Lightroom 4.1 update released with X-Pro 1 support

[noimmunity]

Just curious if anybody has tried the full Silkypix Developer Studio?

Silkypix, or Sillypix?

The results from the link above would seem to indicate that Silkypix is the way to go for RAW conversion...

 

[gavinlg]

Just curious if anybody has tried the full Silkypix Developer Studio?

Silkypix, or Sillypix?

The results from the link above would seem to indicate that Silkypix is the way to go for RAW conversion...

The above comparison in the link was based on the non-public beta version of ACR support for the x-pro, not really a good indication of what the final version may be like.

 

[willie_901]

Thank you. I appreciate this a lot.

My pleasure. 🙂

 

[GaryLH]

Seems silkypix was the only software to have Fuji's RAW algorithm, all the others have to code it themselves and that takes time...

Real lousy on Fuji's behalf to put out some great camera's and subsequently not share the RAW algorithm to their files...

I think at the end of the day, for me the take away was
1- silkypix was only initial SW that Fuji worked with for their raw support
2- all other developers went thru a lot of pain to create a raw developer
3- whether adobe finally got help toward the end from Fuji, not sure any one outside of adobe and Fuji can answer that
4- don't expect the first pass of anyone raw developer to be perfect. This guy who developed the one for photoRaw released two versions

Gary

PS. I hope aperture is not far behind here or else I am going to have to spring for new version of LR.

 

[brbo]

The above comparison in the link was based on the non-public beta version of ACR support for the x-pro, not really a good indication of what the final version may be like.

ACR also appears to be using some form of mean filter, which also seems to be being applied near the edges, probably again with some kind of saturation adjustment causing the odd lightening effect. But ACR is doing so in a very heavy-handed way. On the face of it, it looks rather as if the ACR engine doesn't much like the X-Pro1's sensor pattern, and the camera raw team have just brute force filtered out any artifacts. Hopefully the team will be able to improve this in a final release. (Update - they didn't - see this post)

4- don't expect the first pass of anyone raw developer to be perfect. This guy who developed the one for photoRaw released two versions

Finally, there doesn't seem to be any major "secret sauce" to what Fuji/SILKYPIX are doing. In a way, this is somewhat discouraging as it implies that there isn't anything more than what we've seen to be extracted from the sensor.

 

[semilog]

Finally, there doesn't seem to be any major "secret sauce" to what Fuji/SILKYPIX are doing. In a way, this is somewhat discouraging as it implies that there isn't anything more than what we've seen to be extracted from the sensor.

When ACR/LR produces output as good as the camera's JPEG engine, I might believe that. At present, it is not as good. (Try sharpening these files using the LR4.1 tool; the result is horrible microscale posterization in many images.) Thus, there apparently are some saucier's secrets that Adobe has not yet stumbled upon.

 

[gavinlg]

When ACR/LR produces output as good as the camera's JPEG engine, I might believe that. At present, it is not as good. (Try sharpening these files using the LR4.1 tool; the result is horrible microscale posterization in many images.) Thus, there apparently are some saucier's secrets that Adobe has not yet stumbled upon.

Yeah after downloading some sample raws and running through lr4.1 it's pretty crap. They need to re-do their recipe big time - I'm going to assume this was really rushed to the public.

 

[jsrockit]

I haven't seen anything that horrible yet. I don't use sharpening much though... since the 35mm is super sharp already.

 

[mobilexile]

Just downloaded the updater for LR4.1 but have not had an opportunity to test drive. Can someone please post some samples?

 

[macjim]

It seems ok as the problems I had been experiencing are now a thing of the past. The only annoying leftover was the Flickr uploaded wouldn't work. I tried to fix it without losing the pre-uploaded photographs data but ended up deleting Lightroom 4 completely, re-installing via a clean download, and then pointing LR4.1 to my catalogue. I now have the Flickr uploaded working. What I will say is Adobe should never have brought LR4 out for purchase when it was so full of bugs. We were being treated as guinea pigs testing a product that was really an Alpha product - not even a Beta one - and as a result, truly p++++d off any users. I nearly went out and bought Aperture 3 because of this but I will stick by LR as I like it but I'll never buy another Adobe product again because of this experience. It was as bad as using a Microsoft software!

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

 

[Bike Tourist]

Not to go too far astray of the subject, I'm getting tired of buying new iterations of PS all the time, especially since I don't use one third the features. Now, I have the "opportunity" to upgrade from CS5 to CS6.

For less money than the upgrade I could purchase the latest Lightroom. Adobe's site is all advertising and very little hard info. Those of you who have used both PS and LR how do they differ and how are they the same? It seems to me that for photography only without a lot of bells and whistles that Lightroom would be sufficient.

 

[gavinlg]

Not to go too far astray of the subject, I'm getting tired of buying new iterations of PS all the time, especially since I don't use one third the features. Now, I have the "opportunity" to upgrade from CS5 to CS6.

For less money than the upgrade I could purchase the latest Lightroom. Adobe's site is all advertising and very little hard info. Those of you who have used both PS and LR how do they differ and how are they the same? It seems to me that for photography only without a lot of bells and whistles that Lightroom would be sufficient.

They're completely different. Photoshop is a graphics editing program and lightroom is a photo management/editing program. I'd advise you do your homework on researching what lightroom actually does!

 

[whitecat]

If you are interested in editing, Photoshop Elements has everything you need.

 

[Bike Tourist]

I'd advise you do your homework on researching what lightroom actually does!

Good advice, gavinlg, which I started with this post. My mistake.

Sounds like Elements is what I want to look into, whitecat. Thank you.

 

[gavinlg]

Good advice, gavinlg, which I started with this post. My mistake.

Sounds like Elements is what I want to look into, whitecat. Thank you.

Sorry I didn't mean that to sound confrontational, but it's kind of difficult to explain on a forum - it's easier to understand when you see it being explained in a video or similar. It's all about referenced files - so instead of having to make many 'versions' of a file within folder structures and then edit it within an editor, it allows you to make 'referenced' adjustments to files which are non-destructive - meaning you're not editing the physical file on your hard drive, but a little side car file attached to it with the specs of your editing on it. This means lightroom handles the 'versions' part for you. Also means that you can develop a file how you want it and then go back 5 years down the track and reset it to a raw file and re-develop it. Normal destructive editing (opening in editing program -> edit -> save) means you can't go back to the beginning once you've saved the edited file.

Hope that helps a bit.

 

[Bike Tourist]

Sorry I didn't mean that to sound confrontational, but it's kind of difficult to explain on a forum - it's easier to understand when you see it being explained in a video or similar. It's all about referenced files - so instead of having to make many 'versions' of a file within folder structures and then edit it within an editor, it allows you to make 'referenced' adjustments to files which are non-destructive - meaning you're not editing the physical file on your hard drive, but a little side car file attached to it with the specs of your editing on it. This means lightroom handles the 'versions' part for you. Also means that you can develop a file how you want it and then go back 5 years down the track and reset it to a raw file and re-develop it. Normal destructive editing (opening in editing program -> edit -> save) means you can't go back to the beginning once you've saved the edited file.

Hope that helps a bit.

It does. Thanks. Really, Lightroom would not be of benefit to me, but Elements may prove to be an adequate substitute for CS5. I will do my homework!

 

[mobilexile]

Photoshop is a graphics editing program and lightroom is a photo management/editing program.

Photoshop was not and still is not a graphics tool despite the fact that it's used that way by web designers and the occasional person who thinks it's a full on page layout / illustration tool. Photoshop was and is a photo manipulation application.

Lightroom is for processing files like a digital dark room.

 

[gavinlg]

Photoshop was not and still is not a graphics tool despite the fact that it's used that way by web designers and the occasional person who thinks it's a full on page layout / illustration tool. Photoshop was and is a photo manipulation application.

Lightroom is for processing files like a digital dark room.

On what do you base this argument? I did some quick googling and found reference to it being originally designed as a graphics program from numerous sources. Personally I find it a loathsome application because of how little it seems to 'flow' or mimic photographic manipulation ideas.

 

[willie_901]

The less you need to replace pixels or add new pixels, the less you need PS.

PSE will get the job done if you just need to modify the pixes you already have.

The Viveza 2 plugin for either PS, PSE and LR provides a really effective way to selctively dodge and burn that is the digital equivalent of methds used in analog printing. Of course a skilled PS or PSE user could make actions that would do exactly what Viveza does. The existence of commercial plugins is just evidence of how difficult it is to master PS and PSE.

With LR, plugins have a different purpose. They mostly exist to provide selective pixel replacement functions or layering.

 

[mobilexile]

On what do you base this argument? I did some quick googling and found reference to it being originally designed as a graphics program from numerous sources. Personally I find it a loathsome application because of how little it seems to 'flow' or mimic photographic manipulation ideas.

I'm not using The Google to determine what Photoshop is designed to do, nor am I leaning on Adobe's marketing department's definitions. I base my assessment on over two decades of experience with the application. I've used it, among other apps, to make my living over that span. My first contact was with Photoshop 2 and I've been intimately acquainted with every version since.

I should add that I view my post not as an argument but as an assessment.