Lightroom 3 final released

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Gooberlx2

Gooberlx2

Lifer
May 4, 2001
15,381
6
91
Just got the email offering 15% off.

Le sigh. It's still too expensive for me. :(

I freakin' love the interface and workflow. I dunno how I'll do without. I'll probably be going back to RawTherapee unless I can somehow get LR3 on educational discount.
 
Last edited:
T

thegpfury

Member
May 23, 2006
123
0
0
I might grab the upgrade. Looks like the sharpening/noise reduction tools have been improved
 
R

randomlinh

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
20,846
2
0
linh.wordpress.com
thegpfury said:
I might grab the upgrade. Looks like the sharpening/noise reduction tools have been improved
Click to expand...

heh, "improved" is an understatement. The results from the beta were extremely impressive. That, plus grain control in b+w, render my Nik plugins almost useless (still like Color Efex though, so expensive).

I would upgrade for the above alone. New import window as well, along with supposed speed improvements... and the kicker: lens correction profiles.
 
Fardringle

Fardringle

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2000
9,200
765
126
Honestly, while LR3 has more options in the noise reduction settings, I really wasn't impressed with the results. The program did manage to remove quite a bit of the noise from the noisy, high ISO photos that I tested, but it produced VERY muddy/blurry images any time that I used it, even as low as 10% on the noise reduction slider. The same photos processed in LR2 left more noise but also kept a lot more of the detail in the images. For example, 10% NR in LR3 removed a lot more noise than 50% NR in LR2, but produced very unsatisfactory images. I usually run the noisiest of my pictures through NeatImage anyway, and NeatImage gives a dramatically better result than the noise reduction settings in LR3. I suppose I could have just been doing it wrong but I think I'll stick with LR2 until I see a compelling reason to switch.
 
ElFenix

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,393
8,552
126
i wonder if my copy of LR2 is upgrade eligible?
 
foghorn67

foghorn67

Lifer
Jan 3, 2006
11,883
63
91
Fardringle said:
Honestly, while LR3 has more options in the noise reduction settings, I really wasn't impressed with the results. The program did manage to remove quite a bit of the noise from the noisy, high ISO photos that I tested, but it produced VERY muddy/blurry images any time that I used it, even as low as 10% on the noise reduction slider. The same photos processed in LR2 left more noise but also kept a lot more of the detail in the images. For example, 10% NR in LR3 removed a lot more noise than 50% NR in LR2, but produced very unsatisfactory images. I usually run the noisiest of my pictures through NeatImage anyway, and NeatImage gives a dramatically better result than the noise reduction settings in LR3. I suppose I could have just been doing it wrong but I think I'll stick with LR2 until I see a compelling reason to switch.
Click to expand...

You're doing it wrong.
 
Gooberlx2

Gooberlx2

Lifer
May 4, 2001
15,381
6
91
tdawg said:
Isn't the academic full version price the same as the regular upgrade price of $99? I thought that's how it was for LR2.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I had hoped this would be released sooner, when I was still working for Univ. of Colo. The full academic versions of LR were $99.
 
Fardringle

Fardringle

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2000
9,200
765
126
foghorn67 said:
You're doing it wrong.
Click to expand...

Possibly, but even with the added options there's really not much to do wrong when the default settings give very poor results and adjusting the settings manually only give slightly better results in some cases and even worse results in other cases.
 
foghorn67

foghorn67

Lifer
Jan 3, 2006
11,883
63
91
Fardringle said:
Possibly, but even with the added options there's really not much to do wrong when the default settings give very poor results and adjusting the settings manually only give slightly better results in some cases and even worse results in other cases.
Click to expand...

Sorry, LR3 is universally known to have OMGWTFBBQ noise reduction. I thought Dfine blew away NeatImage, and now LR3 is my new favored NR.

BTW-What camera are working with this?
 
Fardringle

Fardringle

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2000
9,200
765
126
foghorn67 said:
Sorry, LR3 is universally known to have OMGWTFBBQ noise reduction. I thought Dfine blew away NeatImage, and now LR3 is my new favored NR.

BTW-What camera are working with this?
Click to expand...

The only "OMGWTFBBQ" reaction I have is "OMGWTFBBQ how can it be this bad!?"

I know that other people have reported surprising results with LR3 so it's very possible that the noise reduction in LR3 simply doesn't like the RAW images from my Fuji SD6000, but the results are definitely not good. I'm honestly not exaggerating when I say that the JPG pictures from my 10 year old 1.3 mp Olympus D460 on the highest in-camera noise reduction settings look better than the RAW images from my Fuji after I run them through LR3's noise reduction even with the sliders set as low as 10 (nearly turned off). I do like the workflow of Lightroom so I'll continue to use LR2 and my pictures turn out very well with LR2, but LR3 really is a major downgrade for me...


edit: I was going to post some examples, but can't find a host that will keep the full sized images without resizing them down to the point where a comparison is useless...
 
Last edited:
R

randomlinh

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
20,846
2
0
linh.wordpress.com
@Fardringle, I dunno, I've had some pretty good results. Pretty close to what dfine gives me on my 40D/5D from some quick tests, enough for me to dump it in favor of batch processing/workflow processing. Default processing for my GF1 is also a nice improvement.
 
Last edited:
foghorn67

foghorn67

Lifer
Jan 3, 2006
11,883
63
91
Fardringle said:
The only "OMGWTFBBQ" reaction I have is "OMGWTFBBQ how can it be this bad!?"

I know that other people have reported surprising results with LR3 so it's very possible that the noise reduction in LR3 simply doesn't like the RAW images from my Fuji SD6000, but the results are definitely not good. I'm honestly not exaggerating when I say that the JPG pictures from my 10 year old 1.3 mp Olympus D460 on the highest in-camera noise reduction settings look better than the RAW images from my Fuji after I run them through LR3's noise reduction even with the sliders set as low as 10 (nearly turned off). I do like the workflow of Lightroom so I'll continue to use LR2 and my pictures turn out very well with LR2, but LR3 really is a major downgrade for me...


edit: I was going to post some examples, but can't find a host that will keep the full sized images without resizing them down to the point where a comparison is useless...
Click to expand...

hmmm...Fuji you say? Totally weird you seem to have different results. Don't get me wrong, I believe you. Probably Adobe not having enough sit down time with Fuji's RAW files.
 
G

GoSharks

Diamond Member
Nov 29, 1999
3,053
0
76
ElFenix

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,393
8,552
126
actually mom's a high school math teacher. she could gift it to me :D
 
akugami

akugami

Diamond Member
Feb 14, 2005
6,210
2,551
136
Fardringle said:
edit: I was going to post some examples, but can't find a host that will keep the full sized images without resizing them down to the point where a comparison is useless...
Click to expand...

While Rapidshare, Megaupload, and other similar places are havens for the naughty stuff as well as copyrighted material it is also surprisingly good for posting a few files to share with others. And it's free.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom