Lightroom 3.2 RC available

[venchka]

Apparently the sluggish nature of Lightroom 3 has been addressed. Has anyone downloaded this version? is it faster?

Thanks for any help in this matter.

[timbertoes]

have yet to figure v3 that I recently downloaded....kinda hate the photo import mechanisms... find myself closing LR to stop from reading a whole driectory...

and whats up with the horrible resolution/Dark previews...my eyes are bad enough. cant tell which of the same image is +1/-1 the stops I shot!!

[venchka]

I haven't noticed that. What is your preview generating at import setting? Do you have any funky developing presets working on import?

[timbertoes]

no presets. will have to look....

strike that ..

will have to read the MANUAL :)

[revjvegas]

If I'm not mistaken, even if you don't choose your own preset when importing, a default one (the Camera Calibration preset) may still get applied.

If you notice, when the image first comes in, it looks one way, then when it finishes "loading" it looks a little different.

Note: you will not see what I'm referring to if you are importing in JPG; this applies to RAW images only.

Or I could be completely off base all together.

[venchka]

You're right. My RAW files come in with a tweak or two. My TIFF files are zeroed out.

I'm more concerned about the native speed of Lr 3.x. My computer isn't the fastest thing around and I would hate for Lightroom 3 to be slowing me down.

[KdLaneJr]

Originally Posted by venchka

You're right. My RAW files come in with a tweak or two. My TIFF files are zeroed out.

I'm more concerned about the native speed of Lr 3.x. My computer isn't the fastest thing around and I would hate for Lightroom 3 to be slowing me down.

I was wondering why you thought LR3 was slow. Building a faster computer works wonders.

[Sonny]

Raw files are just raw data, so anything you do in camera, other than aperture, shutter speed and ISO, won't be applied in any raw converter other than the manufacturer's own raw converter, which will be able to output files in exactly the same way as the camera.

The picture you see in LR is exactly the picture your camera sensor recorded. It's likely that you are used to seeing the preview on the camera display. That preview is not your RAW file, but a JPG which has been processed by the electronics inside your camera. Or, you may be using your camera manufacturer's proprietary RAW conversion software. That software has a post-processing advantage in that it can utilize proprietary 'secret' information embedded in RAW files, which is undocumented and unavailable to third party programs such as LR and ACR.

Additionally, most third party viewer/browser applications show you the embedded JPG preview rather than the actual RAW file contents. In fact, LR itself shows you that preview for a few seconds at first, until it has time to render a preview in accordance with your current develop settings.

When you import your RAW file, none of that proprietary in-camera processing is applied by Lightroom. To a certain extent, you have to do it yourself. That is the purpose of Develop Presets. It takes some getting used to, and some practice, and some homework to achieve consistently good results. The amazing flexibility of Lightroom comes with some costs in terms of effort.

[timbertoes]

I have to say that for the basic editing of a photo, LR is better for me than Photoshop.
Like the simple controls and how they work.

I still use Capture NX for raw files. Wish Capture NX would output a DNG or PSD file though.

[venchka]

Originally Posted by KdLaneJr

I was wondering why you thought LR3 was slow. Building a faster computer works wonders.

I'm just looking for confirmation or denial after reading some comments elsewhere on the WWW about Lightroom 3 speed. I guess nobody here has noticed.

[KdLaneJr]

Originally Posted by venchka

I'm just looking for confirmation or denial after reading some comments elsewhere on the WWW about Lightroom 3 speed. I guess nobody here has noticed.

Now that I know you're looking for input, I'll ante up some info.

My former processing desktop has LR2.x on it and runs on a XP sp3, AMD 64 2600+ single core processor, 2GB ram. Whenever I told it to process ~ 700 raw images from the mkIII to 300 dpi, quality 7 jpegs I had plenty of time to go do something else. Never did time it, but suffice it to say I was usually done on the computer for the evening when I started the conversion.

This year I assembled an i7-920 system. I added all the triple channel ram that the motherboad would take.

The new system will process 400 mkIII raw files to 300 dpi at 100 % quality in 12 minutes and essentially, anything I do in that is not batch processing is done in real time.

The things I've read here and there about regarding personal issues with LR3, usually resemble operator error.

I can't compare LR3 on my older system to LR3 on my new build as I waited to install it and CS5 extended until I had a faster system running a 64-bit OS.

You enjoy your photography. Build a new system when you can and enjoy your post processing.

[timbertoes]

so how old is your 'puter Venchka ?

[venchka]

Older than most of my film. Grinning. In it's day, it was a hot rod with a pair of Xeon processors. It's still ok my purposes. I do wish I had a new monitor.

[timbertoes]

Xeon ? Is she anywhere as hot and awesome as Ultraviolet ?

[Hogleg 44]

I have been using the Mac RC since it was released and I have not noticed it being any faster. I didn’t know it was supposed to be. I have noticed a few tweeks here and there but not any remarkable differences.