How wide are these?

Started May 12, 2012 | Discussions thread
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 16,950Gear list
Like?
Re: Adobe Application System Architecture Speculation/Analysis - Part 2
In reply to Detail Man, May 19, 2012

Detail Man wrote:

There is a ton of different complicated things going on inside, they change and evolve with each new release, and (my) life is too short to try to understand and attempt to control every single detail of everything.

Hmm. But you and I are still doing our very best to do that aren't we. So let us not give up just yet. On a slightly more serious note, it often helps me a lot to have an idea of what's going (the basic principles) even if I don't have the time or need to understand every detail of the implementation.

Well, the information in the Adobe documentation links that I posted here appear to imply that these things are not (specifically) "global" - unless the user chooses to specifically utilize them in such an (alternatively "local") capacity - which is a good thing (something that DxO OP offers not).

Did you mean to say "local" where you say "global" above? Otherwise, I am not sure I understand it.

Yes, I looked at those Adobe documents even before you linked them, after reading the information provided by kenw about the way it was working. And as you say (if I understand you right), those documents suggest that it's just a certain kind of global (in a spatial sense) tone curve adjustment unless you specifically choose to apply it locally, to a certain part of the frame. On the other hand, both kenw's description and that provided by the article in Luminous Landscapes that Steen Bay linked to suggests that it is more to it than that. Did you see, for example, the information in that article suggesting that this was something it took Adobe/Eric Chan quite a bit of time and work to implement (and get to run fast enough)? This would hardly have been the case if it was just a matter of playing with the global tone curve.

The (IMO) lousy Sharpening Tool in LR 3.x alienated me. The Tone Curve tool is good (I like the "parametric" controls and the luminance histogram overlayed over the display of the tone-curve transfer-function). In LR 3.x one cannot adjust separate RGB tone-curves (as in DxO and Silkypix), but LR 4.x does add that feature. The "Fill Light" seems to me "heavy handed" even at low control-setting values. When one increases the signal-gain near the "toe" of a tone-curve, that increase in low-level signal-gain needs to be gradually reduced as the tone-curve progresses through the mid-tones. Maybe that occurs, but it is a bit hard to tell (thanks to "secret sauce").

Well, I think the replacement for "Fill Light" slider, i.e., the "Shadows" slider in LR 4 is a bit less "heavy handed", at the expense of not being quite as powerful when used alone. However, with the four controls (highlights, shadows, whites, blacks) now working as they do (along with plain exposure and contrast), I think the prospects of getting roughly where you want to be without an excessive amount of work is better than ever. Did you see my latest attempt at playing with shadow pushing in LR 4 in comparison with LR 3 in my response to assaft above? Not saying that's perfect but I think you'll be hard pressed to get that close to something decent in such a short time with most other RAW converters.

Had become so accustomed to being able to continuously adjust the Gamma correction in the DxO Lighting Tools that I did (and do) find the omission of that specific adjustment capability in Adobe applications frustrating. It justs "rubs in" (emotionally for me) the extent to which Adobe seems to seek to design soft/gradual controls for "dummies" (not that smart people do not also use such controls, mind you) which may (or may not) constitute a "tasty dish" for the particular user(s) ...

In which version of ACR/LR did you experiment with the fill lights slider yourself? As you can see from the article Steen linked too, it has improved quite a bit over time. As I indicated, I first played with it in LR 3, and thought it worked very well already at that point. But it appears to have been improved further in LR 4.

LR 3.6. My OS is WinXP Pro (with no plans to change). Thus (thanks to Adobe), no LR 4.x for me.

Well, I am at the point where I have to switch computers anyway. And that implied a quick jump from XP to 7 (64-bit), pretty much irrespective of what I personally wanted.

It seems that one could use image-differencing techniques similar to those that I used in scrutinizing your Adobe Sharpening tools in order to reverse-engineer these things. "Go for it!"

Well perhaps at a later stage in the unlikely event that I have a lot of time to kill. At the moment, I am still busy trying to find out what LR 4 can actually do (and not) rather than exactly how it does it.

Now that we discover that LR 4.x includes the (legacy) LR 3.x "engine", probably fairly moot stuff?

Do let us know if you try out Topaz InFocus with LR-4.x/CR-7.x. Curious to know if it's better than Adobe Sharpening tools (which would seem perhaps not so hard to accomplish given what is)

Yes, I'll let you know if/when I decide to give it a try. If I recall correctly, Topaz offers a free trial so it doesn't seem unlikely that I download it and give it a spin.

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +21 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow