| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/08/2010 03:37:17 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by cdrice:
Originally posted by Citadel:
I'm going to search but does anyone know if it does anything to your catalogs? |
Just like upgrading from LR 1 to LR 2, the catalog format has changed. As mentioned above, the LR 3 catalog may actually take up a little less room on your HD. When you first attempt to open an LR 2 (or even LR 1) catalog, LR 3 will prompt you to upgrade the catalog. This will create a *new* file -- the existing LR1/2 catalog will be left in place -- and you'll be prompted for where to save the new catalog file. You can happily place the LR3 catalog(s) alongside your existing LR1/2 catalog(s).
Installing LR3 will leave your existing LR1/2 installation intact also -- so you can still go back and load those LR1/2 catalogs with LR1/2 as well (obviously, changes you made in LR3 will not be visible[*]).
* - Exceptions apply to saving xmp, writing dev changes to dng, saving dev settings in exif, etc, etc, etc... |
So now that I upgraded my catalog I guess I can safely delete the old catalog. Do you know what they're called? |
|
|
|
06/08/2010 03:42:25 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by TrollMan:
So now that I upgraded my catalog I guess I can safely delete the old catalog. Do you know what they're called? |
They are called whatever you called them. ;) When LR upgrades, it prompts you for the new name -- by default it will provide a unique name with a "-[number]" appended to it.
There is no immediately identifiable way to tell LR catalogs apart by version number... All versions use .lrcat files -- you'd need to open it in LR to tell which LR version it corresponds to. |
|
|
|
06/08/2010 03:46:33 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by cdrice:
Originally posted by TrollMan:
So now that I upgraded my catalog I guess I can safely delete the old catalog. Do you know what they're called? |
They are called whatever you called them. ;) When LR upgrades, it prompts you for the new name -- by default it will provide a unique name with a "-[number]" appended to it.
There is no immediately identifiable way to tell LR catalogs apart by version number... All versions use .lrcat files -- you'd need to open it in LR to tell which LR version it corresponds to. |
D'oh ;) I obviously went with the default name as all mine are called "Lightroom X Catalog.lrcat". |
|
|
|
06/08/2010 05:57:28 PM · #29 |
| Can anybody tell me what I will gain in functionality by getting LR3 over getting CS5 and continuing to use LR2? In other words, are the correction tools they are touting available in the RAW editor of CS5? I don't tend to use LR2 to its fullest with the organizational aspect, although I should do it more. |
|
|
|
06/08/2010 06:13:36 PM · #30 |
There's a lot of improvements in LR3. Whether you need them or not only you can say.
There are a number of LR3 videos on the net outlining the new features. The one that stands out for me is the import process has been revamped and better integrated. |
|
|
|
06/08/2010 06:51:05 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Can anybody tell me what I will gain in functionality by getting LR3 over getting CS5 and continuing to use LR2? In other words, are the correction tools they are touting available in the RAW editor of CS5? I don't tend to use LR2 to its fullest with the organizational aspect, although I should do it more. |
Any "LR3" features dealing with photo development/editing are really ACR features, so they are all in ACR (now 6.1).
Other LR-organization features like the import dialog, export/publish engine and so on are specific to LR.
Like always, LR is just a big organizational/workflow wrapper around ACR. All of the "photo-centric" editing and correction tools, local adjustments, camera profiles, lens profiles, etc, etc, etc -- is all in ACR.
I wouldn't recommend using LR2 with CS5 moving forward (depending on your workflow, of course) -- since ACR 6.x is tied to LR3 (and ACR 5.x is tied to LR2) -- you'll be moving forward in your PS-available ACR, but stagnate your LR-ACR engine, which will only cause yourself confusion down the road when you try to keep them working together. |
|
|
|
06/08/2010 07:00:26 PM · #32 |
Old lrcat: 215,814 KB
New lrcat: 188,536 KB
Still trying to figure out the lens adjustment though???... |
|
|
|
06/08/2010 07:00:45 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by cdrice:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Can anybody tell me what I will gain in functionality by getting LR3 over getting CS5 and continuing to use LR2? In other words, are the correction tools they are touting available in the RAW editor of CS5? I don't tend to use LR2 to its fullest with the organizational aspect, although I should do it more. |
Any "LR3" features dealing with photo development/editing are really ACR features, so they are all in ACR (now 6.1).
Other LR-organization features like the import dialog, export/publish engine and so on are specific to LR.
Like always, LR is just a big organizational/workflow wrapper around ACR. All of the "photo-centric" editing and correction tools, local adjustments, camera profiles, lens profiles, etc, etc, etc -- is all in ACR.
I wouldn't recommend using LR2 with CS5 moving forward (depending on your workflow, of course) -- since ACR 6.x is tied to LR3 (and ACR 5.x is tied to LR2) -- you'll be moving forward in your PS-available ACR, but stagnate your LR-ACR engine, which will only cause yourself confusion down the road when you try to keep them working together. |
Hmmm, something to ponder, although I really only jumped to LR in the first place as a stopgap since my current CS2 could not read my 5D2 RAW files without going to a DNG file (a pain in the butt). My organization system before was rudimentary, but seemed to work pretty well for my purposes. So if it's a matter of using the ACR in the Lightroom realm and then exporting or using the ACR in Photoshop, I'm actually more used to doing it in Photoshop. |
|
|
|
06/08/2010 07:42:35 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...I really only jumped to LR in the first place as a stopgap since my current CS2 could not read my 5D2 RAW files without going to a DNG file... |
Kinda got dragged in kicking and screaming, eh? ;-)
Same here. I used to use RAW Shooter Pro (the paid version of Essentials) and got a free version of Lr 1.0 when Adobe acquired them. I used it very little, preferring to use Ps/ACR. I found Lr to be a resource hog and the interface reacted very slowly. With V 2.x came a host of improvements, as well as greatly improved user interface responsiveness. From 2.0 through 2.7, usability continued to improve.
I have to say that Lr won me over. I finally broke down, bought a book to teach myself the stuff that I wouldn't poke around and find on my own, and I have not regretted it. I now would not live without the organizational aspect of Lr. It makes importing, keywording, rating, and processing *so* much more efficient, and allows me to structure my library as I wish. Just as important, I can work on processing and when finished, quickly select my processed images, hit Export and walk away or do other work.
I now use Lr both at home and at work. For work, it's set up in conjunction with the EOS Utility and automatically imports new captures to a PC tethered to one of my microscopes. No fussing with import or with transferring from cards or screwing with previewing images on the LCD (that LCD is damnably difficult to see when the camera is mounted to the 'scope!) |
|
|
|
06/08/2010 07:49:38 PM · #35 |
Dayum, the new post-crop vignette tool is kick-arse! I really disliked the previous post-crop tool, wondered why it didn't give results like the pre-crop tool. The new tool has far better performance and even more flexibility than I imagined. Great stuff.
ETA: Just playing around with the new NR on an exposure that I cranked to +3 stops of exposure compensation. I'm *really* impressed with the amount of NR achievable without destroying a lot of detail. One hell of an achievement.
Message edited by author 2010-06-08 19:55:04. |
|
|
|
06/08/2010 07:55:42 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...I really only jumped to LR in the first place as a stopgap since my current CS2 could not read my 5D2 RAW files without going to a DNG file... |
Kinda got dragged in kicking and screaming, eh? ;-)
Same here. I used to use RAW Shooter Pro (the paid version of Essentials) and got a free version of Lr 1.0 when Adobe acquired them. I used it very little, preferring to use Ps/ACR. I found Lr to be a resource hog and the interface reacted very slowly. With V 2.x came a host of improvements, as well as greatly improved user interface responsiveness. From 2.0 through 2.7, usability continued to improve.
I have to say that Lr won me over. I finally broke down, bought a book to teach myself the stuff that I wouldn't poke around and find on my own, and I have not regretted it. I now would not live without the organizational aspect of Lr. It makes importing, keywording, rating, and processing *so* much more efficient, and allows me to structure my library as I wish. Just as important, I can work on processing and when finished, quickly select my processed images, hit Export and walk away or do other work.
I now use Lr both at home and at work. For work, it's set up in conjunction with the EOS Utility and automatically imports new captures to a PC tethered to one of my microscopes. No fussing with import or with transferring from cards or screwing with previewing images on the LCD (that LCD is damnably difficult to see when the camera is mounted to the 'scope!) |
Thanks Fritz. I appreciate the experience. I probably should buy a book. These days I don't have hours and hours to devote to these programs and I feel like my PP skills have become rusty and out-of-date. I went as far as to watch a few tutorials for LR. My current biggest challenge is merely to remember to put keywords in when I import. Too often I forget and it puts the last keywords in and everything is screwed up. :P |
|
|
|
06/08/2010 08:02:26 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...Too often I forget and it puts the last keywords in and everything is screwed up. :P |
You are welcome Jason...
Yeh, keywording is a hurdle I'm still crossing myself. Effective keywording is a *huge* boon to productivity down the road, but I find that making it a normal part of my thought process is a tough thing to do. |
|
|
|
06/08/2010 10:57:24 PM · #38 |
| Ooh, download CS5 as we speak. I'm downloading the trial which I guess includes the Extended. I hope I can just use the serial number for this version as I couldn't find the trial of the regular CS5 if there was one. |
|
|
|
06/08/2010 11:05:35 PM · #39 |
| I thought of trying LR3, but I have aperture 3 now and I think it suits my needs much more than LR2 ever did and I dont think the jump from 2 to 3 would be that great to make me want to switch. I could be wrong though. |
|
|
|
06/08/2010 11:42:16 PM · #40 |
I'm in the same boat as Fritz as I originally came on board as part of the RSE Pro program with free upgrade to LR1. I'm now a believer in LR and use it in conjunction with PSE8 (can't afford the full version of PS). Only thing i feel like I miss is being able to export in 16 bit and have full functionality in PSE8. I also use the NIK suite which is sweet.
Just ordered the LR3 upgrade. |
|
|
|
06/09/2010 08:00:09 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Just playing around with the new NR on an exposure that I cranked to +3 stops of exposure compensation. I'm *really* impressed with the amount of NR achievable without destroying a lot of detail. One hell of an achievement. |
I just did an entirely unscientific, but somewhat detailed, side-by-side comparison between LR3 and NoiseNinja on a few ISO 3200 and 6400 images from my D90... The results were amazingly similar, with NN winning out by a small margin in extreme shadow areas at 6400. That's really exciting.
Has anyone done or come across any rigorous side-by-side comparisons between LR3/ACR 6.1 NR and either NN or Neat Image?
Also impressed by the new sharpening engine. I alread had to create new sharpening presets -- the lowest of my existing ones were over-sharpening now.
I may have a lot less round-tripping to NN (for either NR or sharpening) in the future... |
|
|
|
06/09/2010 08:05:44 PM · #42 |
Good to hear that the NR holds its own against one of the best third party NR tools at high ISO... it's great to see Adobe competing with the third-party tools; the real beneficiaries of the competition are us, the end users.
My comparison was actually on an ISO 100 image, just one that had been *very* badly underexposed.
Message edited by author 2010-06-09 20:06:42. |
|
|
|
06/12/2010 09:44:31 AM · #43 |
Wow. I'm really impressed with the Noise Reduction. Installed LR3 last night and this was my first edit afterwards. Left = LR2 and Right = LR3. It's an ISO 64000 image by the way.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2010 09:55:00 AM · #44 |
| That is impressive though the image from LR3 looks a little too plastic, you could tone down the processing a bit and still have it look good. |
|
|
|
06/12/2010 10:47:08 AM · #45 |
That's what I noticed too--they really improved the noise reduction. Also, for those upgrading, note that there are two processing modes--the old one, and the 2010 mode. If you go from the old to the new, it really shows you how much better then new one is. I'm sold.
Disappointments in the new version: They still have a bizarre MODAL interface. An example, when you are in develop mode, you cannot access the Sort option in the View menu anymore. Often, I want to resort the thumbnails in the bottom of the Develop module, to put them in name order (otherwise, by default, it moves things around when you edit). You have to go back to Gallery mode, and then sort, then back to develop. Why not leave Sort in the menu for both, since it makes sense in both modules.
Also, I found after a long editing session, the right click context menu I use for Export and Editing no longer pops up after right clicking. All it's functionality still can be accessed off of the main menus, so LR is still working, but the menu is hosed. Closing and reopening LR restores the right click context menu. It may be memory related; I have 6GB of memory, but LR does "grow" in it's memory use--the highest I've seen so far in this 64 bit version is about 1.75GB work set size. There's no reason for LR to need so much memory and for memory usage to "grow" as you walk through files editing (creating sidecars).
ETA: Not to mention they threw any caution for file systems efficiency and backups to the wind. I was just trying to do a file level backup, and the Lightroom 3 Catalog itself is 26GB, 197,869 Files, 62,410 Folders. There's almost 1/3 as many folders as there are files. And a ridiculous number of files to boot. My catalog size, according to LR, is 199,418. So it now seems to store a preview for EVERY file, no matter how old. And it's still too slow to bring up a photo and focus it so you can determine whether it's to be "trashed".
But nonetheless, overall, it's REALLY improved. Getting much closer to me not needing PS. I still do wish they had a noise brush in the toolset so you could apply noise reduction more selectively.
Message edited by author 2010-06-12 11:23:06.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2010 12:46:08 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
That is impressive though the image from LR3 looks a little too plastic, you could tone down the processing a bit and still have it look good. |
Agreed. I max'ed it out just to demonstrate the difference. Eyes stayed nice and sharp despite the skin plasticizing which impressed me.
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Getting much closer to me not needing PS. |
Agreed. Although I still need PS for more 'creative' compositions. Next request: Content-Aware fill as an adjustment brush for LR please!
|
|
|
|
06/12/2010 12:54:38 PM · #47 |
| I find it slow compared to LR2. I'm always waiting for an image to load for a few seconds. |
|
|
|
06/12/2010 01:58:28 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by Jac:
I find it slow compared to LR2. I'm always waiting for an image to load for a few seconds. |
Some things are faster and some slower for me.... Shame as the new NR is great. It still far better then th older v1 releases but it's noticeably slower then 2.7 in some cases for me - seems to be when you swap folders and it has to bring up the list - developing each image is similar. |
|
|
|
06/12/2010 03:12:06 PM · #49 |
| Interesting, I'm running it on a 3 year old Dell Laptop with integrated graphics, 3GB of RAM, and 32-bit WinXP SP3. It seems about the same to me as 2.7, certainly no slower in develop. I have yet to load it on my home (64-bit Win7, 8GB RAM, nVidia QuadroFX 570 graphics). I'm planning on loading it this afternoon, so we will see. |
|
|
|
06/13/2010 11:39:56 AM · #50 |
I've now got Lr 3 loaded on my 1-year-old Win7 Desktop, and I'll say that I really don't see any noticeable speed differential between Lr 2.7 and 3.0. If anything, rendering may be a little faster on 3.0, but that's purely a subjective observation, not data-based.
I did convert my 2.0 database, and yes, it did grow in size as Neil reported. It's not really that big a database, it contains about 14,500 files and takes up 310MB. I'm not even close to worried about that size. |
|
