globalkiwi wrote:
Anybody using the beta version on a regular basis? Just wondering how stable &/or buggy it is ...
It's stable (no crashes), and it's buggy. My main gripes are insanely slow import speed / reliability (skips images that I dragged in), the fact that the scroll wheel on the mouse doesn't work in the film strip in develop mode, and the occasional redraw glitch which fixes itself. Image quality is better.
anorphirith wrote:
thanks it looks pretty good, the should have called lightroom 2.6
Based on the current feature-list, I would tend to agree! But if they did that, they wouldn't be able to charge the upgrade fee for existing users. BTW--the current retail for LR 2.x is $299. The upgrade to 3.x will cost 2.x users $99.
I still think that all those "import" and "export" improvements are less important than the fundamental improvements in the noise reduction and sharpening. But feature-wise, I would have preferred lens distortion correction a la PTLens. Or Nik Viveza and U-Point like functionality (also found in Capture NX).
Yohan Pamudji wrote:
Better than v2 or just stronger? They bragged about not having to move the slider over as much as before to remove noise, but is it really better?
Can't really comment, Yohan - I don't use Lr much because I'm not that keen on the IQ results, and never apply Lr NR if I do use it.
I can say that initial impressions of Lr 3's IQ - and noise handling in particular - is pretty positive.
This photo was originally shot with an EV of -1.5 to prevent the highlights from blowing out (EXIF included). The files came straight out of LR3 and LR2.5 without any PhotoChopping. I also copied all the settings between the LR versions.
To my eyes, LR3's sharpening is improved--less blotchy looking, and preserves the finer details better. Also, it seems like the new "engine" has better color saturation. There's just a little more "pop" with the LR3 processed file.
#1a. Shot with a Tammy 28-75mm @ f5.6:
#1b. Here's a 100% crop near the center from the LR3 file:
#1c. Here's a 100% crop near the center from the LR2.5 file:
That's a pretty compelling example. The color could probably be duplicated in v2.5 with a little more saturation, but it looks like v3 is resolving detail better. Am I seeing that right? The foliage looks a lot more natural to me in the v3 version. I don't do many shots with fine detail so I haven't really had a problem with v2.5, but if this is how good v3 is comparatively I'm very impressed. They skimped on the big surface feature changes (UI, processing options, etc.), but their claims about a completely new RAW engine might have some merit after all.
Anybody else have thoughts on v3 vs. v2.5 in terms of detail?
Look carefully at the water in the lower left corner. I think I am seeing something there that I am finding in my testing. Even without any grain added, LR3 seems to add some of the film grain. I don't care for that at all.
I'd rather have the detail and the (completely unobtrusive unless viewed at 100%) "grain" myself - I can fix the tiny additional noise burden in the next PP stage if I need to, but lost detail is gone forever.
This is getting perilously close to a Lightroom I'd readily use...
justruss wrote:
I'm excited about this... if only because it should spur Apple to release Aperture 3.0 around the same time or slightly before. Someone found a May 2010 release for an Aperture 3 How-To book... so one may hope.
I'd really hate to have to switch to LR... the workflow and organization with Aperture is, in my opinion, just so much better. But LR really trumps Aperture in a few measures... and I'm tempted. I'll hold out another 6 months...
I'd be curious to hear what specifically you like about Aperture over Lightroom. Perhaps in its own thread?
Hmm. Does Lightroom support non-destructive plugins? Improving built-in noise reduction and sharpening is silly when they could be supporting plugins and letting partners do that work. Not that I mind it, just sort of a waste.
I think they would have needed to add video editing to call this a 3.0 release instead of 2.6
I have to say, I shot some stuff at 1600 on the 30D and a 85/1.8 last night. I don't have LR2, but I do have Photoshop CS4. I downloaded the LR3 demo last night... I really still see PS as a valuable tool, but LR is like bridge and basic elements of PS rolled into one.
Like said above, LR3 does add a bit of film grain, BUT...I found the detail in my 1600 RAW shots to be unbelievable...Sharpness is relative I suppose, but I really was impressed at how much detail was there.
I'd gladly take the trade off of a bit more grain in this case.
Here is the shot...
Here is the 100% crop
These were default out of LR with the "punch" filter applied...no extra sharpening or anything besides cropping. They might not be that great...I don't know how good of a test the 30D is...but I'm really pleased with the results
Odd that it seems to add grain even at low ISO (m3rocket's landscape shot). If it just didn't remove grain as well at high ISO it might be attributable to them still working on the luminance noise removal (which they are), but why wouldn't it just leave low ISO as-is?
m3rocket,
Did you do any fill light, curves, etc. to lift the shadow? That might account for the noise in that low ISO shot.
Works fine, but a few glitches. Video over saturates on output. Had to adjust three times to get this. Not too bad now, but hope for more adjustments. It also resized the frame even though the crop and process were a repeat. Not sure about that one. The audio add worked well, but the length adjustments need a little fine tuning. And it stumbled at the end. The output is auto mp4 which is a little low quality even on the 720 setting. That said, the file is small and processed faster than any video output I have seen. Like less than 2 minutes to video. That will be a real boast for proofing galleries.
Here's the first attempt at a video gallery. Normally we use iMovie09 – which by nature takes a lot longer. Happy Birthday Ina!
Yohan Pamudji wrote:
Odd that it seems to add grain even at low ISO (m3rocket's landscape shot). If it just didn't remove grain as well at high ISO it might be attributable to them still working on the luminance noise removal (which they are), but why wouldn't it just leave low ISO as-is?
m3rocket,
Did you do any fill light, curves, etc. to lift the shadow? That might account for the noise in that low ISO shot.
The grain from the lower half is probably because I did a gradient--about one stop. No fill light was used, but I did set the Black to 2 (default is 5). No curves other than the standard medium contrast. I shot with a -1.5 EV to not blow out the sky, then did a grad in LR to lighten up the bottom half. I don't mind the mild grain since I'm getting finer details. I suspect a little luminance NR would pretty much eliminate the grain if one so chooses.
