Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: LR5: is there a compelling reason to upgrade from LR4?  (Read 15189 times)
Manoli
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 639


« Reply #40 on: June 19, 2013, 02:46:43 AM »
ReplyReply

The only real thing C1 can do better than LR is have a better "starting point" at default. If you are experienced in both apps (as I am) I can match LR output to be equal to or better than C1 pretty easy (because I don't care about "defaults" at all).

LR has far better sharpening and noise reduction than C1

Some time ago, I remember MR posting a short article on how he use C1 as a starting point before continuing his PP in Lightroom. Your post seems to infer that the PV2012 of LR is now superior to C1. Correct?

Can't say that I'm convinced about that. In particular RAW conversions from the new FUJI x-series sensor as documented by Sean Reid and others would suggest otherwise.

Given the current uncertainty with Adobe, I for one am certainly looking into resurrecting my interest in C1, but I agree that doing so is an almighty pain in the a** having been a devout Adobe user since PS5 and LR1.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2013, 03:25:19 AM by Manoli » Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7655


WWW
« Reply #41 on: June 19, 2013, 03:48:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

The Fumji-X sensor is an odd animal, as it is a non Bayer  design, so don't draw to much conclusions from Fuji-X tests, unless you have Fuji-X, of course. Both LR and C1 are movng targets.

best regards
Erik


Some time ago, I remember MR posting a short article on how he use C1 as a starting point before continuing his PP in Lightroom. Your post seems to infer that the PV2012 of LR is now superior to C1. Correct?

Can't say that I'm convinced about that. In particular RAW conversions from the new FUJI x-series sensor as documented by Sean Reid and others would suggest otherwise.

Given the current uncertainty with Adobe, I for one am certainly looking into resurrecting my interest in C1, but I agree that doing so is an almighty pain in the a** having been a devout Adobe user since PS5 and LR1.
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8205



WWW
« Reply #42 on: June 19, 2013, 04:08:10 AM »
ReplyReply

I think that what this thread is conforming is that many of us really want to ditch CS6 (or whatever version we still use) and be able to do most of our photo-processing in Lightroom.

This is not how I see things. I find the pixel based layers/masks approach of solutions like PS to be more generic, flexible, fun and effective than the attempts made by Lightroom and other raw converters to enable local edits. The only one that I find valuable is the Nik U-Point approach available in Capture NX2, but NX2 has other issues that prevent it from being a credible alternative as a generic RAW converter.

On the initial question, I see a very compelling reason NOT to upgrade to LR5, and that is the whole CC fiasco.

There are excellent alternatives to LR, with C1 Pro 7 and DxO 8 coming to mind and I happen to own licenses of those.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5500


WWW
« Reply #43 on: June 19, 2013, 04:43:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Your post seems to infer that the PV2012 of LR is now superior to C1

Aside from the LR PV 2012 tone controls which do an arguably better job of high dynamic range captures, the biggest potential improvement of LR vs C1 is the sharpening and noise reduction in LR.

Either C1 or LR is capable of outstanding raw image processing...but the main point is that by default for P1 camera backs, C1 does a better default color rendering but LR is capable of being adjusted to match C1. However, LR's sharpening and noise reduction isn't really capable of being matched in C1.
Logged
Hans Kruse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 760



WWW
« Reply #44 on: June 19, 2013, 04:47:43 AM »
ReplyReply


On the initial question, I see a very compelling reason NOT to upgrade to LR5, and that is the whole CC fiasco.

There are excellent alternatives to LR, with C1 Pro 7 and DxO 8 coming to mind and I happen to own licenses of those.


But you surely know that Lightroom is licensed on it's own and Adobe has strongly suggested that it will continue to be so.

If you have used Lightroom for a long time, why would you consider (incompatible) alternatives? Even if you took a clean break away from Lightroom at a certain point you would still have to use Lightroom to handle your pirctures before the clean break (unless you want to convert everything to TIFF or reedit everything in another RAW converter). I hate the lockin, but it is a sure thing. There should be really strong reasons for me to move away from Lightroom and the LR5 upgrade is an obvious thing to do in my opinion and there is no change in the licensing model going to LR5.

Regarding CC I hope Adobe will come to their senses regarding photographers who only use Photoshop marginally and do not upgrade for every release.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2013, 04:49:30 AM by Hans Kruse » Logged

Manoli
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 639


« Reply #45 on: June 19, 2013, 04:51:55 AM »
ReplyReply

The Fumji-X sensor is an odd animal, as it is a non Bayer  design, so don't draw to much conclusions from Fuji-X tests, unless you have Fuji-X, of course. Both LR and C1 are movng targets.

best regards
Erik

Hi Erik,
Yes, the x-trans sensor is indeed a different animal and should not be considered in isolation. The point I was querying with Jeff Schewe was whether LR PV2012 is 'across the board' superior to C1 v7 as his post seemed to imply.

FWIW, I'm using a D800E and a Fuji x-series ( with Fuji and Leica M- glass) and am finding C1 more than a credible alternative to LR for RAW conversion, capture sharpening and setting Black and White points before importing into LR.

All best
Manoli
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7655


WWW
« Reply #46 on: June 19, 2013, 04:57:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

No compelling reason, except if you have a camera LR4 does not support. There is some good stuff in LR5, that yo may miss.

It seems that Adobe doesn't mess upp LR with CreativeCloud stuff.

I will probably upgade pretty soon.

Best regards
Erik
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8205



WWW
« Reply #47 on: June 19, 2013, 06:18:01 AM »
ReplyReply

But you surely know that Lightroom is licensed on it's own and Adobe has strongly suggested that it will continue to be so.

If you have used Lightroom for a long time, why would you consider (incompatible) alternatives? Even if you took a clean break away from Lightroom at a certain point you would still have to use Lightroom to handle your pirctures before the clean break (unless you want to convert everything to TIFF or reedit everything in another RAW converter). I hate the lockin, but it is a sure thing. There should be really strong reasons for me to move away from Lightroom and the LR5 upgrade is an obvious thing to do in my opinion and there is no change in the licensing model going to LR5.

Regarding CC I hope Adobe will come to their senses regarding photographers who only use Photoshop marginally and do not upgrade for every release.

No, I have a LR4 licenses but have decided a long time ago not to commit my images to it.

I use LR4 as one possible option among others without leveraging its image mgt capabilities.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1683


« Reply #48 on: June 19, 2013, 06:21:32 AM »
ReplyReply

But you surely know that Lightroom is licensed on it's own and Adobe has strongly suggested that it will continue to be so.
Company strategies can change and marketing speech is cheap. Even if Adobe people are perfectly honest when they say that Lightroom is planned available as stand-alone, the CC-thing has made me significantly more critical about the lock-in that the Lightroom catalog does to me.

If there was an open-source alternative that was as user-friendly and efficient as Lightroom, I would probably switch even if that caused a slight decrease in image quality (perhaps choosing to do heavy-lifting in an external editor for images that needed/deserved it). Sadly, what many open-source projects lack is exactly an efficient and intuitive user-interface.
Quote
If you have used Lightroom for a long time, why would you consider (incompatible) alternatives? Even if you took a clean break away from Lightroom at a certain point you would still have to use Lightroom to handle your pirctures before the clean break (unless you want to convert everything to TIFF or reedit everything in another RAW converter). I hate the lockin, but it is a sure thing. There should be really strong reasons for me to move away from Lightroom and the LR5 upgrade is an obvious thing to do in my opinion and there is no change in the licensing model going to LR5.  
Automated conversion of *.lrcat to other formats might be really in-demand if LR is ever CC-ed, even if that conversion only got you 90% of the way (e.g. tagging, rating, curves/levels/exposure).

-h
Logged
Hans Kruse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 760



WWW
« Reply #49 on: June 19, 2013, 07:09:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Company strategies can change and marketing speech is cheap. Even if Adobe people are perfectly honest when they say that Lightroom is planned available as stand-alone, the CC-thing has made me significantly more critical about the lock-in that the Lightroom catalog does to me.

If there was an open-source alternative that was as user-friendly and efficient as Lightroom, I would probably switch even if that caused a slight decrease in image quality (perhaps choosing to do heavy-lifting in an external editor for images that needed/deserved it). Sadly, what many open-source projects lack is exactly an efficient and intuitive user-interface. Automated conversion of *.lrcat to other formats might be really in-demand if LR is ever CC-ed, even if that conversion only got you 90% of the way (e.g. tagging, rating, curves/levels/exposure).

-h

Yes, of course, the strategy can changed at any time if Adobe wants to make Lightroom part of the CC. For me that wouldn't matter if the price per month was roughly what the yearly upgrade costs now. But I believe that Lightroom is in a quite different space than Photoshop (at least at the moment) with such a wide spread usage across professional and amateur photographers. Also don't forget the competition in this space, where Photoshop has hardly any competition.

I'm rather sceptical to a conversion program to automatically convert to another RAW converter since there is so many algorithms to emulate or reverse engineer and adapt to the algorithms of another one (many subtleties that are not published besides the algorithms themselves). In my opinion a much better strategy would be to keep the latest Lightroom at a time of a switch and convert the best images (published images) to TIFF and then use another RAW converter from then on.
Logged

BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3766


« Reply #50 on: June 19, 2013, 07:17:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Aside from the LR PV 2012 tone controls which do an arguably better job of high dynamic range captures, the biggest potential improvement of LR vs C1 is the sharpening and noise reduction in LR.

Either C1 or LR is capable of outstanding raw image processing...but the main point is that by default for P1 camera backs, C1 does a better default color rendering but LR is capable of being adjusted to match C1. However, LR's sharpening and noise reduction isn't really capable of being matched in C1.

Hi Jeff,

Sharpening and noise reduction, as implemented, are mostly post-processing operations. So it doesn't really make much sense to compare an application that attempts to be all (LR), to what basically is a Raw converter (C1). There are better noise reduction and sharpening options available in dedicated applications/plug-ins than both programs can offer.

So, while it's nice for a one-stop-shopping approach, such as Lightroom offers, that it additionally does quite a decent job of sharpening (if the right parameters can be found), masking, and noise reduction. However, it is IMHO not very useful to compare apples and oranges, because both programs are intended to be used for quite different workflows.

As to the question whether there is a compelling reason to upgrade from LR4 to LR5, I suppose that depends on whether the new features are important enough for one's workflow. That's a question one can only answer for oneself.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1683


« Reply #51 on: June 19, 2013, 08:03:11 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm rather sceptical to a conversion program to automatically convert to another RAW converter since there is so many algorithms to emulate or reverse engineer and adapt to the algorithms of another one (many subtleties that are not published besides the algorithms themselves).
Perhaps I am biased by being curious as to how good such an algorithm could work.

-h
Logged
Hans Kruse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 760



WWW
« Reply #52 on: June 19, 2013, 11:14:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Perhaps I am biased by being curious as to how good such an algorithm could work.

-h

It's not just an algorithm, it's tons of algorithms. As an analogy just look at how well Adobe themselves manage to adjust parameters between PV 2010 and PV2012! In my view a total waste of time to try to do a conversion since it would not satisfy any other than the most trivial cases.
Logged

Phil Indeblanc
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1107


« Reply #53 on: June 19, 2013, 12:27:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
In my view a total waste of time to try to do a conversion since it would not satisfy any other than the most trivial cases
Hans, your input is rather negative, and really adds nothing. You are mixing linear, and then apple to orange. Doesn't satisfy the idea.
And the idea of even questioning why someone would consider an alternate other than LR is really limited thinking and doesn't lead to anything productive.

Quote
But you surely know that Lightroom is licensed on it's own and Adobe has strongly suggested that it will continue to be so.
Surely know??? What perspective of a corporate capatilst ideal are you on in this day and age?
Quote
If you have used Lightroom for a long time, why would you consider (incompatible) alternatives?

Quote
Even if you took a clean break away from Lightroom at a certain point you would still have to use Lightroom to handle your pirctures before the clean break (unless you want to convert everything to TIFF or reedit everything in another RAW converter).
You would use the last version you have to convert to anything that gets you out. TIff/16bit is a darn good option. Maybe a converter will be developed? Why would you limit and accept what a money hungry giant is doing. Do you realize how rich these companies are!! Do you realize this move is based out of simple GREED? They want more and more. If your drive is greed, it will mix into all available resources...even LR.

Quote
I hate the lockin, but it is a sure thing

Sure thing??? Are you serious? See above.

Quote
the LR5 upgrade is an obvious thing to do in my opinion
Obvious?? Whats obvious? Thats why this thread started, why cut it with something obvious to you only? It doesn't add to the discussion.

Quote
Regarding CC I hope Adobe will come to their senses regarding photographers who only use Photoshop marginally and do not upgrade for every release.
So you think they will actually say, "sorry, here, it is now back and available as a non-CC use", really?
This I hope you are right about, but it will not cross my mind of Adobe doing such a thing.

I know you like LR and don't need anything other, and I understand how some (likely most ) take such a position.
There are MANY raw developers, and some very good alternates. You are painting the idea that LR is the end all and what ever Adobe throws at us we should sit there like a wallruss and open our mouths and swallow everything thrown in our mouths.
Regardless of your wonderful images and great eye ...
No thank you! :-)


So...
It sounds like LR5.1 needs a preset for non AA or non Bayer sensors. All or most Digibacks don't have the AA.
Schewe can also release a free plugin with the next book, 5 Presets to get your Phase images beyond "other" processors (C1)
?

I have been using image editors since Adobe was Aldus.
I have just about all of the earlier apps, and Phoshop has been the main app. (I will soon be switching). I lean towards Bernards position in all this. I DO use LR now, as it already forces a DAM manager on you, and ACR is limited from what LR provides. BUT, I will drop it in a heartbeat if CC is in the air.

The one thing I see deviding users is that if you want to enhance or make effects and add some "theme" to your images LR has more ease of tools to do this.
If you are doing a production shoot with all the lighting is studio, than C1 is the one that is used. This in part due to the fact that DB users can ONLY use C1 to capture with. (unless you shoot with DSLR for production).

I don't know the programing, and do approach these tools as a "technical" artist. So I don't delve into algorithms much. But if all my images I shoot off the DB are being adjusted (rather lightly) in C1, this would lead me to think there can be a correlation developed in LR to adapt to some base point in C1. I want to say color being aside, which would make things much easier... but you really can't as the detail is in different colors of gradations related to the darkest point all throughout the image. So that maybe the advantage of C1, getting the color right first, and then things fall into place? I haven't photographed with a dsl in controlled light in a long time, so I might have to test it. I don't know if I have any testing energy in me these days, but, perhaps someone else can?

Even if there are tons of algos and overlaps, Not trying only satisfies the financial separations and interests. Not making things better, and more available
 
« Last Edit: June 19, 2013, 12:29:57 PM by Phil Indeblanc » Logged

If you buy a camera, you're a photographer...
S. Bax
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


Doc


WWW
« Reply #54 on: June 19, 2013, 12:42:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

No compelling reason, except if you have a camera LR4 does not support. There is some good stuff in LR5, that yo may miss.

Best regards
Erik

Well, an upgrade is worth it when they iron out the most egregious bugs: http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/ but if you don't downsize images for web much (I do) then maybe that's not a problem...

Stan
Logged
Phil Indeblanc
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1107


« Reply #55 on: June 19, 2013, 12:43:26 PM »
ReplyReply

I wish DXO and other devs like Corel's AfterShot pro would support DB raw files.
So far it is C1 and LR ONLY! (Photiva is hard for me to use)
Logged

If you buy a camera, you're a photographer...
Hans Kruse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 760



WWW
« Reply #56 on: June 19, 2013, 12:51:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Phil,

You are taking my responses out of context. Regarding a conversion program between edits done in Lightroom and another RAW converter, I believe this is not productive to work on since this will never be right. This is not a negative view, rather it is a very realistic view to have. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but this is very unlikely in this case.

And yes, companies are money hungry, that's what they should be. The problem is when there is not adequate competition. In the case of RAW converters there is competition.

Regarding lockin, what I meant by that is that since edits in any RAW converter are proprietary by nature you are locked in, unless you want to export everything as TIFF done so far and change to another RAW converter. I'm not questioning the idea of having alternatives, in fact the contrary.

In fact the Adobe CC maybe a good thing as competitors my breathe new air. I also doubt that Adobe will change their model, which btw. makes a lot of sense for both Adobe and their core market for the CC products. Just not for the rest of us.
Logged

Phil Indeblanc
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1107


« Reply #57 on: June 19, 2013, 01:18:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Hey Hans, If I did, I didn't do it to be bad, but some things you mentioned were stopping the idea of trying things. I was hoping to point them out.

You maybe right that it may not happen. This maybe realistic... but only if you take and promote such a position. No attempted will be made.
I agree it won't be perfect, but I would like to see(MANY if not all Phase users might agree with me), And willing to pay for such. 

Maybe Schewe can take one of my images and do a step by step process  to match C1. This would work as a base for many of my shoots with the Db.


Yes, I guess Adobe is not the government, they aren't killing the forests and creating wars, sure they can be money hungry. But I disagree that there is competition. The raw file is locked from raw developers.
The largest DB maker in the world is only processed by LR. The files can only be writen to their proprietary software(C1 can only tetherto take pictures of Phase One backs).

DXO the company that puts out ratings of sensor quality I would think could at least would develop IIQ files. They don't. (I think they can stay away from lens support for some formats).

You maybe right about the CC breathing new air to others. I surely will be cutting my PShop usage at Cs5. (Lets see if LR will limit the "editout options, as I get warnings to upgrade to dev7.4 already)
I hope other dev can do something with the Phase IIQ files. For some time we were able to shoot in TWO formats TIF/Raw and IIQ raw.
Logged

If you buy a camera, you're a photographer...
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5500


WWW
« Reply #58 on: June 19, 2013, 01:27:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Schewe can also release a free plugin with the next book, 5 Presets to get your Phase images beyond "other" processors (C1)
?

Sorry...not interested...

Quote
I have been using image editors since Adobe was Aldus.

Not for nothing, but Adobe was never Aldus...Adobe was Adobe, and Aldus was Aldus till Adobe bought Aldus.
Logged
Phil Indeblanc
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1107


« Reply #59 on: June 19, 2013, 01:42:35 PM »
ReplyReply

ok, Aldus turned into Adobe...get picky why don't you.

How about processing an image to match?
Logged

If you buy a camera, you're a photographer...
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad