Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Is it worth the upgrade from 1.4 to 2.0  (Read 4311 times)

Stuarte

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 128
    • http://
Is it worth the upgrade from 1.4 to 2.0
« on: August 28, 2008, 09:54:59 am »

I'm a sporadically keen amateur using LR since the early betas.  I've been very pleased with it, even though I'm sure I still don't use its features as skillfully as I should.  

I tend to go for the latest upgrade/update of software I use a lot, but with LR 2.0 I'm not sure.  On one hand, LR 1.4 works fine for me.  On the other hand, the upgrade isn't too pricey for me, even in the UK here, and I don't want to be stuck with a version (1.4) that's neglected by Adobe.

I know I could download a trial copy and see for myself, but I don't have time to do it justice.  

So the question is - does LR 2.0 have sufficient extra about it to make it worth the additional money and the additional time to learn it?
Logged

Tklimek

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 284
Is it worth the upgrade from 1.4 to 2.0
« Reply #1 on: August 28, 2008, 10:36:36 am »

Stuarte....

I put myself in exactly the same category with you, and if this is not that much money for you I would heartily recommend it.

Seriously, I am so impressed with LR 2.0.  I know this sounds ridiculous but I actually feel that my images are coming out BETTER now with the additional tools.  This is a very exciting time to be a digitial photographer!  I have never really used *specific* programs for my photos before; now I feel that LR 2.0 is just about 1 stop shopping.

The other three programs that I use are:

PTLens - used to correct distortion on certain lens *if* I wish to do so

Photoshop Elements - Since LR 2 came out, I basically only use this to create Photo Emails to send out to family and friends.

Qimage - used because LR 2 doesn't include softproofing and I've heard so many good things about the print quality and have been impressed with the print quality coming out on my Epson 4880.  Just recently I made my first *real* print with LR 2 and was impressed enough that I might consider not making the trip to Qimage to print.

Bottom line, this newest version, even though some are having small performance issues or bugs pop up, you know Adobe will fix it.  Sounds to me like you are not a pro user (probably much like me) and go into Lightroom 4-5 times a week to work with photos.  I would highly recommend this upgrade; of course your mileage may vary!

Cheers....

Todd in Chicago

Quote
I'm a sporadically keen amateur using LR since the early betas.  I've been very pleased with it, even though I'm sure I still don't use its features as skillfully as I should. 

I tend to go for the latest upgrade/update of software I use a lot, but with LR 2.0 I'm not sure.  On one hand, LR 1.4 works fine for me.  On the other hand, the upgrade isn't too pricey for me, even in the UK here, and I don't want to be stuck with a version (1.4) that's neglected by Adobe.

I know I could download a trial copy and see for myself, but I don't have time to do it justice. 

So the question is - does LR 2.0 have sufficient extra about it to make it worth the additional money and the additional time to learn it?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=217811\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

DarkPenguin

  • Guest
Is it worth the upgrade from 1.4 to 2.0
« Reply #2 on: August 28, 2008, 11:04:34 am »

I might consider waiting for a point release to get any initial bugs out of the way.

I would get it for the output sharpening alone.  I don't have to round trip files to photoshop before printing or putting up on the web.

That said the artist brush and gradient tool removes most of my other reasons for going to photoshop.

Anything that allows me to push less files through photoshop the better.
Logged

rdonson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3263
Is it worth the upgrade from 1.4 to 2.0
« Reply #3 on: August 28, 2008, 11:28:12 am »

Quote
So the question is - does LR 2.0 have sufficient extra about it to make it worth the additional money and the additional time to learn it?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=217811\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

For me its a resounding yes.  If LR 1.4 is satisfying your current needs though I'd wait until the first bug release (2.1?).  It will allow you time to view some of the videos and info available and save you the potential to encounter some of the current LR2 bugs.
Logged
Regards,
Ron

MBehrens

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 321
Is it worth the upgrade from 1.4 to 2.0
« Reply #4 on: August 28, 2008, 01:10:24 pm »

Quote
I'm a sporadically keen amateur using LR since the early betas...  does LR 2.0 have sufficient extra about it to make it worth the additional money and the additional time to learn it?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=217811\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Stuarte,

I fall into this category as well. LR2 is definitely worth the upgrade. Camera profiles, calibrations tools, and localized adjustment alone would justify the time and effort.

With the issues I'd wait for 2.1, really.

 - Morey
Logged

David Good

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 217
Is it worth the upgrade from 1.4 to 2.0
« Reply #5 on: August 28, 2008, 01:22:37 pm »

There is also the addition of Adobe's Beta Camera Profiles which are chosen in the Calibration drop down box in LR2. Each one produces a different color rendering, also included are "proprietary " profiles currently for Canon and Nikon cameras. They have also released a DNG Profile Editor, better explained here:
   
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...-profiles.shtml

I find this addition worth the upgrade price alone.

Dave
Logged

francois

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13769
Is it worth the upgrade from 1.4 to 2.0
« Reply #6 on: August 28, 2008, 01:36:59 pm »

Yes, it's worth the price even if some glitches need to be ironed out. The local correction tools are amazing, powerful and easy to use. Output sharpening for screen or print is also a major asset.

Download the 30 day trial and see for yourself. LR2 will make a copy of your existing catalog, so there's no risk to try. I found that some of the slow-downs are reduced - more or less - if the catalog is optmized and previews rebuilt.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2008, 01:37:46 pm by francois »
Logged
Francois

Stuarte

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 128
    • http://
Is it worth the upgrade from 1.4 to 2.0
« Reply #7 on: August 28, 2008, 01:42:47 pm »

Quote
There is also the addition of Adobe's Beta Camera Profiles which are chosen in the Calibration drop down box in LR2. Each one produces a different color rendering, also included are "proprietary " profiles currently for Canon and Nikon cameras. They have also released a DNG Profile Editor, better explained here:
   
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...-profiles.shtml

I find this addition worth the upgrade price alone.

Dave
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=217867\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Very interesting, especially as I am also still wondering about DXO.  I ran the trial version and found it didn't make much difference for my ESO 5D + 24-105 L lens, but it did make a very noticeable difference (improvement) to shots from the 100-400 L.  Am I right in thinking that the new features of LR 2.0 address colour profile issues rather than lens+body morphic issues?
Logged

rdonson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3263
Is it worth the upgrade from 1.4 to 2.0
« Reply #8 on: August 28, 2008, 02:07:01 pm »

Quote
Am I right in thinking that the new features of LR 2.0 address colour profile issues rather than lens+body morphic issues?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes.  I use [a href=\"http://epaperpress.com/ptlens/]PTLens[/url] for the lens+body morphic issues.  It actually integrates nicely with LR 2.
Logged
Regards,
Ron

eleanorbrown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 637
    • Eleanor Brown Photography
Is it worth the upgrade from 1.4 to 2.0
« Reply #9 on: August 28, 2008, 02:22:10 pm »

I think the availability of the localized tools adjustments alone are worth the upgrade price.  LR 2.0 is running well at 64 bit on my Mac.  Eleanor
Logged
Eleanor Brown
[url=http://www.eleanorbro

Tklimek

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 284
Is it worth the upgrade from 1.4 to 2.0
« Reply #10 on: August 28, 2008, 06:16:38 pm »

Hi....

It's interesting to see different peoples opinions on whether or not you should upgrade.  Stuarte, do you run a PC or a MAC?  How stable in general is your system?  Is the LR 1.4 stable?

I run a PC with Vista and it is a very stable system.  I can't say that I've ever had LR 2 crash.  Does it exhibit some of these anomalys or strange little bugs and slowdowns?  Yes.  Is it worth not upgrading because of that?  NO!  Not in my opinion at least; and everyone is entitled to an opinion.  ;-)  I would almost say the gradient filter feature is worth the price of the upgrade....or the negative clarity, or the localized brush, or the.....you get the point.  Unless you are a heavy duty user of LR (several hours a day) and can't afford ANY slowdown or any anomalies, why would you wait until all bugs are ironed out?  To be honest, I've not heard of a single showstopper on this forum.  And no software is ever 100% free of bugs anyway.  There are some people on this forum who have reported multiple crashes, and for them I would say stop using it and go back to the old system (perhaps).  But my system never crashed before I ever installed LR and is not crashing now after installing LR 1.3, 1.4, 1.41, 2.0 beta, and now 2.0.  So for me, works just fine.  Another question to ask yourself is can you live with some of the slowdowns or anomalies as a tradeoff for some of the new features?  For me, the scales are tipped WAY in favor or using LR 2.0 now.

Just my .02.

Cheers....

Todd in Chicago

Quote
Very interesting, especially as I am also still wondering about DXO.  I ran the trial version and found it didn't make much difference for my ESO 5D + 24-105 L lens, but it did make a very noticeable difference (improvement) to shots from the 100-400 L.  Am I right in thinking that the new features of LR 2.0 address colour profile issues rather than lens+body morphic issues?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=217874\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Stuarte

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 128
    • http://
Is it worth the upgrade from 1.4 to 2.0
« Reply #11 on: August 28, 2008, 06:28:47 pm »

Quote
Hi....

It's interesting to see different peoples opinions on whether or not you should upgrade.  Stuarte, do you run a PC or a MAC?  How stable in general is your system?  Is the LR 1.4 stable?

I'm a dual platform guy but all my photo work is on a MacBook Pro 17" or an iMac 20".  I've never had significant LR problems with hanging etc.  I did try running LR, PS and DxO on my Vista laptop but I find Vista less stable than XP on another laptop (this one, in fact).

Anyway, the upshot of all this useful information (thanks to all) is that I'll get demo versions of PT and DxO to compare on photos taken with my 100-400.  I suspect that I then end up going for LR 2.0 and PT.

Many thanks for your considered input one and all.
Logged

madmanchan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2115
    • Web
Is it worth the upgrade from 1.4 to 2.0
« Reply #12 on: August 28, 2008, 08:08:21 pm »

Stuarte, correct, LR 2 and CR 4.5 do not handle optical geometric corrections (such as radial distortion), though manual controls are provided for other aspects (such as lateral chromatic aberration, which was there in earlier versions of LR & CR).
Logged
Eric Chan

theophilus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 155
Is it worth the upgrade from 1.4 to 2.0
« Reply #13 on: August 28, 2008, 08:31:32 pm »

It's worth the upgrade for the gradient tool alone...
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up