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.
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.
AdChoices