image? You could do the same thing shooting auto and using Jpeg. There isn't any point in you shooting raw if you apply the same settings to every image.