Lightroom 3.0 versus Lr3b2

So far, pros (IMO):
- Some of the performance bottlenecks have been alleviated - yeah!
- There are some welcome additions to the SDK.
- The lens corrections are awesome (I haven't scrutinized them, but the first whacks seemed pretty good)
- Misc little things, including:
- You can select multiple collections and multiple folders simultaneously again (I missed this more than sticky filters).
cons:
- I found it impossible to import my Lr3b2 data (in catalog form) into my converted Lr2 catalog - resorted to "xmp-based import" - all good now...
- I was kinda hoping for just one big surprise feature - oh well...
- I was kinda hoping for a small hand-ful of little surprise features - I guess there just wasn't time...
- Not as much SDK plumping as I would have liked...
What's your impression so far?
Rob

W.W. Webster wrote:
areohbee wrote:
Who's Apple?
Isn't that the mob that makes Aper... er, another photo management application?
Speaking of Aper... er, I was so distraught with how unpredictably predictable the LR3 final version was that I downloaded the free trial of Aperture3 this morning in hopes of getting my "new feature fix". Well, I found those features that I desired so much: all adjustments available for local brush, rgb curves, a "real" clone tool. Problem being that I realized all of the UI features that A3 doesnt have. For example, how about selecting multiple folders on import or easy access to ALL panes in full screen mode or a TATool.
In conclusion, Adobe may not be as good as Apple when it comes to marketing their product and pulling on the heart-strings of their prospectful users with surprise features and exciting videos (nothing personal Scott and Matt), but they sure as hell can deliver a solid program. It's difficult making software that integrates seamlessly with an entire suite (alot of politics involved), but the Lr team has done great with what they were given
I guess im just spoiled and want everything.
Good job Lr Team... eagerly awaiting 3.1 (maybe ACR will atleast add localized black point adjustment by then).

Similar Messages

Lightroom Noise reduction versus DPP

I have been playing with DPP for al little while because the EOS 50d wasn't supported until a few days ago. DPP has some kind of intelligent support of NR depending on the ISO of the photo. If I analyzed it whell it is supporting the NR level of the camera itself.
Is it possible to do this kind of NR in Lightroom also?
I know I can make defaults for an ISO level, but it would be very nice if Lightroom is able to get this kind of information from te RAW file. The same accounts for the sharpening, but this might be tricky.
Regards,
Olaf.

>I read on the internet that Canon and Nikon don't want to share that kind of information. Stupid! They don't sell software, so it shouldn't matter to open the information of their RAW files.
Well Nikon sells their Capture NX software. They don't give it away with their cameras (except for some short running promotions) like Canon does.I do believe Canon charges for updates. You would think that it would be in the camera maker's best interest to make their files as readible by anybody as possible as it makes their cameras more attractive to buyers, but they have a very strange worldview in which the RAW files are their files instead of the photographer's and that their software is by definition better in processing their files than any third party because they know all the secrets. They actually say stuff like that! Quite astonishing. The only thing we can do is to tell them what we think of that bull.
>Lightroom doesn't apply any luminance nr by default. This also accounts for the higher ISO levels?
Even at zero there is some luminance NR I think. There is also noise reduction and sharpening inherent to the tuning of the demosaicing algorithm. I think the tuning between more sharpness and less noise is dependent on ISO.
>Are there any more options which are depending on the ISO of the photo by default?
Where do you get this kind of information? I can't find any about this in the online help of Lightroom.
I think some intricacies in the color rendering also respond to this but that's probably the extent of it. Thomas Knoll (check the credits in Lightroom to see who that is) and others on the Lightroom/ACR teams have posted on this forum about these things as well as some people in the know. So I 'm giving you second-hand info here but you should be able to look back on this by searching for posts by Thomas and others. Doing this is very instructive anyway regardless of the subject.

Lightroom 2.0 versus PhotoElements 7 ?

Hi,
I have about 20,000 digital photos on disk organised in folders named yyyy-mm-dd-eventname. I need something better to organise and catalog them, edit where necessary, and maybe do slide shows (although I am thinking of ProShow Gold for that). The two obvious choices seem to be Lightroom 2 or Photoshop Elements 7 (AFAIK, easier to use, much cheaper and appears to be better for editing - lots of fancy new easy to use editing tools have been added).
From what I can see, PSE7 seems to fit the bill, but lots of people seem to rave about Lightroom. Why ? Is there a detailed comparison of Lightroom and PSE7 features available anywhere, or can anyone here give me some pointers ?
If I go for PSE7, and migrate to Lightroom 2 later - will it import all the tag library correctly (ie. preserve tags, and category hierarchies etc.) - Are the two compatible in that way ?
best regards,
Aidan.

Hi all, thanks for the responses.
"...It's major feature is not what it can do but its workflow design for working with large quantities of images...."
I didnt really understand this until I checked it out on the web - eg. demo at http://www.vimeo.com/613582. I'm not sure how much use this would be to me though - do you have to have lots of *the same* photo to make use of this - why would someone want to adjust the contrast, colors etc on large batches of photos that were different? I rarely take more than two or three shots of the same scene, so I suspect this (often quoted) LR feature wont be any use to me.
"...One thing LR could learn from elements catalog though is how easy it is to search using multiple keywords by use of checkboxes, but again, it doesn't seem as if the adobe LR really gave much consideration to it's library module, especially in regards to what elements actually did right..."
I tend to agree with this comment after the first hour or so playing with both trial versions.
"...As far as I can tell, PSE7 does not yet offer the option of editing in Camera RAW for non-RAW files. For RAW files you can save the edits to XMP sidecars, but for non-RAW files, once you finish editing you have to either export to a new file or cancel your edits. I consider that to be a big plus for Lightroom..."
I dont fully understand the above comment, and I cant find much info on the extent of the PSE7 support for RAW, but The Adobe website page for PSE7 says that you can "Enjoy enhanced support for working with raw files"..."Get the highest quality results by performing nondestructive editing on the raw image files from your digital camera. Enjoy fine control over lighting and color adjustments, and save time by applying the same set of adjustments across multiple raw images simultaneously you can even see batch-applied changes as they're made. And now, edit raw files from a greater selection of camera models. ". I havnt shot anything in RAW format yet, so I guess it's less of an issue for me unless I start using RAW from now on.
All in all, it seems that for me (amateur, but with lots of images) if I only buy one tools PSE7 is probably better. The organiser seems easier to use, and the localised editing (and easy-to-use quick-fixes) seems suited to digital editing newbies. I don't mind saving edited photos under a different name (or overwriting the original) if necessary. RAW I'm not sure about yet though.

Problems with Canon 7D .cr2 files

Hello, this question may have already been asked but I have been unable to find an answer -- if it is in another discussion, please feel free to direct me there.
I have .cr2 files from a Canon 7D that produce significantly different results in Lightroom 3.3 versus Canon's Digital Photo Professional (3.7.1.1) software -- that is, the LR3.3 results show much poorer quality than DPP, with terrible grain throughout. There is also a significant color shift. These results carry through to output files (e.g. 16-bit TIFF, no compression), rendering Lightroom essentially unusable for developing my RAW .cr2 files, since they are not being rendered at highest quality.
Here is a 1:1 comparison below. This image below is a more extreme example to demonstrate the issue, shot at ISO 3200 f/5.6 1/100 sec.
And, albeit slightly more subtle, the grain is still clearly present in images shot at ISO 100.
I previously used ACR in CS4 to review my .cr2 files when I purchased my 7D fall 2009, but found the grain so distracting that I switched to DPP with much cleaner results. I chalked the grain in ACR up to an early pass at reading the 7D .cr2's. When upgrading to LR3 I expected the render to be better refined, only to find it as bad as ACR CS4.
If the grain is a permanent fixture of .cr2 RAW files in the ACR engine, LR3 is pretty much worthless to me. I had hoped to be able to quickly catalog/review and develop using the LR interface, instead of manually cataloging images, then going to DPP for TIFF output, and then Bridge/ACR for development.
Any insight or advice on a good fix would be much appreciated.

What noise reduction are you applying in LR?
LR's noise reduction in LR 3 is just about the best I have ever seen and certainly far superior to anything in DPP. If you are just looking at the initial preview then only a minimum amount of colour noise reduction and no luminance noise reduction is applied by default, where as DPP applies considerable noise reduction based on in camera settings. LR previews will not match DPP's inital previews of the files, but the tools in LR enable you to produce far better final results.

Behaviour sRGB embedded pictures in Lightroom versus IE

hello,
I have a calibrated monitor (6500K and a gamma of 2,2). I'm working with Windows Vista. When I view a picture with embedded sRGB profile in InternetExplorer (uses no colormanagement) and Adobe Lightroom (uses colormanagement), there is a very little difference in color between Internet Explorer and Lightroom or Windows photo gallery. IE shows the colors a little bit more saturated. The grays look the same.
I know that when I view a picture with embedded Adobe RGB profile or Prophoto profile, It will look completely different in Lightroom versus Internet Explorer.
sRGB is the default color space for Windows IE. Is it normal, even with a calibrated monitor, that there is still a little difference visible with sRGB embedded pictures, between applications using profiles (like Lightroom) and applications not using profiles (like Internet Explorer)

>s it normal, even with a calibrated monitor, that there is still a little difference visible with sRGB embedded pictures, between applications using profiles (like Lightroom) and applications not using profiles (like Internet Explorer)
Yes. You will only see the correct color in managed apps even on calibrated monitors. This includes Safari and Firefox
with the secret setting, but excludes Internet explorer and very surprisingly Google's Chrome (Boooo Google!!!). The reason for this is that the color primaries (i.e. the actual colors of your monitor's red, green, and blue emitters) are never exactly the same as sRGB's.
There is also a small knee in the shadow portion of sRGB. Most calibration software will calibrate not to this tone curve, but to simple gamma 2.2, so you will always see a small difference in the shadow portion between managed apps and unmanaged apps.
Now as Sean notes, you cannot really predict what your image will look like on other people's monitors. In general it will hover around to the look of sRGB on your calibrated monitor in managed apps, which is why everybody will recommend sRGB. But individually, you can get quite large deviations. Especially because of the current prevalence of laptops, which without fail almost always have terrible screens. They usually give rise to very strong shifts of the blue component (which some people erroneously interpret as a problem with sRGB). Unfortunately there is really nothing you can do about it.

Lightroom versus Elements

I am considering changing to Adobe for handling and editing my photographs. My impression is that Lightroom is a more sophisticated product than Elements. What are the feature differences between Lightrooom and Elements? Why Lightroom versus Elements? Do you have both and if so, why?

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/536430?tstart=0

IPhoto 09/Aperture 2 versus iPhoto 09/Adobe Lightroom 2

Does any one have any recommendations on which combination works best?

Lightroom has no awareness of the existence of iPhoto. There is no way that it can recognise the iPhoto Library or any of the work you have done in it - albums, keywords etc. To move files or photos between the two you will need to export from one and import to the other.
Aperture recognises the iPhoto Library and there is a command there to facilitate migration from iPhoto to Aperture. This process captures your Events, Albums, keywords and so forth.
Also, with the Aperture -> Show iPhoto Library command you can import individual photos over to Aperture.
From iPhoto the Show Aperture Library command means you can access the Previews in your Aperture Library.
At heart, these three applications do the same job. Aperture and Lightroom are firmly focussed on the Pro user shooting high volumes of RAW. They both offer distinct advantages over iPhoto in processing RAW, no matter what the volume.
What iPhoto can offer both of these are - very simple books, calendars and so on and much better slideshows options.
Regards
TD

Lightroom versus PhotoShop Elements Organizer and Bridge

This is directed to the Adobe Developer Team
I hope someone of the Developer team is reading this!!
For my understanding the three products out of one house (PhotoShop Elements Organizer, Bridge and Lightroom) doing about the same, should ...
work the same (same idea, same behaviour, organizing by path/subfolders instead of cataloges etc.)
maintain the same database and files (LR should recognize the collections from BR and Vice Versa, use the same cache files etc.) and should
be compatible to each other (e.g. Tags, Collections etc)
Actually I suggest ADOBE
to eliminate Organizer and integrate the good functions into BRIDGE (e.g. albums, upload to flickr, webpage generation etc)
give BRIDGE as the free of charge picture organizer to PS Elements and to PS CS
change LIGHTROOM into an payable upgrade of BRIDGE with enhanced functionality of the free of charge BRIDGE, (which can work as a stand-alone software as it does today
better integration of PSE, PS CS into Bridge/Lightroom (e.g. Panaorama function opens only PS CS but the version of PSE works much better, so I want to choose in the menu of Bridge/Lightroom)
I am really struggling with the three of them.
Beside that I suggest to get rid of the Catalog idea of Lightroom with it's import/export and synchronization needs and instead use or at least integrate the idea of BRIDGE to get pictures structured and organized by path and subfolders, as this is anyhow how the way pictures are stored already for most of us... I asume. I doubt that anybody just throw all files into one big subdirectory and get the organized into cataloges. But please keep collections as they are helpful to quickly collect some pictures to commonly work on them. by drag & drop. The Catalogues of LR drives me crazy but LR have a lot of nice functions (e.g. Webupload interfaces to flickr and others, nice noice reduction, nice albums and webpage functions, etc.)
Thanks
Merry X-Mas and a Happy New Year
Georg
PS: Please all of you comment your experience and opinion on this matter ... I am interested what you think about it.

Hi George,
Whereas Bridge and Photoshop Elements (and most non-LR users) base their organisation on the file / folder structure, Lightroom uses files / folders simply for storage - the catalog is used for organisation. This 'catalog based approach' provides far more flexibility, both in organisation, and in recording a complete, fully-reversible record of all edits made to each photograph.
To suggest that Adobe "get rid of the Catalog idea of Lightroom" and "get pictures structured and organized by path and subfolders" would remove almost ALL advantages Lightroom has over Bridge & PS Elements combined. To fully appreciate Lightroom, you need to appreciate that files and folders are not the only way to organise photos. Why not watch a few of the Adobe Lightroom Tutorial videos? This link below takes you to a video explaining about the Catalog;
http://tv.adobe.com/watch/george-jardine-on-lightroom/the-lightroom-catalog/
However, if you really want Adobe to hear your views, why not raise a Feature request with them, at this link below;
https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/mmform/index.cfm?name=wishform
I'm sure if you call your feature request 'Remove Catalog from Lightroom, and organise by Folders instead', it'll get noticed, as will any forum posts of the same name...
Cheers,
Alan

Adobe photoshop CS3 versus adobe photoshop lightroom 2.3

I already own adobe photoshop CS3. Is it worthwhile to get adobe photoshop lightroom 2.3? Is it easier to use?

You can check out some of the free Lightroom tutorial videos here
http://www.adobe.com/designcenter/lightroom/articles/lir2am_videotutorials.html
to get a sense of how workflow goes in Lightroom, and what Lightroom can do. I also agree that taking the free trial is going to give you a better sense of whether Lightroom will meet your specific needs than any answers you'll get here.
Lightroom is considered to be more newbie friendly than Photoshop. All arts editing programs, as far as I'm concerned, if they're any good, have a learning curve to master the features, and Lightroom is no exception, but LR's learning curve does tend to be less steep than Photoshop's for many users.
Many forum members who do have extensive experience with both programs have posted here that they now do the great majority or all of their editing with at least most of their images in Lightroom. Photoshop still has things it can do that Lightroom cannot do or cannot do as well, so it's not uncommon for people to post here that with an image that needs something exceptional, they'll still go over to Photoshop and put in some heavy duty editing time there. Adobe has made bouncing back and forth between the two programs easy. But often with Lightroom, you can make an image quite good with just a minute or two of edits, once you quickly get the hang of the program, and it offers many advantages in organization of large blocks of images.

Aperture versus Lightroom - web gallery

Greetings,
This is a sort of a two in one post. I use both Lightroom and Aperture, and I am curious to know how many out there prefer one over the other.
For me, I find it hard to choose because I want to be able to use only one program. Now I import my images into both libraries and I find it too tedious, especially given the amount of images I capture.
The one thing that Lightroom surpasses Aperture on is the web gallery update. As far as I know, Aperture only updates images online only to .Mac. Lightroom allows me to upload to any website I choose. My main site is astronomyonline.org and I have setup a gallery (http://astronomyonline.org/gallery - in case you want to have a peek!). Is there a way to have Aperture upload to a site other than .Mac?
PS - I have been a photographer for over 20 years, and now it has become a tool to allow me to enjoy the world around me as I am now legally blind! My Apple Cinema 30" monitor allows me to view and edit my images. MacSpeech Dictate allows my words to translate into text.

I do prefer Lightroom largely because it either supports or was quicker to support all of my cameras.
Now I will use Aperture only for album creation, but it also had advantages when it came to ease of e-mailing photos. I started with the original Lightroom beta, switched to Aperture and for the last 6 or 7 months have returned to Lightroom.

Install versus Run Issue - Lightroom CC

Hi everyone,
I just wanted to make really clear that there are 2 issues we're seeing currently.
Issue 1
You cannot install Lightroom CC because it's not available in the Creative Cloud app
Solution: Login and out to refresh the list of applications available
(there's also been reports of it only being available as a trial for subscribers - no solution there yet afaik)
Issue 2
You cannot run Lightroom CC after installing it. It simply will not start.
On Windows if you right click C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Lightroom\lightroom.exe and chose "Run as Administrator" you will get prompted for elevated priviligies. Than again nothing happens.
Solution: still none
Hope that helps clarifying the two issues

actually logging out and back in is necessary! rebooting and reinstalling doesn't help, but logging out and back in does:
here the official answer for Macs but it works for Windows as well. CC applications close immediately after launch

Lightroom Versus Photoshop CS

I use Photoshop CS to enhance/correct my Nikon camera files shot in RAW format. During the process of printing through Photoshop, my workflow consists of making sure I have calibrated the monitor (using X-rite Eye-one Display 2), have updated printer profiles, turn off color management through the printer dialog box, and use soft proofing. How does Lightroom compare to this workflow? Is it easier to use and are the printed results better? Is there a soft proofing method to use in Lightroom? I have my color preferences setup in Photoshop CS to my liking. So, is there a comparable color settings screen to setup in Lightroom? How are files saved in Lightroom if I want to open them in my CS version or won't this older version read them?

One of the advantages you would realize with Lightroom is that you would have all of the raw editing capabilities that have been added to the later versions of Camera Raw. You would have so much more available to you that you would wonder what you were thinking, trying to stay with Photoshop CS. Camera Raw version 2 is hardly recognizable compared to what is available in the newer versions.
Lightroom will save a copy of your raw image as a PSD or TIF image, and will pass that image with all of the Lightroom adjustments to Photoshop CS. Any adjustments you make in Photoshop will be part of the PSD or TIF image. The raw image is never modified by Photoshop. Of course, that is not unique to Lightroom. But I just wanted to point that out.
I'm not sure how to answer your other questions. Lightroom allows you to specify ProPhoto, Adobe RGB, or sRGB as the color space for PSD or TIF images. Since you already have all of your soft proofing and preferences set up in Photoshop, you might want to consider still printing as you have been doing in the past.

PS Elements versus Lightroom

Any opinions from those who upgraded from PSE to Lightroom? I use PSE 5 but am able to do most of my adjustments using the Adobe RAW Converter in PSE 5. How does Lightroom compare to the PSE Organizer and PSE ability to make RAW adjustments? I am a serious amateur - is Lightroom something I should consider?
Thanks,
Alan

I switched to LR from PSE5. I still use elements for some things, but I rely on LR exclusively 95% of the time. I shoot entirely in raw. If you are shooting jpgs, I don't recommend LR. But in raw, LR is fast easy and powerful. It is also better at organizing your data.
It edits in 16bit mode. Elements edits in 8 bit.
There are lots of editing tools that LR doesn't do, so I still use elements sometimes. It is very easy to switch into elements and send the edited picture back to LR.

LIghtroom versus Organizer \ PSE versus CS5

I need a little help. I built a website for family and friends to view some of our family photos and videos. I used SlideShowPro Director to manage the photo albums on the site (best $59 I think I've spent so far). They have a plug-in for Lightroom to automatically manage the albums and upload content. Right now I am manually uploading to the site which is not a big deal but if I add to an album or edit photos it would nice to have it flow right up.
I currently have PSE10 and PRE10 along with Organizer. I also have a new Camera coming which is 18mp but that is not really an issue for me here and at this point. I am now being told by sales (I should have done better research up front but not a big loss and my son can use the Elements package if I go this route) is that PSE10 only supports 8mp photos so if I bring anything larger into it they will be scaled down. Also, that Lightroom works seamlessly with CS5 but not with Organizer.
I am also being told that the Organizer Catalog and Albums cannot be ported over to LR. I have 12,000 files in it now and many I have faces assigned, many in more then one album, and keyword tags. So if I went with LR to manage the website albums I will have to build the LR catalog from scratch. Although it appears I can just drag & drop my folders into it.
So can someone help put some truth to this or dispel any misinformation? I would like to go with LR now and use it with my PSE and PRE10 that I currently have and move up to CS5 when needed. I don't mind the initial pain of building my LR catalog if I can have LR work with PSE and PRE. And does PSE10 scale down photos greater then 8mp?
Thanks much,
Joe..

If it is of any value to anyone here you go. I downloaded the trial and ran a bunch of tests and this is where I am at:
Lightroom is absolutely compatible with the PS Elements App. You can right click on an image and select EDIT WITH PHOTOSHOP ELEMENTS. Done.
You can IMPORT you Elements Organizer Catalog to Get Started. (Update: One caveat - it currently only supports through PSE9 Catalogs. Hopefully an update soon)
It is way more powerful then Elements Organizer but for most of my needs Organizer would have been fine. But LR has blown me away.
I downloaded and installed the Plug-In for SlideShowPro Director. It took about 10 minutes to install, configure, and actually upload an album from LR to my Website and automatically appeared in the Gallery in SSP. You can also make many configuration changes to SSP and either display individual Albums on one or more pages or you can drop the A Gallery with any number of Albums in it onto a page.
You can add Music to it and it has an automatic (but basic) pan and scan feature.
SSP writes either the HTML or PHP code for you and you just drop it onto a webpage and attach a hyperlink to it and done.
When I thought of wanting to do this the other day and even when I woke up this morning I had no idea how I was going to do it. Now the pieces are all in place and functioning. Not for nothing but it is also 1000 times faster, especially in the upload, to photoshop.com (sorry, but the PSC upload process is painful).
The hardest part was linking SSP to my webhost (Network Solutions) database. But their tools and wizard were easy enough to get through it without support.
Joe..

Printing with Lightroom versus Photoshop ...

I don't have a printer now, but I'm thinking to buy an Epson Stylus Pro ... and for my prospective print jobs, I have a question for printing gurus ...
Ceteris paribus ... are there any difference between photographs printed with Lightroom and printed with Photoshop from a .tiff file, 16 bit and in ProphotoRGB? If so, which programme do you prefer for your fine art works?
Thanks a lot.

I printed 288 patch target out of LR 4.4 and CS6. This is a rendered TIFF in sRGB. The average dE is tiny indicating at this point that data that is rendered doesn't go through the LR engine just to make a print (A raw most certainly must). The max dE is kind of high based I believe on not letting the Epson 3880 Luster targets dry. They were measured minutes out of the printer which isn't recommended <g>. I'll measure again tomorrow. I suspect that based on this quick test, and the fact that running rendered data in a defined color space though LR.'s processing color space makes no sense, that's probably what's not happening. When everything is set correctly, the difference between Photoshop and LR is insignificant.
dE Report
Number of Samples: 288
Delta-E Formula dE2000
Overall - (288 colors)
Average dE:   0.39
    Max dE:   1.53
    Min dE:   0.03
StdDev dE:   0.27
Best 90% - (258 colors)
Average dE:   0.32
    Max dE:   0.79
    Min dE:   0.03
StdDev dE:   0.18
Worst 10% - (30 colors)
Average dE:   1.00
    Max dE:   1.53
    Min dE:   0.79
StdDev dE:   0.17

Lightroom 3.0 versus Lr3b2

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for