Prefer Process Version 2 in some cases

[EsTaF]

Just recently I came across a lesson by Pavel Kosenko, who suggested using v2 cc one and I was very surprised at its work. 
Switch to that mode and reset the brightness and contrast settings to 0. Also, if necessary, change the exposure and fill light one.
It’s very strange, but the lights in this mode are pulled out much more elegantly. Its don’t seem to flatten into any one color if it have predominates.
And, by the way, even if you develop photographs not with the help of ACR/Ligntroom, but with the one of any program based on the libraw engine, then such a result will not be far from ACR/Ligntroom with the V3+ cc process. - a color either collapses in the highlights into one, or a certain banding appears into a white spot.
With contrast in the lights, the same strange story is with any engines, except for the cc process with version 2.
I’m not advocating the old (2) cc version, but I just want to understand the reason why acr' architects left it.

[JohanElzenga · Accepted solution]

Process version 2 is ancient. I think it does not make a lot of sense to switch to that version so you can use old and obsolete sliders. It makes more sense to learn how to use the current tools.

[EsTaF]

For a long time I tried to develop the file with the same quality as in the 2th version. It’s not even close to being able to pull out the light as much as in it.

[JohanElzenga]

For a long time I tried to develop the file with the same quality as in the 2th version. It’s not even close to being able to pull out the light as much as in it.

By @EsTaF

There are may ways to achieve that. Start by trying different profiles, for example. Learn how to use Curves. Learn how to use masks. If you want to use process version 2 then be my guest, but remember this: using V2 means you do not have access to any newer tools. If you try to use a newer tool, for example if you remove something with the content-aware remove tool, then Lightroom will automatically switch to process version 6 again. So I'd say it's in your own interest to learn to use the modern tools properly, rather than to think that some ancient obsolete tool can do something these modern tools cannot.

[EsTaF]

Don't get me wrong - I don't have the task of holding on to the outdated version of the work, but I want to understand what was wrong with that old version that was removed in subsequent versions. I’ve been struggling for about two weeks and I haven’t been able to pull out the light in the sixth version as much as I could do with almost one movement in the old version.
If you noticed, the girl’s yellow T-shirt, although with a yellow stripe, is not faded in color - it does not fade into white. The color does not collapse on the girl’s hand in the yellow T-shirt, although it is oversaturated.
And as for new tools, this is for me in the Darktable app, or 3dlit creator one. But this is not about which program is better, or which version of something is better or worse. The question is more technical.

[JohanElzenga]

But this is not about which program is better, or which version of something is better or worse. 

By @EsTaF

The title of your thread is "Is a Camera Calibration v2 process better than others?!", so you fooled me! My answer to that title question is "No, it is not. There is nothing you can do in V2 that you cannot do in V6, and there is a lot you can do much better in V6". If you ask if there are certain types of images (like the indoor shots you show) where it may have been easier to achieve what you want in V2 than it is in V6, then I'm sure that there are indeed certain images where that is the case. Just like there are probably many more images where it's the opposite. I can't tell you why Adobe changes versions from time to time and what exactly they changed under the hood between versions. 

[EsTaF]

>The title of your thread is "Is a Camera Calibration v2 process better than others?!", so you fooled me!
The exclamation mark in the topic title is after the question mark, not before.

2. This is far from the only example.
3. The result can be shown in version 2 and worked with it further, like with tiff (3dlut creator, darktable, raw therapee etc).

>I can't tell you why Adobe changes versions from time to time and what exactly they changed under the hood between versions. 
4. There is nothing bad about this. That’s why there is a community where the answer can come from more than just one person. Lots of opinions. Every person owns one or another information.

Thank you.

[JohanElzenga]

>The title of your thread is "Is a Camera Calibration v2 process better than others?!", so you fooled me!
The exclamation mark in the topic title is after the question mark, not before.

By @EsTaF

Yes, so it means that you do not state it as a fact, but ask the question whether V2 is better than others. And so I gave you my answer to that question and said I don't think it is. Which is the last answer I'm going to give, because there is nothing more to add for me.

[dj_paige]

For a long time I tried to develop the file with the same quality as in the 2th version. It’s not even close to being able to pull out the light as much as in it.

By @EsTaF

I have never had this problem. If you can share a RAW photo via DropBox or similar and then provide us with the link, describe exactly where you want more light (or show us), we can probably produce a similar result with v6.

[EsTaF]

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1a_s3PV-AMhD6qywhkuD4mxJFmc8dCY4J?usp=sharing

[dj_paige]

My earlier request was: "If you can share a RAW photo via DropBox or similar and then provide us with the link, describe exactly where you want more light (or show us), we can probably produce a similar result with v6."

I don't see the red part.

[EsTaF]

Light areas on the yellow shirt without red banding. The yellow jersey does not have a pink parasitic tint. The face (skin) of a girl wearing a pink T-shirt has slight color variation. In the sixth version it is just the same color, almost.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1a_s3PV-AMhD6qywhkuD4mxJFmc8dCY4J?usp=sharing

[dj_paige]

Light areas on the yellow shirt without red banding.

This is easy to fix in Lightroom Classic 13.1 using v6 and the Point Color tool.

The yellow jersey does not have a pink parasitic tint.

Same

The face (skin) of a girl wearing a pink T-shirt has slight color variation.

Same

Here is my XMP file, I didn't try to denoise or make other corrections. If I didn't get it exactly right, its easy to make additional corrections.

[EsTaF]

To be honest, I didn’t understand anything. In the yt video https://youtu.be/ybY6y3kooNg, recreate the action by importing your file and applying it to the image. 
If this is considered the best processing in the sixth version, then it is certainly better to stay in the 2th one)) - a joke. But in fact, I didn’t understand what the catch was, that I didn’t open your file correctly.

> If I didn't get it exactly right, its easy to make additional corrections.
It is likely that the point is not in the post-processing tools, for which there is no longer any data that could be manipulated.
In version 2, work occurs at the stage of either debayering or when working with overexposure in the image.

[dj_paige]

I didn't say it was "the best processing" v6 can do. But anyway, perhaps (and I'm still skeptical) you have found the one thing that V2 does better than V6, but I really don't think so. Put some time learning the tools that are new in V6.

[EsTaF]

...

[EsTaF]

Why is this answer considered correct? Who thought so?

[D Fosse]

This discussion is pointless IMO. PV 6 is obviously vastly superior to PV 2. There's no contest.

This is all at default settings straight from camera, only highlight recovery is adjusted:

[EsTaF]

>This discussion is pointless IMO. PV 6 is obviously vastly superior to PV 2. There's no contest.

I always liked these arguments)

One man has already tried to reproduce the solution in the 6th version. At least he tried! Without irony, respect to him.

Other people were not at all interested in even trying, because "the sixth version is better <without a doubt>".

And what did the highlight tool give me?

>This is all at default settings straight from camera, only highlight recovery is adjusted:
I've never touched the recovery tool - it ruins the picture.

[D Fosse]

I've never touched the recovery tool - it ruins the picture.

By @EsTaF

Are you saying you just accept the defaults without even touching the sliders because they "ruin the picture"?

[EsTaF]

No, I'm not. Moreover, this old process is not always usable. But in the case of some images, it’s enough to simply raise the exposure, while in the sixth version there is a strong discoloration of brightness that even the highlight tool doesn’t help, just like curves. I can use a linear profile created from the image parameters in Adobe DNG Editor, which will not help either.
The title of the topic seems to say that I want to choose one of the versions, but no - I want to understand what was done in the second version, what was then cut out. I want to understand this in order to use this moment in the sixth version.

[richardplondon · Accepted solution]

The entire adjustment approach changed, so point-by-point feature comparison is very difficult.

For example, older process version included the notion of first establishing a whitepoint and a blackpoint range for the tonality in absoulte terms (with Contrast pushing those two together or apart, Exposure moving those two up and down together), and then 'shaping' the picture brightnesses within that range to position the midtones - all this without a lot of local tone enhancement. Then, Fill Light operated in relation to that blackpoint while Recovery operated in relation to that whitepoint, both applying quite heavy local-tone enhancement. That enhancement was Immediately impressive, such that Fill Light almost seemed like a magical one-slider fix at the time as I recall. But one very soon became jaded with the rather one-note look that was produced; which was not exactly subtle aesthetically IMO.

Images I have since brought into the newer PV have proved much more manipulable IMO, offering a broader set of creative choices. Not least because Tone Curve (which behaves more akin to the old style adjustments arguably) can be productively played off against the more modern style, more image-adaptive adjustments as needed. As well as the transformative, much accelerated local masking options.

The newer process version begins naturally IMO by establishing the midpoint tonality first, then working outwards from there: general Contrast spreading or compressing the "shoulder" tonalities including a broad-brush local enhancement, then Shadows / Highlights changing the look of those shoulder regions with its own different local contrast adaptivity, with Whites and Blacks tweaking the extremes, and Texture (rather under-mentioned IMO) balancing fine-contrast against the more coarse-contrast Clarity.

So the underlying editing narrative is not at all the same. This did require a significant mental adjustment as I remember, but one that rapidly proved itself worthwhile to make.

[EsTaF]

Very informative.
The idea is set that something can be achieved, it seems in v2, only with the help of all three r, g and b curves, where the initial values will be in different coordinates. And this is not a pipette tool, but an experience. How to play chess when you need to think several moves ahead. This is how to use the RGB mixer in darktable.
+I probably still and always use a linear profile created in the dng editor, from my camera file, first converted to dng.

[EsTaF]

Thank you.

[EsTaF]

I listened to you and immediately made everything better)