chrism Posted October 22, 2009 Share #1 Posted October 22, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I see the beta for LR3 has a profile for the M9. Methinks I shall download it and see if I can put the profile into LR2 as well, though the installer may well just dump it into the Camera Raw profiles in which case it should be available in LR2 and in PS. Anybody tried this yet? Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 22, 2009 Posted October 22, 2009 Hi chrism, Take a look here Lightroom 3 beta. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
wattsy Posted October 22, 2009 Share #2 Posted October 22, 2009 LR3 beta still only gives me profiles for 'embedded' and 'adobe standard'. Unless I'm missing something (quite probable) this is the same as with LR2.5? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted October 22, 2009 Share #3 Posted October 22, 2009 It seem to import very fast, but the previews take some time. It picks up the M9 profile and can use that if you have it (the generic profile one can download). There seem to much more difference between the Adobe and the M9 profile in Lightroom 3 than in 2.4. I just want SPEED and M9 support. That is all I want for Christmas. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted October 22, 2009 Share #4 Posted October 22, 2009 Be careful if you intend using this as a replacement for LR2, the release notes say that there may be incompatibilities between the beta and the final release. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrism Posted October 22, 2009 Author Share #5 Posted October 22, 2009 I was taking M. Reichman's word for it that it has new profiles including one for the M9. Sadly it doesn't seem to have one! I used Pacifist to search the .pkg - no profiles found. Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jschone Posted October 22, 2009 Share #6 Posted October 22, 2009 The profile for the M9 will come, I am sure about that. But what is more remarkable is the amazing quality increase of the Raw processor. Right now, I am doing some testing with M8 high iso images and I am overwhelmed by the results so far. Will upload some test results as soon as I can. jochem Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
novice9 Posted October 22, 2009 Share #7 Posted October 22, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) How does the Beta work in terms of paying for it? Do you just get it for free until the day it goes out of Beta and then it stops working if you don't pay for it/upgrade to it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted October 22, 2009 Share #8 Posted October 22, 2009 How does the Beta work in terms of paying for it? Do you just get it for free until the day it goes out of Beta and then it stops working if you don't pay for it/upgrade to it? Yes, that's pretty much it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauribix Posted October 22, 2009 Share #9 Posted October 22, 2009 How does the Beta work in terms of paying for it? Do you just get it for free until the day it goes out of Beta and then it stops working if you don't pay for it/upgrade to it? this is Adobe's statement: "You can download the beta and use it until the product expires. The current Lightroom 3 public beta will expire on April 30, 2010." here: Adobe Labs - Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
novice9 Posted October 23, 2009 Share #10 Posted October 23, 2009 I just installed lr 3.0 and am running it next to 2.5. now, you couldn't find an individual less experienced in pp than myself (ie, i don't really no what i'm doing). Anyway, when i import the same raw file in both versions and view them in the develop modules (and without making any modifications), the look EXACTLY the same. Are they supposed to? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauribix Posted October 23, 2009 Share #11 Posted October 23, 2009 That's supposed to be like that. Differences show up when you "work" with settings. I'll try and post some shots later to show you that. Ciao! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thompsonkirk Posted October 23, 2009 Share #12 Posted October 23, 2009 As chris said initially, a new profile should just join all the other Camera Raw profiles with the suffix .dcp (digital camera profile). After you've restarted the computer, it should show up under the picture of the little camera in ACR/LR. You can then save it with new new default settings. You shouldn't have to move it anywhere – but if it doesn't land there, go ahead & move it! Kirk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
novice9 Posted October 23, 2009 Share #13 Posted October 23, 2009 M -- thanks. If you wouldn't mind a quick follow up question. I thought that when the raw file is loaded into the develop module the resulting fulling uploaded file would reflect the raw converter used to convert the raw file to an image. so that if LR 3.0 has an upgraded raw converter, the resulting image would look different than that of LR2.5? Given that this is not so, this must mean that the two LR versions are using the exact same raw converter and what is different are the capabilities of the adjustment tools once the raw file is converted? does that make any sense? thanks! ps: in the meantime i downloaded the capture one demo and tried that out. what a world of difference, the unadjusted images that i seem to get from that tool upon loading the raw files are greatly superior to the initial loaded images that lightroom produces. These raw files are all nikon nef files taken with a d300. i don't get my m9 until tomorrow! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest roey Posted October 23, 2009 Share #14 Posted October 23, 2009 Given that this is not so, this must mean that the two LR versions are using the exact same raw converter and what is different are the capabilities of the adjustment tools once the raw file is converted? does that make any sense? Check out the "Process Version" option in the Settings menu. Here you can switch to the new engine for old pictures (on a picture by picture-basis). New ones automatically get the latest process version. There is a video on the Adobe labs page that explains this and other new features. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
novice9 Posted October 23, 2009 Share #15 Posted October 23, 2009 Thanks for the guidance. I'm sill confused. According to Adobe the new processing version affects all imports not just when making adjustments but also upon import as the demosaicing process is new in the beta version. But when i toggle between the old and new process versions (1.0 and beta) after loading the raw into develop module (again, without making any changes), there is absolutely no difference in the image or histogram, so it does not seem that there is any difference in the demosaicing?? thx. t. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauribix Posted October 23, 2009 Share #16 Posted October 23, 2009 Thanks for the guidance. I'm sill confused. According to Adobe the new processing version affects all imports not just when making adjustments but also upon import as the demosaicing process is new in the beta version. But when i toggle between the old and new process versions (1.0 and beta) after loading the raw into develop module (again, without making any changes), there is absolutely no difference in the image or histogram, so it does not seem that there is any difference in the demosaicing?? thx. t. I guess (have to verify still) that the new engine should be speeding up import operation only, and then affect operations quality and speed while PP pictures. That's just my feeling. Matter of fact, if we ever knew that a new engine should "somehow" all the older files, (I mean those which have never been PP) then I can imagine sleepless nights for many. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted October 23, 2009 Share #17 Posted October 23, 2009 Thanks for the guidance. I'm sill confused. According to Adobe the new processing version affects all imports not just when making adjustments but also upon import as the demosaicing process is new in the beta version. But when i toggle between the old and new process versions (1.0 and beta) after loading the raw into develop module (again, without making any changes), there is absolutely no difference in the image or histogram, so it does not seem that there is any difference in the demosaicing?? thx. t. I don't like how LR2 renders noise in shadows. I expect an improvement. Capture sharpness is another needed improvement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauribix Posted October 23, 2009 Share #18 Posted October 23, 2009 I don't like how LR2 renders noise in shadows. I expect an improvement. Capture sharpness is another needed improvement. Did you already try the Beta3? I guess you may be please. At least for the result when NR is applied. That's another world IMO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xrogers Posted October 23, 2009 Share #19 Posted October 23, 2009 Did you already try the Beta3?I guess you may be please. At least for the result when NR is applied. That's another world IMO. I agree. I took a quick look at this last night and didn't note any rendering difference, but the 2500 iso chroma noise reduction was impressive on some of the M9 DNGs floating around. M9 owners who use the high isos should check this out. Later, Clyde Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mn4367 Posted October 23, 2009 Share #20 Posted October 23, 2009 Impressive! I've loaded some of the High ISO shots I took in Solms and compared the two process versions. What a difference! Those ugly color stains I have in LR 2.5 all over the picture are gone and the images look much cleaner just with the default denoise settings. The "grain" pattern now looks much more pleasant. It reminded me of the nice "film-like" look of my R-D1 images when using high ISO. The good thing is that even with the default settings noise seems to be reduced without affecting the detail, the images are sharp just by default. I tried to get a comparable result from Capture One but I couldn't (although I have to admit that I don't know C1 very well). I liked the result from LR a lot more. I'm interested in what the luminance noise reduction can add if it gets enabled. I think LR 3 makes ISO 1600 and even ISO 2500 pretty usable now, which in my opinion isn't really nice with LR 2.5 and, to some extent, with C1. Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.