Lightroom 3 Beta--IQ impressions?

<p>I am currently testing Capture One 5 and think that it gives the best IQ that I have yet seen from any RAW conversion program--<strong>much</strong> better than LR 2.5. What I would really like to know is how it compares to LR 3 Beta in terms of IQ. I realize that LR is superior in terms of features, file management and workflow, but how does v3 compare to v2.5 in IQ detail, color, tonality, NR, sharpness etc.</p>

<p>I plan to download it myself, but I would also like to hear the opinions of others. And if anyone has directly compared LR 3 Beta and C1-5, that would be especially interesting.</p>

<p>Rob</p>

<p>I haven't compared it to C1 5 yet, but I felt it compares favorably to C1 4. Far, far superior to previous versions of Lightroom.</p>

<p>They're still completely different applications beyond that, but at a base IQ and processing level I could see being happy with either one. It's the first time I've seriously considered using Lightroom.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The NR in LR3 is amazing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just wait! </p>

<p>Colin, what about the IQ of LR2 do you see C1 4 as improving on (and see as needing improvement)?</p>

<p>On my LR 3 Beta, the Luminance NR is disabled. How can you say that it is so amazing?</p>

<p>So far, in head to head comparisons, C1-5 is toasting L3 Beta. I realize that LR is not a finished product, but I suspect that its RAW conversion algorithms are close to final. Perhaps not.</p>

<p>Rob</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Robert, i will say you didtn use correctly any version of lightroom if you consider C1Pro to give the best result.. I was a long time user of C1pro and swithc the day lightroom 1 came out, just the recovery slider and the fill in was already a big invention!</p>

<p>I always find the sharpen filter of C1Pro to give crude result, so i always turn it off.</p>

<p>Now C1Pro 5.0 is really good, and the lens correction tool and demoire filter is a really good thing that Lr should take advantage of in the next version for sure. In the end i find that with the correct knowledge they give similar result if you know how to process your file, as a pro photo retoucher, i have to work with many kind of camera from a rebel to a p65 and the result are amazing whatever the software i use.</p>

<p>Can you post a visual example to show where c1pro toast so much lr2.5 / 3 beta? i have yet to see that....im curious.</p>

<p>Patrick,</p>

<p>Sorry, but I cannot post anything right now. I have indeed been using LR 3 Beta. </p>

<p>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. Sharpening is far superior. Also, the Clarity tool in C1-5 Pro is incredible. It seems to be a very different animal than the Clarity tool in LR. Not only does it increase local contrast, but it also appears to have a de-blurring effect, which may be due to a deconvolution process that is being applied. (I am speculating about this, but it seems to do the same thing as the Lens Softness tool in DxO, which is based on deconvolution and is also fantastic.) In any case, the detail it produces is phenomenal with none of the artifacts that Clarity can produce in LR. Clarity may be worth the price of the program all by itself. The ability to use a Levels tool in C1 is also very cool. I can assure you that in the current version, you can recover all the shadow and highlight detail that there is to be recovered.</p>

<p>LR's great advantages are local editing, file managment, slide shows etc. For professionals such as yourself, these capabilities may far outweigh any IQ disadvantages. This I understand, and I expect that LR and Aperture will continue to be the standard programs in the field for that reason.</p>

<p>Overall, I would say that C1-5 renders more pleasing images than LR 3 Beta, which is a step above LR 2.5, to be sure. Final judgment will have to await the ultimate release version of LR 3. If you have C1-5 Pro, I would suggest that you run some of your own head to head comparisons with LR. If you do not have it, download a trial version, as I have. It is still a relatively new product and does have some bugs that I am trying to work through with their support team. If we succeed, I plan on purchasing it.</p>

<p>Rob</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Sorry, but I cannot post anything right now.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That makes it pretty difficult to judge your comments. Words are just words when it comes to pictures.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That makes it pretty difficult to judge your comments. Words are just words when it comes to pictures.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Right you are, Jeff, so here are some sample images with crops. The C1 samples are with Clarity at 50, default sharpening and minimal other adjustments. The LR samples are with Clarity at 50, contrast and brightness adjustments and sharpening at 50. They may or may not be the ideal settings, but I think that they are reasonable choices.</p>

<p>I have not uploaded images to photo.net for quite a long time, so I hope that I get it right.</p>

<p>Rob</p><div></div>

<p>Damn, I don't know how to add more than one image per message. I will add others in separate responses.</p>

<p>Rob</p><div></div>

<p>As you can see, there is much more detail in the C1 image, and it looks more pleasing and natural. In the LR image, the black point is set well above zero, and I pushed Fill Light as well, so as to bring out as much detail as I reasonably could in the beard.</p>

<p>Can someone please explain how to post multiple images in a single response on photo.net?</p>

<p>Rob</p>

<p>I have been playing with the Lightroom image. If I reduce contrast severely, there is more detail in the beard, but still nothing close to the C1 image, and overall, the picture looks dull and flat.</p>

<p>Rob</p><div></div>

<p>More sample images. I trust that everyone understands that these are not intended to be representative of "good" photography.</p>

<p>Rob</p><div></div>

<p>In these last comparisons, the differences are less stark, but still very real. Color balance is, of course, somewhat a matter of personal taste.</p>

<p>Rob</p>

<p>I'm on a roll. Here is a pair of samples, this time a crop (not 100%) from an image taken in Morocco. As for the color balance difference, I think that C1 may be more accurate, as the walls of the Medina are, for the most part, colored yellow. Regardless, the more natural rendering of the C1 version is especially visible in the fabric of the man's turban, scarf and robe. Also notice the detail in the black plastic bag. The LR version has a slightly murky quality. It's not bad, just not as good.</p>

<p>Rob</p><div></div>

<p>Being rather new to digital in general and RAW processing in particular, I don't have much to contribute in terms of my own experience, but would like to take this opportunity to ask about your views on a few other RAW converters I've heard good things about:</p>

<ol>

<li><a href="http://silkypix.shortcutinc.com/">SilkyPix</a> (currently only for Windows but Mac version should be coming out soon)</li>

<li><a href="http://bibblelabs.com/products/bibble5/">Bibble 5</a> (okay, it's still under development)</li>

<li><a href="http://www.iridientdigital.com/products/">Iridient RAW Developer</a> (okay, this one's for Mac only)</li>

</ol>

<p>I'd appreciate your feedback as I'm trying to figure out which one to get; currently using ACR that came with PS.<br>

Merry Christmas guys!<br>

-Tomek</p>

<p>Tomek,</p>

<p>There are others on this forum with far more experience than I with the programs you mention, but I have tried them all.</p>

<p>1. SilkyPix I found to be nearly incomprehensible. Horrible user interface. Output quality was good, but not great.<br /> 2. Bibble 5, which is not finalized, has some unique features, but I did not like the IQ--very murky and dull even with a lot of tweaking. Perhaps I needed more time with it, but it did not seem worth the effort at this point in its development. Bibble is notorious for being a laggard.<br /> 3. RAW Developer used to be my main RAW converter (before Lightroom and DxO). I have tested the current version. IQ is quite good, with excellent sharpening and detail, but not on the level of Capture One 5 Pro. Did not like the colors as much or the workflow.</p>

<p>If file management is a top priority, then I would recommend Lightroom or Aperture. If IQ, then Capture One 5 Pro. That may change with the final release version of LR, however.</p>

<p>Rob</p>