# Has AutoTone been improved?



## Jimmsp (Apr 22, 2013)

One of the biggest issues that LR 4.x has, imo, is the AutoTone function. Sometime it works, sometime not. Sometime the raws come out too dark, sometimes too bright.

Has this been improved in LR 5?
Can you take a file that did not work well in LR4 and see a major improvement in LR5 ?

Thanks - as I really don't have the time or desire to be a beta tester.

Jim


----------



## davemazz (Apr 29, 2013)

I tested it on a few images and see no difference between versions.


----------



## Jimmsp (Apr 29, 2013)

Thanks. I was afraid of that, as I have yet to read anything positive, from anybody, on this function.
They haven't figured out the right algorithms yet, as had Capture One. I hope they hurry.


----------



## bobrobert (Apr 29, 2013)

My thoughts are that auto tone is a subjective representation of the image therefore it can't reflect everyone's idea of how an image should look?


----------



## Bryan Conner (Apr 29, 2013)

I agree with Bob.  C1 does do a good job most of the time, but I think that LR4.4/5 does a good job most of the time.  Neither program gets it correct all of the time because neither can read my mind and determine what the scene looked like in real life.


----------



## clee01l (Apr 29, 2013)

AutoTone is not intended to be a "one size, fits all" solution. It is intended to "get you in the ballpark". Sometimes that result is closer to your idea of properly adjusted but more often not.  My only objection to LR 4 AutoTone is the Whites adjustment. The end result in LR 4 is always some White clipping. In LR 5b, this seems to me to be less of a problem, but not a solved issue.


----------



## bobrobert (Apr 29, 2013)

When you start up the program you see a rendered version of the RAW information which in reality means it has already been "auto toned". If you press the auto tone button you are in effect doing it twice. Michael Reichmann.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/index.shtml

in one of his videos on LR4 states he has never been tempted to press the auto tone button. Imo good advice. If you have the time then starting with a preset which zeros out the controls and then you apply your vision to the image - instead of the programs - is probably best. Why risk over saturating and over contrasting the image and then use it for a starting point?


----------



## clee01l (Apr 29, 2013)

bobrobert said:


> When you start up the program you see a rendered version of the RAW information which in reality means it has already been "auto toned". If you press the auto tone button you are in effect doing it twice. Michael Reichmann.


 This is not true on two levels.  First, the image that LR displays initially, is the embedded JPEG thumbnail or the default develop setting assigned to imports.  While this default develop setting could include AutoTone, this is not a given. Second, pressing the {AutoTone} button causes LR to go back each time to the original unadjusted (RAW) data and evaluate that data according to the algorithms built into the AutoTone function. Pressing the {AutoTone} button will always yield the same adjustments to the tone parameters. 

As for the wisdom of using AutoTone, what would lead you to believe that your empirical skills are superior to those mathematical methods developed for the algorithms in the AutoTone?  While AutoTone is not perfect, it gets me close and does it quickly.


----------



## Jimmsp (Apr 29, 2013)

clee01l said:


> ......
> 
> As for the wisdom of using AutoTone, what would lead you to believe that your empirical skills are superior to those mathematical methods developed for the algorithms in the AutoTone?  While AutoTone is not perfect, it gets me close and does it quickly.



Exactly. It is the quickly that matters a lot, especially when you are culling photos.
Last week I did a shoot of about 500 photos under fairly harsh light. Lots of brights and darks.
I wanted to quickly sort these, tossing about 1/2 on my first pass through.

As a comparison, autotone in LR probably messed up about 1/4 the time, giving me a scene either too bright or too dark. But >100 photos is more than I should have to modify by hand for culling.
The C1 autotone equivalent messed up only 3x.

I did almost all my sorting and general processing in C1 for this shoot, as the C1 autotone generally needed v little adjustment (usually on darkening overall highlights) to give a fine photo.
I used LR for the few (~10) I wanted to look their best.

I would have preferred to stay in LR the whole way for this set.


----------



## Mark Sirota (Apr 29, 2013)

clee01l said:


> As for the wisdom of using AutoTone, what would lead you to believe that your empirical skills are superior to those mathematical methods developed for the algorithms in the AutoTone?  While AutoTone is not perfect, it gets me close and does it quickly.



While I agree with the general thrust of this discussion, I do strongly believe that my empirical skills are inherently superior to Auto Tone.  And yours are too.

That's because Auto Tone is basically trying to adjust the photo by looking only at the histogram. Try doing that yourself and see how you do... (Yes, as a matter of fact, I have tried this.) Auto Tone does an impressive job given its handicap, but it's no match for a thinking senses-equipped brain.


----------



## bobrobert (Apr 30, 2013)

clee01l said:


> This is not true on two levels.  First, the image that LR displays initially, is the embedded JPEG thumbnail or the default develop setting assigned to imports.  While this default develop setting could include AutoTone, this is not a given. Second, pressing the {AutoTone} button causes LR to go back each time to the original unadjusted (RAW) data and evaluate that data according to the algorithms built into the AutoTone function. Pressing the {AutoTone} button will always yield the same adjustments to the tone parameters.
> 
> As for the wisdom of using AutoTone, what would lead you to believe that your empirical skills are superior to those mathematical methods developed for the algorithms in the AutoTone?  While AutoTone is not perfect, it gets me close and does it quickly.



The image that LR displays - in develop where the toning takes place - is a rendered version of the raw information. Any mention of jpeg is superfluous to the subject. The subject is auto tones in the DEVELOP mode. As to my empirical skills then If I didn't think they were better than the auto tone then I wouldn't be using LR. If you think that auto tone is better than your empirical skills is it correct to assume that you auto tone all of your images and don't do further adjustments to your images?


----------



## bobrobert (Apr 30, 2013)

Mark Sirota said:


> While I agree with the general thrust of this discussion, I do strongly believe that my empirical skills are inherently superior to Auto Tone.  And yours are too.
> 
> That's because Auto Tone is basically trying to adjust the photo by looking only at the histogram. Try doing that yourself and see how you do... (Yes, as a matter of fact, I have tried this.) Auto Tone does an impressive job given its handicap, but it's no match for a thinking senses-equipped brain.



I heartily agree with this post except for the "impressive job" part.


----------



## donoreo (May 1, 2013)

LR 3 was a lot closer on Auto Tone.  Sad that LR 5 has not come back to that level.


----------



## Jimmsp (May 2, 2013)

donoreo said:


> LR 3 was a lot closer on Auto Tone.  Sad that LR 5 has not come back to that level.



LR 3.6, as I recall was pretty good; generally came close on the overall image and exposure. It was highly useful as a place to start with culling photos and for final adjustments. The new development engine really messed up the algorithms that were used.


----------



## dcmackintosh (May 13, 2013)

Jimmsp said:


> LR 3.6, as I recall was pretty good; generally came close on the overall image and exposure. It was highly useful as a place to start with culling photos and for final adjustments. The new development engine really messed up the algorithms that were used.



I agree.  I used to start with Auto Tone all the time in LR3, now almost always have to Ctrl-Z or zero at least a couple of the sliders in LR4.  It's most often much too dark.  LR5 Beta seems to be the same.


----------



## awp (May 14, 2013)

In LR 4 highlight your pics - make sure auto sync is on and change the process to 2010 - then use Auto  - then change back to process 2012 - does a far better job than using Auto in 2012.  Gets a very high % of useable results straight off - as LR 3.6 did.  Gives a starting point and really helps when you're in a rush.  Try it.


----------



## gregDT (May 14, 2013)

Another vote for using auto tone as a time saver when dealing with large numbers of files. 
I do think that auto tone is a subjective thing and does depend on what you're trying to achieve. For some of my work I have to wade through hundreds of images but only need to make sure that they are not clipping or lack contrast. I'm certainly not pixel peeping each one. For this I batch set medium contrast and auto tone everything. While lightroom is quite capable of going completely mad from time to time, generally it does the job well enough. For individual images that need care and attention I'd stay well away from auto anything.  But for batch processing auto tone saves a lot of time in my work flow.


----------



## clee01l (May 14, 2013)

Since this thread started, I have ventured into new (for me) photographic territory. Usually I take outdoor nature shots with lots of green, sky and contrasting colors. Except for the blown whites that I mentioned earlier, Auto tone does a decent job of getting me into the ball park. And I've been mostly happy with its results.  Instead of my traditional outdoor scenes, I've been taking photos inside a lightbox.  The lightbox has a non reflecting black velvet background. My subjects are lit by three flash units. 
These "new" photos have been failing the AutoTone test miserably.  AutoTone is trying to find a balance between a 95% black scene and the 5% properly exposed part. In other words it want to provide an average exposure for the whole frame.  So If you take a photo that does not have an Average overall exposure, Autotone can't deliver since the program is attempting to provide an average over all exposure,


----------



## Jimmsp (May 14, 2013)

awp said:


> In LR 4 highlight your pics - make sure auto sync is on and change the process to 2010 - then use Auto  - then change back to process 2012 - does a far better job than using Auto in 2012.  Gets a very high % of useable results straight off - as LR 3.6 did.  Gives a starting point and really helps when you're in a rush.  Try it.


Super idea.  I'll give it a try. I have an older batch of photos that was really tough for auto tone. I may duplicate those and give 2010 -> 2012 a try.


----------

