Lightroom 4 BETA - Its here

[Alan Goldhammer]

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.

[madmanchan]

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.  

[madmanchan]

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.).

[madmanchan]

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).

[Fish_Shooter]

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.

[wolfnowl]

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...

[Ernst Dinkla]

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

[rcloud]

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

[Rhossydd]

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 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.

[rcloud]

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!!!

[Ben Rubinstein]

Question, what does the new 'White' tool do?

[Hans Kruse]

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.

[VitOne]

I am very happy with the moiré brush: http://managingcolors.blogspot.com/2012/01/lightroom-4-beta-moire-brush.html

[BernieKohl]

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...

[TinFoilSkin]

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.

[Josh-H]

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.

[NikoJorj]

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?

[Rhossydd]

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.

[Hans Kruse]

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.

[TinFoilSkin]

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,