Lightroom 4.1 update released with X-Pro 1 support [Archive]

ananobes

05-29-2012, 19:22

Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.1

The Adobe® Photoshop® Lightroom® 4.1 update includes these enhancements:

• The ability to process HDR TIFF files. (16, 24 or 32-bit TIFF files)
• Additional Color Fringing corrections to help address chromatic aberration.
• Save photobooks created in the Book Module to JPEG
• Publishing photos to Adobe Revel is now accessible via a Publish plugin
• Additional camera support for several new cameras including the Canon EOS 5D Mark III, Fujifilm X-Pro1, Nikon D800, and Olympus OM-D E-M5.
• Corrections for issues introduced in previous versions of Lightroom.

http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?product=113&platform=Windows

gavinlg

05-29-2012, 21:27

Woo hoo - lets get some info on how the raw conversion does!

intheviewfinder

05-30-2012, 02:13

Thanks for this posting. With the line of thunderstorms last night I lost my T1 for awhile. How long? Don't know. I went to bed. Let's see how this does in comparison to the camera's processing.

--Rich

mabelsound

05-30-2012, 02:50

Great news!

jsrockit

05-30-2012, 03:16

Finally! :)

willie_901

05-30-2012, 06:10

According to Andy Westlake, one of the primary reviewers DPREVIEW, the raw files for the 18 and 60 mm Fujinon lenses contain lens correction data that LR automatically applies upon import.

The corrections are for barrel and pincushion distortion as well as for vignetting, Andy does not mention the 35 mm lens. Longitudinal CA is not addressed. However I find the 18 mm's CA is well corrected using the new eye-dropper tool in LR 4.

So, don't fret that there are no default ACR lens correction profiles for the XF lenses.

jsrockit

05-30-2012, 06:18

However I find the 18 mm's CA is well corrected using the new eye-dropper tool in LR 4.

How do I access the eyedropper tool for CA correction (for real)? I'm just missing something simple, but can't figure out where it is.

Dante_Stella

05-30-2012, 08:19

On a quick peek this morning, I did not see any big differences between camera JPG detail and Lightroom detail. I did notice that putting sharpening on 50 seems to improve detail.

Also, does anyone know of a good way to combine RAF and JPG files imported at different times without re-importing? Simple stacking is not that useful, and I don't want to lose the last month's worth of corrections.

Thanks
Dante

GaryLH

05-30-2012, 08:28

http://chromasoft.blogspot.de/2012/05/demosaicing-fuji-x-pro1-and-its-x-trans.html

As an FYI, I came across this posting lately. Originally posted in Fuji rumors website. It is an interesting read split into a 3 part post from the developer of photoRaw app for the iPad and what he had to do to support the Fuji raw files. I am not sure if this was already post somewhere else on rff. But it helps to explain why Adobe has taken so long to ship a version of LR for this camera.

Gary

tbarker13

05-30-2012, 08:37

This has finally convinced me to buy Lightroom. Capture One still can't handle the fuji raw files. People seem to be pretty fond of LR, so I might as well give it a shot.

Stockman

05-30-2012, 10:56

I just paid out 106 quid for LR4 to try to get some decent RAW support. No doubt I will get used to it in time but I am pretty disappointed at the time of writing.

jsrockit

05-30-2012, 11:06

What's disappointing so far?

brbo

05-30-2012, 11:23

So, everyone waited for Adobe only to find out Silkypix is the best RAW converter for X-Pro1?

The link GaryLH posted is a great read.

buzzardkid

05-30-2012, 11:31

f16sunshine

05-30-2012, 11:37

I'm just starting to play with a couple quick snaps in LR. The reds look horrible through the LR4 so far. Not conclusive yet but sort of discouraging.

intheviewfinder

05-30-2012, 11:38

I hope that Silkypix comment was a joke because it isn't even close.

I just finished importing 1,000+ RAW files and have been going through a compare of the JPG's to the RAW files they look very comparable. Very pretty. There might be some occasional minor differences but it appears as though the LR team has nailed this one.

I'm very pleased with the overall IQ (even up to ISO3200) I'm getting from this combination of camera, lenses and software and how it fits into my style of shooting and workflow. Pixel-level detail that is troubling to some just doesn't bother me as it's more about the image and not some micro-dots.

--Rich

macjim

05-30-2012, 11:53

Great news!

Yes, great news as its fixes quite a few of the problems that I had been experiencing – editing in external apps, importing the RAW files etc., buy one problem remains for me, I still can't get the Flickr to export any photographs. I went from lightroom 3 with the uploader working to Lightroom 4 where it broke. Now I'm using 4.1 and it's still broken: anyone know how to fix this? Strangely enough on my MacBook Air, a clean install of Lightroom 4 hasn't the Flickr problem, it works just fine as it wasn't upgraded from an older version.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

brbo

05-30-2012, 12:17

I hope that Silkypix comment was a joke because it isn't even close.

I was just going by the articles writen by PhotoRaw developer. I have no experience with X-Pro1 or Silkypix. Still, ACR applying "pretty curves" (that mimic Fuji's jpg engine) after demosaicing is not a proof of a superior raw converter, IMHO.

willie_901

05-30-2012, 12:52

How do I access the eyedropper tool for CA correction (for real)? I'm just missing something simple, but can't figure out where it is.

In the Develop module select lens corrections, then select color.

Lots of useful info below.

http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2012/04/new-color-fringe-correction-controls.html

jsrockit

05-30-2012, 12:53

In the Develop module select lens corrections, then select color.

Lots of useful info below.

http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2012/04/new-color-fringe-correction-controls.html

Thank you. I appreciate this a lot.

noimmunity

05-30-2012, 13:21

gavinlg

05-30-2012, 13:44

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

05-30-2012, 20:17

Thank you. I appreciate this a lot.

My pleasure. :)

GaryLH

05-30-2012, 20:18

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

05-30-2012, 22:08

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

05-30-2012, 23:47

[I]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

05-31-2012, 00:03

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

05-31-2012, 02:49

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

mobilexile

05-31-2012, 02:55

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

macjim

05-31-2012, 06:44

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

05-31-2012, 08:53

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

05-31-2012, 13:57

whitecat

05-31-2012, 14:00

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

Bike Tourist

06-01-2012, 05:32

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

06-01-2012, 05:43

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

06-01-2012, 08:50

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

06-02-2012, 05:21

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

06-02-2012, 06:05

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

06-02-2012, 07:03

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

06-02-2012, 08:17

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.

mobilexile

06-02-2012, 08:20

The existence of commercial plugins is just evidence of how difficult it is to master PS and PSE.

I'd argue that plugins exist not because the apps are complex but rather:

a. Some users are too lazy to learn the power and features of the app

b. Professional users want the convenience and efficiency brought on by plugins

willie_901

06-02-2012, 19:51

mobilexile

06-03-2012, 05:27

Being lazy is entirely different than being smart.

How much of my life must I spend to become expert with PS's torturous user environment?

Why do you think Adobe markets Lightroom? Because Aperture scared them to death. If PS was easy to learn, Adobe could have ignored Aperture.

Perhaps lazy was not the right word. That said Photoshop was and is a tool created for professional use. Adobe is thrilled to sell copies to anyone but dumbing it down for the masses would be a mistake. They've thankfully never ventured down that path. Instead they created Pshop Elements.

Lightroom and Photoshop are very different tools serving different needs. Photoshop was never and never will be for processing images. That need didn't even exist for the first 10+ years it was in the marketplace.

Thank you for the torturous environment comment re: Pshop. It made for a good laugh. I fully understand why you say that. Bit know that once you pickup on a few key concepts it becomes much easier to understand. If you really want to harness the power within you might consider a Lynda.com account. They have great tutorials that will have you up and running in no time.

willie_901

06-03-2012, 05:39

Thanks for your positive response.

One advantage of PS is a diverse set of training materials are available.

Adobe's new cloud subscription service also make PS more attractive.

mobilexile

06-03-2012, 06:41

Another great option is the NAPP (National Association of Photoshop Professionals). Their community forum is a wealth of info & the users are very helpful if you post questions. Joining isn't free but they offer several member deals that offset the cost. For example, last year I bought a new Mac w their coupon code and it saved me twice the cost of NAPP membership dues. Adobe also gives attractive discounts to members.

Jim-st

08-25-2012, 10:02

Nearly three months on, this topic seems to have lapsed rather, and I'm wondering what people's experience of processing X_Pro1 raw files in LR4.1 is now

Are people generally happy with results? What about chroma-smearing, sharpness issues etc?

I'm looking to upgrade from my M8 very soon, and swithering between M9 and X-Pro1.

Or maybe I should wait for the X-Pro2 and see if Fuji might learn to cooperate with Thomas Knoll and co pre-release...

:confused:

venchka

08-25-2012, 10:18

It does. Thanks. Really, Lightroom would not be of benefit to me,

Bike Tourist,

Please clarify why you don't think Lightroom would benefit you? It is a very robust RAW/TIFF/JPEG editor. The fact that it is non-destuctive is HUGE in terms of trying various editing schemes on a file. Including B&W conversion.

Click on my L.U.G. Gallery link in my signature. With the exception of a very few digital B&W conversions done in PS4 with some canned Actions I bought, everything has been processed with Lightroom 1 & 3, LR/Enfuse plug-in and Microsoft ICE stitching software. Even the B&W conversions went from Lightroom to CS4 and back to Lightroom. I tend to skip even numbered upgrades since a couple of Autodesk disasters way back when.

Wayne

willie_901

08-26-2012, 06:17

I have seen at least one image from my XP1 where the Adobe Camera Raw has caused artifacts that would be obvious in a small print. I observed edge color artifacts on vertcal lines that were not due to chromatic abberation. I suspect if I pixel peeped and did a critical analysis I would find issues with others similar to those widely reported late last spring. I guess I really don't care how leaves look at extreme magnification.

At the same time I have a habit of being over-critical during post-processing, so for my subjects Adobe Camera Raw can't be that bad.

Jim-st

08-26-2012, 15:42

Thanks willie, that's interesting to hear. And I wonder if the "color artifacts on vertcal lines that were not due to chromatic abberation" that you mention might be amenable to treatment in the new Lens Coorections/ Color panel in LR4.1's Develop module? Did you (or anyone else here) try that?

All the gloom today over the servicable lifespan of the digital M's makes me the more interested in the X-Pro, where the trade-off is form factor versus viewfinder position imo

Would like to hear more on the PP/LR experiences of RFF'ers here...

willie_901

08-26-2012, 19:53

Jamie Pillers

08-26-2012, 21:55

Hopefully Aperture is not far behind.

Jim-st

08-27-2012, 14:55

Jim,

The reason I speculated the vertical line problem was not C.A. was because the LR Color Panel module could not handle them. In fact, this was the only time the LR 4 Color Panel has not quickly cleaned up the 18/2 XF lens' CA. The 35/1.4 has never shown CA.

The worst vertical line in a sign the was in the distant background and bordered a high contrast (bu not over exposed) area. None were in the foreground.

Thanks again, willie - and I now realise it was your earlier post that led me to Eric Chan's paper on the Color Panel, so thanks for that too!

I'm still dithering over this, but I've had a good look around here, Flickr, etc and conclude that maybe I will wait for X-Pro2 and LR5 to see if Fuji and Adobe can sort the thing finally.

Anyway, I'm off to Rome in a couple of days, and I'll stick with the M8 for that trip at least, and get round to upgrading when I get home, maybe...

Jim