So does one need Lightroom 4 when one has lightroom 3?

[Paulus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A friend of mine is lyrical about L4.

 

What are your experiences with the new L4 in comparison with L 3. Is it worth while to buy the update or doesn' t make to much difference in case of the M9 post processing.

 

Thank you for participating in this thread.

[DennisK]

I really like it. Up to L3 I much preferred Capture One, also for the colors. L4 changed that with great rendering of smooth gradients in the highlights and a much better color accuracy overall (the reds are still a tad strong though). The only areas where C1 6 still is better is in offering a lens cast calibration (LCC) for the wide angle red edge issue and in recovering shadow detail. It does come at a price though. While L4 shadows tend to be darker and less dynamic they also look more natural to me. The distortion profiles for 20 plus Leica lenses is a major factor as well.

 

This series was from the M9/28 Cron/L4:

 

http://www.somerandomshots.com/index.php?main=journal&shot=848 (click the "Prev" arrow to browse through the whole series)

 

Dennis

[Jaybob]

I was thinking I didn't need to upgrade, but I went ahead and did it.

For me, it's been TOTALLY worth it, especially because I sometime find myself dealing with the occasional semi under exposed or semi over exposed image.

LR4 makes dealing with over all exposure and shadows and highlights problems EASY using DNG files. Chunked up blacks and blown out whites, not so much.

 

The Leica lens "corrections" are nice, although those lenses don't need much in the way of fixing. They're not exactly 17-35 Nikkor zooms.

 

I posted this yesterday, you may find it interesting.

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/landscape-travel/235852-week-vegas.html

 

Jay

[ski542002]

Hi. Am I the only person that has found LR4 to be slow (compared to v.3.6), to the point that it's virtually unusable for a paying job where I have to process 300 to up to 800 images?

 

The image files look great and the noise reduction brush is a huge benefit, but not at the expense of slowing my workflow to a crawl. I only use v4, when I process a small job, less than 100 files. My hardware spec is a non-issue. LR 3, ps4, Cap1, and FCP10 all scream with my system.

 

Thoughts?

[charlesphoto99]

Most definitely YES! Upgrade that is.

[jonoslack]

Well. I've spent a lot of time with both over the last few months.

 

It seems to me that Lightroom 3 had one real advantage over Aperture - it's much faster - on the other hand it had lots of disadvantages with respect to Apple Aperture:

 

Aperture was better at:

cataloguing

printing

ITCP info

Cloning (especially)

Moire adjustment

connectivity with iPad and mac

Export files

one's cash balance

 

Lightroom 4 (IMHO of course) changes one thing . . . . .

it's no longer faster than Aperture

 

I just wish that Apple would be quicker at supporting new cameras, in every other respect I prefer the functionality, usability and control that Aperture gives you.

 

Hey, Sorry, this is off topic.

No, one doesn't need Lightroom 4 when one has lightroom 3 (until Adobe supports a new camera you want in 4 and not in 3, which will be pretty soon).

 

[kdriceman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The upgrade is $76. Yes, I think it is worth it. I know it has bogged down for some, but here is an Adobe link for setting preferences to improve performance. Scroll down about a page for optimal settings: Optimize performance | Lightroom

 

For me, it is just as fast as LR3, has some nice added features and is more responsive and more powerful. The RGB point curve adjustments alone are worth the upgrade price. Plus, you can download it and use it for free for 30 days to see for yourself.

[3rdtrick]

Since LR3, I have been using it almost exclusively for my Leica and Nikon cameras. Even Photoshop is reserved for special photos. Because it is now my primary image processing software, I upgraded to LR4 and will upgrade to LR5 as soon as it is available. LR4 was quite an improvement as stated by others and the upgrade price is reasonable so I would recommend upgrading.

Pete

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Well. I've spent a lot of time with both over the last few months.

 

It seems to me that Lightroom 3 had one real advantage over Aperture - it's much faster - on the other hand it had lots of disadvantages with respect to Apple Aperture:

 

Aperture was better at:

cataloguing

printing

ITCP info

Cloning (especially)

Moire adjustment

connectivity with iPad and mac

Export files

one's cash balance

 

Lightroom 4 (IMHO of course) changes one thing . . . . .

it's no longer faster than Aperture

 

I just wish that Apple would be quicker at supporting new cameras, in every other respect I prefer the functionality, usability and control that Aperture gives you.

 

Hey, Sorry, this is off topic.

No, one doesn't need Lightroom 4 when one has lightroom 3 (until Adobe supports a new camera you want in 4 and not in 3, which will be pretty soon).

 

 

Have you tried the 4.1 release candidate. Apparently many of those who are having issues in 4.0 are seeing some improvement. I'm not having any speed issues other than its slow to swap between modules. But once in a module it's fine. I understand others have not been so lucky.

 

For me, the inclusion of soft proofing was worth the price of admission. It make printing much easier.

 

Gordon

[sanyasi]

Yes. The RAW converter is light years beyond the one in LR3. Some of the individual controls in development mode are also improved and more logically laid your. Finally, there are more options available for the touch up brushes.

 

I don't really care about GPS or the Blurb book feature. I've tried the Blurb feature by building a book. It was easy and I might do it on occasion.

 

My practice is to order all updates for software that I use. When I am spending thousands of dollars a year on new equipment, it strikes me as odd not to spend a few hundred dollars a year to stay current with new software developments, particularly when that software comes into play in processing every photograph I make from my digital cameras. I always find one or two of the highly touted new feature worthwhile, but there are also subtle changes that inevitably make the upgrade worthwhile.

[cederic]

As a crude amateur (at both taking photos, and post-processing them) I was chary of upgrading. I'm glad I did - the new highlights/shadows sliders really make it easier to turn difficult scenes into usable photographs.

 

The other RAW processing improvements are too subtle for me to have noticed, and the application does lag a little when switching modes at times, but generally I'm processing my photos far quicker now. Very happy with the upgrade.

[viramati]

Early days yet for me with LR4 but so far am seeing little difference with the 2012 RAW conversion as compared to the 2010 in Lr3. I like the control of the sliders in the basic panel once you get used to them and the clarity slider is certainly a lot better.Also seems to be working Ok pn my 3 year old macbook pro 17"

[DES]

Yes I wondered if I should upgrade, but I did and it is much better than LR3 as has been stated here already.

[viramati]

Strangely in Lr4 if you still have files that are using the 2010 Raw conversion the sliders etc are still the same as in LR3 so in a way you can use both version but within the same programme. Hope that is clear!!

[Jeff S]

Strangely in Lr4 if you still have files that are using the 2010 Raw conversion the sliders etc are still the same as in LR3 so in a way you can use both version but within the same programme. Hope that is clear!!

 

Or just keep LR3 on your computer at the same time as LR 4. I did this with LR 2 and LR3 until I was comfortable deleting LR2; now doing the same with the latest versions.

 

But, even with early experience, there will be little reason for me to keep LR 3, as LR 4 offers clear advantages, e.g., discrete controls for highlights and shadows, with less overlap on mid tones. I've already re-edited some pics difficult to print quite as I'd like with LR3, and got better, and far quicker, results. Added controls for issues such as moire and color defringing (the latter available with release candidate 2) are welcome additions. Soon I'll have little need for CS. And new features like Blurb book interface are a bonus.

 

Adobe has been listening to users and translating that to real improvements. It's like getting a new camera or lens every year or so....only for a lot less money.

 

Jeff

[Paulus]

Or just keep LR3 on your computer at the same time as LR 4. I did this with LR 2 and LR3 until I was comfortable deleting LR2; now doing the same with the latest versions.

 

But, even with early experience, there will be little reason for me to keep LR 3, as LR 4 offers clear advantages, e.g., discrete controls for highlights and shadows, with less overlap on mid tones. I've already re-edited some pics difficult to print quite as I'd like with LR3, and got better, and far quicker, results. Added controls for issues such as moire and color defringing (the latter available with release candidate 2) are welcome additions. Soon I'll have little need for CS. And new features like Blurb book interface are a bonus.

 

Adobe has been listening to users and translating that to real improvements. It's like getting a new camera or lens every year or so....only for a lot less money.

 

Jeff

 

Thank you all for writing. In the mean time I have bought the Lightroom 4 and have edited about 800 shots with it. I must say it's very welcome. All the things Jeff writes are coming true for me! It works marvalous!

[Jeff S]

I'm refreshing this thread because I think this LuLa post by Charles Cramer is a particularly concise and useful summary of some key benefits of using LR 4 versus LR 3 or earlier iterations.

 

In addition, for those who swear by Photoshop and who may never have gotten along with LR, I think the features discussed here may offer some reason to try again.

 

Jeff