[cofe]

Includes soft proofing and other local adjustments. Not downloaded it yet.

[Johnny Brown]

Just been having a try. Doesn't look like much at first, but perhaps a bigger jump than from 2 to 3.

Develop module has had a complete overhaul, core controls very different to 1-3, but closer to PS. Brightness has gone, Recovery and Fill replaced by highlights and shadows, plus blacks and whites. Cleverly, applying an old preset brings the old controls back. First impressions are it gives much finer control and less range, almost like they've ditched half the slider and just expanded the first 50%.

Curves now has RGB plus individual channels - this is a biggie I think.

Soft proofing seems well implemented - took me a while to work it out - go into Develop and hit 'S'. Or View>Soft proof. Sensibly gives you the option to create a virtual copy.

Local adjustments have expanded control - eg white balance, plus highlights and shadows.

Also two additional modules - Map and Book. Not sure about Map - I already file by location, and it needs a web connection. Could be good with a GPS enabled camera, though not many of us have them bar iphones.

Book will be useful for some, includes export to Blurb. I never used the Web module either...

[cofe]

Sounds good, particularly these two:

First impressions are it gives much finer control and less range, almost like they've ditched half the slider and just expanded the first 50%.

Curves now has RGB plus individual channels - this is a biggie I think.

And obviously soft proofing. I'll download it tonight.

[Paul B]

Having not had to transfer a LR catalog between 2 and 3, is it ok to use 3 and 4 beta on the same one? If I don't end up 'upgrading', will it pose any problems to things developed using it?

I never really understood why the local adjustment brush didn't contain almost all of the sliders, it'd certainly negate the need to export into PS all the time.

[cofe]

I never really understood why the local adjustment brush didn't contain almost all of the sliders, it'd certainly negate the need to export into PS all the time.

I'd guess it's partly market segregation, and partly an ongoing process trying to understand and meet the emerging demands of digital photographers. I.e. don't stick a load of stuff in that they might not want/need.

I'd be hesitant to try and use the beta with an existing catalog. Recipe for a big fuck up. Just play with it side by side for the timebeing.

[Johnny Brown]

Having not had to transfer a LR catalog between 2 and 3, is it ok to use 3 and 4 beta on the same one?

You can't upgrade a catalog to a beta version, you have to start a new one. You can upgrade your 2 to 3 no probs though, it won't overwrite the old one either.

I never really understood why the local adjustment brush didn't contain almost all of the sliders, it'd certainly negate the need to export into PS all the time.

Probably for the same reason it doesn't feature the moon on a stick. Rome wasn't built in a day etc...

Currently I only export into PS for stitching, detailed cloning and printing. Never use it for basic image processing, multiple curves on layers etc. At least 98% of images go from camera to customer solely via Lightroom. Be nice if there was a PS version that was just a LR add-on, I've no need for 95% of PS's functionality.

[Paul B]

Probably for the same reason it doesn't feature the moon on a stick. Rome wasn't built in a day etc...

That really is one of the worst counterarguments I've read. Its Adobe we're talking about (or did I get lost and end up discussing an open source project?). Sliders are there, brush is there, etc. It's obviously been a decision and not some insurmountable coding issue.

Cofe seemed more on the money.

First problem encountered with the 64 bit installer; its centered itself off-screen, all I can see is the close button.

[Johnny Brown]

Probably for the same reason it doesn't feature the moon on a stick. Rome wasn't built in a day etc...

That really is one of the worst counterarguments I've read.

Really? No, I guess Rome could have been built in a day had Caesar not been a cynical marketing man who figured he'd make more releasing it one bit a time. Seriously - Adobe have the moon on a stick but won't sell it to us? Well not yet? Was the twin towers the CIA?

[Paul B]

Seriously - Adobe have the moon on a stick but won't sell it to us? Well not yet? Was the twin towers the CIA?

Sunday I went out and took a photo of Nat on the RHS of wrights rock using a bare flash 90 deg to her. I'd exposed for rock, sky all blown out, I overcooked the power on the flash. Another guy turned up and dumped a load of stuff around and started to climb so I didn't get another crack.

In LR, I reach for the recovery slider but oh no, I touch that and I start getting unwanted detail back in the sky without a localised brush option I need to use PS to try to fix it (ignoring it looked shit anyway).

Was it so unreasonable to be surprised that this wasn't included in 3? You make out that its some kind of masssive deal. As I said before, the slider is there that controls highlight recovery (the develpment of which, is the most novel aspect), and the brush is simply a different implementation of a layer mask, do you think every time a mask is added in PS the code used is different?

I'm not implying that its cut and paste coding but the fundamentals are there and this is a massive software company. Nik software have it in Viveza which is yet another way of simplifying masks and localised adjustments.

[Johnny Brown]

Well, you didn't say 'no recovery slider', or even mention anything specific, you said 'almost all of the sliders'. Forgive me for jumoping to conclusions, but I thought you meant almost all of the sliders. My point was I used LR for a long time before it had any localised adjustments. Just to have grads was a huge step. Perhaps I'm a gormless adobe lapdog, but I didn't expect they would do everything, immediately. Hell I even paid for 1 and 3. There's very little I'm missing now with LR4 that isn't the moon on a stick - ie stuff that goes beyond the capabilities of a non-destructive workflow.

I'd pretty much stopped using the recovery tool as it compresses/ destroys all the tonality in the highlights, so I've never missed it. Be interesting to see how the new engine compares - first impressions suggest an improvement.

[cofe]

I'd pretty much stopped using the recovery tool as it compresses/ destroys all the tonality in the highlights

Me too. A lot of the time stuff looks better if you allow what should blow out to blow out. Regardless of whether you're using LR or not. And a shit photo is still a shit photo. I should know, I take enough of them.

[Paul B]

I meant the sliders in the basic tab effectively, even I can't see the point in localised split toning or perspective correction 

And a shit photo is still a shit photo.

Amen. Although the blowing highlights were clearly my fault here rather than 'natural'.

[Johnny Brown]

Localised curves would be great though, as would HSL. I'm sure many ex-darkroom B+W workers would love localised split toning too.

In LR, I reach for the recovery slider but oh no, I touch that and I start getting unwanted detail back in the sky

Why not use recovery slider, then add localised +exposure on the sky? Easier than going out to PS surely?

[Paul B]

Yeah you can work around that example but the need to do so puzzled me and would require special treatment of the sections surrounding foliage.

I found writing my own PS actions really helped for the use of multiple, localised curves on portraiture retouching (or speeding up relatively slow tasks). Bang a button, tweak the slider then paint on the mask but I've got no idea how varied your use of curves would be?

Its interesting to see (or hear) that you effectively do 95% of your stuff in LR. A lot of the portraiture stuff I watch/read seem to use a RAW developer then pretty swiftly move into PS. Horses for courses I suppose, and I guess its pretty unlikely either piece of software can have everything for everybody.

I'm sure many ex-darkroom B+W workers would love localised split toning too.

Lack of experience on my part leaves me  but I'm sure you're correct.

[Johnny Brown]

I do very little straight portraiture, and if I did I'd be going in the opposite direction from the stuff that involves lots of retouching. I guess LR isn't aimed at that section of the market - cloning/ smoothing will always require pixel edits rather than non-destructive.

[SA Chris]

Reading this thread has made me realise that I need to brush up on my photo editing skills  / terminology as I haven't really got the slightest clue what the 3 of you are jabbering about.

[Jim]

Me too, I'd love to wade in with my size 8's with some counter argument to stir it up a bit more but I'm just baffled tbh

[Yossarian]

Thanks to previous recommendations I now use Lightroom 3 for nearly all my images, apart from a massive library of work stuff in iView (which i gave up on when Microsoft bought it).

Funny thing is, i've had to spend so much time doing hateful PS stuff over the last two years (recolouring fabrics in images, extracting sofas, turning 3 seaters into 2 seaters, etc) that apart from using the lovely Silver Efex and a tiny bit of curves adjustment in LR, I now try to avoid having to mess around with any image editing whatsoever.

In fact, it makes me queasy just thinking about it...

[Control freak]

Theres a stack of overview videos  here that are problem worth a quick glance

[Bonjoy]

LR this Adobe that, pssshoooo! If I’ve said it once I’ve said it a thousand times you guys want to upgrade to the Canon G005.E. Doesn’t matter what you do it ALWAYS comes out pixel perfect, no need for post-processing EVER. Who needs the moon ON a stick when you have the moon IN a stick? Think on suckers!

[dave]

Or a polaroid goose:

[Bonjoy]

Is that a real camera?!? Or have you been doing some destructive workflow?

[dave]

Its for real. Best instant camera that 1978 dollars could buy.

[Paul B]

LR this Adobe that, pssshoooo! If I’ve said it once I’ve said it a thousand times you guys want to upgrade to the Canon G005.E. Doesn’t matter what you do it ALWAYS comes out pixel perfect, no need for post-processing EVER. Who needs the moon ON a stick when you have the moon IN a stick? Think on suckers!

Its not a D4 though is it?

It's very important to understand that for many of the Basic panel tools, the internal effects ranges have been changed, meaning that a slider value of say +50 in a PV 2010 tool may not correspond to +50 in the equivalent PV2012 tool. When updating PV2010 (or earlier) images which already contain manual Basic panel adjustments, slider values will be carried over or 'transposed' to the appropriate PV2012 settings. But the appearence of your image will change, often significantly. For this reason, I encourage you to apply PV2012 on an image by image basis to your existing photos to get a feel for what the new tools can do. Or simply import new images, which will automatically get the newest process version, and explore the new features with those images.

source: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7481161037/lightroom-4-public-beta-whats-new

I've seen mention elsewhere of differences being quite profound especially where the clarity slider has been used. How would one go about getting an image edited in 3 for conversion to 4 settings, simply edit in 3 and then import to 4?

Hopefully I'm not asking for a skewered moon with this one.

[Johnny Brown]

Probably worth mentioning here LR is currently . I suspect that plus the upgrade may be cheaper than buying LR4 from scratch.