Lightroom 4: Analyzing the New Process 2012 Controls

There are some fundamental changes between the controls and settings in Lightroom 3’s Process 2010, and Lightroom 4’s Process 2012. I have described these differences, and shown some of the value of the new controls, in previous articles, as well as the weaknesses inherent in the older process. It has been pointed out to me that none of these articles actually analyze the differences in the controls, and describe how they effect images; so that is what I will do here. Those of you who are determined to understand the new process fully may find some answers in the testing notes below.

Both Process 2010 and 2012 are available in Lightroom 4, with previously imported images defaulting to Process 2010 (or if they are of Lightroom 2 or earlier, to Proces 2003), while newly imported images will be in Process 2012. It is possible to change between these processes, but there is not exact equivalency, as you will see in this article. The illustration below compares the Basic Controls in the Develop module of Lightroom 3, on the left, and Lightroom 4, on the right.

Lightroom 3 and 4 Basic Controls, AKA: Process 2010, and Process 2012

Testing Methodology

In order to analyze changes caused by the various controls, test images where shot of the Datacolor SpyderCheckr target, where the ten percent gray ramp patches, and the additional 5% and 95% gray patches, were used to determine how adjustments were effecting the image tonal range. These numerical changes were compared to the visual changes in the image itself, and the graphical changes in the RGB histogram of the image at the top of the Lightroom Develop Mode’s right panel. Shots of the Datacolor SpyderCube were similarly tested, in part to help analyze the Lightroom Processes, and in part to determine how best to use the SpyderCube with these new controls, which I will document in a future article. Checks were done between Lightroom 3, and Lightrooom 4’s implementation of Process 2010, to be sure that the two were equivalent. Further testing was done in Lightroom 4.1, using the p2010 and p2012 settings, which is much more convenient than running two versions of Lightroom simultaneously.

White Balance (graphical change)

While the Color Temperature and Tint controls in the White Balance section display differently between the versions, this is simply a matter of Process 2012 now displaying the actual Color Temperature value in Degrees Kelvin even at the “As Shot” setting, instead of defaulting to zero, and not offering any useful Color Temp info until the slider had been moved from that location in Process 2010. The functionality of the controls in this section is unchanged, so will not be discussed further.

Exposure (range change)

The Tone Controls section has the same number of controls as before, but their names, groupings, and some cases their control types have been changed, between p2010 and p2012.  The first control to analyze is the Exposure slider. It now has a range of negative five to positive five in Process 2012, increased from four units in each direction in the previous version. This extra range may come in handy for some extreme situation, but the functionality of the control in its usual range appears unchanged. Exposure stretches (positive move) or compresses (negative move) all tones. No clipping of values at the black end occurs when compressing the Exposure downward, but significant blow-out of highlights occurs when increasing the Exposure in either Process.

Contrast (location change)

Contrast functions by stretching all values out from the center with a positive adjustment, or compressing them towards the center with a negative adjustment. The effect is not symmetrical with much more change taking place in the darker end of the range than in the lighter end. Contrast adjustments do not clip either near whites or near blacks, compressing them towards the ends instead. This behavior appears identical in Process 2010 and Process 2012. So while the Contrast control has a new location, now paired with the Exposure control at the top of the Tone section, its functionality can be considered unchanged.

Recovery (removed)

This Process 2010 control no longer exists in Process 2012. It is a single directional slider, with the default position at the zero end. Moving the slider away from zero does not darken white, but darkens near whites and highlights, while having little effect at the dark end of the range. This is a “gamma-like” adjustment, where both ends are fixed, and the adjustment centers in the highlight zone, moving only in the direction that reduces the brightness of tones from their default values.

Fill Light (removed)

This is another Process 2010 control that no longer exists in Process 2012. It is also a single directional slider, with the default position at the zero end. Moving the slider away from zero does not lighten black, but lightens near backs and shadows, while having little effect at the light end of the range. This is another “gamma-like” adjustment, where both ends are fixed, while the adjustment centers in the shadow zone, moving only in the direction that increases the brightness of tones from their default values. The functionality of the Fill control appears to be a symmetrical opposite of the Recovery control.

Blacks (range and location change)

The blacks control in Process 2010 is a single directional control, but the default value was not zero. Offset from zero varies, but for all cameras I checked it was at 5, while for non-RAW images, it was at zero. Adjusting the control back towards zero decreases the default clipping of blacks. Increasing the slider value clips an increasing number of near blacks to black. In Process 2012, the Blacks slider is now a bidirectional slider, with a default of zero. The lack of a default offset here is compensated for elsewhere in p2012; partially with changes in the Tone Curve default and engine (more on that below).

Brightness (removed)

This p2010 control has no equivalent in p2012. The Brightness control is a bidirectional slider, which defaults to zero for non-RAW images, but defaults to a value of +50 with all tested cameras.  The Brightness control runs to positive and negative 150, and compresses but does not clip at the black end with negative values. It clips significantly at white with positive adjustments. The control has a similar function, when moved in the positive direction, to the Exposure slider, but does not have as much range.

Highlights (added)

This new Process 2012 control is bidirectional, and defaults to zero, as do all the new/replacement controls. Positive adjustments stretch highlights towards white, compressing near whites to white without clipping them, and stretching highlights in the midtone end of the affected zone. Negative adjustments are more in line with previous Recovery adjustments. They compress highlights into the midtone zone, while stretching them in the near whites. There is also a parametric Tone Curve function of the same name. Both Highlights controls have very similar effects, though they are applied separately. It makes sense not to raise one of these controls while lowering the other, as it would be counterproductive, but there might be cases in which minor adjustments in the same direction are made in both.

Shadows (added)

This new p2012 control, like the others, is bidirectional and defaulted to zero. It is an mirror of the Highlight control, used to control shadow detail versus image punch. Again there is a control of the same name in the Tone Curve section, but here the effect of the Tone section’s slider has a broader effect than the similarly named control under the Tone Curve section, so one or the other may be selected depending on whether a more localized or more broad effect is desired.

Whites (added)

This new bidirectional, zeroed p2012 control is somewhat analogous to the now older Brightness control, but with much less range in the negative direction. It does not have the Highlight control’s protection against clipping, if moved in a positive direction. It raised all tones, and clips those near white progressively as stronger positive adjustments occur. Whites are also not held when negative adjustments occur, so lowering the Whites control will darken whites along with other values.

Blacks (again)

This new p2012 control is the mirror of the White control, producing the same results, from the other end of the tonal range. Its described above, and included here only to round out the “new four” as this is the only control of the four to retain its name, though it has changed its function considerably.

The Other Change: Tone Curve Default

The Tone Curve defaulted to Medium Contrast in Process 2010. It defaults to Linear in Process 2012. Moving an image from p2010 to p2012 forces a change in Tone Curve, rather than retaining the previous setting; since apparently retaining the setting does not retain the tone densities anyways. Medium Contrast in p2010 and Medium Contrast in p2012 mean different things, so aligning them would not be appropriate. This would indicate changes to the tone engine in Process 2012, and not clear equivalency for older images, which had been processed previously in either Process 2003 (Lightroom 1 or 2) or Process 2010 (Lightroom 3). This means that you should not automatically update the Process for pre-corrected images and expect matching tonalities. If you choose to move the Process version of an image to p2012, be prepared to readjust the tonality.

Opposing Adjustments to Blacks and Shadows

Interactions and Improvements

The new, centered, bidirectional controls offer a few advantages over the older versions. Control of black clipping against shadow detail is the clearest example. It is now possible to use the Blacks control to clip noise from the levels nearest to black by moving it in a negative direction, while independently opening the shadow area by moving the Shadows control in a positive direction, as illustrated above. Interaction between the new, and more symmetrical, controls is clearer, as well as more effective. Its now possible to adjust highlight and shadow areas without unintended clipping of whites or blacks, while it is also possible to make powerful adjustments to images from either end, both without clipping, if the end adjustment is inward, or with the inevitable clipping if the adjustment is outward. The engine underneath the new Process is improved, and more drastic adjustments to images can now be made without the the kinds of artifacts that the older, less linear, process produced.

Credits: C. David Tobie, Copyright 2012. Website: CDTobie.com Return to Blog’s Main Page

Advertisements

Color Management and Workflow Features in Photoshop CS6 Public Beta

Concerns about Photoshop Upgrades in General

I’ve heard photographers complain, as Photoshop updates appear, that the newer versions are really not about photography, or the at least not the features they use for photo editing, and that some of the new features actually get in the way of the things they need to do. I can certainly understand this point of view, and when I see a photographer decide to “freeze” at one version of Photoshop or another, to avoid having to learn new techniques, or pay for another upgrade, or to avoid breaking older filters, plugins, and scripts that are important to their workflow, I don’t object. But I do warn them that such a choice may eventually effect their ability to upgrade to new computers with newer operating systems, or use new plugins from their favorite plugin providers, and may require developing a different workflow for getting RAW files from new cameras into their older version of Photoshop. And that the leap forward will only be more painful, the longer they avoid it.

So while we all may feel some frustration when our favorite key command no longer does what we want it to, or a rectangular box interferes with our view of what we are doing, learning the tricks to make the newer versions of Photoshop work is part of the effort of remaining up-to-date in the world of photography.

However, Photoshop CS6 appears to be a more dramatic jump forward than previous updates. This may be intimidating, and it may cause photographers to search their souls, and their wallets, before deciding to migrate to Photoshop CS6. Fortunately Adobe has a free public beta of the application available, so that a much wider range of users can try the application in advance of release than with previous Photoshop updates. While you are at Adobe Labs to download the Photoshop Public Beta, remember to download the latest Adobe Camera Raw Release Candidate as well. This version 6.7 is not compatible with the latest cameras, but it does offer other improvements for anyone opening RAW files into Photoshop CS6 PB.

The Biggest Change in CS6: The Interface

Ever since Photoshop 1 (and thats not CS1, but the actual PS1) the interface to Photoshop, with some changes for the OS and OS version, has been similar: menu bar on the top, a tool palette, typically vertically formatted on the left, and as time went on, more and more floating palettes that can be added on the right. These elements floated in free space, with your desktop showing behind them. Options to run Photoshop full screen were available, but were usually limited to displaying images to clients and other such special occasions. The Photoshop interface shown below doesn’t go back to the depths of time; its from the current release version of the product.

Photoshop CS5 interface

Photoshop CS6 breaks with this tradition. It now has its own window, with its own background. The look is darker, and the text, in some areas, is smaller, and inverted to show on the darker backgrounds. Those who use Adobe Lightroom will recognize this look, as will those who use Adobe video editing apps like Premier and After Effects. In that sense Photoshop is late to the party, and its change of interface is less revolutionary than evolutionary; evolving to follow the general trend of the Adobe line. Here’s what that the default interface in Photoshop CS6 looks like,compared to CS5 above.

Photoshop CS6 Interface

Beyond any initial shock at a version of Photoshop that doesn’t look like Photoshop, you may notice that very little else has actually changed. The same menu items, tools, and palettes are here, even if the look and feel has changed. This is not to say you won’t find yourself wandering the corridors of Photoshop CS6 searching for something you knew perfectly well how to find in CS5. But it won’t be that much more frequent an experience than it was with earlier updates. The most common questions I hear from people seeing this “bounded window” interface is whether, like Lightroom, it will limit their flexibility in moving images, using multiple displays, moving between applications, etc. I’ll address these concerns below.

The New Features, which I’m NOT going to Review

I could  include a description of interesting new features in Photoshop CS6, but it would not actually be that much different than the run-though in Russell Brown’s video on that topic. So please take a look at Russell’s video if you are curious about the cool new tools. I’ll just note that some of them extend on recent additions, like content aware fill, and may work well sometimes, and not others, so they can speed up your process, but won’t necessarily eliminate the need for classic Photoshop skills. They also include what I’m tempted to call “Feature Creep” with actual video editing, transitioning, and font abilities moving inside Photoshop. This may seem counterintuitive, after all, there are other apps for that. But as we shoot and edit more video with the same cameras we use for our still photography, being able to library video along side stills in Lightroom, and process clips in Photoshop along side stills may eventually seem not just reasonable, but obvious.

The Color and Workflow Related Items which I AM Going to Cover

Those of you who know me will already realize where my focus with any Photoshop Beta is going to be: the features and changes that effect Color Management, and the Digital Workflow. Lets start with issues of the new Photoshop  workspace window, and image location.

The Main Photoshop window, which is now a dark rectangle, can be run in full screen mode, where it is quite reminiscent of Lightroom. This means that the most common method of moving to other apps will be by using the “Hide Photoshop” command from the Photoshop menu list. This window can also be reduced in size, and will act like a typical floating window, capable of being moved around the screen, or to other screens, as desired. In this mode moving to other applications may occur by clicking on windows in the various apps to bring them to the front, the more traditional method of navigating.

Images open in Photoshop CS6 also have two possible modes. Depending on whether the “Open Documents as Tabs” option in the Interface tab of Photoshop Preferences is checked, or unchecked, you images will open as fixed tabs in the Photoshop window, and further images opened will tab with them. This method can be very convenient for checking “before and after” differences between files, and others such uses, but for many long-time Photoshop users it feels like a straight-jacket, and unchecking this box is the first thing some users do. In the unchecked mode your images are free floating windows… unless you drag them too near the top bar, or the top bar of other images, in which case they will nest in the main window, or with the other image window, forming tabs. They can be removed using the “rip a sheet off the tablet” effect, by dragging them away from the top bar of the window to free them. This tabbing behavior is not new to CS6, but has been increased by the option to nest images as tabs in the new Photoshop window; a natural extension of the previous option… or an added aggravation depending on how comfortable you become with this mechanism.

Images freed from the new Photoshop Window, can be moved off the new Photoshop background; something that is not necessarily obvious to first time users. While the background appears to define the limits of the Photoshop application, in fact its a recommendation, not an enforced rule.  So if the Photoshop workspace window is reduced to cover only part of a large screen, images can be moved off the background and stored elsewhere for later use (though fans of the tabbed interface would point out that tabs offer a much cleaner method of doing the same thing).

From a color management point of view, the new interface has its advantages; a controlled color background only makes sense. It helps assure consistent viewing conditions, and reduces variation in editing results. And for those of you who have been ignoring us Color Geeks for years, and are using color, not grayscale, images as your desktop image, the enforced backdrop is even more critical.

On the other hand, there is the question of color management for images removed from this new controlled environment. Even though the Photoshop workspace and its backdrop are limited to one of your displays, moving a free floating image to another screen triggers the correct change in display profile that has always been necessary to provide multiple display matching. So one key color concern about the CS6 is eliminated.

In fact, it is possible to stretch the Photoshop workspace to cover more than one display, though this is limited by how well the geometry of the displays in question match. Another interesting function is that moving the Photoshop workspace to another location or display will move any images tabbed to the workspace window with it, but will leave floating images behind, now displayed against your desktop or other apps that happen to be open in the background. This behavior is logical, but may take a few tries to get accustomed to.

Next; The Color Settings

The Edit menu is where the Color Settings have resided for several generations of Photoshop. This has not changed with CS6, all three of the Color Settings Commands are located in their usual places.

Photoshop CS6 Color Settings Menu

The Three Color Settings Windows accessed from this menu, shown below, are also unchanged. So color management, as we know it, has not been reshaped, as happened in the case of one or two previous Photoshop updates.

Photoshop CS6 Color Settings Windows

Next we will look at the Soft-proofing options in CS6. This is an important color management function for many users. Here, too, we find everything looking just as we last saw it in CS5.

Photoshop CS6 Custom Proof Setup

The remaining areas of concern are the Photoshop’s Printing options. Below is the CS6 Main Print Dialog. Reassuringly familiar.

Photoshop CS6 Main Print Window

The Print Settings Options are also unchanged, as shown below. This does not guarantee that color managed printing using a custom profile will be possible with all printer drivers; as some older drivers are not updated to the newer Print Path. But it does mean that any printer/driver combination that printed correctly from Photoshop CS5 should do the same from CS6.

Photoshop CS6 Print Settings Dialog

So while testing will continue, and the final word on Photoshop CS6 is yet to be written, it appears that standard color managed functions of viewing images on multiple displays using display profiles, opening and saving images with appropriate tags, and printing using output profiles are all available and unchanged in CS6, so that Color Management should not be the deciding factor on your decision on whether or not to update to the new version. I will warn you that a few weeks of working with CS6 Beta will make it difficult to consider moving back to CS5 when the Beta period expires.

Credits: C. David Tobie, Copyright 2012. Website: CDTobie.com Return to Blog’s Main Page

Lightroom 4.1 Conversion Example

I have had requests for an example, not of a new image processed through Lightroom 4’s improved controls, but an older image that was problematic, moved forward to the new method. Its a fair question: what can the new Process2012 do for an older image? I selected an image that I could clearly recall having posterization and reversal issues with on original processing, and used it as an example here.

Tuscan Window Image, as originally processed

The image was shot hand-held with the Canon 5D in an abandoned villa in Tuscany, not long before the Canon 5D Mark ll became available; a fact I recall, because I wished I had the Mark ll in hand when I took what I knew would be a problem shot. Yes, a tripod and longer exposure would have helped, and yes a tripod and multiple exposures for HDR processing would have helped even more. But it was an impromptu image, without those options.

When processing later in Lightroom 2, the temptation was to gain more detail in the clouds and landscape with the Recovery slider, and more detail in the interior with the Fill Light slider. Doing both resulted in rather painterly, non-photographic result in the landscape with lack of detail and levels, but an unacceptable reversal creating a double edge to the window, and even to the tree outside the window. My solution at the time was to recover the highlights in Lightroom, and do the rest in Photoshop, to eliminate the reversals. This didn’t improve the landscape, but in this case, unlike some others, the dreamy result was acceptable. The resulting image has been popular as a small size matte paper print.

I accessed the original RAW file in Lightroom 4, and created a virtual copy of it. I left the image in Process2003 and set the Recovery and Fill Light sliders to the heavy settings that I had originally attempted, only to find I needed to back them off to avoid reversals. A closeup of the result, much as it looked the first time, is on the left below.

Tuscan Window Details, comparing older and newer Processes

I then updated the image to Process 2012, and set the tone curve to Linear, since the custom curve in the older format had not been converted in a reasonable manner, as discussed in a previous article. The resulting image (on the right above) is darker, but being darker should show the posterization and reversal issues even more clearly.

And yet it does not. Click on the image above to examine the edges in detail. The top edge of the window is very soft, but neither edge of the window, nor the tree outside, show the clear double border that occurred in the earlier process.There is less loss of levels in the landscape as well, though this closeup does not focus on that.

Clearly, it would be possible to create an improved version of my earlier image by reprocessing in Lightroom 4.1. That would require doing dust busting and other work a second time, since those steps had occurred in Photoshop, not Lightroom, originally. But for an image such as this, the reworking would be worthwhile for the improved results, and the possibility of then offering the image in larger sizes than previously possible.

If I had the luxury of reshooting the image today, a hand-held image with the Canon 5DMark lll, plus Lightroom 4.1 processing, would offer far more detail, far less noise, and more levels in both the highlight landscape and the shadow interior.

Credits: C. David Tobie, Copyright 2012. Website: CDTobie.com Return to Blog’s Main Page

Lightroom 4 and How it Processes Older Image Files

The History

Photographers who have been using Lightroom for at least two years have images originally processed through Lightroom 2, Lightroom 3, and Lightroom 4 in their image libraries. Its important to understand how Lightroom 4 (V4.1 is actually used in all testing and examples) interacts with these legacy files.

Moving from Lightroom 2 (which used the original Process 2003) to Lightroom 3 (using Process 2010) was quite transparent. The newer controls which Process 2010 added showed up when these older files were opened, but the sliders for these new controls, which had never been adjusted before, since they did not exist before, were set to zero. That made sense, and required no user intervention, so did not attract much attention. If an image was reopened, the new controls could then be adjusted, and the improved image would be transparently updated from a p2003 file to a p2010 file.

Those files that had been exported to Tiff, and had dust busting, localized editing, layers, and other voodoo applied in Photoshop, could only benefit from the new controls if we started from scratch again. Well, not from scratch, all the Lightroom edits were still there, and we could apply the new adjustments as well, but all work done on the image after export would need to be redone again. Since the improvements in Process 2010 were not critical to many files, the heartbreak was minimal, as few files really needed to be reworked. The improvements now available in Lightroom 4 are not as minimal, so more users will be considering moving files forward, not just to their Lightroom 4 library, but to the new Process 2012 that Lightroom 4 offers.

The Current Situation

Viewing legacy files (and everything you ever shot and imported before upgrading to Lightroom 4, is now a legacy file) in Lightroom 4 produces a more complicated situation. The image below shows the Basic Controls from Lightroom 3 and Lightroom 4, and how they differ. I have already described these differences in a previous article, for anyone looking for more information on them. Here our interest is on the interaction of these, now conflicting, sets of controls. There are other control changes from Process 2010 to 2012, one of which will enter into consideration as we move forward.

Lightroom 3 and 4 Basic Controls

Without analyzing the controls in detail again, it apparent that that the Process 2012, Lightroom 4, controls don’t simply add new sliders to the previous generation, as happened the last time around. This time sliders disappear, or move, or get renamed, and as my previous article notes, they don’t really do the same thing. Please don’t think that I’m complaining; the new thing is vastly superior to the old thing, so I’m happy to have it available. The issue is learning how this interacts with all those images I’ve already painstakingly processed using older versions, and what havoc it might wreak on them if they are suddenly converted to a new, albeit superior, set of adjustment tools.

What This Doesn’t Effect

Files that you import through Lightroom 4 will  be fine, and look great. Files you imported though earlier versions will continue to use the process of that previous version, and the older controls will show when those images are selected, so things will be consistent with earlier adjustments. No problems with either of those cases. But what about older files that you would like to reap the advantages of the newer Process 2012?

Clearly a good deal of thought was put into this situation, from the time that it was decided that a change was needed that would not simply mean another generation of additional new functions. And I believe that the Lightroom team (or the Core team, or both) did the right thing, at least for all  existing files that remain in their existing process, and all newly imported files. The overall result is not quite as transparent as last time around, but many casual users of Lightroom would not catch on to how this change functions, without some inside information. Here’s the scoop: in Develop Mode, in the right panel, way down where scrolling is required and users seldom venture, is a small box named “Process”. It lists one of the three Process choices for any given image.

Process Options List from Lightroom 4

For images originally imported through Lightroom 2 or earlier, this defaults to p2003, unless they have been opened and reprocessed in Lightroom 3, in which case they are now 2010 images. Similarly, images originally imported through Lightroom 3 will default to p2010. Interesting things occur if you change this setting. Any adjustments you had previously made, to a control that has not been changed, will migrate forward as the file is reformatted to p2012.

This migration of existing setting includes HSL adjustments, important to those who have used SpyderCheck for color calibration. DNG profiles used for color correction should be respected in the conversion as well. Or, as they would say in the movies: *No Color Calibrations Have Been Harmed While Producing This Process Change.*

What It Does Effect

SpyderCube Exposure adjustments are a less clear cut situation. Adjustments to White Balance, Tint, Exposure, and Blacks made to a p2010 image, as they would be using a SpyderCube (or even by eye), can be converted to Process 2012 and back, and result in the same original values once returned to p2010. So the roundtrip has been managed effectively no matter what method you used for making your adjustments. But the one way trip is a different matter.

Moving from p2010 to p2012 with these same four adjustments in place results in the White Balance and Tint, not part of the changed control groups, remaining numerically and visually the same. But exposure jumps from +.25 to +.53, and the new two way control for Blacks, instead of being lowered from a default value for the camera of 20 to an adjusted value of 8 to set the blacks correctly, moves instead from its new centered location to a value of -1. If these two adjustments produced the same result visually, that would still be fine. But they do not.

The Culpret

The reason they do not is elsewhere in the  Develop Mode’s right panel. Process 2010 defaulted to a tone response curve named Medium Contrast. Process 2012 now defaults to Linear; and it doesn’t just default there, it moves there. Improvements in the other controls may have eliminated the need for the previous sin of the Medium Contast bump. But it causes some difficulties for us old sinners. Simply setting the control to Linear when in P2010 does not allow for a transparent conversion, as it then results, in p2012, in a reverse curve which is the equivalent of medium to linear, but now, starting at linear, is linear to negative medium. It can be debated whether this is a bug or a feature in LR4.1, but it would seem to be closely related to the custom tone curve bug in Lightroom 4.0.

Another detail to be aware of is that, once a file has been changed from the p2003 or p2010 setting to the p2012 setting, even if it is toggled back to its original Process again, the Reset button no longer resets it to its original Process State and Tone Curve as it did before. Instead it will now bump it forward to the p2012 state, and the 2012 default Tone Curve of Linear. So, in that sense, you can’t go home again. This is why duplicating your library, backing up your catalog, or at least making a virtual copy of a given file, before changing Process Versions is a good idea.

The Fix

To avoid ending up in unexpected places, with custom tone curve values you did not ask for, or very different shadow detail, the following order of steps is used:

* Open legacy image

* Set Mode to Develop

* Scroll down the Right Panel to Process

* Change Process from 2010 (or 2003 for even older files) to 2012

* Scroll back up to Tone Curve

* Reset Tone Curve from Linear, to Medium Contrast

Your image should now have the same shadow detail and midtone densities as it did in Process 2010, assuming your file was at the p2010 default Tone Curve of Medium Contrast. You may now choose to use the superior capabilities of Lightroom 4 and Process2012 to open up the shadows without excessive noise… perhaps by changing the tone response curve back to Linear. Or by other methods. And you can now use the new controls replacing Recovery and Fill without fear of the posterization and reversals that occurred with the older controls.

The Implications

Given the automatic tone curve change, and its significant impact on shadow detail and lesser effect on midtone values, automatically converting an entire library of legacy images to Process 2012 would not be recommended. Instead, at least until the dust settles, and other possible fixes are added to a future Lightroom 4 update, updating images to use the new process should be a one-at-a-time affair, with manual changes to the Tone Curve setting, or other shadow detail adjustments to compensate. One batch-oriented solution would be to bring the key image (for SpyderCube users, thats the one with the Cube in it) forward, allowing the Medium to Linear change to occur, then to readjust the image again in the Linear State, and apply this correction to the entire batch of following images from the same light source once they have been moved to the new Process as well. This would effectively “launder” all the images from their dependance on the shadow bump in the old Medium setting to the more literal Linear mode, with a minimum of tweaking.

Credits: C. David Tobie, Copyright 2012. Website: CDTobie.com Return to Blog’s Main Page

Enhanced Functionalities in Lightroom 4

  • Adobe’s Photoshop Lightrooom 4, and its recent update v4.1 offer a new set of functions, defined as Process 2012. These new functions add or remove a control or two, and reworks others. While this is not as radical a set of changes as moving from Photoshop CS5 to CS6, it still requires some acclimation, though offering significant new potential in return. This article deals with the renovated Basic controls at the top of the Develop Mode’s right panel. Lets start by comparing Lightroom 3’s Basic controls to those in Lightroom 4.

Lightroom 3 and 4 Basic Controls

A quick comparison brings to light that White Balance and Presence sections are unchanged. But the Tone section has been reorganized. Here the Exposure control hasn’t been altered, but Contrast has been moved to a group with Exposure, and Contrast’s old partner, Brightness has disappeared… or has it?

The former trio of Recovery (a Hightlight function), Fill Light (a Shadows function) and Blacks (a, well, Black function) have been changed to a more symmetrical set of controls where a new Whites function balances the existing Blacks function, and a Highlights function balances a Shadows function. Since Brightness is now missing it would be tempting to assign its former role to the new Whites slider, assign the Recovery function to the new Highlights function, claim Fill is the equivalent is Shadows, and be done with it.

While this might all make general sense, the actual results of using these sliders is not the same as those from Lightroom 3’s Process 2010. The Recovery and Fill sliders in LR3 were “use with caution” controls. If both were manipulated to a significant degree, then unintended results could occur; usually in the form of posterization or even reversals in zones with transitions from shadows directly into highlights. In some cases a distinct double edge formed in sharp transition zones. Such results required returning to Lightroom, and reducing or removing the conflicting Recovery and Fill adjustments, and finding some other way to get the needed adjustments, typically at a later stage, in Photoshop.

Lightroom 4’s new version of these adjustments, on the other hand, are amazingly resilient. To demonstrate this, I took the RAW image shown below, and processed it in a way that would have been fatal in Lightroom 3. Here is the original image.

RAW file in its default state

I performed a series of adjustments to create HDR-like effects in the image. I began by reducing the exposure a bit, to deepen the sky. Next I moved the new Highlight slider to the negative side, creating even more detail in the clouds, and lowered Whites slightly as well. This all could have been accomplished, or something rather like it, in LR 3, but not at the same time as the set of adjustments below.

I then brought out detail in the dark face of the barn by boosting the shadows as far as the slider would go. “Danger, Will Robinson” said my Lightroom 3-acclimated brain, but nothing terrible happened; nothing even remotely undesirable happened. So I moved on to dropping the blacks just enough to clean up the pure blacks in the windows a bit, and then adjusted  the Clarity slider, which produces localized contrast.

Here the goal is to produce the type of weathered wood effect that Paul Caponigro achieved with the early high contrast photo papers. This is a dangerous game, and on top of the radical adjustments at both ends of the tonal range, should cause the image to fall apart into grainy, posterized results. But again, not so. The dynamic range of the new Canon 5D Mark lll, and Lightroom 4’s new Process 2012 produced unparalleled results. Here’s the overall image.

Adjusted Image

Even more impressive is the closeup view, where the recovered clouds in the sky, the opened-up barn face, and the enhanced wood texture all show in detail, with no noise, and no “ring around the collar” where the lights meet the darks.

Adjusted Image, Closeup

Only time will tell what the true potential of Lightroom 4 and Process 2012 may be, but early tests such as this one show promise for improved editing functionality, and enhanced HDR-like processing, without artifacts, noise, or posterization.

Credits: C. David Tobie, Copyright 2012. Website: CDTobie.com Return to Blog’s Main Page

RAW Formats and Converters – Part 4: Which Apps to Update?

Please read the FirstSecond, and Third articles of this Series.

Our previous analysis has helped us understand the formats and conversions involved in RAW workflows. But it hasn’t come down to the questions that cost us the money: Which apps do we have to keep updated, for compatibility with new cameras, and other new apps?

The simplest workflow for the photographer is to store images in a Lightroom library as RAW files, and export from Lightroom to a recent version of Photoshop, which will open these RAW files in ACR, respecting all edits applied in Lightroom. This version can then be saved as a high bit TIF file back into Lightroom where it will be stored with the original file.  Simple process, minimal steps, convenient, and leaves rendering to the last possible point in the workflow. However this workflow requires anyone who purchased new cameras to continuously upgrade Lightroom, which is moderately priced app, and getting more affordable over time, and to similarly upgrade Photoshop, for continuous access to the latest camera formats and compatibility with the the latest versions of Lightroom (explained below). Photoshop is not a low cost app, and not as low priced as Lightroom even for upgrades; plus there are now two applications which need to be upgraded with each new generation. So this is simplest and most flexible workflow, but also the most costly.

The way that Adobe deals with the need for inter-application compatibility is through defining “Processes”. For instance Photoshop CS5, and Lightroom 3, used Process 2010, which was developed in (you guessed it) 2010. Any other app can also adopt that standard. The problem happens when you have newer images processed in Lightroom4, or another Process 2012 app (though I doubt that there are many other Process 2012 apps out there yet), and try to open it into Photoshop CS4 or CS5. In those older apps (yes, I just called the current version of Photoshop “older”… get your wallet ready) you’ll see a warning dialog that this version of Photoshop does not support the more recent features used on this image.

However, there is a workaround. At least when importing from Lightroom, you will see an option to render the file from Lightroom, to retain the edits made with the newer functions. Since you are going to have to render the file shortly, the fact that Lightroom instead of ACR in Photoshop performs this function is not a big deal. It might, in some instances, mean one more saved interim copy of the image, if your workflow isn’t optimized to avoid that, costing you disc space, but not really any extra effort.

So perhaps you have already noticed what this change in workflow could mean to your wallet: you don’t have to update Photoshop every time you update Lightrooom, (or your camera) to retain compatibility. In fact, you won’t ever need to update Photoshop at all, unless there are new features in it that you decide you need, or other critical changes (such as support for newer OS versions) occur. There are similar workflows for rendering from Aperture and other applications using their latest “Process” version, then opening in Photoshop, though they may be a bit less automatic, since they are not handing off between two Adobe apps. Be sure to render out using a file, type, compression type, and bit depth that your receiving application can handle.

There are a few warnings that go with this suggestion. You will lose your ability to open images from newer cameras directly into Photoshop, and will have to launder them through Lightroom or your other app that contains the latest camera RAW format definitions. But you will have to render out any images to TIF  before opening them with Photoshop, so these two processes will occur seamlessly in the same workflow.

Another warning would be that Adobe may not honor your copy of Photoshop for upgrade, if you have not kept up with all the interim versions. But unless you intend to purchase upgrades for both Lightroom and Photoshop with each generation (which is looking like every two years) then you will have to become familiar with these other workflow options, and act accordingly. Those using other RAW conversion and image management apps will similarly need to decide if they will update that app for new camera compatibility, and recent “Process” versions, plus update Photoshop as well; or develop a lower cost workflow that only sends TIF and JPG files to Photoshop, and does not use Photoshop’s ACR plugin for opening and rendering RAW files.

Credits: C. David Tobie, Copyright 2012. Website: CDTobie.com Return to Blog’s Main Page

RAW Formats and Converters – Part 3: What Import Route?

20120315-175934.jpg

Please read the First and Second articles of this Series

Now that we have covered the basics on RAW and DNG formats, the next issue is one of the route you choose for getting your camera files into the applications you use. A future article will cover systems for processing your files into rendered TIF files for high resolutin uses, and JPG files for the web and other low resolution uses. Here we are more concerned with the formats you use for getting files into your apps, rather than the formats you use for the end products coming out of your apps.

We will start by assuming you have a camera which does not product in-camera DNG files, as the number that do are small, and getting smaller. Next we will assume that you are using some form of image management tool. Adobe Bridge, along with Adobe Camera RAW (ACR) can form a management system of sorts, but most users are working with either Adobe Lightroom (by far the most common choice) or Apple Aperture (second most common), or else a less common tool from a camera manufacturer (PhaseOne’s Media Pro being one example from this category) or another software company.

The goal is to get your images into a management application, and then to process them as needed. This type of processing used to be the territory of Adobe Photoshop. But as image management and RAW conversion apps have become more common, more powerful, and more affordable, the larger part of the image editing workload has shifted to these apps, instead of Photoshop. This does not mean that photographers don’t still find it necessary to own a copy of Photoshop, but rather that they use it for localized editing on a smaller number of images chosen for advanced processing, rather than each and every image they shoot.

Given this one-two punch, with images edited in both a RAW tool, and then Photoshop, the choice of applications, and conversion methods, becomes important. An image is stored by your management app, global edits are performed there, and even some localized editing is done there (such as dust removal), meaning many images don’t actually require a trip to Photoshop at all, unless you choose to do your printing from there (and printing functions from RAW apps are getting better over time).

Once you have some images ready for advanced editing or possibly printing, you have a new decisions to face. The original image format, or the DNG format if you chose to convert, is still in place, and all the global adjustments you have made so far, including cropping, exposure and color adjustments, and possibly even dust removal, is part of, or a sidecar file stored with, that high bit RAW or DNG file. If you move to a newer, better RAW conversion process later, with better controls, improved noise removal, or some other advantages, than everything that has been done to these files to this point should be reusable, with some changes for the new functions.

However, you now want to move the best, or the most challenging, of our images into Photoshop to do localized work. Photoshop won’t work on RAW files; it will trigger the ACR plugin, to import these RAW files, while respecting the adjustments that the sidecar file contains for them. Similarly, adjustments within a DNG file will be respected in opening a DNG file in the ACR plugin on the way into Photoshop.

We need to stop for a moment and marvel at this level of compatibility. In order for DNG files and sidecar files from any app to have their adjustments respected in ACR on the way into Photoshop, Adobe needs to have provided all other companies with the keys to the store: meaning that all the adjustments in ACR and Lightroom need to be provided to competitors, since this is the only way that Adobe can get incoming files to be compatible. On the surface this looks like suicide: Adobe’s own apps are crippled by this need to make all their features available to all competitors. Yet by looking at how radically different the functions in Adobe’s own ACR and Lightroom tools look and feel, and how very different the workflows for these two apps, both based on the exact same engine, are; you can see that the engine does not make the car. There are many other areas in which Adobe can make its own apps unique, even while sticking to this same processing engine.

So which workflows save time, which save effort, which save money, and which leave the files in the most flexible format? Any way you go, you will want to render out your files to work on them in Photoshop, to post them to the web, to send them to others, and possibly to print them. Render out simply means move them from a RAW or DNG state, to a TIF or JPG state. Once rendered there are many more tools that can be applied to them, which is desirable in terms of flexible editing. But any edits you make to the rendered file is not captured in the RAW or DNG file, so is part of a permanent descendant of your original file, no longer retained as part of that original file.

In Part 4 of this Series we’ll finally get to the financial impact of the workflow choices you make. Stay Tuned!

Credits: C. David Tobie, Copyright 2012. Website: CDTobie.com Return to Blog’s Main Page