I have Lightroom 5.7; if I get a Leica SL3, would it work in my version of Lightroom?

[thebarnman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

8 hours ago, Jeff S said:

Or pay for LR Classic and never worry about lacking profiles or features.

Jeff

Thank you for the suggestion but I've already looked at all my options and decided to keep using Lightroom 5.7.  No real need for the mobile stuff and the basic adjustments are all that's needed to help really fine tune images.  

[Jeff S]

19 minutes ago, thebarnman said:

Thank you for the suggestion but I've already looked at all my options and decided to keep using Lightroom 5.7.  No real need for the mobile stuff and the basic adjustments are all that's needed to help really fine tune images.  

Sure, whatever works.  FWIW, mobile stuff is not purpose of LR Classic, which has better basic global and local adjustment tools. As someone who prints, I find the improvements invaluable, having reprinted old files that  were initially processed using earlier LR versions. Like upgrading camera/lenses, but without the huge expense.  YMMV.

Jeff

 

[thebarnman]

4 hours ago, Jeff S said:

Sure, whatever works.  FWIW, mobile stuff is not purpose of LR Classic, which has better basic global and local adjustment tools. As someone who prints, I find the improvements invaluable, having reprinted old files that  were initially processed using earlier LR versions. Like upgrading camera/lenses, but without the huge expense.  YMMV.

Jeff

 

Hi Jeff,

What advantages are there with Lightroom Classic vs earlier Lightroom versions when it comes to printing?  

[Jeff S]

8 hours ago, thebarnman said:

Hi Jeff,

What advantages are there with Lightroom Classic vs earlier Lightroom versions when it comes to printing?  

Print quality, among other things, requires a well edited file, just as a wet print requires skilled darkroom work.  LR Classic, as I’ve noted several times, has significantly improved editing tools, both global and local, potentially resulting (depending on user skills and judgment) in better prints.  Of course, there are many more variables at play from the moment of capture to display conditions.  I personally use ImagePrint software, as a supplement to LR, as another way to fine tune print results.

Jeff

[thebarnman]

6 hours ago, Jeff S said:

Print quality, among other things, requires a well edited file, just as a wet print requires skilled darkroom work.  LR Classic, as I’ve noted several times, has significantly improved editing tools, both global and local, potentially resulting (depending on user skills and judgment) in better prints.  Of course, there are many more variables at play from the moment of capture to display conditions.  I personally use ImagePrint software, as a supplement to LR, as another way to fine tune print results.

Jeff

I've never printed from Lightroom but always from Photoshop.  In short, if I'm working on an image that needs such fine adjustment, for me it's going to be done in Photoshop.  With my experience, Lightroom is fine for overall types of adjustments, some detail work can be done in Lightroom but when it comes to the nitty-gritty of an image I'm trying to get just right, I have no choice but to work on it in Photoshop. 

However, once all the work is done, what does it matter what software is used to print from such as printing from Photoshop vs printing from Lightroom.  There's also the Epson software that helps make it a bit easier rather than having to work with all the dialogue boxes in Photoshop just before printing. 

From your response, there must be finer choices to choose from when it comes to printing using ImagePrint vs Lightroom, Photoshop or the Epson printing software (I forget what it's called but it makes selecting all the details much easier.) 

[Jeff S]

36 minutes ago, thebarnman said:

I've never printed from Lightroom but always from Photoshop.  In short, if I'm working on an image that needs such fine adjustment, for me it's going to be done in Photoshop.  With my experience, Lightroom is fine for overall types of adjustments, some detail work can be done in Lightroom but when it comes to the nitty-gritty of an image I'm trying to get just right, I have no choice but to work on it in Photoshop. 

However, once all the work is done, what does it matter what software is used to print from such as printing from Photoshop vs printing from Lightroom.  There's also the Epson software that helps make it a bit easier rather than having to work with all the dialogue boxes in Photoshop just before printing. 

From your response, there must be finer choices to choose from when it comes to printing using ImagePrint vs Lightroom, Photoshop or the Epson printing software (I forget what it's called but it makes selecting all the details much easier.) 

Funny, you’re running ancient LR and complaining about how Photoshop can do much more. Of course, I had the same impressions long ago.  But this is 2024, and the current LR Classic is so capable and versatile, now including masking tools, that I very infrequently feel the need to use Photoshop. And if I do, no problem… LR Classic and Photoshop are both included in the Adobe Photographer Plan for ten bucks a month, each with continuing upgrades and new gear profiles.

ImagePrint is a whole different matter, essentially like a RIP, but so much more. The Black version, which I use, has superb custom profiles for virtually all papers.  And if a paper profile doesn’t exist, the company will make one for free.  These profiles are available for a variety of lighting conditions, plus greyscale. It’s expensive, but custom profiling gear alone would cost near double. The software runs fully in soft proof mode, so it’s very reliable for editing and printing, and also includes some robust final editing tools.  It now works on many Epson and Canon machines, without having to worry about any printer settings, as it runs the driver.  I no longer have to worry about conflicting software updates in the Apple/Adobe/Epson chain. I use a fraction of its capabilities, but I wouldn’t be without it any more for printing, despite its expense.

I have no idea what you’re talking about when you end by saying there must be finer tools available.  Huh?

Jeff

 

[thebarnman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

9 hours ago, Jeff S said:

Funny, you’re running ancient LR and complaining about how Photoshop can do much more. Of course, I had the same impressions long ago.  

 

ImagePrint is a whole different matter, essentially like a RIP, but so much more. The Black version, which I use, has superb custom profiles for virtually all papers.  And if a paper profile doesn’t exist, the company will make one for free.  These profiles are available for a variety of lighting conditions, plus greyscale. It’s expensive, but custom profiling gear alone would cost near double. The software runs fully in soft proof mode, so it’s very reliable for editing and printing, and also includes some robust final editing tools.  It now works on many Epson and Canon machines, without having to worry about any printer settings, as it runs the driver.  I no longer have to worry about conflicting software updates in the Apple/Adobe/Epson chain. I use a fraction of its capabilities, but I wouldn’t be without it any more for printing, despite its expense.

I have no idea what you’re talking about when you end by saying there must be finer tools available.  Huh?

Jeff

 

I didn't complain about using Photoshop, I simply said if there's some high detailed work I can't do in Lightroom, I do it in Photoshop.  I don't see how that's complaining.  

As far as profiles, I like to make my own paper profile with the printer I'm using.   

About ImagePrint, sounds interesting so I looked it up.  It won't run on my operating system...neither will either of those newer Adobe products you keep talking about.   

And what I said about finer tools, I said choices.  The quot is "From your response, there must be finer choices to choose from when it comes to printing using ImagePrint."  Meaning you're giving me the impression ImagePrint is superior to other software solutions when it comes to printing.  I simply wanted to know what you meant when you said about ImagePrint "another way to fine tune print results."  You explained it above when you said it "includes some robust final editing tools."  

I guess I'm just used to the combination of an older Lightroom and Photoshop.  It's probably easier to achieve a certain result with ImagePrint but not knowing anything about that software and never having used it, I just don't know what the real benefits are.  

Regardless, I've made the decision to simply stick with the Adobe products I already have.  And, if I never find a way to get my version of Lightroom to recognize the new Leica SL lenses, so be it.  They are fine lenses and the characteristics of those lenses themselves even without software correction will simply be part of the characteristic look those lenses will have on what ever my final outputs will be.  

[Jeff S]

A Mac Studio Ultra would be a nice companion to your Eizo screen.  Runs 21st century software, too. 😄

Jeff

[thebarnman]

6 hours ago, Jeff S said:

A Mac Studio Ultra would be a nice companion to your Eizo screen.  Runs 21st century software, too. 😄

Jeff

EIZO support sent me the link to the software that works just fine on my operating system.  

Thank you.  

 

[Jeff S]

3 minutes ago, thebarnman said:

EIZO support sent me the link to the software that works just fine on my operating system.  

Thank you.  

 

Obviously not the software I was referring to… aka the subject of this discussion. 🤪

Jeff

[thebarnman]

1 minute ago, Jeff S said:

Obviously not the software I was referring to… aka the subject of this discussion. 🤪

Jeff

DNG files work fine in my version of Lightroom. 

[Jeff S]

Wasted conversation.

Jeff

[thebarnman]

2 hours ago, Jeff S said:

Wasted conversation.

Jeff

Not really, I was wanting to know if the files from the new Leica SL3 would work with my edition of Lightroom.  For the most part it does.  The only part that doesn't work is the lens profiles.  Otherwise I can work with it like any other files I have worked on in the past.  The images below is a DNG file in my version of Lightroom (5.7.)  

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!

 

 

 

 

[Jeff S]

I think you’re smart enough to know what I mean. 😏

Jeff

[thebarnman]

1 minute ago, Jeff S said:

I think you’re smart enough to know what I mean. 😏

Jeff

Please enlighten me.  This is my first time shooting digitally.  Everything I've done to this point has been on film with my R9 and my R 90 APO lens.  The older software has worked fine for me from the scans from the film I've shot.  It still works and there's no monthly fee.  The newer Adobe software as I'm now finding out doesn't doesn't work on my operating system and neither does ImagePrint. 

The newer Adobe products and ImagePrint is for me moot.   

 

  

[Jeff S]

7 minutes ago, thebarnman said:

 

The newer Adobe products and ImagePrint is for me moot.   

 

  

Ah, so you do get the wasted conversation. 
 

Jeff

[thebarnman]

4 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Ah, so you do get the wasted conversation. 
 

Jeff

Thank you for your insight.    

[jaapv]

45 minutes ago, thebarnman said:

Please enlighten me.  This is my first time shooting digitally.  Everything I've done to this point has been on film with my R9 and my R 90 APO lens.  The older software has worked fine for me from the scans from the film I've shot.  It still works and there's no monthly fee.  The newer Adobe software as I'm now finding out doesn't doesn't work on my operating system and neither does ImagePrint. 

The newer Adobe products and ImagePrint is for me moot.   

 

  

I don't think that the pre-CC versions of Adobe products are updated to read the latest DNG versions. This makes this whole discussion rather academic.
Quite apart from the fact that the newest postprocessing produces rather superior results, both in features and in improved postprocessing.

[thebarnman]

3 minutes ago, jaapv said:

I don't think that the pre-CC versions of Adobe products are updated to read the latest DNG versions. This makes this whole discussion rather academic.
Quite apart from the fact that the newest postprocessing produces rather superior results, both in features and in improved postprocessing.

It's been suggested I could create my own using color charts here https://helpx.adobe.com/uk/camera-raw/digital-negative.html look at (ADOBE LENS PROFILE CREATOR) I guess I could try it but I don't know if I would get it correct or not; so I'm just going to leave it be.  I'm just going to assume the SL Leica lenses left as is can't be that far off.  

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jaapv]

It is not about lens profiles but about the ability to read  the DNG at all. Maybe obsolete ACR versions can still be updated.