Lightroom 5 Vs Lightroom 6

$10 a month and never fret about upgrades again with the CC subscription.

Thomas, I do get your points and you're not wrong - I didn't go into the details. LR6's "HDR Merge" is specifically designed to NOT produce typical over-the-top HDR. What it does is combine multiple raw files into a single image with greatly extended dynamic range - you can see that the Exposure slider then goes a lot farther in both directions. So far, so good. But to combine those multiple images into one, it creates mask layers behind the scenes (probably using the same code as PS) and an algorithm attempts to select the optimum sections of each image. The problem is that it doesn't do a totally great job, and you can't edit (or even see) those layer masks as you could in PS. The resulting composite image can seem pretty good at first glance. But at 100%, you'll find errors and anomalies in the masking - like banding, or a very noisy patch of a dark area right next to a good one. If you could just edit those masks, you could hand-tune things. But you can't. So, in my estimation, it's just a cool toy. To get a final image that I actually could sell (and print) here on FAA I still need to do my HDR work in PS Elements, with hand-created layer masks.

Like they say: "close, but no cigar". At first I was really excited, but when I looked close, it was like my popsicle melted in the sun. :-(

There are also a couple of new brushes - the 'gradient' brush is useful. I just thought the release was pretty darn thin for $80.

I've encountered banding on several occasions using various blending software. The noisy patches seem to be more common amongst Canon bodies in lower ISO, Nikon's in very high ISO settings. (D610 and D810 address the high ISO noise) The VERY noisy patches would be an issue. Just had this conversation with Dave Mangels and John Vose at the Berkshire Art Festival. He's a Canon user, and was adamant that Canon needs to improve on their Dynamic range capability.

My preference is the more difficult and time consuming exposure blending method. Of course, not for every image or scene but reserved for truly difficult lighting situations.

I recently blended a sunrise scene from the Five Mile Point Lighthouse in Connecticut. Sturdy tripod, I recorded the scene at ISO 50. My best results came from using only 4 NEF's and not using the most underexposed file to preserve the colors in the sky. Wasn't necessary at all :)

This is about as over-the-top as I like to get with HDR. Even this one is a bit much for my taste.

Kathleen this image is tastefully processed.

I haven't noticed any halos or extreme detail artifacts.

Kathleen, that's not dialed too high by any means, it's dramatic and just slightly realer-than-real - exactly what HDR was supposed to be.

Here's one I actually did with LR6 (and a fisheye lens). It's a public building in Minneapolis, with a wide dynamic range when you're standing inside on a clear day. So yes, LR6's HDR works - but I didn't challenge it much in this case.

Jim, I apologize! I just saw your post. That is a really outstanding image!

I decided to go ahead and get Lightroom 6. Shipped today and am looking forward to using it. Playing with Topaz Adjust today and glad I bit the bullet. FInd that it works well in conjunction with PS CS6 and NIK. Getting a bit more detail teased out. Now if I can incorporate Lightroom into the workflow, maybe I'll cover all the bases.

I'm with Ed on this. I switched to cc and never looked back.

After using Lightroom since the very first beta (and every version since then), I'm now looking at C1 Pro. The attraction for me is the RAW processing engine in C1, which far exceeds that in LR. I did look at C1 a few years ago and it didn't tempt me, but there've been some big improvements since. The problem is that my workflow and cataloguing is now entrenched in LR and it'll probably take a big shift, not to mention the learning curve, over to C1. After a few initial hiccups I'm slowly getting my head around the way C1 does things. The cataloguing and keywording aspects are going to be a real pain though, especially when trying to shift my existing catalogue over from LR. Watch this space!

So Dave, does that mean that C1 Pro is a more robust engine than ACR for RAW processing? Please keep us posted.

I opened a thread just yesterday on C1 Pro vs LR. I'll probably update it as I progress. It's still early days and I'm working my way through the C1 tutorials. Here's the thread:

http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=2612711

And here's a side by side RAW comparison between LR CC (left image) and C1Pro8 (right image). This is a straightforward Nikon D810 NEF file import with no adjustments, just to see how each engine handles the file.

http://www.davebowmanphotography.com/files/7126/lan0726sample.jpg

I'm a guy who always used Lightroom for most editing and other products for layers, HDR, and stacking. Now I subscribe to CC and have LR, PS, ACR and Bridge. All I'll ever need.

Dave, I'm wondering how C1 Pro stacks up against Adobe Camera Raw for RAW processing. I always do the initial RAW edits in ACR before opening in Photoshop CS6.

Wow Dave! That is amazing! You have thinking now.

The difference between LR6 and C1, in those examples, is obvious. But this shows the default processing - you could modify the LR6 output to look like the C1 output, if you prefer. I don't really think there's a single 'canonical' way to view a raw image on a computer display - it's always going to be 'cooked' to some degree, because of the limitations of graphics hardware. So LR6 and C1 clearly make different initial decisions - but how significant is that, really? Maybe on my hardware, I'd prefer the initial look of LR6 over C1. Or if not, I could change LR6's default processing to something with a different curve. It looks like C1 'cooks' it a little more by default, with more saturation and a steeper middle region on the luminance curve.

Clearly they're different - but I'm reluctant to say one is objectively "better".

Good point Jim. I am certainly going to investgate more.

Kathleen - there are considerably more options to fine tune RAW images in C1. It's a more complete package. I'd suggest taking a look at it then you can decide for yourself - they have a free 30 day trial period.

Jim - I have struggled to get images in LR CC to look as good as what C1 produces off the bat. You may be able to get there, but as C1 uses algorithms specifically tailored to the camera sensor it's much better equipped to do the job (IMO)

This may sound like I'm very pro-C1. That's not really the case. I've only just started using it myself and I'm in the process of running some tests. It's just become apparent from the off that the RAW processing engine seems far superior to that of LR.

I just found this article on PetaPixel, which is quite recent. It seems to have a bit more info in it:

http://petapixel.com/2015/07/16/why-i-stopped-using-the-dng-file-format/

I have been using many programs like rawtherapee zoner etc. But now I am with CC photographer program. It is much better than anything, workflow is much faster.
And results are good. Well there is still much to improve, but I am pleased.

This not even a real HDR, because it was not neccesary for this scene.

I think LR wins on simplicity Martin. The jury is still out on whether it wins on results.