Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: Josh-H on January 10, 2012, 12:18:58 am
-
Adobe Lightroom 4 BETA. (http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2012/01/lr4betanowavailable.html)
High Level Summary of What’s New
Robust Video Support
Manage images by location with the Map Module
Simplified Basic Adjustments
Powerful new Shadow & Highlight controls
Additional local adjustments including Noise Reduction and White Balance
Soft Proofing Reinvented Woo Hoo! ;D
Elegant Photo Book creation
Email from directly within Lightroom
Publish videos directly to Facebook or Flickr
Enhanced DNG workflows
Adobe Revel export workflow
-
Some links to get you started:
http://www.photoshopuser.com/lightroom4
http://computer-darkroom.com/lr4_beta_preview/lr4-preview-1.htm
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/software/whats_new_in_lightroom_4_overview.shtml
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v4XKYBuqZo
http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2012/01/lightroom-4-beta-resources.html
http://www.lightroomqueen.com/keyboard-shortcuts/
Mike.
-
First initial pass - Very impressed at the way in which soft proofing has been implemented!
-
First initial pass - Very impressed at the way in which soft proofing has been implemented!
Me too!!!
I was a bit afraid that they would provide a half baked softproof system, but as far as I can see it is really better than the softproof on PS (cs5 at least).
Best regards.
-
Just watched Andrew Rodney's video on softproofing with LR4.
Very, very impressive system.
Easy to use!!!
I will download the beta version myself shortly and begin to play.
Also intrigued to see how the new develop module features work.
If Adobe can deliver on all the advertised features this looks like a winner!
Regards
Tony Jay
-
I'm so excited. These new features are just stunning: way beyond expected. :o
Sorry to say that, but Photoshop is less and less useful for me, now ;D
-
Just watched Andrew Rodney's video on softproofing with LR4.
Agreed - Excellent video.
Andrew only just touches on it near the end of the video. But what I think is particularly cool is that once you have selected to view the soft proof image and have made the virtual copy to make adjustments to it - if you then hit the before /after compare mode (so you have the non-soft proofed image next to the soft proof) you can very easily tweak the soft proofed image to much better match the original - thats just a way cool feature that used to be a bit of a pain to do in PS as you had to duplicate the image, set it side by side and then match zoom and location.
-
Hi,
Regarding "soft proof" I tryed LR4 Beta, it crashed three times when I have selected any of my printer profiles. That has been reported to Adobe.
I use ColorMunki to generate printer profiles on Snow Leopard, perhaps LR4 Beta1 doesn't handle V2 profiles from XRite or "soft proof" only works on Lion?
It obviously worked in the video.
Best regards
Erik
Agreed - Excellent video.
Andrew only just touches on it near the end of the video. But what I think is particularly cool is that once you have selected to view the soft proof image and have made the virtual copy to make adjustments to it - if you then hit the before /after compare mode (so you have the non-soft proofed image next to the soft proof) you can very easily tweak the soft proofed image to much better match the original - thats just a way cool feature that used to be a bit of a pain to do in PS as you had to duplicate the image, set it side by side and then match zoom and location.
-
Something I just noticed: When LR creates the virtual copy for soft proof adjustment it adds the printer and profile name - very cool (and critical information). But, shouldn't it also add the rendering intent to the filename? Otherwise one is going to have to either remember.. or check again before making a print.
If you 'create a saved print' of the virtual copy in the Print module the rendering intent selected 'doesn't stick' to the file either. If it did it wouldn't matter so much that the rendering intent has not been included in the file name. Have I explained that well?
-
Softproofing is really well done and very easy to use… Fantastic, thanks a lot to the LR team.
I also love the additional controls in the brush and grad. Especially the white balancing…
Now, I have a few files (DNG or CR2 with XMP sidecar file) that crash Lightroom as soon as I try to convert them from process 2010 to 2012. Sometimes, unchecking "Remove chromatic aberrations" in "Lens Corrections" does the trick. I need to investigate further to understand why and when LR4 crashes.
To quote mac_paolo above, LR4 is beyond expectations, at least for me!
-
It won't install on Windows XP. That's a daft decision.
Do Adobe realise how big the XP user base is ?
-
The soft proofing tool looks like an improvement on any soft proofing tool around. Maybe worth the time LR users had to wait for soft proofing. I think that the monitor gamut influence certainly adds to the improvements here if soft proofing can/should be trusted a 100% as some claimed. Not a claim I ever made in the past but with LR4's soft proofing I think proof prints can be much more limited than possible with any program so far.
It does not show the Print Adjustments that will be linked to the profile if wished but that new feature has many risks in itself in my opinion. If it is used to cover up CM flaws in the workflow or worse, inconsistencies in the printer output, then the remedy may be worse than the problem itself. Qimage's Print Filter, that can do more, is easily used wrongly as well and the effect is not shown in the soft proof either. But with Q it is not linked to the profile used and one can easily check whether the print filter tool is active or not. There are Print Filter tools that have no influence on the CM or are used when CM is not used so that Qimage feature differs in more ways.
While LR4 can save some print descriptions, the convenient Qimage print logs still offer much more information and interactive control it seems, I have to check that more thoroughly though.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
330+ paper white spectral plots:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
-
It won't install on Windows XP. That's a daft decision.
Do Adobe realise how big the XP user base is ?
I'm sure they do, but at some point people have to move on. Continuing to support XP, as now 10+ year old operating system, probably puts undue cost/strain on resources. There are fundemental underlying differences between XP and W7 that cause developers all sorts of hassle in maintaining compatibility. This has been comming for a while with many products and IMO, you will see XP dropped more and more. In order to make proper use of the new things, you have to drop XP. (otherwise you would have to do something a 'new' way, AND an 'old' way for backwards support).
XP is also now only marginaly supported by Microsoft pretty much. Mainstream support ended in 2009, extended is due to end in 2014.
Speaking as a manager of software teams, at some point you just have to bite the bullet and move on. I don't think it is at all unreasonable of Adobe to say 'you want to use LR 4, need something more than XP' I highly doubt (personal oppinion only), they will loose and appreciable number of sales over such a decision.
Regards
Mark.
-
Continuing to support XP, as now 10+ year old operating system,
It was still being sold as the supplied OS on new systems in 2009. They might have stopped shipping it now, but it's still a popular OS in actual use.
-
Quick question: anyone know approx. when Lightroom 4 will be officially released? might hold off getting LR3 now if it's not too long to wait. They say the Beta will end in March, so will official release be soon after?
-
They say the Beta will end in March, so will official release be soon after?
That's been the case with the last betas for version 2 & 3. We only had to wait for V1 if I remember correctly.
-
Hi,
Regarding "soft proof" I tryed LR4 Beta, it crashed three times when I have selected any of my printer profiles. That has been reported to Adobe.
I use ColorMunki to generate printer profiles on Snow Leopard, perhaps LR4 Beta1 doesn't handle V2 profiles from XRite or "soft proof" only works on Lion?
Hi Erik,
Clearly this is unexpected and unintended behavior and something we (Adobe) have to work out. The Lr 4 beta should handle X-Rite V2 profiles fine, and soft proofing should work on all systems that mean the listed min specs (not just Lion). It works on my 10.6.8 systems, for example. In any case, thanks for sending the bug/crash reports.
-
[XP] was still being sold as the supplied OS on new systems in 2009. They might have stopped shipping it now, but it's still a popular OS in actual use.
Roughly one third of the computers browsing the net run XP according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems#Web_clients... (another third to 7, the rest being spread between all others).
I also would hope that LR4 could install under XP, but won't hold my breath either.
might hold off getting LR3 now if it's not too long to wait.
If there still is a big discount on LR3, the net cost of discounted LR3 (<200$) + LR4upgrade (100$?) might be less than a full LR4 license (300$ or maybe more?)... But who knows?
-
Something I just noticed: When LR creates the virtual copy for soft proof adjustment it adds the printer and profile name - very cool (and critical information). But, shouldn't it also add the rendering intent to the filename? Otherwise one is going to have to either remember.. or check again before making a print.
If you 'create a saved print' of the virtual copy in the Print module the rendering intent selected 'doesn't stick' to the file either. If it did it wouldn't matter so much that the rendering intent has not been included in the file name. Have I explained that well?
Hi Josh-H,
The reason Lr 4 Beta stores the render intent is because the render intent affects the image rendering (sometimes to a large degree, depending on the profile). This in turn influences the output-dependent edits that you make, based on the soft proof preview.
The good news is that Lr 4 Beta will not only remember the render intent, but it will also apply that render intent when you go to Print module to print the image. I acknowledge this is not obvious, but the tooltip for the Perceptual/Relative Colorimetric buttons in the Print Job panel explain that "Proof copies matching this color profile will use their own intent." That way, you don't have to be burdened with remembering which intent you used for a given proof copy. Lr 4 Beta will take care of that for you.
Note: this also means that if you have a batch of images you want to print (e.g., 10 images), and you want to print some of them with relative colorimetric and others with perceptual, you can now do that in a single print job. Before in Lr there was no way to do that.
-
Roughly one third of the computers browsing the net run XP according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems#Web_clients... (another third to 7, the rest being spread between all others).
Well, buy Microsoft stock then, hope for massive upgrades to Win 7, and sell the stock afterwards to neutralize (or better) the purchase price of one's own upgrade ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Just an aside on the XP issue. The vast majority of the XP users in the US are in corporations whose IT policies dictate that uses stay on XP until there is a good reason to upgrade (XP has proven stability as an OS and they didn't want to risk moving up to Vista which was a good decision). Many also run older versions of MS Office for the same reason. We are beginning to see a migration to Win7 but it's pretty slow. The other key thing is that any computer(s) used in key systems for manufacturing are routinely subject to exacting regulatory requirments and upgrades to a new OS or program usually requires revalidation to assure that there is no change in the control parameters (which is why Y2K caused a lot of headaches for multiple industries - I was in the pharmaceutical industry at the time and staffed a workgroup that was addressing this issue).
I would be surprised if there is a significant user base of individuals using XP; all of the Win users I know are now on Win7.
-
Still no support for 32 bit image formats. Very disappointing. The rest of the upgrades are good but lack of 32 bit image support seems odd. Editing ability would be great but they can't even be catalogued.
-
Andrew only just touches on it near the end of the video. But what I think is particularly cool is that once you have selected to view the soft proof image and have made the virtual copy to make adjustments to it - if you then hit the before /after compare mode (so you have the non-soft proofed image next to the soft proof) you can very easily tweak the soft proofed image to much better match the original - thats just a way cool feature that used to be a bit of a pain to do in PS as you had to duplicate the image, set it side by side and then match zoom and location.
I’m hoping to do another more in depth video on this although I think I mentioned you can use before and after. This was my first video (tesitn the video waters). There is more to cover on soft proofing, believe me. This was more an intro.
One thing I will say to be careful of is having the profile setup wherever you use the soft proof. For example, load an image, make a soft proof. Now quit LR and move the profile out of the Profiles folder or take the library to another machine without the profile. Not sure how this pans out on Windows, hopefully someone will give it a try. But on Mac OS X, the missing profile either causes an initial black preview since it has gone missing or crashes if you toggle the rendering intent.
-
Something I just noticed: When LR creates the virtual copy for soft proof adjustment it adds the printer and profile name - very cool (and critical information). But, shouldn't it also add the rendering intent to the filename?
I wish it did (and did request this if memory serves). But with the public beta, now is the time to make these kinds of suggestions! Doesn’t seem to involve big engineering.
It would also be kind of cool if the Print module picked up the profile and rendering intent. Not sure how that would work with existing print templates however. More the reason to tag the name with the rendering intent, you could just load the profile and intent from the name data.
-
Andrew, as I noted earlier, the Print module does automatically pick up the render intent (but it doesn't pick up the profile automatically). So, if you are using a print template in Print module that refers to a specific profile, and you are printing a proof copy that uses the same profile, Lr will automatically pick up the correct render intent saved with that proof copy. In principle this means you can do side-by-side perceptual/relative colorimetric (test) prints on the same sheet of paper.
-
Still no support for 32 bit image formats. Very disappointing. The rest of the upgrades are good but lack of 32 bit image support seems odd. Editing ability would be great but they can't even be catalogued.
According to this:
http://www.lightroomqueen.com/2012/01/09/whats-new-in-lightroom-4-0-beta/
Lightroom 4 now imports 32-bit HDR files without resorting to workarounds, although editing still takes place in 8 or 16 bit.
Sounds like it will catalog them but still 16-bit editing.
Ken
EDIT: Looks like Lightroom Queen got this one wrong, see posts further down the thread. No support for 32-bit.
-
It is not working for me Eric. Maybe I'm missing the correct steps.
I made a VC with a profile. It is higlighted. If I click the Print module button, I see no template seletected which seems correct. But I also see in Print, a different profile selected, not the VC specifed profile or intent. What might I be doing wrong?
-
According to this:
http://www.lightroomqueen.com/2012/01/09/whats-new-in-lightroom-4-0-beta/
Sounds like it will catalog them but still 16-bit editing.
Ken
Interesting. Adobe doesn't even state that in their information.
http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/
I'm creating a catalogue as I write this so will see what happens.
EDIT: Well, I'd like to know how she's doing it because it didn't work for me. Pointing the Import dialogue directly to a folder with nothing but 32 bit images and the message in the middle window is "No photos found".
-
Unless I am missing something, I can't get LR4 to import the changes to RAW files made in LR3. Any suggestions? Thanks, Eleanor
-
Unless I am missing something, I can't get LR4 to import the changes to RAW files made in LR3. Any suggestions? Thanks, Eleanor
In LR3, have you saved the metadata back to the files? Cmd S / Ctrl S.
Directly upgrading catalogues is disabled until full release.
John
-
It (WinXP) was still being sold as the supplied OS on new systems in 2009. They might have stopped shipping it now, but it's still a popular OS in actual use.
2009 is 2 to 3 years ago, depending on when in '09 you're referring to. That's a long time at the pace technology moves today. The OS itself is 10 years old ... that's eons in software lifecycle terms.
-
Thanks John. Eleanor
In LR3, have you saved the metadata back to the files? Cmd S / Ctrl S.
Directly upgrading catalogues is disabled until full release.
John
-
Lr 4 Beta does not support 32-bit (i.e., floating point) image formats. That said, you can do a lot of tone mapping with the new PV 2012 controls in the Basic panel (even for 16-bit raw images, which are by definition HDR relative to common output media like displays and print).
-
Lr 4 Beta does not support 32-bit (i.e., floating point) image formats. That said, you can do a lot of tone mapping with the new PV 2012 controls in the Basic panel (even for 16-bit raw images, which are by definition HDR relative to common output media like displays and print).
Then perhaps someone should tell The Lightroom Queen that she should amend her posting.
That aside, Eric, lack of support for 32 bit image formats is a pretty big missing puzzle piece. I'd venture there are far more people doing HDR than doing video so at least the ability to catalogue those images would be a big plus.
-
It is not working for me Eric. Maybe I'm missing the correct steps.
I made a VC with a profile. It is higlighted. If I click the Print module button, I see no template seletected which seems correct. But I also see in Print, a different profile selected, not the VC specifed profile or intent. What might I be doing wrong?
The profile won't carry over to Print. The profile selected in Print is still handled independently. (For example, if you choose a print template, Print should choose whatever profile is associated with that template.) However, the render intent that is used to print the image should be carried over from the proof copy (whatever render intent is associated with the proof copy), as long as the profile selected in the Print Job matches the profile used in the proof copy. Note that this will not be reflected in the UI in any way, except the tooltip explanation for the render intent.
-
The profile won't carry over to Print. The profile selected in Print is still handled independently.
Got it. That would be somewhat useful I suppose. As I mentioned, not sure how you’d handle a template otherwise.
Part of my confusion here is that if I highlight a VC in Develop and go directly into Print, no template is highlighted on the browser which I think is problematic. I DO see the name of the template selected in the text (upper left side) if I have the Show Overlay on. If it is not on, then this is quite confusing. The highlight behavior of the Template Browser is a bit odd.
(For example, if you choose a print template, Print should choose whatever profile is associated with that template.)
Makes sense if one has the Info Overlay on and examines the text.
However, the render intent that is used to print the image should be carried over from the proof copy (whatever render intent is associated with the proof copy), as long as the profile selected in the Print Job matches the profile used in the proof copy. Note that this will not be reflected in the UI in any way, except the tooltip explanation for the render intent.
The tooltip says that Proof Copies matching this profile will use their own intent. So IF I have the proof copy set for Perceptual but click on RelCol, in this one case, I’ll still get Perceptual right? I see one of the two intents highlighted which indicates to me which intent is active. One could have RelCol highlighted but based on the VC, Perceptual will be used instead right? That way, if I have 4 images ganged up, 2 are set for Perceptual as VC’s but the template is set for RelCol, the other two (non VC’s with soft proof) will use that Rel Col intent and the two VC’s will use Perceptual?
-
Hi Andrew,
I can't speak to the template implementation (in terms of which one gets selected when you go to Print) -- unfortunately, I just don't know.
As for Print using the stored render intent when printing a proof copy with matching profile, you are correct. Even though the Perceptual | Relative Colorimetric buttons don't reflect what is stored in the proof copy, Lr will use whatever intent you used when soft proofing with that proof copy.
So, suppose you are printing a bunch of images, and some of them are proof copies, and some of them aren't. The ones that are proof copies will use the stored render intent, and the ones that aren't will use the render intent that you've chosen in the Print Job panel (either Perceptual or Relative Colorimetric -- whichever one is highlighted).
-
So, suppose you are printing a bunch of images, and some of them are proof copies, and some of them aren't. The ones that are proof copies will use the stored render intent, and the ones that aren't will use the render intent that you've chosen in the Print Job panel (either Perceptual or Relative Colorimetric -- whichever one is highlighted).
Super cool and useful. Thanks.
Since this is a soft proof discussion, here’s another mystery. I’ve created an ICC profile of Melissa RGB. I just used Photoshop, loaded ProPhoto and altered the Gamma setting. Save it out etc. Now I can load it in LR and soft proof. I’m wondering why when I toggle on and off soft proof using the two, there is a difference in the histogram. It isn’t a lot, but it does look different. I looked at both in the ColorSync utility, the primaries are as expected, identical. Could it be the conversion from internal Melissa RGB to ICC profile (Melissa RGB) to the Histogram which is showing rounding errors or something? I see ‘holes’ in the Melissa RGB Histogram which seems a tad odd.
Toggling my Melissa RGB to ProPhoto, bigger difference as expected, mostly due to the gamma setting.
-
As for Print using the stored render intent when printing a proof copy with matching profile, you are correct. Even though the Perceptual | Relative Colorimetric buttons don't reflect what is stored in the proof copy, Lr will use whatever intent you used when soft proofing with that proof copy.
So, suppose you are printing a bunch of images, and some of them are proof copies, and some of them aren't. The ones that are proof copies will use the stored render intent, and the ones that aren't will use the render intent that you've chosen in the Print Job panel (either Perceptual or Relative Colorimetric -- whichever one is highlighted).
So if that profile later on gets a Print Adjustment linked in another job your proof copy print recall may not deliver the same print? Despite the rendering intent being correct. Or is the link not activated in that case? If the last is true what happens with more images ganged, among them the proof copy, is the Print Adjustment not linked to the profile with all or just not linked to the proof copy? That Print Adjustment and more its link to the profile may proof a xxx*.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
330+ paper white spectral plots:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
-
I have played with the beta during today and I think it is a great update with a lot of good stuff.
Interesting with the changed sliders in the basic section in the develop module. I know many people found the exposure and brightness slider confusing, but I liked the two different buttons. It's still not quite clear to me how exactly the two buttons have been integrated into one. It's not entirely clear to me if I should still set the white point with the exposure slider. Before I could set the white point with the exposure slider and adjust the overall brightness independently.
It seems that the replacements for the recovery and fill light works really well although I haven't made enough adjustments that I have become really familiar with them.
One thing I had been hoping for was an auto button so that a proof (virtual) copy could be automatically adjusted to match the image that the proof copy was made from. This would likely (provided it was a good algorithm to match the look of the proof copy relative to the "original") provide a version that could be used directly in a print. And in some cases be a point from which further adjustments could be done manually. I did notice that there is a print adjustment function where brigtness and contrast can be adjusted also. This is great but my thought is that the suggested auto button would still be great to have to adjust on an image by image basis and the print adjustment is a more general adjustment.
Any thoughts on this?
-
Just to be cautious, I copied about 20 or so of my more interesting and problematic RAW files into a new LR4 test catalog. I decided to go from the ground up rather than just looking a soft proofing some existing LR manipulated files. At first the new develop panel seemed a little odd until I noticed the recovery slider was missing and things were reorganized and new features added. I like the new layout and find the added features quite useful in getting the image developed. I've only taken a cursory look at the soft proof feature but it looks like what I've needed. I suspect that PS will now see even less use and I'm thinking that the need to update CS5 will not be necessary.
-
Super cool and useful. Thanks.
Since this is a soft proof discussion, here’s another mystery. I’ve created an ICC profile of Melissa RGB. I just used Photoshop, loaded ProPhoto and altered the Gamma setting. Save it out etc. Now I can load it in LR and soft proof. I’m wondering why when I toggle on and off soft proof using the two, there is a difference in the histogram. It isn’t a lot, but it does look different. I looked at both in the ColorSync utility, the primaries are as expected, identical. Could it be the conversion from internal Melissa RGB to ICC profile (Melissa RGB) to the Histogram which is showing rounding errors or something? I see ‘holes’ in the Melissa RGB Histogram which seems a tad odd.
Toggling my Melissa RGB to ProPhoto, bigger difference as expected, mostly due to the gamma setting.
Hi Andrew,
I will need to check the internal implementation to be sure, but I believe what's happening here is that there's quantization in the soft proof histogram display (less precision used to build that histogram). The overall shape and placement of the peaks should be the same, but there may be some raggedness in the SP histogram display.
-
So if that profile later on gets a Print Adjustment linked in another job your proof copy print recall may not deliver the same print? Despite the rendering intent being correct. Or is the link not activated in that case? If the last is true what happens with more images ganged, among them the proof copy, is the Print Adjustment not linked to the profile with all or just not linked to the proof copy? That Print Adjustment and more its link to the profile may proof a xxx*.
Hi Ernst,
The Print Adjustment setting is saved with the print template in the Print module. The Print Adjustment is not stored with the proof copy settings (it is actually independent of the soft proof feature). Thus, the Print Adjustment is applied to every single image in your print job. For example, if you select 10 images and hit the Print One button, all 10 images will use the same Print Adjustment slider values (whatever they are at the time you pressed the Print One button).
Speaking generally, I strongly encourage the use of print templates in Lr as it minimizes the chances of getting some setting wrong (or accidentally using some stale previous setting). The print template encompasses both the driver settings and the print job settings (e.g., profile, output sharpening, etc.).
-
Interesting with the changed sliders in the basic section in the develop module. I know many people found the exposure and brightness slider confusing, but I liked the two different buttons. It's still not quite clear to me how exactly the two buttons have been integrated into one. It's not entirely clear to me if I should still set the white point with the exposure slider. Before I could set the white point with the exposure slider and adjust the overall brightness independently.
Exposure in PV 2012 has gotten "smarter" (or if you prefer, "content aware"). It knows where the highlights of your image are, and will try to protect them (the way Brightness would). It's actually better than the old Brightness because it won't just roll off the highlights endlessly (resulting in muddy highlights, like Brightness would). It's also better than the old Exposure because it won't just clip the highlights (resulting in harsh digital look, like the old Exposure would).
-
I am sitting at an airport and playing with LR4. I just noticed that manual CA correction is gone! This very bad news for underwater photography since lens ports and the water-air interface generate CA that needs to be fixed manually.
-
According to Tom Hogarty (the guy in charge of all things Lightroom), XP OS is too old and they would have had to make too many compromises to LR 4 to make it compatible with XP. From the horse's mouth so to speak. He also said that since the public beta expires at the end of March, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to determine that the final release will be BEFORE then.
BTW, I updated my LR Links page (http://bit.ly/LRTips) today to include links to several resources concerning the new Beta. There's certainly redundancy, but between Michael/Jeff, Terry White, Julieanne Kost and the others you should find something to watch/read.
Mike.
P.S. Since this IS a beta, my take has been to create a new LR4 catalog and import my images into it, but while I normally advocate turning on the 'auto save changes to .XMP', I've turned it off in LR 4 so that it doesn't overwrite the information that's already been pushed out from LR3. It means any changes will only be stored in the LR4 database, and that means I'll have to be more diligent about backups and things. I'm also going to uninstall LR2 at long last. I haven't used it since LR3 beta came out but I kept around as a backup initially...
-
Hi Ernst,
The Print Adjustment setting is saved with the print template in the Print module. The Print Adjustment is not stored with the proof copy settings (it is actually independent of the soft proof feature). Thus, the Print Adjustment is applied to every single image in your print job. For example, if you select 10 images and hit the Print One button, all 10 images will use the same Print Adjustment slider values (whatever they are at the time you pressed the Print One button).
Speaking generally, I strongly encourage the use of print templates in Lr as it minimizes the chances of getting some setting wrong (or accidentally using some stale previous setting). The print template encompasses both the driver settings and the print job settings (e.g., profile, output sharpening, etc.).
Alright, more like it should be. Ian Lyons' comments on Print Adjustment emphasises a link to the profile "These adjustments are stored per printer profile, not per photo" and that may not be correct (or not telling all) given your explanation. I did understand that Print Adjustment is not saved with the proof copy settings which is understandable and it should not be saved with any photo either. I gather now that the print template more or less resembles one of the print log recall features of Qimage but Ian Lyons indicates that there is no visual feedback of Print Adjustment in Lightroom. I would expect that at least the user is informed that a Print Adjustment is used, also when the print template is used again. I have to try the print template and wonder how it copes with HP Z drivers, they tend to disobey recalled settings.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
330+ paper white spectral plots:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
-
Well, I'm in a curious spot...I have a just purchased, unopened copy of LR3 sitting here, delivered today and have downloaded the beta for LR4. Is there any reason to keep the LR3 around? FYI I'm a student and got it with a discount. If history can be believed, upgrading will cost the same as a new copy(for students) when 4 is released. Softproofing is a godsend so I will certainly be using 4. Are there any limitations with the beta of 4 compared to 3?
Thanks
-
According to Tom Hogarty (the guy in charge of all things Lightroom), XP OS is too old and they would have had to make too many compromises to LR 4 to make it compatible with XP. From the horse's mouth so to speak.
Interesting to note that whoever wrote the Adobe web page (http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2012/01/lr4betanowavailable.html) assumed XP support. ;-)
Check out the Windows text below "Install Lightroom 4 beta" ;-)
Still seems a poor decision.
The only suggestion so far is that the video playing and trimming needs Vista tech, is that really so core to LR that it's worth excluding so many potential users/upgraders ? It's not really much use.
-
nm, after a couple of crashes of LR4, I think I will be sticking to 3 for most of my work for now. However soft proofing!!!
-
Question, what does the new 'White' tool do?
-
nm, after a couple of crashes of LR4, I think I will be sticking to 3 for most of my work for now. However soft proofing!!!
Most likely you will not be able to take your work on LR 4 beta into the released version of LR 4. So LR 3 for work you want to preserve is the best way forward.
-
I am very happy with the moiré brush: http://managingcolors.blogspot.com/2012/01/lightroom-4-beta-moire-brush.html
-
I am very happy with the moiré brush...
Soft proofing and a way to remove Moiré patterns were on the top of my wishlist as well. The only thing I miss is LCC, but maybe well see that in LR5...
-
Most likely you will not be able to take your work on LR 4 beta into the released version of LR 4. So LR 3 for work you want to preserve is the best way forward.
Does anyone know for sure if this will be the case? currently I am using the LR3 30 day trial and the LR4 Beta. Once my LR3 trial runs out I can use LR4 untill it is released then I can buy it. I don't want to buy LR3 with 4 on its way however if I can't carry over my edits from the LR4 beta to the full release version when it ships...that would be a shame.
Was this the case with previous Betas?
I'm creating some great work with LR4 and sure I can save it all as TIFFs but if I want to tweak the original edit a year from now...?
Thanks.
-
Does anyone know for sure if this will be the case?
Its almost definite I would say based on previous BETA's. Adobe states this quite clearly in the descriptive text.
-
Was this the case with previous Betas?
With previous betas, IIRW you could take your work from the beta to the (next) full version, but not from the previous to the beta.
So I'd say that if you don't stumble onto any annoying bug, LR4 should be safe... or is it?
-
A requirement to start entirely from scratch with LR4 would be pretty daunting, not to say time consuming, for a lot of people with really big catalogues.
I don't recall having that sort of problem when moving from version to version before, there was just a requirement to convert from one catalogue format to the next. A one way trip, so it needed care, but nothing too onerous.
-
A requirement to start entirely from scratch with LR4 would be pretty daunting, not to say time consuming, for a lot of people with really big catalogues.
I don't recall having that sort of problem when moving from version to version before, there was just a requirement to convert from one catalogue format to the next. A one way trip, so it needed care, but nothing too onerous.
When LR 4 ships you will be able to upgrade the LR 3 catalog to LR 4. Not the beta LR 4 to final version LR 4 as far as I read it. This was also the case in previous betas. Definitely so from LR 3 beta to final version LR 3 you could not upgrade the beta catalog to the LR 3 final version catalog.
You can import a folder with XMP files that are from LR 3 into LR 4 beta. But further edits in the LR 4 beta catalog cannon be taken any further.
-
Thanks guys
I will just make sure everything I do in LR4 is saved as a TIFF when I am completely happy with it. Might be a good discipline to not have the option to constantly tweak the edit, ;)
-
If I load up LR4 it uses the .xmp sidecar files to load previous changes. If I make changes to those files, does that invalidate the .xmp sidecar files for LR3? Will I see the warning about some other program making changes? Or does the sidecar file maintain both the 2010 rendering and 2012 rendering separately so LR3 won't have a problem.
Also curious about a timeline for ACR (if anyone can say) I currently go to PS with smart objects so I can modify my raw conversion in ACR, hoping a compatible ACR is possible about when version 4 is released.
-
Alright, more like it should be. Ian Lyons' comments on Print Adjustment emphasises a link to the profile "These adjustments are stored per printer profile, not per photo" and that may not be correct (or not telling all) given your explanation. I did understand that Print Adjustment is not saved with the proof copy settings which is understandable and it should not be saved with any photo either. I gather now that the print template more or less resembles one of the print log recall features of Qimage but Ian Lyons indicates that there is no visual feedback of Print Adjustment in Lightroom. I would expect that at least the user is informed that a Print Adjustment is used, also when the print template is used again. I have to try the print template and wonder how it copes with HP Z drivers, they tend to disobey recalled settings.
Hi Ernst,
Ian's comment about the print adjustments being stored per printer profile is correct. (They're not stored per proof copy / photo.) This is to help users who have very basic Print workflows and don't use print templates. For example, if you only print to two papers, and you're used to toggling between them manually in the Print Job panel (via the Profile popup, to select the appropriate profile), then Lr's Print module will remember your print adjustment settings on a per-profile basis. This is because the amount of brightness/contrast boost you may need is dependent on your media.
-
Generally, we try to move things forward smoothly from Beta to Release versions. However, there's no guarantee that edits made in the Beta version will produce the same visual results in the Release version. That's because we're still making some changes (based on feedback, bug fixes, etc.) under the hood.
-
I am sitting at an airport and playing with LR4. I just noticed that manual CA correction is gone! This very bad news for underwater photography since lens ports and the water-air interface generate CA that needs to be fixed manually.
Try using the "Remove Chromatic Aberration" checkbox in the Profile panel.
-
Question, what does the new 'White' tool do?
Whites is a clipping tool. If you drag it to the right, more of your highlights will become "pure white" as they clip.
-
I know real men don't read instructions ( ;D), but if you spend 2 minutes reading over some of the notes and spend a few minutes watching some of Julieanne Kost's vids on the Adobe YouTube channel (http://www.youtube.com/user/AdobeLightroom), a lot of your questions would be answered!
-
Hi,
I was thinking about LR 4 B1 crashing all the time for me, so I tried to run it on an administrative account on my Mac, all problems went away.
Possible causes:
- Does LR4 need administrative rights? Would surprise me!
- I was running it from a different disk. Normally I use a disk which is "Mac OS Extended (Case-sensitive, Journaled)" but it seems to me that Adobe products many have issues with Case-sensitive disks.
I have a "solid" background in UNIX/Linux, so I feel case sensitive is preferred.
I will post this information formally to Adobe, just wanted to mention it also on the forum.
Best regards
Erik
-
It won't install on Windows XP. That's a daft decision.
Do Adobe realise how big the XP user base is ?
Sorry Rhossydd, it is the XP user base which is daft. I'm typing this on a (XP) netbook which I very occasionally travel with. XP vs Win7 is basically a "vinyl vs cd" or "film vs digital" discussion.
I think (by comparison) it can accurately be called the Playskool version of Windows.
Friend, join the modern era. You'll enjoy it.
Bob.
-
Question, what does the new 'White' tool do?
As I understand it, the Exposure slider is now the primary exposure tool, combining both exposure and brightness. The Shadow and Highlight sliders replace the recovery and fill light sliders, although they're smoother, more robust than their predecessors. The black slider and the white slider are for setting black point and white point.
Mike.
-
As I understand it, the Exposure slider is now the primary exposure tool, combining both exposure and brightness. The Shadow and Highlight sliders replace the recovery and fill light sliders, although they're smoother, more robust than their predecessors. The black slider and the white slider are for setting black point and white point.
Correct...but don't neglect Contrast ad Exposure...otherwise you'll be flailing around and not getting optimal results...
The "best" approach is to do a top down adjustment set while understanding that some settings will need additional adjustments.
-
Hi,
Or you can just dump Windows for a friendly Mac? ;-)
No, I'm not joking, going from XP to W7 is a major transition, and going from XP to Mac OS/X is also a major transition, so it may be an opportunity to find out what serves you best.
Best regards
Erik
Sorry Rhossydd, it is the XP user base which is daft. I'm typing this on a (XP) netbook which I very occasionally travel with. XP vs Win7 is basically a "vinyl vs cd" or "film vs digital" discussion.
I think (by comparison) it can accurately be called the Playskool version of Windows.
Friend, join the modern era. You'll enjoy it.
Bob.
-
Hi!
I have tried LR4 on one of my difficult images and tone mapping works great!
The image here was achieved by just three clicks. Exposure, Shadows and Highlights.
Best regards
Erik
Adobe Lightroom 4 BETA. (http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2012/01/lr4betanowavailable.html)
High Level Summary of What’s New
Robust Video Support
Manage images by location with the Map Module
Simplified Basic Adjustments
Powerful new Shadow & Highlight controls
Additional local adjustments including Noise Reduction and White Balance
Soft Proofing Reinvented Woo Hoo! ;D
Elegant Photo Book creation
Email from directly within Lightroom
Publish videos directly to Facebook or Flickr
Enhanced DNG workflows
Adobe Revel export workflow
-
Try using the "Remove Chromatic Aberration" checkbox in the Profile panel.
It does seem to work even though the lens I was fixing is not profiled (EF8-15) plus I was using it under water (in a housing, i.e., additional optics). Very disconcerting not having any control (no sliders). Maybe it should not be under profile??? I was trying to do CA under manual corrections.
Thanks
Tom
-
If the whites tool is for white clipping, what does a minus setting of the highlights tool do in comparison?
Next question if possible, do the zero value of the tools in LR4 reflect the default values of LR3? For example the default of the blacks in LR3 is 5. Is the 'zero' of the new blacks tool the same as 5 in the old or is it real zero? Ditto with the contrast tool whose default used to be 25? Is the new zero the equivelent of zero in the old tool or 25 of the old tool?
Thanks!
-
Sorry Rhossydd, it is the XP user base which is daft. I'm typing this on a (XP) netbook which I very occasionally travel with. XP vs Win7 is basically a "vinyl vs cd" or "film vs digital" discussion.
I think (by comparison) it can accurately be called the Playskool version of Windows.
Friend, join the modern era. You'll enjoy it.
You reinforce my point, there you are using an XP netbook. Are you mad ? no. Why would you pay £100 to upgrade to W7 on that when it represents nearly half the purchase cost when it's still doing 'valuable' work with XP.
Whether XP is a "playskool" version is debatable. I think you're wrong. In the real world of Lightroom use there's really hardly any difference at all between W7, Vista and XP.
What's daft is Adobe spending a lot of resources testing it on an alpha OS (Windows 8) that isn't even yet in beta or feature complete, a long way from market and an even longer way away from being 'mass market'. Whilst abandoning the most widely used OS in the world.
It wouldn't be quite so bad if the installer wasn't so dictatorial; OK tell me it's not supported or recommended, but at least let me see if it will work for me.
The netbooks generally don't meet LR3's requirements, but you can install to them and they work fine. In fact I've probably done as much productive LR work on my netbook as I have on my main W7 system.
I might have some sympathy if this version was as good as all the others, but so far it's crashed more than every other LR install I've had since LR beta1.
-
going from XP to W7 is a major transition,
No it isn't. It was simple, straight forward and needed hardly any extra learning. All of my old software worked, even going from 32bt to W7 64bt, and the only bit of kit that I couldn't get drivers for was an old spectrophotometer scanning table that needed a serial port and 32bit drivers (so that continues to run happily on my XP netbook).
Yes, I've got a Mac already. I don't particularly like it and don't want to be forced into the continual paid upgrades Macs need. Should I remind you of the problems so many people report here of colour management issues with Mac OSs and different drivers ? or people's problems with backward compatibilities with X-Rite kit etc. Just remember the outrage here when Adobe pulled the 'no color management' option from their print options in CS5 , which made printing profiling targets harder. It was done cross platform just because OSX was giving it problems.
You're welcome to your choice of kit.
-
You reinforce my point, there you are using an XP netbook. Are you mad ? no. Why would you pay £100 to upgrade to W7 on that when it represents nearly half the purchase cost when it's still doing 'valuable' work with XP.
Whether XP is a "playskool" version is debatable. I think you're wrong. In the real world of Lightroom use there's really hardly any difference at all between W7, Vista and XP.
You sound like a good guy (especially with your mac comment!). I'm not having you on for the sake of it.
The fact that LR "looks" the same on these different OS's is obvious. But how well/fast it works under the hood is another story all together. LR is a memory and disk access intensive program. XP was designed in an era when LR didn't even exist (far as I know).
Just try it.
As far as Win7 or LR3 on the netbook, yes, that would be mad. I'm using it to access the web and store files. Painful as it is to go back to XP land, I'm doing it because it is the smallest/lightest machine I have.
-
Michael, the LR4 video preview was great. Thank you for doing it. Go LR!
-
Question on the new beta is it multicore or core image aware?
-
Question on the new beta is it multicore or core image aware?
It works with all 4 cores here.
-
But how well/fast it works under the hood is another story all together. LR is a memory and disk access intensive program. XP was designed in an era when LR didn't even exist (far as I know).
Just try it.
I have tried it, my main system can be either W7 64bt or, by swapping a caddy, it boots in Win XPP 32bit on the same hardware.
Whilst W7 gives some performance benefits, you'd be pushed to notice it. These sort of small improvements are only significant to benchmarkers and magazine reviewers, in actual use you don't notice any difference.
It's also worth remembering that for a lot of the time LR makes no significant demands on system performance, it's only really when you start doing large imports or exports it becomes demanding of OS/hardware.
As far as Win7 or LR3 on the netbook, yes, that would be mad.
Actually LR3 works very productively on a netbook and all of them have W7 starter edition on them now. I wouldn't want to export hundreds of 5Dii images from mine, but for basic inspection of files, keywording etc on location, away from a big system it's hugely useful. This why I'm so sore about the lack of XP support or even being able to try to install it, yes some bits might have worked properly, but nothing important to me.
-
It does seem to work even though the lens I was fixing is not profiled (EF8-15) plus I was using it under water (in a housing, i.e., additional optics). Very disconcerting not having any control (no sliders). Maybe it should not be under profile??? I was trying to do CA under manual corrections.
Thanks
Tom
I am glad to hear that it worked. The reason the checkbox is with Manual is due to the expected workflow for most users (i.e., they will want to use it in combination with the lens profiles to deal with distortion & vignetting). But I understand the naming and placement is a little confusing.
The checkbox does offer several technical advantages over the earlier manual controls.
-
Question on the new beta is it multicore or core image aware?
Yes. In fact, all versions of Lr (including betas) support multiple cores.
-
If the whites tool is for white clipping, what does a minus setting of the highlights tool do in comparison?
Minus setting of Highlights will darken the highlights and perform highlight recovery. You can think of it has a contrast adjustment, but only for the highlights.
Generally, all six Basic sliders now have the property that left direction of slider means darker image, and right direction means brighter image (exception: Contrast).
Next question if possible, do the zero value of the tools in LR4 reflect the default values of LR3?
Yes (almost). Blacks is a little different, since the dark point is now auto-calculated (instead of being fixed), but the default tone curve for rendering a raw file is exactly the same in Lr 4 as it was in Lr 3 (actually all versions of Lr).
For example the default of the blacks in LR3 is 5. Is the 'zero' of the new blacks tool the same as 5 in the old or is it real zero?
For raw files, Blacks=0 in Lr 4 with PV 2012 is (almost) the same as Blacks=5 in Lr 3. See previous response for details.
Ditto with the contrast tool whose default used to be 25? Is the new zero the equivelent of zero in the old tool or 25 of the old tool?
For raw files, Contrast=0 in Lr 4 with PV 2012 is the same as Contrast=25 in Lr 3 (or equivalently, Contrast=25 in Lr 4 with PV 2010).
-
Thanks Eric, that is very useful for building an idea of how the defaults are set relative to what I'm used to. You say that the blacks are relative to an auto adjustment for the image, can you expound on that and how it works? I have had blacks set to 2 in previous versions of LR/ACR as default, how will that translate or won't it and how do I control a default level of clipping if it's applied to each image differently when set to zero?
As per the contrast tool, are the amounts equal to what they used to be or is the behaviour of the tool altered as per the exposure tool, etc? For example my default contrast is 33 for one of my cameras, it's my preferred starting point. If the current 25 value = 0 in LR4, to achieve the equivelent of 33 do I set it to 8 or are the values not similar, i.e. does the tool work differently and I should do some testing to try and understand how the contrast works in LR4?
Many thanks again for taking the time out to explain this stuff, your patience is appreciated!
-
Beta 4 runs horribly slow on my Mac quad core pro...see the " spinning ball" way too much while waiting for my changes to happen. I optimize my catalog frequently and also my hard drive and I have 20 gb of ram. It's so slow I can hardly get anything done...wait at least 5 (or more) seconds for any adjustment, no matter how small, to "snap in place"....Any suggestions? Thanks! Eleanor
-
When LR 4 ships you will be able to upgrade the LR 3 catalog to LR 4. Not the beta LR 4 to final version LR 4 as far as I read it. This was also the case in previous betas. Definitely so from LR 3 beta to final version LR 3 you could not upgrade the beta catalog to the LR 3 final version catalog.
You can import a folder with XMP files that are from LR 3 into LR 4 beta. But further edits in the LR 4 beta catalog cannon be taken any further.
That is NOT correct. When LR4 comes out, Adobe are rightly saying there is some risk that LR4beta catalogues may not upgrade to LR4 and you should be aware of that possibility if you do choose to use it. In my view, the actual risk is very small, just worth thinking about. LR4 beta and LR3.x catalogues will upgrade to LR4. For what it's worth, you are wrong about the LR3 beta to final version too.
John
-
Hi,
I can confirm you observations.
What I see is that screen updates are not real time when moving a slider. First I had the impression that update was done when the slider was released but now I feels more like periodic. I have a 24 MP DSLR, so my files are smaller than yours. I'm running on 4 CPU MacPro with 16 GByte.
Best regards
Erik
Beta 4 runs horribly slow on my Mac quad core pro...see the " spinning ball" way too much while waiting for my changes to happen. I optimize my catalog frequently and also my hard drive and I have 20 gb of ram. It's so slow I can hardly get anything done...wait at least 5 (or more) seconds for any adjustment, no matter how small, to "snap in place"....Any suggestions? Thanks! Eleanor
-
thirded on the performance re: macs.
I have 18MP images and the program absolutely crawls and crashes quite frequently. I've been good about sending in crash reports though. 2011 iMac 27" w/ 12GB ram.
-
thirded on the performance re: macs.
I have 18MP images and the program absolutely crawls and crashes quite frequently. I've been good about sending in crash reports though. 2011 iMac 27" w/ 12GB ram.
why can't I figure out how to do edits on this forum :P
Anyway a little more information b/c the LR guys seem to read this. I have a fresh install of Lion 10.7.2, only other programs installed currently are LR3, Aperture, and PSE 8 and omni outliner(great program by the way). LR4 is having problems with files with DNG exports from LR3 with heavy local adjustments. Frequent crashes on them. However, if I export the image as a tiff with the adjustments and add it to the catalog, LR4 is blazingly fast.
-
Eric I have the same issues even on my Leica M9 files...eleanor
Hi,
I can confirm you observations.
What I see is that screen updates are not real time when moving a slider. First I had the impression that update was done when the slider was released but now I feels more like periodic. I have a 24 MP DSLR, so my files are smaller than yours. I'm running on 4 CPU MacPro with 16 GByte.
Best regards
Erik
-
Two questions for Eric Chan if he swings by:
LR3 black slider was I believe a straight across the board RGB clip which meant you could get subtle shadow color shifts when using it. Is the new LR4 slider the same or a bit more clever about color?
More out of curiosity, is the flat-field correction just built into the engine and completely unused or is it actually being used in some Adobe produced lens profiles - (i.e. could someone with way too much time on their hands dive into the lens profiles and play with the flat fields despite the lack of a UI the same way we can dork around with the transform matrices in camera profiles).
Thanks as always for being so helpful on this forum and others!
Ken
-
Hi!
I have tried LR4 on one of my difficult images and tone mapping works great!
The image here was achieved by just three clicks. Exposure, Shadows and Highlights.
Best regards
Erik
Having followed the threads where the image was adjusted by using masks, that is a great result (I like it better than the others)
-
More out of curiosity, is the flat-field correction just built into the engine and completely unused or is it actually being used in some Adobe produced lens profiles - (i.e. could someone with way too much time on their hands dive into the lens profiles and play with the flat fields despite the lack of a UI the same way we can dork around with the transform matrices in camera profiles).
The ability to do LCC is built into the DNG spec using what's called the "op code"...it gets embedded into the DNG and when in LR or ACR, the pipeline includes the correction into the image processing pipeline. Unfortunately, at this time, nobody is actually doing this. Capture One "could" if the adapted the DNG 1.3 spec and included the LCC correction into a DNG output. Alas, they don't.
There is the ability for somebody to build an app that could take a DNG then an LCC correction image and bind them into a DNG file. The ability is there in the DNG spec but somebody would have to write the app to do so.
-
It runs perfectly on my PC: Windows 7, 64 bit, 8GB RAM and 2.27 GHz CPU.
Love the new changes, especially the new Develop Module
Robert Katz
-
As I understand it, the Exposure slider is now the primary exposure tool, combining both exposure and brightness. The Shadow and Highlight sliders replace the recovery and fill light sliders, although they're smoother, more robust than their predecessors. The black slider and the white slider are for setting black point and white point.
Mike.
Correct...but don't neglect Contrast and Exposure...otherwise you'll be flailing around and not getting optimal results...
The "best" approach is to do a top down adjustment set while understanding that some settings will need additional adjustments.
Mentioned Exposure first! Skipped 'Contrast' because I thought it was self-evident... ;)
Mike.
-
If I load up LR4 it uses the .xmp sidecar files to load previous changes. If I make changes to those files, does that invalidate the .xmp sidecar files for LR3? Will I see the warning about some other program making changes? Or does the sidecar file maintain both the 2010 rendering and 2012 rendering separately so LR3 won't have a problem.
Also curious about a timeline for ACR (if anyone can say) I currently go to PS with smart objects so I can modify my raw conversion in ACR, hoping a compatible ACR is possible about when version 4 is released.
In the LR4 Edit settings you can uncheck 'Auto save changes to .xmp files'. That means that changes to the files won't write to .xmp until you tell it to. All of the changes will be stored ONLY in the LR4 catalog. In theory, anyway... ;D
Mike.
-
Hi Ernst,
Ian's comment about the print adjustments being stored per printer profile is correct. (They're not stored per proof copy / photo.) This is to help users who have very basic Print workflows and don't use print templates. For example, if you only print to two papers, and you're used to toggling between them manually in the Print Job panel (via the Profile popup, to select the appropriate profile), then Lr's Print module will remember your print adjustment settings on a per-profile basis. This is because the amount of brightness/contrast boost you may need is dependent on your media.
Eric,
I foresee color shift threads on mailing lists with the same ICC profile linked to the features proof copy-template-print(er) adjustments. I see some reservations in the reviews of both Michael and Ian on the subject of the adjustment feature. Without the extra issue of its connection to the profile. I understand the logic of that connection and the logic of the print copy-profile connection but I think the last is more important and should not be compromised with the first in practice. Pros will not touch the printer adjustment and rightly so. Amateurs will and may not use the proof copy due to more CM issues on their desktop. The users in between will do both and write about their problems. An opinion of course.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
-
I see some reservations in the reviews of both Michael and Ian on the subject of the adjustment feature.
Don’t even get me started!
Pros will not touch the printer adjustment and rightly so.
Amen to that. IMHO, the ‘fix’ for this issue should be to adjust the display (which this ‘feature’ doesn’t do) not the data going to the printer which ensures that every other application that prints the same data produces a different and matching result.
-
Seen a few people commenting LR4 Beta is very slow on Macs. I can run LR3 fairly well on my 5 year old windows Vista laptop, but LR4 makes the fan go mental and is very slow. It is just a Beta though I'm sure it will be further optimised.
-
Don’t even get me started!
Amen to that. IMHO, the ‘fix’ for this issue should be to adjust the display (which this ‘feature’ doesn’t do) not the data going to the printer which ensures that every other application that prints the same data produces a different and matching result.
I have to say, the moment I saw this 'feature' I thought of you Andrew. And that thought was confirmed when I heard Matt Kloskowski and Scott Kelby saying how it would help with people's 'dark' prints: made me recall the contretemps about this subject a while ago... :)
Anthony.
-
Seen a few people commenting LR4 Beta is very slow on Macs. I can run LR3 fairly well on my 5 year old windows Vista laptop, but LR4 makes the fan go mental and is very slow.
It is a beta, that is to be expected. Optimization will not take place till the very end of the development process.
-
The ability to do LCC is built into the DNG spec using what's called the "op code"...it gets embedded into the DNG and when in LR or ACR, the pipeline includes the correction into the image processing pipeline. Unfortunately, at this time, nobody is actually doing this. Capture One "could" if the adapted the DNG 1.3 spec and included the LCC correction into a DNG output. Alas, they don't.
There is the ability for somebody to build an app that could take a DNG then an LCC correction image and bind them into a DNG file. The ability is there in the DNG spec but somebody would have to write the app to do so.
Well, couple of things:
Capture One LCC (and CornerFix) have the ability to do correction for R,G,B independently. The DNG opcode system makes that very difficult to do. Not exactly impossible, but you have to use (big) tables, which isn't at all ideal.
I've looked at allowing CornerFix to do this anyway, but there's no point - (a) only Adobe apps support opcodes, so you still have to do something else for the other raw processors. And anyway, (b) you still have to run every image through CornerFix so there's no advantage to users, even LR users.
What Adobe should do, and I have suggested, is to build the correction capability into DNG camera profiles. That would be useful, and would allow something like CornerFix to build a profile, which could then be used in LR without running every image through a separate program. But you can't do LCC/CornerFix type corrections with the capabilities built into the current camera profile system (or the lens correction system either).
Sandy
-
And that thought was confirmed when I heard Matt Kloskowski and Scott Kelby saying how it would help with people's 'dark' prints: made me recall the contretemps about this subject a while ago...
It will help, the prints will be lighter. Expect if you print them in any other application on the planet. Might as well just tell people to increase the lightness setting in the print driver, who needs the two LR sliders? It also places a Band-Aid on the initial issue of too bright a display compared to the print or some other similar issue. But keep in mind, neither Scott nor Matt think soft proofing is useful and they’ve said this on numerous occasions so it must be equally difficult for them to hock LR4’s major new soft proofing accomplishments unless it aids in selling their wares.
What I don’t get is this. IF the prints are too dark, why don’t they see this on-screen? If the prints are only too dark compared to the display, how come they are not too dark everywhere else? But we’ve been down this before.
-
It is a beta, that is to be expected. Optimization will not take place till the very end of the development process.
Premature optimization is the root of all evil. --Knuth?
-
While I agree the sliders for Print Adjustment (Brightness, Contrast) are a band-aid, what I've found is that the reason people find their prints on the dark side is the result of a few of factors:
- Uncalibrated monitor (speaks for itself)
- User Error: they aren't paying close enough attention while preparing the image; and/or
- the difference between a transmissive-like computer display and a reflective print; and/or
- the background in the Develop and Print modules is set to something other than white.
This last point is often the most contentious and hasn't yet been mentioned in the discussion. Bear with me for a moment...
During the wet darkroom days, the print was our only output so our key visual reference was the white of the paper we used. In fact we typically compared the brightest parts of our print to "paper white" to see how close we were getting.
Fast-forward to LR: In Develop module, if you don't have anything "white" around the image, you don't have that key visual reference (a white point) for brightness and this can cause images (on screen and prints) to appear too dark (icc profiles aside). In other words, they look great until they are matched up against paper white in a print. For those who pay attention to the histogram this is less of a problem, but not enough users do.
The same could be said about the Print module background - if it is other than white, you may not have a good visual reference. Although in most cases, users print with a white border and this helps to provide an on-screen visual reference, by the time they are in Print module, they may not be thinking about how bright/dark the print is since that's a "Develop module decision" and there are onto the myriad other decisions to be make in Print module. For me, I find I am visually assessing my image right up until I hit "Print". I fact, the Print module is often where I take that last "uncluttered" global look at what I am about to print.
As a result, I've set both my Develop module and Print module backgrounds to white so that I always have a white point visual reference to help ensure my prints are bright enough.
-
Thanks Andrew. Do you have a ball park estimate on the time this beta will be out before final release?. thanks, Eleanor PS- I am so impressed with the new develop tools...can hardly wait for final product!
It is a beta, that is to be expected. Optimization will not take place till the very end of the development process.
-
As a result, I've set both my Develop module and Print module backgrounds to white so that I always have a white point visual reference to help ensure my prints are bright enough.
I could not agree more. Why LR does not set the backgrounds to white by default I really cannot imagine.
The other thing I cannot imagine is anyone making a really big print (you know, say 36 by 48 inches) without making a little 6x4 workprint on the same paper first, just to check how it is really going to look. And if you regularly make workprints (which I think you should) then soft-proofing is pretty redundant.
John
-
While I agree the sliders for Print Adjustment (Brightness, Contrast) are a band-aid, what I've found is that the reason people find their prints on the dark side is the result of a few of factors:
- Uncalibrated monitor (speaks for itself)
That is valid. So the print isn’t really too dark, it doesn’t match the uncalibrated display. So what if the sliders altered the display inside LR? User would make a print (hopefully a good reference print that they download or is supplied by Adobe). They alter sliders so that what they see more closely matches the print. At least they edit the RGB values to produce a decent print and said RGB values are also valid for printing from every applications.
And while I am a huge supporter of display calibration, I find many users don’t calibrate the display properly for that visual match. Calibration should update a device that drifts over time to a set behavior. If that behavior is wrong such that the print looks too dark, one solution is alter the calibration. But I’d have no issue if there were controls in LR that allowed the user to alter the display on top of the calibration to produce a visual match. At least for those that don’t have the time, knowledge or software to tweak the calibration. It would have to be very simple a control for lumanice and something like Tint and Temp for color. Most hardware calibration products don’t really have a simple way to provide this tweaking (SpectraView does, I would not call it simple and intuitive). If the LR team feels it is OK to blindly alter numbers to the printer for this issue, then it should be OK to alter the display to produce a print match no? At least the correct RGB values are honored.
Fast-forward to LR: In Develop module, if you don't have anything "white" around the image, you don't have that key visual reference (a white point) for brightness and this can cause images (on screen and prints) to appear too dark (icc profiles aside). In other words, they look great until they are matched up against paper white in a print. For those who pay attention to the histogram this is less of a problem, but not enough users do.
I agree the UI and surround plays a role here. But again, is the print too dark or is it too dark compared to the display? Big, big difference here! There could be tools provided that tweak the UI or even display for a closer visual match that leave the supposedly good RGB values alone. The LR4 sliders do the opposite.
My take on most of those who complain that their prints are too dark (including the NAPP experts) is the print isn’t too dark. It is darker than the display. That is easily fixed.
IF indeed this is the case, how is making a lighter print that now matches a too bright display helpful when you move said print away from this condition? The result should be a print that is now too light! Will this slider and it’s adoption result in that complaint?
-
It will help, the prints will be lighter. Expect if you print them in any other application on the planet. Might as well just tell people to increase the lightness setting in the print driver, who needs the two LR sliders? It also places a Band-Aid on the initial issue of too bright a display compared to the print or some other similar issue. But keep in mind, neither Scott nor Matt think soft proofing is useful and they’ve said this on numerous occasions so it must be equally difficult for them to hock LR4’s major new soft proofing accomplishments unless it aids in selling their wares.
What I don’t get is this. IF the prints are too dark, why don’t they see this on-screen? If the prints are only too dark compared to the display, how come they are not too dark everywhere else? But we’ve been down this before.
In defense of the feature, I will say that it will help those who have a cheaper monitor and challenging ambient light situation so that they can't bring the monitor brightness down emugh without messing up its ability to render colors properly.
-
In defense of the feature, I will say that it will help those who have a cheaper monitor and challenging ambient light situation so that they can't bring the monitor brightness down emugh without messing up its ability to render colors properly.
Again, if the issue is a mismatch, and the print isn’t too dark (it is just darker than the display), how does this help when the print is taken away from this environment?
Every time this comes up, the question we need to ask is often ignored. Is the print really too dark? Or is it darker than the display. Or to ask another way, why don’t people tell us the display is too light? It seems the print is always at fault. And that is possible. But before the issue can be fixed, we need to know the facts. Take the print away from the display and examine it in differing conditions that are not over the top odd (blasted with a 10K spot or lit solely by a nightlight). Prior to digital, conventional prints could be too light or too dark and this is true today. We didn’t try to compare them to some other emissive device (in fact, we probably didn’t try to compare them to a transparency backlit by some undefined or poorly lit backlight). What is different today when asking, is the print really too dark?
-
Actually there is another, more valid use for this feature: I love using LR for printing proof sheets. If I develop a set of images properly for printing at 17"x22" and then print them out 8 - 12 up on a letter size proof sheet they will often look too dark because of the size compression. The brightness slider will aid in my proof sheet printing!
~ Jeff
http://artslidesboston.com
-
As a result, I've set both my Develop module and Print module backgrounds to white so that I always have a white point visual reference to help ensure my prints are bright enough.
So have I; and I found it to be the single most helpful step I took towards a solution to the "my prints are too dark" problem.
Jeremy
-
So have I; and I found it to be the single most helpful step I took towards a solution to the "my prints are too dark" problem.
Makes perfect sense and something that Karl Lang has been advocating for years. It also points out, the prints were not too dark (sorry to keep harping on that). No matter what I calibrate my display at, all my prints look dark when solely illuminated by a 5w incandescent bulb <g>.
-
It is a beta, that is to be expected. Optimization will not take place till the very end of the development process.
Maybe/maybe not. When LR3 came out, If I worked on an image and employed the new features of "lens correction" and did extensive brush work, my computer with flip out due to all the extra processing required. My only solution was to upgrade my Mac. My former Mac did just fine in LR2.
With LR4, even more processing power is required when using the new features in PV 2012 tone mapping. We will see if this can be helped along with coding optimization or if we have hit the wall with parametric editing and current computing power.
-
all my prints look dark when solely illuminated by a 5w incandescent bulb <g>.
ROFL. I'm going to use that the first time someone tells me that their prints look too light - I'm going to suggest checking against a 5w bulb and then report back :-)