chrismarquardt's profile

20 Messages

 • 

1.5K Points

Tue, Mar 6, 2012 2:16 PM

Lightroom: LR4 doesn't display point curve adjustments made in LR3

After updating from LR3, LR4 has reset my tone curves. I use custom tone curves on almost every picture, and all my contrast treatments this way seem to have gone. Initially the previews were still the old ones, so I only noticed after opening several pictures in the develop module, just to see my meticulous tone curve adjustments be removed.

Is anyone else seeing this?

195 Messages

 • 

3.6K Points

10 y ago

Readers of this thread might be interested in a the following thread dealing directly with Adobe's poor handling of the issue titled:

"Failure to warn users of of damage to catalogues when upgrading to V.4"

http://feedback.photoshop.com/photosh...

(any problems wit the link, please let me know)

14 Messages

 • 

224 Points

I do now want the take the parts of Abobe in this thread or others (I'm a simple customer) but Failure to warn users of of damage to catalogues when upgrading to V.4" is a bit an overstatement in my opinion.
The original v3 catalogue is still intact after the upgrade to LR4 so....nothing is really lost.
Regards,
no-nic - Marco,

8 Messages

 • 

150 Points

10 y ago

I agree entirely with Justin and John's comments above. Software development is complex. As far as I can tell, people at Adobe are not lazy or stupid. Sure, there was a goof, it happens, but by and large the communication has been swift and open, and Adobe provided an effective temporary resolution until v4.1. And let's not forget, the workaround script was provided by an actual real person with an actual name who actually took the time to engage with the community. Yes, communication could be improved, some advance warning of the issue would be good, but comms have been pretty good.

There are 3 points on which it is worth reflecting:
1. Many companies, as previously noted, do not have the desire or, frankly, the capability to issue temporary fixes like this. Even if an employee wanted to, in many companies the internal processes simply do not allow for ad hoc posting of scripts and hotfixes like this, I mean, it's quite a brave move right? What if it went wrong? Imagine the consequences. We should all thank our lucky stars that Adobe doesn't have 15 approval stages to put everything into a packaged release schedule, and that there is a willing community to test an alpha script to a reasonable level of robustness.

2. If we continually kick someone for trying to do a good job, what happens? Yep, they may well think "I can get this kind of abuse for a lot less work, so screw you". So constructive criticism is good, thanks for the work so far is good. Bashing people for trying to resolve things and throwing tantrums because everything should be perfect does not paint anyone in a flattering light.

3. As has been noted, compared to many other companies, this level of service is very good. Adobe in general are pretty good to deal with in my experience compared to many others. Companies that offer such service to consumers, especially those paying less than $200 for a product, are notable by their rarity. Most hide their telephone numbers in secret corners of their website, then hide their people behind mobius loops of "press 1 for this and 2 for that" menus. Adobe don't. Yes, Adobe is a big company and "should" be perfect. Well, the world isn't. Get over it. If you think this is bad, you are in for a lifetime of disappointment and pain. And for anyone thinking "if we don't complain it doesn't get better", I agree with you, but read point number 2 again.

Now, I've held off so far on upgrading. I've left that to some pathfinders who are braver and more knowledgable than me. Fair enough, my choice. I'm fine to do it now though so from my personal point of view:

A great big THANKS to Tom and the other helpful people on this forum. Good job, keep it up, onwards and upwards!

Scott

14 Messages

 • 

182 Points

I think this is the wrong approach:

"Hey, this is a software company.

They have sometimes reported in a forum. So please wait patiently. This is more and faster than one can expect from other software companies. "

What?

I like the Adobe products. The ideas behind it are really impressive.

But with the money and the know-how we can expect an interim release within two weeks. The script works, Adobe knows the problem.

Even a bug fix for just one mistake would be a good thing.

For example, because of this error, many still do not work with LR4.

The company I work for builds industrial control systems. We deliver sometimes with our own software. If we make a mistake, we must correct this error usually within three days.

If I buy a TV on the Internet and it is defective then I expect a replacement within two weeks.

I refuse to excuse everything with "it is a software company" and "it is complex". Sure it is.

But a workaround is not a solution. And this workaround is also quite questionable, because it is not always applicable. A script is no solution, too. It's a thing at your own risk and to help Adobe find a solution.

For a normal user, not a technology geek, it is not practical for the normal user who is not experienced with software issues and does not want to lose data. This user will only be scared.

I want to emphasize once again. I like Adobe, I like Adobe products.

But it could be worked a little faster. And for example, the manpower of Photoshop used for Lightroom, instead of publishing the beta and to pretend as if the situation is not so bad. The release was just too early.

8 Messages

 • 

150 Points

Sure, I understand your point of view. It could be worked a little faster, you're right. But it's ok. Not the best, not the worst, but ok. The point is that a lot of people around here have unrealistic views about what is possible. And I disagree that the release was too early. It was an error, it happens.

Based on my software dev experience in large organisations, I expect that the final fix is being rolled into v4.1 along with a bunch of other things (e.g. edit in external application, which doesn't work at all in some cases I understand, maybe an even bigger goof!). And for a consumer product that's probably better than lots of little fixes. But that's my educated guess based on experience, I might be completely wrong and not everyone will come to the same conclusion about what "might" be happening behind the scenes. So I agree that some clearer communication would help, like "we expect an update within x weeks and either run the script or (sorry) wait". Tom's idea of posting on the tech support blog was an excellent one - I don't think this has happened yet.

8 Messages

 • 

110 Points

"Software releases have bugs. It'll get fixed eventually" would be OK if this were free software (Linux, GIMP, etc) being developed and maintained by the community. But Adobe is a multi-million dollar multi-national business that makes very healthy profits selling software, and if a product is not fit for purpose when it's sold, the company needs to fix it PDQ.

2 Messages

 • 

90 Points

Yes, they should fix it PDQ, but that raises the question of exactly how fast PDQ really is... Is it two weeks ago? Is it yesterday? Is it tomorrow? Is it in two weeks? A month? The honest truth is that nobody here has any actual knowledge of what Adobe is working on and we have no real, concrete basis for determining EXACTLY how fast Adobe "ought to" have LR4.1 out. We are all just speculating because we are annoyed with this problem... and rightly so. But we are still just speculating.

The primary point of my post above was not really that Adobe ought to be simply excused. I entirely agree that the tone curve issue was a bungle-and-a-half. And it's definitely annoying.

My point, however, was that the tone curve issue is not the ONLY issue that Adobe is working on. There are plenty of other problem areas that I'm sure the Adobe team is trying to address... and it would stand to reason that LR4.1 won't be released until a number of bug fixes have been integrated.

Why is the release of LR4.1 taking so long? Well, that's a reasonable question. Consider this, though. With the bugs that have been found in LR4, people have ranted on and on (not just here, but mostly elsewhere) about how Adobe ought to be ashamed of itself for releasing its software too early. For shame, Adobe!

Yet here we are holding our breath, going," Ready yet? Ready yet? Ready yet? No???? Not yet? Well.... ready now? Now? Now?" We are just jumping out of our chairs to get them to push an update out the door as fast as humanly possible... the very thing that they've been criticized for with the release of LR4 to begin with. We criticize them for supposedly releasing LR4 too early... we criticize them for supposedly releasing LR4.1 too late. Translation: "Whatever Adobe does... they are wrong." I mean, really... that's what this boils down to. And if people feel that way, well... okay.

I'm simply saying that...yes, we have a right to be aggravated with the tone curve issue... but we still need to be reasonable about these things getting fixed. The developers at Adobe don't just grow bug patches on magical trees out back of Adobe HQ. They are working on it... and I hardly think that they are intentionally dragging their feet and PURPOSELY delaying LR4.1 (that wouldn't even make sense).

Is it not reasonable to think that they are ensuring that all the various bug fixes in the future LR4.1 are rigorously examined and work well so that LR4.2 won't need to be released only a month afterward?

Adobe Administrator

 • 

16K Messages

 • 

296.7K Points

10 y ago

See Tom's announcement of a release later this week to address this:

http://feedback.photoshop.com/photosh...

7 Messages

 • 

258 Points

10 y ago

Tom/Jeffrey: With the update what will be the correct path to update catalogs? Can one just delete the LR4 catalog, upgrade to 4.1 (or whatever the version will be), and then reconvert an LR3.6 catalog? Will there be a prompt when opening LR4 with no catalog to update an existing LR3 catalog? A lot of us have gone back to using LR3.6 until the issues with LR4 are resolved.

Adobe Administrator

 • 

16K Messages

 • 

296.7K Points

10 y ago

When you launch LR 4.x (whatever version the new build is) it should auto-correct an library that has already been converted. It creates a report/collection of the files where the curve was recovered. One of the LR engineers can give more specifics, but that's the short answer. I'm sure the release notes will cover this in more detail once it's released.

7 Messages

 • 

258 Points

10 y ago

Thanks, Jeffrey, that's good to know. I stopped using LR4 though after the problems were noticed and went back to LR3. So my catalog in LR3 is more recent than the one that was originally converted to LR4. What would be the correct way to start over with a fresh LR3->LR4 conversion?

Adobe Administrator

 • 

16K Messages

 • 

296.7K Points

Yup. If you've been using a LR3 catalog, update that.

Sr. Product Manager, Adobe Digital Imaging

Adobe Administrator

 • 

16K Messages

 • 

296.7K Points

10 y ago

The other point to the fix that I failed to mention, is the initial catalog conversion is fixed to avoid this problem in the first place. So it's a two part fix:

1) Prevent this issue from happening in the first place.
2) Auto-magically fix catalogs that have been affected.

Champion

 • 

677 Messages

 • 

8.7K Points

10 y ago

I have a sample catalog with one image with a Custom curve that the recovery script does NOT recover.

https://www.yousendit.com/download/M3...

46 Messages

 • 

630 Points

There's no picture in your catalog.

Champion

 • 

677 Messages

 • 

8.7K Points

There's no image file, but there's no need. You can open and convert the catalog just fine.

Or, you can put any dummy nef file there. The filename is DN_070211_010144_3231.NEF.

231 Messages

 • 

4K Points

Dorin,

I can see LR4.1RC converting the LR3 catalog correctly, but not correcting what went wrong when first converted with LR4.0.

How was the tone curve modified? Is it the result of an LR camera default?

Beat

46 Messages

 • 

630 Points

10 y ago

Yes it converted OK.
And indeed the script did not recover.
But that's no fun if I can't see what it had to recover .

Employee

 • 

478 Messages

 • 

10.7K Points

10 y ago

Hi Dorin,

Unfortunately, I can't verify this one way or another without the photo itself. With no photo file, the curve won't show, and dropping in a dummy does not suffice (Lightroom refuses to be fooled that my random nef is actually the missing file). If you could provide the photo file via yousendit as well, that would be great.

Also, some additional information would be helpful. What operating system are you on? And in this photo's history, I don't see any point curve adjustments, or develop adjustments of any kind that were performed in Lightroom. There are only two "from metadata" steps. Is this a photo that was originally adjusted in ACR, and then imported into Lightroom? Or is something else going on here? I think I need more context.

Thanks,
Ben

Champion

 • 

677 Messages

 • 

8.7K Points

Hi Ben,

Yes, all the images are imported after ACR (the capture date of the youngest one is 11 Feb 2007, a week before Lightroom 1 was released :). I am on Windows 7 x64.

But today, I have reconverted my lr3 catalog with 4.1RC and could not find a single image with a lost tone curve, be it a Custom, Linear or any other.

If you still need the sample file, here it is https://www.yousendit.com/download/M3...

1 Message

 • 

62 Points

10 y ago

I tried the 4.1 RC, and it found only 1 image with a recovered point curve (completely wrong). I tried running the script mentioned previously, but to do that I had to revert back to Lightroom 4.0. I ran the script, and it found 3492 images with recovered point curves. Yes---that sounds about right.

However, when I update an image with a custom point curve to process 2012, it puts 16 separate points on my curve, which previously had only 2 or 3. This renders it COMPLETELY UNUSABLE if I want to tweak it further! As far as I know, Lightroom offers no way to move multiple curve points at a time. Unlike many raw developers, it offers very little for the custom curve user. And now it mangles my carefully adjusted curves with way too many points. What a mess.

At least I love the new highlight and shadow sliders....

Charlie

8 Messages

 • 

154 Points

10 y ago

Charlie, thanks for the heads up about 4.1 RC. Maybe I'll wait before updating, since I already used the script for 4.0 and it worked fine.

The issue you mentioned, that when updating the process version you get all these extra points on the curve, is because the new baseline point curve, what's called Linear in the 2012 process, is actually equivalent to the old "Medium Contrast" curve in the 2010 process. If you take an image with a linear curve in the 2010 process and update it to the 2012 process, it will try to match the old linear curve by making a weird reverse s-curve - hence all the extra points.

For that matter, the numbers have changed in the new Basic Tone sliders. In other words, the standard defaults are actually the same (or close as they can get considering the differences in the process), but all zeros in the new process equates to +50 Brightness, +25 Contrast, and 5 Blacks in the old process. The equivalent of having everything zeroed in the 2010 process is roughly -1.00 Exposure, -33 Contrast, and +25 Blacks in the 2012 process.

Michael Frye

8 Messages

 • 

154 Points

10 y ago

And... there are so many differences between the 2010 and 2012 process that I'm taking the approach of not updating the process version on images if I'm already happy with the way they look, and only updating older photos if I want to try to take advantage of the new Highlights and Shadows tools - and then figuring I'll have to start processing the image from scratch.

Employee

 • 

32 Messages

 • 

1.8K Points

Michael, that is exactly the approach the team is recommending.

Regards,
Tom

6 Messages

 • 

180 Points

Hi Michael

I am finding that the new sliders in LR4 are extremely effective. I am wondering if routine Tone Curve adjustments are helpful any more. How do you feel about using the Basic Sliders for adjustments, and not using the Tone Curve? What would I be giving up by abandoning the Tone Curve?

Employee

 • 

478 Messages

 • 

10.7K Points

10 y ago

Hi Charlie,

If the 4.1 RC is failing to find and fix all of your photos with point curves, we definitely want to get that fixed. I need some more info, and will contact you privately.

Thanks,
Ben

2 Messages

 • 

70 Points

Same problem here: 4.1 only finds a few photos with point curves and the the fix is all over the place. The black levels and contrast show extreme variations.
I also have an issue with preferences not working. Auto levels when converting to B&W cannot be turned off.
Overall the update seems much more responsive; good job on that aspect.

Michael

20 Messages

 • 

1.5K Points

10 y ago

I'm traveling, so I could only do a quick test with LR4.1RC

I'm on OSX Lion, LR3.6 64bit upgrade to LR4.1RC - I'm testing with a test catalog that has pictures with different kinds of tone curves, presets, custom, linear, medium contrast, etc. - they are JPG, TIF and CR2 (5DMkII files).

Initial findings: on first look tone curves now seem to survive the upgrade.

However, I'm still seeing inconsistent tone curve behavior when switching to PV2012

TIF/JPG:
When updating from PV2010 to PV2012, custom tone curves on TIF and JPG files stay the way they were before (e.g. same number of points, same curve). The contrast of the preview slightly changes, but that's expected, given the new process version.

CR2 (Canon Raw):
When updating the process version on CR2 files, custom tone curves are turned into 16-point-monsters that are pretty much unusable. This is not expected behavior.

I couldn't test any other Raw formats, but I assume the same behavior as with the CR2 files.

948 Messages

 • 

13.9K Points

"When updating the process version on CR2 files, custom tone curves are turned into 16-point-monsters that are pretty much unusable. This is not expected behavior. "

This is because the old medium contrast is now linear, and tone curves have to be smooshed in the same way to keep them roughly the same.