Lightroom: Don't Remove Fill Light Slider

No coding nightmare.....it's already there. Simply choose the PV2010 in the Camera Calibration panel and you get the LR3 basic controls.

I knew what you meant, and I'm guessing you are right - it would be a coding nightmare.

While we're on the subject, what makes Lr3's fill light so nice, in my opinion, is the rather smooth fashion how it works. Even if it's not exactly what you wanted, it's effect can be easily smoothly throttled using brightness or the parametric tone curve.

Like Lr4, it has the magic which keeps from losing mid-tone contrast when applied.

I've got my fingers crossed that Lr4 will prevail in such a way that we can all laugh about how we once preferred Lr3's fill light... (those of us who do sometimes, I mean).

We'll see.

R

Rob - thank you!!!

Thanks!

Lightroom users are generally smart enough to adapt, aren't they?

The system was good, not excellent. Recover had a hard time recovering badly-blown areas, and it created hue shifts in doing so. Fill light creates changes in saturation at the same time, and can in some cases produce halo-like artifacts that can entirely ruin an image. All of these problems are not present in the new Process Version.

I agree, the new process works well, fill light wasn't perfect but I like it. I hope Robs right "fingers crossed that Lr4 will prevail in such a way that we can all laugh about how we once preferred Lr3's fill light", or maybe we'll all be crying into our coffee at 2am in the morning trying to re-create fill light because that's what the shot needs.

Hi Paul,

After a month+ of working with Lr4b1, I think I can say:

Lr4's "fill light" is better than Lr3's.

Trickier to achieve, but results are better.

And with practice will be easier to achieve (easier than now I mean, not necessarily easier than in Lr3 for those shots when that was about all that was needed after maybe a quick exposure adjustment).

So Lr3 may forever be the reigning king for ease-of-fill, but Lr4 blows it away in terms of quality and latitude of results.

PS - And maybe with a few more months of practice I'll be laughing about how I once thought it was so tricky...

Cheers,
Rob

Hi Rob,

Out of interest, what did you do?

Have you been using Exposure, Highlights and Shadows together or have you a different method?

Thanks, Paul.

I've been trying to post tips & tricks as I come across them in the user forum:

e.g. http://forums.adobe.com/message/42590...

As I said, it's trickier (but more flexibility/latitude), and one needs a new mind set - fill-light is more an integral part of an overall toning procedure, instead of a thing in and of itself.

I think I would have preferred a design which makes successive refinement a primary criteria, if it were possible, but that's beside the point now.

Mind set:
* multiple sliders required, along with some iteration.
* no way to just have a progressive fill without influencing top end - it's a loss compared to Lr3 - gotta mourn and go on. Put another way, to "emulate" Lr3 fill you will need to use exposure, contrast, highlights & shadows sliders, instead of just the fill light slider.

The tricks:
* overall exposure is critical and must be set more for midtones, than highlights.
* contrast is also critical and must be balanced with highlights & shadow sliders.

Notes:
* the "distance" between blacks and shadows is a primary determiner of intra-shadow contrast (along with exposure and contrast). (lower shadows)
* the "distance" between exposure and shadows is a primary determiner of upper "shadow" contrast.

Another biggie for me:
* +whites -exposure will expand highlights, left-shift the midtones, and compress shadows - I make use of this regularly. (hint: when I say "overall" exposure I mean the whites/exposure combo). It's sorta the opposite of "fill", but if one subsequently increases shadows to restore fill, it allows one to maintain intra-shadow contrast while simultaneously reducing upper-shadow/midtones contrast, which can keep midtones from being too bright whilst pursuing strong fill, and allow for some fabulous midtone and highlight separation at the same time.

Conclusions:
* I wish I could give a simple formula for "fill", but I can not - it depends on the photo. But one typical case is:

~ set exposure higher than what you'd need for highlights, to lighten the darks.
~ If blacks are unseated - now may be a good time to pull them leftward.
~ reduce contrast, to further lighten the darks (but only if loss of midtone contrast is ok, otherwise this is not a good method for filling).
~ reduce highlights, to compensate for "excess" exposure at the top end.
~ increase shadows slider for more fill, but use blacks slider to keep blacks seated.

Another case, if you want to fill the bottom-most end without increasing intra-shadow contrast, then +blacks instead of +shadows (same as -blacks in Lr3, except with more room).

Summary: In many ways Lr4 fill is like Lr3 fill - instead of blacks and fill modulated by brightness we have blacks and shadows with exposure and highlight compensation counter balancing, plus contrast plays a more critical role... (put another way - after the mental shift, one begins to think of toning as adjusting the mid level via exposure then balancing contrast with highlights/shadows - and after a while the concept of "fill" proper fades...).

Final thoughts: I regularly hit the tone curve to undo some of that automatic shadow recovery that's so wonderful for some photos but is the exact opposite of what I need for others.

PS - The correct things to adjust often depend on assessment of midtone vs. upper shadow vs. lower highlight - I regularly scan using the tone curve's TAT tool for info. One day, maybe it will be ever-present in the histogram.

Sorry it's not simpler, but it actually can be quite fun after a while - there is more latitude for how those darks are filled, and more latitude for midtoning and highlight toning too - without the image falling apart or color issues...

Also, new clarity can help fill shadows now too.

Cheers,
Rob

Thanks!

Hi Muhammad Saeed,

Please report back after you practice for a while, I'm still trying to pick up tips too!

Cheers,
Rob

Current LR users who take a bit of time to use the new tools in PV2012 will find it does a vastly superior job and that Fill Light-like adjustments are entirely possible. Yes, it isn’t easy to get hip to new controls but it is doable after working a few images. Plus new users to the application will find the new tools easier to learn and use for an number of reasons (example, everything starts out zero). If a new toolset is provided (example in the past, lens corrections), users had to learn to use them. So learning something new isn’t cause to suggest Adobe is trying to piss off anyone.

And if you really, really hate PV2012, stick with PV2010. You are not forced to use the vastly superior rendering tools.

You can always revert your image to PV2010 if you absolutely have to have the Fill Light Slider. You just can't keep the new processing and have your Fill Light too.

Wasnt aware of that thx..still not very effcient for me as Id like to have access to the new sldiers and fill light at the same time...

I just did the same thing for a friend who was having problems.

Note: the positive aspects of the Lr3 fill-light effect have nothing to do with the masking halos. There was a misunderstanding - a word mixup - calling the enhanced local contrast effect of the algorithm a "halo" - not the same, no not the same at all as the masking halos that are essentially never good. The positive effects are due to it's different underlying algorithm.

Anyway, indeed - there is no way to match the beloved effect in some photos. One can get close by cranking blacks and/or shadows all the way up then compensating using the tone curve, and adding as much clarity as the photo will take - supplemented with locals... But I agree, no - not the same, and not nearly as good for some photos that were really benefiting from Lr3 fill light, or should I say totally dependent upon it.

Only way to get Lr3-fill in Lr4 is to use PV2010. I too wish Adobe had built enough flexibility into PV2012 shadow toning controls so it wasn't necessary to use an older process version to accomplish.

I mean, it's fine for old photos to leave at PV2010, for now. But, new photos will need to use the old process version too, if the same effects will be desired - and all photos requiring PV2010 for the fill will have to stay at PV2010 forever, unless Adobe remedies come Lr5...

Rob

"Fill light" will, no doubt, *not* be returning in Lr5. In my opinion, it would be best to learn how to fill using Lr4 (slash 5) tools and forget Lr3 fill.

Don't get me wrong: I think it's good to let Adobe know how you feel etc., but most probably: Lr3-fill is to be forever a beloved legacy: mourn and move on...

Right: PV2010 will always be available, it's just that when PV2016 (or whatever) comes along, resorting to PV2010 for the fill will be about as appealing as using PV2003 is today.

Cheers,
Rob

Well, if Mr. Cole would be so kind to explain to me in short how to achieve the same result of Fill light with the LR4 controls - be my guest... I have tried (and used a lot of time) but couldn't really see how to lighten the areas in the same way as fill light did. And it's a really important feature for me. "Mourn and move on" is not the thing I expect in a feedback community - I would like that Adobe listens to their users and use feedback for their process. I wasn't writing this for a discussion about whether its good/bad, useful etc. Just that I need it for my workflow, and that I hope Adobe will implement it again.

Whats wrong with adding it to the already existing controls in LR4?

Please, call me Rob (Mr. Cole is my father ;-})

To be clear: I don't mean to be antagonistic. My advice was based on the fact that we've been told (e.g. by Jeff Schewe...) that Lr3-fill is gone for good - it may seem like a good idea to add it to the already existing controls, but the reality of the software design makes it not fit very well (process versions are *very* separate).

Also, Lr5 is not likely to add develop tools at this point (the beta has been released). So, maybe Lr6 (I doubt it), but probably not Lr5.

I have written *reams* about how to get the results you want using PV2012, but to be clear: with practice, you can fill real well in Lr4, but it will never look exactly like Lr3 fill (when used at high amounts).

Seriously - nothing wrong with resorting to PV2010 to get the effects you want, just realize you are maintaining roots in the past when so doing, instead of rolling into the future...

Summary: don't shoot the messenger, and believe me: Adobe has heard your plea (it's been shouted out numerous times, expecially during Lr4 beta).

My feedback is intended primarily to inform you what you are up against, in case you did not know. I feel for your plight, but can not help further (I do not control nor have much influence in software design/development at Adobe). My guess: Adobe will probably not be commenting further at this point (about this particular issue I mean), but maybe they will...

Cheers,
Rob

I somehow managed to delete my comment... not deliberately (was trying to edit something).

Well, Rob.. ;)
I live by "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", and for some that is maintaining roots in the past, and for some it just works. I didn't mean to sound insulted, and all I want is fill light to come back from the valley of shadows. Sure, I just convert my real estate pics back ti PV2010, and it's no sweat - but it could have been "just a slider" and saved me for some work ;)

Tore

Fair enough Tore - fingers crossed...

PS - I made a half-baked attempt at a plugin that would allow people to combine tools from different process versions on the same photo, but it was mostly just a relatively thin wrapper for: "pick one for initial process, then export (back to catalog) and use the other on it". But, I don't use the plugin, and I don't even remember which plugin it was at the moment, so can't really recommend it...

Good luck,
Rob.

I still love fill light, and I still love PV2012. That's why I created the fill light presets for PV2012 for fill light 20, 40, 60 and 80. They're published here and you can certainly copy them. Maybe that will get you up to PV2012.

I don't see any link where those presets are published here (in a collapsed comment maybe?).

But if I may, the basic formula is:
+exposure (for more reach)
-highlights (to keep from over-exposing top end).
+shadows (to further fill the bottom end).
-contrast (so shadows and highlights are not so compressed...)
+vibrance (to make up for loss of pizzaz due to -contrast, and because Lr3 fill over-saturated and colored the shadows, which fwiw: I often liked). +saturation may also be used...
+clarity (ditto, and because Lr3 fill had a "clarifying" effect which Lr4 clarity helps simulate).

R

Here they are:

Fill Light 20
Exposure 0.27
Contrast -15
Highlights -10
Shadows +10
Clarity 5
Saturation 5

Fill Light 40
Exposure 0.55
Contrast -30
Highlights -20
Shadows +20
Clarity 10
Saturation 10

Fill Light 60
Exposure 0.83
Contrast -50
Highlights -50
Shadows +50
Clarity 20
Saturation 25

Fill Light 80
Exposure 1.1
Contrast -60
Highlights -50
Shadows +50
Clarity 20
Saturation 25