# Adobe updates Lightroom Classic, adds a new texture slider and new Canon camera & lens support



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 15, 2019)

> New features and enhancements in the May 2019 (version 8.3) release of Lightroom Classic
> Flat-Field Correction
> You can now reduce shading, or lens cast, from your digital photos using the Flat-Field Correction feature. Shading can occur from a variety of different lenses and can result in both asymmetrical vignettes as well as color casts introduced by certain lens characteristics.
> Flat-Field Correction is available in the Library module. To apply the correction, select all your photos in a natural interleaved order and choose Lightroom > Library > Flat-Field Correction.
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## snappy604 (May 15, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...




And don't forget the excellent customer service...
They are indicating you might get sued if you continue using older versions.









Adobe Tells Users They Can Get Sued for Using Old Versions of Photoshop


"You are no longer licensed to use the software," Adobe told them.




www.vice.com


----------



## Stuart (May 15, 2019)

snappy604 said:


> And don't forget the excellent customer service...
> They are indicating you might get sued if you continue using older versions.
> 
> 
> ...



So do all T&C's now transfer risks to the purchaser - "we messed up but its now your problem unless you upgrade with us".


----------



## magarity (May 15, 2019)

Did everyone see Adobe requires everyone who has the auto update turned off to be sure to update or else they say there are licensing issues with older versions of CC's Photoshop and Lightroom: https://www.engadget.com/2019/05/14/adobe-creative-cloud-older-apps-warning/


----------



## unfocused (May 15, 2019)

Why can't people read and think before posting? Such a difficult task.

According to the stories about these warnings, Adobe is in a lawsuit with Dolby. Dolby claims unauthorized use of their product. Adobe disputes the claim.

These warnings seem to be a reasonable attempt by Adobe to warn customers that they could get swept up in the legal fight if they continue to use software that uses Dolby technology. If you have even the least bit of knowledge about the U.S. legal system, you know that lawsuits often name every conceivable party, in the hopes of pulling in deep pockets that will be held liable. In many states, liability laws allow a person to be held liable for the full amount of the award, even if they are only 1% responsible. Telling customers not to use the disputed software protects the customers. Of course, it also protects Adobe, because Adobe can show that they made a reasonable attempt to stop the use of the Dolby product.

Granted, the risk of an individual user being pulled into the lawsuit is slim. But, Adobe has thousands of customers who do have substantial resources and would be prime targets for lawsuits.


----------



## unfocused (May 15, 2019)

Very interested in the new texture slider. Could be very useful with portraits.


----------



## Hector1970 (May 15, 2019)

I wonder did they fix anything else. I used to love Lightroom but it got extremely buggy and slow. It could do with a bit of re-engineering
I can’t understand why they don’t add a proper eraser tool ie the one in Photoshop (with content aware).


----------



## unfocused (May 15, 2019)

Just tried the update to Camera Raw. Seems like a significant improvement in the algorithm for the "auto" setting. Old camera raw consistently lowered contrast, a ridiculous thing to do. The new one actually seems to add a touch (5%) of contrast. My default workflow when mass editing pictures is to see what the "auto" setting does, compare to the "as shot" and then adjust from there.


----------



## snappy604 (May 15, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Why can't people read and think before posting? Such a difficult task.
> 
> According to the stories about these warnings, Adobe is in a lawsuit with Dolby. Dolby claims unauthorized use of their product. Adobe disputes the claim.
> 
> ...


aware its because of litigation with Dolby

what it highlights is how now Adobe can control what you thought was yours on your machine, and that's not a good feeling. And before people get all 'but microsoft' or any other cloud, or subscription etc.. I see this as a larger problem, not just adobe, but it re-enforces why I don't like subscription models or anything where the vendor essentially can control your purchase in the future.


----------



## Viggo (May 15, 2019)

Still no way to use Lens Correction for RF lenses, what’s going on with that...?


----------



## Fran Decatta (May 16, 2019)

Viggo said:


> Still no way to use Lens Correction for RF lenses, what’s going on with that...?



Same here... Waiting for the correction for the 35 1.8 RF!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 16, 2019)

snappy604 said:


> aware its because of litigation with Dolby
> 
> what it highlights is how now Adobe can control what you thought was yours on your machine, and that's not a good feeling. And before people get all 'but microsoft' or any other cloud, or subscription etc.. I see this as a larger problem, not just adobe, but it re-enforces why I don't like subscription models or anything where the vendor essentially can control your purchase in the future.


Not just the subscription model, standalone users are also affected.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (May 16, 2019)

Oh no. Texture slider is too powerful. When pushed to the right, it hurts my eyes, when pushed to the left, it creates an Orton-like effect. We're going to see lots of overprocessed photos. Now even more than before.


----------



## snappy604 (May 16, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Not just the subscription model, standalone users are also affected.



Yes.. unfortunate trend overall.


----------



## Jethro (May 16, 2019)

Sounds like Texture is similar to 'Microcontrast' in DxO - which is one of the sliders I use there. Good news if I can now do it in Lightroom.


----------



## JoFT (May 16, 2019)

Viggo said:


> Still no way to use Lens Correction for RF lenses, what’s going on with that...?


This is just ridiculous: the newest technology in the market and no support from adobe!!!


----------



## Kit. (May 16, 2019)

snappy604 said:


> what it highlights is how now Adobe can control what you thought was yours on your machine, and that's not a good feeling.


Your feeling is misplaced. It's not Adobe but some court that may decide that what you thought was yours legally belongs to Dolby.


----------



## CJudge (May 16, 2019)

Unless I missed it in a previous update, this also brings support for Tethering to the EOS R. It crashed twice in 5 minutes, so still buggy... but when it was working it was blazing fast! Gotta love that USB 3.0 port.


----------



## LDS (May 16, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Not just the subscription model, standalone users are also affected.



Are you sure? Victoria Bampton (The Lightroom Queen) wrote "perpetual licenses are all still authorized exactly as before. This change only affects subscriptions".

I wouldn't be surprised anyway if Adobe tries to take advantage of some FUD to sell more subscriptions.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (May 16, 2019)

Adobe bashing aside, Texture is a winner for me. I always found universal positive Clarity to be a bit too heavy handed and usually ended up with a setting of about -5 to -10. Texture seems to put the presence right where I want it and I've found it works pretty well all the way up to a setting of +40.

I think adobe envisions this as a tool for smoothing skin tones however and I didn't find it works well enough for that. Heavy handed and when used extensively it creates a somewhat plasticky look. OK as a quick skin smoothing tool but not something that paying clients would be happy with. A selectively used positive setting is great for bringing out hair and clothing detail so portait shooters should still get some benefit from it.

Overall though, a rare but well implemented addition to lightroom IMO so kudos to Adobe for this update.


----------



## pknight (May 16, 2019)

LDS said:


> Are you sure? Victoria Bampton (The Lightroom Queen) wrote "perpetual licenses are all still authorized exactly as before. This change only affects subscriptions".
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised anyway if Adobe tries to take advantage of some FUD to sell more subscriptions.



This warning only applies to the subscription CC version. The perpetual Creative Suite and other stand-alone licenses are, as Victoria says, are not affected. You can use PS 6 until you die!


----------



## snappy604 (May 16, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Your feeling is misplaced. It's not Adobe but some court that may decide that what you thought was yours legally belongs to Dolby.


Disagree. Adobe made it centrally controlled, silly perpetually you dont own this terms and possible to shut down on you aaaand they also may have used dolby"s software in violation of dolby's probably equally nasty terms (Dolby is known to be highly litigious)


----------



## Kit. (May 16, 2019)

snappy604 said:


> Disagree. Adobe made it centrally controlled, silly perpetually you dont own this terms and possible to shut down on you aaaand they also may have used dolby"s software in violation of dolby's probably equally nasty terms (Dolby is known to be highly litigious)


Disagree. You never really own any software that may violate a 3rd party patent. Even if the software is written by you and you don't know about the existence of the patent.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 16, 2019)

snappy604 said:


> what it highlights is how now Adobe can control what *you thought was yours* on your machine,


Perhaps people need education about how license agreements work, and how they differ from ownership.


----------



## cayenne (May 16, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> Perhaps people need education about how license agreements work, and how they differ from ownership.



Well, at the very least, I think we can see a stark difference from the old days when you bought physical copies of the install media, or even downloaded it to a computer that had no requirements for it to constantly "phone home"....that once it was in your possession and used by your systems, NO company could retroactively tell you to delete it or had any control of its use on your systems....nor could they delete it.

Sure it was a license, and there were restrictions on how many systems you could use it at a time, etc..BUT, it was never even a consideration that you might HAVE to delete or stop using it. It was yours to use a long as you had a computer to use it on....ie. the perpetual license, once you bought it.

C


----------



## Kit. (May 16, 2019)

cayenne said:


> that once it was in your possession and used by your systems, NO company could retroactively tell you to delete it or had any control of its use on your systems....


That's not true.


----------



## Kevin Scott (May 16, 2019)

CJudge said:


> Unless I missed it in a previous update, this also brings support for Tethering to the EOS R. It crashed twice in 5 minutes, so still buggy... but when it was working it was blazing fast! Gotta love that USB 3.0 port.


I gave it a quick test to see if it recognized the camera, which it did. Hopefully I avoid this crashing you speak of.


----------



## CJudge (May 16, 2019)

Kevin Scott said:


> I gave it a quick test to see if it recognized the camera, which it did. Hopefully I avoid this crashing you speak of.



From what I can tell, the crashing happens if a) you disconnect your cable from the camera before closing the tether mode or turning off the camera, and b) if the camera auto-powers down due to prolonged inactivity. Otherwise, it seems to be smooth, although it takes a moment to detect the camera at the beginning of tethering.

That's my experience anyway! But I'm delighted that it's working, and hopefully support for Helicon Remote will be on the way soon too.


----------



## snappy604 (May 16, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Disagree. You never really own any software that may violate a 3rd party patent. Even if the software is written by you and you don't know about the existence of the patent.


I understand it, disagree with it.


As a publisher yes you could be compelled to stop using it. As a buyer if it never phoned home they couldn't force you to stop using it and it wouldn't be worthwhile. 

Today that is not true and it's been based on a frustrating licensing scheme software companies developed to squeeze money out of you. Imagine if your car suddenly was taken from you because of a patent dispute on the tires. It is the responsibility of the creator / manufacturer to be properly licensed, not the buyer.


----------



## bergstrom (May 17, 2019)

its always nice to see companies suing their customers.


----------



## jd7 (May 17, 2019)

snappy604 said:


> I understand it, disagree with it.
> 
> 
> As a publisher yes you could be compelled to stop using it. As a buyer if it never phoned home they couldn't force you to stop using it and it wouldn't be worthwhile.
> ...


When you say "they" couldn't force you to stop using it, who is "they"? If software infringes someone's intellectual property, the owner of that intellectual property could stop you using it, even though you purchased a perpetual licence to use it (or, for that matter, even if you bought the software including the intellectual property in it outright) in good faith and without knowing that the software infringed someone else's intellectual property. That is the case whether the software "phones home" or not. I understand that practically it may be difficult/impractical for the intellectual property owner to find everyone using the software and stop them if the software doesn't have to phone home, but legally the situation is the same. It is not just the publisher which can be stopped from using software which infringes someone else's IP.


----------



## jd7 (May 17, 2019)

bergstrom said:


> its always nice to see companies suing their customers.


Which company is threatening to sue its customers? As far as I know, Adobe isn't. Adobe is saying that the owner of certain intellectual property related to the Dolby technology is complaining that certain Adobe software infringes the IP, and Adobe is trying to manage that situation by making sure people use a version of Adobe's software which is not the subject of dispute.


----------



## BillB (May 17, 2019)

Stuart said:


> So do all T&C's now transfer risks to the purchaser - "we messed up but its now your problem unless you upgrade with us".


Well, you could ask Adobe to give you the upgrade required by their mistake and then sue them if they didn't do so.


----------



## Bennymiata (May 17, 2019)

Since the update, Lightroom Classic will not allow me to export my photos.
Every time I try to export the photos I've worked on, it tells me the folder I'm trying to export to is not writeable.
I've tried lots of different folders and different drives, but it keeps telling me the folder is not writeable.

Does anyone have any ideas on how to fix it?
Adobe Help is useless.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (May 17, 2019)

jd7 said:


> Which company is threatening to sue its customers? As far as I know, Adobe isn't. Adobe is saying that the owner of certain intellectual property related to the Dolby technology is complaining that certain Adobe software infringes the IP, and Adobe is trying to manage that situation by making sure people use a version of Adobe's software which is not the subject of dispute.


As I understand it from a five minute google search, the nature of the dispute is that Dolby believes Adobe was under-reporting the number of CCloud clients using software with their IP. They had an agreement on fee-per-disk-sold but couldn't reach a fee agreement for cloud based users who might have a suite of apps. Adobe resisted an audit of their accounts by Dolby and Dolby subsequently accused Adobe of acting in bad faith and sued. Adobe has since written the Dolby code out of their current apps and is trying to limit their exposure to a big settlement by forcing everyone to stop using the Dolby included apps. Let's not pretend they are worried about their customers getting sued. They are worried about the extent of the damages they might face in a settlement since they would be knowingly collecting monthly fees on software with Dolby IP without an agreement with Dolby to do so. 

So, as a result of their inability to work this out amicably, customers who require an older version of CC software (my 2008 mac pro print server?) can no longer use it. Plenty of blame to go around.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 17, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> So, as a result of their inability to work this out amicably, customers who require an older version of CC software (my 2008 mac pro print server?) can no longer use it. Plenty of blame to go around.



Here is a link that provides some answers including how to get a complient version for those who cannot run the latest CC. It also clarifies many of the false information going around, due to the poo communications from Adobe.





__





Lightroom in the news - is it as bad as it sounds?






mailchi.mp


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (May 17, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Here is a link that provides some answers including how to get a complient version for those who cannot run the latest CC. It also clarifies many of the false information going around, due to the poo communications from Adobe.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks MSP. I read that. I think I'll keep the print server from phoning home to Adobe for a bit while I sort it out. I may be OK. I like printing directly from Photoshop but maybe it's time to take another look at my workflow. I run an older version of OSX on that box and I'm not sure it's worth the effort of rebuilding the system just for Photoshop.

It's easy for web commentators to say everyone should just update but many long time Adobe App users have legacy hardware and software that can make that difficult to impossible. I have firewire audio interfaces that only run on that system. Adobe and Dolby should have found a way to sort this out IMO.


----------



## snappy604 (May 17, 2019)

jd7 said:


> When you say "they" couldn't force you to stop using it, who is "they"? If software infringes someone's intellectual property, the owner of that intellectual property could stop you using it, even though you purchased a perpetual licence to use it (or, for that matter, even if you bought the software including the intellectual property in it outright) in good faith and without knowing that the software infringed someone else's intellectual property. That is the case whether the software "phones home" or not. I understand that practically it may be difficult/impractical for the intellectual property owner to find everyone using the software and stop them if the software doesn't have to phone home, but legally the situation is the same. It is not just the publisher which can be stopped from using software which infringes someone else's IP.


Adobe did the alleged infringing, not the customer and it can be fixed by adobe paying the licensing. You dont accidentally include a bunch of code of that complexity without being aware of the consequences. Adobe should be penalized, not the customer. Adobe can and should correct the infringement at their own cost, not try to save themselves at the cost of their customers.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 17, 2019)

snappy604 said:


> Adobe did the alleged infringing, not the customer and it can be fixed by adobe paying the licensing. You dont accidentally include a bunch of code of that complexity without being aware of the consequences. Adobe should be penalized, not the customer. Adobe can and should correct the infringement at their own cost, not try to save themselves at the cost of their customers.


The arguement is about the count of Adobe CC subscribers using the licensed Dolby software, check into it and you will see that assumptions being posted are way off. Dolby wanted to go thru Adobe's records and Adobe refused and wrote them out of current software.


----------



## unfocused (May 17, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Here is a link that provides some answers including how to get a complient version for those who cannot run the latest CC. It also clarifies many of the false information going around, due to the poo communications from Adobe.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks Mt. Spokane for doing some added research into this. Unfortunately, I suspect the Adobe haters will continue to spread fake news. But, those who care about the facts and fairness will be able to see that this is more complex than portrayed on this forum.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 17, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Thanks Mt. Spokane for doing some added research into this. Unfortunately, I suspect the Adobe haters will continue to spread fake news. But, those who care about the facts and fairness will be able to see that this is more complex than portrayed on this forum.


Its difficult to get people to research and understand the issues, and Adobe's POOR Communication skills mean that their Insiders like Victoria Brampton are left to clarify what its all about.

I don't expect everyone to even try, sometimes our minds are closed, but at least there is a opportunity to better understand it, even if you are a Adobe hater, at least criticize them for what they are actually doing, it makes you look smarter.


----------



## Mikehit (May 17, 2019)

jd7 said:


> Which company is threatening to sue its customers? As far as I know, Adobe isn't. Adobe is saying that the owner of certain intellectual property related to the Dolby technology is complaining that certain Adobe software infringes the IP, and Adobe is trying to manage that situation by making sure people use a version of Adobe's software which is not the subject of dispute.



+1
And NO-ONE as far as I can see is even saying that even Dolby does have a case to sue. Adobe is informing people that Dolby MAY take action on old software whose use MIGHT infringe Dolby's copyright. There are significant obstacles to Dolby taking such action even if they chose to - would they be willing to bear the shitstorm that would come their way? Would a court even give it the time of day? Would a jury find in Dolby's favour?

IMO Adobe is merely covering their butt to if Dolby does take action Adobe's customers cannot in turn sue Adobe for not informing them there was a way of avoiding it.

This is unfortunately a sign of modern litigious times where companies work on the 'we had better tell people just in case something may happen at some point in the future no matter how ridiculous is may sound at the moment'.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 18, 2019)

snappy604 said:


> I understand it, disagree with it.



Do you feel that way with physical property in addition to intellectual property? In other words, if you got duped into buying stolen goods, and they were positively identified, do you think you should be able to continue using them because you bought them?


----------



## snappy604 (May 18, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> Do you feel that way with physical property in addition to intellectual property? In other words, if you got duped into buying stolen goods, and they were positively identified, do you think you should be able to continue using them because you bought them?


I think the person who stole it should either cover the cost or pay me to return it, not just forcibly remove it. This isn't some petty criminal, its a large corporation that is making 'record profits'.


----------



## snappy604 (May 18, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Its difficult to get people to research and understand the issues, and Adobe's POOR Communication skills mean that their Insiders like Victoria Brampton are left to clarify what its all about.
> 
> I don't expect everyone to even try, sometimes our minds are closed, but at least there is a opportunity to better understand it, even if you are a Adobe hater, at least criticize them for what they are actually doing, it makes you look smarter.




if it is correct that its only some cloud, subscription which can be corrected with an update they provide for free then then it does change things. Though it was a bad PR move. Dolby is known (which I mentioned before ) to be quite litigious, but Adobe should've done a better job than saying we're not allowing you to use your old software and you might get sued if you don't stop using it


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 18, 2019)

snappy604 said:


> I think the person who stole it should either cover the cost or pay me to return it, not just forcibly remove it.


And if that person can’t be found?


----------



## snappy604 (May 18, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> And if that person can’t be found?


you're telling me adobe can't be found? have you checked under the carpet?


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 18, 2019)

snappy604 said:


> you're telling me adobe can't be found? have you checked under the carpet?


I’m asking about whether you view IP differently than physical property and, if so, why?


----------



## snappy604 (May 18, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> I’m asking about whether you view IP differently than physical property and, if so, why?



yes? physical property and EULAs are quite different. your bicycle maker or house builder doesn't get to change terms on you or prevent you from modifying your purchased items... software makers do? how you use your home or your flashlight or your lawnmower is generally up to you ? your bicycle doesn't constantly phone home to see if you're allowed to use it?

look I can and could go on a long time about this, and we're way off topic.. I don't hate adobe .. If what Mt. Spokane said is correct, my annoyance at them is less about this particular incident. I dislike their subscription model and I see this as a symptom of it, but I think this is an industry wide issue, not just Adobe.


----------



## koenkooi (May 18, 2019)

snappy604 said:


> yes? physical property and EULAs are quite different. your bicycle maker or house builder doesn't get to change terms on you or prevent you from modifying your purchased items..



There was a case here in the Netherlands where an architect successfully sued to stop a remodel on a building he designed. Can't find an english link this early on saturday, so: dutch newspaper. So even in the case of purchased items it's not that simple.


----------



## snappy604 (May 18, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> There was a case here in the Netherlands where an architect successfully sued to stop a remodel on a building he designed. Can't find an english link this early on saturday, so: dutch newspaper. So even in the case of purchased items it's not that simple.



do you really want to continue on an extremely off topic example and force us all to read dutch? - apologies, this probably came off badly, what I meant was that this is a canon camera rumors site and we're way off topic by a long shot and while the site owner is patient, I think we owe him to get back to talking about canon cameras and related items.


----------



## nitram (May 18, 2019)

Asides from the licensing discussion, can anyone tell whether the texture slider is pretty much just a simplified version of sharpening for small detail with the radius, detail and masking selector options?


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (May 18, 2019)

nitram said:


> Asides from the licensing discussion, can anyone tell whether the texture slider is pretty much just a simplified version of sharpening for small detail with the radius, detail and masking selector options?


This is a pretty good explanation of texture from Adobe's blog. 

https://theblog.adobe.com/from-the-acr-team-introducing-the-texture-control/


----------



## privatebydesign (May 18, 2019)

As some of us are actually interested in the ownership details of physical works of art it is pertinent to point out that if you buy a print of an image you are not buying the copyright. Seems obvious but it is a very relevant example where there are IP rights attached to a physical object. A person who buys a print from me cannot legally copy that print and sell it, they can legally sell the one print that was sold to them.

‘Ownership’ is not as clear cut as initially thought.


----------



## IWLP (May 18, 2019)

From reading Adobe's information, it looks like positive "Texture" adjustments perform the same micro-contrast adjustments the Clarity slider used to perform before it was moved to the HDR/insane contrast/kiss-goodbye-to-subtlety slider it now is.

In other words, actually useful for most of what I'm looking to do with such a control.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 19, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> As some of us are actually interested in the ownership details of physical works of art it is pertinent to point out that if you buy a print of an image you are not buying the copyright. Seems obvious but it is a very relevant example where there are IP rights attached to a physical object. A person who buys a print from me cannot legally copy that print and sell it, they can legally sell the one print that was sold to them.
> 
> ‘Ownership’ is not as clear cut as initially thought.



Yes. Same with book, movies, music, etc. It seems that, for society in general, the internet has largely damaged views on theft. “It’s just bits,” right?

It is unfortunate if a consumer with good intentions uses software with some unauthorized IP, much like it is unfortunate if someone buys a stolen car unknowingly.



snappy604 said:


> yes? physical property and EULAs are quite different. your bicycle maker or house builder doesn't get to change terms on you or prevent you from modifying your purchased items... software makers do? how you use your home or your flashlight or your lawnmower is generally up to you ? your bicycle doesn't constantly phone home to see if you're allowed to use it?



Connectivity makes it easier to enforce the law, sure.


----------



## koenkooi (May 19, 2019)

IWLP said:


> From reading Adobe's information, it looks like positive "Texture" adjustments perform the same micro-contrast adjustments the Clarity slider used to perform before it was moved to the HDR/insane contrast/kiss-goodbye-to-subtlety slider it now is.
> 
> In other words, actually useful for most of what I'm looking to do with such a control.



I tried it out on a few pictures of insects and the +40-+60% range works wonders on things like hairs on bees.


----------



## YuengLinger (May 19, 2019)

IWLP said:


> From reading Adobe's information, it looks like positive "Texture" adjustments perform the same micro-contrast adjustments the Clarity slider used to perform before it was moved to the HDR/insane contrast/kiss-goodbye-to-subtlety slider it now is.
> 
> In other words, actually useful for most of what I'm looking to do with such a control.


Is it possible that the Clarity slider is very little different in intensity than years ago, but your taste, your processing skills have evolved, and you now perceive it as too harsh?

Or do we have an old version for side by side comparison?

I ask because, when I first started using Lightroom, nearly eight years ago, I liked to apply Clarity to almost every shot. Then somebody asked me, "Do you always use Clarity?" And I looked at my images, thought about them, and soon started easing back, eventually using it for many landscapes and still-lifes, but rarely for people.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (May 19, 2019)

My three stages of Clarity use in lightroom. There are probably more but I'm just up to stage 3.


Clarity really makes my pictures pop
Clarity sucks. It makes my pictures too nervous and busy
Positive and negative clarity are awesome tools when used selectively to enhance or reduce the mid tone contrast of specific areas of an image.


----------



## Mikehit (May 19, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> Is it possible that the Clarity slider is very little different in intensity than years ago, but your taste, your processing skills have evolved, and you now perceive it as too harsh?
> 
> Or do we have an old version for side by side comparison?
> 
> I ask because, when I first started using Lightroom, nearly eight years ago, I liked to apply Clarity to almost every shot. Then somebody asked me, "Do you always use Clarity?" And I looked at my images, thought about them, and soon started easing back, eventually using it for many landscapes and still-lifes, but rarely for people.



Concidentally, I was wondering the same thing only last week: I tweaked the clarity and thought 'Whoa! That's garish. What's happened?" I was not sure if the tool had changed because it was always touted as something that tweaks midtones to improve apparent sharpness, then I wondered if it depends on the starting image in that to get a difference on an image that has good lighting, and good small-detail contrast you need to use it more heavily. But I could not escpe the feeling it was not what it used to do.
Then as soon as I used the texture it immediately felt to me that it was what Clarity used to be like. But maybe there is some auto-suggestion coming in. Whatever is happening, I really like the effect of the texture slider.


----------



## Ozarker (May 20, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> Perhaps people need education about how license agreements work, and how they differ from ownership.


Exactly! Your comment is 100% on point. I don't know that I have ever owned any software. I've always bought a license to use what someone else owns. It has been that way for as long as I remember. 

On a side note: I like the subscription model. I find Adobe's photography plan to be very reasonable and I enjoy the updates that come with it. I know others don't like it, but I do.


----------



## Ozarker (May 20, 2019)

Mikehit said:


> Concidentally, I was wondering the same thing only last week: I tweaked the clarity and thought 'Whoa! That's garish. What's happened?" I was not sure if the tool had changed because it was always touted as something that tweaks midtones to improve apparent sharpness, then I wondered if it depends on the starting image in that to get a difference on an image that has good lighting, and good small-detail contrast you need to use it more heavily. But I could not escpe the feeling it was not what it used to do.
> Then as soon as I used the texture it immediately felt to me that it was what Clarity used to be like. But maybe there is some auto-suggestion coming in. Whatever is happening, I really like the effect of the texture slider.


I like the texture slider too.


----------

