Jump to content

Lightroom 3 Beta--IQ impressions?


Recommended Posts

<p>Robert said "...My impression of C1-5 Pro is that it has smoother tonal and color transitions than LR 3 Beta and that colors are more natural. LR has always had a red bias for me..."<br>

I shoot Nikon D300 and I have the same problem with 2.6 if I choose "Camera standard" or "ACR" camera calibration profiles - the rendering is to red. But when I select DX2 mode profile, the rendering is neutral. I don't know what choices you have with Pentax camera but if you don't like supplied profile you can make custom profile for your camera.<br>

I hardly wait for LR3 to be finished - the profiles are better, the rendering of small detail is much improved and it seems that the NR will be very good (I have no final verdict as NR is not finished yet and the lumninace noise slider is greyed out).<br>

Regards, Marko</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>So whe start with;</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>Capture One 5 and think that it gives the best IQ that I have yet seen from any RAW conversion program--<strong>much</strong> </em> better than LR 2.5</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>And in the end whe are talking about slighty more shadow detail in the bearb of a guy, is that it....?</p>

<p>When someone said MUCH better i expect to have something like black vs white, or something out of focus vs crystal clear... what i see from those example (of the potter guy) is a soft focus shot to start with.. nothing to do with a sharp image as a starter i think....</p>

<p>I still personnaly prefer to work with Lr for all the latitude i could have to work on my file, for all the simplicity of it, for the amazing result i can get out of it.. and because he never let me down. I respect oppinion of people when they show me amazing example of what they say to express there point. In the end as i always said, its a matter of knowledge and experience more than a question of simple software.</p>

<p>I use to use on a dayly basis C1Pro and developed a huge knowledge about it, then i discover something that I found better with Lr.. sure C1Pro 5 (that i have) is a really good and well done piece of software today, but i cant say that he give me a MUCH better file rendition, but a pretty good one that equal for sure the one i get with Lr certainly.</p>

<p>I will be more than happy to provide a link to the OP to get is raw, so i can test my self the raw development of the image he use and post the result here of what i condsider the best i cant deliver out of Lr, just for my own personal curiosity ; )</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I will be more than happy to provide a link to the OP to get is raw</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I brought this up before for a reason. It's not clear that the OP is getting the most out of LR. It's like me reviewing race cars, I can tell you which one I do better in, but that isn't the same as a professional. Someone who uses the tools day in and out doing the testing will be far better than someone who doesn't. As I showed above, there was a long way to go with either package on that one photo in order to judge anything.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Patrick and Jeff,</p>

<p>I am an amateur enthusiast with above average artistic and technical skills. (Please don't judge my work by the samples that I have posted in this thread.) I have been published in well-known photo journals and have won several competitions. I have routinely used Lightroom since early v.1 as well as DxO and Photoshop with a variety of plug-ins. But I am not a world class expert in digital editing. How many photographers, even serious ones, are?</p>

<p>I tell you this just so that you will understand that I am not some snapshooter who stumbled into this forum by accident. Yet if a person with my skills cannot readily get excellent detail and rendering from a one piece of software but can from another, which is the better program? If it takes the knowledge and experience of a professional re-toucher to equal or surpass with the first program what a reasonably competent person such as myself can produce with the second, then I would say that the second program is the one that will yield the best IQ for the vast majority of users. In Patrick's or Jeff's hands, LR may be as good as C1-5, but I do not think that would be the case for all but a few who read this forum.</p>

<p>Believe me, I have learned a great deal from this thread, especially about my own weaknesses with LR. But the more I use C1-5 Pro, the more I like it and am convinced that it will give me better results than LR (and with much less effort.) What I will miss, however, is LR's local editing. I do plan on upgrading to LR 3 when it becomes available, and I am sure that I will use it occasionally. Who knows, in its final release form, I might even prefer it. C1-5 still has some bugs that need fixing, but I expect that Phase One will be on the case.</p>

<p>Rob</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Robert, didtn meant to offend you, that was not the point of my post. I fully understand the kind of person who come here, and this is why im here.. to help you and the other amateur.</p>

<p>So many people claim that this or that software is so far better than this or that withotu beinng hable to prove it..because with the limited knowledge they have they could get good result with this or that..example; how people people *think* that they can get better result with Capture NX vs Lr for the Nikon file.. but have 5min experince of Lr and use Capture since they have there camera..it is fair to say that Capture is far better? nope. Strangely, all and i say ALL of those who claim that NEVER send me the original raw to test it in Lr vs there Capture rendition when ask to provide it to make a appropriate comparaison..nobody seem up to that exercise..why? If i was to claim that something was better than something else, and someone ask to make a appropriate test i wouldtn be shy...</p>

<p>My point is that you cant state that a software is better than a other one if you dont have the sufficient knowledge to fully understand it. As you sum it really well you are a amateur enthusiast with above average artistic and technical skills, not a pro. If you have said that to start, something like " for me, for the knowledge i have i think that C1Pro doest a better job automaticaly of rendering my file vs Lr, and it seem i could get better IQ out of the box" or something similar i wouldtn said anything because you where right, C1Pro does effectively give better result withotu too much needed knowledge.. but that is for me the only thing superior..the interface, the way he sharpen, the way he handle file, the maze you need to figure out to navigate in it is not appealing for the common user.</p>

<p>The 2 picture you show of the bearb guy are not that different one of the other.. im mean for the common user they look virtually the same, and without the other aside they both look well developed..i dont think again you can state that C1Pro is so superior base on that, so its is not just in my hand that Lr could be good as, it is in anybody hand that want quality with a simple program AND 1hour of tutorial.. like any amateur enthusiast with above average artistic and technical skills should take to enjoy better result.</p>

<p>As i previously state, in the end they both should give you amazing quality, its a matter of experience..and you seem to agree with that part ; )</p>

<p>lets shake hands and walk away with a smile..</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Patrick,</p>

<p>I agree that Lightroom's user interface is more straightforward and intuitive. It also performs operations, such as loading sessions/folders, more quickly. But once one has figured out C1-5's organization, the actual adjusting of the image is extremely simple, and, at least for me, it gives consistently better results with less effort. So, I see it as one of life's many trade-offs. </p>

<p>Rob</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I gave up the LR3 beta. After getting a new camera which actually takes decent pictures at high isos (7D) I do need the luminance nr, and not feeling like dumping 400 pictures into some photoshop plug to do it ;)</p>

<p>I will give LR3 another chance when it comes out, meanwhile I'll stay with C1 or LR2</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Here's my experience of LR2 vs LR3: Mind you, I will be comparing files produced by the Nikon D300 and D700 only. For image quality, LR3 has the clear advantage over it's predecessor. Especially at high ISO. It's not just how it handles noise reduction (which is sooo much better), everything about the files seem to look better to me. I haven't taken the time to really get down to the nut and bolts of what it is I'm seeing, lets just say that for my paying clients, I started processing all my high ISO stuff in LR3. Why just the high ISO stuff? Well, for me LR2 does a decent job when given a nice file. I haven't found the difference in low ISO file handling to be great enough to overcome LR3's greatest liability: Speed. The program limps along like someone shot out both it's knees with a 12 gauge. A project that would take me 2 hours to edit in LR2 is easily 3 to 4 hours in LR3, and it's mostly time wasted watching the spinning beachball on my Intel Macbook Pro. Just switching from one image to the next in the Development module can easily consume 5 seconds of zero productivity. If you don't have the latest and greatest hardware be careful about upgrading- you may wish you hadn't!</p>

<p>The new features and image rendering or LR 3 look highly promising. Lets just hope Adobe can get it at least as fast as LR2. Funny, I used to complain that LR2 was slower than Bridge+ACR, now it seemingly runs on steroids. Also funny how Adobe is advertising LR3 on a platform of SPEED SPEED SPEED! It's 1984 all over again.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Capture One 5 Pro vs. Lightroom 3 Beta update:</p>

<p>For those who may be interested, I have continued to work towards honing my skills in both programs. For some weird reason, I enjoy doing things like that. C1-5 Pro still consistently produces better results in my hands. Images have a greater sense of depth and presence. The Clarity tool is an absolute revelation, once you learn how to apply the right strength for any given image.</p>

<p>Rob</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...