LR3.2 is worth it

I know there are several threads just like this, but one more may help someone out there decide.

I've been using LR for about 18 months after moving from Elements 5. I'd read all of the LR3 posts about memory problems, slowness, and general disappointment. So I wondered whether I should upgrade or not, after all I was satisfied with LR2.

I got a 15% discount from Adobe which made the upgrade $85 so I took the plunge. By the way, my original LR buy was an academic discount. I downloaded the standard LR upgrade from Adobe.com, plugged in the new serial number, LR automatically filled in my original serial # and I was set, no problems.

Anyway, I had a landscape of a sunset over Lake Powell as my wall paper. At 1900x1280 it was kind of grainy and noisy. I tweaked the sharpness and noise using the 2010 process in LR3 and saved that version as new wallpaper. What a difference. The clouds are smooth, the grain is gone, it is much better.

And, no speed problems so far, no memory problems, it works as well as LR2 and the results are better.

+1, I love it have have not issues.

I just bought LR3...so far I love it! It does everything I need, and when I want to do some serious PP, I just send it over to PS CS5. I finally have a program that is my library, editor, and much, much more!

LR3 is great, I love the customizable Headers and Buttons... great for client proofs...

One needs the right equipment to use LR3 and be efficient.

I have a fairly new computer I use strictly for editing/surfing. It is fast and so is LR3.

In a word, yes.

/thread

LR3 truly is an amazing program, i dabbled in LR2 before the betal for LR3 came out... it could be just because I A. changed to shooting 100% raw, and B. learned the program more but my capabilities are greater with LR3, the noise reduction is absolutely amazing

LR3 worth the upgrade. It is a great improvement in noise processing and the speed and stability is the same on my macbook pro (that I use for everything).

Sylvain

Here are two 100% crops of the photo I was talking about to show the difference.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Sorry, but if these are

Kent Clark wrote in post #10960299
100% crops of the photo I was talking about

... then I fail to see how this applies:

Kent Clark wrote in post #10953282
At 1900x1280 it was kind of grainy and noisy.

Seriously, I'd add noise to the second image.

Heck, velvia has more grain then this.

René Damkot wrote in post #10966346
Sorry, but if these are

... then I fail to see how this applies:


Seriously, I'd add noise to the second image.

Heck, velvia has more grain then this.

But, how do you really feel?

Rene, I can only go by what I see with my eyes. As wallpaper the LR2 file was grainier and noisier than the LR3 file and the comparison clearly shows that to be true.

Maybe it's because I never shot with film but I have no nostalgic fondness for Velvia or any other kind of film look. If you like it more power to you but it doesn't change what I posted or what I perceive as more pleasing. I admire the help and knowledge you share with everyone here at POTN but in this case I think you're out of line. Start your own thread to reminisce about grainy film, that's not what I was sharing here.

I think you might find that adding a bit of "noise" or "grain" back into an image actually helps, especially with areas in an image that are notorious for banding artifacts, like skies. And, as an extra, added bonus, guess what LR3.2 has for you in the Effects panel? A Grain control!

Cool huh?

Kirk

+1
compared to LR2, LR3 is so much better, and IMHO, the noise reduction is on par or better than stand alone and/or plugin for noise reduction software like Noise Ninja

Wow Kirk, grain is part of LR3? Who would have known if you hadn't chimed in? Maybe you ought to start your own thread as well, you could title it, "Pedantic observations about Lightroom 3"