Jeff_Stapleton wrote:
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 ...Show more →
Excellent detail for sure, but the color seems flat and listless to me in the 100% crop; there is no subtlety or nuance of color in the skin tone. This is my biggest beef with LR/ACR: what it does to color.
Would be interesting to see you process this in DPP and post a side by side (after equalizing NR settings). DPP often gives better color to my eye. You might also try disabling or significantly reducing the chroma NR and see if you like the results better. Sometimes a bit of residual color noise at print magnifications works like dither and makes the results more convincing and film-like.
stanj wrote:
Well what about both: it requires an Intel Mac _AND_ 10.5.6. It clearly says so in the Info.plist - minimum system required: 10.5.6. Since the binary isn't fat but only Intel, well, it won't run on a PPC machine. But that doesn't mean that the customer support person had no clue what they were talking about - as a matter of fact, they were correct.
You are correct.. but... what I was pointing out was the fact that having 10.5.6 which the post mentioned the team member said wouldn't do you any good because you could have 10.5.6 or 10.5.8 but without an Intel Mac (like I don't have) no go. So he either forgot to mention the Intel part or the poster forgot to post it. Not a biggy except for the people that mentioned they were getting an error message trying to load it. All I was going by was what the post said.
Daan B wrote:
Differences are minimal (if there are any at all) between LR 2 and 3... as to be expected.
I don't know why people think the LR3 files have "better" saturation, punch, crispness and what not
At that size, the differences are minimal. At ISO 100, the differences are minimal. But shadow areas at high ISO, the difference is quite significant, especially if they are OOF - instead of a waxy blob you now have something that for instance looks like textile structure.
You won't see anything on web size images, though.
ChrisDar wrote:
So he either forgot to mention the Intel part or the poster forgot to post it. Not a biggy except for the people that mentioned they were getting an error message trying to load it. All I was going by was what the post said.
I did mention in this thread I am on a MacBook and iMac. I gave the LR contact the same info (you have to do that). So, Intel Macs it is
a couple of 100% crops of a 3200 ISO 7D file that's floating around the net - one from LR2.5 beta, one from LR3.
Same sharpening and chroma NR applied to both, and luma NR off (or at default - I forget: certainly not at all high, anyway) in 2.5:
2.5
3
You can clearly see the difference in the "grain" of the files, and the improved crispness and detail - and lack of "clumping" - of LR3 is strongly suggested too.
