Hi i ment in highlightcorrection, just shift the slider and done. Not that it is only a automated system. 
I am not familiar with the present LR version i stopped at 4.? using it.
So i don’t know it’s strenght and weaknesses.
About highlight repair and control
Even if DxOStaff can test LR for comparison they still can’t “copy” the behaviour.
What they should do is listen to the complains and benchmark the present controls with there competition to see if it’s far away from on par. And then think of a solution which fits in there philosophy of DxOPL.
No, Peter, the repair may not go at the expence of creative control, but it, sc. the highlight, must be repairable.
1 Like
Willy. Please do us the favour of posting an image that you find easier to “recover” highlights in something other than PL, along with screenshots of the results you have obtained from both apps.
I have never had a problem in recovering highlight detail in PL, provided there is no over-exposure of the extreme highlights.
Here’s an image I took yesterday, directly against the sun, spot measured to place the brightest area at +1 EV…
2 Likes
For me, it is not so much that PL cannot recover the highlights, rather that it is very difficult to do so without affecting the rest of the image.
In my example above, I had to reduce the overall exposure to recover the highlights. Then, I had to increase the shadows to bring the photo back to “normal”. In Lightroom, all I had to do was adjust the highlight slider and I was done.
Then don’t use global adjustments - use Local Adjustments instead.
1 Like
Hi Joanna, in this moment I have only a bad example. Last Sunday I tried something in following your suggestion to overexpose the lightest place with 2, result, railway crossing overexposed. Correcting in C1 lead to a result in which I can read the text on the trafficboards and see the result in PL.
Kind regards, Willy
Now, if you can post, or otherwise make available the original file, I can show you how to do the same in PL
And that is the point - in Lightroom you do not need to go to local adjustments.
Doing so is just many more unnecessary steps for something that can be handled by a simple slider.
If you want to make a more extensive edit, then sure, use local adjustments.
1 Like
Even though I don’t have it, I have seen Lightroom’s “highlight recovery” in action. All it seems to do is make up some sort of patterning and turn anything over-exposed a muddy grey.
Now, if someone would be good enough to post a file that they think PL can’t cope with as well as a competitor, then I can show you how to make PL work, even without local adjustments.
Check out this thread for more about the topic… White Slider - #73 by platypus
Note: There’s a lot more in that tread than my post 
…only if done foolishly - and we can do the same in PhotoLab
…that could be interesting indeed.
I’d forgotten about that - very interesting
_X0A8304.CR2 (29,1 MB)
Hi Joanna,
It is this RAW file. The image doesn’t mean anything. I was trying somewhat. But you saw the difference between the two crops.
Willy
OK, with respect, you have never used Lightroom and are just relying on some other person’ attempt.
-
we are Not talking about over-exposed images
-
I have been using Lightroom for many years and I know how the Highlight slider behaves.
In an image where, for example, the clouds are very bright (but Not over-exposed) and you want to tone them down without affecting the rest of the image, Lightroom’s Highlight slider does this very well.
To do the same in PL involves many more steps. I know, because I have done this many times.
If you wish to perform these extra steps, then that is fine. Lightroom also has many more adjustment tools available if one wishes to use them.
Since I bought into PL, I have tried to do everything in PL but, the reality is that, some other tools do somethings either better or easier. Highlight is one of those things.
Another example is cloning/healing. Photoshop, is by far, the better tool.
i completely agree in this.
if the file in FastRawViewer or Digger show no or nearly no overexposed area’s it should be no effort to bring down highlights.
As i say i don’t have comparison material to benchmark DxOPL’s tools against.
i only can work(around) as good as DxOPL let me on rawfiles and improve my knowledge how to use DxOPL as best as possible.
Any proofed complain or proven failing (other can do better) should be taken to account by DxO Staff in order to see if they can improve the program. And if other programs can do better:
Miracles become reality as knowledge advances and to see new miracles you must learn to see through the old ones.
As far as I can see, it looks good. But the difficulty is that I use Adobe RGB and yours is in sRGB, so compare is not easy. But thanks!
Kind regards, Willy
There are many ways to get similar results.
Check out the .dop file to see what a few adjustments can do.
_X0A8304.CR2.dop (36.5 KB)
OK, here’s an export in AdobeRGB…
I could have played further, with local adjustments, etc, but I wanted to use just global adjustments to show you that it can be done; it’s just that PL uses different tools. But it still only took me about five minutes.
Looks heavily over-sharpened, like an auto-HDR image from an iPhone (as an iPhone 11 Pro owner, I’m very familiar with iPhone photo files).
That said the colour correction in C1 worked out better for the sky on the other side of the tracks.
Don’t underestimate the Local Adjustments tool in PhotoLab 5. They are good enough and fast enough to apply that I would consider PL Local Adjustments a serious advantage over C1 where one must build masks or Lightroom which seems to be focused on image-wide adjustments.
There’s a delightful slider for Local Adjustments now in PhotoLab 5 which lets us dial back the opacity of each Local Adjustment (as well as tinker with its chroma/luma sensitivity although that does slow down application). Hence my workflow is to add a slightly exaggerated local adjustment and then dial it back to just right in the sidebar.
3 Likes