Lightroom 3 Beta--IQ impressions?

[acjtucson]

<p>RG, thanks for posting those photo comparisons. The Lightroom ones do look a bit flat, more red and less detailed.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Just taking the Morocco images...the whites are flat in both of them, pretty far from white. There is a lot that can be done. Detail is an issue because of not working on the original file, but here is the LR image reworked so that it has white in it, slight corrections to the color balance. It's probably over-sharpened at this point, but once again, without the original file, there's not much that can be done about that.</p><div></div>

[robert goldstein]

<blockquote>

<p>RG, thanks for posting those photo comparisons. The Lightroom ones do look a bit flat, more red and less detailed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Andrew, you're welcome. If you look at the picture of the ornate ceiling, notice how in the C1 version the chandelier appears separated from the background. There is a greater sense of realistic depth than in the LR version. I think that the overall impression of an image is far more important than pixel-peeping 100% crops.</p>

<p>Rob</p>

[robert goldstein]

<blockquote>

<p>Just taking the Morocco images...the whites are flat in both of them, pretty far from white. There is a lot that can be done. Detail is an issue because of not working on the original file, but here is the LR image reworked so that it has white in it, slight corrections to the color balance. It's probably over-sharpened at this point, but once again, without the original file, there's not much that can be done about that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jeff, I may not be as skilled as you, but I have been using LR since early v1. I worked very hard on the original LR images to get them as close as possible to the C1 images. The fine detail is not present, and the overall rendering is different no matter how much I worked with curves and various sliders. I think that I should have made the picture of the man reading lighter in both versions, but that would not have narrowed the differences between the two. Please understand that it is a small part of a much larger scene that was well exposed as a whole, but not as a crop.</p>

<p>In the first cropped image of the man's beard, the pictures speak for themselves.</p>

<p>Rob</p>

 

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I think that I should have made the picture of the man reading lighter in both versions, but that would not have narrowed the differences between the two.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's not a good way to do it then. You should be working with a decent rendering, and yours has no white in it. What you have discovered is how it looks when the image isn't rendered properly. Which one looks better when it's not rendered properly isn't a very good test. What I've done, even without the original RAW file, is shown that there isn't much difference between them.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>In the first cropped image of the man's beard, the pictures speak for themselves.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Without an original, it's hard to tell if one could get a better rendering. Send the RAW file to Patrick, we can find out what can be done with a proper rendering in Lightroom.</p>

[robert goldstein]

<p>Such snobbery. As if only one of the elite knows how to edit an image properly. I freely admitted that the photo of the man reading was a crop and that I should have adjusted that portion independently of the rest of the image. Here are re-edits of both versions. They are closer, but IMO, the C1 version is still more natural and pleasing. And as for the man with the beard, that's all the detail that is there in the LR version. Neither Patrick nor God himself can get anymore out of it.</p>

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

[robert goldstein]

<p>Next version.</p><div></div>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Such snobbery. As if only one of the elite knows how to edit an image properly.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There's no snobbery. There's no white in your photo. It's murky in both renditions. How can anyone tell from poor renditions? They can't. Given what you presented and how off the conversion is, there is an opportunity to learn rather than stick to a view that isn't formed from good quality conversion.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Neither Patrick nor God himself can get anymore out of it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I suspect Patrick can get more out of it, he does this every day.</p>

[robert goldstein]

<blockquote>

<p>There's no snobbery. There's no white in your photo. It's murky in both renditions. How can anyone tell from poor renditions? They can't. Given what you presented and how off the conversion is, there is an opportunity to learn rather than stick to a view that isn't formed from good quality conversion.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am looking at the histograms of both of the re-edited images, and they definitely contain white. I have not fully figured out C1's output processing, so the output is not quite the same as the RAW image. Do you have an opinion as to which looks better?</p>

<p>Rob</p>

[blueviews]

<p>It is a bit hard to tell since the luminance NR in the 3 beta is greyed out, but overall I think the IQ is considerably better. Different than c1 1.4 (I don't use 1.5) but I think a bit nicer.<br>

Bill</p>

[robert goldstein]

<p>One more comparison for tonight. This is a challenging scene, because of the light sky and the dark tower. I tried to get the overall brightness and contrast as close as possible. I can tell you that the Levels tool in C1 is a godsend for images such as this one. It is much easier to set the white point than with the Exposure slider. Adobe should include it in LR 3</p>

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

[robert goldstein]

<p>LR 3</p>

[robert goldstein]

<p>Let's try that again.</p><div></div>

[robert goldstein]

<p>C1 crop</p><div></div>

[robert goldstein]

<p>LR 3 Beta crop. Very muddy shadows. Could have fixed it, but only by flattening overall contrast.</p><div></div>

[alex_iwonttell]

<p>Robert, what camera are you using? That's a very important fact when comparing RAW converters. So far I've found that the camera manufacturer's software is superior, at least with CCD Nikons. Mileage probably varies depending on the camera brand.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>Quick question: Was Lightroom's output sharpening used in any of these examples? Sharpening in LR2 is a multi-step process. Is it the same in LR3? Thanks!</p>

[robert goldstein]

<p>Jeff,</p>

<p>I owe you an apology. After working some more on the photo of the potter, I was able to bring out detail in the beard by cranking up Fill Light. This, of course, changed overall contrast and brightness, so I went ahead an re-edited the image both in LR and C1. Here are the results. It's hard to tell in these smallish JPEGS, but IMO, the C1 version is definitely more natural and three dimensional. The curvature of the man's body and the sense of space behind him seem more realistic.</p>

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

[robert goldstein]

<p>LR 3 Beta</p><div></div>

[robert goldstein]

<p>C1-5</p><div></div>

[robert goldstein]

<p>Lightroom 3 B</p><div></div>

[robert goldstein]

<blockquote>

<p>Quick question: Was Lightroom's output sharpening used in any of these examples? Sharpening in LR2 is a multi-step process. Is it the same in LR3? Thanks!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dan,</p>

<p>Yes, Sharpening and Clarity were applied in LR. I did it as a single step, meaning that I did not apply sharpening to the re-sized final output image, but the same was true of the Capture One version. All images were exported to Photoshop and from there to the Web. I have never been pleased with the sharpening in LR 2.5 and rarely use it. LR 3 Beta may do a better job, but I was not testing for this. I prefer Nik Sharpener Pro's RAW pre-sharpener. C1-5's sharpening, however, is <em><strong>very</strong> </em> good--really crisp with minimal artifacts.</p>

<p>Rob</p>

[robert goldstein]

<blockquote>

<p>Robert, what camera are you using? That's a very important fact when comparing RAW converters. So far I've found that the camera manufacturer's software is superior, at least with CCD Nikons. Mileage probably varies depending on the camera brand.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Alex,</p>

<p>These photos were shot with a Pentax K10D. I despise the Pentax software, which was designed by SilkyPix. Some people swear by SilkyPix, but I am not one of them.</p>

<p>Rob</p>

[dan_south]

<p>Thanks, Rob! I enjoy using Lightroom for its thoughtful, intuitive interface but I've always found its approach to sharpening to be a bit confusing. Output sharpening helps in many cases if you pick the right preset, but it's confounding that you can't see the results before you save the output file.</p>

<p>Based upon your discussion I've decided to give Capture One a try. I like the idea of built-in lens correction so I don't have to switch over to Photoshop in midstream (creating a massive TIFF file in the process). Unfortunately, most popular DSLR lenses exhibit visible distortion; correction is not an option. If Capture One provides better sharpening and lens correction in single package it might be an attractive alternative to Lightroom.</p>

[robert goldstein]

<p>Dan,</p>

<p>My advice is to try the Pro version. Amongst other things, it has the Clarity tool, which I find so wonderful. (At least I think it is not in the Standard version, but I may be wrong.) The organization and workflow are quite different, so be prepared for a fairly steep learning curve.</p>

<p>Rob</p>