Previous news story    Next news story

Adobe issues Lightroom 4.3 and Adobe Camera Raw 7.3 'release candidates'

By dpreview staff on Nov 8, 2012 at 22:21 GMT

Adobe has issued a 'release candidate' version of Lightroom 4.3 and Adobe Camera Raw 7.3, including support for 13 additional cameras. The Mac version of Lightroom features a Develop module that supports Apple's HiDPI mode that makes the interface easier to read on the 'Retina' panels used on recent Macs. The latest versions are available for download from the Adobe Labs website and, as the 'release candidate' tag denotes, are well tested but could benefit from some user feedback before finalized.


Press Release:

Adobe Announces HiDPI Support in Lightroom 4.3 and Camera Raw 7.3 Release Candidates

Adobe today announced the availability of Lightroom 4.3 and Camera Raw 7.3 release candidates on Adobe Labs. The Lightroom 4.3 Release Candidate includes support for HiDPI displays within the Develop Module, and both updates add raw file support for the following cameras:

  • Canon PowerShot S110
  • Canon PowerShot G15
  • Canon PowerShot SX50 HS
  • Casio Exilim EX-ZR1000
  • Casio Exilim EX-FC300S
  • Nikon D600*
  • Olympus PEN E-PL5
  • Olympus PEN E-PM2
  • Olympus STYLUS XZ-2 iHS
  • Panasonic DMC-GH3
  • Pentax K-5 II
  • Pentax K-5 IIs
  • Pentax Q10

* Denotes Full support.  Preliminary support for this camera was available in Lightroom 4.2 and Camera Raw 7.2.

Adobe encourages community feedback to ensure the highest quality experience for customers working on diverse hardware and software configurations. Special thanks to all those who provided feedback via the community powered feedback site: feedback.photoshop.com.

Lightroom is the essential digital photography workflow solution, helping serious amateur and professional photographers quickly import, manage, enhance and showcase all their images within one application. The Photoshop Camera Raw plug-in provides fast and easy access to raw image formats produced by many leading digital cameras.

Pricing and Availability

The Lightroom 4.3 release candidate is available as a free download for Lightroom 4 customers, and the Photoshop Camera Raw 7.3 release candidate is available for Photoshop CS6 customers. Both are available for Mac and Windows at http://labs.adobe.com/.

 For additional information, please visit the Adobe Lightroom blog: http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/. Customers may also connect with the Lightroom team directly on Facebook (www.facebook.com/lightroom) or via Twitter (www.twitter.com/lightroom).

Comments

Total comments: 61
faebu9
By faebu9 (Nov 28, 2012)

I buyed 4 and actually I work aigain with 3.6...
For timecritical work, Lightroom 4 is a NoGo!

0 upvotes
tornwald
By tornwald (Nov 9, 2012)

Where is Sigma dp1m/dp2m support? Come on already!

0 upvotes
_P
By _P (Nov 9, 2012)

Still no support _from_ Fuji (X-Pro, X-E1). Scandal ... Good analysis of the problem can be found here: http://www.dmcgaughey.com/2012/11/07/fuji-x-trans-raw-conversion

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Nov 10, 2012)

ACR 7.2 already extracts XPro1 raws.

The X-E1 has not yet shipped in the USA; it just started to ship in Europe. X-E1 raws are unlikely to be very different than XPro1 raws.

Despite the inaccurate claims, ACR 7.2 (at least working within Photoshop CS6) does a very good job with raws from the XPro1. But almost anything would be better than the Silkypix variation that Fuji ships with the XPro1 files.

0 upvotes
AlanJones
By AlanJones (Nov 19, 2012)

Adobe Lightroom Blog states that the Fujifilm X-E1 got support in Camera Raw 7.2 and Lightroom 4.2. I can't confirm because I use X-S1.

0 upvotes
rfsIII
By rfsIII (Nov 9, 2012)

I'm one of the people who have problems with Lightroom 4 being incredibly S-L-O-W despite trying everything Adobe suggests to speed it up.
For those lucky few of you who aren't suffering from the slowness problem, please loan me some of your mojo as I try the new version.

5 upvotes
Rezfer
By Rezfer (Nov 9, 2012)

Same problem. Almost unusable!

1 upvote
tarnumf
By tarnumf (Nov 9, 2012)

indeed SLOW!

1 upvote
BobNL
By BobNL (Nov 9, 2012)

Yes indeed very slow, annoying slow I'd say.

1 upvote
graybalanced
By graybalanced (Nov 9, 2012)

Are you talking about 4.2? It was dramatically faster than 4.1 for me. My computer isn't even close to being new (I bought it during the last Bush administration), and I find Lightroom usable enough.

0 upvotes
dvest2001
By dvest2001 (Nov 9, 2012)

Lightroom was extremely slow for me when I was using an external drive connected to a USB hub to store my images. Zooming to 100% took so long I would give up sometimes. After connecting the drive directly to USB port on the computer everything is working much better. This probably won't help everybody but it worked for me.

1 upvote
rrr_hhh
By rrr_hhh (Nov 13, 2012)

Same for me : LR 4 is incredibly slow on my Win 7 64bits 8 chores machine. I think the problem is that Adobe doesn't make good use of all the chores.

0 upvotes
putomax
By putomax (Nov 15, 2012)

my mojo:

http://tinyurl.com/lrtweaks

gashô

0 upvotes
Tisdale
By Tisdale (Nov 9, 2012)

Okay 7.3 is for Photoshop....so when does Adobe get around to issuing Camera Raw Plug In or Download for Elements 10 and 11?

0 upvotes
DigiMatt
By DigiMatt (Nov 9, 2012)

This is a release candidate of ACR. Adobe does not issue "release candidate" versions of Camera Raw for Photoshop Elements. When ACR 7.3 final is released in early December, it will be pushed out to Elements 11 users through the auto updates. Until then, you aren't missing anything. There are no new features, only a few new Cameras supported.

Elements 10 users will never get ACR 7. Version 6.7 was the end of the line. Adobe wants users to upgrade Elements every year, so this is how they get them to do it.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
PicOne
By PicOne (Nov 10, 2012)

Really..? all Elements users buy a new camera with a new Raw format every year, and Adobe never issues updates each year for the current version of Elements?

0 upvotes
Marcel Mutter
By Marcel Mutter (Nov 9, 2012)

Still slower than previous versions from Photoshop. Sometimes I switch back CS 5 to be able to work realtime and no to wait a few seconds for the sceen-upadate.

0 upvotes
nekrosoft13
By nekrosoft13 (Nov 9, 2012)

CS5 uses the older 2003 or 2010 based processing engine, which is less accurate, thats why its seems faster

0 upvotes
Marcel Mutter
By Marcel Mutter (Nov 9, 2012)

It only not seems faster it is actually faster. ;-)

Now more seriously. If I change exposure in RAW I have to wait almost two seconds before RAW shows the changed settings. When the picture is imported in Photoshop I can change the exposure real-time and so have a better result. So I put the slide on best guess in RAW and fine adjust in Photoshop.

So Adobe has not have put their best effort in making RAW workable for a lot of people who have not top notch computers available........

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Nov 9, 2012)

Marcel Mutter:

Photoshop CS6 can readily manipulate 68MB tiffs sans delay on my 18month old laptop with a basic i7 quad core CPU, 8 gigs of ram and a 1 gig FX1800 Nvidia video card. I don't think I've ever used more than about 6 gigs of ram even while video rendering on this machine.

Yes, CS5 is slightly faster, but that won't open raws from a Sony A99 or Nikon D600.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Phiben
By Phiben (Nov 9, 2012)

Still crashing on Win 7, 64 Bit, SSD systems. :/

0 upvotes
jeff_006
By jeff_006 (Nov 9, 2012)

I have Win 7 64 bit, 256 Go SSD and no problem with lightroom 4.2 !

4 upvotes
lancespring
By lancespring (Nov 9, 2012)

Me too. Working just fine with Windows 7 64 bit with SSD as boot and program file drive.

2 upvotes
MarekSvantner
By MarekSvantner (Nov 9, 2012)

Hi.. I have Win 7 64 bit, 16GB RAM, 4 core Intel with 8 threads.. and it's really slow compared to version 3. I don't understand what's behind..

1 upvote
Wye Photography
By Wye Photography (Nov 9, 2012)

Hmmm. Buy a Mac. LOL.

0 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (Nov 9, 2012)

Marek, do you have 4.2 because it seems faster than 4.0. If you're talking about this 4.3 then that could be because it is a release candidate. Haven't bought a new camera recently, so waiting for the final. Also, RAW is simply very heavy stuff. In develop mode it is constantly decoding tons of raw data with each adjustment, which is actually quite a feat. Give it some slack ;)

2 upvotes
The Squire
By The Squire (Nov 9, 2012)

I'm rocking 4.2 on Win 7, 4GB RAM, 6 Cores (AMD) and SSD boot drive. But currently LR is installed on my spinny drive due to size. All works ok. I had heard LR4 was slow, and after seeing the install size was about x3 bigger than LR3 I was worried about bloat, but it seems ok to me.

0 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (Nov 9, 2012)

Common misconception about the install size. This is because recently they've combined the 32bit and 64bit versions. So you're actually getting Lightroom twice! And only install half of it.

Not putting it on your SSD is crazy if you ask me. Surely stuff like this is what i bought my SSD for in the first place !

0 upvotes
toni2
By toni2 (Nov 9, 2012)

If you have performance issues in lightroom 4.x, try this
http://joshjonesphoto.blogspot.com.es/2012/08/how-to-speed-up-lightroom-4.html
Specificaly the "Renaming the Lightroom Preferences File: 20-50% Improvement" section.

0 upvotes
Photog74
By Photog74 (Nov 9, 2012)

Marek, you seem to have a rather powerful machine so it's a mystery why LR4 is so slow on your system. One question: does your Intel have an on-chip GPU?

1 upvote
MarekSvantner
By MarekSvantner (Nov 10, 2012)

Hi all..
I have separated graphic card.. so GPU is in my NVIDIA Quadro 2000M card. So this is probably not the problem.

0 upvotes
rodskogj
By rodskogj (Nov 13, 2012)

I find Lightroom 4.x has very varying performance based on the camera the image comes from. I always shoot in RAW. My Sony RAW files are snappy and responsive in lightroom, but RAW files from Fuji are incredibly slow to process, even though filesize and pixel count is lower. Same result whether I leave in native RAW format or convert to DNG. Could be the same for some other camera manufacturers as well.

Comment edited 38 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
glacierpete
By glacierpete (Nov 9, 2012)

I dont see the Sigma DP2M. ???????
Sigma claimed they provided the necessary technical data to adobe.

2 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Nov 9, 2012)

Well, they supported the previous DP cameras so I'm sure Adobe will eventually get around to it. Considering how popular the DP Merrills are becoming it shouldn't be too long.

0 upvotes
nekrosoft13
By nekrosoft13 (Nov 9, 2012)

I have raw files from DP2M, DP1M and DS1, so far no support

0 upvotes
KentbertLee
By KentbertLee (Nov 9, 2012)

i dont see fuji in the list ... T_T so bad

3 upvotes
OldDigiman
By OldDigiman (Nov 9, 2012)

Damn, I obviously am not buying new cameras fast enough!

5 upvotes
beckmarc
By beckmarc (Nov 9, 2012)

Any improvement in Fuji x-pro 1 support?

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Nov 9, 2012)

Photoshop Camera Raw 7.2 is already much better than Silkypix with XPro1 raws. "Much" is an understatement.

0 upvotes
_P
By _P (Nov 9, 2012)

Well, then read this carefully: http://www.dmcgaughey.com/2012/11/07/fuji-x-trans-raw-conversion/

Personally, I think Fuji's attitude to customer care in terms of supporting those customers workflow is nothing short then pure scandal ...

1 upvote
GaryJP
By GaryJP (Nov 8, 2012)

I thought retina displays were supposed to be the best thing since sliced bread? And now we need to modify software to make them "easier to read"?

0 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Nov 9, 2012)

Think it through.

8 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Nov 9, 2012)

GaryP,

Also the colour quality on those new "retina" Macs isn't as good as other highend laptop screens.

HP sold laptop screens under the name Dream Colour, Lenovo had some variation, both more than a year ago. Now the big Samsung gaming laptop have screens with better colour quality than "retina" displays.

Resolution aint everything. Just like cramming more pixels on to a sensor doesn't necessarily make for better colour. See say a Nikon D3s versus a Nikon D800.

Right, and retina displays require tweaked software to say make the icon to do this or that in Photoshop or Solidworks bigger.

0 upvotes
Lee Jay
By Lee Jay (Nov 9, 2012)

It's because Apple didn't choose to make them visible to the OS in the same way any other display, they have to be "special", and everyone needs to adapt their software to Apple's choices, as usual. It normally looks like a display with 1/4 as many pixels as it actually has, and to get access to all those extra pixels, you have to use it in a special way.

It's crazy.

0 upvotes
Martin Datzinger
By Martin Datzinger (Nov 9, 2012)

@HowaboutRAW: Please show me tests where the MBP 15" Retina Display falls significantly short in colour gamut and accuracy as well as contrast range, uniformity and viewing angle stability, compared to the very best laptop screens out there. Because the tests that I've seen state that its IPS panel is easily among the very best. Plus it stomps every other one for resolution, of course.

I can only tell you that I'm absolutely happy with my rMBP's screen colour and that its resolution brought a whole new experience in photo editing. Screens below 200dpi are just not acceptable any longer for me.

Oh and I am happy that Adobe, after HiDPi development has been available in Xcode for 17 months or so, is finally supporting it.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Nov 9, 2012)

Martin Datzinger:

The test is my eye with the same photo files. My 18 month old HP easily has better colour than the retina Macs. It's simply a much better screen on the HP. (No this was not a normal HP laptop or screen.) Apple, though plenty good, should have thought more about colour and less about resolution.

You need to get unstuck from the resolution prison.

0 upvotes
Martin Datzinger
By Martin Datzinger (Nov 9, 2012)

I wasn't aware about the HP Notebook. Astonishing gamut coverage for a notebook, that's for sure. However, I have my fair share of wide gamut experience, on a NEC SpectraView Reference 2690 and a Samsung XL20 (which I had to return). My resume was that for using a wide gamut, you need: 1. The possibility for true hardware calibration, 3. A continuous 10bit/channel data path, 4. Time and nerves, 5. Photos to actually show the difference, 6. A different output medium that supports it, because showing off your images on just on your own display won't cut it.

0 upvotes
Martin Datzinger
By Martin Datzinger (Nov 9, 2012)

Eventually turned out that I could never fully resolve banding issues, couldn't stand its weak blackpoint, hated its low resolution of 86dpi or whereabouts, almost never had an image that took advantage of the wider gamut and in the end used the SpectraView maybe 10 times a year.

So I quit the hunt for the wide gamut promise. And I now love my Retina screen. The way it renders details, texture and fonts is just fabulous. Colour is an absolutely reliable sRGB, contrast is great, I can't ask for more. Absolutely the right decision to wait for it for months.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Nov 10, 2012)

Martin Datzinger:

All that and it's about liking your Mac "retina" display's colour.

Yeah it's good, but it aint close to mine for colour. To me gamut just means number of colours, what I care about would be called contrast and dynamic range. Again in these regards my highend HP's screen is a good bit better than a Mac "retina".

If you ever saw the small Sony AMOLED TV of 4 years ago, think that, and that TV wasn't particularly high resolution. No the HP's screen is not AMOLED. It's more like a Foveon chip. And yes, my HP laptop's screen uses more battery power than the Mac "retina" display.

Sure if you need extreme resolution displayed, the Mac "retina" is a good choice. But few need that level of resolution.

As for outputting photos to a different medium to show of a monitor; that makes no sense.

If you mean that being able to print what you see on the monitor is a good demonstration of your skill and the capacity of the printer and paper, then that's a different subject.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
DanielNCom
By DanielNCom (Nov 8, 2012)

i hope get ACR, direct link.. not automatic update

0 upvotes
Den Sh
By Den Sh (Nov 8, 2012)

This can't be really called a support for HiDPI displays, even if we are talking about develop module only. Hi-resolution view of the image loads in about 5 seconds switching from "medium quality" to "low quality" to "high quality" preview in between. Scrolling in zoomed-in image feels like a slideshow animation. And that's on 15'' retina macbook pro with 16G of RAM and SSD. Such a joke.

2 upvotes
Gothmoth
By Gothmoth (Nov 9, 2012)

don´t buy overpriced apple crap.

but honest.... adobe is market leader.. no competition.. no need to fix the issues of a few MAC customers. they also don´t care about the poor souls who have performance issues.

thought... it runs fine on my 2560x1600 display.

Comment edited 49 seconds after posting
1 upvote
The Photo Ninja
By The Photo Ninja (Nov 9, 2012)

Right...cause windows 8 is so much better - right?

4 upvotes
ageha
By ageha (Nov 9, 2012)

Well, W8 is better indeed. ;)

1 upvote
nekrosoft13
By nekrosoft13 (Nov 9, 2012)

windows 8 is crap, stick with 7

0 upvotes
GaryJP
By GaryJP (Nov 10, 2012)

I thought I wouldn't move up to 8 but I have and I'm delighted with it. Can't find a way in which 7 was better.

I also have Macbook Pro, so I'm not a platform zealot.

0 upvotes
timccr
By timccr (Nov 8, 2012)

I am old and out of date and still using Mac OS 10.5 so can't use these downloads. It would therefore be nice if Dpreview posted RAW samples also in DNG format. I am particularly thinking of the Olympus PENs but really it should be standard practise for all RAW samples. Please. It would save so much hassle.

1 upvote
nekrosoft13
By nekrosoft13 (Nov 8, 2012)

sorry but no, if you want DNG, use the free adobe DNG converter and convert what ever file you want to DNG. RAW format on DPrewview should be posted in the original format not adobe specific format, some people want to use development software specific to each camera.

8 upvotes
timccr
By timccr (Nov 9, 2012)

I understand some people want the original RAW file. That is why there is the word "also" in my post. Since the problem is that I am still running Mac OS 10.5 how exactly do you suggest I do the conversion to DNG? Can't buy a new OS because I am saving all the pennies for an Olympus PEN and Nauticam housing and Sea and Sea strobes and, and, and.

0 upvotes
ManWithPentaxCamera
By ManWithPentaxCamera (Dec 5, 2012)

I was going to tell you to just grab the latest, free DNG Converter from Adobe, and then I saw your problem: It requires Mac OS X 10.6+. Are you still using a Power PC machine?

0 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Nov 8, 2012)

Fixed Issues

The following issues have been fixed in Lightroom 4.3 release candidate:

Unable to upload a large panorama to Adobe Revel via the Revel Publish Plugin
Unable to add a second photo to a page layout in a Book. This only occurred when the "Show Unused Photos" filter is selected in the filmstrip.
A photo can be flagged as both a "Pick" and "Reject" at the same time when using the Toolbar to apply flags
Using multiple fonts within the same text cell inside a Book can sometimes cause Lightroom to crash
Exposure becomes the active adjustment slider in the Basic panel (within Develop) when moving from image to image
Customers using Photoshop Elements 11 were unable to upgrade their catalogs in Lightroom 4
Custom Cell padding options in the Book Module reset in between Lightroom sessions
1080p video files shot on iPhone 4S flicker on replay
Leaving the Book Module after using multiple text colors in the same text cell can sometimes cause the book to be lost.

5 upvotes
Total comments: 61