# LR3 Fill Light vs LR4 Shadows for local contrast



## Eruditass (Mar 1, 2012)

The LR3 Fill light always seemed special in adding local contrast.  The way it seemed to add light based on the intensity of surrounding pixels as opposed to just global shadows was something I had hoped would remain in LR4.  It can add a good amount of contrast and brightness to the shadow areas, as opposed to LR4 which seems to never add highlights into the shadows, which works great with textures when used with restraint.

I did some *extreme *examples with the old fill light + blacks in LR3 compared to LR4 shadows + blacks:

http://imgur.com/a/ENAfu#0

I wasn't successful in recreating it with clarity, sharpening, exposure, tone curve, etc., but got close with tedious local adjustments.

Here's the RAW file:
http://www.mediafire.com/?c16mj0u35afx7o2


----------



## LightCode (Mar 1, 2012)

mmm .. sound strange that Fill Light would also increase local contrast

even if 2010 and 2012 Processes work differently, I try a quick test, 
it seems to me you need to increase both Shadows and Exposure 
to get similar result of Fill Light:




upper row is Process 2010 (LR3), lower row Process 2012 (LR4),
on the left the histograms with default setting,
on the top right the result obtained by applying Fill Light = +40 (LR3)
on the bottom right what I get with Shadows = +50, Exposure = +0.2 (LR4)

likely a Highlights about -10 is also needed to decrease a little the peaks in the high lights and get same Histogram of LR3

with these settings my test photo looks the same with both 2010 and 2012 Process


----------



## Mark Sirota (Mar 1, 2012)

In your sample file, I agree that the PV2010 images look better -- see especially the lines between the bricks towards the left side of the frame.

However, that same 2010 behavior was also a problem for me fairly often, producing tone inversions (visible halos) around shadow areas.

This is a good illustration why it's great that Adobe is allowing the choice.


----------



## Eruditass (Mar 2, 2012)

LightCode said:


> mmm .. sound strange that Fill Light would also increase local contrast
> 
> even if 2010 and 2012 Processes work differently, I try a quick test,
> it seems to me you need to increase both Shadows and Exposure
> ...



While the histograms look similar, those don't report where those highlights occur.  E.g. were you able to reproduce the highlight lines on the left side of the image?  It's local contrast things like this that made me appreciate (and hate) Fill Light.  But I'd like to have both, of course.



Mark Sirota said:


> In your sample file, I agree that the PV2010  images look better -- see especially the lines between the bricks  towards the left side of the frame.
> 
> However, that same 2010 behavior was also a problem for me fairly often,  producing tone inversions (visible halos) around shadow areas.
> 
> This is a good illustration why it's great that Adobe is allowing the choice.



It would be if we could have the improvements of PV2012 but with an additional fill light slider.


----------



## LightCode (Mar 2, 2012)

Eruditass said:


> While the histograms look similar, those don't report where those highlights occur.  E.g. were you able to reproduce the highlight lines on the left side of the image?  It's local contrast things like this that made me appreciate (and hate) Fill Light.  But I'd like to have both, of course.



my test image (left LR3, right LR4)



they look the same to me

my idea is that the actual LR4 sliders give you a more precise control over the different light zones,
while LR3 Fill Lights is more like a "magic recipe" capable to give a single-touch-wow-effect


----------



## Eruditass (Mar 2, 2012)

LightCode said:


> my test image (left LR3, right LR4)
> 
> View attachment 1910
> 
> ...



I'm talking about in my image.  Notice the specular  reflections off the light source in the bottom (horizontal lines) / left  (vertical lines) bricks to come out as much over the shadows.

PV2010
http://i.imgur.com/Plwfg.jpg


PV2012:
http://i.imgur.com/GDXpq.jpg

And that's with PV2012 maxing in clarity, while PV2010 was left at 20.

A Lightroom Plugin developer had this to say, and I agree:



> the Lr3 fill-light algorithm liked to add a bit of light into those  deep shadows that made for some awesome intra-shadow contrast that just  can't be matched by the PV2012 sliders/algorithms. Also, the auto-shadow  recovery is really working against you here - one needs to crank blacks  so low and/or twist tone curve so hard to counter the auto-shadow  recovery that there is no way to get enough light into those deep  shadows afterward, even using the tone curve.
> Lr3  fill-light did indeed set a high bar - it will be greatly missed,  assuming the PV2012 algorithm will never be tweaked enough to come close  enough...


----------

