Lightroom and ACR: Larger setting for Recovery and Exposure.

  • 1
  • Idea
  • Updated 6 years ago
  • (Edited)
Recovery and Exposure is always not enough. Sometimes, when you increase exposure to more than 3 EV, recovery couldn't handle it. For exposure, it would benefit the people shooting ISOless (base ISO) if there was higher EV for them to increase. I also notice that when you increase exposure a lot, there will be tints at the shadows, it would be better if it could be fixed.
Photo of Jinn Leong

Jinn Leong

  • 80 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like

Posted 7 years ago

  • 1
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 386 Reply Likes
I've never needed a larger range than is offered.

Are you sure you are exhausting other possibilities for brightening, like:

- fill-light
- brightness
- tone curve.

In other words, I almost *never* increase exposure to brighten picture, then use recovery to pull down the over-bright highs. In fact, often just the opposite - I tend to set exposure based on where I want the highs, then use the above-mentioned to bring up the lows and mids, using recovery sparingly if at all.

PS - I solve shadow-tints using split toner.

If you must get more range, there are two things you can do:
- Use DNG Profile Editor to create a "brightening/high-exposure" profile.
- Use local exposure adjustment.
Photo of Jinn Leong

Jinn Leong

  • 80 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Fill light, brightness and tone curve often increase more noise compared to exposure to me. And for people shooting ISOless, Lightroom is seriously not suitable for it, yet, hopefully.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 386 Reply Likes
It seems you are doing something different than most do. I don't think I've ever increased exposure more than about 2-ish, and it goes to 4. And I think most people don't try to push recovery too hard either. Probably for me:

90% have zero recovery, and most of the other 10% have less than 50, with a rare few above 50.

So, it begs the question of what it is you are trying to accomplish, and how you are trying to accomplish it.

I mean, in general its best to expose the photo such that you don't have to crank exposure up too much - to avoid noise issues, as you've noted.

If you want detail in high highs and low lows, consider HDR or exposure blending.

Or, am I missing something?

Maybe you could post a link to some of the raws that you had difficulty processing the way you wanted with Lightroom.
Photo of Jinn Leong

Jinn Leong

  • 80 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
FYI, there currently is a large group of people shooting ISOless (at base ISO) and changes exposure in post to get the full potential of the camera's dynamic range because many Sony sensor's read noise is becoming very low and flat, so it is a good idea to have a larger exposure range. Taking your advice, I started using the Brightness slider, I find it better than exposure + recovery, but after 100, brightness is no different than exposure.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 386 Reply Likes
I still have some questions about this:

"Does Lightroom need to change to accommodate a new breed of sensors and shooting technique?" or

"Do you and others with this problem need to change your shooting and/or post-processing technique to get the best from your sensor/camera and Lightroom?"

I will probably only be able to answer these questions to my satisfaction if you post some example raws.
Photo of Jinn Leong

Jinn Leong

  • 80 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Pentax K5, Nikon D5100, Nikon D7000, Sony NEX-5N etc etc has such low read noise that amplification in camera is not really gonna benefit much. So this allows you to shoot at base ISO and digitally amplifying in post. The higher the ISO used in camera, the more dynamic range loss because more highlights are blown. Digitally amplifying will also throw away the highlights, with the advantage of using recovery/tone mapping to get back the highlights. Understand?

And yes, Lightroom should change, people shooting ISOless are moving to RPP because LIghtroom isn't suitable for people shooting ISOless.

Here are some examples - http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/rea...

Better explanation: http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archiv...
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 386 Reply Likes
Maybe plenty of people understand the new way to shoot and process with the new breed of sensors - I'm still not convinced.

Post a bracketed sequence of "ISOless" raws with normal and reduced exposures and people would be able to make up their own minds.

Summary:
-------------
I get the theory, I just don't know how well it holds up in practice.

Final Thoughts:
--------------------
If this "ISOless" stuff is really the wave of the future, I'm guessing Adobe already knows about it, and we'll see accommodation in Lr4. But, I could be wrong - they may also need convincing...
Photo of Jinn Leong

Jinn Leong

  • 80 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Yes, but I don't think many manufacturers are going to change for this ISOless sensor. Not many people know about this and camera manufacturers aren't going to take the risk to remove the ISO parameter, many traditional photographer will be confused.
Photo of LRuserXY

LRuserXY

  • 426 Posts
  • 41 Reply Likes
First, thanks for pointing to the ISOless shooting, that was totally new to me, very interesting (although not convinced yet, just like Rob Cole).

If this should really find its way into Lightroom, I would propose NOT to increase the exposure range, but instead introduce a NEW setting "virtual ISO" to virtually change the cameras ISO setting afterwards as it was intendet when shooting the picture (just like LR implicitely corrects canons CR2 with highlight tone priority, albeit only 1 f-stop). The exposure slider would keep its current range and still be used only for correction of the overall appearance of the photo.

Not sure about the recovery though... It seems to me that for such extreme highlight recoveries (not 1 or 2 f-stops, but 5 or even more f-stops) the current recovery feature may not be suitable. One will need "real" tonemapping algorithms in LR. Or am I wrong here?
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 386 Reply Likes
|> "It seems to me that for such extreme highlight recoveries (not 1 or 2 f-stops, but 5 or even more f-stops) the current recovery feature may not be suitable".

I think you're right about that part - dunno 'bout the rest ;-}
Photo of Jinn Leong

Jinn Leong

  • 80 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
I'm not shooting ISOless yet, because I don't want to lose the good old JPEG preview, until it is fixed, I ain't shooting ISOless. But quite some people is already starting to shoot ISOless, so it would definitely benefit them.
Photo of Jinn Leong

Jinn Leong

  • 80 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
For every exposure you increase, you need to increase 33 recovery. After 33, the results start to become less useful. After 66, it's almost unusable, the colors almost disappear.
Photo of Jinn Leong

Jinn Leong

  • 80 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Also, increasing exposure is more predictable and linear, to me again.
Photo of Dorin Nicolaescu-Musteață

Dorin Nicolaescu-Musteață, Champion

  • 703 Posts
  • 38 Reply Likes
For the record, in Lightroom 4.1 and older Exposure can be turned to eleven (or 10 EV, to be precise).
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 386 Reply Likes
If that ain't enough, I can't help but think the photos are extremely underexposed. But then, I don't really get this ISO-Lossless stuff. In the past, people boosted ISO when shooting to avoid having to boost exposure too much in post (and have better quality). Has this changed yet I missed the memo?