| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 29545
Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:05 pm Post subject: Lightroom 4 a bummer so far |
 |
|
Orio wrote:
The new version of Lightroom 4 is quite a letdown so far.
It is very slow, to begin with. I mean not marginally slower than 3.6, really noticeably and annoyingly slower.
And this is a very negative point.
But it does not end there, unfortunately.
The new image processing engine converts the previous version images in a terrible way.
Please look at the following crops from a raw file of mine, first, as processed by the LR3 "2010" engine, and
following, the same file as processed by the new LR4 "2012" engine:
As you can see, the 2012 engine made the colours greyish when converting the files.
This means that LR4 in the new configuration is useless to use ild files from previous LIghtroom versions, unless
you want to remake all the image editing again.
Luckily, it is possible to have LR4 still use the 2010 engine - but, what's the point in the new version then?
In any case, I have kept LR3 installed.
_________________
Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
LucisPictor
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 17633
Location: Oberhessen, Germany / Maidstone ('95-'96)
Expire: 2013-12-03
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 10:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LucisPictor wrote:
Oops, that doesn't sound good.
_________________
Personal forum activity on pause every now and again (due to job obligations)!
Carsten, former Moderator 
Things ON SALE
Carsten = "KAPCTEH" = "Karusutenu" | T-shirt?.........................My photos from Emilia: http://www.schouler.net/emilia/emilia2011.html
My gear: http://retrocameracs.wordpress.com/ausrustung/
Old list: http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=65 (Not up-to-date, sorry!) | http://www.lucispictor.de | http://www.alensaweek.wordpress.com |
http://www.retrocamera.de |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stingOM
Joined: 27 Sep 2007
Posts: 3168
Location: Ireland
Expire: 2012-12-27
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stingOM wrote:
Hi Orio,
Did that happen when LR moved from v2 to v3.x?? As far as I know the noise reduction feature in LR3 is miles ahead of v2, but your photo for v4 looks worst!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 29545
Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 10:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
Actually, I still use the 2003 engine occasionally, because in some photos the noise looks better there than with 2010.
In this case of 2012, instead, the problem is not with noise, but with the fact that they removed the old "Brightness" and "Contrast" commands that they introduced with Lightroom was first released, with the only purpose to make it compatible with ACR files, eve if this meant some duplicate commands.
The removal of these old commands was faced with an automated "redesign" of the parameters, which I am sure is most difficult to do... so I can't really blame the engineers... however, with some files like the one I just posted the 2012 conversion produces images that are greyish and very low in contrast.
Adobe itself must be conscious of that because they recommended to NOT make batch conversions to 2012, but only make individual conversions until "you are comfortable with the new parameters"... translated from publicrelationese, this means "we know we made a sometimes crappy conversion routine, please avoid it to use it in batcj and only convert old files on an individual basis"
_________________
Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fermy
Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Posts: 1974
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 5:08 pm Post subject: Mixed bag |
|
|
fermy wrote:
Got LR4 too. Agree with Orio on the negatives:
1. Speed is visibly lower compared to LR 3.6
2. Conversion from the old processing to the new one is not very good to put it mildly.
3. Default RAW conversion from NEX-5 RAWs became significantly worse. I shoot RAW+jpeg on NEX and with LR v 3.6 i preferred RAW version most of the time. Now it's the other way around.
However, with the exception of speed all these downgrades are just mild annoyances. Default Raw conversion is easily tweaked. If you already got the picture looking good with the old process, there is no point in converting it to a new one, that's all. Old process is still available. That leaves speed as the only serious negative.
On the plus side, the new LR has better highlight recovery and in general adjustments to shadows/midtones/highlights are better decoupled. This alone is a major improvement. Then there is new functionality here and there like book creation and soft proofing. I'm not sure yet how useful these things are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 29545
Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 6:25 pm Post subject: Re: Mixed bag |
|
|
Orio wrote:
| fermy wrote: |
| there like book creation and soft proofing. I'm not sure yet how useful these things are. |
For Blurb and Adobe, they are certainly useful 
_________________
Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nikos
Joined: 17 May 2010
Posts: 1077
Location: Greece
Expire: 2015-01-02
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 3:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nikos wrote:
Orio, I was about to give LR a second try.
Now you make me hesitate.
I find Aperture's UI is far better than Lightroom's.
In general Adobe can't match Apple's simple and effective UIs.
In my opinion, Aperture lacks a bit in the RAW engine.
Now your input challenges this.
If you were to start from scratch, would you go with LR 3.6 or 4 ?
_________________
Νίκος • www.diafragma.gr
Cameras: Canon EOS 5D Mark II, Sony α7R, Sony NEX-5N
MF lenses:
SLR:
Canon TS-E 17mm f/4, Zeiss 2.8/21 ZE, Zeiss 2/28 Contax, Zeiss 2/35 ZE, Zeiss 1.4/50 Contax, Zeiss 1.4/85 Contax, Zeiss Makro 2/100 ZE,
Zeiss 2/135 Contax, Zeiss 2.8/135 Contax, Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 35-70 Contax, Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 100-300 Contax, Zeiss F-Distagon Rollei, Canon FD 24mm f2, Minolta MD Rokkor 35mm f2.8
Rangefinder:
Zeiss 4.5/21 C Biogon ZM, Zeiss 2/35 Biogon ZM, Voigtländer 15mm f/4.5 Heliar L39, Leica Tele-Elmarit 2.8/90mm, Zeiss 2/45 Contax G, Zeiss 2.8/90 Contax G, Canon 50mm 1.8 LTM
AF lenses: Canon 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye, Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L, Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, Canon 70-200 f/4 L, Canon 300 f/4 L IS, Canon 100 f/2.8 macro
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arkku
Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 1416
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Arkku wrote:
| Nikos wrote: |
In my opinion, Aperture lacks a bit in the RAW engine.
|
Personally I think it depends on the photo which is better, ACR or Aperture. So I use Aperture for organizing and most processing, and if I feel that a photo would be better with Adobe's raw conversion, I just open it in Photoshop… I know many people say Photoshop integration is a reason to choose Lightroom over Aperture, but in my opinion it's just the opposite—Photoshop + Aperture gives the choice of two different engines. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nikos
Joined: 17 May 2010
Posts: 1077
Location: Greece
Expire: 2015-01-02
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nikos wrote:
| Arkku wrote: |
| So I use Aperture for organizing and most processing, and if I feel that a photo would be better with Adobe's raw conversion, I just open it in Photoshop… |
This is what I am doing, too.
But, for example, the Colorcherker Passport's software only works with Lightroom. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 29545
Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
| Nikos wrote: |
But, for example, the Colorcherker Passport's software only works with Lightroom. |
It works with ACR too.
_________________
Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AhamB
Joined: 22 Jun 2008
Posts: 733
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
AhamB wrote:
| Arkku wrote: |
| So I use Aperture for organizing and most processing, and if I feel that a photo would be better with Adobe's raw conversion, I just open it in Photoshop… |
The only problem is that you have to keep upgrading to the latest version of PS to be able to use the latest version of ACR (which may be necessary if you have a very new camera). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arkku
Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 1416
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Arkku wrote:
| AhamB wrote: |
| Arkku wrote: |
| So I use Aperture for organizing and most processing, and if I feel that a photo would be better with Adobe's raw conversion, I just open it in Photoshop… |
The only problem is that you have to keep upgrading to the latest version of PS to be able to use the latest version of ACR (which may be necessary if you have a very new camera). |
I don't really see this as a problem with using Aperture+PS over Lightroom+PS; Lightroom users just pay twice for the same raw converter and have to keep upgrading at least one software. Or if we're considering Aperture vs Lightroom alone without Photoshop, then Aperture would be my choice without a doubt.
Anyhow, with CS6 Adobe will cancel the ability to get upgrade pricing from versions of PS other than the latest so basically everyone will have to keep upgrading to the latest version of PS or pay even more when they eventually upgrade. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fish4570
Joined: 06 Jan 2010
Posts: 4514
Location: At the confluence of the Locust Fork of the Warrior River and Black Creek, Alabama
Expire: 2012-03-21
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
fish4570 wrote:
i downloaded the trial version a few days ago. i have already deleted it. software has to be very, very intuitive for me to grasp even the basics. i could not grasp the basics.
_________________
Paul
I chase Light
http://blackcreekjournal.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
F16SUNSHINE
Joined: 20 Aug 2007
Posts: 5486
Location: Left Coast
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
F16SUNSHINE wrote:
As an aside.
Paul you should try aperture. A nice video tutorial on the apple site for new users.
It's very straight forward yet powerful tool for organizing and editing.
_________________
Moderator |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nikos
Joined: 17 May 2010
Posts: 1077
Location: Greece
Expire: 2015-01-02
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nikos wrote:
| F16SUNSHINE wrote: |
As an aside.
Paul you should try aperture. A nice video tutorial on the apple site for new users.
It's very straight forward yet powerful tool for organizing and editing. |
I will agree.
You will find Aperture is a lot easier to use.
_________________
Νίκος • www.diafragma.gr
Cameras: Canon EOS 5D Mark II, Sony α7R, Sony NEX-5N
MF lenses:
SLR:
Canon TS-E 17mm f/4, Zeiss 2.8/21 ZE, Zeiss 2/28 Contax, Zeiss 2/35 ZE, Zeiss 1.4/50 Contax, Zeiss 1.4/85 Contax, Zeiss Makro 2/100 ZE,
Zeiss 2/135 Contax, Zeiss 2.8/135 Contax, Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 35-70 Contax, Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 100-300 Contax, Zeiss F-Distagon Rollei, Canon FD 24mm f2, Minolta MD Rokkor 35mm f2.8
Rangefinder:
Zeiss 4.5/21 C Biogon ZM, Zeiss 2/35 Biogon ZM, Voigtländer 15mm f/4.5 Heliar L39, Leica Tele-Elmarit 2.8/90mm, Zeiss 2/45 Contax G, Zeiss 2.8/90 Contax G, Canon 50mm 1.8 LTM
AF lenses: Canon 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye, Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L, Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, Canon 70-200 f/4 L, Canon 300 f/4 L IS, Canon 100 f/2.8 macro
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
poilu
Joined: 26 Aug 2007
Posts: 10472
Location: Greece
Expire: 2019-08-29
|
| Posted: Fri May 04, 2012 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
poilu wrote:
today I tried lightroom and I am impressed
shadows and highlight recovery work better than anything I tried
CA removal is automatic
purple fringe removal is manual but effective
noise reduction is quite good
when I opened already worked file, it select engine 2010
from 1 shot, recovery of the sun and sky
_________________
T* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stingOM
Joined: 27 Sep 2007
Posts: 3168
Location: Ireland
Expire: 2012-12-27
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greysonj
Joined: 10 Aug 2012
Posts: 8
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
greysonj wrote:
I have been trying to get used to Lightroom, but I just can't seem to get used to the UI. Aperture is very much like Logic Pro, which i use heavily, and even though I am new to it I feel much more confident in what I am doing because it feels familiar. It's a bummer because I hear that Lightroom has a lot more to offer and performs at a higher standard than Aperture... but you can't always believe what you read on the internet  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ForenSeil
Joined: 15 Apr 2011
Posts: 2726
Location: Kiel, Germany.
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ForenSeil wrote:
For some reason Lightroom 4.2 is much faster than Lightroom 3.6 was.
But maybe 4.2 is faster than 4.0 was in march.
Shadow&Highlight recovery is simply amazing! I love it! And I've tried many RAW-Converters for PC if not all ^^
I think for Windows-PCs Lightroom is still best option.
_________________
I'm not a collector, I'm a tester 
My camera: Sony A7+Zeiss Sonnar 55/1.8
Current favourite lenses (I have many more):
A few macro-Tominons, Samyang 12/2.8, Noritsu 50.7/9.5, Rodagon 105/5.6 on bellows, Samyang 135/2, Nikon ED 180/2.8, Leitz Elmar-R 250/4, Celestron C8 2000mm F10
Most wanted: Samyang 24/1.4, Samyang 35/1.4, Nikon 200/2 ED
My Blog: http://picturechemistry.own-blog.com/
(German language) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
