[Anvh]

I don't really understand all of the hate towards the review

I won't call it a review, a review test things but this is just explaining some features, it doesn't tell which features are new or in what way they are improved over LR3 and they even missed some of new features all together.

So i really can't rate the review highly.
DPreview did a much better job with he same concept.
Lightroom 4 Public Beta: What's New: Digital Photography Review

[Den]

Thought I would give this program a tryout but it can't be used with XP, sooo I'll stick with PhotoPlus X4 and X5 until I get a new PC (which wont be anytime soon I hope). I see that Lightroom 3 will work with my system (XP, 3GB Ram,Pentium IV 2.8), but someday I'm sure I will have to get new faster stuff, then maybe try it out. (Lightroom 4).

[torpesco]

I don't know who wrote the review but I don't like it as much as many do.

I am not aware if people know that there is a fight over at Adobe forums whether it is a good idea that LR4 tries to hide complexity in a way that more advanced users loose track of what's going on under the hood.

Esp., LR4 shows everything as zero/linear while it really is a default profile which already applies rather strong deviations from the initial gamma tone curve. LR3 showed this as non-zero/non-linear brightness, contrast, black level and contrast curve which many ask to be kept.

Moreover, brightness was renamed to exposure, the scale was changed to EV and LR3 exposure was dropped. Which means that effective ISO cannot be adjusted like using the LR3 exposure slider.

LR4 is LR retargeted to novice users with support for pro users lagging behind. I cannot appreciate a review which doesn't mention it.

That's a bit concerning. I hope all my processed photos come out looking the same and that there's some way to get very similar control. The exposure adjustment control is the one I use most. Sometimes even the only one on a photo. I generally think my K-r gives very good colours in the DNG.

[Class A]

I hope all my processed photos come out looking the same and that there's some way to get very similar control.

All your photos will be in PV2010 (PV = process version) and you'll be able to use the old controls.

Only photos you migrate to PV2012, will get the new controls and will be rendered differently.

[falconeye]

The exposure adjustment control is the one I use most. Sometimes even the only one on a photo.

Don't mind, that's the use case LR4 had in mind when Adobe changed the process to PV2012.

The new exposure slider is meant to yield more satisfactory results for users not doing many additional adjustments. E.g., it doesn't clip the highlights as much as LR3 did. My point was that the operation isn't as easy to understand anymore and that a simple ISO adjustment is difficult now.

[Anvh]

That's a bit concerning. I hope all my processed photos come out looking the same and that there's some way to get very similar control. The exposure adjustment control is the one I use most. Sometimes even the only one on a photo. I generally think my K-r gives very good colours in the DNG.

All the controls are different so you need to find a new workflow.
One good thing is though photo looks more natural, one thing that is for example noticeable is that you've much less halos also it's less likely to clip the highlights now and colours seems to be hold better.
So there are things to gain.

[Anvh]

My point was that the operation isn't as easy to understand anymore and that a simple ISO adjustment is difficult now.

When you select the slider you see in the histogram the area it effects so it isn't that hard and the sliders in LR4 are more tuned to only effect that part with LR3 some like fill-light for example also pushed the midtones that's something shadows doesn't.
You can also click in the histogram and then slide around.

[falconeye]

You can also click in the histogram and then slide around.

I know, but moving an entire histogram in a linear way is conceptually a lot easier.

Shifting some parts of the histogram with respect to others is normally the task of contrast and level tools. In LR4 you can leave them all at zero and still get an unknown tone curve. No prob for people working in a try and error fashion. But a real headache for people who know what they do.

[qtopplings]

Lightroom 3 takes up 100.9 MB on my Mac. Lightroom 4 Beta? 943 MB???? Are they kidding? Adobe is the king of bloatware. Holy crap, LR4 better be 10X better then LR3.

[robgo2]

I don't know who wrote the review but I don't like it as much as many do.

I am not aware if people know that there is a fight over at Adobe forums whether it is a good idea that LR4 tries to hide complexity in a way that more advanced users loose track of what's going on under the hood.

Esp., LR4 shows everything as zero/linear while it really is a default profile which already applies rather strong deviations from the initial gamma tone curve. LR3 showed this as non-zero/non-linear brightness, contrast, black level and contrast curve which many ask to be kept.

Moreover, brightness was renamed to exposure, the scale was changed to EV and LR3 exposure was dropped. Which means that effective ISO cannot be adjusted like using the LR3 exposure slider.

LR4 is LR retargeted to novice users with support for pro users lagging behind. I cannot appreciate a review which doesn't mention it.

I do not use LR, and I doubt that I will be drawn to the new version, but isn't it true that all of the big commercial raw convertors apply default adjustments that are hidden from the user? I know this to be true of Aperture, DxO and Capture One. (Raw Therapee does the same, even if it is not a commercial product.) The idea is to produce a well exposed, good contrast image right from the start, and this is what most users want, even many who would be considered experts. There are some relatively obscure programs that do not follow this practice but rather deliver an unadjusted image straight from the raw file. But these programs never gain a large following, because they are too demanding. The absolute best raw convertor that I know is Raw Photo Processor (RPP), which delivers an unadulterated image and has very few features. It is freeware and has a small, but devoted following. Yet it could never be commercially successful, which seems to be perfectly fine with the developers.

Rob

[falconeye]

isn't it true that all of the big commercial raw convertors apply default adjustments that are hidden from the user?

Rob, that's true. But in LR3, it wasn't totally hidden from the user. LR3's default adjustments simply aren't zero. Even at zero, LR3 tone curve isn't exactly a gamma tone curve, but it is close enough.

[robgo2]

Rob, that's true. But in LR3, it wasn't totally hidden from the user. LR3's default adjustments simply aren't zero. Even at zero, LR3 tone curve isn't exactly a gamma tone curve, but it is close enough.

Falk,

I am not very familiar with LR3, but I occasionally mess around with ACR in CS5. However, I much prefer Capture One as my main raw convertor. All initial settings in C1 are at zero with the exception of sharpening and noise reduction. The tonal curve is a straight line, even though it is obvious that some sort of adjustment has been made. This may be unsatisfying to sophisticated users such as yourself, but most others merely want to get a good looking image with as little effort (and thinking) as possible. I consider myself to be reasonably adept at digital editing, although I am not a technical wizard by any stretch of the imagination. I find C1's adjustment tools to be excellent and very simple to understand and use. They are suitable for both novices and experienced users, and I expect that the same will be true of the tools in LR4 (although I cannot believe that they eliminated Brightness).

Rob
Robert Goldstein Photography