You must get, on occasion, those Adobe LR feedback requests? I always say that LR is becoming too bloated—as you’ve suggested above. Clearly they’re listening….
I view the Adaptive Profiles as Beta features at this point. Conceptually, I like the idea of being able to "read" the pixels and determine a "good" baseline. Still, in practice, I'm unsure how successful that will be for those who appreciate personal control. For example, I don't use the Auto feature. I prefer to use either my camera's neutral profile (Sony, Leica) or Adobe's neutral profile. From there, I'll will use a few simple global adjustments before moving into locals.
As for the new HDR features (true HDR as compared to the old "HDR"), I find them incredible for viewing images on appropriate screens. For prints, though, HDR is simply apples and oranges. There is no reason to compare them—two completely different mediums.
Thanks for your thoughts on Adaptive Color. I've been using it for a while and have been reasonably satisfied with it, compared to my previous use of Adobe Color. Interestingly, I've often found it to be somewhat too saturated for a starting point, although it gets the exposure pretty well most times. This has greatly improved over the time I've been using it, so it looks like its development is continuing. I'm using the version in ACR, while you were using Lightroom, and I don't know if they are the same. They don't always track exactly all the time, it seems. I just ran a mini-experiment with Adaptive Color, Adobe Color (no auto), Adobe Standard, Adobe Color (auto), and Camera Standard (for Sony). My ranking of the best starting point was in that order. Granted it was an ordinary golden-hour landscape, without the dynamic range extremes that you called out. I'll have to do some more experimentation with those types of images. Obviously, this kind of analysis is subjective; my preferred starting point for preparing an image to be printed is probably not the same as yours. Anyway, I assume you are going to stay with Adobe Standard?
To each his own. I am literally a curmudgeon. I typically prefer either my camera profile (assuming Adobe has done a good job and you like your camera's profiles) in my case Canon neutral, canon standard, and a lot of the time canon portrait (for all purposes). If I am using adobe's profiles then adobe standard or adobe neutral with a preset to my own liking. Or if I am trying to match film I'll use the Archetype Process profiles.
You must get, on occasion, those Adobe LR feedback requests? I always say that LR is becoming too bloated—as you’ve suggested above. Clearly they’re listening….
I view the Adaptive Profiles as Beta features at this point. Conceptually, I like the idea of being able to "read" the pixels and determine a "good" baseline. Still, in practice, I'm unsure how successful that will be for those who appreciate personal control. For example, I don't use the Auto feature. I prefer to use either my camera's neutral profile (Sony, Leica) or Adobe's neutral profile. From there, I'll will use a few simple global adjustments before moving into locals.
As for the new HDR features (true HDR as compared to the old "HDR"), I find them incredible for viewing images on appropriate screens. For prints, though, HDR is simply apples and oranges. There is no reason to compare them—two completely different mediums.
Thanks for your thoughts on Adaptive Color. I've been using it for a while and have been reasonably satisfied with it, compared to my previous use of Adobe Color. Interestingly, I've often found it to be somewhat too saturated for a starting point, although it gets the exposure pretty well most times. This has greatly improved over the time I've been using it, so it looks like its development is continuing. I'm using the version in ACR, while you were using Lightroom, and I don't know if they are the same. They don't always track exactly all the time, it seems. I just ran a mini-experiment with Adaptive Color, Adobe Color (no auto), Adobe Standard, Adobe Color (auto), and Camera Standard (for Sony). My ranking of the best starting point was in that order. Granted it was an ordinary golden-hour landscape, without the dynamic range extremes that you called out. I'll have to do some more experimentation with those types of images. Obviously, this kind of analysis is subjective; my preferred starting point for preparing an image to be printed is probably not the same as yours. Anyway, I assume you are going to stay with Adobe Standard?
To each his own. I am literally a curmudgeon. I typically prefer either my camera profile (assuming Adobe has done a good job and you like your camera's profiles) in my case Canon neutral, canon standard, and a lot of the time canon portrait (for all purposes). If I am using adobe's profiles then adobe standard or adobe neutral with a preset to my own liking. Or if I am trying to match film I'll use the Archetype Process profiles.