Lightroom 6

[willie_901]

I had to log out and then back into the CC app, as have many others, on both the MacBook Air and Mac-Mini. I had to reboot the Mini since the Finder was unstable... which is strange as they both computers run fully updated Yosemite.

XTrans rendering is definitely quicker on the Mini. Of course this is simply due to the GPU.

I set the Preview size to the new Auto mode. This ~ doubled the Preview size, so creating Previews are slower and take more disk space (making Time Machine back ups even slower. Of course I can revert to my previous Preview size if I find larger Previews have no advantage.

The new features are potentially important for me. I plan to test the exposure blending capabilities today. The new Brush Panel capabilities are welcome and could save me a lot of time - time will tell.

 

[Jim-st]

I tried the Merge to Panorama with a set of 11 quickly made full-rez JPEGs ... did a perfect job (of a totally boring subject...) in a couple of minutes.

Can I ask Godfrey if you've tried using the Merge to Pano with files from a digital Leica M camera? Or with RF lenses on mirrorless system cameras?
Reason I ask is I think I've identified a problem with LR's reading of Leica's idiosyncratic recording of aperture data in the exif. I thought the problem I had was a simple glitch in LR/ACR's processing, so I posted first on Adobe's Lightroom Forum here
The discussion that ensued led me to conclude it's a problem likely arising from the Merge to Pano algorithm(?) believing that different shots in a pano series were shot at different aperture settings, as Leica's firmware can report in the exif.
LR then seeks to compensate for the exposure differences, and this leads to anomalies in the exposure-blend. You'll see from the shots I posted at Adobe what this means in practice.

Wondering if anyone else here has hit this one yet...

And btw I've had no problem with the Merge to Pano on files from my Pana GX7, only M9 files with aperture-data anomalies seem to derail it

Jim

 

[plummerl]

So far, the release of LR 6 appears to be the most disastrous release I've ever seen from Adobe. Installation was fine, I had 5.7 and 6 happily co-resident.

First problem was in clicking on the HELP menu. Instant 404, with Adobe acknowledging a problem, yet to be fixed. Second problem, after hearing about the much touted GPU acceleration addition, I find that my "supported GPU" failed the OpenGL test and was not being used. After following their advice of upgrading my driver set, my display took on a pinkish hue. I decided to roll back my video driver and I blew out my Win 7/64-bit startup. I'm now facing an OS rebuild. Photoshop CS5 of course, is happily using my video GPU (Radeon HD 6770).

Browsing the LR forums, reveals that Adobe has now acknowledged the issues, but there is no communication to people who are now registered buyers of any issues.

This is with the standalone LR 6, not the CC.

:bang:

 

[Godfrey]

I did my earlier tests with the Olympus E-PL1 and E-M1, both worked flawlessly. So I just picked up the M-P and snapped four frames from my desk and had it stitch. Seemed to work fine, and the aperture recorded did vary from f/2.8 to f/3.4 in the individual still shots.

Leica M-P typ 240 + Summilux 35mm f/1.4 v2​

I'll have to search and see if I have any M9 files that are amenable to stitching.

G

Can I ask Godfrey if you've tried using the Merge to Pano with files from a digital Leica M camera? Or with RF lenses on mirrorless system cameras?
Reason I ask is I think I've identified a problem with LR's reading of Leica's idiosyncratic recording of aperture data in the exif. I thought the problem I had was a simple glitch in LR/ACR's processing, so I posted first on Adobe's Lightroom Forum here
The discussion that ensued led me to conclude it's a problem likely arising from the Merge to Pano algorithm(?) believing that different shots in a pano series were shot at different aperture settings, as Leica's firmware can report in the exif.
LR then seeks to compensate for the exposure differences, and this leads to anomalies in the exposure-blend. You'll see from the shots I posted at Adobe what this means in practice.

Wondering if anyone else here has hit this one yet...

And btw I've had no problem with the Merge to Pano on files from my Pana GX7, only M9 files with aperture-data anomalies seem to derail it

Jim

 

[RObert Budding]

I'm shopping for new software because Nikon has cut support of Capture NX2. That wouldn't be a problem is I hadn't sold my D700 to buy a D750.

I'm seriously thinking of going with Capture One Pro 8 because I like the results that I've seen, and I'm considering a Fuji X-E2.

 

[cabbiinc]

A perhaps daft question: does anyone use Canons' DPP in preference to Lightroom?

I have LR 5.something. I just checked and haven't opened it since November. I use DPP all the time, but not so much for RAW editing.

What I find to be superior for my needs is DxO Optics Pro. Simply put I don't need to catalog my files, and LR doesn't have an option to skip that step. To import files into the catalog, then remove them from the catalog when done is painful. If you move the files after LR is done with them you still see the files in LR yet if you try to do anything with them from within LR you get errors since it can't find the original files. I'd say that forcing people to use something that's useless to them (in my experience that's the catalog) is pretty regressive. Yes, I know there's work arounds, but it's a pain.

I also need better lens corrections for the lenses that I own, and DxO provides that. Again, this is in respect to my needs, which may not be your needs.

Capture One Pro seems like a great competitor to LR as well.

I also tried Aftershot Pro but while it was very fast it was buggy. It's also limited in the file formats it supports, and have virtually no lens profiles (the biggest detractor for me). But it is built for MS, Apple and Linux.

 

[willie_901]

Update:

LR 6 Photo Merge (HDR) will definitely not be replacing NIK's HDR Efex Pro in my workflow. The highlights don't look right and the detail against skies (tree lines) is poor. I was merging NEFs from a D700.

The good news is LR 6 HDR does not generate images with hideous tone mapping artifacts... you know... that smoky look or overdone Thomas Kincade-like HDR rendering. It renders a rather natural, flat image. One can adjust LR's automatic rending selections as well using the Develop Module as you would with any image.

 

[Kate-the-Great]

So far, so good with LR6.

I like the HDR integration, and I really like that it's a simple merge and not tone mapping- works perfectly with my workflow of bracketing to improve my EOS M's sad DR. I also see that, unlike with the Photoshop merge route, the resulting HDR DNG from LR retains camera color profile information- this is fantastic news for me as I've avoided doing HDR with my X-E1 as I'd lose the fantastic Fuji "film" profiles. Not anymore!

Performance seems moderately improved (my system is 4Ghz AMD 8-thread CPU, 16GB RAM & R9 290X GPU, OS/apps on SSD and 2nd dedicated SSD for Lightroom library). Switching modules and zooming/panning photos seems a bit smoother. I noticed a huge difference when adjusting color balance on 400MB/60MP DNG-format 6x9 scans- in LR5 I'd have to adjust the slider or enter a value, then wait a few seconds for the image to update. Now it's instantaneous- nice.

I also noticed they fixed the bug where thumbnails in Library mode wouldn't resize properly with "ctrl+mousewheel" like they did in LR4.

 

[willie_901]

What exposure bracket range did you use for your LR HDR?

 

[Jim-st]

I did my earlier tests with the Olympus E-PL1 and E-M1, both worked flawlessly. So I just picked up the M-P and snapped four frames from my desk and had it stitch. Seemed to work fine, and the aperture recorded did vary from f/2.8 to f/3.4 in the individual still shots.

Leica M-P typ 240 + Summilux 35mm f/1.4 v2​

I'll have to search and see if I have any M9 files that are amenable to stitching.

G

HI Godfrey,

Thanks for posting that - shows it can work!

After several more goes at this, I've had some that worked pretty well and a number that were seriously problematic.

I found last night that the LensTagger plugin can fix the problem where it arises, just by putting the same value into its F-Stop field across the set of shots to be stitched. I suspect that if you do take a few more sets of shots for merging in LR6 or ACR9, you will find that the camera's aperture-value guesstimates can range quite widely, and that this can prevent the Merge to Panorama algorithm from working properly (I had one set with f-stops showing up as f/6.7, f/8, f/5.7, f/9.5 (all shot at f/5.6!).

So I think the Leica M digitals can present challenges that defeat the new Merge to Panorama's attempts at blending. The best workarounds for now will use plugins like LensTagger or Photoshop, although I suspect Adobe will get this fixed quite easily if it is brought to their attention.

The full process of working this out is visible in the Adobe thread here. LensTagger is donation-ware here (and I have no connection, just a user).

Hopefully RFF members will find this useful

 

[nightfly]

Until LR4 and PS5 stop working, which will happen sooner or later with some OS X update I'm sure, I'll keep using them. Eventually I'll probably have to go to the subscription model but want to put it off as long as possible. I haven't given Adobe any money in several versions with no negative repercussions.

HDR, Photosticching, face detection are not things I would ever use and LR4 feels fast on my MacBook Pro with 8 gigs of ram and 500 gig SSD.

I use Photoshop for work and I'm sure at some point designers will start sending me files that aren't compatible with my older version of PS5 but till then, Photoshop has pretty much more features that I could ever want like 3 versions ago.

 

[Dwig]

Until LR4 and PS5 stop working, which will happen sooner or later with some OS X update I'm sure, I'll keep using them. ...

Pretty much my thinking with Ps although I have been updating my Lr around mid-cycle each version since Lr3. I'll likely get Lr6 (not likely LrCC) in 4-6 months.

Personally I currently use Ps/CS4 and Lr5 on my Win8.1 desktop at home and Ps/CS2 and Lr4 on my Win8.1 tablet. I'll likely put Lr5 on the tablet soon. I've have little use for the newer Ps features with my personal work.

At work (a photographer's gallery & studio) I do all of the new image processing and all of the scanning of older film along with most of the other graphics (wall mockups for clients, ...). I've found that our Ps/CS5 has some minor but annoying flaws on OSX 10.9 Mavericks, at least on our Mac Pro (early 2009, dual quad core, 12gig RAM) although Lr4 seems flawless. We're planning a hardware upgrade later this year and will likely move to CC at that time.

 

[Kate-the-Great]

What exposure bracket range did you use for your LR HDR?

I do -2 / 0 / +2 brackets. That's been enough for me; my goal is just to attain less shadow noise and a smoother highlight rolloff, not to make any special effects. In fact, many of my "HDR" images may still have some highlight/shadow clipping- just with a more "film-like" tone curve than single-capture on the EOS M can attain (natively the shadows are quite grainy and the highlights fall off much more abruptly than on my X-E1)

 

[willie_901]

Kate-the-Great,

Thanks for your response.

I played with -3 to +3 EV in 1 EV increments. The highlights (skies) seemed to dominated the rendering balance compared to the two other LR plug-in I've used for years. It was as though the underexposed images weren't there.

I'lll try the -2, 0 , +2 exposures from a set of exposures.

 

[Kate-the-Great]

Kate-the-Great,

Thanks for your response.

I played with -3 to +3 EV in 1 EV increments. The highlights (skies) seemed to dominated the rendering balance compared to the two other LR plug-in I've used for years. It was as though the underexposed images weren't there.

I'lll try the -2, 0 , +2 exposures from a set of exposures.

That's overall been my experience as well- there should be enough detail to bring the highlights down and shadows up quite a bit using adjustment brushes though. As far as the source images, if the scene has extremely bright highlights I may do a +1, -1, -3 or even 0, -2, -4 spread instead. As I mentioned before though, I process my HDR images such that there's often still clipping- it's just more controlled. The workflow to achieve an extremely-high DR image would probably require significantly more bracketing (I've known people who do Tone-Mapping to make 5, 7, even 9-shot brackets). Here are some examples of my blends-

Lightroom 6 CR2->DNG HDR blend

Photoshop CC CR2->TIFF HDR blend

Photoshop CC CR2->TIFF HDR blend


All shots from EOS M & T/S Nikkor "View Camera".

The HDR images I get from my workflow really don't have that much more highlight detail than a single properly-exposed image. But, critically for a Canon shooter, I get much less noise in the shadows this way.

 

[Symeon]

Something wrong with Adobe nowadays.

 

[Symeon]

Started with Lr2 years ago, now with Lr5 but I am afraid that Adobe is losing its touch. The Library mode is very good but the Develop module feels primitive nowadays. I switched to Capture One v8 for some time now, it processes Leica's DNG much, much better.