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

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In any case the whole discussion will be on a far higher level within a not too long time with the inevitable ascent of AI. Already I run all my shots  through Topaz Photo AI as a first step in PS with impressive results. Undoubtedly the progress will not stop there LR has its enhance module which ic being developed at a high pace, PS its Neural filters, and it is only the beginning. 

[Jeff S]

6 hours ago, thebarnman said:

I did a search to see if I could find if there are real differences in image quality between Lightroom 5.7 and the newest version.  All I could find was talk about different tools, menu layout differences, not anything different about how an image is rendered onto the screen or the final results when it's printed. 

Besides camera/lens profiles, what really does any newer version of Lightroom do when it comes to image quality? 

My original question was if images taken with the SL3 can work in my version of Lightroom.  The answer is yes and that's all I was wondering about; but now there's a lot of talk about how horrible the image will look if I don't use the most recent releases of Lightroom. 

You’ve already been provided my actual print experience… end of post #64.  Why not download a free LR trial and see for yourself?  
 

Jeff

[thebarnman]

14 hours ago, Jeff S said:

You’ve already been provided my actual print experience… end of post #64.  Why not download a free LR trial and see for yourself?  
 

Jeff

Your version of "print experience" is not what I'm talking about.  Also, my software won't support today's Lightroom.

[thebarnman]

18 hours ago, jaapv said:

In any case the whole discussion will be on a far higher level within a not too long time with the inevitable ascent of AI. Already I run all my shots  through Topaz Photo AI as a first step in PS with impressive results. Undoubtedly the progress will not stop there LR has its enhance module which ic being developed at a high pace, PS its Neural filters, and it is only the beginning. 

Oh I totally agree!  There's been a lot of talk on YouTube about that. 

[Anbaric]

Routine use of AI 'enhancement' does open another can of worms, though. With phones (which are, after all, the most commonly used cameras) it seems likely to become ubiquitous. Photographers with 'real' cameras can still choose not to use it, and some professionals may not be allowed to. The influential World Press Photo guidelines explicitly ban 'all AI-powered enlarging tools such as Adobe Super Resolution and Topaz Photo AI' because they 'are based on generative AI models that introduce new information to enlarge and sharpen images'. These tools are faking details that were never there.

There is also the matter of aesthetics. To my eyes, most of the 'enhancements' to images of people in this review of Topaz look pretty artificial, and several are awful (the man with the plate at the party, the man with the walking poles in front of the mountain, not to mention the plastic faces towards the end that even the author finds a bit much). Landscape and wildlife images seem to fare better, probably because our brains are better tuned for detecting anomalies in human faces. Overuse of these tools will probably be the mid 2020s version of the fashion for aggressive tone mapping to make pseudo-HDR images from a few years ago. Perhaps a future generation will recognise and parody this style, as they've done with airbrushed images from the 1980s.

Edited June 27, 2024 by Anbaric

[dpitt]

2 hours ago, Anbaric said:

...

There is also the matter of aesthetics. To my eyes, most of the 'enhancements' to images of people in this review of Topaz look pretty artificial, and several are awful (the man with the plate at the party, the man with the walking poles in front of the mountain, not to mention the plastic faces towards the end that even the author finds a bit much). Landscape and wildlife images seem to fare better, probably because our brains are better tuned for detecting anomalies in human faces. Overuse of these tools will probably be the mid 2020s version of the fashion for aggressive tone mapping to make pseudo-HDR images from a few years ago. Perhaps a future generation will recognise and parody this style, as they've done with airbrushed images from the 1980s.

To my eyes the faces look artificial too. The funny thing is that I see more detail in the faces in the original high grain pictures, The finer details are washed away by the AI tool and replaced by a cleaner but artificial sharp look.
In my own experiments with AI, it was even worse. If you have shot the pictures yourself and if you know the people in the picture, the difference is even more obvious. Some people do not even look like themselves anymore. More as if they had a bad facelift.

Edited June 27, 2024 by dpitt

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think that is related to esthetic of the images that we are used to. Our eyes are not trained to appreciate the cleaner look. Anyway, if the results are to clinical for the taste of the photographer, the addition of a bit of  grain will solve the problem. It takes some skill to apply the program...🙄. Fortunately it is fully controllable.

[jaapv]

4 hours ago, Anbaric said:

Routine use of AI 'enhancement' does open another can of worms, though. With phones (which are, after all, the most commonly used cameras) it seems likely to become ubiquitous. Photographers with 'real' cameras can still choose not to use it, and some professionals may not be allowed to. The influential World Press Photo guidelines explicitly ban 'all AI-powered enlarging tools such as Adobe Super Resolution and Topaz Photo AI' because they 'are based on generative AI models that introduce new information to enlarge and sharpen images'. These tools are faking details that were never there.

 

That is a bit ambiguous, as Photo AI is not an enlarging tool as such, it has an enlarging option - which most users only apply rarely.  The same will apply to LR Enhance. I guess they mean Topaz Gigapixel.
I wonder what WPP will do when Photoshop is mainly AI driven - which will happen in a not too far  future. Are they going to ban the industry-leading postprocessing program?

[thebarnman]

6 hours ago, jaapv said:

Are they going to ban the industry-leading postprocessing program?

When that time comes and push comes to shove, Adobe will probably come out with a version of Photoshop/Lightroom that won't have those features...and it would probably cost more. 

[jaapv]

I seriously doubt that Adobe will let itself being pushed around by a photo competition. And the other program makers neither

Photography has changed beyond recognition in the last two decades and this is only the beginning. Press photography is moving to smartphones too. Are WPP going to refuse images from a full-AI iPhone 20 as well? . 
The weakest will go to the wall. And it won’t be technology…

[hansvons]

On 6/26/2024 at 8:55 PM, thebarnman said:

Also, my software won't support today's Lightroom.

Even from an analogue film shooter's perspective, software greatly matters. If I were trying to improve my photography technically, I'd invest in suitable, modern-day hardware and software rather than cameras or lenses, including my ability to use it properly—and I'm not talking AI here. 

For perspective: I shoot mostly on cine film that I develop and scan myself. I don't do that because I like home-grow workflows; I do that because no lab can do that better than me. For that, I need proper software. As I like to print large (80x60cm, also at home with a 44" printer), I need software that supports my workflow. I use Capture One for the negative conversion and editing. Sharpening for printing is done with Topaz Photo AI, which works best with analogue grain, and sometimes, I use Photoshop to remove distracting things in my images. I couldn't do that with legacy software, or at least the results were less appealing and the work considerably more time-consuming.

I'd buy a used Apple 16" M1 Macbook Pro with 64 RAM and call it a day. 

[thebarnman]

5 minutes ago, hansvons said:

with legacy software, or at least the results were less appealing and the work considerably more time-consuming.

I get the work is more time-consuming on older software, not as easy to remove something surely, but what do you mean it's less appealing?  If you take the time to do something in the way you want it to be and look, shouldn't it be satisfying?  Why would it be better?  Or, are you saying it simply takes less time with newer software so in that sense it's better.    

[hansvons]

5 minutes ago, thebarnman said:

If you take the time to do something in the way you want it to be and look, shouldn't it be satisfying?  Why would it be better?  Or, are you saying it simply takes less time with newer software so in that sense it's better.    

Hardware and software development is about making results more accessible, faster to obtain, and better in quality. Maybe that's not your concern because you are already as happy as can be, which is OK. However, you'll never know if you haven't tried it.

That said, I tend to update my hardware every 3rd generation and not buy into the idea that newer must be better, which also applies to cameras. But in that context, the M1 was a game-changing generation and not to be missed. My now almost 3-year-old M1 Macbook accelerated my editing by factor two; similar things can be said about the editing software, plus new tools also pay into faster workflows. My perspective on this is getting things done and not tinkering. 

[Jeff S]

6 hours ago, hansvons said:

Hardware and software development is about making results more accessible, faster to obtain, and better in quality.

 

Plus added flexibility (more options) and a more secure operating environment when keeping abreast.

Jeff

[thebarnman]

16 hours ago, hansvons said:

Hardware and software development is about making results more accessible, faster to obtain, and better in quality.

 

Thanks truly for the insight.  All that is good to know.  Improvements on how much easier it is to edit and achieving results in a different way because of updated software...that I get. 

I'm wondering more about better image quality with the newer software.  I'm asking about improvements with the image quality. 

Does the color red look better with the newer software?  How about contrast, is somehow contrast better looking with the newer software?  Is there more shadow detail because of the newer software?  That's really more about what I'm wondering.

I know there are some updated sliders for example (dehaze as an example) but I guess I'll just have to live without that and possibly a few extra sliders that may also have been added.

[LocalHero1953]

8 hours ago, thebarnman said:

Thanks truly for the insight.  All that is good to know.  Improvements on how much easier it is to edit and achieving results in a different way because of updated software...that I get. 

I'm wondering more about better image quality with the newer software.  I'm asking about improvements with the image quality. 

Does the color red look better with the newer software?  How about contrast, is somehow contrast better looking with the newer software?  Is there more shadow detail because of the newer software?  That's really more about what I'm wondering.

I know there are some updated sliders for example (dehaze as an example) but I guess I'll just have to live without that and possibly a few extra sliders that may also have been added.

The single tool that has really made my photos look 'better' in recent years is AI noise reduction, whether from Topaz or Adobe. It's what makes me want to go back and work on photos I took with the M9 and processed in Lightroom 3. There are plenty of other improvements that have speeded up processing, but this is the only one I can think of that makes my photos look better now than they could have done then. 

[Jeff S]

12 hours ago, thebarnman said:

I'm wondering more about better image quality with the newer software.  I'm asking about improvements with the image quality. 

 

What do you think the improvements to editing tools (global and local), processing engines/algorithms, profiles, etc are for?  Fun moving sliders around?  As always, it’s the user that makes a difference… or not.   Anyone can learn new tools and techniques. Making good decisions and judgments about when, where and to what degree to use them is all that matters.  Some do a lot with mediocre tools; some do mediocre work with the latest and greatest.  
 

My prints are better now because I’ve learned to use the tools and materials to my advantage for better quality.  Not always, and not always dramatically; subtleties matter. Your mileage not only might, but will, vary. That’s how it all works…. from shot to final print.

Will a fancy new camera or lens yield better quality?  You decide.

Jeff

[bill_murray]

There are some very patient people contributing to this thread.  I admire them. 

[rogxwhit]

20 hours ago, thebarnman said:

Thanks truly for the insight.  All that is good to know.  Improvements on how much easier it is to edit and achieving results in a different way because of updated software...that I get. 

I'm wondering more about better image quality with the newer software.  I'm asking about improvements with the image quality. 

Does the color red look better with the newer software?  How about contrast, is somehow contrast better looking with the newer software?  Is there more shadow detail because of the newer software?  That's really more about what I'm wondering.

I know there are some updated sliders for example (dehaze as an example) but I guess I'll just have to live without that and possibly a few extra sliders that may also have been added.

There's no debate, really - you carry on as you are, or explore the new.  The crucial interface is between you & the images that you produce - and where those images sit in terms of relevance as a form of cultural expression has little to do with the age or era of equipment involved.  The results either get you or they don't. 

Forget having the latest kit.  Verity of expression is key, & you can achieve that with a sheet of paper & a stick or two of charcoal.  Or anything - including Lightroom 5.7!

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[thebarnman]

6 hours ago, bill_murray said:

There are some very patient people contributing to this thread.  I admire them. 

Hi Bill,

I originally asked if the files from the SL3 will work on my version of Lightroom 5.7, as it turns out it does...that's all I was wanting to know.  Even better I can import the lens profile.  Everything else suggested to me about new this and new that I do appreciate the advise.  As it turns out, my current workflow is just fine for me.  I'm used to it and Lightroom 5.7 is capable of handling all the profiles I need for end use if it's to be displayed on a TV, computer screen, or printed onto certain types of paper with the printer I'm using.  

The biggest difference for me will be moving on from my R9 to digital (for the first time.)  The biggest difference in quality (to me) will come from the type of files coming directly from the camera rather than from a film scan from the R9.     

 

2 hours ago, rogxwhit said:

There's no debate, really - you carry on as you are, or explore the new.  The crucial interface is between you & the images that you produce - and where those images sit in terms of relevance as a form of cultural expression has little to do with the age or era of equipment involved.  The results either get you or they don't. 

Forget having the latest kit.  Verity of expression is key, & you can achieve that with a sheet of paper & a stick or two of charcoal.  Or anything - including Lightroom 5.7!

 

Thank you.  From everything I know about photography, it is what I want it to be.  The moment I learned Lightroom can handle files from the SL3 was the moment I decided I didn't need to upgrade either the software or the computer.  I do however have a brand new monitor...the EIZO ColorEdge CG2700X which replaced my old workhorse the NEC MultiSync PA27AW.  The NEC was over 10 years old and though it could still be calibrated, uniformity was starting to become a problem.