Photo 2 gradient overlay discontinuities in Develop persona

[skyinmotion]

Longtime ACR/PS user here who's exploring Photo 2 as a possible replacement for my current workflow. Impressed overall, but among the drawbacks and annoyances I've encountered, there's one that's so dumbfounding that I suspect I might be using the tool incorrectly:

Why do gradient overlays in the Develop persona often have sharp discontinuities at the beginning and/or end of the gradient?

In other words, let's say I create a new gradient overlay on a classical landscape photo, aiming to simulate a GND filter. The only adjustment associated with my gradient is -2 stops exposure, and the gradient runs vertically across the horizon.

• In ACR and Lightroom, the result of this adjustment is a perfectly smooth gradient in simulated exposure over the linear distance I covered when drawing the gradient. The "intensity" of the adjustment is 0% at the bottom of my gradient, 1% a couple pixels above that, and so on, until it reaches 100% at the top. This is the behavior I imagine virtually everyone expects and wants.
   
• In Photo 2, it looks to me like the adjustment I chose (-2 stops exposure) is immediately applied at something like 20-30% opacity right at the very first pixel of the linear zone where I drew the gradient. In other words, there's a sharp line in the final Develop export where everything suddenly gets darker, and then the adjustment gradient proceeds smoothly upwards in intensity from there. It's hard to imagine why anyone would want this, except in rare circumstances.

Am I missing something here? Is it possible to adjust the distribution of adjustment opacity/intensity within the zone of a gradient overlay in Develop?

[Old Bruce]

In my experience the minus two stops would be applied smoothly from 0% through to 100% over the length of the line. So the darkness goes from 100% from the top all the way down to the top-middle third and then fades to the bottom-middle third to 0% and remains at 0% down to the bottom.  It may be that the effect you are wanting means you need to move the upper node/handle to the top of the image.

[skyinmotion]

27 minutes ago, Old Bruce said:

In my experience the minus two stops would be applied smoothly from 0% through to 100% over the length of the line. So the darkness goes from 100% from the top all the way down to the top-middle third and then fades to the bottom-middle third to 0% and remains at 0% down to the bottom.  It may be that the effect you are wanting means you need to move the upper node/handle to the top of the image.

Unfortunately, the example I posted shows the adjustment isn't being applied smoothly... there's a very sharp gradient from "fully darkened" to "somewhat darkened" near the top handle of my gradient, much sharper than the subsequent gradient below that.

You can confirm this in Develop by creating an intense adjustment gradient (say, 3-4 stops exposure) and then rotating it around freehand: you will see a single sharp line of exposure difference spinning around the image as you do this.

For reference, here is the same adjustment in ACR. Sure, the overall exposure gradient is dense... but there is no anomaly at the top or bottom of the gradient area, the way there is at the top of the Photo v2 gradient.

I think the only question here is what the underlying cause of this is:

• Does the "mask" associated with the gradient overlay in Photo v2 have exponential feathering at its edges?
  
  OR
   
• Is there something about how the exposure adjustment is computed in Develop that makes the visual gradient in the final rendering jerky, even when the "mask" is perfectly smooth?

Edited July 14, 2023 by skyinmotion

[Old Bruce]

10 minutes ago, skyinmotion said:

Is there something about how the exposure adjustment is computed in Develop that makes the visual gradient in the final rendering jerky, even when the "mask" is perfectly smooth?

I have to be honest and say that I am not seeing the "jerky" in your first screenshot. It actually appears to be what I would expect, although having said that I don't have the original to compare it to.