draschan: currently I am using aperture which seems to fall behind lightroom more & more. noise handling in LR is already much better. the improvements in dynamic range handling wants to make me switch. It seems like it will save some masking and post processing work.
I disagree with that, since in Aperture, you can have many modifiers, you can fade the masks you paint, the response time is much faster, skin colors are not shifted to red/orange and each slider has much more subdivisions/steps and therefore, more possibilities, specially in color editing, like HUE or when using the WB. Actually, you can get a wider gamut of colors in Aperture than in LR just by moving the WB slider. So the picture looks more realistic, clean and attractive. LR has it power on the UI and mostly in managing the density. You can achieve many types of density/contrast in LR, but's more aimed to create HDR-Like pictures than anything else.
Btw, for landscapes it's better Aperture, also for portraits. But for general photography, LR.
photo nuts: Why do people enjoy posting negative critical remarks even for articles as innocent as an introduction to new software?
Probably because positive things don't need to be explained.
plasnu: Am I the only one who prefers unprocessed image?
This is not a trolling. I honestly thought the processed image is overdone and not beautiful at all, so I'm curious what the other people think.
From ugly to beauty there is a so tinny line that probably, there is no line.
Samuel Dilworth: This is a helpful demonstration of the differences between PV 2010 and PV 2012. If I were starting from scratch I would almost certainly find the controls in PV 2012 easier to understand and use.
My own problem is that I had figured out PV 2010, and now find it more difficult to understand what the new tools do. For example, I thought (perhaps wrongly) that the Blacks value in PV 2010 represented the 8-bit input value below which all output values were pinned to black. The adjustment made some sense in this context. The new slider, with negative values, doesn't seem to make sense, even if it seems to work fine (though doing something slightly different than the old Blacks slider, I notice).
I'll get there.
Don't worry. The Adobe guys kept in mind that, so if you use the 2010 conversion, you actually get the L3 interface inside LR4.
scorpicon: I've done some comparisons between my PV 2010 edits and identical or better results in PV 2012, and I'm consistently using fewer adjustments. I'm really enjoying some old raw shots I thought were worthless.
In some opportunities, the conversion from 2010 to 2012 are absolutely different. Watch out if you convert a batch of your pics from 2010 to 2012, because sometimes the conversion is absolutely different (awful).
Adobe missed something very important with LR4, and that's the blacks slider as it worked in LR3. Once you increase the lighting using the shadows and blacks slider in LR4, you lose any possibility to give a punch to the very darkest pixels of the image in order to create contour.
You can read what I wrote in the Adobe Forums here: http://forums.adobe.com/message/4290725#4290725 The title of the post says it all.
LVPhoto1: Just heard from Nikon Japan, that there is going to be a firmware to improve the high iso performance, as it is not on-pair with other current high iso cameras’Unexcitable for professional use, those of us that have been in this business know what is good and what would be acceptable.Amateurs have a problem in seeing what can be done using a more acceptably iso, .too get the shot.
If ISO performance can be improved through a firmware, why not updating the ISO performance of the D700. I would pay for that :D
BitFarmer: Barney, did you noticed if the new D800 address the long term issue of blowing red channels on nikon bodies?
On my old D70 and my actual D300s cameras seems to adjust metering so that the general luminosity histogram -the white one- doesn't burn (accumulate a peak on the brightest side), but it seems not to care about the red channel being way burned, so you easily end up with a burned red channel -even on the skin tones- when the light is a little reddish, like in a sunset portrait. On that cases, you need to remember to teawk it down to -1EV or so not to burn reds, something you can't revert on pp btw.
Does D800 still clearly burn red channel if the overal luminance keeps in shape?
This is the most annoying fault on nikon cameras for me, as this should be basic metering strategy -on my oppinion- and is not so difficult to code, but it isn't like this on a camera aimed to basically meter light accurately.
Any other nikon boy feels like me?
Glad to hear someone complaining about the red channel ;) If you have not clipped that channel so much, you can recover nice data from the red channel by lowering the luminosity of reds in LR.
Hope that helps :)
Lightroom 4 has nice improvements, but new features? None... Just a rearrangement of the old stuff. The Density Panel (wrongly named "Basic") is some how, unpredictable in certain types of adjustments and quite lame too. Should be another blacks slider, like in LR3, because this one moves too much pixel data from shadows (it's equivalent to fill light), washing out the image. Of course, this happens with underexposed images. I do many underexposed images in order to fill the shadows when shooting landscapes and in LR4, there is no way to put back some blacks like in LR3 with the blacks slider. I like how works the clarity, but it also increases the contrast (by radius enlargement) in higher values instead of keeping the fixed radius like in LR3.
They should keep some features of LR3 instead of changing their algorithms.
And as for the new features, all the LR community was asking for a more organic type of neutral density filter but nothing of that happened.
11. When will the recovery slider NOT TO make a plain bad looking highlights with a HUGE PEAK of repeated tones in the highlights histogram?
12. When will contrast work from the middle of the histogram and not from the middle of the histogram box?
For those who also knows Aperture, you may notice how GOOD Aperture handles color separation when talking about temperature and color re-interpretation.
I used Lightroom since it came into existence, for many years, and for many purposes and styles, then I used it more for landscape photography, but sunsets tends to look FLAT when trying to separate the colors by using ANY color adjustment (WB, Split Toning, Camera Calibration). So for portrait much better not to use it because of the UNREALISTIC (over saturated reddish/orangeish) skin tones it gives.
So, since a year ago, I'm just using Aperture 3. It's also the way of cheaper.
So, for what is good Lightroom? For black and white. It really does good results.
And I forgot one more:
10. When will Lightroom stopping of re-intepreting skin color so ugly!?!?!?
1. When Lightroom will be able to use the Video Card RAM/Processor as well? 2.
2. When will Lightroom allow adding multiple adjusting panels?
3. ... able to load density channels as masks?
4. ... able to use blending?
5. ... able to not modify color saturation when EDITING the density of the image?
5. ... able to set a radius slider for fill light and recovery?
6. ... able to brush in/out adjustments such as noise removal?
7. ... able to create a good gradient editor?
8. ... able to work with gradients that don't overlaps themselves?
And 9... When will Lightroom stop launching "new" version updates when it comes JUST to upgrade the cameras compatibility?
Those pics are clearly not the same pic...
"If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys". I love that one.
The equation is easy: there is talented people and there is untalented people. Those who are untalented have to work 8 hours to earn what talented people earns in 1.