LR 9.2 Raw 12.2, Mac OS 10.13.6
LR 9.2.1, Process Version 5
LR 9.2.1, Process Version 3 (née Process Version 2012, from LR 4)
LR 6.14, Process Version 2012 (renamed to Process Version 3)
Process Version 3 / 2012 looked identical in 9.2.1 and 6.14. It was slightly lighter than Process Version 5, but there was nowhere near the shadows range of Capture One. (You can change the process version in Develop's Calibration panel.)
I'm not sure what you were observing in the past, but this sample photo doesn't shed any light (or shadows) on the issue.
Note that process Version 2 (née Process Version 2010, from LR 3) had a very large range for the Fill Light slider.
Process Version 5 from my LR 9.2.1:
Process Version 3 from my LR 9.2.1:
Adjustment with digital. If it’s truly gone, then I’m going to have to go 100% Capture One for most of my pre-photoshop post and cataloging . I’d rather stick with what I have, but I’d love to hear from Adobe maybe. I’m certain this is a big shift in performance and I’d love for it to be just something I’m overlooking or can fix.
If Adobe had introduced a bug that affected large numbers of users or deliberately changed the behavior of Shadows without announcing it, we would have seen dozens or hundreds of reports about it. So I think the issue is specific to your installation, photos, or usage in a way that's not currently apparent.
Not speaking for Adobe but I think they understand this request because they did increase the range of one slider recently.
Perhaps Adobe could run a servey asking us to prioritize the sliders for range improvements. As I have thousands of scanned family photos going back almost 80 years as well as thousands more taken with superzoom, small sensor fixed lens cameras; my vote is for extended and smarter noise reduction. Yes I've tried the 3rd party noise reduction plug-ins and IMHO Adobe has essentially caught up.
We've been asking for an increased range for the sliders but there's a go-around. After reaching the maximum range, export it in the original format (or as a DNG if you prefer) alongside the source image and added to the catalog, perhaps with a -2 appended to the file name. Then edit that version. A bit clumsy but takes less time to do than it took to read about.Bill, that doesn't work for Raw or DNG files as the reimported file just has the Highlight/Shadow sliders still set at the values you have before export. It will work for Tiff, Jpg but then you are no longer editing the raw.
There is an Adobe provided way to increase the range of the Highlight/Shadow sliders using the Profile Creator tools in Camera Raw. This is from the documentation in the Profiles SDK
You can download the Profiles SDK here to find out how to do this.
I created an Adobe Color HDR profile to increase the Highlight/Shadow slider range. It works very well on HDR images and it works on many normal RAW images also.
If you need a little more OOMPH on the highlight/shadow slider you should create your own Profiles using the Tone Map Strength settings using the SDK. I created one using Adobe Color for the base and it was VERY easy to do. As I said, it works very well on some images and really creates artifacts on others but that is to be expected as you are pushing the sliders beyond their normal designed ranges. It seems to work best on HDR images. I don't know why Adobe doesn't just include a few Profiles that include the expanded range using the Tone Map Strength. Maybe they now do, I never checked.
I'm hardly an apologist for Adobe (I've been very critical sometimes), and I'd sincerely like to understand the feedback provided by Jim and Mark. If we can crisply tease apart the issues, then the feedback is likely to have much more impact on Adobe.
In the examples posted by Jim and Mark, the Shadows slider by itself has limited impact on the image. There have been three strands of thought floated:
1. Jim's original focus was that something had changed recently in LR – "I am seeing ... a massive change in functionality". That doesn't seem to be the case, at least with his sample photo – Shadows worked similarly on that photo in LR 6.14 through LR 9.2.1 (process versions 3 – 5). We don't have any other photos for which Shadows behaved differently in previous versions.
2. Mark thinks there may be an issue with Shadows and the Nikon D850 in particular, and that raws taken with a D500 or a Micro Four Thirds camera on the same scene don't exhibit this issue. If this is the case, then having sample photos from the D850 and another camera showing this issue would go along way to helping the Camera Raw developers understand what might be going wrong. In the past there have certainly been problems with camera profiles.
Given that the D850 is a popular camera that's been out for three years, if there was a serious problem with its camera profile affecting the use of Shadows, it's likely we would have seen at least a few more reports about it before now, and I think the Camera Raw developers would think the same. But it's conceivable there's a problem, and that's why sample photos of the same scene from two cameras, the D850 and another, would be very helpful in showing the issue is specific to the D850. But given there haven't been previous reports of issues with Shadows in the D850 in the past three years (at least that I've seen), without sample photos from two cameras, I think it's reasonable for the Camera Raw developers to deprioritize investigation of this possibility.
3. Robert observes that in Jim's sample photo, most of the pixels are in the blacks area of the histogram (to the left of the first vertical bar), where the Shadows slider has little effect. He observes that you can use the Exposure slider to put most of the pixels in the shadows area, use the Highlights slider to bring down the highlights on the face, and fine tune with Shadows, and you'll have a result similar to that with Capture One. I observe that with Jim's sample photo. The histogram shown in Mark's screen recording looks similar, with most of the pixels in the blacks area.
Robert is tacitly implying that the Shadows slider is working on Jim's sample the way it's always worked in LR, regardless of camera.
Now if Robert is right (and I think he is), then the issue experienced by Jim and Mark is that the Shadows slider is working as designed but that LR isn't nearly as efficient as Capture One for this kind of photo. LR requires adjusting three sliders (Exposure, Highlights, and Shadows) whereas Capture One just one (Shadows) to get an equivalent result.
So this feedback becomes a request to make LR more efficient (like Capture One) at handling photos with most of the pixels in the blacks area.
So this feedback becomes a request to make LR more efficient (like Capture One) at handling photos with most of the pixels in the blacks area.I'd like to see someone post their "best" results achievable with this image file in C1 including seeing the settings used. Comparing LR to C1 two using the Shadows slider alone is not a valid comparison.
John R Ellis here is a link to an albeit crude iphone video of the shadow slider in lightroom utterly failing to see the detail in the shadows. The detail is there, oh yes, loads of it, absolutely loads of it, the video shows the same image in Luminar 4 and the shadow slider revealing the details in the shadows spectacularly.Mark I just viewed the above video, which shows the image becoming darker when the LR Shadow slider is moved to +100. What's being discussed here is that the Shadow slider has less range. Your issue is different! Please post that NEF file to WeTransfer or other file sharing site so we can determine what's happening. It's possible there's something wrong with your system or installation, but we can only determine that by reviewing the actual NEF file. Thank you!
If the intent of Jim and Mark's feedback is that they think Capture One is more efficient because of the larger range of the Shadows slider, then I think your suggestion is a good next step: Let's look at how much effort it takes to get to a final result.Agreed. I look forward to seeing Jim, Mark's, or anyone else's best efforts with the SIMON1021.NEF file in C1 compared to LR. The LR Tone controls are image adaptive and adjusting them in a random manner (i.e. Shadows applied first) is an exercise in futility. Here's an article I created that should be helpful.
If on viewing the videos you think that the Lightroom slider with the D850 Raw file is behaving perfectly well then I can do no more. Again for those taking an interest I thank you. Link here:
As you can see from the attached histogram you have exactly the same situation that Jim had in his photo, practically no data in the Shadows area and almost all the data in Blacks. I would not expect or want using the shadows slider ONLY to affect this photo much. Luminar and Lightroom shadows work differently but I don't think either one is right or wrong.
EDIT. forgot to add attachment
The proper way to use the LR Tone controls is from the top-down starting with the Exposure control. Adobe has placed them in this order to help quickly achieve the desired image tone rendering. Adjusting the Exposure control first for proper midtone brightness will provide much more Shadows control range. I suggest reading the article I wrote on how to use the LR/ACR Tone controls.
Capture One's tone controls are NOT image adaptive and behave quite differently as you've discovered. As John R. Ellis mentioned the Capture One Shadow control behaves very similar to the Fill Light control in LR 3 Process Version 2010 now called Version 2. Adobe upgraded these controls in LR 4.0 to Process Version 2012 now called Version 3 and carried forward in Versions 4 and 5. The new image adaptive controls provide much more recovery of highlight and shadow image detail.
I downloaded and edited your _D850 + FLASH.NEF, which responds quite well to LR's Tone controls. I added a Graduated Filter to correct the flash light-falloff, but the image looks good and "normal" with it not applied. You can download the DNG file with my settings at the below link. Please let me know if you have any further questions.
"For an image like this that is largely underexposed (most of the image content is between 2 to 3 stops underexposed), the user should first be using the Exposure slider in the positive direction. For example, adjust Exposure to +2. Afterwards, use Highlights and/or Shadows to manage the overall contrast and tune individual ranges.
As for why Shadows by itself does not appear to do anything: it’s because Shadows in Lr is designed to adjust primarily the tones below the midtones of the image. However, most of the midtones of the image are also really dark.
As an example, for this image, try using Exposure +2.5 and Highlights -25 or so"
I applied Shadows +100 in LR 6.14 (12/2017, the second release to support the D850), LR 8.2.1 (4/2019), and LR 9.3 (6/2020), using both Process Version 5 (current) and Process Version 3 (formerly 2012). They all look identical. (These tests used the profile Adobe Standard.)
You can download the sample raw and the exported JPEGs from here:
If we could all avoid ad hominem comments and focus on the facts, that would be great.
Here are the results. For comparison, I've included a version from 9.3 using Process Version 2's Fill Light +100, which is similar to what we've seen in Capture One:
LR 6.14, PV 3:
LR 8.2.1, PV 3:
LR 9.3, PV 3:
LR 8.2.1, PV 5:
LR 9.3, PV 5:
LR 9.3, PV 2, Fill Light +100: