Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: dreed on June 16, 2013, 08:33:40 am
-
Subject says it all..
Going from LR3 to LR4 brought with it a new process that was remarkable in how it treated highlights.
But from LR4 to LR5 ... I'm stumped. I want to like the "straighten" feature but it just doesn't work as well as DxO. I've seen some say that LR is easier to use than DxO for this but I suspect that they don't understand what they need to do with DxO than it being a failure of DxO to deliver.
The most interesting addition to me (after the perspective correction attempt) is the Advanced healing brush. I think this should be a winner but PS already does this.
The most comprehensive list of new features appears to be here:
http://www.lightroomqueen.com/2013/04/15/whats-new-in-lightroom-5-0-beta/
which has much more information than any other 1st google page hits for Adobe's website when searching for "what's new in lr5".
What do others think?
Does LR5 bring with it killer feature/s that have you salivitating?
-
Nothing too compelling to me.
Whilst the new healing brush is very good, but I don't often need that sort of post processing. When I do PS CS4 does that well enough.
The straighten function is a curious feature. Most of the time it gets things completely wrong, however once in a while it's given an incredibly good result. My impression is that this is very much a 'work in progress' and, like many of PS's features, will mature into something useful after an upgrade or two.
It's the first version of LR that I haven't bought immediately on release. Maybe 5.1 will see something compelling added, but I'm not expecting much.
-
Not really. I think the most compelling reason would be performance, and that is a pretty subtle improvement. Smart previews if you need to edit large numbers of files while on the road with a laptop.
Is it just me, but I am not impressed with the new healing brush. I find the edges often quite visible after healing or cloning. It is helpful for simple edits, like a sky, not not so much for things like tree backgrounds. Again, a work in progress I hope.
I'm left with the feeling that a lot of energy went into fixing LR4, and with a shortened time between releases, not much else got done. So, mostly, you are paying adobe for a performance tweak and some JDI stuff. Even with the performance tweaks, the LR import module performance does not appear to have had an overhaul, and is still a poor second to most image browsers, and not in the same league as PhotoMechanic.
-
I find the performance increase in the final release fairly noticeable, most likely due to 5's ability to utilize more system RAM, and I've got lots of RAM in my machine. Also, the healing brush in the final works more subtly than the beta. The radial gradient also had a 100% increase in the ability to feather, in the final, which makes it of great value to me. And, once I heard Eric Chan's explanation of what each of Upright's buttons are attempting to accomplish, I've used it to go back and reprocess some problematic images I shot at the Capistrano Mission with vastly superior results from previous iterations of the files worked on in CS6's perspective tools. These and some of the other JDIs make it quite nice, IMO.
I think it's well worth the upgrade price. The 3 to 4 upgrade was so huge in terms of process version change, soft proofing, etc. that I think it set the version upgrade expectation bar higher than might be reasonable.
-
I guess it was my irrational desire to stay up-to-date that was compelling, rather than any individual enhancement in LR5. I mentioned on another thread that my wordprocessing and spreadsheet needs would still be adequately met by the versions of WordStar and SuperCalc that I uses on a CPM+ machine in the early 80s. Despite that I was "compelled to upgrade to Office 2013 this year.
Having been compelled to purchase the LR5 upgrade (not least because Adobe now make them so inexpensive), I do find that I really love the radial gradient tool and find myself using it for quite subtle local adjustments.
Also (unlike Rossydd, above), I find the various functions of the Straighten tool do get it right most of the time.
A wee bit pee-ed off by the Jpeg export limitations bug, but assume that Adobe will fix that in v5.01
.
-
Despite that I was "compelled to upgrade to Office 2013 this year.
Unlike a Scot to be compelled to spend more than he needs to ;-))
You need to get over that, it's costing you.
I still use Office 2002 and it does more than I ever need. I only upgraded from '97 because the 2002 CD was easier to use for installation than a pile of floppies.
I find the various functions of the Straighten tool do get it right most of the time.
Good to hear.
Jeff Schewe's mention that the straighten feature was a very late addition seems to fit in with it being a bit flaky (to say the least). I'm not the only one who has found it unreliable.
It smacks a little bit of some manager asking what's new, being told, then telling the developers that they need to add more, just anything new we can sell with.
A wee bit pee-ed off by the Jpeg export limitations bug
Yes, there's a few deal killer bugs that need fixing before I'll get the credit card out.
-
There may be some reasons to u/g, but there could have been more:
1) The ability to duplicate an Adjustment Brush is very useful in some instances, but not being able to modify the first one after the second is created has limitations IMO. I use AB to "paint" the BG of a flower to soften it using negative clarity etc. - at times the effect has to be repeated - on a complex image this is time-consuming.
2) I think that the new Adjustment Brush finds the edges better than in LR4.4
3) It would have been very useful to have the HSL panel available in the brush adjustments.
4) The result using the clone/heal tool can be great or somewhat pathetic; at times better than LR4.4, at times not as good. A previous poster mentioned visible edges - in LR4.4 one can often choose the cloning area better than the LR can.
Glenn
-
but there could have been more:
Just see any wish list for LR5, hardly anything suggested made it :-(
-
1. If you do architecture and have to fix keystoning a lot, the automatic vertical correction applied as an import preset is a great timesaver for setting up your images for review after the shoot, though the adjustments always have to be tweaked for final output.
2. The adjustable spot removal brush is great for removing things like phone lines, no longer need to do that In PS.
3. The program strikes me as being faster, less lag seeing adjustments on large monitor.
#1 was easily worth the $80 to me.
-
Have there been any improvements in book module? Or is it still easier to use indesign? I'd like to make a book from Mag Cloud.
-
Have there been any improvements in book module? Or is it still easier to use indesign? I'd like to make a book from Mag Cloud.
If you're willing to spend the time learning it, InDesign knocks spots off the book module. Infinitely more capable and flexible.
-
Have there been any improvements in book module?
That's what they claim, but it's limited to page numbering and changing how page title is presented.
Or is it still easier to use indesign?
If you've ID available and any skill to use it, it'll still be the best choice for very many years at the current rate of progress.
-
I find the performance increase in the final release fairly noticeable, most likely due to 5's ability to utilize more system RAM, and I've got lots of RAM in my machine. Also, the healing brush in the final works more subtly than the beta. The radial gradient also had a 100% increase in the ability to feather, in the final, which makes it of great value to me. And, once I heard Eric Chan's explanation of what each of Upright's buttons are attempting to accomplish, I've used it to go back and reprocess some problematic images I shot at the Capistrano Mission with vastly superior results from previous iterations of the files worked on in CS6's perspective tools. These and some of the other JDIs make it quite nice, IMO.
I think it's well worth the upgrade price. The 3 to 4 upgrade was so huge in terms of process version change, soft proofing, etc. that I think it set the version upgrade expectation bar higher than might be reasonable.
Was this in the new LuLa video part #9 or elsewhere ??? :)
-
I think that what this thread is conforming is that many of us really want to ditch CS6 (or whatever version we still use) and be able to do most of our photo-processing in Lightroom.
Amateur photographers like us probably use only 5% of the capability of CS6. If that 5% was available within LR we would all be very happy, I suspect.
In the past it was always argued that Adobe would never allow this to happen as it would lose many amateur photographers from its CS customer base.
Perhaps the recent revelations that Photoshop is going into the clouds - a move likely to make it even less attractive to amateurs who may only use it for an hour or two a month - will remove us from that customer base anyway and, when that happens, maybe Adobe will start to regard Lightroom as its No.1 programme for photographic hobbyists and develop it more enthusiastically.
Just maybe.
-
Was this in the new LuLa video part #9 or elsewhere ??? :)
From the videos. And I should add that Jeff & Michael's examples of when it worked well and when it didn't, also helped. Eric gives some insight into what it is attempting to do and how you can help it out a little with lens profile application or/and manual tweaks before applying.
Rand
-
Perhaps the recent revelations that Photoshop is going into the clouds - a move likely to make it even less attractive to amateurs who may only use it for an hour or two a month - will remove us from that customer base anyway and, when that happens, maybe Adobe will start to regard Lightroom as its No.1 programme for photographic hobbyists and develop it more enthusiastically.
Now that would be nice.
<Looks at the latest developments in LR5 >....... maybe not then :-(
-
Now that would be nice.
<Looks at the latest developments in LR5 >....... maybe not then :-(
I think of note is the (stated) commitment that LR will continue to be perpetual license and included in the CC as part of the PS package [if I understood that info right?] but what caught my eye was the dead end as far as enhancements go for CSPS6, we will get new ACR updates such as the recent RAW 8.1 but somewhere I have the bookmark for an Adobe page that specifically announces CS6 improvements just for the "cloud" users......................so will there come a day when they introduce a breakpoint when LR ceases to improve unless you go to the "cloud" ~ I for one sincerely hope not as the CS6 announcements for the "cloud" do look quite appealing and I as CS6 perpetual license holder will it seems never see them :(
Edit :- here is the link to the CC PS I mentioned above................ http://blogs.adobe.com/photoshopdotcom/2013/05/photoshop-cc-for-creative-cloud-members-coming-soon.html
-
As a product and wedding photog, absolutely nothing twisting my arm at all and the bugs make me stay FAR away from it.
-
I think that what this thread is conforming is that many of us really want to ditch CS6 (or whatever version we still use) and be able to do most of our photo-processing in Lightroom.
Hi,
In a forum about Lightroom Q&A, that hardly comes as a surprise, or does it?
Cheers,
Bart
-
The price is right and the new features would be nice, but since I'm only a lowly Vista user Adobe decided I wasn't worthy of Vr 5.
-
I upgraded to LR5 and I think it is great
1. Runs faster; presumably taking advantage of my 16GB RAM
2. I have used the radial filter a lot and think for me it is a very useful tool
3. The ability to import in the background and keep working elsewhere is very nice
4. The tweaks to the Book Module are very helpful. I have used that module for several books and the additions will make it even more useful
All in all in my opinion worth the $79.00
Robert
-
I think that what this thread is confirming is that many of us really want to ditch CS6 (or whatever version we still use) and be able to do most of our photo-processing in Lightroom.
Amateur photographers like us probably use only 5% of the capability of CS6. If that 5% was available within LR we would all be very happy, I suspect.
You may be right - I really don't know as I'm likely in the minority here having never used CS, and only used PS elements a bit and the last time was about three or four years ago. Since then it's been only LR.
I've worked within the limitations of LR because I had to, and when one knows nothing else, it's not limiting - one learns how to get results with lesser tools.
But I don't know of another software that comes close to LR, so if this ones goes south a la CS, I'm up the creek.
Glenn
-
I've worked within the limitations of LR because I had to, and when one knows nothing else, it's not limiting - one learns how to get results with lesser tools.
That's only true if one doesn't look at other folks' photographs and think "wish I could do that". Simple, commonplace things like replacing a drab grey sky with nice fluffy clouds or adding a moon to a nightscape. I agree that for straightforward record shots, the combination of "getting it almost right in-camera" and Lightroom give us most of what we need. But for more creative work, the lack of layers can be a handicap. The day they give us layers in Lightroom it will become a very powerful tool.
-
But I don't know of another software that comes close to LR, so if this ones goes south a la CS, I'm up the creek.
Capture One Pro is very good and has a similar feature set and way of working to LR.
-
Subject says it all..
Going from LR3 to LR4 brought with it a new process that was remarkable in how it treated highlights.
But from LR4 to LR5 ... I'm stumped. I want to like the "straighten" feature but it just doesn't work as well as DxO. I've seen some say that LR is easier to use than DxO for this but I suspect that they don't understand what they need to do with DxO than it being a failure of DxO to deliver.
The most interesting addition to me (after the perspective correction attempt) is the Advanced healing brush. I think this should be a winner but PS already does this.
The most comprehensive list of new features appears to be here:
http://www.lightroomqueen.com/2013/04/15/whats-new-in-lightroom-5-0-beta/
which has much more information than any other 1st google page hits for Adobe's website when searching for "what's new in lr5".
What do others think?
Does LR5 bring with it killer feature/s that have you salivitating?
Compared to the LR4 update LR5 is a bit disappointing. For the price of an upgrade it is a no-brainer to upgrade in my opinion. I was disappointed about the new healing brush as it too often leaves behind part of what I brushed over as if opacity is not quite correct (I always use 100) and the selection is often not that good (however pushing the / key is a geeat help to find a better match sometimes). Comperared to content aware in PS CS6 (which maybe unfair) there is a huge difference and that's really what I would like to see at some point or at least something that comes a lot closer to that (realizing that it will be difficult to represent the needed parameters in metadata to do this). Radial filter, nice to have but not highest on my list. Many small improvements. The performance is better in some cases but I do have a jumpy cursor at times where I didn't in LR4 (using a 2012 15" MacBook Pro with 16GB RAM and i7 quad core 2.6 Ghz). The new upright feature is great although it sometimes goes wild. In total the upgrade is certainly more than worth the upgrade price, but is there a killer feature? Well, not really, but still some very good ones.
-
Capture One Pro is very good and has a similar feature set and way of working to LR.
Capture One is very good in the editing part, but is way behind on total feature set compared to LR5. As an example I would really miss the publish feature of LR.
-
The 3 to 4 upgrade was so huge in terms of process version change, soft proofing, etc. that I think it set the version upgrade expectation bar higher than might be reasonable.
And I seem to remember thinking that the upgrade from 2 to 3 was also a big improvement but it escapes my mind escapes as to why.
1. Runs faster; presumably taking advantage of my 16GB RAM
...
3. The ability to import in the background and keep working elsewhere is very nice
Are there any data points on (1) to show "with 4 it used xGB RAM, with 5 it uses yGB of RAM"?
(3) could be interesting but what I find is that the import process is usually a fairly disk/cpu hungry process because it applies an adjustment to every raw image that is imported, rather than just copying them and extracting the embedded JPEG.
-
That's only true if one doesn't look at other folks' photographs and think "wish I could do that". Simple, commonplace things like replacing a drab grey sky with nice fluffy clouds or adding a moon to a nightscape. I agree that for straightforward record shots, the combination of "getting it almost right in-camera" and Lightroom give us most of what we need. But for more creative work, the lack of layers can be a handicap. The day they give us layers in Lightroom it will become a very powerful tool.
One of the limitations I've learned to work with is work with the sky that nature gave me that day; if it's heavy overcast, landscape work may be out for that day (unless the heavy overcast adds to the mood). If the sun is too bright and harsh, I use my diffuser for flower closeups, or find one in the shade. There are times when I'm out of luck. I'm not a religious person, but tend to approach photography with the attitude expressed in the Serenity Prayer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serenity_Prayer
I'm in the fortunate position of having photography as one of my hobbies, and am not under pressure to produce anything, anytime.
For more creative work, layers would be useful for sure, but from what I've read and understand, layers in LR is about as likely as you and I flying to Mars tomorrow.
Glenn
-
A wee bit pee-ed off by the Jpeg export limitations bug, but assume that Adobe will fix that in v5.01
Yes, we definitely messed that up, and I apologize for that. This will be fixed for certain in the next dot release.
-
I would think the radial grad would be the most important for my practical purposes.
As for Spot removal...I don't know why LR doesn't have an option to "flatten" or perm this option. As LR has to calculate the info and from posts I have read and experience, this slows down LR significantly. Or just do it in a photo editor like Corel Paint, Gimp, and others...oh, and Photshop I think is able to do this also.
So some architecturral shooters are happy with the straighten tool, and all else is just blahh with a hic-up increase to performance. Cool.
Glen amd Rhossyd, Dreed make some good observations....
Why not have HSL in brush?
Why not have Duplicate brush? (wish we can move the dot it makes so we can work in detail areas around it wouthout changing adjustnent. Slight peeve).
Why not more controls in the specific tools?
As far as the comparison to Capture One, yes maybe they are designed to do like functions, they go about file handling in very different ways. I find LR MUCH easier to work with than how shooting moving and managing files method works in C1.
I wonder if LR can reach the quality C1 does in processing? I have been using LR for some lower resolution demands on subjects I normally use C1 for.... but I find Capture One to hold more detail and "clarity"...significantly more than LR ...Unless there is a processing method that matches C1? (These are files shot in studio, still life, product, that are high detail, high everything. using a digital back). maybe the file format by default limits processors of different brands, or they are simply optimised to process these files much better?
I think for a major upgrade, it should have some quality increase in the most basic job as a raw developer. Or some significant new tool for better processing at the basic level. I can wait for 5.5 or 6 to take advantage of the radial tool added.
-
I wonder if LR can reach the quality C1 does in processing? I have been using LR for some lower resolution demands on subjects I normally use C1 for.... but I find Capture One to hold more detail and "clarity"...significantly more than LR ...Unless there is a processing method that matches C1? (These are files shot in studio, still life, product, that are high detail, high everything. using a digital back). maybe the file format by default limits processors of different brands, or they are simply optimised to process these files much better?
The only real thing C1 can do better than LR is have a better "starting point" at default. If you are experienced in both apps (as I am) I can match LR output to be equal to or better than C1 pretty easy (because I don't care about "defaults" at all).
LR has far better sharpening and noise reduction than C1, C1 has better starting color than LR. That is partially by design. If you are shooting with a P1 back and using C1 to process, C1 has an optimized default where LR has a normalized default. C1 goes out of it's way to optimize the capture while LR simply treats as just another raw capture. If you understand the differences, then you'll understand how to do some adjustments to optimize the LR output.
And no, the file format is not a factor at all.
-
Short answer: No.
Longer answer: I have to agree with the posters who suggested that LR5, like every microsoft release, is in need of an update. I really liked the beta version, which worked well, now I seem to have difficulty with the cloning and brush tools being balky. Maybe its the size if the library, but I know there are many with far more images than I. The Upright tool is hit or miss (as mentioned), and while DxO's Viewpoint is much better, it cost the same as LR (I know, I missed the sale.)
So for now I proceed as best I can and wait for the updates.
-
LR has far better sharpening and noise reduction than C1, C1 has better starting color than LR. That is partially by design. If you are shooting with a P1 back and using C1 to process, C1 has an optimized default where LR has a normalized default. C1 goes out of it's way to optimize the capture while LR simply treats as just another raw capture. If you understand the differences, then you'll understand how to do some adjustments to optimize the LR output.
Do you go into this in more detail in either any of the LR videos or your book? Or somewhere else?
Sometimes I think that LR4 has worse colour than LR3 due to the changes to allow it to accommodate more colour at the higher end.
-
Do you go into this in more detail in either any of the LR videos or your book? Or somewhere else?
Well, I don't do a head to head comparison between LR & C1, but I do go into great detail how to use sharpening and noise reduction in my books and tutorials. The statement I made is based on my personal experience...C1 v7 is better but it still doesn't reach LR5's capabilities.
-
Well, I don't do a head to head comparison between LR & C1, but I do go into great detail how to use sharpening and noise reduction in my books and tutorials. The statement I made is based on my personal experience...C1 v7 is better but it still doesn't reach LR5's capabilities.
Sorry, I should have been more specific with my question.
Do you go into detail in either your book or videos on how to get better colour (i.e. C1 like colour?) out of LR? (I'm not so much interested in comparing LR with C1 but getting better results - especially colour - out of LR, you betcha!)
-
I just installed the LR5 trial and converted my database. I expect to purchase unless some compelling reason not to appears.
Subjectively feels slightly snappier (using the same hardware and the same database, converted).
Being able to press "f" for fullscreen seems like the most important update to me :-)
-h
-
I wonder if dual screen mode finally takes advantage of what you could do in the main screen.
For instance, in Lib Mode, with the second screen in Grid mode, you can't rotate multiple images selected...among other things like this.
-
Do you go into detail in either your book or videos on how to get better colour (i.e. C1 like colour?) out of LR?
Yeah, well that's pretty much what I do...get the best image that I can from my raw captures. And...I'm pretty good at that.
-
hehe...Yes, I think so Schewe.
1. Do you have a tweaked starting point for pushing LR to be more on the clarity of C1?
I know different images require different settings entirely, so unless doing like subject, or other than really working on the same file, this would be hard. But particularly for products.
2. Maybe there is some general Basic dev settings to get started with.
I think I know how to use the sharpen tool, maybe it works much different than in C1? But, for product in C1, I would leave the radius at about .7 and then sharpen it in the 200+ range. With LR4, I know this is different,
3. I Would think the fundamentals are the same/?
4. What page is that covered on in the book(latest v)
Thanks
-
Maybe there is some general Basic dev settings to get started with.
Nope...there is no such thing as magic numbers...you need to have a high degree of competence in various applications to really know how to get the best of your raw captures. The LR paradyme is essentially different than any other raw processing other than ACR (which shares the same processing pipeline). What one can get out of C1 and what one can get out of LR will depend entirely on how well you can adjust the raw capture in a given app.
I Would think the fundamentals are the same/?
Nope...the fundamentals depend entirely on the algorithms being used. The controls in LR and C1 really don't relate to each other...can you get close to each other in LR & C1? Yep...but the tool set and adjustments needed are, well, completely different in nature.
As for what page? Well, the whole friggin' book...my books are all about ACR/LR (although I do show some C1 screenshots because I use C1 when I'm tethering my P1 camera).
-
The only real thing C1 can do better than LR is have a better "starting point" at default. If you are experienced in both apps (as I am) I can match LR output to be equal to or better than C1 pretty easy (because I don't care about "defaults" at all).
LR has far better sharpening and noise reduction than C1
Some time ago, I remember MR posting a short article on how he use C1 as a starting point before continuing his PP in Lightroom. Your post seems to infer that the PV2012 of LR is now superior to C1. Correct?
Can't say that I'm convinced about that. In particular RAW conversions from the new FUJI x-series sensor as documented by Sean Reid and others would suggest otherwise.
Given the current uncertainty with Adobe, I for one am certainly looking into resurrecting my interest in C1, but I agree that doing so is an almighty pain in the a** having been a devout Adobe user since PS5 and LR1.
-
Hi,
The Fumji-X sensor is an odd animal, as it is a non Bayer design, so don't draw to much conclusions from Fuji-X tests, unless you have Fuji-X, of course. Both LR and C1 are movng targets.
best regards
Erik
Some time ago, I remember MR posting a short article on how he use C1 as a starting point before continuing his PP in Lightroom. Your post seems to infer that the PV2012 of LR is now superior to C1. Correct?
Can't say that I'm convinced about that. In particular RAW conversions from the new FUJI x-series sensor as documented by Sean Reid and others would suggest otherwise.
Given the current uncertainty with Adobe, I for one am certainly looking into resurrecting my interest in C1, but I agree that doing so is an almighty pain in the a** having been a devout Adobe user since PS5 and LR1.
-
I think that what this thread is conforming is that many of us really want to ditch CS6 (or whatever version we still use) and be able to do most of our photo-processing in Lightroom.
This is not how I see things. I find the pixel based layers/masks approach of solutions like PS to be more generic, flexible, fun and effective than the attempts made by Lightroom and other raw converters to enable local edits. The only one that I find valuable is the Nik U-Point approach available in Capture NX2, but NX2 has other issues that prevent it from being a credible alternative as a generic RAW converter.
On the initial question, I see a very compelling reason NOT to upgrade to LR5, and that is the whole CC fiasco.
There are excellent alternatives to LR, with C1 Pro 7 and DxO 8 coming to mind and I happen to own licenses of those.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Your post seems to infer that the PV2012 of LR is now superior to C1
Aside from the LR PV 2012 tone controls which do an arguably better job of high dynamic range captures, the biggest potential improvement of LR vs C1 is the sharpening and noise reduction in LR.
Either C1 or LR is capable of outstanding raw image processing...but the main point is that by default for P1 camera backs, C1 does a better default color rendering but LR is capable of being adjusted to match C1. However, LR's sharpening and noise reduction isn't really capable of being matched in C1.
-
On the initial question, I see a very compelling reason NOT to upgrade to LR5, and that is the whole CC fiasco.
There are excellent alternatives to LR, with C1 Pro 7 and DxO 8 coming to mind and I happen to own licenses of those.
But you surely know that Lightroom is licensed on it's own and Adobe has strongly suggested that it will continue to be so.
If you have used Lightroom for a long time, why would you consider (incompatible) alternatives? Even if you took a clean break away from Lightroom at a certain point you would still have to use Lightroom to handle your pirctures before the clean break (unless you want to convert everything to TIFF or reedit everything in another RAW converter). I hate the lockin, but it is a sure thing. There should be really strong reasons for me to move away from Lightroom and the LR5 upgrade is an obvious thing to do in my opinion and there is no change in the licensing model going to LR5.
Regarding CC I hope Adobe will come to their senses regarding photographers who only use Photoshop marginally and do not upgrade for every release.
-
The Fumji-X sensor is an odd animal, as it is a non Bayer design, so don't draw to much conclusions from Fuji-X tests, unless you have Fuji-X, of course. Both LR and C1 are movng targets.
best regards
Erik
Hi Erik,
Yes, the x-trans sensor is indeed a different animal and should not be considered in isolation. The point I was querying with Jeff Schewe was whether LR PV2012 is 'across the board' superior to C1 v7 as his post seemed to imply.
FWIW, I'm using a D800E and a Fuji x-series ( with Fuji and Leica M- glass) and am finding C1 more than a credible alternative to LR for RAW conversion, capture sharpening and setting Black and White points before importing into LR.
All best
Manoli
-
Hi,
No compelling reason, except if you have a camera LR4 does not support. There is some good stuff in LR5, that yo may miss.
It seems that Adobe doesn't mess upp LR with CreativeCloud stuff.
I will probably upgade pretty soon.
Best regards
Erik
-
But you surely know that Lightroom is licensed on it's own and Adobe has strongly suggested that it will continue to be so.
If you have used Lightroom for a long time, why would you consider (incompatible) alternatives? Even if you took a clean break away from Lightroom at a certain point you would still have to use Lightroom to handle your pirctures before the clean break (unless you want to convert everything to TIFF or reedit everything in another RAW converter). I hate the lockin, but it is a sure thing. There should be really strong reasons for me to move away from Lightroom and the LR5 upgrade is an obvious thing to do in my opinion and there is no change in the licensing model going to LR5.
Regarding CC I hope Adobe will come to their senses regarding photographers who only use Photoshop marginally and do not upgrade for every release.
No, I have a LR4 licenses but have decided a long time ago not to commit my images to it.
I use LR4 as one possible option among others without leveraging its image mgt capabilities.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
But you surely know that Lightroom is licensed on it's own and Adobe has strongly suggested that it will continue to be so.
Company strategies can change and marketing speech is cheap. Even if Adobe people are perfectly honest when they say that Lightroom is planned available as stand-alone, the CC-thing has made me significantly more critical about the lock-in that the Lightroom catalog does to me.
If there was an open-source alternative that was as user-friendly and efficient as Lightroom, I would probably switch even if that caused a slight decrease in image quality (perhaps choosing to do heavy-lifting in an external editor for images that needed/deserved it). Sadly, what many open-source projects lack is exactly an efficient and intuitive user-interface.
If you have used Lightroom for a long time, why would you consider (incompatible) alternatives? Even if you took a clean break away from Lightroom at a certain point you would still have to use Lightroom to handle your pirctures before the clean break (unless you want to convert everything to TIFF or reedit everything in another RAW converter). I hate the lockin, but it is a sure thing. There should be really strong reasons for me to move away from Lightroom and the LR5 upgrade is an obvious thing to do in my opinion and there is no change in the licensing model going to LR5.
Automated conversion of *.lrcat to other formats might be really in-demand if LR is ever CC-ed, even if that conversion only got you 90% of the way (e.g. tagging, rating, curves/levels/exposure).
-h
-
Company strategies can change and marketing speech is cheap. Even if Adobe people are perfectly honest when they say that Lightroom is planned available as stand-alone, the CC-thing has made me significantly more critical about the lock-in that the Lightroom catalog does to me.
If there was an open-source alternative that was as user-friendly and efficient as Lightroom, I would probably switch even if that caused a slight decrease in image quality (perhaps choosing to do heavy-lifting in an external editor for images that needed/deserved it). Sadly, what many open-source projects lack is exactly an efficient and intuitive user-interface. Automated conversion of *.lrcat to other formats might be really in-demand if LR is ever CC-ed, even if that conversion only got you 90% of the way (e.g. tagging, rating, curves/levels/exposure).
-h
Yes, of course, the strategy can changed at any time if Adobe wants to make Lightroom part of the CC. For me that wouldn't matter if the price per month was roughly what the yearly upgrade costs now. But I believe that Lightroom is in a quite different space than Photoshop (at least at the moment) with such a wide spread usage across professional and amateur photographers. Also don't forget the competition in this space, where Photoshop has hardly any competition.
I'm rather sceptical to a conversion program to automatically convert to another RAW converter since there is so many algorithms to emulate or reverse engineer and adapt to the algorithms of another one (many subtleties that are not published besides the algorithms themselves). In my opinion a much better strategy would be to keep the latest Lightroom at a time of a switch and convert the best images (published images) to TIFF and then use another RAW converter from then on.
-
Aside from the LR PV 2012 tone controls which do an arguably better job of high dynamic range captures, the biggest potential improvement of LR vs C1 is the sharpening and noise reduction in LR.
Either C1 or LR is capable of outstanding raw image processing...but the main point is that by default for P1 camera backs, C1 does a better default color rendering but LR is capable of being adjusted to match C1. However, LR's sharpening and noise reduction isn't really capable of being matched in C1.
Hi Jeff,
Sharpening and noise reduction, as implemented, are mostly post-processing operations. So it doesn't really make much sense to compare an application that attempts to be all (LR), to what basically is a Raw converter (C1). There are better noise reduction and sharpening options available in dedicated applications/plug-ins than both programs can offer.
So, while it's nice for a one-stop-shopping approach, such as Lightroom offers, that it additionally does quite a decent job of sharpening (if the right parameters can be found), masking, and noise reduction. However, it is IMHO not very useful to compare apples and oranges, because both programs are intended to be used for quite different workflows.
As to the question whether there is a compelling reason to upgrade from LR4 to LR5, I suppose that depends on whether the new features are important enough for one's workflow. That's a question one can only answer for oneself.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I'm rather sceptical to a conversion program to automatically convert to another RAW converter since there is so many algorithms to emulate or reverse engineer and adapt to the algorithms of another one (many subtleties that are not published besides the algorithms themselves).
Perhaps I am biased by being curious as to how good such an algorithm could work.
-h
-
Perhaps I am biased by being curious as to how good such an algorithm could work.
-h
It's not just an algorithm, it's tons of algorithms. As an analogy just look at how well Adobe themselves manage to adjust parameters between PV 2010 and PV2012! In my view a total waste of time to try to do a conversion since it would not satisfy any other than the most trivial cases.
-
In my view a total waste of time to try to do a conversion since it would not satisfy any other than the most trivial cases
Hans, your input is rather negative, and really adds nothing. You are mixing linear, and then apple to orange. Doesn't satisfy the idea.
And the idea of even questioning why someone would consider an alternate other than LR is really limited thinking and doesn't lead to anything productive.
But you surely know that Lightroom is licensed on it's own and Adobe has strongly suggested that it will continue to be so.
Surely know??? What perspective of a corporate capatilst ideal are you on in this day and age?
If you have used Lightroom for a long time, why would you consider (incompatible) alternatives?
Even if you took a clean break away from Lightroom at a certain point you would still have to use Lightroom to handle your pirctures before the clean break (unless you want to convert everything to TIFF or reedit everything in another RAW converter).
You would use the last version you have to convert to anything that gets you out. TIff/16bit is a darn good option. Maybe a converter will be developed? Why would you limit and accept what a money hungry giant is doing. Do you realize how rich these companies are!! Do you realize this move is based out of simple GREED? They want more and more. If your drive is greed, it will mix into all available resources...even LR.
I hate the lockin, but it is a sure thing
Sure thing??? Are you serious? See above.
the LR5 upgrade is an obvious thing to do in my opinion
Obvious?? Whats obvious? Thats why this thread started, why cut it with something obvious to you only? It doesn't add to the discussion.
Regarding CC I hope Adobe will come to their senses regarding photographers who only use Photoshop marginally and do not upgrade for every release.
So you think they will actually say, "sorry, here, it is now back and available as a non-CC use", really?
This I hope you are right about, but it will not cross my mind of Adobe doing such a thing.
I know you like LR and don't need anything other, and I understand how some (likely most ) take such a position.
There are MANY raw developers, and some very good alternates. You are painting the idea that LR is the end all and what ever Adobe throws at us we should sit there like a wallruss and open our mouths and swallow everything thrown in our mouths.
Regardless of your wonderful images and great eye ...
No thank you! :-)
So...
It sounds like LR5.1 needs a preset for non AA or non Bayer sensors. All or most Digibacks don't have the AA.
Schewe can also release a free plugin with the next book, 5 Presets to get your Phase images beyond "other" processors (C1)
?
I have been using image editors since Adobe was Aldus.
I have just about all of the earlier apps, and Phoshop has been the main app. (I will soon be switching). I lean towards Bernards position in all this. I DO use LR now, as it already forces a DAM manager on you, and ACR is limited from what LR provides. BUT, I will drop it in a heartbeat if CC is in the air.
The one thing I see deviding users is that if you want to enhance or make effects and add some "theme" to your images LR has more ease of tools to do this.
If you are doing a production shoot with all the lighting is studio, than C1 is the one that is used. This in part due to the fact that DB users can ONLY use C1 to capture with. (unless you shoot with DSLR for production).
I don't know the programing, and do approach these tools as a "technical" artist. So I don't delve into algorithms much. But if all my images I shoot off the DB are being adjusted (rather lightly) in C1, this would lead me to think there can be a correlation developed in LR to adapt to some base point in C1. I want to say color being aside, which would make things much easier... but you really can't as the detail is in different colors of gradations related to the darkest point all throughout the image. So that maybe the advantage of C1, getting the color right first, and then things fall into place? I haven't photographed with a dsl in controlled light in a long time, so I might have to test it. I don't know if I have any testing energy in me these days, but, perhaps someone else can?
Even if there are tons of algos and overlaps, Not trying only satisfies the financial separations and interests. Not making things better, and more available
-
Hi,
No compelling reason, except if you have a camera LR4 does not support. There is some good stuff in LR5, that yo may miss.
Best regards
Erik
Well, an upgrade is worth it when they iron out the most egregious bugs: http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/ (http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/) but if you don't downsize images for web much (I do) then maybe that's not a problem...
Stan
-
I wish DXO and other devs like Corel's AfterShot pro would support DB raw files.
So far it is C1 and LR ONLY! (Photiva is hard for me to use)
-
Phil,
You are taking my responses out of context. Regarding a conversion program between edits done in Lightroom and another RAW converter, I believe this is not productive to work on since this will never be right. This is not a negative view, rather it is a very realistic view to have. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but this is very unlikely in this case.
And yes, companies are money hungry, that's what they should be. The problem is when there is not adequate competition. In the case of RAW converters there is competition.
Regarding lockin, what I meant by that is that since edits in any RAW converter are proprietary by nature you are locked in, unless you want to export everything as TIFF done so far and change to another RAW converter. I'm not questioning the idea of having alternatives, in fact the contrary.
In fact the Adobe CC maybe a good thing as competitors my breathe new air. I also doubt that Adobe will change their model, which btw. makes a lot of sense for both Adobe and their core market for the CC products. Just not for the rest of us.
-
Hey Hans, If I did, I didn't do it to be bad, but some things you mentioned were stopping the idea of trying things. I was hoping to point them out.
You maybe right that it may not happen. This maybe realistic... but only if you take and promote such a position. No attempted will be made.
I agree it won't be perfect, but I would like to see(MANY if not all Phase users might agree with me), And willing to pay for such.
Maybe Schewe can take one of my images and do a step by step process to match C1. This would work as a base for many of my shoots with the Db.
Yes, I guess Adobe is not the government, they aren't killing the forests and creating wars, sure they can be money hungry. But I disagree that there is competition. The raw file is locked from raw developers.
The largest DB maker in the world is only processed by LR. The files can only be writen to their proprietary software(C1 can only tetherto take pictures of Phase One backs).
DXO the company that puts out ratings of sensor quality I would think could at least would develop IIQ files. They don't. (I think they can stay away from lens support for some formats).
You maybe right about the CC breathing new air to others. I surely will be cutting my PShop usage at Cs5. (Lets see if LR will limit the "editout options, as I get warnings to upgrade to dev7.4 already)
I hope other dev can do something with the Phase IIQ files. For some time we were able to shoot in TWO formats TIF/Raw and IIQ raw.
-
Schewe can also release a free plugin with the next book, 5 Presets to get your Phase images beyond "other" processors (C1)
?
Sorry...not interested...
I have been using image editors since Adobe was Aldus.
Not for nothing, but Adobe was never Aldus...Adobe was Adobe, and Aldus was Aldus till Adobe bought Aldus.
-
ok, Aldus turned into Adobe...get picky why don't you.
How about processing an image to match?
-
...get picky why don't you.
Ooops. The nasties are on the march.
Really, condensing a lot of interesting - if fairly inconsequential - debate into an answer to the original question.................
Some folk have found variety of compelling reasons to upgrade from LR4 to LR5.
Other have not needed a compelling reason and have upgraded anyway.
Some don't feel like upgrading at present but might later on.
Whatever floats your boat, guys. (or any number of equally inane clichés)
-
How about processing an image to match?
With your vast experience, I assume you already know how to do that...matching is easy...getting the best out of an image takes a bit more skill.
-
And maybe that's where I find it easier to just use C1 when shooting with Phase.
I also think there is an understanding that you have about the innards of the processing that gives you a faster jump on getting the best from an image. I would adjust and readjust (specifically Balck level vs regionShadows, Contrast vs Clarity, Exposure vs White/jighlight) according to what I see .
I don't know if these different sliders are explained in specific relations to each other...preferably with a sample image or swatches to show what is happening.... in your book?
I hope you can answer beyond a Yes or No. Would be great to hear something like..."There are 4 chapters dedicated to it, and YES I DO explain how they relate and differ, and you can see it in sample A or B etc"
:-)
-
I don't know if these different sliders are explained in specific relations to each other...preferably with a sample image or swatches to show what is happening.... in your book?
I hope you can answer beyond a Yes or No. Would be great to hear something like..."There are 4 chapters dedicated to it, and YES I DO explain how they relate and differ, and you can see it in sample A or B etc"
:-)
Yes, there's several chapters in my Digital Negative book devoted to using "these different sliders"...and example images for download.
-
I think I might get this book, just to try and prove myself limited from not involving another persons perspective.
Besides, there maybe important things that I might be overlooking. My LR files are very nice, but not as nice/clear, well defined as C1v7.... So this I will try.
I have purchased a couple DVD's from Michael, but that was before I used LR.
Anyone other than the 2 or 3 discussing this, feel free to CHIME IN, and suggest some other sources of information. If you haven't got first hand experience, try to make that clear.
-
It seems that I have a compelling reason not to upgrade immediately - No More Snow Leopard (Mac 10.6.8). So, I have to decide if I feel the urge to install Mountain Lion or whatever the current OS is. I have an older MacBook Pro with only one dual-core processor and 8 G of RAM.
-
If you're willing to spend the time learning it, InDesign knocks spots off the book module. Infinitely more capable and flexible.
While I love InDesign, and have used it since v1 ... even convinced several local publications to adopt it way back when the folks selling Quark Express were jerking their customers around ... Quite honestly though, ID is overkill for a traditional wedding album, or a senior portrait keepsake book ...
I design books/albums for myself and about six other local photographers ... and if you ever worked on a book in Aperture 3, you would soon see what a pleasure it is to work directly with your RAW image files and not have to be buried in a mountain of exported derivative files so ID can be employed in the process ... Adobe is missing the mark (and a great opportunity) with the Lr Book module spending so much time and effort for a tool that is basically useless if you want to use any vendor other than Blurb ...