Previous news story    Next news story

Adobe launches ACR v7.1 and Lightroom v4.1 with X-Pro1 support

By dpreview staff on May 30, 2012 at 05:25 GMT

Adobe has launched final versions of Photoshop Lightroom v4.1 and Adobe Camera Raw v7.1 that include support for the Fujifilm X-Pro1. Both versions include the advanced defringing tools introduced in the Release Candidate versions they replace as well as promising to address 'performance issues.' Both versions include support for the Fujifilm X-Pro1 non-Bayer color filter array. They can be downloaded from the Adobe website now. Adobe Camera Raw 7.1 works with Photoshop CS6.

Comments

Total comments: 108
Rae D
By Rae D (Jun 8, 2012)

Has anyone had problems importing RAW and JPEG images. Message pops up that 'Files could not be read'. Using Nikon D7000 and P 5000. Had no problems until the upgrade. I do not know if I am doing something wrong.

0 upvotes
niglom
By niglom (Jun 3, 2012)

I’ve just been checking it out and developing some of my Raw’s, and comparing them alongside the identical JPG’s. It's no better, possibly worse, than the in camera jpgs.

But the jpgs from the Fuji X-Pro1 seem to have a lot more latitude than the jpgs my Nikon D3S produces and can be pushed by one or two stops without noticeable loss.

The new LR 4.1 has an improved Chromatic Aberration control which works well with the 18mm Fujinon lens.

I’ll do more tinkering to test out other types of shots, but at this point I see no compelling reason to shoot raw. I really like the Fuji Xpro and it's left my Nikon kit gathering dust in the corner

0 upvotes
Imagefoundry
By Imagefoundry (Jun 2, 2012)

here's the DPReview X-Pro1 test image processed with dcraw. It has a whole lot of issues of its own, but you can see that the X-Pro1 sensor is capable of pretty excellent detail and color.

I think it's only matter of time before someone manages to get the processing right...

http://db.tt/90EXYcrJ

Comment edited 17 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jun 2, 2012)

Too bad that DCRAW doesn't install on a Windows 7 64 bit system.

It aint like 64 bit systems are real new.

0 upvotes
Imagefoundry
By Imagefoundry (Jun 2, 2012)

I got it here (link below, found on some other forums):

http://www.fujix-forum.com/index.php?/user/6779-wintoid/page__tab__posts

it runs on Win7-64 as a command line utility. Use at your own risk, though - I checked it for viruses but there are no guarantees obviously

0 upvotes
dmstraton
By dmstraton (Jun 2, 2012)

Xpro1 RAWs are terrible through ACR/LR. The cameras Jpegs are better more fine detail, more natural color. The only thing better in LR is NR control iin the dark shadows over the in camera jpegs (but not in raw) and highlight recovery - which is exceptional for APSC. The camera really doesnt need a lot of NR to begin with.

It's a great camera, and I love it, but I am not sure I can live without LR. The sensor is awesome clearly, but the workflow is atrocious if silkypix is the only option.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jun 2, 2012)

Why bother with jpgs if you're starting with raws? Work in tiff, and then convert the final result to jpg for emailing and the like.

Except for the micros-screen pattern, which one can get rid of with luminance reduction, Fuji raw to dng, via Adobe DNG Converter 7.1, and then into tiff via ACR 6.7, or even earlier, provides good results. Certainly much better results than Silkypix 5.

0 upvotes
Hugo Gold
By Hugo Gold (Jun 2, 2012)

it still does not work well with the fuji X10

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jun 1, 2012)

When converted with Adobe DNG Converter 7.1, Fuji X-Pro1 raws, have a fine screen pattern in the imagines, unless luminance noise reduction is used. Very odd.

But still better colour than direct extraction with Silkypix 5.

Now I just need some more X-Pro1 raw files to test.

0 upvotes
mike kobal
By mike kobal (Jun 1, 2012)

I also get a screen pattern using the DNG converter 7.1, I was able to minimize the effect by turning sharpening to zero and luminance nr up a notch but can't get rid of it completely, much prefer silky pix conversion. huge disappointment.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jun 1, 2012)

mike kobal:

My problem with Silkypix 5 is the terrible colour control and bad noise reduction for higher ISO pictures. (All of which ACR can handle when opening these "Fuji" DNGs converted with ADC.)

As a test I used Adobe DNG Converter 7.1 to open some Samsung NX100 raws; there was no micro screen pattern anywhere to be seen.

The disappointment of Adobe DNG Converter 7.1 sure doesn't inspire me to spend the money "upgrading" Photoshop CS5 to Photoshop CS 6, so I can open these Fuji raws in ACR 7.1.

I wish Adobe had spent more time and done a better job with the files from this unique sensor.

Perhaps Bibble/Corel will do good raw extraction software for these X-Pro1 raw files. And then I'll simply get that capacity when I get a free update to AftershotPro, which I already own. (Not holding my breath for DXO.)

0 upvotes
mike kobal
By mike kobal (Jun 1, 2012)

the micro screen pattern is unique on Fuji xpro1 files, no problems with other dng conversions, agree, color and noise control on silky pix isn't any good

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jun 2, 2012)

mike kobal:

Have you tried opening these Fuji XPro raws with ACR 7.1 in either Lightroom 4 or Photoshop CS6? I'd be interested to know if the micro-screen pattern is there when ACR 7.1 extracts these Fuji X-Pro1 raws directly? And I don't feel like paying the $200 to upgrade to Photoshop CS6, unless I need it for some reason.

Unfortunately, I'm familiar with Silkypix from my Panasonic LX5 and my Samsung NX100, so I know how get the most out of it and that most isn't much--unlike ACR or Bibble5.

(Yes, I tried the trialware of Silkypix5 with Fuji X-Pro1 raws and in any challenging situation just saw a lot of smearing, weird coloring and artifacts.)

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Usee
By Usee (Jun 2, 2012)

Strange,

especially the color control of Silkypix Pro 5 and it's finest detail protecting noise reduction capabilities, were the reasons, why I choose Silkypix instead of ACR in LR or CS...

...Howabout a RAW converter test like here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1020&message=41655824

Maybe one can learn something additional?

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jun 2, 2012)

Usee,

That's not a review of Silkypix, those are comments, and many concern jpegs, which immediately calls into question the seriousness. Then there's the ISO 200 problem.

Have you actually used ACR with any frequency?

I can say I have used Silkypix and it is nowhere near ACR or Bibble for color or noise.

I've also used UFRAW and that's nowhere near as good as ACR, despite what some claim in these comments, but that's at least free raw extraction software and seems mostly better than Silkypix.

No, I have not tried every raw file type with Silkypix, but the Panasonic LX5, Samsung NX100 and Fuji X-Pro aint good when extracted with Silkypix. (Hint: there's a reason that the Leica branded version of the LX5 comes with a copy of Adobe Lightroom.)

The problem with your assertion is I that do see.

0 upvotes
Hugo Gold
By Hugo Gold (Jun 2, 2012)

@mike kobal: the micro screen pattern is also seen with the fuji X10, also big disappointment

0 upvotes
Usee
By Usee (Jun 2, 2012)

You should show Your expertise with the simple comparison test I already proposed.

I made tests with ACR fans and no one could surpass the quality which is possible within Silkypix Pro 5.

Why don't You show Your ACR capabilities with this suited and free available RAW:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/fuji-x-pro1/XPRO1hSLI00200NR1.RAF.HTM

in this thread:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1020&message=41655824

Use ACR, I use Silkypix and we will see.
I have only seen evidence for the opposite of Your claim.
ACR is simply not as good for Fuji and Sigma cameras...

Stick with it - no problem, as long as You don't claim that it is better than something else without a open comparison.

Hopefully You don't write things like "excellent detail with ACR",
if it is so easy to proof that another converter is way better.
What is way better than excellent?

If You are open minded and don't fear to revise Your opinion, You should make the comparison test with me and see...

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jun 2, 2012)

Usee,

That's a raw file you linked not some comparison. I've already extracted XPro1 raws with both Silkypix 5 and Adobe DNG Converter 7.1. The free ADC 7.1 already beats Silkypix 5 for noise and color.

The problem with ADC 7.1 and the XPro1 raws is the micro screen pattern--this also may be a problem with ACR 7.1 but I'm not going to pay to find out for a camera I don't own.

You seem to be under the impression that I've never used Silkypix before, that's incorrect. As I clearly stated because I own the LX5 and the NX100, I'm already familiar with Silkypix and its failures. Silkypix 5 may not have the micro screen pattern problem with the Fuji XPro1 that Adobe DNG Converter 7.1 does, but that Adobe software sure does colour and noise better than Silkypix 5.

You're going to have to provide many more raw examples than 1 from a website to get me to pay attention to your claims about Silkypix. I don't look at colour and noise claims based on jpegs.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jun 2, 2012)

Well Usee,

I just retested Silkypix 5 with some Fuji XPro1 raws, from DPReview, and my memory is most certainly correct. It remains truly awful for color and noise, it even struggles with an ISO 500 picture--that's struggles with noise and colour both.

Adobe DNG Converter 7.1 in combination with ACR 6.7 easily bests Silkypix, despite Adobe's micro screen pattern problem.

So yes the problem remains that I do see.

Now that Silkypix and Adobe (with the micro screen pattern troubles) messed up, I'd hope that Corel/Bibble will take advantage of this opportunity and do good raw extraction software for the Fuji XPro1. Same applies to CaptureOne.

0 upvotes
Usee
By Usee (Jun 2, 2012)

Surely it IS a RAW file, a RAW file You could develop with ACR and I would develop with Silkypix Pro 5...

...then we have the comparison between Your ACR output and my Silkypix Pro 5 output.

In addition we can use the ISO 6400 sample with the same procedure...
...to get even a answer to the noise question.

Where is the problem?

Download the RAWs, show Your outcome and I show mine and we are fine.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jun 2, 2012)

Usee,

If you want to send me a check for 200usd then fine, I'll use ACR 7.1. Until then the fact remains that at ISO 6400: Fuji XPro1 RAW to dng via Adobe DNG Converter 7.1 then to tiff via ACR 6.7 easily beats extraction directly with Silkypix 5. (This is despite the micro screen pattern Adobe issue.) The fact that Silkypix is terrible raw extraction software is not new with this new Fuji--Silkypix has been doing a horrible job for years. So the onus is not on me to prove anything.

Get a Samsung NX100 raw shot at ISO 2500 and see for yourself, if you have ACR 6.5. Or a Nikon D3s RAW at ISO 10000. Or pick low ISO examples, Silkypix 5 has trouble with ISO 500 XPro1 raws.

0 upvotes
mike kobal
By mike kobal (Jun 3, 2012)

@HowaboutRaw I am still on 5.5 not sure if I will upgrade
@Hugo Gold aye, sucks, I wasn't aware of that, I don't own the camera

0 upvotes
cirro
By cirro (Jun 1, 2012)

Fuji XPRO1 Raw Processing by Lightroom
why RAW processed by Camera are better than Raw processed by Lightroom 4.1 ?

look
http://www.milkstudio.eu/xpro1test.jpg

http://www.milkstudio.eu/xpro1test2.jpg

0 upvotes
cirro
By cirro (Jun 1, 2012)

excuse my english on the images

Comment edited 13 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jun 2, 2012)

jpg?

why bring those up, unless you don't care about image quality?

0 upvotes
jackpro
By jackpro (Jun 1, 2012)

does seem a bit snappier than 4.1 rc2. i think it is ready for a production environment just well done adobe lightroom team for the hard work keep it up!

0 upvotes
sproketholes
By sproketholes (May 31, 2012)

Its a pity that it renders some red tones in the fuji RAF files radically off the mark and most cases nto even remotely the same color as the jpg files. Some of the reds Ive seen coming end up actually being black or grey..

0 upvotes
Michael Ma
By Michael Ma (May 31, 2012)

730MB for the 4.1 update? I know 500MB of fluff when I see it.

0 upvotes
sproketholes
By sproketholes (May 31, 2012)

419mb on my mac..

0 upvotes
Dan Ortego
By Dan Ortego (May 31, 2012)

I have LR3x and I'll install LR4 this week – great app! Still, for initial corrections I much prefer DxO 7.5 to ACR. It just works albeit the current limitation of supported file types.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
mmday
By mmday (May 31, 2012)

have problem here i was use the lightroom 4.1 with camera RAW 7.1 open the xpro1 raw image no adjustment ,view on 100% the detail area was seems look like tune on the NR ..look like oil painting effect...but no problem on camera JPG & Silkypix !

0 upvotes
hexxthalion
By hexxthalion (May 31, 2012)

after reading through following two articles it looks like I'm going to postpone my purchase of X-Pro1, it's really shame that ACR isn't quite there yet:

http://www.ishootshows.com/2012/05/30/lightroom-4-1-raw-conversion-issues-with-fuji-x-pro1/

http://blog.thomasfitzgeraldphotography.com/2012/05/fuji-x-pro-1-support-lightroom-quick/

ACR support is the only thing which holds me from buying X-Pro1.

0 upvotes
SBoudreault
By SBoudreault (Oct 4, 2012)

Well it shouldn't, the jpg are better than D700 raws ...

0 upvotes
JasperD
By JasperD (May 31, 2012)

So, PSE10 users are left in the cold??? I mean, that one isn´t that old yet, and there´s no upgrade spotted on the horizon that I can see. Not that I´d like to upgrade only to get ACR7.1 for X-Pro1 support, but that aside. :(
Oh well, might decide as well that I´ve had it with Adobe, here´s hoping for Aperture not to wait too long (and also doing a bit better, please).

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
smatty
By smatty (May 31, 2012)

I'm sure Adobe will offer PSE11 with ACR7.1, soon. Looks like they don't even have to add any features besides the upgraded ACR Raw support :-(

I don't like these extremely short ACR update cycles. But it seems like Adobe can't sell their expensive PhotoShop any more and the lost revenue has to come from somewhere...

But maybe you can convert the Raw files to DNG and use them in PSE10 that way?

0 upvotes
Archer66
By Archer66 (May 31, 2012)

PSE 10 users can use DNG converter for FREE.

0 upvotes
JasperD
By JasperD (May 31, 2012)

DNG is free to anybody, that´s not the point. It´s not RAW, that´s all, besides locking you in to their tool again... :(

0 upvotes
Archer66
By Archer66 (May 31, 2012)

DNG is RAW converted to TIFF type file.

0 upvotes
richardplondon
By richardplondon (May 31, 2012)

"DNG is RAW converted to TIFF type file"

It's a TIFF "language" container, with a preview and metadata etc in a standard published format. But what is inside this container, is not a converted bitmap and this is not the same thing as a standard 'TIF file. The contents are (almost always AFAIK) untouched sensor data identical to the contents of a camera proprietary Raw. The DNG container provides enough information that this can be deciphered and interpreted, where that camera model is not supported, just as well as where it is - apart from a few peripheral differences, most notably the availability of camera colour profiles.

What happens next, is standard Raw processing (demosaicing, contrast curves and so on).

0 upvotes
JasperD
By JasperD (May 31, 2012)

It´s just not RAW in any sense, you cannot discard them confidently, they add lest to the ballast without any benefit that I can see... ;)
If it´s some kind of TIF (I´d agree on that), I´d be better off with exactly that as it is more universally accepted. Which is exactly what I´m doing right now BTW, be it Sigma Foveon files or, indeed, Fuji´s X-Pro1, the latter hopefully only for the time being. But I cannot discard the real initial RAWs, it´s as simple as that.
However, to come back to the initial point: PSE10 users are left in the cold, there´s no RAW support in the normal sense, only by ways of a nasty workaround.

0 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (May 30, 2012)

Anyone tried to edit HDR files yet?

Comment edited 10 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
armanius
By armanius (May 30, 2012)

So ... did it resolve the performance issues? Even with my top of the line iMac, there was a lag using the edit tools. Using sharpening or NR made things even slower.

1 upvote
nekrosoft13
By nekrosoft13 (May 31, 2012)

No performance issues on my PC, want speed and reliability get a good PC

2 upvotes
DJ BeBoy
By DJ BeBoy (May 31, 2012)

Can you please post the specs of your PC ? I really love Lightroom but the performance is just to slow on my (4 year old) PC.

0 upvotes
nekrosoft13
By nekrosoft13 (May 31, 2012)

Intel Core i7-3820 quad core (8 threads) at 4.4ghz, 16GB quad channel DDR3, two 90GB corsair sata3 Solid state drives, geforce gtx 480, evga motherboard.

faster then mac, and much cheaper.

0 upvotes
Klaus Weber
By Klaus Weber (Jun 1, 2012)

And this is how it goes... they are making the software slower, to force us to buy the next generation of hardware...

0 upvotes
Bert K
By Bert K (Jun 1, 2012)

With lightroom 4.0 I had the same performance issues when using sharpening NR and other edit tools on my 4.5 year old PC. With lightroom 4.1 all these issues have been resolved.

0 upvotes
nekrosoft13
By nekrosoft13 (Jun 3, 2012)

no one forced me to buy anything, i do video rendering, i play games, i use lightroom, sometimes i run several virtual machines on my pc, and i installed osx (never kept it for long) on my PC.

0 upvotes
Joohan
By Joohan (May 30, 2012)

How come you dislike the image qualtiy, even the OOC when every review praises it to the skies? Do you see something others oversee, or what? I am looking into buying one and it seems hard to find critcs.

0 upvotes
PunkRock
By PunkRock (May 30, 2012)

Mine installed in Spanish for some reason, anyway to get back to English without having to uninstall/reinstall? it'd be much appreciated, My pc is slow as it is...

0 upvotes
jgeenen
By jgeenen (May 30, 2012)

Go to preferences and select the desired language in the general tab. No need to reinstall. The only issue left is to find the preferences menu and the general tab ...

1 upvote
PunkRock
By PunkRock (May 30, 2012)

Done using google translator lololololol we do take instructions in our native language for granted :p ty my friend

0 upvotes
Imagefoundry
By Imagefoundry (May 30, 2012)

getting some really nasty color tearing with ACR 7.1 and Fuji X-Pro1. In some cases (not too often, thankfully) it makes images borderline unusable - example crop below:
http://db.tt/k0qScmMa

2 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (May 30, 2012)

Yeah, something awful odd about the way it's rendering color detail. Check the red/blue and red/green radial patterns. But it's not ACR, the OOC jpegs look similar.

Methinks the math just isn't there yet for this CFA pattern. Kinda a big oversight for a shipping product.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/fuji-x-pro1/XPRO1hVFAI00200.RAF.HTM

0 upvotes
Fugl
By Fugl (May 30, 2012)

Would these help?

http://pskiss.com/shop/cross-camera-color-profiles/

0 upvotes
Imagefoundry
By Imagefoundry (May 30, 2012)

I don't know, I doubt it.
Feeling pretty bummed right now - ACR is basically broken, SilkyPix is producing ridiculous colours (and also has colour smearing issues), and in-camera raw processing doesn't offer batch processing to TIFF format and has colour halos around everything.

Hopefully someone steps up to the plate and fixes this mess soon. Because right now it is a hobbyist camera; I can't afford to shoot a job with it - too many issues.

1 upvote
Seahster
By Seahster (May 31, 2012)

I'm getting the same results, its especially bad with red detail, in my case, red text as well, smearing all over the place where the camera jpgs are fine.

0 upvotes
Usee
By Usee (May 31, 2012)

There are no problems with red detail, if one uses Silkypix Pro 5:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1020&thread=41326555&page=2

Lightroom is obviously no alternative at the moment.

0 upvotes
CriticalI
By CriticalI (May 31, 2012)

Funny how people blame Fuji when Adobe cannot even match OOC JPEGs. At least two RAW converters work fine, including Silkypix once you set a colour preference. The fact that Adobe cannot is Adobe's fault, though I agree it's a long way off being adequate.

1 upvote
Imagefoundry
By Imagefoundry (Jun 1, 2012)

I just re-read this thread and I don't see anyone blaming Fuji - although I could if I wanted to, mostly for failing to deliver a professional-grade raw converter in time.

And no, I don't believe that included limited edition of SilkyPix qualifies. For example, they just managed to fix a gray balancing tool in the last update, before it was producing psychodelic color. And none of color presets in SP produce a believable color anyway - I got around it by profiling the camera with Colorchecker SG+Profilemaker; that's about $1500 and not everyone can afford it. And lastly, color-tearing issues present in ACR output are present in SP too - just look for any instance of fine white type on bright colored background.

OOC jpeg color detail looks better than both ACR and SP (talk about irony), but this route has its own issues - for example many sharp colorful objects have faint colored halos around them, and the detail is not as sharp as what is expected from a camera w/o AA filter.

0 upvotes
Usee
By Usee (Jun 1, 2012)

To Imagefoundry:

Just try to use Silkypix Pro 5 (at least the trial version) and look at this example without color smearing etc.:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1020&message=41667696

...and way better color detail than with OOC jpg can be still seen here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1020&message=41331770

There is only the irony, that some people obviously refuse to see...
...for whatever reason.

0 upvotes
Imagefoundry
By Imagefoundry (Jun 1, 2012)

@Usee

Let me start by saying that you are probably mis-reading my posts. I am not here to bash Fuji, Adobe or makers of SilkyPix. It's frustrating that there's no reliable raw conversion tool available, this long after the camera launch.

You obviously like SilkyPix a lot, and I don't have any issues with you championing the product in the forums. However:

Can you in all fairness expect me to spend USD$342.90 on SilkyPix Developer Studio Pro5 just to get the basic raw functionality?
And, looking at the examples you linked to, I am sorry they don't look convincing at all. Specifically, look at white type in Fiddler's Elbow. Top of the "W" is pink. It's supposed to be white. This is exactly the same issue as with ACR 7.1, just less severe.
I see no point in your second example - we already know that tonal detail is pretty great on X-Pro1.

0 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Jun 6, 2012)

Usee seems rather fanatical about Silkypix and their results from the eX-Pro-1.

In all the examples they give, I still see sharpness/contrast/tonality issues in the red channel.

I don't doubt that software can be developed to clean things up a bit, but I suspect that we're just seeing the results of real physical properties of the xtrans pattern--it is just lower resolution in the blue and red channels than a Bayer pattern.

You see it worse with higher ISOs because all noise reduction lowers resolution. And red is always the noisiest channel.

0 upvotes
Geoffgc
By Geoffgc (May 30, 2012)

d800 tethering? hello?

0 upvotes
Lee Jay
By Lee Jay (May 30, 2012)

Nikon released the SDK too late to be included (so did Canon, by the way, for the 5DIII). Don't know about the future, though.

Comment edited 28 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Val Yang
By Val Yang (May 30, 2012)

Here is the Adobe link for the supported cameras as of 5/29/2012.

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/extend.html

Looks current to me. Did I miss one?

0 upvotes
Elinas
By Elinas (May 30, 2012)

Finally... a camera raw for X-Pro1!
Oh wait, I have CS5 so I have to buy Photoshop CS6...

2 upvotes
Jim Radcliffe
By Jim Radcliffe (May 30, 2012)

You know.. it really sucks that Adobe makes you buy the latest version of Photoshop to get ACR. I've been using Photoshop for 10 years (now using CS5) and have purchased upgrade after upgrade and they still want to gouge you. Why is ACR not a product that works with ALL versions of Photoshop? My guess is it's all about the money.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
13 upvotes
Lee Jay
By Lee Jay (May 30, 2012)

"Why is ACR not a product that works with ALL versions of Photoshop? My guess is it's all about the money."

It's all about the API and having to maintain multiple versions of the same code.

If it were all about money, they wouldn't provide a free DNG converter so you can use new camera support all the way back to the beginning of ACR. If the camera companies would just produce DNGs out-of-camera, you wouldn't even need that step.

0 upvotes
acidic
By acidic (May 30, 2012)

If you're happy with CS5, the full version of Lightroom 4 is cheaper than the CS6 upgrade.

1 upvote
BJN
By BJN (May 30, 2012)

Uh, no. If you want to stay with the old, less capable software you can certainly do it. Download the latest ACR with DNG converter. Yes, you have to do DNG conversions, but you can open them in your old, inferior CS5 conversion engine. You kinda get perpetual upgrades, but Adobe doesn't give away the latest and greatest software capabilities. Lightroom's cheap if you don't want to upgrade or go with the Creative Cloud.

1 upvote
_anthonyd_
By _anthonyd_ (May 30, 2012)

At the moment, I have the CS6 beta and CS5 installed. This allows me to use ACR 7.1 to open my Canon G1 X raws. If I need to process in Photoshop, I can process them and save them as PSDs . I'm not sure what will happen when the beta expires, but this is giving me a few more weeks to decide if I want to upgrade or not. It's not perfect, but it's a workaround. Before this, I was converting the RAWs into DNGs with the free converter.

0 upvotes
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (May 30, 2012)

Man this sucks..I already have LR3 and CS5....along with a whole host of plugins etc already installed for those programs. No way do I want to upgrade just to get Raw support for my XPro-1. Come to think of it, even if you're dishonest and used pirated SW (ie: it was free) it would still be a pain to re-install everything for RAW support....not saying to do that of course. Thanks for nothing Adobe.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
graybalanced
By graybalanced (Jun 3, 2012)

Clint, the free DNG converter already mentioned is far simpler than even the illegal suggestions you had.

0 upvotes
l_d_allan
By l_d_allan (May 30, 2012)

Clumsy update compared to other Adobe updates, imo. In the past, the application has more or less updated itself, handling the download and then the install. You did have to close open app(s), like Bridge or PS.

On this update, the choice to update took you to the applicable Adobe update page, and then a normal download happened. It then unzipped into a directory before proceeding.

And it was a HUGE file ...700+MB, which seems about as big as the original LR-4 install from the DVD.

Did a bit more checking ... both the 32-bit and 64-bit versions were downloaded and unzipped. And both setup##.exe files were left where they were unzipped rather than being cleaned up.

And then the setup##.exe "expands" to a .msi file. Seems shoddy. Sigh.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Archer66
By Archer66 (May 30, 2012)

I have used LR only from 3.0 version but I think all LR updates have been full versions.

Not a big deal for me.

1 upvote
nekrosoft13
By nekrosoft13 (May 30, 2012)

Nothing new, always been like this with lightroom.

2 upvotes
Michael Foran
By Michael Foran (May 30, 2012)

I am fairly new to Lightroom, but I was really surprised at how sloppy the LR update procedure was. I've been using Adobe's entire suite of software professionally for years, and for some time the update process has been painless and easy via Adobe's AIR update application. By contrast, when I hit the "Update" button I was prompted with, I was sent to a generic Lightroom page on Adobe's site. There was no 'update' option on the entire page and in the end I manually had to select the Demo download, typed in my Adobe username and pass, and manually ran the installer. My thought was "what year is this?" Adobe should be embarrassed.

0 upvotes
NinpouKobanashi
By NinpouKobanashi (May 31, 2012)

1: LR 4 update process is the same as before
2: LR 4 added book printing support, thereby bloating the bits to >700MB
3: LR does not use the Adobe updater mechanism that the suite does

0 upvotes
Jerry 39
By Jerry 39 (May 30, 2012)

Does anyone know when camera raw will be available for the Nikon D3200 for lightroom.
Thanks

Comment edited 53 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Archer66
By Archer66 (May 30, 2012)

Nikon D3200 was supported in LR 4.1 RC so it should be in this final version too.

0 upvotes
Val Yang
By Val Yang (May 30, 2012)

Here's the Adobe link:

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/extend.html

Hope it helps.

0 upvotes
Lou Gonzalez
By Lou Gonzalez (May 30, 2012)

Some people here are complaining about slowness. I had performance issues with LR4 as well. I went digging around for information and Adobe has released an article detailing all of the things you can do to optimize performance. Check it out here: http://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/kb/optimize-performance-lightroom.html

I was already doing much of this, but the biggest thing that helped me was creating 1:1 previews on import. It takes a while but once they are done LR4 moves much quicker. Give it a try.

10 upvotes
hexxthalion
By hexxthalion (May 30, 2012)

thank you for the link :)

0 upvotes
maiaibing
By maiaibing (May 30, 2012)

Also read these tips and also find that it helps making 1:1 previews from the start. A fast machine will do it at almost the same speed as reduced sized previews.

0 upvotes
elgol
By elgol (May 30, 2012)

it takes like 4 seconds to build up preview in the developing module. this is still too slow for working!! LR3 was a lot faster. why is that so and why is there no real improvement here?

Comment edited 42 seconds after posting
1 upvote
jeff_006
By jeff_006 (May 30, 2012)

I have the same feeling...

0 upvotes
Fugl
By Fugl (May 30, 2012)

4.1 seems to work quite a bit faster than version 4.0 on my little laptop.

0 upvotes
Martin Datzinger
By Martin Datzinger (May 30, 2012)

Does it also include a fundamentally better RAW conversion for the Fuji X10? Because up to LR4 the detail rendering is absolutely hopeless.

0 upvotes
Martin Datzinger
By Martin Datzinger (May 31, 2012)

As I just heard from my X-10 owning friend: No. So the camera will go back to the store.

0 upvotes
Roland Ashdown
By Roland Ashdown (May 30, 2012)

Does anyone know yet if it fixes issues of lodaing plugins? for example NikFX? Thanks in advance

0 upvotes
dengx
By dengx (May 30, 2012)

Yes, it does.

0 upvotes
jeff_006
By jeff_006 (May 30, 2012)

I'm using the 4.1 RC for some weeks and everything is working, it's just a bit slow...

Comment edited 31 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
tony field
By tony field (May 30, 2012)

Watch out!!! If you are a serious user of Bridge6 and rely on reasonable performance with a LARGE number of images in the cache, ACR 7.1 will cause all of the images to be re-cached when you access an image directory.

For example, I have 700,000 images and am reconstructing the Bridge Cache to comply with the new SQLite file implementation. It has taken me 10 continuous days of 24 hr/day to process only 380,000 images. The new release of ACR 7.1 will negate this completely and I have to spend another 10 days simply to reprocess the what I have already done.

In fact, I think the reprocessing will be significantly longer than the 10 days since all of the raw files must be reprocessed - effectively negating the use of the BridgeCache files recorded in each directory.

2 upvotes
Quoth
By Quoth (May 30, 2012)

I do not understand.
Why do you need to cache 700,000 images?
Why not rebuild them only as you need to visit them?

1 upvote
Gothmoth
By Gothmoth (May 30, 2012)

yeah i wonder too.
if you have a decent system you should have enough speed for bridge previews.

i have "only" ~200000 images but i have no need to have them all in the cache. i don´t even notice on my system what is cached and what not.

maybe time to get a system that is better suited for your needs.

0 upvotes
tony field
By tony field (May 30, 2012)

I need all images cached - I have to go back to history often for various publishing reasons.

One of the attributes of a decent DAM is that you can quickly browse all of the image assets. As it turns out, my image archive is on networked drives (1 gbps network, the drives work at an effective 275 mbps) with the cache on a sata drive for browsing speed. If ACR chooses to rebuild, everything slows down since the cached images become almost useless while ACR rebuilds

My computer is more than competent enough.

0 upvotes
Gothmoth
By Gothmoth (May 30, 2012)

then your network is to slow i guess.

i have 90 MB/s over 1 gigabit ethernet.
there is no problem to browse with bridge over network.

275 mbps are about 34 MB/s.. that´s slow for a 1gbps network.

0 upvotes
tony field
By tony field (May 30, 2012)

It certainly is slow - no doubt. However, that is the technology with my Dlink network drives - it was the fastest available at reasonable cost when purchased a few years ago. I would hate to purchase two more four-bay systems just to gain a bit of speed on the cache rebuilds.

These ACR inspired rebuilds present no tangible benefit when browsing images - in particular, since I use the default 1024 pixel preview size.

I have no issues with the speed otherwise - the cached previews are "instant" since they are on SATA. Actual image load is quite acceptable when fetching the raw data.

The ACR rebuilds and other cataloguing issues certainly perplex me since Adobe claims that Bridge is a proper DAM and it certainly is not. Lightroom is closer to be a photographers DAM but still misses the mark for things I consider important. I have even written a pre-processor to provide additional DAM features for Bridge (which might even be portable to Lightroom).

0 upvotes
Derek Bach
By Derek Bach (May 30, 2012)

Is or will ACR 7 be available for PS- Elements 10? I cannot find it on the Adobe web site
Derek

Comment edited 45 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
ljmac
By ljmac (May 30, 2012)

I was wondering about that too, but in the info for the latest update, it says 6.7 is the last version for Elements 10. So the only way to avoid the CS tax is to get Lightroom it seems.

0 upvotes
Kobus66
By Kobus66 (May 30, 2012)

I wonder if general performance issues were adequately addressed.

2 upvotes
vlad259
By vlad259 (May 30, 2012)

The 4.1 RCs weren't a lot better than 4.0 for me, in that regard.

0 upvotes
Austin101
By Austin101 (May 30, 2012)

X-Pro1 support, about time too

0 upvotes
ahoeflak
By ahoeflak (May 30, 2012)

I'm doing a little dance right now! X-Pro1 support!!!

3 upvotes
NikmanSergey
By NikmanSergey (May 30, 2012)

Greatly useful function! Well done Adobe!!!

PhaseOne's sofware engineers, please, WAKE UP... noise reduction, HDR and IQ issues are waiting for you

Comment edited 16 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Mark Songhurst
By Mark Songhurst (May 30, 2012)

It's christmas come early!

0 upvotes
plainwhite
By plainwhite (May 30, 2012)

Yeah, finally!
X-Pro 1 users, rejoice!

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Total comments: 108