Results 1 to 14 of 14
Like Tree6Helpful post votes
  • 6 Post By Glenn NK

Thread: Hate to admit, but Lightroom 4 is way better than LR3

  1. #1
    Scott Stephen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    278
    Real Name
    Scott

    Hate to admit, but Lightroom 4 is way better than LR3

    I was forced to buy LR4 when I bought my new Canon 6D. Adobe will not add 6D support to LR3. I could have juggled TIFF files around here and there, but I am too lazy.

    The interface is much more logical and more effective, and I honestly believe the NR works better too.

    Additionally, my fear was that LR4 would slow down my old computer, and I even ordered 8 GB of RAM to compensate. BUT, fears were ungrounded, as it runs LR4 just as well as it ran LR3. I have yet to install my new memory, but I hope it is not wasted.

  2. #2
    jeeperman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Seattle Washington
    Posts
    3,550
    Real Name
    Paul

    Re: Hate to admit, but Lightroom 4 is way better than LR3

    Now the question is how many images do you feel you might rework? LR4 is quite nice to use and much better in highlight, shadow recovery and the clearity slider is much better as well with more power and less artifacts. Enjoy.

  3. #3
    Glenn NK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Posts
    1,245

    Re: Hate to admit, but Lightroom 4 is way better than LR3

    Quote Originally Posted by jeeperman View Post
    Now the question is how many images do you feel you might rework? LR4 is quite nice to use and much better in highlight, shadow recovery and the clarity slider is much better as well with more power and less artifacts. Enjoy.
    The difference between LR3 and LR4 is significant, and I'm currently reviewing and reworking many images.

    The Adjustment Brush has been especially useful for cleaning up backgrounds of closeup flower shots.

    I use the Adjustment Brush (K key) with: No feathered brush, Contrast -100, Shadows +100, Sharpness -49 (no more), Noise +100, then I trace around the object I want to remain in sharp focus, and with the above settings, the bg becomes more softly blurred and out of focus (it will alleviate some poor bokeh). Using the space bar temporarily disables the brush so one can mouse around the image (I usually work at 1:1 or 1:2).

    By setting Exposure to -100, the bg can be made black (may take more than one pass), and of course the WB, etc. can be changed also.

    With the added power of LR4 over previous editions, I have touched PSE for well over a year, and there seems to be less and less need for anything else (I'm able to avoid major surgery with more thinking in the field).

    Glenn

    As shot - using a black cloth background (which wasn't completely black):


    Reworked using the Adjustment Brush:
    Dave Humphries, jereve, Bettyboo and 3 others found this helpful.

  4. #4
    jeeperman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Seattle Washington
    Posts
    3,550
    Real Name
    Paul

    Re: Hate to admit, but Lightroom 4 is way better than LR3

    Absolutely Glenn, there is much that can be done very well and quickly that once required the use of layers. I never had used LR3 other than a couple plays with a demo run, so am not fully aware of the complete differences. All I know is I am very pleased with LR4.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Hackensack, NJ
    Posts
    228
    Real Name
    George

    Re: Hate to admit, but Lightroom 4 is way better than LR3

    I'm relatively new to PP (about 4 months) and LR4 is the first tool I am learning. Someone in another thread recommended a tutorial by George Jardine and I risked the $25 for the develop module. There are several hours of online videos that I found very helpful. What is not apparent in LR4 is how much of it is hidden unless you know the keys to press. The tutorials also go into some depth on working in LR3 process within LR4. I'd recommend these to anyone. Check him out at George Jardine.

  6. #6
    Scott Stephen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    278
    Real Name
    Scott

    Re: Hate to admit, but Lightroom 4 is way better than LR3

    FYI: I did install the memory, so now I have 8gigs instead of 3GB. It did make a noticable difference, though, as I said above, the lag was not as bad as some early reports of LR4 made it out to be. I have upgraded my video card a few months back, which could be part of the reason.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Norfolk, UK
    Posts
    145
    Real Name
    Yes

    Re: Hate to admit, but Lightroom 4 is way better than LR3

    The geo tagging feature in LR4 is very good, so long as camera clock correctly set to the second.

  8. #8
    Loose Canon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Missouri, USA
    Posts
    1,272
    Real Name
    Terry

    Re: Hate to admit, but Lightroom 4 is way better than LR3

    Quote Originally Posted by Glenn NK View Post
    The difference between LR3 and LR4 is significant, and I'm currently reviewing and reworking many images.

    The Adjustment Brush has been especially useful for cleaning up backgrounds of closeup flower shots.

    I use the Adjustment Brush (K key) with: No feathered brush, Contrast -100, Shadows +100, Sharpness -49 (no more), Noise +100, then I trace around the object I want to remain in sharp focus, and with the above settings, the bg becomes more softly blurred and out of focus (it will alleviate some poor bokeh). Using the space bar temporarily disables the brush so one can mouse around the image (I usually work at 1:1 or 1:2).

    By setting Exposure to -100, the bg can be made black (may take more than one pass), and of course the WB, etc. can be changed also.

    With the added power of LR4 over previous editions, I have touched PSE for well over a year, and there seems to be less and less need for anything else (I'm able to avoid major surgery with more thinking in the field).

    Glenn

    As shot - using a black cloth background (which wasn't completely black):


    Reworked using the Adjustment Brush:
    Umm... Glenn...

    Maybe you left it unfinished for purposes of example, but there is a problem around the bud...

  9. #9
    Glenn NK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Posts
    1,245

    Re: Hate to admit, but Lightroom 4 is way better than LR3

    Quote Originally Posted by Loose Canon View Post
    Umm... Glenn...

    Maybe you left it unfinished for purposes of example, but there is a problem around the bud...
    I guess I need either new eyes or a new monitor - which is quite likely as the monitor is almost as old as I am.

    Give me a hint.

    Glenn

  10. #10
    Loose Canon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Missouri, USA
    Posts
    1,272
    Real Name
    Terry

    Re: Hate to admit, but Lightroom 4 is way better than LR3

    Well Glenn...

    ...it looks to me like maybe the background wasn't completely brushed in in that spot.

    But it could just be me...



    Tap it in lytebox and see if you notice it...
    Last edited by Loose Canon; 5th January 2013 at 11:19 AM.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    357

    Re: Hate to admit, but Lightroom 4 is way better than LR3

    I'm seeing it too.

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Houston, TX, USA
    Posts
    29
    Real Name
    Philip

    Re: Hate to admit, but Lightroom 4 is way better than LR3

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Stephen View Post
    FYI: I did install the memory, so now I have 8gigs instead of 3GB. It did make a noticable difference, though, as I said above, the lag was not as bad as some early reports of LR4 made it out to be. I have upgraded my video card a few months back, which could be part of the reason.
    Wait until you are using camera with 36MB files. My computer has 16GB memory with an i7 processor that I built myself back in April. The frustrating part is on rendering - click on the thumbnail to look at the image full screen, it takes forever. Now click it again to look at 100% to see the sharpness of the image, takes even longer! I have yet to find a solution to this problem. Mind you, there is no lag time at all in processing the image itself.

    Philip

  13. #13
    Scott Stephen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    278
    Real Name
    Scott

    Re: Hate to admit, but Lightroom 4 is way better than LR3

    Quote Originally Posted by pthoutex View Post
    Wait until you are using camera with 36MB files. My computer has 16GB memory with an i7 processor that I built myself back in April. The frustrating part is on rendering - click on the thumbnail to look at the image full screen, it takes forever. Now click it again to look at 100% to see the sharpness of the image, takes even longer! I have yet to find a solution to this problem. Mind you, there is no lag time at all in processing the image itself.

    Philip

    Ouch. Nikon D800? I really hope the MP "war" stops at 36mp. In addition to the processing headaches, and the storage burden, and the fps/buffer depth challenges, packing the little receptors closer together makes it harder to overcome noise at high ISO's. I would be much more interested in tech advances that let me shoot in 3 stops lower light than i would be interested in further MP advances that would let me print a life size Boeing 747.

    I hear Canon is going to come out with a high MP retort to So-Nikon, though, so there may be no end to the madness.

    You have a monster processor and monster RAM. How monster is your video card?

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Houston, TX, USA
    Posts
    29
    Real Name
    Philip

    Re: Hate to admit, but Lightroom 4 is way better than LR3

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Stephen View Post
    Ouch. Nikon D800? I really hope the MP "war" stops at 36mp. In addition to the processing headaches, and the storage burden, and the fps/buffer depth challenges, packing the little receptors closer together makes it harder to overcome noise at high ISO's. I would be much more interested in tech advances that let me shoot in 3 stops lower light than i would be interested in further MP advances that would let me print a life size Boeing 747.

    I hear Canon is going to come out with a high MP retort to So-Nikon, though, so there may be no end to the madness.

    You have a monster processor and monster RAM. How monster is your video card?
    Yes, it is the D800, and yes, I heard about the Canon retort too, something like 46MP, or more than 50?
    I have to say that coming from a 5 year old D200 (that I bought about 6 month before the replacement D300 came out) it is a huge leap performance wise; so except for the LR4 complain, I am pretty happy with it.
    Actually, 16MB RAM is not that large anymore these days, RAMs are pretty cheap now if you buy and install it yourself. And my video card is a low end nVidia GPU - GT520 with only 1GB of video memory. I don't do gaming or video editing where you really need a high end video card with 2GB or more memory.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •