Lightroom/Camera Raw: Shadow slider - Loss of functionality?

  • 1
  • Problem
  • Updated 1 week ago
  • Not a Problem
  • (Edited)
I seem to have lost significant function in the Shadow slider in LR and ACR. I shoot on a Nikon D850 and have used Adobe for decades. What I am seeing is a massive change in functionality. I still have consistent performance in Capture One, but Adobe seems to be suddenly failing me on this. Any explanation? Tips for troubleshooting?  I've attached a link to a dropbox folder with a sample file (under exposed to highlight the issue) and screen video grabs of what I'm seeing in LR vs Capture One. LR was doing just as well as Capture One only a few months ago. What changed?!?

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/5ega5fvgaoxu4s4/AABp1nAY_6S03FpsmeCu89sxa?dl=0 
LR 9.2 Raw 12.2, Mac OS 10.13.6

 
Photo of Jim M

Jim M

  • 17 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
  • frustrated

Posted 2 months ago

  • 1
Photo of Bill

Bill

  • 258 Posts
  • 38 Reply Likes
If the image already has a large number of significant edits then the effectiveness of other sliders is diminished. This is quite noticeable after HDR or Focus Stacking.
Photo of Jim M

Jim M

  • 17 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
It’s a raw file, Bill. Thx.
Photo of John R. Ellis

John R. Ellis, Champion

  • 5129 Posts
  • 1453 Reply Likes
I don't think there's been any change to the Shadows slider for many years. Using your sample photo, I observed the same range of Shadows as in your video.  Further, I tested the Shadows slider at +100 using:

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:


Photo of Jim M

Jim M

  • 17 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
Thanks for the thoughts, John. I was pretty used to getting out of LR what you saw in the Capture One example. Huge difference right? . Regardless of what image I use, the shadow slider is a ....wait for it....a shadow of its former self. It happened somewhere around the turn of the year, but took until now for me to convince myself it wasn’t just me and to unfortunately have the time to dig into it. It’s a bloody shame since it’s such a critical
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.
Photo of Rikk Flohr

Rikk Flohr, Official Rep

  • 7541 Posts
  • 1729 Reply Likes
Jim M,

Do you see the same perceived behavior degradation in Camera Raw? 
Photo of Jim M

Jim M

  • 17 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
I do, which is why I’m hoping its something local I can fix!
(Edited)
Photo of Robert Somrak

Robert Somrak, Champion

  • 724 Posts
  • 227 Reply Likes
Look at the histogram.  There is no data in the "Shadows" area, its all in the "Blacks".  Just use exposure slider to up the exposure and reduce the highlights with the appropriate sliders and you get the same thing.  The Capture One slider is working more like the old Fill Light slider as referenced by John.  
Photo of John R. Ellis

John R. Ellis, Champion

  • 5129 Posts
  • 1453 Reply Likes
I think to make progress on understanding what you're seeing, we need a sample photo that shows a small range for the Shadows slider in LR 9.2.1 and a very large range for the slider in LR 8 or LR 6. 

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.

 


Photo of Mark R

Mark R

  • 28 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I have the same problem. Just like the original poster I am having the issue with Nikon D850 RAW files, not pre processed or HDR etc just a straight RAW file. Just like the original poster my files regardless of exposure can have substantial raising of shadows in other processing software but not Lightroom.  The problem is only in Lightroom CC/Classic latest version as of 23/06/20 on an iMac running Catalina 10.15.5
Photo of Bill

Bill

  • 249 Posts
  • 33 Reply Likes
Rikk, it's not a problem but rather a limitation.
Photo of Mark R

Mark R

  • 28 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
As per the original post, he provided very good example. I have the same problem. With regard if it exists I suppose that depends on the definition of a problem. I think the original poster failed to get it across despite the provision of two videos and NEF file. What I can tell you is, if I shoot an image that includes an area of dense shadow using the D850 on a tripod with fixed lighting and then shoot the same image with my D500  using the same exposure from the same position on a tripod with the same lighting and then shoot the same image from the same tripod with the same lighting and exposure on a micro four thirds camera ALL with the same equivalent focal length then put all the resulting RAW files into lightroom the latitiude with the shadow slider is MASSIVE with the micro four thirds and with the D500 but TINY with the D850. 
Photo of John R. Ellis

John R. Ellis, Champion

  • 5112 Posts
  • 1446 Reply Likes
"the latitiude with the shadow slider is MASSIVE with the micro four thirds and with the D500 but TINY with the D850."

I think you're more likely to persuade the Camera Raw developers there's an issue if you provide sample raws illustrating this. Upload them to Dropbox or similar and post the sharing link here.
Photo of Mark R

Mark R

  • 28 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I've done just that with Adobe thank you John. I'm not trying to persuade anyone but there is an issue and there is a possible cause which is being investigated. Does it affect every d850 raw file, no, there is very probably a nuance to certain files, that seems to be likely. The original poster provided a sample? I didn't feel I wanted to field the same critiques that missed the point he was making : )
Photo of Mark R

Mark R

  • 28 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
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. 
https://we.tl/t-SgMUxiK3Yt

It is a WeTransfer link and the file will be available for you to download for a few days. If the "Camera Raw Developers" need more "persuading" then all I can say is I'm happy for their obvious bliss. 
Photo of Bill

Bill

  • 258 Posts
  • 38 Reply Likes
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.

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.
Photo of Mark R

Mark R

  • 28 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I'm just looking for the same range that applies to my Nikno D500 and Micro four thirds system to apply to my D850. 
Photo of Robert Somrak

Robert Somrak, Champion

  • 724 Posts
  • 227 Reply Likes
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.  
https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/digital-negative.html#resources

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.
Photo of Robert Somrak

Robert Somrak, Champion

  • 724 Posts
  • 227 Reply Likes
It should be noted that the increased tone range using the SDK for Hightlght/Shadow doesn't help the OP's photo much but the OP's photo does not have much data in the Shadows area for the slider to effect. most of the data is in the Blacks range.  The OP probably could have used the Exposure, Highlights and Black sliders to achieve what the other Raw processors did.
Photo of Bill

Bill

  • 258 Posts
  • 38 Reply Likes
Sorry, should have tested my suggestion on raw/dng. So I must have just done it on jpegs which I abandoned because the results were poor. 
 
Photo of Robert Somrak

Robert Somrak, Champion

  • 724 Posts
  • 227 Reply Likes
Bill,
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.
Photo of Bill

Bill

  • 258 Posts
  • 38 Reply Likes
Robert, I don't do anything with profiles. Just don't have the time as photography isn't my only hobby. The IRS predicts I'll last another 20 years (RMD calculation) and I've a couple hundred years of tasks on my bucket list. Maybe after the end of the gardening season I'll give this a try. Thanks for the suggestion. 

Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1960 Posts
  • 663 Reply Likes
Nobody has shown a fully edited image for LR or C1. Here's LR 9.3 using a Graduated Filter dragged off canvas to apply -100 Highlights and +100 Shadows locally to the whole image. You could also use an enhanced camera profile with the same tone mapping as  Robert Somrak has outlined. It looks pretty good to me and I concur nothing has changed with the Shadows control.



(Edited)
Photo of John R. Ellis

John R. Ellis, Champion

  • 5128 Posts
  • 1453 Reply Likes
I think the standard (simple) method gives a good result: Exposure = 2, Highlights = -80, Shadows = +90:

(Edited)
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1960 Posts
  • 663 Reply Likes
Yep, and using Adobe Standard camera profile with NO Graduated Filter Highlights and Shadows applied looks even better. Keep in mind this image is about 4 EV underexposed as viewed in RawDigger Histogram.

Photo of John R. Ellis

John R. Ellis, Champion

  • 5128 Posts
  • 1453 Reply Likes
I just updated the result in my previous post -- Mac OS 10.15.5 appears to have suddenly started recording screenshots without a color profile (hmm).
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1960 Posts
  • 663 Reply Likes
I'm on Windows and the Snipping Tool and Snagit Editor I use both  have always saved screenshots with no color profile. I have to open them in PS, assign my display profile, and then convert them to sRGB.

As an FYI I also use FireFox browser and the latest update v77.0 no longer uses the display profile so all pictures look oversaturated on my wide gamut display. Go figure as to why these things are happening in this day and age of the Internet!
Photo of John R. Ellis

John R. Ellis, Champion

  • 5129 Posts
  • 1453 Reply Likes

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.

Photo of Mark R

Mark R

  • 28 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
"So this feedback becomes a request" John R. Ellis

While I am grateful for everyone who has taken the time to respond I do feel people have addressed a number of unasked questions including who can do the best edit and other ways to edit and comments on the original exposure (likely taken by Jim during the setup of his lighting and as he said not his intended final image).

I can use the Lightroom slider effectively for my D500 and Olympus but I cannot with my D850, workarounds yes but the slider no. And the detail IS in the shadows as proven in my own video. That is all I wanted to deal with but, and I truly say this with a big warm smile, I feel like I have run into a flat earth convention with a globe. 

For now I give up. Hopefully adobe will provide their own appraisal, I'm told they will look at this, and in the mean time I will adjust my work flow to accommodate this problem I have encountered.  

Photo of John R. Ellis

John R. Ellis, Champion

  • 5129 Posts
  • 1453 Reply Likes
"I can use the Lightroom slider effectively for my D500 and Olympus but I cannot with my D850"

If you provide sample raws for the three cameras, that will nail the case that there's something not right with how Shadows works with the D850 and make it much more likely that developers would look at the issue. 
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1960 Posts
  • 663 Reply Likes
Agreed! Set each camera to -3 EV exposure compensation and carefully compose and shoot the same subject composition. Then compare all three side-by-side with LR default develop settings except Shadows +100. If the issue is evident please provide a download link to the three raw files and I will personally escalate the issue to Adobe Engineering.
Photo of Mark R

Mark R

  • 28 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I have not had time to perform these tasks but will send the neff and screen recordings. I'd like to think as a paying customer that escalation of an issue I am experiencing is not dependant on yourself setting me tasks. How does one become a more important customer with such access? I would dearly like to be able to access support from adobe engineers without satisfying any gatekeepers but alas not finding that possible. Is it a separate club?
Photo of Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen

Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen, Champion

  • 5655 Posts
  • 2260 Reply Likes
> Is it a separate club?

There's not a club, as such, but Todd and John have so many years of experience here, they know what information is needed to get a bug or feature request the most attention from the engineers. They're on your side.
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1960 Posts
  • 663 Reply Likes
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.
Photo of John R. Ellis

John R. Ellis, Champion

  • 5128 Posts
  • 1453 Reply Likes
The screen recording Jim posted in the first post shows the effect of the Capture One Shadows slider.  Here's a screen capture of where the slider ends up in that recording.  (The colors below accurately represent the colors in the recorded .mp4, which may not represent what Jim was seeing.)

Capture One's Shadows certainly has a bigger range, though the tonal range of the results don't look nearly as good to me as in LR using Exposure, Shadows, and Highlights:



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.
(Edited)
Photo of eartho

eartho, Champion

  • 1479 Posts
  • 497 Reply Likes
The issue with both the highlights and shadows slider in LR is that they operate based on a set of invisible rules. There's some image analysis going on in the background and the sliders behave differently depending on the content of the image. I've brought this issue up numerous times with Chan, and he claims it's working as intended. 
Another example of this is the opposite, where too much white in an image (product on seamless) causes the highlight slider to fail.
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1960 Posts
  • 663 Reply Likes
The issue with both the highlights and shadows slider in LR is that they operate based on a set of invisible rules. I've brought this issue up numerous times with Chan, and he claims it's working as intended.
The PV2012 controls (Process Version 3, 4, 5) are "image adaptive" by design and they are behaving as intended. With all of the Basic panel Tone controls at the 0 default setting some Highlight recovery is being applied and the Black point is auto-calculated. A discussion here with more info and links to other articles on PV2012:

https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=67093.0

I created an Adobe article on how to use the PV2012 Tone controls so the image adaptive behavior works in your favor.
Another example of this is the opposite, where too much white in an image (product on seamless) causes the highlight slider to fail.
I've never seen this or perhaps I don't understand what you mean by "the highlight slider fails. If an image has fully clipped highlights R=B=G= 100% then that area will not be recoverable (R=B=G). If at least one or two channels (R or B or G) is not at 100% PV2012 Highlights control will attempt to recover detail in the clipped highlights.
(Edited)
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1960 Posts
  • 663 Reply Likes
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. 
https://we.tl/t-SgMUxiK3Yt
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!
Photo of Jerry Syder

Jerry Syder

  • 499 Posts
  • 227 Reply Likes
What it seems like to me, from that video, is that the phone(recording device) is adjusting it's exposure to compensate. Because the change is so subtle in LR, the camera compensates. The change is more drastic in Luminar, so it's clearly seen in the video. A screen recording is always preferrable for these demonstrations. 
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1960 Posts
  • 663 Reply Likes
Thanks Jerry. Looking at the change in brightness of the gray in the panels that appears to be the case. It is also visible in Luminar.
Anyhow we need to compare fully edited images with all settings applied in LR and C1, or whatever editor. With LR Exposure setting applied to bring up the midtones the Shadow control has much more effect. This is due to the image adaptive characteristics of the originally named PV2012 Process version now named Version 3, which is carried forward in Version 4 and 5.
Photo of Mark R

Mark R

  • 28 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
A new screen recording is on the way. 
Photo of Mark R

Mark R

  • 28 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Will post a new video, screen recording and the NEF file
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1960 Posts
  • 663 Reply Likes
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.


https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom-classic/help/tone-control-adjustment.html
Photo of Mark R

Mark R

  • 28 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I really dont think the OP and certainly myself had an "intent" of generating a photo editing competition with our images provided not for critique or measure of ability to expose but a example of a lightroom shadow slider having a tiny latitude. I will send another video and for those who prefer to stare at the mouse on their lawn while ignoring the elephant stood next to it I simple give up. 
Photo of Jim M

Jim M

  • 17 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
Seriously, People. I am shocked at the futility of this entire thread. I (the OP) posted a concern about an apparent change in functionality of the shadow slider, based on well over ten years of experience with LR and a couple of years with this particular camera. I had developed a methodology (as a full time working photog) that took advantage of that functionality where needed and it changed. Period. Some of the chatter has attempted to be constructive, but the vast majority of you have glossed over the actual concern and began preaching about how to expose images, how we should be using LR and more. I've had people reach out to me directly with the same concerns, hoping to avoid the spray from those seeking some sort of self-validation through pious ramblings about how we're all doing it wrong.  For the record - I get shadows - I know what they are. I can read a histogram. I can even nail exposure (!). I was seeking some crowd sourcing on whether others had noticed it (many apparently have) or if  there was a global change in LR that I wasn't aware of.  If you're not experiencing that, or have a meaningful workaround, maybe you don't need to say anything at all. And if photography was your livelihood, maybe you'd understand why spending hours on beta-testing with strangers might just not be the best use of our time.   That said - thanks to anyone that responded with a relevant answer. You can (and always have been able to get) similar results by playing with all of the tonal sliders and the curves panel, but I often found satisfactory results with JUST the shadow slider. This is just less efficient now. End of discussion. PLEASE! 
Photo of Robert Somrak

Robert Somrak, Champion

  • 724 Posts
  • 227 Reply Likes
Jim M
Apparently you haven't read some of the posts as Todd Shaner went to the extra effort to try the uploaded photos in older versions of Lightroom and the Shadows slider has not changed.  If Adobe did change the behavior of the shadows slider it would have been a MAJOR issue as it would have affected all older edits done prior to the change and there would have been complaining all over the internet.  Just because you think it changed doesn't make it so.  I would have a concern if the slider did affect the blacks more.  If I want the blacks changed I use the exposure or blacks sliders.  
Photo of John R. Ellis

John R. Ellis, Champion

  • 5128 Posts
  • 1453 Reply Likes
Two months ago at the top of this topic, I tested the Shadows slider with the sample photo in 6.14 (process version 3), 9.2.1 (process version 3), and 9.2.1 (process version 5). Shadows behaved the same in all three.
(Edited)
Photo of Robert Somrak

Robert Somrak, Champion

  • 724 Posts
  • 227 Reply Likes
Thanks John,
I missed your test as it was a LONG time ago.  Thanks to you and Todd for going to the extra effort to actually test on old versions to prove there has been no change. 
Photo of Robert Somrak

Robert Somrak, Champion

  • 724 Posts
  • 227 Reply Likes
I think it is a mute point what C1 Shadows does.  In the OP’s image, almost all the data is in the Blacks.  When I raise the Shadows I DON’T want it to overly affect the Blacks.  If i want the Blacks affected I will use the Blacks Slider or raise the Exposure or probably a combo of the two. If the Lr Shadows slider was more like C1’s slider then we would have complaints of the Shadows slider over affecting the Blacks.  If you are going to use Lr you need to learn how the Lr slider inter-operate and use them appropriately.  I personally don’t see a change of Shadows in recent Lr versions and also do not see an issue of how the Shadows slider works.
Photo of Mark R

Mark R

  • 28 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Ok so please fine attached two videos, one of the NEF file in Lightroom and another of the same file in Luminar. Plus the original NEF file. Please not this is not an invite for a photo critique or to educate me on exposure. I took the image for the purpose of demonstration.
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:

https://we.tl/t-Bt6Ey5suHg



Photo of Robert Somrak

Robert Somrak, Champion

  • 724 Posts
  • 227 Reply Likes
Mark,
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


(Edited)
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1960 Posts
  • 663 Reply Likes
Mark, your video shows the Shadows control behavior with all other Tone controls at their 0 setting. As I explained the LR Tone controls are image adaptive and each of the controls works on a specific area of the histogram. With underexposed image files a large part of the image data is in the Blacks (0%-10%) area of the histogram, which is why using just the Shadows (10%-30%) control by itself has very little effect.

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.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0nc1wv2d68ovioc/_D850%20%2B%20FLASH_Shaner%20LR%20Edits.DNG?dl=0
Photo of Robert Somrak

Robert Somrak, Champion

  • 724 Posts
  • 227 Reply Likes
The auto change of PV3 and 4 to PV5 when moving a slider is not a bug.  It is as designed behavior as confirmed by Adobe.  
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1960 Posts
  • 663 Reply Likes
Yes, but you could set Shadows to +100 and apply other settings using Process version 5 and then chnage the Process version to 3 or 4.
Photo of Robert Somrak

Robert Somrak, Champion

  • 724 Posts
  • 227 Reply Likes
Thanks Todd, it does work that way.  I just tried this
(Edited)
Photo of Mark R

Mark R

  • 28 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
"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."

I don't know how many times I have said I know this. 
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1960 Posts
  • 663 Reply Likes
Mark, that post is from June 29th four days ago and you've already mentioned this three times now. I get it! I did reference the same article again today, but in response to a reply eartho made concerning the PV2012 control behavior.
This whole post is fragmented due to multiple nested replies so perhaps that's part of the repetition and confusion.
Photo of Rikk Flohr

Rikk Flohr, Official Rep

  • 7541 Posts
  • 1729 Reply Likes
Regarding the test image at the above link, here are some comments from engineering:

"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"


Photo of Mark R

Mark R

  • 28 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Yes I am aware of the method you mention, but I am finding the shadow slider has less effect than I have come to expect and this deliberately underexposed image was offered as an example, as despite the underexposure, iI feel that n the past I have had more effect from the shadow slider than I am getting now.  
Photo of Rikk Flohr

Rikk Flohr, Official Rep

  • 7541 Posts
  • 1729 Reply Likes
There have been no recent changes to the Shadow Slider that would account for a behavior change. 
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1960 Posts
  • 663 Reply Likes
Thanks Rikk–Much Appreciated. The actual issue as posted by the OP is that the Basic panel Shadows control appears to have been changed. The Shadows slider appears to have less effect than past versions with underexposed image files.

John Ellis and I tested numerous older LR versions including LR 5.7.1 and found no difference in the Shadows control behavior when compared to LR Classic 9.3 (see below screenshots).
We probably can come to closure on this post if you can have Adobe Engineering confirm the Shadows control introduced in LR 4 Process Version PV2012 has not been changed and functions the same in LR Classic 9.3 Process Versions 3, 4, and 5. Thank you!

LR 5.7.1 with default develop settings, Adobe Standard camera profile, and Shadows = +100


LR 9.3 with default develop settings, Adobe Standard camera profile, and Shadows = +100
(Edited)
Photo of Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen

Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen, Champion

  • 5655 Posts
  • 2260 Reply Likes
> iI feel that n the past I have had more effect from the shadow slider than I am getting now.  

A different angle on this... do you have any photos that you shot in the past when it had a greater effect, that we can compare against and try again in the current version?
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1960 Posts
  • 663 Reply Likes
Using a video makes it difficult to compare the two renderings side-by-side. All I can tell is that the LR 5.7.1 Shadows control has a barely discernible effect on the image. Based on that alone I wouldn't make any bets that it was exactly the same behavior as LR 9.3!

You can download the actual LR 5.7.1 and 9.3 export TIFF files from my tests. They both have the same exact default develop settings and Shadows = +100. There is no Adobe Color camera profile in LR 5.7.1 so I used Adobe Standard for both.

Import them into LR, select both, hit the C key for Compare mode. Then use the XY Swap button to quickly switch views while staying focused on only one preview (Select or Candidate). Even very small differences will be much more obvious. They look identical including the Histogram. If you're still not convinced you can open the two files in PS and follow the procedure at the below link. It can detect even a 1 data bit difference in the RGB pixel levels.
 http://www.digitaldog.net/files/Apply_Image.pdf



LINK UPDATED
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/d42np9n0dg8wkr7/AABEOQFF7Htlm1midt2cTLaVa?dl=0
(Edited)
Photo of Mark R

Mark R

  • 28 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Thanks
Photo of Mark R

Mark R

  • 28 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
"Using a video makes it difficult to compare the two renderings side-by-side. All I can tell is that the LR 5.7.1 Shadows control has a barely discernible effect on the image. Based on that alone I wouldn't make any bets that it was exactly the same behavior as LR 9.3!"

Be good to see the video though
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1960 Posts
  • 663 Reply Likes
OK, here's a link to a video showing the PV2012 Shadows control behavior in LR 5.7.1. I had to export your NEF file to DNG file format because LR 5.7.1 does not support the Nikon D850 camera. The DNG file is an exact copy of the NEF file's raw image data.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/sdvtg25fvdph6qk/Lightroom%205.7.1%20Shadows%20Control%20Test.mp4?dl=0
Photo of Mark R

Mark R

  • 28 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Thank you for taking the time to do this video. While it think it shows a little more effect than in 9.3 (i.e I don't think it is exactly the same), it is nonetheless not a difference I feel reflects my assertion therefore I accept the point made in the video.
Photo of John R. Ellis

John R. Ellis, Champion

  • 5129 Posts
  • 1453 Reply Likes
I redid and expanded the tests I did two months ago with Jim's sample Nikon D850 raw, and there's still no evidence that Shadows has changed in the past several years. 

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:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/r9996fxt3qtttbg/shadows.2020.07.01.zip?dl=0

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:






Photo of Mark R

Mark R

  • 28 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
"If we could all avoid ad hominem comments and focus on the facts, that would be great." 

This has been a real issue for me with most comments including unwelcome un asked diversions that to be honest have been extremely frustrating. Every time I pointed out I didn't need help with alternative methods I would get responses helping with alternative methods.