Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: rosemanbridge on October 22, 2009, 12:35:27 am
-
http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lightroom3/ (http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lightroom3/)
-
http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lightroom3/ (http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lightroom3/)
Some of the new features included for you to play with in the Lightroom 3 beta are:
Brand new performance architecture, building for the future of growing image libraries
State-of-the-art noise reduction to help you perfect your high ISO shots
Watermarking tool that helps you customize and protect your images with ease
Portable sharable slideshows with audio—designed to give you more flexibility and impact on how you choose to share your images, you can now save and export your slideshows as videos and include audio
Flexible customizable print package creation so your print package layouts are all your own
Film grain simulation tool for enhancing your images to look as gritty as you want
New import handling designed to make importing streamlined and easy
More flexible online publishing options so you can post your images online to certain online photo sharing sites directly from inside Lightroom 3 beta (may require third-party plug-ins)*
Some nice new features in there - I particularly like the export of slideshows with audio and improved Noise Reduction
But NO MENTION OF SOFT PROOFING!!!!
CMON GUYS!
-
# Brand new performance architecture, building for the future of growing image libraries
# State-of-the-art noise reduction to help you perfect your high ISO shots
# Watermarking tool that helps you customize and protect your images with ease
# Portable sharable slideshows with audio—designed to give you more flexibility and impact on how you choose to share your images, you can now save and export your slideshows as videos and include audio
# Flexible customizable print package creation so your print package layouts are all your own
# Film grain simulation tool for enhancing your images to look as gritty as you want
# New import handling designed to make importing streamlined and easy
# More flexible online publishing options so you can post your images online to certain online photo sharing sites directly from inside Lightroom 3 beta (may require third-party plug-ins)
The first two items look interesting. The others not so much.
-
The videos (here -> http://tv.adobe.com/show/what-s-new-in-lightroom-3-beta/ (http://tv.adobe.com/show/what-s-new-in-lightroom-3-beta/) ) are worth watching.
-
Whoa...please someone say it ain't true! It has to be there....must be there......???? Maybe not in the public beta? I would be pretty shocked if it wasn't available in the final release.
Todd in Chicago
Some of the new features included for you to play with in the Lightroom 3 beta are:
Brand new performance architecture, building for the future of growing image libraries
State-of-the-art noise reduction to help you perfect your high ISO shots
Watermarking tool that helps you customize and protect your images with ease
Portable sharable slideshows with audio—designed to give you more flexibility and impact on how you choose to share your images, you can now save and export your slideshows as videos and include audio
Flexible customizable print package creation so your print package layouts are all your own
Film grain simulation tool for enhancing your images to look as gritty as you want
New import handling designed to make importing streamlined and easy
More flexible online publishing options so you can post your images online to certain online photo sharing sites directly from inside Lightroom 3 beta (may require third-party plug-ins)*
Some nice new features in there - I particularly like the export of slideshows with audio and improved Noise Reduction
But NO MENTION OF SOFT PROOFING!!!!
CMON GUYS!
-
Wasn't mentioned in the "What's new" videos. So I think you're screwed.
Whoa...please someone say it ain't true! It has to be there....must be there......???? Maybe not in the public beta? I would be pretty shocked if it wasn't available in the final release.
Todd in Chicago
-
No way.
I refuse to get lathered up over this. Really. I'm pretty sure. I think.....
Just downloaded the beta and poked around and indeed, couldn't find anything regarding softproofing. I'm sure the boys in the programmin' department are just putting the finishing touches on it...I'm sure of it....I think...maybe.... ;-)
Todd in Chicago
Wasn't mentioned in the "What's new" videos. So I think you're screwed.
-
No way.
I refuse to get lathered up over this. Really. I'm pretty sure. I think.....
Just downloaded the beta and poked around and indeed, couldn't find anything regarding softproofing. I'm sure the boys in the programmin' department are just putting the finishing touches on it...I'm sure of it....I think...maybe.... ;-)
Todd in Chicago
If true it's sad, that adobe doesn't get it. So far no reasons for an upgrade perhaps except the new "performance". However first it has to be proven that it really is faster.
After trying and using it for a few hours I'm SHOCKED. What in hell deserves the 3.0 ? No lens correction, no soft proofing, no real improvements to the pixel based editing.
-
It seems that they have done a lot of work on the demoisacing and fine detail handling.
If true, I will look at Lightroom again.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I haven't really had a chance to explore 3.0, but I'm also disappointed at the lack of a lens correction feature. It would be nice to get rid of PTlens and keep everything as RAW data in the one application.
Soft-proofing is not a feature that really affects me (though it can be useful to see when I've clipped saturation vs colour simply being outside my monitor's gamut) but it will be very disappointing if it doesn't end up in 3.0. I suspect it will be there though, maybe just not in beta 1.
That said, image quality seems drastically improved over Lightroom 2, at least with the high ISO images I've had a look at.
Here's a 100% crop from an image that was particularly bad in Lightroom 2:
(http://i35.tinypic.com/wvcp3q.jpg)
And Lightroom 3's rendition:
(http://i37.tinypic.com/14vsjko.jpg)
It's a smooth white wall being hit with two different coloured lights, if you're wondering—I'm sure people will find much better examples, this was just an image that I remembered looking particularly bad.
This is with zero sharpening, no luminance noise reduction and 20 chroma noise reduction in each. All I did was import the image into Lightroom 3 and enable the new processing.
In the past I've also had quite a lot of images from my 1000D that showed a very obvious pattern in Lightroom 2, hopefully the new demosaicing will have removed that as well.
The only downside I've seen so far is that I'm going to have to redo my sharpening presets as it looks completely different now. (but it seems like it will be better)
-
I very much like the way you can choose in LR3 wether to convert your previous legacy RAW files that may have had substantial raw adjustments to them with the new RAW demosaic algorithm or not. Thats very cool. In other words... LR will not automatically update all my existing RAW files with its new algorithm that have been processed but not rendered out - which given there are going to be visual differences in the processing is a very good thing. Thats good support for existing LR users.
The improved demosaicing and noise reduction do indeed at first blush seem a very worthwhile improvement. As does the new import dialogue.
The film grain sliders... well.. I could have lived without those.
I wont install the BETA on my main mac pro image editing machine - but I have seen enough of it on my laptop that I think the upgrade is worth it for the improved algorithims alone.
The lack of soft proofing in the BETA is very disappointing howvever and I do hope Adobe is just teasing us and that it will be in the final 3.0 release 'Adobe says... Oh ye of little faith!' (well.. thats my hope anyway).
-
I very much like the way you can choose in LR3 wether to convert your previous legacy RAW files that may have had substantial raw adjustments to them with the new RAW demosaic algorithm or not. Thats very cool. In other words... LR will not automatically update all my existing RAW files with its new algorithm that have been processed but not rendered out - which given there are going to be visual differences in the processing is a very good thing. Thats good support for existing LR users.
The improved demosaicing and noise reduction do indeed at first blush seem a very worthwhile improvement. As does the new import dialogue.
The film grain sliders... well.. I could have lived without those.
I wont install the BETA on my main mac pro image editing machine - but I have seen enough of it on my laptop that I think the upgrade is worth it for the improved algorithims alone.
The lack of soft proofing in the BETA is very disappointing howvever and I do hope Adobe is just teasing us and that it will be in the final 3.0 release 'Adobe says... Oh ye of little faith!' (well.. thats my hope anyway).
All good and well, but I still have the feeling that C1 has the edge to raw conversion. So no point in using Lightroom. Still need to do some more testing, just have a few limited raw files here.
I think especially real lens correction features should have been in 3.0. Softproofing would have been a kind of nice bonus.
-
Not seeing this big improvement in high ISO images, still blotchy, still baseline NR that cannot be turned off..sigh. Raw therapee and C14 still miles ahead of it in this dept.
No softproofing
No distortion or perspective correction
The new import interface is just plain annoying IMO
But wow they add film grain..gasp!
-
Any word about non-destructive third party plug-ins?
-
Any word about non-destructive third party plug-ins?
I think thats a big 'Wait and See'.
I use the Portraiture plug in from Imagenomic (http://www.imagenomic.com/) in my daily workflow - so I will not be upgrading to 3.0 on my main editing machine until support from Imagenomic catches up with LR3.0.
I think especially real lens correction features should have been in 3.0.
No doubt that will come (I am kind of surprised its not in 3.0 Beta, but would not be surprised if Adobe is holding an ace or two up its sleeve for official 3.0 release such as soft proofing or lens correction) - I am sure Adobe knows it is loosing customers to DXO in this dept.
Snip - From LL home page article (Hope Michael doesn't mind, but its an important statement)
More Features?
Be aware that LR3 Beta isn't the final product. There are quite a few features which are deliberately not included in this beta that will be included in the final version when it becomes available. This is the case for several reasons, among them that there are features which are still in development and not yet ready for testing, or which Adobe doesn't want competitors to be aware of until final release.
Something else in 3.0 that is really nice is the ability to view images on other hard drives or in other folders from the import dialogue like a file browser ala Bridge.
Edit - Whats with the high level Flickr integration? Are Pro's really using Flikr to share images with their clients? (I think my clients would find that most unprofessional).
-
Not seeing this big improvement in high ISO images, still blotchy, still baseline NR that cannot be turned off..sigh. Raw therapee and C14 still miles ahead of it in this dept.
Barry, if you are examining existing files (i.e., files with previous image settings), they will still be using the older LR 2 processing. You need to update to the new process version to use the newer LR 3 public beta rendering. In Develop, take a look at the histogram, specifically, the region to the top-left above the histogram. If there is a little gray warning icon there, then you're using the old rendering path. You can click that warning icon to move over to using the new processing. If you're still seeing problems, please post an example raw file and I'll take a look.
And in general, folks, please ... it's an early public beta. It's not feature complete. I understand some of you are not happy with what's not available at the moment, but I do genuinely believe it would be more productive and constructive to discuss the things that are there.
-
No, Soft Proofing isn't there at the moment.
And I agree with Eric, recognize that this is still a product in development, and check out what is there rather than what isn't.
Michael
-
Erik I have been switching between process version 1/2 as per the settings tab. I can see a notable difference in chroma noise reduction, much better with LR3. However there is only a minor difference in luminance noise, a little better than LR 2.5, but there is still obvious signs of base level NR going on (this is much more obvious when you increase sharpening), the artifacts are clear to see. Try this with other software vendors, such as C1 4, and the free Raw Therapee, which do not appear to be attempting to do any base level NR.
My point remains, I do not want "ANY" base level NR, nothing zero. Reasons are this, if I want to apply NR myself, it's lot more effective to remove very fine grain, than pre processed larger ones.
Appreciate it's not feature complete, however, I just want to point out distortion and perspective controls are long overdue.
-
anyone notice that the mac version is 68mb and the windows is 120mb ?
different architectures, sure. But double the file size, whats up with that ? (in Ethiopia download = 12hours+ )
-
After wasting 6 hours of my time on the phone, 9 emails, and billing be incorrectly for my
last upgrade which took 12 days to complete. I'll be switched if I'm heading down that road
again. Adobe's customer no service is one of the worst I've encountered. I'm sticking with
DxO and NIK with my workflow, which is far superior to anything in Lightroom or Photoshop.
-
They have brought the force to colorsync bug back with the LR 3 beta.
I will never understand the Adobe Lightroom team. Why after all the issues with the print module forcing colorsync in the drivers instead of No Correction do they continue to release software like this. I would have thought you would have learned their lesson with LR2.3RC and then when they fixed this with the 2.3 final release.
The current version of LR and the current version of PSCS4 do not have this problem. They properly turn off color management in the printer driver when application manages color is selected. So why release this LR3 beta bringing back the old behavior of forcing colorsync once again in the driver.
Doyle
-
Deleted. Just seen the update re LR3 tutorial on LL.
-
Any truth to the rumor (that I just made up) that LR 4.0 will have a mirror lockup button, and the Canon 5D mark IV will have soft proofing?
-
Any truth to the rumor (that I just made up) that LR 4.0 will have a mirror lockup button, and the Canon 5D mark IV will have soft proofing?
This is correct but I've also heard that you'll have to purchase Lightroom 4.0 AND 5D Mark iV at the same time to get those features. Upgrades will not be eligible for the MLU menu item.
-
.
-
I had hoped version 3 would include the ability to use layers...for compositing and panoramas. Then I could dump Photoshop completely!
-
And in general, folks, please ... it's an early public beta. It's not feature complete. I understand some of you are not happy with what's not available at the moment, but I do genuinely believe it would be more productive and constructive to discuss the things that are there.
Eric
In LL beta review - Michael says "What we do know is that LR3 Beta is a 64 bit application and runs in this mode under Mac OSX 10.5 and 10.6, and Windows 64 bit systems, including Windows 7. " this implies those with 32 bit systems are either out or limited!
Jpegman
-
Interesting beta.
I’m not sure what to make of it so far. It doesn’t seem to have any ‘wow must buy it’ features so far.
Faster performance ? not here, but then it’s a beta so all bets are off…
Better importing ?.... I never had a problem with the old UI anyway.
The new custom printing package is welcome and will save using the hacks, but lacks the ability to put photo info data or any other custom text on the page, so doesn’t really cut it fully yet. Hopefully this will be added for release?
The new noise reduction functions look like being good, and may be the ‘must have’ feature, but it’s difficult to really see how good it is without the luminance option available<d’oh>.
Better de-mosaicing ? Intriguing certainly. There seems to be less jaggies on diagonals and a generally smoother look, but somehow some fine detail is appearing to get a little lost. Evaluation isn’t helped by a subtly different tonal rendition between the two versions. Maybe some clever work with sharpening and contrast enhancement might improve things, but it’s not exactly a clear cut advantage on the files I’ve compared so far.
At first mention a grain effect seemed an odd addition, but some experimentation suggests this might be a really nice feature to have available. Carefully used it seems to take out the ‘digital’ look of some images and give them a more natural look. I’ll need to try printing a few samples out to see if this translates as well to print.
Collections appearing in Develop is great, but is the lack of the quick collection a bug or an omission ?
I would still like the option to backup when starting LR, rather than exiting (too easy to forget to do it or it might slow down shut down).
Overall an improvement, and some useful little tweaks across most of the package, but I think a lot of people were hoping for significantly more. I guess Adobe will keep a lot back to keep us buying 4&5.
-
Barry, I can assure you that with the new demosaic method in LR 3 public beta, there is zero baseline noise reduction being applied (meaning that when the Color slider is set to 0, color NR is entirely off, and luminance NR is completely off), with the exception of hot/dead pixel elimination. In fact, this property came precisely out of request that you and others have made, coupled with our own internal developments on the engine. If you have an example raw file that you can use to demonstrate your concern, I'd be happy to study it.
-
Rhossydd, you should be able to access Quick Collections by bringing up the Film Strip at the bottom and choosing the Quick Collections from the popup menu above the thumbnails.
-
In LL beta review - Michael says "What we do know is that LR3 Beta is a 64 bit application and runs in this mode under Mac OSX 10.5 and 10.6, and Windows 64 bit systems, including Windows 7. " this implies those with 32 bit systems are either out or limited!
jpegman, there may be a bit of miscommunication here. Michael was saying that LR 3 public beta is capable of running on those systems. However, LR 3 public beta (and the final release) will also work on 32-bit systems. There is absolutely no intent to lock our or limit users of 32-bit systems.
(I believe the only architecture that LR 2 supported that LR 3 will not support is PowerPC.)
-
you should be able to access Quick Collections by bringing up the Film Strip at the bottom and choosing the Quick Collections from the popup menu above the thumbnails.
Thanks Eric.
I never work with the filmstrip open, so hadn't looked for it there. I'd expected the quick collection to be listed in the collections box (which seems logical and intuitive to me).
A few features seem to be arriving that aren't easy to find, eg the overall amount of a local adjustment going from a slider to only being accessible by clicking on the pin, or being able to move images in the cropped boxes in the print module by Ctrl drag.
-
Appreciate it's not feature complete, however, I just want to point out distortion and perspective controls are long overdue.
I hear you, Barry. As a photographer and user (not just developer) of LR myself, I want those controls. The most I can say for now is that we are not ignoring the requests. Same goes for some of the other Big Items mentioned in the thread.
Again, I understand that folks will look through the press release and public beta bulletpoint list and check for all of their personal wishlist items. It's what I'd do myself, as a user. But we already know what your wishlist items are. What we don't know is whether or not you like the things we've done in the public beta so far. The other discussion we're having regarding your concerns about baseline NR may be helpful in figuring out what you don't like about the new rendering.
-
Thanks Eric.
I never work with the filmstrip open, so hadn't looked for it there. I'd expected the quick collection to be listed in the collections box (which seems logical and intuitive to me).
A few features seem to be arriving that aren't easy to find, eg the overall amount of a local adjustment going from a slider to only being accessible by clicking on the pin, or being able to move images in the cropped boxes in the print module by Ctrl drag.
Hi Rhossydd, I believe the Collections in Develop was intended to work the same way as it does in the other 4 modules, i.e., since Quick Develop doesn't show up in Collections in Library module, it doesn't show up there in Develop module, either. My understanding is that Collections was intended to show the user-created collections (i.e., your personal collections).
-
I'll be switched if I'm heading down that road again.
So, I guess that means you haven't downloaded and used the beta 3 huh...ok, well that's not terribly useful...
For the rest of you folks re-read what Mike and Eric have said...(or let me repeat it)
THIS IS AN EARLY BETA....
THERE ARE STILL MANY FEATURES YET TO BE FINISHED AND ADDED...
WE CAN'T TELL YOU WHAT ALL IS YET TO COME BUT IT WOULD BE FOOLISH TO PRESUME THAT THIS BETA IS ANYTHING LIKE WHAT THE FINAL VERSION WILL HAVE.
IT WOULD BE USEFUL TO CONCENTRATE ON DISCUSSING WHAT IS THERE INSTEAD OF WHAT ISN'T YET.
And the best place to discuss is really at the Lightroom Beta 3 Forums (http://forums.adobe.com/community/labs/lightroom3).
-
I believe the Collections in Develop was intended to work the same way as it does in the other 4 modules,
Yes, I've worked that out ;-) Although I've never understood why the quick collection is regarded as a separate concept from the saved ones.
Maybe someone would like to consider that using a quick collection to just gather together images that may need some work or a quick print job after import and review without having to save it as a 'proper' collection might be a beneficial workflow addition. It's half way there now and I can't see any reason why it shouldn't be added to the normal collections box.
-
Hi Rhossydd, I don't know the thinking behind it. For myself, though, I guess I never considered that because whenever I want to use Quick Collection, I just use the shortcuts: B to add/remove an image from QC, Cmd-B (or Ctrl-B ) to switch to or switch out of QC, and Cmd-Shift-B (or Ctrl-Shift-B ) to clear the QC. I do use the QC all the time for organization but prefer to use the shortcuts, because that way I can keep the left panel hidden and maximize screen space.
-
Any truth to the rumor (that I just made up) that LR 4.0 will have a mirror lockup button, and the Canon 5D mark IV will have soft proofing?
I had heard it is there is 3.0 but,currently, unreleased as it interferes with the 5DMkll's cream dispenser.
Apparently it's going to be wireless MLU
-
I think I am seeing an increase in intuitiveness to Lightroom with this version....an effort has been made to clarify further the distinction between what the database (Lightroom) is seeing, and what the file system actually holds.
Toward this end, in regard to keywording, I dearly wish that the keyword tag panel would show the string, or hierarchy, of the words applied. Alphabetical listing does not allow the user to see in a glance which root categories and following chain of specific words within are applied.
Is this something that could be done, or to forestall argument, could there be a choice of how the listings are displayed?
-
.
-
The film grain sliders... well.. I could have lived without those.
Well, I like the grain sliders. Especially for b&w conversions.
However, I also would love to see some good color filter presets (yellow, red, blue, green) for b&w conversion in LR3. The Black&White Mix sliders are powerful but not very useful if all you want to do is to (quickly) try which of the usual color filters gives the best result. I know there are free color filter presets on the net but IMHO they should come out of the box.
-
Been testing this today with some high iso (1600) pics from a just acquired Lumix GF1. LR2 rendering of these pics makes them almost unusable from my point of view due to 'blotchiness'. Similarly for the out of camera jpegs. LR3 rendering is significantly improved. No traces of baseline NR. Tight small uniformly distributed grain easily manageable with some good 3rd party sw. Color noise reduction seems very good. Can't wait to see how Luminance NR will be handled. So thumbs up on this front.
Performance is horrible but I reserve judgment due to this being a beta version.
Question to Eric Chan. Is there any difference in the way LR3 handles so called baseline exposure offset or compensation? In my view this was problematically inconsistent and off in LR2 (at least for the Nikon cameras I'm using).Plus it was not documented at all.
-
IT WOULD BE USEFUL TO CONCENTRATE ON DISCUSSING WHAT IS THERE INSTEAD OF WHAT ISN'T YET.
Here, here. The new way of doing software development is to work on a feature set until it is good enough to put in the hands of end users in order to get their input/feedback. A few things to note, the user feedback may change the behavior of the final product. The features that are good enough for an end-user to tryout may not be all the features planned for the release. Some of the planned features may not be yet be coded or may not yet be in a state of good enough for non-developers to use. The point of the beta is to make comment on the features that are in the release and not on what isn't yet released.
-
So, I guess that means you haven't downloaded and used the beta 3 huh...ok, well that's not terribly useful...
For the rest of you folks re-read what Mike and Eric have said...(or let me repeat it)
THIS IS AN EARLY BETA....
THERE ARE STILL MANY FEATURES YET TO BE FINISHED AND ADDED...
WE CAN'T TELL YOU WHAT ALL IS YET TO COME BUT IT WOULD BE FOOLISH TO PRESUME THAT THIS BETA IS ANYTHING LIKE WHAT THE FINAL VERSION WILL HAVE.
IT WOULD BE USEFUL TO CONCENTRATE ON DISCUSSING WHAT IS THERE INSTEAD OF WHAT ISN'T YET.
And the best place to discuss is really at the Lightroom Beta 3 Forums (http://forums.adobe.com/community/labs/lightroom3).
I hear ya, but I would have heard you even if you didn't SHOUT at me.
-
Performance is horrible but I reserve judgment due to this being a beta version.
Can you please elaborate on this? Do you mean, for example, the speed of import? Preview generation? Scrolling in Library mode in Grid view, etc.?
Question to Eric Chan. Is there any difference in the way LR3 handles so called baseline exposure offset or compensation? In my view this was problematically inconsistent and off in LR2 (at least for the Nikon cameras I'm using).Plus it was not documented at all.
I am fairly certain that it has not changed. Just FYI, for better or for worse, I do not foresee this changing for existing supported Nikon models, for backwards compatibility reasons. What I can say is that I have read all of the discussion on these forums and elsewhere regarding the baseline exposure concerns and will try to do what I can to address them for new models going forward.
-
Can you please elaborate on this? Do you mean, for example, the speed of import? Preview generation? Scrolling in Library mode in Grid view, etc.?
I am fairly certain that it has not changed. Just FYI, for better or for worse, I do not foresee this changing for existing supported Nikon models, for backwards compatibility reasons. What I can say is that I have read all of the discussion on these forums and elsewhere regarding the baseline exposure concerns and will try to do what I can to address them for new models going forward.
Thanks for the reply. Performance creating previews was much slower. Performance of screen rendering (both 1:1 and less) was also slower. Performance applying color noise reduction changes was also significantly slower. Haven't really tried much else and I haven't tried exporting either. That was in two different Win XP 32bit environments (quad core, dual core, 3GB). Haven't tried on Mac yet.
PS. Regarding the baseline exposure offset. Well, if you can't / won't fix it, at least DOCUMENT the damn thing... so I don't need to search forums to find out what this is in order to try creating my compensating-the-compensation presets. On top of this, providing a switch to inactivate it can't be that difficult and certainly won't interfere with backwards compatibility.
-
I'd expected the quick collection to be listed in the collections box (which seems logical and intuitive to me).
I'd also wish (already before this beta, of course) that quick collection could be accessible from the print and web modules.
Not more to say about the beta for the moment except a big "keep up the good work"!
And yes, we're breathlessly waiting for more ))).
-
Have spent a solid 6 hours or so playing with all the new features and here are my thoughts. New import is nice and clean but saying that I had no problems using the LR 2.5 import dialog. Seems to be further refinement of a already ease to use part of LR. I'm now certain I'm seeing a small but still appreciable gain in the detail of hight frequency images. Very impressed with new imaging processing in general. Speed seems improved in most areas and a little slower in a few others like healing and cloning but not to worried about that as this is a beta... All in all there are some very cool and real improvements that have allowed me to revisit some images that I was not totally happy with and was able to improved them by a decent amount. Would give an A to all the major new features and am looking forward to some of the big features that I'm sure will be available upon release and hopefully in the coming betas.
Will be heading to gallery tomorrow to see how nicely LR 3 plays with HPz3100. Will report back...
Thomas
-
I'll have a look back over various raw files, aka noise and differences v LR 2.
Whilst I am here, might be a low priority, but what about a Linux version?
-
I'm pretty enthused about the rendering. Looking good so far.
Whilst I am here, might be a low priority, but what about a Linux version?
HAHAHAHAHA! OW! My Sides! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
-
Whilst I am here, might be a low priority, but what about a Linux version?
Why?
Seriously other than falling into the "it would be nice for a few thousand people" category, how can you honestly think a Linux version of Lightroom would be a commercially viable application?
-
Yes, I've worked that out ;-) Although I've never understood why the quick collection is regarded as a separate concept from the saved ones.
Maybe someone would like to consider that using a quick collection to just gather together images that may need some work or a quick print job after import and review without having to save it as a 'proper' collection might be a beneficial workflow addition. It's half way there now and I can't see any reason why it shouldn't be added to the normal collections box.
Set up a target collection, and use it instead of the Quick Collection. The QC was a nice idea for a version 1, but is much less flexible than 2's target concept.
-
Why?
Seriously other than falling into the "it would be nice for a few thousand people" category, how can you honestly think a Linux version of Lightroom would be a commercially viable application?
Well Bibble seem to think it's worthwhile, they support Linux, others include Lightzone, Picasa, Raw Therapee.
That kinda says something. Maybe you need to check Linux out, it's come on a lot in the last few years, truth is, I would gladly get shot of windows if more applications were on Linux.
-
Well Bibble seem to think it's worthwhile, they support Linux, others include Lightzone, Picasa, Raw Therapee.
And their combined market share is what?
Seriously, Linux is not a viable platform for mass commercial software...
-
Any truth to the rumor (that I just made up) that LR 4.0 will have a mirror lockup button, and the Canon 5D mark IV will have soft proofing?
thanks eric! ya made my day....
-
Fingers crossed for Geotagging support.
-
Wow, the demosaicing is massively improved over Lightroom 2. I had a hard time taking an image where the maze-like patterns would appear (which is ironic as it seemed to be showing up all the time when I wasn't looking for it) and ended up having to take a photo of my CRT monitor to get them to show up.
In this example, it's actually in a section that's also suffering from moiré, but I think it still does a good job showing off the improvement Adobe has made.
Lightroom 2:
(http://i34.tinypic.com/2r5yv7o.jpg)
Lightroom 3:
(http://i37.tinypic.com/t8x17k.jpg)
This artefact did not only show up with moiré though—I've even had it happen with critically sharp portraits taken using my 1000D.
At this point, I think I'd be upgrading to Lightroom 3 for these improvements alone, and it sounds like there's still more they haven't shown us yet—hopefully lens corrections and soft proofing. (am I right in thinking that lens corrections are part of the DNG spec now?)
-
Wow, the demosaicing is massively improved over Lightroom 2. I had a hard time taking an image where the maze-like patterns would appear (which is ironic as it seemed to be showing up all the time when I wasn't looking for it) and ended up having to take a photo of my CRT monitor to get them to show up.
I agree. It doesn't show up with every image but I've some TRNP grassland images that suddenly have detail. Very enthused.
-
Will the next version of ACR have the choice to switch to the new rendering engine, along with the the new sharpening/noise controls, or is this strictly available in Lightroom only?
-
Brief one-shot Sony Alpha 900 comparison of LR2.5 to LR3Beta
I compared one low-ISO landscape photo done with a Sony Alpha 900, processing the raw file with LR2.5 defaults and the same with LR3Beta defaults. I saw an improvement in noise handling with LR3Beta. Detail was pretty much the same, although 2.5 gave the impression of possibly being very slightly sharper, but if there is a real difference it wouldn't be practically meaningful for me.
Unfortunately, for my eyes, the color looked the same, and there are no camera presets for the Sony Alpha 900 in either 2.5 or 3Beta. So, for the color rendering purpose, I'll still be using Raw Therapee awhile longer (for the Sony Alpha 900 photos), as I prefer how colors are rendered. In the past I have unsuccessfully tried, for hours on one shot, to use LR 2.5 to get the look that Raw Therapee produces. Perhaps I'm not expert enough with LR yet.
-
Barry, it's not that we don't like Linux, but I hope you would agree that some of the other things you have requested in this thread (and in the past) would have higher priority. As you can imagine, the underlying image rendering code would be easy to port, but all the UI and related driver work would divert a lot of resources from other work.
T-1000, when LR 3 ships, there will be a version of CR plug-in that provides rendering parity (i.e., so you get the same processing from both). That's what we try to do with every LR major and minor (i.e., dot) release, and we intend to keep them synced up that way.
photodan, there have been no changes to A900 color in 2.5 or 3 beta. But I hear what you're asking for ...
-
The difference in image quality when rendered with the new engine on Canon 5D MKII files on beauty pictures is a HUGE improvement.
For those who say the features list is not enough , well maybe but if my images are going to come out that much better I can see every reason professionally and for the interest of image quality to upgrade.
The sharpening is even better than before, transitions, excellent noise reduction ( compared to LR 2), and I like the grain sliders for legacy film scans or flat digital greyscale conversions.
I don't like the new import UI at all, but maybe I haven't understood it yet.
It also works extremely well with the X-Rite Passport profiles created LR2 in studio, I just tried. I haven't yet tried to install Passport in LR 3 beta or if it works as a plug in there.
The previews are a bit jumpy, and they are not redrawing on the second monitor all the time. I found if I turn off the second monitor it works much better.
-
As Neil mentioned, any improvement in quality of the results is always appreciated, even when not obvious in every image.
And thanks to Eric and Jeff for their behind-the-scenes insights.
Rick
-
It also works extremely well with the X-Rite Passport profiles created LR2 in studio, I just tried. I haven't yet tried to install Passport in LR 3 beta or if it works as a plug in there.
Hi Neil, it may be necessary for X-Rite to update the plug-in (due to updates in the plug-in SDK). I'll follow up with them.
-
With my Leica M8 looking at the same 640iso image I've found more croma noise in the darks area vs 2.5 engine.
The detail is more ore less the same.
sharpening seems to be better as noise reduction.
ciao
alberto
-
I REALLY like it. I can't wait for the real deal. The new processing/rendering path has noticeable impact on fine detail and I'm impressed.
I especially like being able to see the impact of sharpening at magnifications other than 100% in the Develop Module.
-
I especially like being able to see the impact of sharpening at magnifications other than 100% in the Develop Module.
That really is a dual edged sword though...while you _ARE_ seeing the results at other than 1:1, it's not terribly accurate if you are in a view other than 1:1. So I wouldn't suggest any "fine tuning" of the sharpening at anything other than 1:1. The Fit and Fill screen dither are using downsampling algorithms that will either under or over emphasize the impact of the sharpening.
Also note that the full impact of the improved demosiacing, sharpening and noise reduction hasn't shown up yet although you've gotten a hint at what's to come with the color noise reduction. The Luminance Noise Reduction should take the current IQ and push it to superb IQ levels. Kinda hate to make a prediction but I suspect when LR 3 comes out you'll be seeing a whole new level of image quality (which BTW will also be there in the next major version of Camera Raw).
:~)
-
That really is a dual edged sword though...while you _ARE_ seeing the results at other than 1:1, it's not terribly accurate if you are in a view other than 1:1. So I wouldn't suggest any "fine tuning" of the sharpening at anything other than 1:1.
Totally understood - I have been paying attention.
I think this is better and I assume I'm not the only one who was switching to Library just to get that hint of a better perspective on the final rendering. After every round of edits, I like to see a rendering at 100%, 50% and then 'fit to screen' to see the whole image ... even if not perfect, I'd like each rendering to try and be consistent with each other.
Particularly 50%, which I have always found gave me a very nice idea in Photoshop (with soft-proofing) of what a print was gonna look like.
-
Speaking of sharpening, why "capture" and "output" but no "creative" sharpening?
-
Barry, I can assure you that with the new demosaic method in LR 3 public beta, there is zero baseline noise reduction being applied (meaning that when the Color slider is set to 0, color NR is entirely off, and luminance NR is completely off), with the exception of hot/dead pixel elimination. In fact, this property came precisely out of request that you and others have made, coupled with our own internal developments on the engine. If you have an example raw file that you can use to demonstrate your concern, I'd be happy to study it.
Eric,
Can you enlighten me please? I have noticed that when high iso, long exposure RAWs are rendered a significant number of coloured spots appear on screen and then vanish when the rendering has finished. Is this the automatic NR at work or is it something else? I never normally see any hot/dead pixels.
I am using a 5D MKII and an iMac.
Kind regards
Peter
-
Speaking of sharpening, why "capture" and "output" but no "creative" sharpening?
I guess you haven't tried the new local sharpening in 3.0 yet huh? It's been changed (improved) as well...
-
One more thing: I was just exporting a couple of pictures with my 8 core Mac Pro (Mac OS X 10.6.1, LR3 64-bit, 10GB RAM). While LR is using 8 cores during the export unfortunately it does not manage to keep all 8 cores busy all of the time. With "top" I see 8 running threads only some fraction of the time and the load average is far from 8. IMHO it shouldn't be too hard to keep all cores busy during a large export as this is a cpu-bound process. Exporting could be much faster.
-
The rendering has really improved. I see this in my landscape photos, especially in distant grass and trees that they are clearer. I dont shoot much high ISO, but those photos I have really improved as always used the chroma noise reduction slider.
It will be fun to see what the future holds.
My biggest wish for Lightrom expect color proofing must be perspective correction tool and a lens correction tool. If had this photoshop would only be used for my more retouching photos.
-
Haven't had a chance to take it for a spin yet, but if rendering is as smooth and detailed as Capture One, I may finally be able to shake the Corel inspired interface of Phase One. I'm only using a P30, so every pixel has more asked of it than with some cameras, but have never found that my files look as clean when processed with LR. Although I guess I've finally gotten used to the Capture One interface, I won't miss it a bit if I can finally stick with LR full time. <fingers crossed>
-
Haven't had a chance to take it for a spin yet, but if rendering is as smooth and detailed as Capture One, I may finally be able to shake the Corel inspired interface of Phase One.
Well, instead of talkin' about it, download that sucker and see for your own darn self!
:~)
-
I guess you haven't tried the new local sharpening in 3.0 yet huh? It's been changed (improved) as well...
You got me. I don't typically do local adjustments in LR, but it's time I try. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.
-
You got me. I don't typically do local adjustments in LR, but it's time I try. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.
BTW, Jeff, I'm a little underwhelmed by the degree of user control of that local sharpening. How about you?
-
cant wait for the slideshow thingie
-
BTW, Jeff, I'm a little underwhelmed by the degree of user control of that local sharpening. How about you?
And exactly how long have you been using it?
-
And exactly how long have you been using it?
Am I to assume from this that more numerous controls will appear with increased use?
-
That really is a dual edged sword though...while you _ARE_ seeing the results at other than 1:1, it's not terribly accurate if you are in a view other than 1:1. So I wouldn't suggest any "fine tuning" of the sharpening at anything other than 1:1. The Fit and Fill screen dither are using downsampling algorithms that will either under or over emphasize the impact of the sharpening.
Yes, and this is why the little warning icon in the Detail panel is still there, when you're zoomed out, and I still highly recommend that you view the image at 1:1 (or occasionally higher) when you're adjusting the controls.
-
Can you enlighten me please? I have noticed that when high iso, long exposure RAWs are rendered a significant number of coloured spots appear on screen and then vanish when the rendering has finished. Is this the automatic NR at work or is it something else? I never normally see any hot/dead pixels.
Hi Peter, yes, what you are seeing is the effect of the hot/dead pixel routine kicking in. When you first bring up the image, we do a fast initial read and render of the image data, just so that you can see something on the window (i.e., good enough for you to recognize the image), but hot/dead pixels aren't treated at that stage. In the meantime, CR/LR is doing the full read and render of the raw file and that's when you see those spots go away (i.e., when the final render is finished and the initial fast preview goes away).
-
Am I to assume from this that more numerous controls will appear with increased use?
No, but you SHOULD assume the new local sharpening control is very different (and better) that the 2.x version. Until and unless you have more than a few minutes of use on a variety of images, I wouldn't expect your opinion to be based on real use...
-
No, but you SHOULD assume the new local sharpening control is very different (and better) that the 2.x version. Until and unless you have more than a few minutes of use on a variety of images, I wouldn't expect your opinion to be based on real use...
Okay, but I wasn't pronouncing it "good" or "bad," just surprisingly limited in control. However good the underlying math might be, one Mystery Meat slider does not constitute a high degree of control. How do I adjust the radius, or limit the functionality by degree to highlights or shadows, etc?
-
smahn, you can adjust the effective radius using the Radius slider, Detail tab. The result now affects both the capture sharpen and the local sharpen.
-
smahn, you can adjust the effective radius using the Radius slider, Detail tab. The result now affects both the capture sharpen and the local sharpen.
Thanks. Just curious, why not give Creative sharpening the same controls as Capture, since the functionality is already in place?
-
Thanks. Just curious, why not give Creative sharpening the same controls as Capture, since the functionality is already in place?
Because it's leveraging (and using) the global controls while offering you a method of moderating the sharpening locally. For example, if you are using the edge mask (and pretty much _EVERY_ image can benefit from edge masking) the local controls gives you local control over the mask. A minus sharpening will actually add density to the edge mask thereby giving you the ability to increase the global while cutting back on areas where the sharpening is too much.
Also note that the global sharpening itself has been improved (in several specific areas I'm not really at liberty to discuss unless Eric wants to) so the net result with the improved global and local controls you'll have substantially increased image quality potential.
Also note that a major factor in all of the IQ is luminance noise reduction which isn't even in there yet (although the noise addition is).
All told, the potential for substantially increased image quality is already there with more to come.
The "elves" have been busy...
-
Mmmm, I do like the improved localized sharpening behavior - very natural looking and much more useful. Radius, Detail and Masking all effect localized sharpening adjustments - smart.
All told, the potential for substantially increased image quality is already there with more to come.
You can say that again. I'm seeing some impressive results particularly with high ISO images. If anyone cares to take a look I've got a LR2 vs LR3 side-by-side comparison of a 1600 ISO shot from a 5Dmk2 at http://www.on-sight.com/2009/10/22/lightro...y-improvements/ (http://www.on-sight.com/2009/10/22/lightroom-3-process-quality-improvements/)
I'm looking forward to the return of Luminance Noise reduction for the sake of some longer exposures (30-130 minutes) that have their own unique luminance signature separate from the color signature.
-
A quick d3s sample focusing on sharpness.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2585/4038293103_8d84962edb_b.jpg)
link to full size image: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlangui...293103/sizes/o/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/4038293103/sizes/o/)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'm curious about how people are getting on with the new sharpening in Lightroom 3.
There are some aspects where, as expected, it's definitely improved over Lightroom 2. It does a much better job of retaining colour as the amount of sharpening is increased. (at least I am fairly sure this is an effect of the sharpening rather than demosaicing)
The downside to this is that it can mean there's less contrast, making it look softer, and then more sharpening is required.
I'm finding that I need to use a higher amount and more masking now. The latter may be due to the complete lack of luminance noise reduction though. It's funny, I was always wanting less luminance NR in LR2 and now I actually think I'd use some.
I need to spend more time with it still, but what I've noticed is that I'm getting more fine textural detail, but I'm seeing more aliasing and while there's more detail, the overall result seems less sharp in places.
Using a higher radius in LR3 seems to get more comparable results in places, but then fine lines look thicker. Not sure which I prefer really. It's hard to judge as well with the fact that LR3 has no luminance NR being applied, whereas LR2 has some luminance NR being applied even at 0. If it wasn't for the increased artefacts in places, I'd probably prefer LR3's sharpening.
-
Because it's leveraging (and using) the global controls while offering you a method of moderating the sharpening locally. For example, if you are using the edge mask (and pretty much _EVERY_ image can benefit from edge masking) the local controls gives you local control over the mask. A minus sharpening will actually add density to the edge mask thereby giving you the ability to increase the global while cutting back on areas where the sharpening is too much.
Also note that the global sharpening itself has been improved (in several specific areas I'm not really at liberty to discuss unless Eric wants to) so the net result with the improved global and local controls you'll have substantially increased image quality potential.
Also note that a major factor in all of the IQ is luminance noise reduction which isn't even in there yet (although the noise addition is).
All told, the potential for substantially increased image quality is already there with more to come.
The "elves" have been busy...
Jeff, I'm going to take your earlier point that I don't have enough experience with this to comment. I do see potential and look forward to further improvements.
However, I would like to suggest/request additional selection/masking tools for local adjustments. Something along the lines of Color Range and the Pen tool would be helpful. If such things already exist please excuse my ignorance.
-
A quick d3s sample focusing on sharpness.
Nice! It would even more helpful to see a LR2/LR3 comparison. Here's a side-by-side LR2/LR3 comparison from a 1600 ISO file:
(http://www.on-sight.com/newsletter/images/LR3-Process-Comparision.jpg)
-
Sharpening is much improved, also detail at lower ISO levels is notably better.
Still getting better results with Raw Therapee for high ISO work, finer tighter grain, also I like the rendering in RT too. LR3 is better than LR2, have to say that.
Going quickly back to the Linux thing, sure I accept it would drain resources, but one to watch in a few years, the uptake is improving.
-
As an a900 shooter, I'm very impressed by the new lease of life given to the noise pattern with this release.
As an a900 shooter who's also a student (does that mean I've got my priorities very, very right or very, very wrong?) I'm wary about upgrading just for this and a couple of other nicities. AFAIK you can't upgrade student versions so this means either biting the bullet and going for a full release that can be upgraded in the future, or buying another student version which works out cheaper this time - but by the time LR4 comes along with the all important tea-maker (I'm English - coffee is awful stuff) I'd have been better off just paying up... 2 student versions are cheaper than one full one, but 3 are not cheaper than full versions + upgrades.
So my question is, what chance is there of this new image engine trickling down to ACR and finding its way into LR2.x and PS4? I'd be over the moon if I got LR3 quality conversion from my current LR 2.5, but I'm slightly hesitant to lay down the cash for this. Probably will, but if I can get this in LR2.5 I'd happily forgo the other advantages of LR3.
-
This will almost certainly be exclusive to Lightroom 3/Photoshop CS 5.
-
I'm finding that I need to use a higher amount and more masking now.
Andrew, note that the "numbers" from the old process version don't carry over directly to the new process version. Therefore, using old numbers that you're used to in LR 2 will generally not give you optimal results with LR 3. Once you adjust the numbers when using LR 3, you should be getting better results.
-
Because it's leveraging (and using) the global controls while offering you a method of moderating the sharpening locally. For example, if you are using the edge mask (and pretty much _EVERY_ image can benefit from edge masking) the local controls gives you local control over the mask. A minus sharpening will actually add density to the edge mask thereby giving you the ability to increase the global while cutting back on areas where the sharpening is too much.
Also note that the global sharpening itself has been improved (in several specific areas I'm not really at liberty to discuss unless Eric wants to) so the net result with the improved global and local controls you'll have substantially increased image quality potential.
Also note that a major factor in all of the IQ is luminance noise reduction which isn't even in there yet (although the noise addition is).
All told, the potential for substantially increased image quality is already there with more to come.
The "elves" have been busy...
I am a little confused here. What if I want to have a different radius, amount, detail whatever for local (creative) sharpening, how can I use the global sliders for these local parameters without changing the global sharpening?
-
All told, the potential for substantially increased image quality is already there with more to come.
The "elves" have been busy...
Jeff- Are the techniques you have outlined in your updated version (pub 9/2009) of "Real World Image Sharpening...." for LR, those available in v3 Beta?
-
Andrew, note that the "numbers" from the old process version don't carry over directly to the new process version. Therefore, using old numbers that you're used to in LR 2 will generally not give you optimal results with LR 3. Once you adjust the numbers when using LR 3, you should be getting better results.
It doesn't maintain two sets, one for each process version, right?
-
Can we assume that we won't be getting these new features until ACR 5?
Thanks.
-
I've noticed that I'm getting XMPs all over the place even though the option is not checked in Catalog Settings - Metadata. Is this a bug or am I doing something wrong?
-
It doesn't maintain two sets, one for each process version, right?
No, it does not. The expectation is that users who wish to tweak their sharpening settings will want to move over to the new process version, as opposed to flipping back and forth between the two available process versions.
-
I am a little confused here. What if I want to have a different radius, amount, detail whatever for local (creative) sharpening, how can I use the global sliders for these local parameters without changing the global sharpening?
You cannot. There is only 1 set of settings, which is used for both global and local.
-
Can we assume that we won't be getting these new features until ACR 5?
Hi Ben, when LR 3 ships, there will be some version of CR that provides rendering parity with LR 3 (just like when LR 2 shipped). However, the number of that version is not yet known.
Eric
-
Well Bibble seem to think it's worthwhile, they support Linux, others include Lightzone, Picasa, Raw Therapee.
That kinda says something. Maybe you need to check Linux out, it's come on a lot in the last few years, truth is, I would gladly get shot of windows if more applications were on Linux.
I'm a big Linux fan (and Solaris too). But... I don't consider it ready for proper photo editing yet. Not until we have proper colour profile support, and a colorimeter that works under Linux. Yeah, you can kludge things like calibrate under Windows and then use the profile under Linux, but given that the driver is different, you can't guarantee accuracy.
I use Picasa under Linux for my school (I'm a teacher and school photographer) photography, partly because I just haven't got the storage space on my Mac to keep the 25000 pics a year I took for school, and because I just need my photos to be acceptable rather than accurate for that particular purpose. For my own photography (strictly amateur, landscapes), I want it to be as accurate as I can. I use my Mac.
Google have, I believe, stopped Picasa "development" on Linux again (it was always running under Wine as it was, so it was mostly packaging rather than development), and won't be releasing 3.5 due to lack of interest.
I really can't see a company like Adobe splurging lots of money on making a version for Linux. Particularly as the mindset of many (most? or at least the most vocal) Linux zealots is that if it runs on Linux, it must be free, and if it's not free, it ain't worth running, and anyone who wants to charge for software must be evil.
I would expect that most professional photographers choose their camera system, their software, their OS in that order. Therefore, whilst LR and Photoshop continue to be Mac or Windows, most professional photographers will stick with Win/Mac.
-
Really love the improvements in noise reduction from the samples I've seen so far. Boffo, a good one.
http://www.photocrati.com/a-first-glance-a...age-processing/ (http://www.photocrati.com/a-first-glance-at-lightroom-3-0-beta-1-image-processing/)
--Joe
-
Noise reduction, sharpening, thumbs up.
Performance much better with local adjustments.
Except for the library I'm still hanging around in PsCs4. Looking forward to integration.
Thanks for the beta - looking forward to the next iteration.
-
You cannot. There is only 1 set of settings, which is used for both global and local.
That's a shame. Why does sharpening get short shrift? Local exposure, contrast, saturation, etc, adjustments aren't constrained to the global setting - so why is sharpening?
-
smahn, sharpening is not getting shortchanged. You do get to vary the sharpening on a local basis: specifically, you get to change the amount. This is exactly the same as the exposure, contrast, saturation, etc. With all of those controls, global and local, you get to change the amount: more exposure, less exposure, more contrast, less contrast, etc. With local sharpening, you get to do the same: more sharpening here, less sharpening there.
Perhaps what you are referring to is the fact that sharpening has 3 extra sliders (Radius, Detail, Masking), which the other controls you mentioned do not have. It is true that capture sharpening and local sharpening are now sharing the parameters for those 3, instead of being able to set them separately. This is by design. It sounds limiting on paper, but have you actually tried it? If not, I encourage you to do so. There's no other way you'll be able to tell whether or not it works.
-
smahn, sharpening is not getting shortchanged. You do get to vary the sharpening on a local basis: specifically, you get to change the amount. This is exactly the same as the exposure, contrast, saturation, etc. With all of those controls, global and local, you get to change the amount: more exposure, less exposure, more contrast, less contrast, etc. With local sharpening, you get to do the same: more sharpening here, less sharpening there.
Perhaps what you are referring to is the fact that sharpening has 3 extra sliders (Radius, Detail, Masking), which the other controls you mentioned do not have. It is true that capture sharpening and local sharpening are now sharing the parameters for those 3, instead of being able to set them separately. This is by design. It sounds limiting on paper, but have you actually tried it? If not, I encourage you to do so. There's no other way you'll be able to tell whether or not it works.
Eric, my analogy was off, but the point remains that localized sharpening is being dumbed down to be Amount only, like those other controls, when the functionality is in place to offer greater local control.
I'm not a coder, maybe there are obvious limitations I don't understand. I'm just a user with a love/hate relationship with LR. For instance, elsewhere on this board can be found my thread (without response) lamenting the fact that LR renders my layered PS Tiff files differently than Photoshop, both in preview and export. Cataloging files, making parametric edits, making local adjustments, and outputting to Jpeg or PDF, typically requires the use of at least three programs (LR, PS, Bridge) because no two preview or output my files the same. In fact, when making jpegs from my layered tiffs, I typically do so through both Bridge and LR so as to be able to choose the better of the two. This is a real multiplication of effort.
I realize my work (jewelry photography) might have different needs and rigors than other disciplines, especially with regard to sharpening. But any changes to the product lineup that would diminish my need to jump back and forth among 3 or more programs per shot would be welcome. Specifically, I'd love the ability to make precisely masked edits and variable sharpening adjustments parametrically, which would hopefully translate to an ability to export/output files that more closely resemble the Master Files. But it appears my desires will not be fulfilled in this coming generation of product, so I'm sad. If so much of my work still needs to be done with PS and Bridge it really limits the usefulness of LR at all, as I gain greater cataloging functionality with a product like iView/Expression.
In short, yes I've been playing with it. I see potential for some shots, but I also know from experience that much of my work requires different sharpening parameters in different locations, and while LR seems to have the functionality at hand to fulfill this need it wont be implemented, and I think it's a missed opportunity and a pity.
-
Thanks for the answer Eric. In that case I don't understand the remarks Jeff Schewe made in this respect. And in that case I also think more controls in the detail section would be nice. Other options?
-
Is the effect that noise/sharpening has on the scaled down preview going to decrease when the luma NR module is activated? I'm getting some strange effects when viewing pictures (in scaled down preview) that I've had to use more than normal amounts of sharpening on. The effect is like oversharpening/undersampling of the picture, and all contrast edges are brightened and noise overattenuated. Is the preview sharpening applied with "normal strength" - but on the scaled down picture? In that case, maybe the "saling" of the sharpening shoul be toned down quite a bit...
Otherwise I'm loving the results of the beta. My only gripe ever with LR/ACR was that they could give a "blotchy" appearance, and that they painted fine detail with "a little wider brush" than some of the best of the competition. Twigs against a sky, and fine detail in hair or detail on a rock formation always got a slight widening of dark-contrast detail, as if the algorithm smoothed the detail too much and then sharpened it back to shape. Not so anymore... :-)
I really think that the "sharpened preview at <100% magnification" was unnecessary though... If you want to do output sharpening on a scaled down picture, that should be done in the output section. The preview can't really show you what your resulting output is going to look like anyway - since it not exactly the same scale.
-
Thanks for the answer Eric. In that case I don't understand the remarks Jeff Schewe made in this respect. And in that case I also think more controls in the detail section would be nice. Other options?
I guess he was meaning to say that being able to selectively increase sharpening would allow one to use less global sharpening and vice versa. I don't think he was implying there's a way to alter parameters like radius etc selectively.
-
Correct, you cannot alter radius, detail, and masking parameters selectively. I understand it sounds limiting -- at least on paper. Our internal testing on real images suggests otherwise. Of course, this is the purpose of the public beta: so that you, the users, can decide for yourselves and give the team feedback. If it turns out there's a healthy number of images that users can provide to demonstrate that this design point is a significant limitation, then the team will reconsider. (Yes, there are significant penalties to enabling selective application of the other three sliders.)
-
In short, yes I've been playing with it. I see potential for some shots, but I also know from experience that much of my work requires different sharpening parameters in different locations, and while LR seems to have the functionality at hand to fulfill this need it wont be implemented, and I think it's a missed opportunity and a pity.
If you can provide example images where the LR 3 beta implementation is insufficient, that would be very helpful and appreciated.
-
Is the effect that noise/sharpening has on the scaled down preview going to decrease when the luma NR module is activated? I'm getting some strange effects when viewing pictures (in scaled down preview) that I've had to use more than normal amounts of sharpening on. The effect is like oversharpening/undersampling of the picture, and all contrast edges are brightened and noise overattenuated.
Sharpening is applied at a correspondingly reduced strength when viewed at < 100% pixel view, not full strength. It is possible (even likely) that it is not correctly tuned at this point, i.e., it is too strong, particularly when using high amounts of capture sharpening.
Noise will be attenuated simply because you are downsampling the image. No luminance NR is being applied currently.
The idea of sharpening and color NR being applied at smaller previews is only to give you a rough idea of how it'll look when downsampled and output sharpened. It is more accurate than before, when sharpening and color NR were completely omitted, but not as accurate as the 1:1 preview. This is why it is still recommended that you zoom the preview size to 100% or larger when adjusting the controls in the Detail panel, which is what the tooltip for the warning icon should say when you place the mouse over it.
-
Thank you very much for your prompt answer.
I guess I worded that a bit off from my intention - what I meant to say was that noise was very much MORE present (stronger) in the scaled down preview ("fit to width"), than in the finished export output (opening the exported picture in PS, and comparing them by toggling the LR and PS windows). I'm downsampling directly in the export action, to pixel dimensions that roughly corresponds to my preview-pane width (~1700 pixels). But I guess that this stems from the scaling of sharpening strength/radius not being tuned "right" yet, just as you said.
Aside from this, I'm a happy camper in Beta-land. :-)
Your prescensce in the Beta-support (and here!) is much appreciated, and I do hope you gain a lot of more confident customers by this effort.
-
If you can provide example images where the LR 3 beta implementation is insufficient, that would be very helpful and appreciated.
That's fair. I'll see what I can come up with. But harkening back to Bruce Frazier, should we expect the parameters of sharpening a low frequency item like a pumpkin vs a high frequency item like twigs against the sky to vary only by "amount"? How to optimize when both are present in the same shot?
Eric, I don't want to cause thread drift but my other thread got no answers, and maybe the issue is tamgentially beta 3 related. Why does LR render layered PS files (in my case TIFFs) slightly differently than PS? The difference shows up in preview and export. They obviously handle the files differently in that LR doesn't actually open the original to export it, and is therefore much faster, but is it that they read layer order differently? Is there anything I can do to mitigate the difference?
FWIW, I'm not a longtime LR user so I can't tell you all the types of images where this difference might come into play, but I have been using it extensively on my current job of 27 jewelry shots, and the differences mainly show up in LR rendering the middle and lower tones of sharpened diamonds lighter and less robust than PS.
-
I am using a Nikon D3x camera with NX2-
I just tried LR3 on a high and low iso photo
100 asa: With Lightroom2 the fine detail was bad- Now in 3 it has much improved and is on level with Nx2
However the NX2 rendering is softer and provides a lot more detail in the dark areas-
On High Iso 6400- I cannot find any reason to use LR3 - NX2 is beter here too
The only reason to not Use NX2 is that the interface is among the worst you can find...
But still I use it.
-
I am using a Nikon D3x camera with NX2-
I just tried LR3 on a high and low iso photo
100 asa: With Lightroom2 the fine detail was bad- Now in 3 it has much improved and is on level with Nx2
However the NX2 rendering is softer and provides a lot more detail in the dark areas-
On High Iso 6400- I cannot find any reason to use LR3 - NX2 is beter here too
The only reason to not Use NX2 is that the interface is among the worst you can find...
But still I use it.
well without samples your statement isn't really useful at all.
-
well without samples your statement isn't really useful at all.
Ok- if you like
here 2 samples- Off course it is only one image ( not a real test) - both treated in the basic LR and ( neutral) NX2 way- and both had the basic sharpening that I use in photohop (smart sharpen 150%-0,20-0)
Try shadow/highlight to see the difference. ( these 100% samples are made with d3x 24mm pce and are from the extreme right side)
-
Sorry, but what is the 'basic' LR way? Are you talking about the default conversion (i.e. no presets used and all sliders at default)? Any serious user should know better than compare 'default' conversions unless one is interested in the best automatic conversion one can get. In that case I recommend DxO. Please explain.
-
I guess this is a thread that one needs to be cautious about commenting on, including my earlier statement of optimism about the rendering qualities of LR3 before I had had the opportunity to put it through the paces that was put down by Jeff. I understand unsubstantiated negative comments being unwanted, but I had thought a brief "here's hoping" sentiment would be acceptable, as it came with a thumbs up about the already solid interface. Sorry about that.
I will keep it short and sweet, but just wanted to go on record as being favorably impressed with the new rendering of Phase One files, as compared to Capture One. I had a chance to process a half dozen files, and like what I see. I do a lot of art reproduction, and I don't shoot high ISO, or generally have noise issues with art or my personal work, but have found fine detail, and particularly the smoothness of solid colors and gradations to now be on par with C1 processing. I can now use DNG Profile Editor profiles, which did me no good with C1, and only use C1 for tethered shooting. I'm looking forward to it. Thanks, Adobe, especially for the $19.99 upgrade path from LR2 to LR3. <humor>
-
Sorry, but what is the 'basic' LR way? Are you talking about the default conversion (i.e. no presets used and all sliders at default)? Any serious user should know better than compare 'default' conversions unless one is interested in the best automatic conversion one can get. In that case I recommend DxO. Please explain.
Yes default but
even with fill light set to 100 and contrast set to zero the deep blacks are better with nx2 ( at least with my camera-Nefs )
and for DXO- the colours go everywhere- I only use it for stage photography- that program is not consistent. I never know what it does behind the scenes.
and i am serious :-) even when i take pictures
as for lightroom _ i do not like that they have different keys for zooming etc than in photoshop- It seems they want you to use one of both only.
So i stick to photoshop in combination with a flexible simple database i understand and like: Iview ( now expression media )
-
Yes default but
even with fill light set to 100 and contrast set to zero the deep blacks are better with nx2 ( at least with my camera-Nefs )
and for DXO- the colours go everywhere- I only use it for stage photography- that program is not consistent. I never know what it does behind the scenes.
and i am serious :-) even when i take pictures
as for lightroom _ i do not like that they have different keys for zooming etc than in photoshop- It seems they want you to use one of both only.
So i stick to photoshop in combination with a flexible simple database i understand and like: Iview ( now expression media )
I think you have not taken the time to reasonably master the programs you are comparing your current editor against.
-
I should just like to express a favorable, indeed very favorable opinion, of the quality of the conversions made by the Lightroom 3 Beta. Whereas up to now I've been using primarily Capture One Pro, particularly for portraits, because I'd always felt that the program offered superior conversions, I've been very impressed by two portraits that I've just brought through Lightroom 3. I feel that there has been a significant change here over the previous versions of the program.
-
Not sure if this link got posted or not - but there are also some quite good quick videos on LR3 Beta over at Photoshop User here:
Lightroom Beta 3 Videos (http://www.photoshopuser.com/lightroom3/)
These are worth a look if you want a crash course in what the primary new offerings are in LR 3 Beta.
-
I should just like to express a favorable, indeed very favorable opinion, of the quality of the conversions made by the Lightroom 3 Beta. Whereas up to now I've been using primarily Capture One Pro, particularly for portraits, because I'd always felt that the program offered superior conversions, I've been very impressed by two portraits that I've just brought through Lightroom 3. I feel that there has been a significant change here over the previous versions of the program.
Me too. For high ISO images with a 5D2 I found Raw Developer far superior but now LR3 is close enough and has extra features and a better workflow. I'm sort of sad in a way because I hate to see a Goliath threatening David. I guess that's progress/the power of big research budgets, but I really hope RD comes back with a sling in its hand. Nothing against Adobe, but we need the smaller guys to keep the big guys honest.
edited to clarify
-
I've not been a Lightroom user, so far, but have been giving LR3b a test drive today and, as advertised, see that Luminace noise reduction is disabled.
What happens, though, is that when I work with an image that has previously been worked up in ACR using luminance NR, then the previously disabled
Luminance NR slider in LR3b becomes active.
Is this only respecting my previous settings or is the Lum NR setting from the beta being triggered?
Mark
-
What happens, though, is that when I work with an image that has previously been worked up in ACR using luminance NR, then the previously disabled
Luminance NR slider in LR3b becomes active.
Yeah, you need to update the version of the processing pipeline you are using before you can get to the new stuff. By default, any image that has been "touched" by Camera Raw and/or Lightroom will maintain the older version 1 rendering. In order to get to the new stuff you'll need to click on the Exclamation Point at the top left of the Develop panel. Note you can get back to the old rendering by then clicking in the History to a state prior to the update.
This has been done because Adobe wanted to make sure people were not FORCED into using the new rendering engine unless they wanted to. Not clear exactly how this is gonna be handled in the final GM when it ships but the odds are it'll still take an explicit command by the user to force a new rendering with the new processing.
Any image that has never been touched will pick up and use the new rendering by default in the beta...
-
you'll need to click on the Exclamation Point at the top left of the Develop panel. Note you can get back to the old rendering by then clicking in the History to a state prior to the update
There's also 'Settings > Process Version' which lets you toggle back and forth as well.
-
I am very disappointed with the new import dialog. It lumps all photos into one big grid view instead of letting you import by shoot date. Some times I don't format the card between shoots, and as far as I can tell, I'd have to select images one by one to import. I am very happy to see they added the ability to add custom text to naming, but they put it in the wrong place for me. I would rather have a folder named for the shoot or custom text than to have every file name contain that. I would very much like folders organized like 2009/2009-10-28-custom_text/filename.cr2.
Update: well, I see now that there are checkmarks on the destination folder area to pick what to import. Maybe it was obvious to some.
-
Thanks for clearing that up, Jeff
MT
www.marktomalty.com
-
Michael, Do I get a prize for creating a thread that has had over 10,000 views
-
Wow! Very intersting bits in this thread.
I'll throw one particular request : now that the noise reduction is sooo good for "normal" noise, could it be possible to get some FFT filtering to filter out the very eye-catching banding noise, like eg Dfine does?
-
Nicolas, the current NR system in LR 3 beta does not attempt to address this, but I have noted your request.
BTW, I just noticed you're in Grenoble. A few years ago, I had the pleasure of visiting a lab there for about a week, and the surrounding valley.
-
Hi,
I'm mostly impressed with the new noise handling. I still feel something is missing. The images below are with old (V1) and new (V2Beta) noise handling on Sony Alpha 900 at 6400 ISO, a tremendous improvement. What I see with the new noice reduction is a tight, natural and sharp noise pattern but with some impulse noise (?) in the blue channel that should be possible to reduce. I essentially would advocate adding a hot pixel button. Now, I don't know what it should do. I can see that doing a small radius (2) median filter takes care of this, but also destroys much of the grain pattern.
Se samples (old and new rendering, median filter R2). Unfortunately the differences are much less visible on the screendumps than on my screen.
[attachment=17631:OldRender.jpg]
[attachment=17632:NewRender.jpg]
[attachment=17633:NewRendi...MedianR2.jpg]
Best regards
Erik
Nicolas, the current NR system in LR 3 beta does not attempt to address this, but I have noted your request.
BTW, I just noticed you're in Grenoble. A few years ago, I had the pleasure of visiting a lab there for about a week, and the surrounding valley.
-
Hi Erik, I cannot be certain at this point, but I suspect that the impulse speckles you are observing should be treatable in the final version. If you would be willing to submit a sample raw file from your A900 (i.e., the .ARW file), that would be a big help. If this is ok with you, please use YouSendIt.com with target email address of madmanchan2000@yahoo.com. Thanks.
-
Hi Eric,
I sent you the file I was looking at. I also discovered that LR3Beta no recommends backing up the database before quitting. Great! The thing I had hard to appreciate was the import dialog but I only used it once. These things take some time to get accustomed to.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Erik, I cannot be certain at this point, but I suspect that the impulse speckles you are observing should be treatable in the final version. If you would be willing to submit a sample raw file from your A900 (i.e., the .ARW file), that would be a big help. If this is ok with you, please use YouSendIt.com with target email address of madmanchan2000@yahoo.com. Thanks.
-
Thanks Erik. Got the file safely. I'll study it and see what can be done. To be honest, I'm not too familiar with the new Import myself, but my understanding is that you can now create Import presets. (Similar to Export presets, but now on the import side.) This should help simplify common import tasks.
-
After having a look at a topic in "Digital Image Processing" Forum
Why change in Histogram from Lightroon to Photoshop? (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=38667&hl=Why+change+in+Histogram+from)
I think it would be a good idea to give the user the choice of the Colorspace for Histogram.
Checkbox with at least the choice between ProPhoto RGB, Adobe RGB and sRGB.
It is important to give this choice because worflows are often different !
Of course you can use a "Default ProPhoto Colorspace" for new Lightroom 3, but please give us the choice !!
Have a Nice Day.
Thierry Legros
-
A minor suggestion:
The white balance tool should have an option for averageing several pixels.If the image is noisy we can get different results depending on which pixel we pick.
Best regards
Erik Kaffehr
http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lightroom3/ (http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lightroom3/)