Adobe LR4 Beta Release

[nggalai]

Originally Posted by Jeff S

Just curious if anyone has tried the moire removal tool.

Jeff

Didn’t work too well for me with M9 files.

[Bill Allsopp]

Several excellent video presentations of the improvements in LR4 can be watched here What's New in Lightroom 4 Beta - Soft Proofing and DNG Enhancements | Adobe TV

I expect to upgrade when available.

[hoppyman]

Go Julieanne! An informative demonstration.
Soft proofing will be very well received by everyone, I'm sure and the new adjustment brush options are very desirable.
I have a feeling we might see some discussions arise on the new DNG standard and compression options

[OwinThomas]

Originally Posted by nggalai

Purple fringing correction doesn’t seem to work at all for me which is an issue; one of my favourite lenses is the CV Nokton 50mm which fringes quite a lot depending on light situation. CaptureOne does the much better job here.

You could make your own camera/lens calibration correction via the free Adobe calibration software.

[nggalai]

Originally Posted by OwinThomas

You could make your own camera/lens calibration correction via the free Adobe calibration software.

I created some calibration profiles for other lenses (µ43), but I found it hard to recreate a lighting situation that will trigger the Nokton’s purple fringing and still provide light uniform enough for the vignette correction. But thanks for the suggestion, I’ll try again should Lightroom 4 end up on my disk.

[archi4]

I just did a comparison of moire removal between capture one and LR4 and in my M9 picture LR4 did a much better job. However, the in Capture One it removes it from the whole image, whereas in LR4 you have to brush it in.

Correction! Tried it on another DNG file and there Capture One was much better. The Moire brush in LR4 also produced a strange mottled local increase in exposure very locally in a part of the image.

[sanyasi]

Here is some information that I received from the folks who make ImagePrint. I asked whether the soft proofing with their profiles would work in Lightroom 4. I was told that Lightroom uses the same location on the Apple system for profiles as Photoshop so soft proofing should work--Image Print is aware of LR4 Beta, but has not necessarily given it a lot of thought yet.

They told me that they expected that the color profiles would work better than than the grayscale profiles, if the grayscale will would work at all. He also indicated that if there were problems with the color profiles to run the Color Sync utility on the Mac system and select repair.

He was clear: No guarantees at this time, but for those with Image Print, you should not hesitate to try.

Jack Siegel

[Jim-St]

Originally Posted by archi4

I just did a comparison of moire removal between capture one and LR4 and in my M9 picture LR4 did a much better job. However, the in Capture One it removes it from the whole image, whereas in LR4 you have to brush it in.

Correction! Tried it on another DNG file and there Capture One was much better. The Moire brush in LR4 also produced a strange mottled local increase in exposure very locally in a part of the image.

If this is true and the moire brush is not effective in dealing with the moire in M8/M9 files, then I suggest we all post our experiences in the LR4beta forum on the Adobe site here

After all, LR4 is currently being offered as a beta, and input to Adobe at this stage can be effective in influencing improvements in the final release version. In the past, LR betas have exhibited major deficiencies which are magically cured in the release, but I think it's incumbent on users to let them know


Jim

[stunsworth]

Does the LR4 beta import an existing catalogue, and if so will it still work with LR3?

Thanks

[andybarton]

It doesn't import your existing catalogue.

[stunsworth]

Originally Posted by andybarton

It doesn't import your existing catalogue.

Thanks Andy, I assume that is something they'll build into the final release.

[andybarton]

Yeah, you wouldn't want your existing catalogue messed with for a beta version.

[stunsworth]

Originally Posted by Jim-St

If this is true and the moire brush is not effective in dealing with the moire in M8/M9 files...

Just tried the moire correction on an M8 shot and it seems to work ok. Make sure you've selected 'Moire' from the Effect drop down box after selecting the brush. I realise you're probably already doing this, but I thought I'd mention it just in case.

[Jim-St]

Hi Steve-

Yes, I just tried it out myself (previous statement based on others' remarks)

I'm quite impressed really! Another tool that saves a round-trip to Photoshop!

Jim

[microview]

Download package won't open with OS Leopard on Mac: as noted in Adobe's system requirements, you do need either Snow Leopard or Lion to trial Beta 4.

[overgaardcom]

I'm a bitt worried about the hang of basic controls. In their tutorials they make it sound as if it amazing what can be done. But what interests me more than what can be done in terms of technology is if you can get a natural look.

I will be testing some previous photos in the coming days to see if I can get the look I want. Rather confused that they had changed when I tried last night, the results seemed a bit artificial.

What I mean is that a natural look is what the whole Leica glass and sensor thing is about. Not moire removal, maps, video and all that jazz.

Ok, getting a but premature here. Maybe the new tools are better, maybe not. But if anyone have input as to the actual look of the images editing in the new Beta I would appreciate any input.

[Jim-St]

Originally Posted by overgaardcom

I'm a bitt worried about the hang of basic controls. In their tutorials they make it sound as if it amazing what can be done. But what interests me more than what can be done in terms of technology is if you can get a natural look.

I will be testing some previous photos in the coming days to see if I can get the look I want. Rather confused that they had changed when I tried last night, the results seemed a bit artificial.

What I mean is that a natural look is what the whole Leica glass and sensor thing is about. Not moire removal, maps, video and all that jazz.

Ok, getting a but premature here. Maybe the new tools are better, maybe not. But if anyone have input as to the actual look of the images editing in the new Beta I would appreciate any input.

A natural look… hmmm…

Well, after a few hours this weekend in LR4, I'll just report these preliminary observations:

1: something strange and unexpected in its handling of "blown" highlights. A file that, when opened in LR3 demonstrated quite significant, but recoverable, overexposure in upper area (sky), opened in LR4 with highlights fully recovered. And toggling between camera calibration settings (Adobe Standard/ Camera Standard and my own M8 Daylight calibration setting) I'm unable to replicate the highlight blow-out in LR4. To do so requires an actual boost of the Exposure slider. For me, that's a step in the direction of a "natural look", as the sky wasn't too bright to see with the naked eye.
Also, spectral highlights (in this case streetlights), were left in the expected "blown-out" state in LR4 as in LR3

2. The effect of the "new" Clarity slider is remarkable. It no longer just adds "punch" - it now opens up whole areas of tonal dynamism the old Clarity slider never went near:
(pic 1 below)

Indeed, the whole suite of "Tone" sliders, plus the Clarity slider, indicate another area where LR4 obviates the need to round-trip to PS - in this case LR4 may well have gazumped the market for HDR/ Tone Mapping plugins. And this with all the potential for both "natural" and quite unnatural tonalities, as we''ll no doubt see in the months ahead. I'm ambivalent about this: no doubt some will use it in ways I'll detest, but I think HDR processes can contribute to a more "natural" look, as our eyes have greater dynamic range than our (Kodak) sensors + (Leica) firmware + (Adobe et al) software have hitherto supplied.

Another example, done with just the new Tone + Clarity sliders and a very minor tweak of the curve. To me, this is a bit more natural in terms of dynamic range the I could get from the same file in LR3: (pic 2 below)

As in all things, our mileage may vary....

Jim

[Jeff S]

Originally Posted by overgaardcom

What I mean is that a natural look is what the whole Leica glass and sensor thing is about. Not moire removal, maps, video and all that jazz.

Not sure if I follow. The look out of the camera is one thing; post processing is all about adjusting that look, for better or worse, depending both on the decisions of the user and the capabilities of the tools used. As long as LR4 allows for fine discriminations in all controls so that the user can execute accurately his/her intent, then that's what PP should do. Of course what's considered natural by one person may be unnatural to another.

Moire, for instance, may 'naturally' be visible in some Leica files (allowing for sharper, less filtered files compared to cameras utilizing an AA filter), but moire in the real world is certainly not natural, and I would find the ability to remove it a good thing (as long as other undesired effects are not introduced).

It certainly would seem unusual that LR4 would introduce any artificiality to the files, other than that created by user intent or user fault. The whole idea, as I understand it after looking at the tutorials, is to allow for even finer adjustments over even more variables than possible with LR3. More controls doesn't mean that they have to be used; I would expect that the user can still ignore or zero out anything.

Whether or not LR4 is easier or harder to use than LR3...well, that's another issue.

Jeff

[sanyasi]

I don't think Overgaardcom is complaining about the development module. He is questioning the GPS/Map, Video, and other other non-development features.

While the Blurb book feature looks promising, I agree with Overgaardcom. I like and am using LR4 Beta, but I would have preferred that Adobe move more Photoshop development tools into Lightroom for those of us who prefer to work in one program. As I have said before, I would be more than happy to pay more for LR if it had more development features.

Jack Siegel

[Jeff S]

but I would have preferred that Adobe move more Photoshop development tools into Lightroom for those of us who prefer to work in one program. As I have said before, I would be more than happy to pay more for LR if it had more development features.

LR will always fall short of current PS capabilities to avoid cannibalization of sales; otherwise the cost of LR would be prohibitive for most, not modestly more.

Jeff