Lightroom 4 warning for B&W shooters

[Mark von Kanel]

Ive been using LR 3 for a couple of years and upgraded to LR 4. On the whole im very happy with the improvements, but have made a gaff that im now regretting.

LR 4 uses new processing algorithms and when you open an image in develop mode it asks you if you want to reprocess using the new ones. being a progressive sort of dude i clicked on yes, it then asked if i wanted to apply this to all of my images and so i clicked yes......

Whilst it made very little difference to the colour images, all of my black and white stuff was re processed into a grey washed out mess . OK i can go back in the history and revert back to the original edits but i have to do that on an individual basis.

does anyone know how to reverse this global process?

from now on my default place will be "just say NO" until i totally understand how the change will work. Lesson learned.

[kdoc856]

Mark,

I did exactly the same thing with similar results, though for some weird reason it didn't effect every similarly processed images. I didn't investigate away to do a mass reversal, I just grabbed clusters, synchronized, and reset. Took some time, but it worked. I join you in encouraging others to do the reprocess one imaage at a time unless no info comes forth.

[Mark von Kanel]

heres a before and after for you all, and why im here i might as well ask for some C&C which is not something i do very often because im a little shy .

the image was shot at a festival and i must admit im quite happy with the composition, its shot at 48mm and is un posed believe it or not!

48mm, F5.0 1/400 sec ISO 250 nikon D7000

any comments especially how i can improve PP welcome

Before lightrooms global alterations



sorry tiny pics keeps crashing and wont let me load the second image need to suss another way of doing it!

well tiny pics still not working so the thumbnails art the best i can do until it starts working again!

before (RH) And after (LH) Lightrooms global alterations!

[kdoc856]

Perhaps cloning out the hooded head emerging from your main subject's? Its presence does suggest the context somewhat, but I think you've already established that with the other folks in the BG

[DanK]

You can go back to the earlier process. There are two ways to do that. In the history panel, you should see a line at the top that says "update to current process." As long as you have not done subsequent edits, you can just click on the line below that. Alternatively, go to the bottom of the right-hand panel. Open up "camera calibration" if it is not already open. The top line is "process". To the right it will say 2012. You can click on that to get a drop down list with both of the earlier two processes.

[Mark von Kanel]

THanks Dan, ill have a look at it and hopefully i can apply the processes one globally to all of my images the history one i knew about and that what i have been using so far on an image by image basis.

[dan marchant]

I seem to recall Adobe posted a not very obvious warning about updating your entire catalogue. LR4 is a pretty major advance over 3 and uses some dramatically different algorithms, which can make for some weird results when applied to images processed with the older version.

[Colin Southern]

Can you not just restore it from a backup?

[Mark von Kanel]

Can you not just restore it from a backup?

yes Colin i can but i must admit to not paying an awful lot of attention and by the time i noticed the scope of what had happened id imported 1000 odd more pics and so i was interested in a global alteration on the old images in the same catalog to save exporting and re importing the new images.

its not a catastrophe as i can revert to pre adobe correction on an idividual basis, but i thought it good to put a warning out there to stop peeps making the same mistake.

[Colin Southern]

yes Colin i can but i must admit to not paying an awful lot of attention and by the time i noticed the scope of what had happened id imported 1000 odd more pics and so i was interested in a global alteration on the old images in the same catalog to save exporting and re importing the new images.

its not a catastrophe as i can revert to pre adobe correction on an idividual basis, but i thought it good to put a warning out there to stop peeps making the same mistake.

Ah. That'll be the perils of the Lightroom database I've been warning people about

[Macmahon]

Can you not just restore it from a backup?

Of course you can. But you don't need to. There's no drama here. Updating the process version, like all LR adjustments, is completely non-destructive and reversible. Just reapply the 2010 process to all the affected images, or all the images in your catalog if you like, using synch.

Tim

[Colin Southern]

Of course you can.

Um - well actually no he can't because as he said, he'd already added around 1000 images before he realised.

This is exactly the problem I've been warning about - with a restore he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

[Macmahon]

Um - well actually no he can't ...... with a restore he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

Um - well he could. Easily. If Mark has not done anything to the "around 1000 images" he could delete them from the catalog, then restore, then reimport the new images. If he has made changes, he can export the new "around 1000 images" to a temporary catalog, then restore, then reimport the temporary catalog.

However, if he hasn't made any changes to the new images, a simple bulk reversal of the move he made in bulk, as I described above, should do the trick.

I don't see the peril here.

In any event, Mark's word of warning, which echoes the warning given by Adobe not to do what he did, is well made.

I would guess that in hindsight, Mark would agree that it was an unusual move to apply, sight unseen, a global change, to a whole bunch of images that may have had significant work already done on them. Not something many users would have done, I would guess.

Luckily, there's no great harm done.

Cheers

Tim

[Mark von Kanel]

Hi Tim,

You are correct and i should have been paying more attention! but whats done is done and can be undone even if it takes a little time. Actually i am far from the only one that has done this. Adobe would not be issuing warning to people if i was among a few! If you are editing colour images at the time of the prompt then there is very little difference in the process and this is what happened to me.

it was only when i went back a few weeks later to do a re print of some festival shots that i noticed the B&W problems, and as i said previously i could either re edit or reverse on an image by image process and i just wanted to know if anyone knew of a global way of doing this, and to warn others as well.

If Adobe are warning people not to do this, then why offer the option to do it within the program? maybe just laziness because they cant be bothered to issue an update? Adobe certainly didnt mail me about it!

Like i said it was a gaff on my part and certainly doesnt make me dislike what is an excellent program.

[Colin Southern]

Um - well he could. Easily. If Mark has not done anything to the "around 1000 images" he could delete them from the catalog, then restore, then reimport the new images. If he has made changes, he can export the new "around 1000 images" to a temporary catalog, then restore, then reimport the temporary catalog.

However, if he hasn't made any changes to the new images, a simple bulk reversal of the move he made in bulk, as I described above, should do the trick.

I'm sure it can be done - but - it then takes someone out of the realm of "photographer using basic features of product for routine processing" and into the unfamiliar realm of data recovery, which - because of the stress of the situation runs a very real risk of doing even more damage.

In my "day job" as an IT consultant I seen this - person does regular backups - person has a problem - person tries to do their own restore - person is very familiar with doing backups, but not very familiar with doing restores - person mucks it up and ends up either writing over their only known good backup or fails to backup multiple copies of the damaged data and test restore them to an independent location prior attempting a live restore - attempts a restore - has it fall over in the middle of the restore for some reason - and now has inconsistently restored data and no good backup.

It's very easy for someone who knows what they're doing to say "oh - it's not a problem - you just do this and that" - it's a very different kettle of fish when it's someone who may not be as IT savvy - may not have prepared well - will be under stress - and has perhaps many hundreds of hours of edits (and even the images themselves) to lose.

[Macmahon]

Hi Tim,

You are correct and i should have been paying more attention! but whats done is done and can be undone even if it takes a little time. Actually i am far from the only one that has done this. Adobe would not be issuing warning to people if i was among a few! If you are editing colour images at the time of the prompt then there is very little difference in the process and this is what happened to me.

it was only when i went back a few weeks later to do a re print of some festival shots that i noticed the B&W problems, and as i said previously i could either re edit or reverse on an image by image process and i just wanted to know if anyone knew of a global way of doing this, and to warn others as well.

If Adobe are warning people not to do this, then why offer the option to do it within the program? maybe just laziness because they cant be bothered to issue an update? Adobe certainly didnt mail me about it!

Like i said it was a gaff on my part and certainly doesnt make me dislike what is an excellent program.

Hi Mark

I did not intend to be critical of what you'd done. I've done more things that I later wished I hadn't than most people while fiddling about in post processing. The sad ones are the ones I'd done, pre Lightroom, in making silly/unwise adjustments to JPEGs. Unlike alterations in LR they can't be undone.

I didn't do the bulk process update for precisely the reason you came up against - I wanted to be sure that if a client wanted a reprint of one my earlier images I could be sure I still had the exact adjustment parameters there.*

The point I was really making is that rescuing mistakes like this in Lightroom is perfectly feasible and not usually difficult.
I'm with you. LR is an excellent program with few 'perils' built in!

Cheers

Tim
*PS One improvement I'd like to see in a future iteration of the program is a recording, in the image data, of the precise print settings used to make a print: paper size; image size; print profile etc. I don't use a lot of different papers but occasionally when I go back to an earlier image I cannot remember if I'd done something different with it.

[Mark von Kanel]

Dont worry Tim im not easily offended!

PS One improvement I'd like to see in a future iteration of the program is a recording, in the image data, of the precise print settings used to make a print: paper size; image size; print profile etc. I don't use a lot of different papers but occasionally when I go back to an earlier image I cannot remember if I'd done something different with it.

excellent idea, i wonder if they are listening.....