chris_tribble Posted June 11, 2010 Share #1 Posted June 11, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thought that others might be interested to see the difference between LR3 process and LR2 with M9 files. Some of you may remember the image I'm posting from early days - it was an example of the problem of working with mixed light (daylight saving bulbs + tungsten + daylight). I attach below the full image processed with the 2003 RAW engine and then the 2010 version. Also crops. In each instance, the first one is the 2003 RAW version. Apart from the change of process settings WB etc were identical. NB - I am fully aware that there's a problem with the way in which the yello cast from the mixed light is horrid - but I only give this as an example of how bad things can be. So far as post-proces is concerned I know which RAW engine I prefer. For comparison I'm also including a real world 1250 ISO shot - the contrast between LR3's control of colour noise over LR2 is dramatic. IMHO LR3 has transformed the potential of the M9 for low light work. Interested to hear other's experience Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/123484-high-iso-horrible-light-m9-lr3/?do=findComment&comment=1349320'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 11, 2010 Posted June 11, 2010 Hi chris_tribble, Take a look here High ISO / horrible light / M9 + LR3. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
mwilliamsphotography Posted June 11, 2010 Share #2 Posted June 11, 2010 Thanks Chris. Looks pretty promising. -Marc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted June 11, 2010 Share #3 Posted June 11, 2010 I'm finding the same thing Chris (but using CS5), its a big leap in performance and makes ISO in the 800 - 1600 region very comfortable for the M9. A very good reason to now upgrade to LR3 or CS5. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted June 11, 2010 Share #4 Posted June 11, 2010 That is a significant improvement, especially for ISO 2500. Adobe has done some great work here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted June 11, 2010 Share #5 Posted June 11, 2010 IMHO LR3 has transformed the potential of the M9 for low-light work. Yes, absolutely! The same is true Adobe Camera Raw 6 (which comes with Photoshop CS5)—and it works for other cameras, too ... Sony Alpha 900, for example NB - I am fully aware that there's a problem with the way in which the yellow cast from the mixed light is horrid ... There are powerful techniques to correct local colour casts coming from mixed light which involve Photoshop's Lab colour mode ... see Dan Margulis' book Photoshop LAB Color (Addison-Wesley). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted June 11, 2010 Author Share #6 Posted June 11, 2010 O1af - thanks for the Margulis tip - I'll check this out. Glad that others are experiencing the same thing - I don't know how it compares with C1 / Aperture - interesting if others could post some high ISO images (100%) processed with LR3/ACR6 and other engines... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted June 11, 2010 Share #7 Posted June 11, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Argghh - and I just upgraded to PSCS4 last fall. Now I need to upgrade again to get ACR 6? Gack! (I guess Adobe has figured out how to monetize the "free" ACR!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted June 11, 2010 Author Share #8 Posted June 11, 2010 Bummer... I could live with CS4 + LR3. A cheaper option... I find I use CS5 less and less - especially now that the print engine in LR3 works so well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaques Posted June 11, 2010 Share #9 Posted June 11, 2010 This is a large, obvious improvement: I am now convinced to upgrade to LR3. Thanks for posting this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted June 12, 2010 Share #10 Posted June 12, 2010 Best you buy your copy right away before some camera manufacturer buys Adobe and takes the improvements out. This has to kill the 18 month product obsolesence cycle. Adobe ould do well to maket this a bit more, but instead they worry about cutting out trees and other things and changing peoples arm positions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest V64 Posted June 12, 2010 Share #11 Posted June 12, 2010 Yes it is a significant improvement on High ISO M9 image processing - but will I see the same improvement on High ISO M8 images? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted June 12, 2010 Author Share #12 Posted June 12, 2010 Yes it is a significant improvement on High ISO M9 image processing - but will I see the same improvement on High ISO M8 images? Works GREAT for M8 files - the attached was my son rehearsing for a gig in a badly lit studio space in Hackney, London. Exif info tells the story. I should also say that the range of sharpening tools is really good. I didn't need to make it as clean as this - more in the way of a demo of possibilityies. As ever, the trick is to work out how best to sharpen depending on output BTW - the odd pink spots on the T-shirt are not an artefact - they're the glowing reindeer horns he had round his neck... Enjoy! Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/123484-high-iso-horrible-light-m9-lr3/?do=findComment&comment=1350074'>More sharing options...
wda Posted June 12, 2010 Share #13 Posted June 12, 2010 Chris (and OP) these examples are highly encouraging. Like you, I find that LR handles the bulk of my PP. The more it improves, the more I like it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.