I guess I was a little confused. The comparison on Dyxum was between process 2003 and the new one 2012, not between 2010 and 2012. I am using LR3 with process 2010 (and I did notice a big improvement when I upgraded to LR3.)UrsaMajor wrote:Take a look at Lightroom 3. That is where the dramatic improvement in processing was made, IMO, and LR3 runs fine on XP. I admit that it looks as if there are also some nice improvements between LR3 and LR4, but I don't think that these are in the area in which you seem to be most concerned.twm47099 wrote:One reason I was interested in LR4 was based on some comparisons on DYXUM of high ISO shots processed with the raw engine from LR2 vs the new one in LR4 -- essentially much less noise while still retaining fine detail (although the change in exposure adjusting controls doesn't impress me.)
Personally, I am also debating what to do, as my computer runs on XP and I have no other reason to move to Windows 7 at this time - although I also see no compelling reason to prefer Bibble over Lightroom, so switching is not attractive to me at this time.
With best wishes,
- Tom -
So without a comparison of process 2010 and 2012 I'll just be content with what I have.
One thing I don't like about LR3 (and LR1 and rawshooter before that) is that there is a blocky sub pattern in the converted raws. It's not very prominent, but it is there and capture sharpening can really bring it out. Since I haven't printed directly from LR, but instead export as TIFFS to Paintshop Pro X2 for final processing, sharpening, and printing, I wonder if the LR sharpening for printing makes the blocky pattern noticeable. I never noticed that blocky sub pattern when I converted my dimage 7 or KM7D raws using dpreview (but they both show it with LR and rawshooter.)
tom