New lightroom 4.4 release out on monday?

FA Limited said:
from early samples it looks like the "cost" of this reduction in watercolour effect is some image softness in the conversion. can you confirm if that's what you're seeing semilog?
Click to expand...

As others have said the default is a little soft but you can hammer the files with the sharpening and clarity sliders and extract fine detail out to the pixel level. There can be a little mottling when you do this as with files from other sensors but it's really minimal.

For me the acid tests will be pictures of foliage and pictures of people. I've looked at the foliage but not the people, yet. But so far this looks really promising. I'll add that at least up to ISO 800 little or no noise reduction is needed. Certainly, the Adobe default values for NR are much greater than required.
 
So, does it 'fix' the previously edited photographs or will we need to re-edit all to take advantage of the improvements?

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner
 
macjim said:
So, does it 'fix' the previously edited photographs or will we need to re-edit all to take advantage of the improvements?

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner
Click to expand...

I don't know if this will answer the question or not - I think it will though -

Here's a file that was originally processed using LR last year shortly after I got back from a trip abroad:
_DSF1471_600x900.jpg


Here's the same image, same settings in LR, except it's using the new algorithm that was released yesterday:
_DSF1471-2_600x900.jpg


Here's a 100% crop of the original process from LR in 2012 (i.e. crop of the first photo above):
_DSF1471_crop.jpg


And here's the same (give or take a pixel) 100% crop from the process from LR just this morning (using the new algorithm):
_DSF1471-2_crop.jpg



So, to me, I don't think you need to re-edit as it should "fix" the old edits BUT that fix may require further tweaking after the fact due to the new algorithm - just my thoughts anyway :)

Cheers,
Dave
 
Let's just say I am saving for an X100s... Not that I was that worried about the watercoloring effect or anything, but its just nice to know that I could work with an adobe product efficiently.
 
Blog posting lr4.4 rc vs RPP

Blog posting lr4.4 rc vs RPP

I found this blog posting. Comparison between raw processing using LR 4.4 rc vs RPP...

http://soundimageplus.blogspot.fr/2013/02/fuji-x-pro-1-file-acr-compared-to-rpp.html

I have not done a comparison myself.. I have lr4, but do not use it for raw conversion (Pano stitch and other processing that aperture does not support). I use RPP instead since I can drop and drap a lot of raw files onto RPP icon and it will kick off raw conversion to tiff16 as a batch job for me.

Gary
 
In a previous RC version of Lightroom 4, it caused more problems than it fixed, I was wondering if anyone that has installed this RC version, if they have found it to be problem free or have they found it has broken anything? My past experience with the beta version was with external applications not working and Flickr export being broken.
 
macjim said:
In a previous RC version of Lightroom 4, it caused more problems than it fixed, I was wondering if anyone that has installed this RC version, if they have found it to be problem free or have they found it has broken anything? My past experience with the beta version was with external applications not working and Flickr export being broken.
Click to expand...

I've not noted any "buggy" results BUT I also don't use many of the export / edit externally items that you've mentioned. I just export to jpeg and open up in photoshop for some other minor adjustments.

Cheers,
Dave
 
mllanos1111 said:
Maybe I'm reading too much into it but why are they saying better X-Trans support?
From what I read Fuji gave Adobe everything they needed to be able to fully support that sensor.
Why isn't Adobe releasing a version that fully supports it?
Yet they fully support a camera like a Leica X-1 or 2 that I'm pretty sure has not sold anywhere near the amount that Fuji has.
Just my 2 cents
Click to expand...

Leica uses DNG for RAW output, so you have day-one support: RAW vs DNG. It's the more honest approach.


.
 
bigeye said:
Leica uses DNG for RAW output, so you have day-one support: RAW vs DNG. It's the more honest approach.
Click to expand...

DNG is just one of many formats for writing RAW data. Other formats are not difficult to reverse engineer and the specific RAW format has essentially nothing to do with the technically hard problem, which is demosaicing of the data emanating from a multi-color sensor array (Beyer, XTRANS, etc).

The use or non-use of DNG had essentially nothing to do with the delay in getting really hot RAW conversion out of the XTRANS sensors. But once it's done for one of them, it's essentially done for all of them. Note that the new versions of LR and C1P already support the X100S.
 
semilog said:
DNG is just one of many formats for writing RAW data. Other formats are not difficult to reverse engineer and the specific RAW format has essentially nothing to do with the technically hard problem, which is demosaicing of the data emanating from a multi-color sensor array (Beyer, XTRANS, etc).

The use or non-use of DNG had essentially nothing to do with the delay in getting really hot RAW conversion out of the XTRANS sensors. But once it's done for one of them, it's essentially done for all of them. Note that the new versions of LR and C1P already support the X100S.
Click to expand...

I see. Not a simple problem to fix, as described in the ChromaSoft developer's articles.

Since the Leica X used conventional Bayer sensors (same as D90/D7000), there was little new processing effort.

.
 
Any camera company that supports native DNG output is doing everyone a favor. Leica, and others, made a smart, cost effective decision with DNG.

If Fuji supported DNG output from day one, they wouldn have made more profit initially and their brand image be stronger over the long term.
 
I think there's probably an option in the installer that lets you choose whether to overwrite. I did so, but I don't use LR to pay my bills in a production environment.

With respect to .dng files, In practice it doesn't seem to be a huge deal, especially since LR/ACR can convert most any other RAW format to it during import, if that is your preference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top