Why do you say that? I've got CS5 right now, and Lightroom 4 --> CS5 works just fine. Heck, I've done a Lightroom to GIMP workflow and it works just fine. (At work, before I installed the second allowed copy of CS5 on my work machine).
As to colors...Adobe Camera RAW has really been improving over the past few years. For a while I much prefered the conversions of C1 Pro to those of ACR, but starting with LR3, I was really impressed with ACR/LR, and with a custom color profile for all my cameras with my Color Checker Passport, it really helps make for good, accurate color.
Jman13 wrote:
Why do you say that? I've got CS5 right now, and Lightroom 4 --> CS5 works just fine. Heck, I've done a Lightroom to GIMP workflow and it works just fine. (At work, before I installed the second allowed copy of CS5 on my work machine).
If you want to open a RAW file from LR->PS it complains that you need a newer version (7.0) of ACR.. which will be released with CS6.
You get the choice of either letting LR rendering the image and then you get an additional TIFF/PSD file for each raw file you open or you can open it in the current ACR version and get a rendering in PS that is completely different from what you had in LR.
snowboarder wrote:
BTW what is your workflow Luka?
I use LR for my image library and the raw development. My usual workflow for the images I post here goes something like this:
() = steps I always do
[] = optional steps that I sometimes do
(1) Import images into LR
(2) Make a selection of images and put a rating on the good ones
For each image:
(3) Make basic adjustments in LR (cropping, exposure, contrast, black levels etc)
(4) Export image to photoshop
[5] Make color adjustments in LAB mode
[6] Fix various details in the image (cloning, content aware fill etc)
[7] Dodging and burning using a tablet
[8] Save (if the changes done in PS were significant)
(9) Resize and sharpen
[10] Selective sharpening using mouse or tablet
(11) Add frame and save for web
It largely depends on how much work I feel like putting into an image. 80-90% of the times, the stuff I post here have just had the basic adjustments in LR and the resize and sharpen done in PS.
denoir wrote:
If you want to open a RAW file from LR->PS it complains that you need a newer version (7.0) of ACR.. which will be released with CS6.
You get the choice of either letting LR rendering the image and then you get an additional TIFF/PSD file for each raw file you open or you can open it in the current ACR version and get a rendering in PS that is completely different from what you had in LR.
Huh....I guess I never realized that "edit in photoshop" did that, mainly because I very rarely do "Edit in Photoshop" ...it made TIF of PSD files even from LR3 to Photoshop CS5, so I have an export preset that exports JPEGs and opens them full size in Photoshop (So I right click, select "export to Photoshop" and I get a JPEG to work on. I will make the TIFF if I need a 16-bit file to work on, but most of the time I don't....and if I DO need 16-bit files to work on, I'm going to be saving as a TIFF or PSD anyway, or I wouldn't be opening it in Photoshop, so I don't see much of the issue. You can always select "Have Lightroom render the image" and click the 'don't nag me' box so you don't see it again.
I very often do only resize and sharpening in PS so I don't need or want a second TIFF/PSD image. It just clutters my LR library. Also if you import it as raw into photoshop, you can make ad-hoc ACR adjustments.
denoir wrote:
(1) Import images into LR
(2) Make a selection of images and put a rating on the good ones
For each image:
(3) Make basic adjustments in LR (cropping, exposure, contrast, black levels etc)
Thanks! I guess the advantage of using LIghtroom over Bridge is really step 3.
where you can apply some basic adjustments to more than one image at once.
Plus importing images into Lightroom, tagging, meta keywords etc. is a bit nicer.
But if you do extensive work on every image in PS, workflow Bridge -> PS
makes probably as much sense.
snowboarder wrote:
Thanks! I guess the advantage of using LIghtroom over Bridge is really step 3.
where you can apply some basic adjustments to more than one image at once.
Actually, you can also do this with Bridge/ ACR by simply selecting all the images you wish to open together in Bridge and then Syncronizing the adjustments of one image to all the rest when in ACR.
1.
I don't mind the extra step of getting a PSD file in the catalog when opening the image in Photoshop. But then I stopped buying Photoshop at CS3 anyway...
Whenever serious about an image I want to bring it into Photoshop anyway and saving the starting point and start working from there is OK. That PSD file will be my starting point where either do some processing for the web or for printing, or both, so I'll have that initial PSD file anyway.
Initial adjustments, then Ctrl+Alt+E and I'm right in Photoshop with the 16-bit PSD file.
2.
One thing bugging with me LR4 is that the manual lateral CA controls are gone. LR is supposed to do the best job automatically. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I'll have to look more into this.
3.
I can't say anything about speed as I recently upgraded my main rig to an i7 16GB RAM Win 7 64-bit thing and everyhting feels fast compared to what it used to be with my old single core XP machine.
Mar 07, 2012 at 10:35 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
allofthelights wrote:
Every time I try Aperture it just runs too slowly compared to Lightroom. This would probably not be an issue with a brand new machine, but it was the case when I tried Aperture back in 2009 as well, when my MBP was brand new.
Lightroom is also catching up in the areas where Aperture is better. The maps module is one example of this. I still hate having to switch between the Library and Develop module though.
Another important point is that Adobe's commitment to the creative community is a lot more reassuring than Apple's. This is Adobe's bread and butter, while Aperture/FPX/etc are peripheral to Apple's main revenue streams. Just look at how Apple is typically dragging their feet to provide RAW support for newly released cameras....Show more →
I know this is off topic, but the key thing that is needed for aperture in video ram. If you have lots it runs well, without it the performance will be slow.
corposant wrote:
With every version, more and more of what was traditionally only possible in Photoshop creeps into Lightroom.
I read this in the comments on the dpr review of LR4, and I have to agree:
By HopeSpringsEternal I'm really disappointed in this new release. The improvements to the RAW decoding engine and develop panel are appreciated but there are very little much requested features for this to be a major version release requiring a new purchase/upgrade cycle and investment in new Photoshop CS6 in order to get the compatible version of Adobe Camera RAW.
Where is support for adjustment layers and selection of adjustment masks using anything but a paint brush?
Where is support for real clone/heal tools like in Photoshop.
Where is support for people tagging? Tagging of faces, etc..
Where is support for 10bit+ displays?
Where is support for in-pipeline plugins? I don't want to have to render my images and make a second copy just to apply a plugin. I want my plugins to participate in non-destructive editing.
I'm sure there a lot more feature requests on the Adobe feedback site but so far it seems that Adobe expects people to upgrade to 4.0 just for the highlight/shadow adj improvements. ...Show more →
Jonas B wrote:
2.
One thing bugging with me LR4 is that the manual lateral CA controls are gone. LR is supposed to do the best job automatically. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I'll have to look more into this.
Several people have commented that LR 4 is and will be incompatible with the CS5 Camera Raw. Camera Raw can be upgraded independently of CS5 and there is a Camera Raw 6.7 release candidate available now that (I believe) is compatible with the LR 4 engine.
kkcsm wrote:
Camera Raw can be upgraded independently of CS5 and there is a Camera Raw 6.7 release candidate available now that (I believe) is compatible with the LR 4 engine.
Am I missing something?
Yes.
6.7 is not compatible with the new engine, it's a minor update for CS5.
To get the new RAW engine, you need to purchase CS6 (thank Adobe for that).
My GXR + M module arrived yesterday. Owning already a Nex-5N, if i took the plunge with the Ricoh, it's mainly because of this thread..
First impressions are mixed feelings, as expected. It's unavoidable to compare both systems. None is perfect and I'm afraid I'll keep the NEX and the GXR. until something significantly better appears.
One thing I noticed with some surprise on my first tests: the CV 15/4.5 has practically the same color drift in the corners on both cameras ( although luma vigneting is less noticeable on the Ricoh )
Question for you, guys:
Being a lifetime PC-WIndows user, I'm very, very reluctant to set up a MAC system (be it hardware, or soft via Hack-virtual machine or whatever ). only for the benefit of using RPP.
Which Win based soft would you advice for the GXR files ? ( offering noticeable advantages over Adobe Lightroom /ACR for color accuracy, sharpness, moire control, etc.. ),. Workflow isn't paramount, I'm not a pro having to process lots of files on a daily basis.
PS:
Sorry. Wrong thread. I meant to post in the 'no love for the GXR...' .
snowboarder wrote:
Yes.
6.7 is not compatible with the new engine, it's a minor update for CS5.
To get the new RAW engine, you need to purchase CS6 (thank Adobe for that).
This is not 100% correct. ACR 6.7RC actually contains the new 2012 process engine and can be used with LR4. You will get the warning that you need ACR 7 but if you tell it to go ahead and process, it will do it using the 2012 process settings you used in LR4.
This is of limited use, however, since even though the 2012 process is contained within ACR 6.7RC, you do not have access to the 2012 controls - not in the normal ACR interface nor as a Smart Object from LR4.
It does allow you to render directly into CS5 using the 2012 process without creating an initial intermediate TIFF, and does save a small amount of time initially by doing that.
