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?

[Lee_Jay]

christianbobak wrote:

I did learn how to use the tools. You don't understand. The learning process did not take much time for me. I get it all, and the new tools work amazingly for what they do, but they do not properly replicate the tools that Adobe took away. I'm not sure what you don't get about that, why you don't believe me, or why you don't understand.

Perhaps because I've processed about 12,000 images with the new tools, and can consistently get better results with the new tools than the old ones.  And, yes, I regularly shoot in exceptionally difficult shooting conditions.

I'd say figuring out how to get the best results from the new tools took processing perhaps 6,000-10,000 images, and I'm certainly still learning.  But that's not unexpected considering I had processed more than 100,000 images over many years with the old tools.

If the learning process didn't take much time for you, I'd say you didn't learn it.

[christianbobak]

Lee Jay wrote:

If the learning process didn't take much time for you, I'd say you didn't learn it.

Really?

[EricBier]

Hi Lee

Please post some examples or refer to a web site where I can see comparasions of your improved results with PV2012. 

I am reprocessing many photos, and I getting much better results, but I am not sure why.  Your examples will help me focus in on what is causing the improvement, and I hope to be able to use the new tools more efficiently.

Thank you.

[areohbee]

My Lr3 photos: run a little dim. Why? because I tended to keep exposure/brightness/recovery low to protect the highlights, and because Lr3 fill light often can't be pushed too hard before it breaks down - masking artifacts and color aberration. Limit to how much contrast can be added via tone curve without flatening in other places.

My Lr4 photos: fully brightened, detailed, with fully recovered highlights, and shadows lit as desired. They look like somebody washed the window I was looking at my Lr3 photos through. Most benefit comes from the new tone controls, but new clarity is also awesome, albeit may need some local tempering.

I thought I had PV2012 mastered after several hundred photos - I was wrong. Mastery takes thousands.

Note: Lr4 can be especially challenging for photos with lots of very dark tones, but some critical tones that are very bright too - like concert photos. Highlight slider affects a larger range of tones than seems like should be considered highlights, and shadows slider a narrower range than other photos. Thus the balance between exposure highlights and shadows is trickier than for photos with bell-shaped curves, or even 2-hump camel curves... Also, these photos often require an optimal blend of blacks & whites which adds to the complexity.

Summary:

------------

I never said PV2012 was always easy to obtain optimal results with, but if one can tame the beast, the results are awesome!!!

PV2012 .

R

[Lee_Jay]

See attached two images.  These represent about the best I could squeeze out of each.

The differences are somewhat subtle, but the PV2012 image has a little more local and global contrast while at the same time having fewer blown pixels.  Put them on top of each other and flip back and forth and you'll see what I mean.

PV2010:

PV2012:

[EricBier]

Lee,

Thank you, I definitely see what I consider to be an improvement in the contrast in PV2012.

Rob,

I have also been feeling like someone washed the windows.  PV2010 seemed so good, I could not imagine how it could be improved.  For me, PV2012 is a vast improvement, especially because I like clear, sharp images.  Again, it is hard to imagine that PV2012 can be improved, but I can't wait for PV2014!

Michael Frye has an excellent tutorial that shows how he obtains amazing improvements in highlight contrast:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Eqb7W0sus8&feature=player_embedded

[areohbee]

At the risk of sounding melodramatic, PV2012 often gives me goose bumps, shivers, and a stupid smile that explodes into a big grin, followed by a goofy laugh. (but I still have my challenges with it as well)

Can't wait for PV2014

Cheers,

Rob

[grandpahenry]

I am asking this here because the discussion is on the missing fill slider.  I used this fairly often in LR 3 to add a fill flash in cases where there were shadows on the subject because of being forced to take photos where there was non optimum location due to sunlight.

I did not have a flash unit with me to add fill flash so I have some poor results.  What can I do in LR 4 to replace the effects of the fill slider not present in LR 4?

Henry 

[areohbee]

+exposure +shadows.

if that don't get it, +blacks

also consider -contrast.

adjust highlights/whites as desired.

maybe finish with a touch of clarity.

tone curve and/or locals to fine tune, if need be.

Bonus exercise:

- Increment exposure by .1, and do the rest all over again, and repeat: increment exposure by .1... (say 10 times)

- Decrement exposure by .1, and do the rest all over again, and repeat: decrement exposure by .1... (another 10 times)

Save as virtual copy in between each iteration, then compare all 21.

[gregkmeyer]

I would start by increasing the exposure to correct the exposure in the

areas you want to brighten, and then fine tune by darkening the highlights

and brightening the shadows.

This is a private communication sent from my mobile device. If you are not

the intended recipient, please delete this message from both your email and

your memory banks.

[grandpahenry]

Actually the problem is shadows on the faces and arms of the subjects caused by a bad choice in location. The subjects were pretty much facing the sun. We did not have time to find a better location for these few shots.

How can I deal with the shadows on the skin of the subject.

Henry

[dhphoto2012]

grandpahenry wrote:

How can I deal with the shadows on the skin of the subject.

If the shots are really important and worth taking time over I would do two RAW conversions for each, one with correct exposure and one lighter one with the shadows lifted and combine them in PS and then paint in the lighter areas.

[JP Hess]

I just did the same thing on a series of photos for my daughter's family.  And I simply use the adjustment brush in Lightroom with increased exposure to brush over the faces that have heavy shadows.  In my opinion, it works very well.

[areohbee]

Yeah, I think the new basics have taken the spotlight since Lr4 released, but also the local (highlights and) shadows adjustments are awesome for this kind of thing... - maybe toss in some -contrast too. That way you can kill 2 birds with one stone: the same brush will pull the highlights down whilst raising the shadows up...

In Lr3 my most frequently applied brush was -contrast - it was my "highlight recovery" and "shadows" brush (generally mixed with several other things to help target desired tones only...).

Now I frequently brush with -highlights and/or +shadows instead - kinda does the same thing as -contrast, except preserves midtone contrast in the doing. And along with Lightroom's design criteria of keeping high's high and lows, low - these new locals don't generally leave the same washed-out/dull look as -contrast in Lr3 would. Clarity and others can still be mixed in to taste...

[areohbee]

christianbobak wrote:

Does Lightroom offer refunds?

Sorry you're unhappy - dunno about refunds.

Lr3 fill does have some special qualities that are sometimes unmatchable in Lr4, but the vice of that versa is also true - I've been able to fill shadows with Lr4 that were too tough for Lr3's fill.

And Lr4 highlight recovery is just way better than Lr3 - hands down, no contest...

Brightness you can get used to accomplishing with exposure and highlights/shadows sliders. Brightening this way is more flexible and will not wash out your image, unlike brightness slider in Lr3.

Do what ya gotta do, but also consider learning PV2012 if you get "stuck" with Lr4 - it's well worth the effort, in my opinion, even if you rely on PV2010 as you become proficient...

Rob

[christianbobak]

I don't understand the need to remove features when adding new ones. WTF is that all about, anyway, and why does every company do that now? Why the hell would anyone get rid of Fill Light and Recovery? Raising exposure to brighten a picture up results in hotspots and washout. The Recovery feature would take care of that, but they removed it. Sounds like we now have to do twice as much work in 4 trying to accomplish something that had a single slider in 3 but is now gone.

Tomorrow, I call Adobe and ask for my money back.

[areohbee]

christianbobak wrote:

The Recovery feature would take care of that, but they removed it.

Highlights slider can knock down any overbrightening at the top end due to increased exposure - the new version of exposure is sortofa cross between old exposure and old brightness - designed to work hand-in-hand with the highlights slider (and shadows slider).

christianbobak wrote:

...why the "heck" would anyone get rid of Fill Light...

You can fill shadows nicely using the shadows slider in conjunction with the blacks slider. If it's not reaching far enough into the midtones then it's 'cause you've got exposure set too low.

Again, not trying to sell, but really the controls are all there - you just haven't learned to recognize them yet...

Rob

[howmanypigginnamesdoitry]

I for one have asked Amazon for a refund of this appaling software and gone back to 3.6. I'll let you know if I get my refund.

[Anthony.Ralph]

We have a saying here in the UK "don't buy a pig in a poke" which means not buying something without viewing it or understanding what it is you are buying. Whilst I accept this version of Lightroom may not suit everybody, as Adobe offered a beta of LR 4.0 and also offer a 30-day trial of the product - not to mention the tutorials from various decent sources discussing all aspects of the product, surely it is unreasonable to grumble about it now? The poke could be opened and the pig could be seen, touched and considered quite thoroughly before commiting to a purchase.

Anthony.

[howmanypigginnamesdoitry]

Anthony I think that's slightly unfair trying to invalidate people's problems by making that comment.

Firstly, I did try the beta I had it for 2 months, and I have to say it was slightly faster than V 4 RC is.

Aside from that, you expect problem with a beta, that's what it's for, to identify them so that they can be resolved prior to full release.

Sometimes people are put off learning a new program because it is so fundamentally bad that there is no motivation to learn anything, and that's hwo I read the OP's post.

I think the breadth and sheer number of problems shows that the program is sloppy and ism't yet ready for general release, and you can't say to everyone "You knew what you were getting."
If you don't like it being knocked, don't read the forum, but the forum exists so that those of us with problems can try to get them resolved, not to be told that we should not moan because we knew what we were getting into.

Adobe is a mega rich company with years of experience in producing high end software for a global market. Given that history, I think this is an appaling release with no real regard to the user base.

[Anthony.Ralph]

I suppose what I am not getting is the fact that there are demands for refunds on purchases within the timeframe of the 30-day trial which could have been used to ascertain how attractive (or not) the product is to an individual.

I like to think that I have offered helpful advice on these forums from time-to-time, but as far as invalidating problems goes, I don't think complaining about missing or changed features comes under the heading of problems - especially as those things could have been discovered at no cost ahead of making a purchase. And I do say that there has been ample opportunity for people to discover "what they were getting into"; at least enough information to delay making a purchase if they felt after reading about and trying out the program, they were in any way unsure.

But there you go... opinions differ.

Anthony.

[christianbobak]

Guess what, Anthony? I've been using Lightroom since version 2, and each upgrade has brought spectacular new improvements. As well, Adobe is a premier software company with global recognition and stellar reputation. It would never occur to me to want to use the Beta version first before deciding to buy the upgrade because I have 100% trust that version 4 will automatically be better than version 3. Most importantly, it never occurred to me that Adobe would remove key editing features while introducing new ones. All I heard was that they had spot noise reduction, a feature I've been anxiously awaiting. I never heard anything about the removal of three different key features, two of which I depend on frequently. Had I heard about that, I most certainly would not have upgraded. Now, of course, my trust has been abused, and I will have to try Beta versions before purchasing future upgrades, but I fail to see why I should have to do that with a product that has always been so dependable and trustworthy until recently.

[Anthony.Ralph]

We will have to agree to disagree on this one I think. I was satisfied with LR3.6 but thought it both interesting and prudent to try the LR4 beta when it became available. If I had been unsure of LR4 beta, I would have downloaded the trial of the full release before proceeding - that is just me; however, I was confident that LR4 was worth the upgrade and therefore proceeded. Likewise, I am checking out the PS6 beta to see if I want to upgrade from CS5. If I am unsure, I will use the trial to confirm whether or not I want to proceed.

Whilst I can uderstand and agree about not expecting to have to check a beta - why should you? I do think reading about, viewing tutorials on and, if necessary downloading a free trial to find out for oneself what the reported shortcomings were, would make sense, particularly as a program like LR can be a critical part of ones work.

Anthony.

[CSS_Simon]

christianbobak wrote:

I never heard anything about the removal of three different key features, two of which I depend on frequently.

Which features are those?  You refer previously to Fill Light and Recovery, so I assume those are two of the three.  But those features are still there.  Nothing to stop you using PV2010.  But if you're not happy to do that, good luck with your refund. 

[areohbee]

Christian,

Let me first say that I whole-heartedly agree with you: The inability to create the same results in PV2012 as many people were used to getting in PV2010 represents a weakness/limitation of current process version design, especially when it comes to extreme fill-light (I also have issues in the highlight department). That said, note: the original poster and many others have come to grips with this by learning how to get close using the existing controls. Lr3-fill=100 can be approximated in PV2012 via shadows=+100 and blacks=+100 with a compensatory tone curve, and a dose of new clarity... I use a "cookmark preset" (see Deep Fill link on Cookmarks plugin page for exact formula) to accomplish this, but others have used regular presets as well. Coupled with locals if need be, one can get almost as good or better results in PV2012. And of course you can also just switch to PV2010 for some photos.

Summary:

========

I feel ya, but also I have gotten such amazing results on so many photos that I am pretty enamored with PV2012 at this point, granted it has been tricky to master.

Truth is: I still use PV2010 on some photos m'self, when the original tonal distribution and/or the results I want don't jive so well in PV2012, but I would never give up Lr4 for Lr3 - never in a million years...

Highlight recovery in Lr4 is phenomenal (totally blows Lr3 away), and "Lr3-brightness" is totally extraneous once one learns how to balance the other sliders for the results one wants brightness-wise. So the limitations come in the form of fill algorithm / handling of deepest blacks, and highest highlights, which for most photos is also awesome and flexible, but for other photos - not so much. If you primarily edit such photos, I can see where PV2012 would be nothing short of a pisser - fortunately for me, those photos are in a minority. YMMV...

Just my .02,

Rob