LR3 beta usage

[Morris Taub]

I've got two questions...

1. Is it alright to use the same image files in LR3b that I've previously imported into LR2.5? I mean do I risk in any way damaging/corrupting the files or the xmp side cars? I'm just wondering what's happening to the xmp/catalog data if for example i make changes to an image in 2.5 and then change those in the beta version.

Or would it be better to make a new, separate copy of the image files and import those into the beta?

2. If I import an image into LR3 that's 'process 1' and then make a virtual copy of it and change the virtual copy to 'process 2' should I be able to see the better image processing in the LR beta 3 version? I'm looking at nef files. Is there a type of file, high iso for example, where the better image quality would be more apparent?

thanks...

M

[francois]

I've got two questions...

1. Is it alright to use the same image files in LR3b that I've previously imported into LR2.5? I mean do I risk in any way damaging/corrupting the files or the xmp side cars? I'm just wondering what's happening to the xmp/catalog data if for example i make changes to an image in 2.5 and then change those in the beta version.

Or would it be better to make a new, separate copy of the image files and import those into the beta?

2. If I import an image into LR3 that's 'process 1' and then make a virtual copy of it and change the virtual copy to 'process 2' should I be able to see the better image processing in the LR beta 3 version? I'm looking at nef files. Is there a type of file, high iso for example, where the better image quality would be more apparent?

thanks...

M

Momo,
I can't really give you a straight answer to your first question. I don't think that you'll risk you RAW files by sharing them among LR2 & LR3. I'm doing exactly that. But I keep multiple backups of my RAW files and I do backup my LR libraries very often.

For your second question, what you want to do is possible without any problem. Some photos will be improved and some other will only see subtle changes. I found that I needed to adapt sharpening (and other settings) for the new rendering engine.

Edit: I found that on my Canon files, on high ISO photos, the new noise removal tool, although incomplete, is a huge improvement. You'll need to see for yourself how your NEF files respond to LR3 engine.

[wolfnowl]

Adobe recommends you keep your LR2 and LR3 libraries separate, but I've imported the same files into LR2 and 3.  As Francois said, I do back up regularly and well.  What did surprise me at first was that LR3 read the .xmp information from the files I had already processed in LR2, and they came in with their develop settings already 'set' based on the developing I had done in LR2, although the star ratings, etc. did not come through.

Mike.

[NikoJorj]

Or would it be better to make a new, separate copy of the image files and import those into the beta?

That is what Adobe recommends, working on a copy of the raw files.

2. If I import an image into LR3 that's 'process 1' and then make a virtual copy of it and change the virtual copy to 'process 2' should I be able to see the better image processing in the LR beta 3 version? I'm looking at nef files. Is there a type of file, high iso for example, where the better image quality would be more apparent?

That's the way... Either that or you can make a snapshot on process1, or set a history state to the "before" view with a right-click on it.
For me, most of the difference is in the noise treatment, and the high ISO (or low ISO with shadows dodged all the way through) give the most spectacular results.

[Morris Taub]

Thanks for all the advice guys...i tried bringing in files i already use in lr2 and it seems fine, but it does give me some anxiety...so, I think I'll duplicate files to work on for the lr3 beta and not care if 'something' goes wrong...

also tried the virtual copy and converting to process 2...like you said Francois, some images i'm seeing no change, others slightly more...it isn't huge, well, not on the files i tried anyway...

thanks...

M

[francois]

…also tried the virtual copy and converting to process 2...like you said Francois, some images i'm seeing no change, others slightly more...it isn't huge, well, not on the files i tried anyway...
…

Differences are sometimes very minimal but with other files, they are spectacular. You'll need to adapt sharpening for the new engine (I keep repeating myself, sorry) to get the most of your files.

Good luck.

PS: Safe move with your files, better duplicate them than be sorry later.

[Morris Taub]

Differences are sometimes very minimal but with other files, they are spectacular. You'll need to adapt sharpening for the new engine (I keep repeating myself, sorry) to get the most of your files.

Good luck.

PS: Safe move with your files, better duplicate them than be sorry later.

What do you mean 'adapt sharpening'?...do I need to do less? more?...is it completely revised sharpening? I did see hints over the years from Jeff Schewe that his sharpening software would eventually make its way, completely, into Lightroom/Photoshop...is that what has happened?...

[francois]

What do you mean 'adapt sharpening'?...do I need to do less? more?...is it completely revised sharpening? I did see hints over the years from Jeff Schewe that his sharpening software would eventually make its way, completely, into Lightroom/Photoshop...is that what has happened?...

I found that I needed to sharpen a bit more (depending on the subject) but I may well oversharpen to get the look I was used to in LR 2.x. I have yet to print enough images with LR3 to draw a definitve conclusion.

Edit: The new noise removal processing is undoubtedly an important factor in the different sharpening between LR 2.x and LR 3.

You'll see for yourself once you compare version 1 and version 2 of the rendering engine as it's a matter of taste.

[NikoJorj]

What do you mean 'adapt sharpening'?...

I didn't extensively test that (ie, I've not done much printing from LR3), but it seems to me that as there is less noise, high-ISO images can tolerate more sharpening, and in particular less edge masking making more realistic textures to my taste (and camera, I got an old 300d/rebel).