Please bring back the Fill Light slider!!!

[Guest]

I was extremely disappointed when I fired up LR4 last night.  This new Shadows slider pales horribly in comparison to Fill Light.  Frankly, it's a wimp!!!  For me, Fill Light was magic.  I can't tell you how many people would ask "how did you do that" when they looked at my pictures hanging on the wall.  It was a perfect tool and one that made LR stand out.  Not only did it fulfill its intended purpose of adding just that suble amount of fill, it also was an extremely efficient way to produce an edgy, psuedo HDR, effect. Hopefully Curves will allow close to the same results, but there's no way it will be as easy and reproducable. I kick myself for not having tried the bata version before paying the $69 upgade (thankfully it wasn't $150). If I can't figure this out, I'm heading back to LR3. Do others miss Fill Light like I do?

[Guest]

Christian,

I think with your rudeness and refusal to accept any well-meant advice, you go too far.

Process version 2012 is much better than PV 2010. After installing the beta, I could within 15 minutes see, how much highlight revovery and image processing in general have been improved. No double contours and other bad artefacts anymore on images, which where processed with recovery in version 2010.

For the most part, the results of the old process version can be easily achieved with the much better controls of PV 2012. I could learn the basics of the new version within less than a day. As Rob Cole mentioned, there are a few PV 2010 results, which you can't reproduce with PV 2012 completely but it is possible to come up with a close enough alternative result in PV 2012.

If you don't use Lightroom 4, which still has the capabilities to use PV 2010, you shot yourself in your foot deeply. And no, not everybody has performance issues with LR 4.

I can only say, that Adobe made a good step changing the controls for PV 2012. I would never miss the old controls, and reject that Adobe reintroduces Fill Light and Recovery in PV 2012 (wich ain't gonna happen anyway).

[areohbee]

tgutgu wrote:

If you don't use Lightroom 4, which still has the capabilities to use PV 2010, you shot yourself in your foot deeply. And no, not everybody has performance issues with LR 4.

That's the part I'd hate to see Christian miss out on.

I mean, if the vast majority of your photo processing relies on PV2010 fill-light effects..., and you don't use the other features of Lr4, then by all means, wait and hope for Lr5...

Otherwise, reverting to Lr3 is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, cutting off your nose to spite your face, and shooting yourself in the foot...

Rob

[Jeff Schewe]

Rob Cole wrote:

...and you don't use the other features of Lr4, then by all means, wait and hope for Lr5...

Actually, the odds of a new PV 20xx are actually much greator than Fill Light returning. Not saying there will be a new PV in LR5, but the odds of Fill Light returning to be mixed in and blended with PV2012 are nil.

The whole purpose of the Process Versions are to maintain user's ability to keep their images in previous versions. To take advantage of the image processing progress (and PV 2012 is progress) Adobe had to draw a line in the sand, which resulted in creating an all new set of Basic panel controls.

Some people have kicked and screamed initially at the changes, only to find that for the vast majority of images, PV2012 is a bif win. For those images where the old Fill Light haloing and artifacts actually "helped" images, you still have the option of using PV2010. That's why the PV concept was created...

[Lee_Jay]

Jeff,

I can always create equal or better images in PV2012 than I can in PV2010.

However, I can often create acceptable images faster in PV2010 than in PV2012.  That's why I created those Fill-Light like presets for myself, and shared them on this forum.  They contain a lot of slider movements to mimic what the Fill Light slider did with a single slider.

Many of us have to process hundreds or thousands of images quickly, and Fill Light made that easier than the new controls in PV2012 do, and it worked impressively like using an actual fill flash so it was very "photographic".

I believe I was the first to file a bug called the "Fill Light mask bug", identifying at least one problem with that method, and I'm quite familiar with how PV2012 finally stamped that out effectively, and I'm grateful for it.  That said, I think the team should consider ways to recover the speedy and "photographic" workflow that Fill-Light afforded those that enjoyed it - without the associated downsides like the Fill Light mask bug.

[tropicaldiva]

@Anthony.Ralph   --   You make a good point.  I did not try Lightroom 4 during the beta process and therefore, did not realize key features would be removed.  I trusted Adobe to have a photog's best interest at heart.  I have never questioned Adobe and have bought multiple versions of several products as new realeases are available (what is that --- 3-4 new upgrades a year??).  I've spent a pretty penny on Adobe and I expect that they are looking out for my intrest as a photographer --- because if they don't look out for their customers, who will buy their products?  I'd been lulled into believing that Adobe was adding features for Lightroom 4 --- I trusted Adobe -- therefore, I did not do the "try before you buy option".  I paid for an upgrade and now I am sorry that I did.  I love the new features that are accisible when using the Adjustment Brush and Graduated Filter - but these additional features DO NOT make up for a simple Fill Light slider.  NOT even close.

[CSS_Simon]

tropicaldiva,

Your characterisation of the changes in LR4 is not how I see it.  In my view, they haven't removed functionality, they've changed how the functionality is used.  In fact, they've added signficantly to the functionality in the basic panel.  I can get much better results (in PV2012) with high-contrast pictures, and can easily get more detail in highlights and shadows.  Does that extra functionality require changing the interface a bit?  Clearly Adobe think so, but they've kept PV2010 for those that don't agree. 

I'm no automatic defender of Adobe - I think the new upgrade policy for Photoshop stinks, for example - but I'm with them on this issue.  I really don't want to be tied to a user interface that is non-optimal for the new functionality, especially when the old interface is still there in PV2010. 

[EricBier]

Hi Rob

Thank you for your tips!

To what extent is it possible to achieve the adjustments made with the sliders, using the Tone Curve alone?

[areohbee]

Hi Eric.

You're welcome...

I think it's best to get as close as possible using the basic sliders before heading for the tone curve.

Tone curve can only expand tones in one section whilst compressing them in another.

Basic sliders can expand tones in one section whilst maintaining contrast in another section.

There is a lot of sophisticated and helpful programming behind those (not so) "basic" sliders, that do all of their magic before presenting the image data to the tone curve for final adjustment.

Depends on the situation I 'spose, but in general your image will look less "washed out' or 'flat' by doing it this way.

Rob

[Keith Reeder]

christianbobak wrote:

I, too, am pissed off at having bought the Lightroom 4 upgrade without realising that Recovery, Fill light and Brightness had been removed.

Hard to have any sympathy for someone who pays first, then "tests", given the 30 days we're allowed in which to evaluate the software before having to spend money on it.

This was a stupid move on Adobe's part.

On Adobe's part? You might not like the new processing, but for many of us (those of us that have taken the time to figure it out) it's a Godsend.

You chose to buy Lr 4 without ensuring it fit your purposes. That's not Adobe's fault.

Take some personal responsibilty for your own screw-up here, and stop blaming the rest of the world for a mistake you made.

[john beardsworth]

Listen, whoever you are - people are trying to get you to understand that the LR3 sliders are still there.

Here's how you get them back:

1. Start with an image with no adjustments
2. In Develop, Camera Calibration, choose 2010 from the Process (this is "PV2010")
3. Hold down Alt or Option on the keyboard and the bottom right button changes from Reset to Set Default
4. Click this. From now on, all your pictures will default to LR3 sliders.

[christianbobak]

Thank you, John, I get it. My question is: Do I still have the new features when reverting back to the "PV2010"?

[areohbee]

You use one process version per photo.

if you process photo x using PV2010 then it works just like Lr3, for that photo - recovery & fill & brightness, but no highlights and no shadows sliders...

if you process photo y using PV2012 then it's the new process version - highlights & shadows..., no fill, no recovery, no brightness...

You get that PV2012's highlights and/or whites sliders serves the same purpose as PV2010's recovery slider, right?, and likewise the functionality of PV2010's fill-light is still present in PV2012, just divvied up into a different set of sliders with different characteristics... - right?

Anyway, I get that for some kinds of photos PV2010's fill-light characteristics are more favorable. And I prefer PV2010's highlight handling on some photos too. Of course PV2012's "fill" & "recovery" & "brightness" are superior to PV2010 on other photos... But also, a big part is just the learning curve - PV2012 is a lot more capable than it may seem at first. For example, photos with very dark darks and very light lights but not much in between respond better to blacks & whites sliders, and photos with a more even distribution of tones respond better to shadow and highlights sliders, for fill & recovery. Others respond best to a mixture of the aforementioned. Not as simple, more flexible, and I acknowlege not as well suited for some results that may be desired.

maps & books are independent of process version used to develop photos...

eh?

R

[john beardsworth]

Thank you, John, I get it. My question is: Do I still have the new features when reverting back to the "PV2010"?

Other new features, yes. Those Develop features associated with PV2012, no, so you won't have good stuff like local WB and local moire.

What I'd recommend you do is simply leave existing images as they are in PV2010 - there's no need to update them to the LR4 sliders / PV 2010. If you're pushed for time, changing the default will mean new images will be adjusted with the familiar LR3 sliders.

But at least give the new sliders a chance by putting some effort into learning their advantages. Why not try LR4/PV2012 with specific pictures - choose those with difficult highlights because that's where the new sliders and processing really offers the biggest improvement in image quality.

[Lee_Jay]

christianbobak wrote:

But the majority of my shots are taken in dark venues at high ISO settings with poor and erratic lighting conditions, so the Recovery and Fill Light features are absolutely crucial to me.

No they aren't.

First of all, Recovery never worked very well.  It didn't recover texture very well, and it caused hue shifts.  Highlights is much, much better.  Second, you can still do fill - with even more power - with the new tools.  You just do it differently (+Exposure and -Highlights is like Fill).  Finally, the new local adjustments, especially local white balance and local noise reduction, are perfectly suited to difficult lighting conditions, especially high-contrast lighting with mixed colors.

I also shoot in dark conditions much of the time.  I was recently shooting a concert in horrible multi-colored stage lighting with a 5D and 35/1.4L, mostly at f/1.4 and ISOs from 1000 to 3200.  LR4's new tools were really the only way to get these images looking the way I wanted them.

[areohbee]

Lee Jay wrote:

You just do it differently (+Exposure and -Highlights is like Fill).

And of course, you may want to toss some +Shadows (and/or +Blacks) in there along with that +Exposure & -Highlights.

R

[tropicaldiva]

I have purchased so many Adobe products, I think I deserve an Adobe building named after me.  I have 4 computers in my household - 1 mac and 3 Windows.  I use my Lightroom license on 2 Window machines. I had to completely re-buy all Adobe products for my Mac (photoshop, lightroom. etc...) - cost me a pretty penny when I moved to a Mac machine.

THEN - this thread offers many, many suggestions on how to r"e-create" the fill slider requiring more steps in the process flow....   HELLO????   Trying to be a professional photog and the last thing I need is more workflow steps!!!!!!! 

I am highly disappointed in Lightroom 4 for taking away one of the features that I used the most.  With miimal effort, I was able to use Lightroom 3 to bring out the forefront detail. 

Here is my new post processing process:  ANY photos that need fill light - save to a jump drive.  Walk across street to my parents home.  Plug jump drive into my parents computer where I have a license for Lightroon 3 (windows) . Adjust photos with Fill slider.  Save to jump drive.  Walk back home and upload to Mac machine.  Argue with Mac machine (on occasion) about reading a Windows file. 

WTF???  Just give me my trusted Fill slider back!! 

Adobe ---- a poor mistake on your part.  I should be getting a hefty discount on Lightroom 4 for upgrading and having a PRIME feature taken away.

[Mollysnoot]

tropicaldiva wrote:

I had to completely re-buy all Adobe products for my Mac (photoshop, lightroom. etc...) - cost me a pretty penny when I moved to a Mac machine.

When you purchase LR (at least in the case of the boxed version), you get both Mac & Windows versions of the software. As I understand it, you can then use your licence key on either platform, so long as you meet the requirements (e.g. not installed on more than two machines, etc). Also, I know for a fact that Adobe will allow you to transfer a licence for Photoshop from one platform to the other, although you need to contact them directly in order to organise this. So, you didn't actually need to spend all that money.

I had a bit of trouble getting used to not have fill light, but now there's no way I'd go back to PV2010: PV2012 is far superior. Just takes some time to adjust. But, as already stated elsewhere in this thread, you can just switch over to PV2010 if you really want to; no need to go across to your parents house to use LR3. The feature hasn't been removed, it's just not present in PV2012.

M

[Lee_Jay]

tropicaldiva wrote:

Here is my new post processing process:  ANY photos that need fill light - save to a jump drive.  Walk across street to my parents home.  Plug jump drive into my parents computer where I have a license for Lightroon 3 (windows) . Adjust photos with Fill slider.  Save to jump drive.  Walk back home and upload to Mac machine.  Argue with Mac machine (on occasion) about reading a Windows file. 

WTF??? 

I agree with that last part.

Why not just switch LR 4 to PV2010 for a moment if you really need it.  Or, better, just learn to use the new tools.

[dhphoto2012]

Once you get used to the new LR4 controls it's quite easy to replicate the fill-light. I can see why Adobe did it as they did have various tools that were doing a different version of the same job.

LR4 *is* a bit too slow though, I hope 4.1 will be much faster

[gregkmeyer]

tropicaldiva wrote:

Here is my new post processing process:  ANY photos that need fill light - save to a jump drive.  Walk across street to my parents home.  Plug jump drive into my parents computer where I have a license for Lightroon 3 (windows) . Adjust photos with Fill slider.  Save to jump drive.  Walk back home and upload to Mac machine.  Argue with Mac machine (on occasion) about reading a Windows file. 

WTF???  Just give me my trusted Fill slider back!! 

I don't normally flame people on forums like this, and I may not have standing to even do it here, but this is quite simply one of the most stunningly ignorant things I have ever heard of.   There is a little drop down box in the camera calibration section of the Develop module.  With that drop down, you can choose to use PV2010, which will give you the exact same controls and features as LR3.  There is no need to walk across the street to your parents house.  There have been about 4 posts in this thread alone where people have posted this, but so many of you are too busy being outraged to stop and understand what the people that are trying to help you are saying.

I am now convinced that there is a personality type that actually chooses to be outraged.  I think Adobe put the ultimate protection in for people that didn't want to change, they left the LR3 controls in place, they don't force you to upgrade your existing images and you are allowed to switch back and forth at will.  And they even took it a step further by recording the conversion as a history step, so if you switch and you don't linke it, reverting your image is as simple as Ctrl-Z or clicking the mouse once in the history panel.  You all really need to cut the drama and get over yourselves. 

[Dave Merchant]

A number of replies in this thread have been deleted because of abusive content. Unless this discussion returns to a polite and professional conversation about the software, it will be locked.