# Adobe Lightroom 4.1 & Camera RAW 7.1 Final Released



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 31, 2012)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=10061"></g:plusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=10061" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-bottom: 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=10061"></a></div>
<strong>The Adobe® Photoshop® Lightroom® 4.1 update includes these enhancements:</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>The ability to process HDR TIFF files. (16, 24 or 32-bit TIFF files)</li>
<li>Additional Color Fringing corrections to help address chromatic aberration.</li>
<li>Save photobooks created in the Book Module to JPEG</li>
<li>Publishing photos to Adobe Revel is now accessible via a Publish plugin</li>
<li>Additional camera support for several new cameras including the Canon EOS 5D Mark III, Fujifilm X-Pro1, Nikon D800, and Olympus OM-D E-M5.</li>
<li>Corrections for issues introduced in previous versions of Lightroom.</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Download: <a href="http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=5393&PID=4137899" target="_blank">PC</a> | <a href="http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=5392&PID=4137899" target="_blank">Mac</a></strong></p>
<p><strong>Camera Raw 7.1 Update

</strong>This new version of the Camera Raw plug-in replaces the original Camera Raw plug-in that was installed with Adobe® Creative Suite® 6, Adobe Photoshop® CS6.</p>
<p>Support for the following cameras has been added in this update. Visit the Camera Raw page for a complete list of supported cameras.</p>
<ul>
<li>Canon EOS 1D X</li>
<li>Canon EOS 5D Mark III</li>
<li>Canon EOS 60Da</li>
<li>Canon PowerShot G1 X</li>
<li>Canon PowerShot S100V</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Download: <a href="http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=5391&PID=4137899" target="_blank">PC</a> | <a href="http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=5390&PID=4137899" target="_blank">Mac</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 31, 2012)

I've been using the updated LR4.1 for several hours today. It is working fine, no issues for me.


----------



## bleedo (May 31, 2012)

Fine here as well...generally never have issues with LR but definitely was anxious to get the update for the Mark III ...


----------



## dstppy (May 31, 2012)

What is the PowerShot S100V, a typo?

Don't see anything about it on their website.


----------



## cayenne (May 31, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I've been using the updated LR4.1 for several hours today. It is working fine, no issues for me.



What's the going price on this?


----------



## squarebox (May 31, 2012)

cayenne said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I've been using the updated LR4.1 for several hours today. It is working fine, no issues for me.
> ...



It's a free update to 4.0, but if you are askign about LR in general, it's $100usd


----------



## drs (May 31, 2012)

Tiff as 32bit/c, seriously... (nearly) everyone in the VFX or Professional world dealing with HDR on a daily basis is using OpenEXR.
Well, I 'm glad they did not used the 4*8bit/c RGBE or ".hdr" (radiance) format, that would be really horrible.

I might sound not fair here, sorry about that, but when will Adobe arrive in the 32bit/c float age? With that I have in mind that everything, e.g., filters and tools, are able to work with 32bit/c float.

HDRI is certainly one of the most promising options these days. It is in use all over the place, but to work properly with it, 3rd party applications are needed, e.g. PhotomatixPro, which is great and I wonder why Ps or Lr misses out so many of these workflow option.

End of Rant  Sorry about that again, eruptions like that happen to me more an more, using Adobe stuff since 2 decades by now: I'm growing impatient ;o)


----------



## Marsu42 (May 31, 2012)

drs said:


> End of Rant  Sorry about that again, eruptions like that happen to me more an more, using Adobe stuff since 2 decades by now: I'm growing impatient ;o)



Adobe will only get worse, because they've got a rock solid monopoly now - think of their refusal to fix security issues in CS5.5 until the community and press echo made them think otherwise. But it is indeed atypical of them not to buy out or integrate the competition into their product line, I guess Photomatrix is too good at what it's doing that Adobe couldn't follow.


----------



## Arkarch (May 31, 2012)

If it works faster than fifty monks working on parchment, I guess I am happy.

Patiently waiting for fourth generation chips so Adobe can cripple my workflow again.


----------



## 96Brigadier (May 31, 2012)

Any sharpness comparisons between 5DIII raws with the new ACR and DPP? I found the beta versions of ACR weren't giving me the sharpness that I could get with DPP.


----------



## K-amps (May 31, 2012)

96Brigadier said:


> Any sharpness comparisons between 5DIII raws with the new ACR and DPP? I found the beta versions of ACR weren't giving me the sharpness that I could get with DPP.



and on that note, how are the shadow pulls, or do we still need to go the DPP=>TIFF=>CS route ?


----------



## RyanCrierie (May 31, 2012)

I have Photoshop CS5 with ACR 6.7, which can read 5D3 RAW files.

What's the big difference between ACR 6.7 and ACR 7.1, other than it only being available with Adobe's CS6 generation products?


----------



## sleepnever (May 31, 2012)

Applied the update on my Win7 box. No problems so far.


----------



## kmyers1us (Jun 1, 2012)

I have been waiting and I want to upgrade from 3.6, but am still weary of performance. Can anyone comment on:
1) performance on a macbook pro compared to 3.6. I use only my laptop screen and no second monitor. Does switching from photo to photo in develop module work as fast as it does in 3.6?
2) library/keyword import problems when upgrading from 3.6
3) any other glitches?


----------



## drs (Jun 1, 2012)

Hey Marsu42,

Thanks for the reply, I felt a little bit bad about my rant, but obviously I'm not alone. In my very own fantasy Adobe has everything ready to go, but release only as much as needed to get us wanted to have the next update.
Well, fantasy, the reality is, I can't really dive into my mood about it, as they really have a monopoly on it, and to stay healthy, "one" has to get comfortable with those things, ...but a little bit barking from time to time is needed )
If I had only a Curve-adjustment-layer in 32bit, I would be so much happier (Hey Adobe, check out The Foundries NUKE! They know how to do stuff like that, and it works!)

Have a good one



Adobe will only get worse, because they've got a rock solid monopoly now - think of their refusal to fix security issues in CS5.5 until the community and press echo made them think otherwise. But it is indeed atypical of them not to buy out or integrate the competition into their product line, I guess Photomatrix is too good at what it's doing that Adobe couldn't follow.
[/quote]


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 1, 2012)

drs said:


> Thanks for the reply, I felt a little bit bad about my rant, but obviously I'm not alone.



 No, you are not alone - this is what happens when you have a monopoly and the governments don't care about it. Things went downhill after they acquired Aldus, and hit the fan after the Macromedia merger. They even shut down better products like Freehand! The last one standing left is Apple, they lowered the price of Aperture, and Adobe had to follow with Lightroom.

But there's a lesson to be learned here: Let's hope Nikon & Sony stay or get competitive, or we'd be stuck with Canon in the same corner...


----------



## Viggo (Jun 1, 2012)

I think noisehandling and overall IQ of the 5d3 is better with Lr 4.1. I don't have an exact science to say what is improved by how much, but I feel images are sharper, but not seriously dramtically better, I still think DPP will produce sharper images, but I can do a test later. Noise I feel is better handled.


----------



## jm345 (Jun 1, 2012)

Downloaded the latest LR 4.1 but I don't see any improvement in speed for things like viewing at 100%. In Library it takes way too long to go from Loupe View to 100% - as long as 5 seconds.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 1, 2012)

jm345 said:


> Downloaded the latest LR 4.1 but I don't see any improvement in speed for things like viewing at 100%. In Library it takes way too long to go from Loupe View to 100% - as long as 5 seconds.



Is your problem that it takes to long to render 1:1 views or that even after library->previews->render 1:1 zooming is slow?


----------



## drs (Jun 1, 2012)

Hey Marsu42,

Yes Aldus and Macromedia, but if you take a look how many products they have now. Incredible, and I believe the reason why they lost focus.
I wish Apple would not focus on consumers so much (I love Apple) but the current development (FCPX) is scary.

Lets hope that Adobe is soon out of its growing pain and put more engineers on the software, than product manager.

Take care.


----------



## MrKorney (Jun 1, 2012)

96Brigadier said:


> Any sharpness comparisons between 5DIII raws with the new ACR and DPP? I found the beta versions of ACR weren't giving me the sharpness that I could get with DPP.



I believe from my experience (I am still very amateur at this) that the with LR 4.1 that the sharpness is up to par with DPP when converting to a 16 bit TIFF. What did catch my eye is how much sharper the CR2 file was after NR in 4.1 compared to the TIFF; I wouldn't go so far to call it night and day, but a drastic difference (even for non-pixel peepers). It would be great if someone else can confirm this and or this is a given differences in TIFF to RAW.


----------



## K-amps (Jun 1, 2012)

MrKorney said:


> 96Brigadier said:
> 
> 
> > Any sharpness comparisons between 5DIII raws with the new ACR and DPP? I found the beta versions of ACR weren't giving me the sharpness that I could get with DPP.
> ...



Sorry I am a bit dense... but did you find the Cr2 sharper or the Tiff sharper? was the Tiff converted in 4.1 or DPP?


----------



## jm345 (Jun 1, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> jm345 said:
> 
> 
> > Downloaded the latest LR 4.1 but I don't see any improvement in speed for things like viewing at 100%. In Library it takes way too long to go from Loupe View to 100% - as long as 5 seconds.
> ...



Well here is my problem. I would like to review all my RAW or JPG files quickly. If I go one by one in LR it takes 5 seconds for LR to display each one at 100%. OTOH, I just did library->previews->render 1:1 for 70 5dMKIII files and it took about 5 minutes for that process to complete. So I am just disappointed that LR is not meeting my workflow needs.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 1, 2012)

jm345 said:


> Well here is my problem. I would like to review all my RAW or JPG files quickly. If I go one by one in LR it takes 5 seconds for LR to display each one at 100%. OTOH, I just did library->previews->render 1:1 for 70 5dMKIII files and it took about 5 minutes for that process to complete. So I am just disappointed that LR is not meeting my workflow needs.



Well, LR certainly takes its time when rendering 1:1 previews, esp. on non-turbocharged hardware - however, with 5sec per shot, you're still way faster then my trusty ol' laptop :-o ... but you can work around this, at least a bit:

* disable nr and esp. sharpening when importing files, this speeds up rendering time considerably. Only add sharpening and nr when you've got pictures reviewed and are in the last stages of postprocessing

* render 1:1 previews when importing and/or in advance and do other meaningful things during that time like drinking coffee


----------



## jm345 (Jun 1, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> jm345 said:
> 
> 
> > Well here is my problem. I would like to review all my RAW or JPG files quickly. If I go one by one in LR it takes 5 seconds for LR to display each one at 100%. OTOH, I just did library->previews->render 1:1 for 70 5dMKIII files and it took about 5 minutes for that process to complete. So I am just disappointed that LR is not meeting my workflow needs.
> ...



Thanks for the suggestions.


----------



## MrKorney (Jun 4, 2012)

K-amps said:


> MrKorney said:
> 
> 
> > 96Brigadier said:
> ...


I found that the CR2's stayed sharper after adding noise reduction (processed in LR 4.1) than did the Tiffs (processed with dpp, then opened up in LR). Before noise reduction, they were very similar.


----------



## K-amps (Jun 4, 2012)

Thanks! 

Based on this; Buying 4.1 now


----------



## jm345 (Jun 4, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> jm345 said:
> 
> 
> > Well here is my problem. I would like to review all my RAW or JPG files quickly. If I go one by one in LR it takes 5 seconds for LR to display each one at 100%. OTOH, I just did library->previews->render 1:1 for 70 5dMKIII files and it took about 5 minutes for that process to complete. So I am just disappointed that LR is not meeting my workflow needs.
> ...



Can you tell me how to disable nr and sharpening when importing files - I haven't found those options for Import. And I would have thought the default for any processing during Import would have been "off"?


----------



## K-amps (Jun 4, 2012)

In 3.6 that I have, it is off by default i.e. Sharpness = 0. I wonder how you are seeing it as sharpened for RAWS (Since sharpening for Jpegs happens via Camera settings), which ones did you use?


----------



## jm345 (Jun 4, 2012)

My settings in LR 4.1 are all default. I don't see where there are options for sharpening or NR during Import. And I don't understand why they would affect the time it takes to render 1:1 previews once they are imported to LR.

Does LR apply camera settings for jpgs by default?

My issue is it takes way to long for CR2 files and Jpgs to render at 1:1 previews as you review them individually. And WAY too long to do them in bulk first.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 5, 2012)

jm345 said:


> My settings in LR 4.1 are all default. I don't see where there are options for sharpening or NR during Import. And I don't understand why they would affect the time it takes to render 1:1 previews once they are imported to LR.



You have to create a development profile yourself with nr and sharpening off (dev module with some pic, sharpening & nr to 0, create preset, tag both and maybe autotone), and then select this to apply during import, or else lr will use its own defaults with both on. 

On import, there is a selection if you want to render minimal, standard or 1:1 previews. Once you've got 1:1 rendered, it should persist *until* you do the tiniest adjustment which will fore a re-render - that's why turning nr & sharpening off until the end helps.


----------



## K-amps (Jun 5, 2012)

Marsu: Does 4.1 apply some sharpening by default? Is this different from 3.6?


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 5, 2012)

K-amps said:


> Marsu: Does 4.1 apply some sharpening by default? Is this different from 3.6?



I don't remember exactly what LR3 did (I uninstalled it), but LR generally uses some default nr & sharpening settings that work reasonably well, you only might have to tune nr down or up according to your iso setting & target export size. There's a plugin "bulk develop settings" which does nr according to iso automatically, btw. 

The only problem is that the Adobe guys sure have 8-core 4ghz watercooled systems, while the average guy like poor me is well advised to temporarily set nr & sharpening to zero while doing cropping & other adjustments.


----------



## Goshdern (Jun 5, 2012)

Well after using the official 4.1 for several days now I'm happy to report the only issue I had (it was never slow on my machine) is resolved. No more 99% usage on my 24gigs of memory! I'm back to never seeing more then maybe 40% usage with several browsers open, LR4.1, CS6, bridge, and Elements 10 (all being used).

I do find it odd when people using 2 and 3 year old machines wonder why it's slow... you buy the most up to date camera and software, well you have to update computers, to _current_ technology, every 2 years unless you spend $3k+ in which case you might get 3 years outta that machine. That's just for the box people, a good editing monitor is going to run another thousand minimum. But that's what it takes to run this software and get competative results with your peers. Photography isn't a cheap person's hobby/business. You get the best results from the best equipment. Or I may be full of it, wouldn't be the first time! I still hold on to the belief I am going to find a mint 50mm 1.0L at a garage sale on an old body for $5 hehe. woot!

LR4.1 and CS6 have my vote in the "kick ass" column.


----------



## Razor2012 (Jun 5, 2012)

Goshdern said:


> Well after using the official 4.1 for several days now I'm happy to report the only issue I had (it was never slow on my machine) is resolved. No more 99% usage on my 24gigs of memory! I'm back to never seeing more then maybe 40% usage with several browsers open, LR4.1, CS6, bridge, and Elements 10 (all being used).
> 
> I do find it odd when people using 2 and 3 year old machines wonder why it's slow... you buy the most up to date camera and software, well you have to update computers, to _current_ technology, every 2 years unless you spend $3k+ in which case you might get 3 years outta that machine. That's just for the box people, a good editing monitor is going to run another thousand minimum. But that's what it takes to run this software and get competative results with your peers. Photography isn't a cheap person's hobby/business. You get the best results from the best equipment. Or I may be full of it, wouldn't be the first time! I still hold on to the belief I am going to find a mint 50mm 1.0L at a garage sale on an old body for $5 hehe.  woot!
> 
> LR4.1 and CS6 have my vote in the "kick ass" column.



Unfortunately you just missed a Canon EF 50mm F1 on eBay, the guy was asking $4950.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 5, 2012)

Goshdern said:


> But that's what it takes to run this software and get competative results with your peers. Photography isn't a cheap person's hobby/business. You get the best results from the best equipment. Or I may be full of it, wouldn't be the first time!



I don't know if you are keen on trolling, but this is really bs even for an enthusiast's forum if I may say to. While it might take some $$$ to get hq action shots, this isn't necessarily the case for other styles of photography. And running the inexpensive LR (not PS!) on an older box is perfectly fine, it just takes longer to process the shots, but you can work around this a bit. The problem with LR4 was (and to a lesser extent: is) that it's not just "slow", but grinded to a halt after some time running.


----------



## bohaiboy (Jun 7, 2012)

Anyone know how long the free trial download is good for?


----------



## bohaiboy (Jun 11, 2012)

Ok maybe a dumb question here, but is RAW 7.1 a standalone program or part of CS6?

Thanks


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 11, 2012)

bohaiboy said:


> Ok maybe a dumb question here, but is RAW 7.1 a standalone program or part of CS6?



Neither, Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) is used in three products with different angles. It's fixed-built into Lightroom and the free Adobe DNG Converter so you need a new main program version to upgrade it, while you can update it separately from PS. PS is just installed with the ACR version that happened to be current on the PS release date.


----------

