LR3 - should I upgrade?

[goldbergbarry]

<p>Hoping to hear from LR3 users - is it worth upgrading from LR2? I love everything about LR and see that LR3 is finally out. Is it worth upgrading.</p>

<p>Note that I shot in JPEG mode so I don't need to edit Raw files. I shoot about 1k pictures a week, and use LR for workflow, cropping and light editing. </p>

[neelphoto]

<p>I downloaded LR3 yesterday and worked on a couple of scanned tiff files and a few Nikon nef files. The new noise reduction is very good. Also it's quite a bit faster. Haven't tried out the Lens Correction tool yet. Going by your volume, the improvement in processing speed may help you. You can always download it and try it out for a few days.</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>for the processing speed... yes.</p>

<p>for the noise reduction tool... yes</p>

<p>for the new lens correction tool... yes</p>

<p>for the new film grain simulation and the new web template... yes if you need that.</p>

<p>I have upgrade to Lr 3 because i like to have the latest version of my main tool, being Photoshop CS5 and Lightroom 3 now.</p>

[images_in_light_north_west]

For jpg No

[digitaldog]

<p>For the new 2010 processing (raw demosaicing algorithms), yes. And the ability to gang up differing images in the Print Module is quite awesome. </p>

[roger_smith4]

<p>How much is $100 to you? If you're getting paid for your 1000 images I'd say sure. The film grain simulation is nice. Saving a slide show to a mov file is also nice. The new import window and being able to import video and audio is also very nice.</p>

<p>So far I haven't been that impressed with noise reduction and the new processing algorithms on jpegs (I think there is a bigger benefit with raw files), but I've only used the program a day now. </p>

<p>The lens correction tool will be useful but isn't ready to go as few profiles are available and I don't want to "roll my own" as I'm not sure I could do it very precisely. I'm better off with PTLens for now.</p>

[mariosforsos]

<p>I'll add another dimension which has not been mentioned: if you've added quite a bit of sharpness to your images, then stay away from LR3 - the new sharpening algorithms are so much more intense and powerful than the previous ones and will force you to go back to each oversharpened image and scale it down... a LOT of time.</p>

<p>Personally I don;t have that problem and since I shoot RAW only, it was effectively a one-way street for me...;-) Have had it for a couple of days and I LOVE it...</p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> I'll add another dimension which has not been mentioned: if you've added quite a bit of sharpness to your images, then stay away from LR3 - the new sharpening algorithms are so much more intense</p>

<p>That's why images processed in LR2 will initially render in LR 3 with the older process version. You can then either leave them alone, or switch to the newer 2010 rendering and make any needed changes; including backing off on sharpening if needed. No reason to stay away from LR3.</p>

[don_bryant2]

<p>For noise reduction processing RAW files, YES-YES-YES! It's really that much of an improvement!</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>I just upgraded, is it worth it? Oh yes.</p>

[sverre_edin]

<p>BIG BIG improvements for RAW shooters.<br>

For JPEG only I'm not sure it's necessary. You can try the new version for 30 days and check it out.</p>

[Brad_]

Manulal lens corrections (with optional automatic cropping), that can also be used for intentionally distorting, along with

superb noise reduction are by themselves worth the upgrade.

 

Also, the blur brush - excellent...

[don_gallagher]

<p>I have upgraded and think it is worth it. The noise reduction is significantly better-we use RAW almost exclusively so we have not tested NR with jpegs. Lightroom is our workhorse so we probably would have upgraded anyway, but there are some nice added features.<br>

As Brad mentioned above, you can choose which photos are upgraded to the newer processor, so your older photos don't necessarily have to change.</p>

[don_essedi]

<p>"As Brad mentioned above, you can choose which photos are upgraded to the newer processor, so your older photos don't necessarily have to change."</p>

<p>I assume you can make a virtual copy, use the newer processor on it, and compare. Is that the case?</p>

 

[scott_ferris]

<p>Don,</p>

<p>Yes that is correct, you can do it like that. Truth is though that the newer versions are tons better than the older ones. On files that have had extreme manipulations there can be big colour and brightness shifts, but the new renderings, after adjustments, are so far ahead of the old ones it almost makes me cry at the work I can now do to files. On files that haven't had extreme adjustments there seems little difference to the old and new, problem files, high noise, under exposure etc are where the newer settings are amazing me.</p>

<p>LR3 has added at least one stop to all cameras highest iso.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Not only that, there is what serves as a "revert" function.</p>

[don_gallagher]

<p>Don (the other one...)<br>

Yes, you could compare that way. Actually, when you open a photo in develop and you have the opportunity to upgrade the processing of the photo, there's an option to upgrade and show a before/after comparison of the image using the old and new processing methods.</p>

[shawn1965]

<p>Mine keeps crashing.. at least the beta</p>

[mariosforsos]

<p>I finally got and extensively used LR3 during this weekend and I have to say this: it will give ALL other software a serious run for their money! It's faster - significantly faster - comes with some insanely interesting presets, the new import feature is THE bee's knees, the lens correction is truly amazing (especially for slightly problematic lenses, like the Nikon 24-70 for which it COMPLETELY removes the distortion whcih appears around 35mm) and the noise reduction rocks. Sharpening is also VERY, VERY good (but needs VERY careful use) and finally, colour integration and management between LR and PS is excellent and seamless.</p>