# Still on Lightroom 3.6. Why should I upgrade?



## MichaelHodges (Aug 12, 2013)

I'm happy with IQ, GUI, and performance. I've mastered this version pretty well.

Is there a reason I need to "upgrade"?

Thanks.


----------



## Pi (Aug 12, 2013)

The main reason to go to v.4 (or 5) is the new controls - Highlights, Shadows, etc. It takes some time to get used to them but you can do more with them. 

I did not upgrade to LR5 (from 4) but I consider the 3->4 upgrade a major one.


----------



## swampler (Aug 12, 2013)

LR5 has a lot of improvements over 4. The ability to clone/heal more than circles is worth it alone. The improved lens correction ability is very nice as well. Download a trial and check it out. Also, watch some of the videos on Adobe and youtube showing the new features and decide for yourself.


----------



## Pi (Aug 12, 2013)

swampler said:


> LR5 has a lot of improvements over 4. The ability to clone/heal more than circles is worth it alone. The improved lens correction ability is very nice as well. Download a trial and check it out. Also, watch some of the videos on Adobe and youtube showing the new features and decide for yourself.



I had the beta 5 for about two months, I know.


----------



## darrellrhodesmiller (Aug 12, 2013)

on the surface you might not see much of a difference between 3.6->4 or 5.. but the underlying technology has been improved quite a bit. From what i understand.. and what i've seen.. the image processing underneath has changed. like someone else has mentioned, you have far more control over shadows and highlights.. you also have far better noise reduction and sharpening. The healing brush in v5 is much improved also. The radial tool is great for vignettes and enhancing just certain parts of an image. 

even with all these enhancements, ultimately its up to you. all these products have 30 day demos. give the demo a try.. but i encourage you not to just load the software up and continue using it the way you use v 3.6.. dig deep. get on the adobe site, youtube or whatever resources you have.. to really see what has changed.. and what the improvements are. if they are nothing you need or use.. no point in upgrading.. but if you find the new enhancements useful.. and give you the ability to push your work in a new direction it might be worth the time and money. 

there are plenty of people out there that drive cars 20+ yrs old.. and they see no point in upgrading .. same goes or this. there are plenty of people out there shooting very old cameras.. even shooting old film.. and they get the results they want. 

you dont always have to stay on the edge.. and chase the new stuff.


----------



## UrbanVoyeur (Aug 12, 2013)

MichaelHodges said:


> I'm happy with IQ, GUI, and performance. I've mastered this version pretty well.
> Is there a reason I need to "upgrade"?


Here's my experience:
V4 and v5 are crashsy. 5 is the most stable.
v4 and v5 are each successively faster with large collections.
v4 applies changes to raw files faster. v5 is about the same.
v4 and v5 each have successively better lens corrections, especially wide angle distortion
v4 and v5 produce successively better auto correction results.


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 12, 2013)

If you're happy with what you have, stay with what you have.

However, the newer lenses and bodies will only be supported by newer versions of Lightroom. Getting the 5DIII was a big factor for me in moving from LR 3 to 4.


----------



## Jim Saunders (Aug 12, 2013)

The perspective correction tool is worth the upgrade, particularly if you skipped LR4.

Jim


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 12, 2013)

Starting with LR4, Adobe uses a new RAW processor(2012 ver). The RAW images are noticibly better when processed with the new version. If ISO's are high, you need it. NR is also greatly improved.

I've used every version heavily on several PC's and never had crashing issues, its likely a computer problem if its crashing.

Version 5 added some useful features beyond version 4, both have lens correction that will correct distortions for various lenses. They also have a photobook feature and ver 4 will import videos, but link to a external player while ver 5 will play video. You can take a typical video frame and make color and other corrections and then copy the corrections to the entire clip. The improvement can be dramatic and it jst takes seconds.

Starting with ver 4, you can soft proof your images to correct out of gamut photos so that your print will match what you see on the screen. Its not a matter of a calibrated monitor, out of gamut colors print differently.

I'm sure there is more.


----------



## mdmphoto (Aug 12, 2013)

I've used every version since LR1. LR1-3 were fairly incremental changes, _(I teach a LR editing class so I needed to work with each version as it arrived)_ LR4 a bit more because of the process version and more robust tonal editing tools; 5 is even moreso, but the biggest feature is the new functionality of the cloning/healing brush tool which is very much content-aware, and no longer confined to a circular area. Whatever you draw over is cloned/healed. Also, each iteration has been noise-free than its predecessor. LR3 to LR4 was maybe not so necessary- especially if your camera bodies did not change. LR 5 is a substantially-enough upgrade to be easily justifiable - and you can go to 5 from as far back as LR3 for sure.


----------



## Harry Muff (Aug 12, 2013)

The splash screen is much, much nicer.




Come on, it's not a massive investment. ;D


----------



## bitm2007 (Aug 12, 2013)

Speaking from a pro landscape photographers perceptive I found the jump form v3 to v4 much more beneficial than that from v4 to v5. Many fellow photographers I know state the reverse have however, especially those who specialize in other forms of photography, such as portraiture and events.

The switch from process version 2010 (in v3) to process version 2012 (in v4 and v5), was massively beneficial to me. It now possible to develop much more detail out of both the highlights and shadow. The clarity sliders is also much more subtle, prior to version v4 I only used this in small amounts due to hallowing.

I've downloaded and used both v5 release candidates (5 and 5.2) extensively. I'm yet to be convinced that it's worth purchasing as a landscape photographer however. Vertical works well for some subjects but not all, the new healing/spot tools is no better than that in PS and I would rarely if ever use the new radial tool for landscapes. The new colour noise reduction slider added in v5.2 is useful however, so I haven't ruled out purchasing at the right price.


----------



## pedro (Aug 12, 2013)

I will purchase LR 5. Until now, I did all the RAW processing work via DPP. But I am changing my PC (8 years old) which runs CS2. Buying a 1TB i7 Dell notebook after Christmas I will enter LR-world. The tools I most commonly use in CS are included in LR as well. So I will hardly need CS anymore, for my type of photography whic is geared to ex maquina with slight adjustments in post: conversion to B/W, and NR. All that is possible in LR. And I sure guess it also contains a crop and resize tool, or doesn't it. I did not get so far to check that out yet.


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 12, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Starting with LR4, Adobe uses a new RAW processor(2012 ver). The RAW images are noticibly better when processed with the new version.



PV2012 isn't necessarily better, though it's easier in comparison to PV2010. If someone has a good workflow in the "old" process there's no pressing reason to upgrade, in PV2012 shadow/highlight controls are "intelligent" and "better", but less options mean that you need to do more local adjustments in comparison to the "old" ones.

To the op: You can do nr and perspective correction also in external applications and arguably better than in LR5, but for me the real killer reasons to upgrade are the healing brush (real brush, not only spots) and circular gradient instead of just linear - saves a lot of trips to photoshop and keeps the raw workflow.


----------



## bycostello (Aug 12, 2013)

yes... worth it just for the new clone tool....


----------



## pedro (Aug 12, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Starting with LR4, Adobe uses a new RAW processor(2012 ver). The RAW images are noticibly better when processed with the new version.
> ...



*@Marsu42:* As a non-LR user at the moment (see my post above) I guess I've read somewhere that NR via LR is more forgiving than DPP when it comes to details...In relation to what you stated above, is that the case? Or what are you refering to, saying one can do NR arguabilly better in any other application than LR 5?

At least I could answer my questing about adjusting tilted horizons... In LR 5;-) Like the 5D3 which I was able to pick up last August, LR 5 seems to be the perfect tool for me...hooray !
http://thelightroomlab.com/2013/06/fixing-tilted-slanted-and-skewed-photos-with-upright-in-adobe-photoshop-lightroom-5/


----------



## wsheldon (Aug 12, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Starting with LR4, Adobe uses a new RAW processor(2012 ver). The RAW images are noticibly better when processed with the new version. If ISO's are high, you need it. NR is also greatly improved.
> 
> I've used every version heavily on several PC's and never had crashing issues, its likely a computer problem if its crashing.
> 
> ...



Thanks for this overview. I've used all versions of LR through 4 as well, but the comments on 5 in this thread made me "bite" on the Adorama deal running right now ($99). I wasn't aware of the video editing tweaks, and now that I have a 6D that may be helpful. I really need the better healing/clonig tools, but this put it over the top.


----------



## Zv (Aug 12, 2013)

I was on v3.6 for the longest time and then I got an EOS M and needed to upgrade if I wanted to edit the RAW files. My mate had been telling me about v4 even before that but I hadn't bothered upgrading as v3.6 worked just fine. I'm glad I moved up now. Processing time has decreased and it seems a lot easier to get what you want. For me the absence of the fill slider threw me a bit but once I got used to the shadow and highlight sliders I wonder how I lived without it! Fill was so crude - it would just make everything lighter and didn't actually fill those shadows like you hoped it would. And recovery wasn't all that great either. I barely have to touch the exposure slider now (remember the old trick of underexposing then adding fill?). 

In short if you do even a moderate amount of post it will save you time and stress. Make the switch.


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 12, 2013)

pedro said:


> *@Marsu42:* As a non-LR user at the moment (see my post above) I guess I've read somewhere that NR via LR is more forgiving than DPP when it comes to details...In relation to what you stated above, is that the case? Or what are you refering to, saying one can do NR arguabilly better in any other application than LR 5?



LR5 denoising is very good, but still "dumb" - you have to use the brush with nr setting to get optimal results. If you are ok with breaking the raw workflow, plugins like noise ninja or topaz denoise are "smarter" as afaik they try to tell apart subject details & blurred background (= higher nr for the latter). Still, for 99% lr5 is just fine, but if you want commercial quality plugins or ps cc (with smart sharpen) might give you a little better results @100% crop.


----------



## pedro (Aug 12, 2013)

@Marsu42: Thanks for your explanation! Kind regards.


----------

