Choreography: Julian Weber

Performance: Diethild Meier, Claudia Tomasi, Cinira Macedo and Annegret Schalke

To be seen in Studio 1

26.4 _ 21h15

28.4 _ 21h15

Thursday 18:30 //  Friday 20:45 // 30 min.

To be seen in the Yard

Rehearsal

Datacolor’s SpyderCube can be used to set white balance and exposure settings by shooting it in an initial image under a given lighting condition, correcting basic settings in RAW converters such as Adobe Lightroom, and then applying those corrections to all other images shot under the same conditions. Adobe’s new Lightroom 4 defaults to a new set of RAW import controls called Process 2012, which function differently than previous Lightroom controls. This article outlines the differences between the previous Process 2010 and the new Process 2012, and how to achieve similar results from the two different processes when adjusting images using the SpyderCube.

The controls and their default settings for the Basic tools in the Develop Mode of Lightroom under Process 2010 are shown below on the left, with the Process 2012 equivalent controls, also at default settings on the right.

Process 2010 and Process 2012 default settings for the Basic controls

Images which were previously imported through Lightroom 3 will appear in Lightroom 4 using Process 2010; older images imported using Lightroom versions 1 or 2 will show as Process 2003. New imports in Lightroom 4 will appear as Process 2012 images. This brings two questions to mind; can images be converted from Process 2003 and 2010 to Process 2012 without visible changes? Not automatically, as explained in an earlier article. But with careful tweaking, the results can be very close, as we will demonstrate here.

Below are the copies of the same RAW file, one opened at defaults in Process 2010, the other opened at the default settings in Process 2012. Clipping warnings or white and black ends are turned on in both images, to show the relative clipping the two defaults produce.

Image opened using Process 2010 and Process 2012 defaults, with black and white clipping warnings

There are some differences in the densities and clipping, due to the differences in the defaults, and the different default Tone Curves in the two Processes. Next I use the SpyderCube to correct the p2010 image in the manner that the Cube has been used to correct images with Lightroom previously. The resulting adjustments are shown on the left below. I then adjusted the p2012 version of the file to as close to identical as the rather different controls in p2012 allowed. These adjustments are on the right below.

Process 2010 and Process 2012 adjusted settings

These adjustments resulted in the pair of corrected images shown below. As you can see, there is not much difference to the eye. However, the new controls in Process 2012 have other advantages not apparent here that are well worth the upgrade.

Images adjusted in Process 2010 and Process 2012

Below are the same two corrected images, with black and white clipping warnings turned on.

Adjusted images with black and white clipping warnings turned on

As you can see, the black clipping areas are nearly identical. The white clipping is somewhat reduced under Process 2012, due to changes in how the controls function.

Under any Process, the first adjustment is to set the White Balance by using its eyedropper to sample from the center of the lighter of the two gray faces, which represents the primary light source’s color temperature and tint. Under Process 2003 and 2010, the lighter white face was then adjusted to a value of about 90%, using the Exposure control. Then the lighter gray face was adjusted to a value ranging from 50% for shots in direct sunlight to higher values in lower light conditions. This was done with the Brightness control. Further fine tuning of Exposure and Brightness are often necessary, to compensate for each other, until the target percents are shown in both the primary gray and primary white samples. Finally the blacks were adjusted until an appropriate visual distinction was visible on a calibrated monitor in proper editing conditions (dim ambient lighting), resulting in a black value usually in the range of 10%, if there was splash lighting hitting the black face, or as low as 5% if there was not. White and gray values are rechecked if there is significant adjustment for the blacks, and adjusted if necessary.

Under Process 2012, it would seem that the nearest equivalent to this method would use Exposure to set whites, Whites to set grays, and Blacks to set blacks. But this does not produce the expected results with the new controls.

Instead a significantly different method can be used to obtain similar results. Once the image is white balanced, the Exposure control is used next to set the lighter gray face to the desired level. Then the Whites control is used to set the lighter white face to the appropriate level, with minor adjustments to the Highlights control if needed for optimal results. Again, these are tuned until gray and white levels are appropriate. Now the Blacks control can be adjusted to control black clipping in the SpyderCube’s black trap, while the black face surrounding the trap can be adjusted using the Shadows control. Finally, checks of white and gray are done again, once black adjustments are complete. This method now has five controls which can be brought into play, instead of the three used in earlier Processes, offering finer control of shadow to black ratios and black clipping, and highlight to whites ratios and white clipping.

Notice in the adjusted settings image above that Process 2010 editing increased the Exposure significantly, while reducing the Brightness (which started at a default of +50). Under Process 2012, Exposure is increased only fractionally, while Whites are increased significantly. Lightening an image using the Whites control increases the brightness of the dark areas less than the Exposure control, so effects the grays of the SpyderCube less, for a similar change in the Cube’s whites than the Exposure control. It is the differential between these two controls that is being used to control highlight values versus midtone values, and produce some, but not too much, white clipping in the chrome ball on top of the Cube to assure specular highlights are correctly set. Similarly the Blacks control, which clips, and the Shadows control, which does not, are played against one another for clean blacks in the black trap, and appropriate shadow detail in the black face.

Opposing Adjustments to Blacks and Shadows can be used under Process 2012

Credits: C. David Tobie, Copyright 2012. Website: CDTobie.com Return to Blog’s Main Page

There are some fundamental changes between the controls and settings in Lightroom 3′s Process 2010, and Lightroom 4′s Process 2012. I have described these differences, and shown some of the value of the new controls, in previous articles, as well as the weaknesses inherent in the older process. It has been pointed out to me that none of these articles actually analyze the differences in the controls, and describe how they effect images; so that is what I will do here. Those of you who are determined to understand the new process fully may find some answers in the testing notes below.

Both Process 2010 and 2012 are available in Lightroom 4, with previously imported images defaulting to Process 2010 (or if they are of Lightroom 2 or earlier, to Proces 2003), while newly imported images will be in Process 2012. It is possible to change between these processes, but there is not exact equivalency, as you will see in this article. The illustration below compares the Basic Controls in the Develop module of Lightroom 3, on the left, and Lightroom 4, on the right.

Lightroom 3 and 4 Basic Controls, AKA: Process 2010, and Process 2012

Testing Methodology

In order to analyze changes caused by the various controls, test images where shot of the Datacolor SpyderCheckr target, where the ten percent gray ramp patches, and the additional 5% and 95% gray patches, were used to determine how adjustments were effecting the image tonal range. These numerical changes were compared to the visual changes in the image itself, and the graphical changes in the RGB histogram of the image at the top of the Lightroom Develop Mode’s right panel. Shots of the Datacolor SpyderCube were similarly tested, in part to help analyze the Lightroom Processes, and in part to determine how best to use the SpyderCube with these new controls, which I will document in a future article. Checks were done between Lightroom 3, and Lightrooom 4′s implementation of Process 2010, to be sure that the two were equivalent. Further testing was done in Lightroom 4.1, using the p2010 and p2012 settings, which is much more convenient than running two versions of Lightroom simultaneously.

White Balance (graphical change)

While the Color Temperature and Tint controls in the White Balance section display differently between the versions, this is simply a matter of Process 2012 now displaying the actual Color Temperature value in Degrees Kelvin even at the “As Shot” setting, instead of defaulting to zero, and not offering any useful Color Temp info until the slider had been moved from that location in Process 2010. The functionality of the controls in this section is unchanged, so will not be discussed further.

Exposure (range change)

The Tone Controls section has the same number of controls as before, but their names, groupings, and some cases their control types have been changed, between p2010 and p2012.  The first control to analyze is the Exposure slider. It now has a range of negative five to positive five in Process 2012, increased from four units in each direction in the previous version. This extra range may come in handy for some extreme situation, but the functionality of the control in its usual range appears unchanged. Exposure stretches (positive move) or compresses (negative move) all tones. No clipping of values at the black end occurs when compressing the Exposure downward, but significant blow-out of highlights occurs when increasing the Exposure in either Process.

Contrast (location change)

Contrast functions by stretching all values out from the center with a positive adjustment, or compressing them towards the center with a negative adjustment. The effect is not symmetrical with much more change taking place in the darker end of the range than in the lighter end. Contrast adjustments do not clip either near whites or near blacks, compressing them towards the ends instead. This behavior appears identical in Process 2010 and Process 2012. So while the Contrast control has a new location, now paired with the Exposure control at the top of the Tone section, its functionality can be considered unchanged.

Recovery (removed)

This Process 2010 control no longer exists in Process 2012. It is a single directional slider, with the default position at the zero end. Moving the slider away from zero does not darken white, but darkens near whites and highlights, while having little effect at the dark end of the range. This is a “gamma-like” adjustment, where both ends are fixed, and the adjustment centers in the highlight zone, moving only in the direction that reduces the brightness of tones from their default values.

Fill Light (removed)

This is another Process 2010 control that no longer exists in Process 2012. It is also a single directional slider, with the default position at the zero end. Moving the slider away from zero does not lighten black, but lightens near backs and shadows, while having little effect at the light end of the range. This is another “gamma-like” adjustment, where both ends are fixed, while the adjustment centers in the shadow zone, moving only in the direction that increases the brightness of tones from their default values. The functionality of the Fill control appears to be a symmetrical opposite of the Recovery control.

Blacks (range and location change)

The blacks control in Process 2010 is a single directional control, but the default value was not zero. Offset from zero varies, but for all cameras I checked it was at 5, while for non-RAW images, it was at zero. Adjusting the control back towards zero decreases the default clipping of blacks. Increasing the slider value clips an increasing number of near blacks to black. In Process 2012, the Blacks slider is now a bidirectional slider, with a default of zero. The lack of a default offset here is compensated for elsewhere in p2012; partially with changes in the Tone Curve default and engine (more on that below).

Brightness (removed)

This p2010 control has no equivalent in p2012. The Brightness control is a bidirectional slider, which defaults to zero for non-RAW images, but defaults to a value of +50 with all tested cameras.  The Brightness control runs to positive and negative 150, and compresses but does not clip at the black end with negative values. It clips significantly at white with positive adjustments. The control has a similar function, when moved in the positive direction, to the Exposure slider, but does not have as much range.

Highlights (added)

This new Process 2012 control is bidirectional, and defaults to zero, as do all the new/replacement controls. Positive adjustments stretch highlights towards white, compressing near whites to white without clipping them, and stretching highlights in the midtone end of the affected zone. Negative adjustments are more in line with previous Recovery adjustments. They compress highlights into the midtone zone, while stretching them in the near whites. There is also a parametric Tone Curve function of the same name. Both Highlights controls have very similar effects, though they are applied separately. It makes sense not to raise one of these controls while lowering the other, as it would be counterproductive, but there might be cases in which minor adjustments in the same direction are made in both.

Shadows (added)

This new p2012 control, like the others, is bidirectional and defaulted to zero. It is an mirror of the Highlight control, used to control shadow detail versus image punch. Again there is a control of the same name in the Tone Curve section, but here the effect of the Tone section’s slider has a broader effect than the similarly named control under the Tone Curve section, so one or the other may be selected depending on whether a more localized or more broad effect is desired.

Whites (added)

This new bidirectional, zeroed p2012 control is somewhat analogous to the now older Brightness control, but with much less range in the negative direction. It does not have the Highlight control’s protection against clipping, if moved in a positive direction. It raised all tones, and clips those near white progressively as stronger positive adjustments occur. Whites are also not held when negative adjustments occur, so lowering the Whites control will darken whites along with other values.

Blacks (again)

This new p2012 control is the mirror of the White control, producing the same results, from the other end of the tonal range. Its described above, and included here only to round out the “new four” as this is the only control of the four to retain its name, though it has changed its function considerably.

The Other Change: Tone Curve Default

The Tone Curve defaulted to Medium Contrast in Process 2010. It defaults to Linear in Process 2012. Moving an image from p2010 to p2012 forces a change in Tone Curve, rather than retaining the previous setting; since apparently retaining the setting does not retain the tone densities anyways. Medium Contrast in p2010 and Medium Contrast in p2012 mean different things, so aligning them would not be appropriate. This would indicate changes to the tone engine in Process 2012, and not clear equivalency for older images, which had been processed previously in either Process 2003 (Lightroom 1 or 2) or Process 2010 (Lightroom 3). This means that you should not automatically update the Process for pre-corrected images and expect matching tonalities. If you choose to move the Process version of an image to p2012, be prepared to readjust the tonality.

Opposing Adjustments to Blacks and Shadows

Interactions and Improvements

The new, centered, bidirectional controls offer a few advantages over the older versions. Control of black clipping against shadow detail is the clearest example. It is now possible to use the Blacks control to clip noise from the levels nearest to black by moving it in a negative direction, while independently opening the shadow area by moving the Shadows control in a positive direction, as illustrated above. Interaction between the new, and more symmetrical, controls is clearer, as well as more effective. Its now possible to adjust highlight and shadow areas without unintended clipping of whites or blacks, while it is also possible to make powerful adjustments to images from either end, both without clipping, if the end adjustment is inward, or with the inevitable clipping if the adjustment is outward. The engine underneath the new Process is improved, and more drastic adjustments to images can now be made without the the kinds of artifacts that the older, less linear, process produced.

Credits: C. David Tobie, Copyright 2012. Website: CDTobie.com Return to Blog’s Main Page

Photographers who have been using Lightroom for at least two years have images originally processed through Lightroom 2, Lightroom 3, and Lightroom 4 in their image libraries. Its important to understand how Lightroom 4 (V4.1 is actually used in all testing and examples) interacts with these legacy files.

Moving from Lightroom 2 (which used the original Process 2003) to Lightroom 3 (using Process 2010) was quite transparent. The newer controls which Process 2010 added showed up when these older files were opened, but the sliders for these new controls, which had never been adjusted before, since they did not exist before, were set to zero. That made sense, and required no user intervention, so did not attract much attention. If an image was reopened, the new controls could then be adjusted, and the improved image would be transparently updated from a p2003 file to a p2010 file.

Those files that had been exported to Tiff, and had dust busting, localized editing, layers, and other voodoo applied in Photoshop, could only benefit from the new controls if we started from scratch again. Well, not from scratch, all the Lightroom edits were still there, and we could apply the new adjustments as well, but all work done on the image after export would need to be redone again. Since the improvements in Process 2010 were not critical to many files, the heartbreak was minimal, as few files really needed to be reworked. The improvements now available in Lightroom 4 are not as minimal, so more users will be considering moving files forward, not just to their Lightroom 4 library, but to the new Process 2012 that Lightroom 4 offers.

The Current Situation

Viewing legacy files (and everything you ever shot and imported before upgrading to Lightroom 4, is now a legacy file) in Lightroom 4 produces a more complicated situation. The image below shows the Basic Controls from Lightroom 3 and Lightroom 4, and how they differ. I have already described these differences in a previous article, for anyone looking for more information on them. Here our interest is on the interaction of these, now conflicting, sets of controls. There are other control changes from Process 2010 to 2012, one of which will enter into consideration as we move forward.

Lightroom 3 and 4 Basic Controls

Without analyzing the controls in detail again, it apparent that that the Process 2012, Lightroom 4, controls don’t simply add new sliders to the previous generation, as happened the last time around. This time sliders disappear, or move, or get renamed, and as my previous article notes, they don’t really do the same thing. Please don’t think that I’m complaining; the new thing is vastly superior to the old thing, so I’m happy to have it available. The issue is learning how this interacts with all those images I’ve already painstakingly processed using older versions, and what havoc it might wreak on them if they are suddenly converted to a new, albeit superior, set of adjustment tools.

What This Doesn’t Effect

Files that you import through Lightroom 4 will  be fine, and look great. Files you imported though earlier versions will continue to use the process of that previous version, and the older controls will show when those images are selected, so things will be consistent with earlier adjustments. No problems with either of those cases. But what about older files that you would like to reap the advantages of the newer Process 2012?

Clearly a good deal of thought was put into this situation, from the time that it was decided that a change was needed that would not simply mean another generation of additional new functions. And I believe that the Lightroom team (or the Core team, or both) did the right thing, at least for all  existing files that remain in their existing process, and all newly imported files. The overall result is not quite as transparent as last time around, but many casual users of Lightroom would not catch on to how this change functions, without some inside information. Here’s the scoop: in Develop Mode, in the right panel, way down where scrolling is required and users seldom venture, is a small box named “Process”. It lists one of the three Process choices for any given image.

Process Options List from Lightroom 4

For images originally imported through Lightroom 2 or earlier, this defaults to p2003, unless they have been opened and reprocessed in Lightroom 3, in which case they are now 2010 images. Similarly, images originally imported through Lightroom 3 will default to p2010. Interesting things occur if you change this setting. Any adjustments you had previously made, to a control that has not been changed, will migrate forward as the file is reformatted to p2012.

This migration of existing setting includes HSL adjustments, important to those who have used SpyderCheck for color calibration. DNG profiles used for color correction should be respected in the conversion as well. Or, as they would say in the movies: *No Color Calibrations Have Been Harmed While Producing This Process Change.*

What It Does Effect

SpyderCube Exposure adjustments are a less clear cut situation. Adjustments to White Balance, Tint, Exposure, and Blacks made to a p2010 image, as they would be using a SpyderCube (or even by eye), can be converted to Process 2012 and back, and result in the same original values once returned to p2010. So the roundtrip has been managed effectively no matter what method you used for making your adjustments. But the one way trip is a different matter.

Moving from p2010 to p2012 with these same four adjustments in place results in the White Balance and Tint, not part of the changed control groups, remaining numerically and visually the same. But exposure jumps from +.25 to +.53, and the new two way control for Blacks, instead of being lowered from a default value for the camera of 20 to an adjusted value of 8 to set the blacks correctly, moves instead from its new centered location to a value of -1. If these two adjustments produced the same result visually, that would still be fine. But they do not.

The Culpret

The reason they do not is elsewhere in the  Develop Mode’s right panel. Process 2010 defaulted to a tone response curve named Medium Contrast. Process 2012 now defaults to Linear; and it doesn’t just default there, it moves there. Improvements in the other controls may have eliminated the need for the previous sin of the Medium Contast bump. But it causes some difficulties for us old sinners. Simply setting the control to Linear when in P2010 does not allow for a transparent conversion, as it then results, in p2012, in a reverse curve which is the equivalent of medium to linear, but now, starting at linear, is linear to negative medium. It can be debated whether this is a bug or a feature in LR4.1, but it would seem to be closely related to the custom tone curve bug in Lightroom 4.0.

Another detail to be aware of is that, once a file has been changed from the p2003 or p2010 setting to the p2012 setting, even if it is toggled back to its original Process again, the Reset button no longer resets it to its original Process State and Tone Curve as it did before. Instead it will now bump it forward to the p2012 state, and the 2012 default Tone Curve of Linear. So, in that sense, you can’t go home again. This is why duplicating your library, backing up your catalog, or at least making a virtual copy of a given file, before changing Process Versions is a good idea.

The Fix

To avoid ending up in unexpected places, with custom tone curve values you did not ask for, or very different shadow detail, the following order of steps is used:

* Open legacy image

* Set Mode to Develop

* Scroll down the Right Panel to Process

* Change Process from 2010 (or 2003 for even older files) to 2012

* Scroll back up to Tone Curve

* Reset Tone Curve from Linear, to Medium Contrast

Your image should now have the same shadow detail and midtone densities as it did in Process 2010, assuming your file was at the p2010 default Tone Curve of Medium Contrast. You may now choose to use the superior capabilities of Lightroom 4 and Process2012 to open up the shadows without excessive noise… perhaps by changing the tone response curve back to Linear. Or by other methods. And you can now use the new controls replacing Recovery and Fill without fear of the posterization and reversals that occurred with the older controls.

The Implications

Given the automatic tone curve change, and its significant impact on shadow detail and lesser effect on midtone values, automatically converting an entire library of legacy images to Process 2012 would not be recommended. Instead, at least until the dust settles, and other possible fixes are added to a future Lightroom 4 update, updating images to use the new process should be a one-at-a-time affair, with manual changes to the Tone Curve setting, or other shadow detail adjustments to compensate. One batch-oriented solution would be to bring the key image (for SpyderCube users, thats the one with the Cube in it) forward, allowing the Medium to Linear change to occur, then to readjust the image again in the Linear State, and apply this correction to the entire batch of following images from the same light source once they have been moved to the new Process as well. This would effectively “launder” all the images from their dependance on the shadow bump in the old Medium setting to the more literal Linear mode, with a minimum of tweaking.

Credits: C. David Tobie, Copyright 2012. Website: CDTobie.com Return to Blog’s Main Page

This is a new animal altogether, complete with a new interface which, from my perspective, is much more intuitive that the old processes/interfaces. Everything now starts at zero and the default tone curve is now linear. That means that files do not have the artificial medium contrast tone curve added to them or the default level 5 black point. The result is more open (some may say flat) files, which appear to have more shadow detail than before. That is not true, the file had the detail, but the older processes assumed you wanted to make your images look like already processed jpgs right from the start.

This will mean possibly setting your own defaults if you prefer a more processed look on entry into LR4 or CS6/ACR7, but I suggest that absent a need for productivity on a large group of files, a little more attention to the full range of information in the files will result in better finished images. Once you get used to changes in how some sliders affect the image, the process of getting a much better image out of the software in a short period of time is pretty amazing.

You will have to play with the settings a bit to get used to the new process, but the resulting images will be better in LR4 and a better starting place for editing images in CS6. One of the most notable changes is the Highlight slider which does not suffer from the flattening effect of the old Recovery slider. It actually creates significant improvements in highlight detail in a way that required some fussing with curves in the past. There are similar improvements in the Shadow slider over Fill Light, which wasn’t too bad to start with.

While the interface will be a small hurdle to get over for some people, the learning curve is pretty short, mostly as the controls do what you expect them to do. That alone makes Process 2012 a significant reason to upgrade to LR4 and CS6.

There is quite a bit of documentation on an issue where converting your Lightroom 3 library to Lightroom 4 compatability loses any custom tone curves you have applied to images, so I have refrained from moving into Lightroom 4 quite yet, as tempting as the new features may be. I’m still advising adventurous users to backup their libraries first, and run LR4 on a test-drive basis, instead of assuming that the end of the beta period means its time to integrate LR4 into their daily workflow.

But today’s issue has more to do with the interaction of Lightroom 4 and Photoshop CS5. Lightroom 4 comes with Camera RAW 7.0, which is compatible with all the new functions the app has to offer. However, Photoshop 5 still includes ACR 6.6. There is an ACR 6.7 RC (release candidate, meaning not yet final) version on the Adobe Labs site; which is not the usual location for downloading software updates, its more like the photography equivalent of a chemistry set, with various interesting items, some of which will never see official release, others of which just need a bit more testing first.

But the problem is that the Process 2012 (we can assume this is shorthand for the processes added into RAW conversion options in the year 2012) is not actually supported by this 6.7RC. There have been various messages flying back and forth on the Adobe Forums about the issue, the fix, the lack of a fix in the fix, etc.

So a chicken and the egg situation ensues: an image edited in LR4/ACR7.0, opened into PSCS5/ACR6.7 will then use Process 2010 (I don’t think we need to deconstruct this one), which loses you the adjustments you’ve made with your bright, shiny new controls in Lightroom 4. At least it offers a warning that this is going to happen.

This means that perhaps we are now waiting, not just for the first bug fix update to Lightroom 4, but for the next build of ACR for Photoshop CS5 as well (I refuse to bring Photoshop CS6 into the picture). Given the complexity of the situation, I may well have made one or more technical errors in what I’ve written above, or there could perhaps be a perfectly viable workaround… though if so, its a fair distance around to find it.

Credits: C. David Tobie, Copyright 2012.   Website: CDTobie.com   Return to Blog’s Main Page