Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Improvements in Lightroom 3B2  (Read 5328 times)
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7406


WWW
« on: March 23, 2010, 05:42:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I installed Adobe LR3B2 and run some quick checks. Some areas where I have possibly seen real improvements are high ISO images with my Sony Alpha 900. It may seem that ISO 6400 may now be usable. Don't know if the improvements are significant on other cameras and low ISO but what I have seen, noise reduction really works.

I did some quick check on sharpening and it seems to me that sharpening works better with the new pipeline than the old one.

I did not check print, only on screen. Still I feel that the improvements are significant.

Best regards
Erik
Logged

madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2108


« Reply #1 on: March 23, 2010, 08:40:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the feedback. If you get a chance to make some prints, it'd be nice to hear what you find.
Logged

schrodingerscat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 369


« Reply #2 on: March 24, 2010, 11:08:12 PM »
ReplyReply

My only disappointment is no soft proofing. Guess there is still hope.
Logged
Jeremy Payne
Guest
« Reply #3 on: March 24, 2010, 11:36:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: madmanchan
Thanks for the feedback. If you get a chance to make some prints, it'd be nice to hear what you find.
For the first time, I made color prints from a 12,800 ISO capture from my D700.

In the old pipeline, the chroma noise was still CRAZY even after 100 on the NR slider.

Now, there is basically no chroma noise after NR and the prints look pretty darn good.

I am also seeing HUGE improvement in my old G9 ISO 1600 shots ... haven't printed any of those, but they look soooo much better on screen.

I'm really, really impressed with v3 so far.

Thanks, Eric!  Lightroom is my favorite piece of software ... ever.
Logged
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2699


« Reply #4 on: March 25, 2010, 04:03:59 AM »
ReplyReply

I have just read this on another forum.

Adobe will not support LR3 Beta after April. Therefore, all the pictures that you process with LR3-Beta will not transfer over to LR3,

Is this true? According to the Adobe site the Beta is good until June..... as to the other statement?
Logged

dchew
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 569



WWW
« Reply #5 on: March 25, 2010, 06:09:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: stamper
I have just read this on another forum.

Adobe will not support LR3 Beta after April. Therefore, all the pictures that you process with LR3-Beta will not transfer over to LR3,

Is this true? According to the Adobe site the Beta is good until June..... as to the other statement?

I think the first beta ends in April (LR3b1), i.e. it won't function after that.  The second beta will go to June (LR3b2).  They have always stated a warning with their beta releases to not expect processing to carry through to the final release.  However there were no problems transferring from LR2b to LR2.  

Dave
Logged

JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #6 on: March 25, 2010, 01:24:29 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm not interested in the LR application itself (can't stand the mac-like/flash-like interface, or database paradigm), but I installed the beta to take a look at the new raw-processing pipeline. One immediate difference I noticed is the way the Recovery slider works; it seems to have less effect on overall image contrast, so that big adjustments to the Recovery slider don't make the image look as flat as with the old version.
Logged

Rory
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 162


« Reply #7 on: March 25, 2010, 05:45:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JeffKohn
I'm not interested in the LR application itself (can't stand the mac-like/flash-like interface, or database paradigm), but I installed the beta to take a look at the new raw-processing pipeline. One immediate difference I noticed is the way the Recovery slider works; it seems to have less effect on overall image contrast, so that big adjustments to the Recovery slider don't make the image look as flat as with the old version.

I agree - big improvement to the recovery algorithm.
Logged
barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 602


« Reply #8 on: March 25, 2010, 06:05:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Credit to Adobe for the work on the noise reduction routine. Vastly superior results. I'm impressed and it would be fair to say that is not a frequent event at all  

Would be great if we could get even some manual distortion corrections in there though. Don't make me beg!
Logged
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7963



WWW
« Reply #9 on: March 25, 2010, 11:01:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: schrodingerscat
My only disappointment is no soft proofing. Guess there is still hope.

Me too. I'm still hoping.
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
Tom Montgomery
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 78


WWW
« Reply #10 on: March 26, 2010, 08:15:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
[...] high ISO images with my Sony Alpha 900. It may seem that ISO 6400 may now be usable.
I have a series of test images taken with the Sony A900 to evaluate LR3B1 vs LR2.6, and today I spent a couple of hours re-developing them with LR3B2. I started by zeroing all the carried-over adjustments and went at it methodically until I started to get a good feel for the controls.  That's when I started to get excited...  

To say that I am impressed with the new noise reduction performance on ISO 6400 images would be an understatement!  I had to keep checking the metadata to be sure I hadn't accidentally switched to an image at lower ISO.  I would say that ISO 6400 on the A900 is now very usable for most situations.


Logged
CoyoteButtes
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 71


« Reply #11 on: March 26, 2010, 09:45:05 PM »
ReplyReply

I understand that DxO is supposed to be THE best RAW converter (I do not know as I have not used DxO). Can anybody comment on the new LR3B2 RAW converter and how it might compare to DxO?

Thanks,

Stan
Logged
Jeremy Payne
Guest
« Reply #12 on: March 26, 2010, 10:33:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: CoyoteButtes
(I do not know as I have not used DxO)

If it is important for you to know ... why wouldn't you find out for yourself?

http://www.dxo.com/us/photo/trial_version
« Last Edit: March 26, 2010, 10:33:21 PM by Jeremy Payne » Logged
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #13 on: March 26, 2010, 10:54:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Rory
I agree - big improvement to the recovery algorithm.
Which is impressive since the highlight recovery in LR/ACR was already better than the other converters I've tried, including Capture One and CaptureNX.
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7406


WWW
« Reply #14 on: March 27, 2010, 03:57:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Now I made some prints. I may publish my findings on my website or may not, depending on different factors.

Here is what I did:

- Tried to optimally process an image i Process Version 2003. The image was shot under good conditions with a Sony Alpha 900 + 80-200/2.8 APO lens.
- Made a virtual copy
- Switched to Process Version 2010 on the virtual copy
- Cropped for esthetics
- Printed both on glossy A4 paper (uncropped size would be 44x66 cm or 17"x25")
- Printing was done from LR 3B2 on Epson 3800, using 2880 DPI. Output was interpolated to 480 PPI in LR3B2 with medium sharpen for glossy, and 16 bits.

My findings:

- Clearly visible difference in print, with better sharpness in the 3B2 version.
- Some lateral CA is visible in the LR2 image (although CA was reduced), it's entirely gone in the LR3B2 print.
- You need to pixel peep to see the difference, but it can be perceived at arms lengths distance

Other findings:

Noise suppression is now top class. Seems that Sony Alpha images are usable at ISO 6400. I also looked at an old Sony Alpha 100 image that was essentially unusable because of underexposure. With LR3B2 I could make it into a decent image. I clearly feel that LR2B3 represents a significant improvement in high ISO shooting with the Sony Alphas I have.

[attachment=21108:PV2003_vs_PV2010.jpg]

Bugs:

Found two:

- When in comparison mode and zooming to actual pixels it would not show actual pixels but a coarse preview.
- When I made a virtual copy and tried to open both original and virtual copy in Photoshop I only got one image. I rendered the images in LR as I only have PS CS3.

Here are some downloadable files:

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/images/P...pare/index.html

The files are cropped JPEGS and images scanned from A4-prints of the same crops. Uncropped print size would be about 44x66 cm


Best regards
Erik



Quote from: madmanchan
Thanks for the feedback. If you get a chance to make some prints, it'd be nice to hear what you find.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2010, 01:34:46 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #15 on: March 27, 2010, 03:36:48 PM »
ReplyReply

The Export feature of limiting the file size (rather than selecting the % quality) is interesting.  It has been drunkenly circling 200kb for about 4 minutes now.  Woo!  Just finished.  Maybe a range would be better?
Logged
jenbenn
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 69


WWW
« Reply #16 on: March 28, 2010, 08:04:01 AM »
ReplyReply

still no distortion correction. grumbl grumbl. Very bad. I dont print big very often, so the new processing is only a gimmick to me that I can enjoy only on screen.  I hate to go to photoshop for softproofing , too. grumbl, Please Adobe, make this program a comprehensive tool for image adjustements. Distortion correction and softproofing are important.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7406


WWW
« Reply #17 on: March 28, 2010, 08:11:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Jens,

I agree with all what you say regarding this!

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: jenbenn
still no distortion correction. grumbl grumbl. Very bad. I dont print big very often, so the new processing is only a gimmick to me that I can enjoy only on screen.  I hate to go to photoshop for softproofing , too. grumbl, Please Adobe, make this program a comprehensive tool for image adjustements. Distortion correction and softproofing are important.
Logged

francois
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6819


« Reply #18 on: March 28, 2010, 08:29:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ErikKaffehr

- When in comparison mode and zooming to actual pixels it would not show actual pixels but a coarse preview.
Erik,
I've found that in the comparison mode, it takes a long time before both images are displayed at actual pixels. Before it happens, coarse images are displayed. Moving the images triggers a redraw and, again, some waiting time.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2010, 08:29:39 AM by francois » Logged

Francois
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7406


WWW
« Reply #19 on: March 28, 2010, 08:47:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks!

I still think it sometimes works and sometimes does not. Adobe needs to make it more efficient.

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: francois
Erik,
I've found that in the comparison mode, it takes a long time before both images are displayed at actual pixels. Before it happens, coarse images are displayed. Moving the images triggers a redraw and, again, some waiting time.
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad