DSLRUsers.com

For us windows worlders, the beta 1 is available.

I got an email that supplied this link:

http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lightroom/?trackingid=IFQT

Not sure what the trackingid is on the end of that link, maybe my email account or similar.

Oh well, have a play


Rob

You beat me to it. I also just received the e-mail announcement. I'll down load it and have a play tonight. I'll let you know what I think tomorrow.

I've been using it on the Mac since beta 1 (now beta 3) - great for cataloging and general edits

Will look at the Windows version now at work

Since no amount of trying will get Capture NX to work for me I'll give this a go...

Downloading now

Paul

After playing for a few mins I think it's quite nice.

A step up from ACR.

Paul

I'm in love

This program is friggen awesome!

Tim

Very slow on my machine though (3500+, 3Gb ram). I'm sure it's because it' a beta.

i will have to give this a look in. i use the mac version and have been since beta 1.

seems a very neat program.
obviously it wont have the same visual effects that the mac can afford, but maybe on my work PC it will be a little smoother

\\EDIT: Windows XP SP2 needed for install

FRICK

NikonUser wrote:Very slow on my machine though (3500+, 3Gb ram). I'm sure it's because it' a beta.

It's an absolute pig on mine. I only have 1Gig, but a fair HD and processor etc. It must be a beta thing. In terms of what it's doing during these slow moments, something like picasa is diong 10x the work at 50x the speed

Looking forward to a usable beta....

Rob

Just Dl'd itmyself, yet to try, but I notice on the site they make specific mention of not being fine tuned for performance on Windoze yet.

We have not reached our performance goals on Windows and continue to work on improving speed in all aspects of the application.

Edit: Well I told it to import 230 images (approx 10Mb each). That was at 6:45. It just finished processing those images at 7:20 so that's 35 minutes to do the 230 images. During that time my processor was being hammered (between 45 and 65%) and I did NOTHING else. Nothing else was running either. I have a Pentium 4, 3.4Ghz and 2Gb of RAM. Not a slow machine and it performed like a dog. No wonder they have caveat about speed!

As an ex-user of RawShooter Premium it's freeeee to me when it ships!

Sounds like it's worth having a look now though.

Good thing I'm about to order a P3.4 with 4Gb RAM.

It is not responsive and I am suprised to say it, but less user friendly than NX.

I've felt its like a cross between Bridge and Aperture.

It's running ok on mine - 2000 pics in about 1/2 hour, I have a 4yo P2.4Ghz and a gig of RAM - but my library is on a seperate, newer hard dis - I also chose the 'reference original' in the import options.

I like it and think it has a lot of potential. It has a lot of functions that I've only glanced at so far, but certainly will be able to do more than Raw Shooter. It will take some learning though. It's very slow to the point of being painful, so I'll stick with Raw Shooter for now.

I converted the same picture in RSP and Lightroom for a comparison. It doesn't really prove anything, but the results were interesting none the less. I opened the same picture in both programs and applied an auto white balance and converted to TIFF. No other changes were made in the converters. I then opened them in PSPX and cropped and resized for posting.

Judge for yourself but on my monitor Lightroom produced the better result. I'm sure I could have gotten a similar result from RSP with a bit of tinkering though.

Lightroom.


RSP.


So I haven’t really proved anything and it will take a lot more conversions before I can say which is better. I think I'll be more than happy with the results from Lightroom though, and will happily start using it when they’ve got the release version up and running.

Have any of you who have tried this compared it with Dxo output?

Murray1006 wrote:Judge for yourself but on my monitor lightroom produced the better result. I'm sure I could have gotten a similar result from RSP with a bit of tinkering though.

On my monitor the RSP shot looks better as the lightroom edit seems to have a red cast to it eg. skin tones are too red and tiger has gone past orange where as the RSP edit looks more natural

Hmmm. I was thinking just the same thing about the Lightroom bein a bit warm Keith.

I'm about to download the PhotoDisc Target jpeg to test from HERE and compare auto in lightroom and auto in DxO paying particular attention to skin tones.

firsty wrote:

Murray1006 wrote:Judge for yourself but on my monitor lightroom produced the better result. I'm sure I could have gotten a similar result from RSP with a bit of tinkering though.

On my monitor the RSP shot looks better as the lightroom edit seems to have a red cast to it eg. skin tones are too red and tiger has gone past orange where as the RSP edit looks more natural

I agree that Lightroom isn't perfect but it's pretty close. I think RSP has a bit of a green cast to it. To my eye Lightroom is closer to the mark and to the shot I remember taking. She was wearing a pink and white top which I am currently holding, and the colours from lightroom are spot on for it. RSP hasn't got the pink right. The edge of the cupboard is red, RSP makes it look at little orange and the floor boards I'm looking at right now look too yellow. I'm not looking at a calibrated monitor, but what I see is very close to the actual colours.
Thanks for your feedback firsty. I'd be interested to hear what others think, because if the general consensus is that RSP is the better conversion, I'm going to get my monitor calibrated.

Murray

If you haven't done so before, don't wait - get your monitor calibrated.