LR3 vs. LR2.7 default sharpness

[Wajeeha]

I am making the comparison of the image sharpness of a number of Nikon D300 and D700, NEF files after replacing from Lightroom 2.7 to Lightroom 3.

I though that the default configuration are not 'perfect' for entire images but I have been just surprised at the number of files for that the 2.7 version is quicker than the 3.0 interpretation. It is not only the absolute for the screen view but when adjusted to print this at 8x10 inches. In fact, if I captures some converted pictures and reconfigure the process version to 2003 then I regain the picture sharpness that I had previously within 2.7.

[lorenz]

Are you manipulating at 100%? Actually , the Process 2010 should contain more micro-detail at the time of removal of the noise reduction in the demosiacing. But I find and it seems difficult to believe that at 1:1 Process 2003 would seem "sharper" at the default sharpening configuration...Sorry, there is no doubt at you but it is simply not my experience at all. Fast is, there are some users are concerned because the Process 2010 is perhaps so much sharp if you have reconfigured the sharpening configuration of an image suggested default.

So, you really require to provide some sort of fact that you are getting the Process 2003 being quicker than Process 2010. Raw file with snapshots displaying different configurations preferred...

[Omari]

lorenz is right and I also wanted to discuss and share with you all. Just consider out that LR 2.7 (as well as ACR 5.7) is not the same previous processing received in LR 2.6 and ACR 5.6. The update to the .7 involves the demosiacing noise decreasing removal...but unless you have done the updates of the Process 2010 and you would not be getting the optimal noise deductions and improvements in quickness and Fill Light halo reduction...

[JAMES_911]

Yeah , I am going to evaluate this at 100%. After performing the conversion from 2.7 to 3.0. I have regenerated entire previews related to this . I even reconfigured the sharpening amount from (40, 0.8, 35, 0) to (50, 0.8, 0.50, 0). When I considered and measured the difference the I have just transported the complete size, TIFF images, ProPhotoRGB, 16-bits with the help of LR3 and a backup Lightroom 2.7 application and 2.7 catalog. The TIFFs, I then imported within the Photoshop CS4, overlaid and ordered them, elaborated them to 100% and 'snapped' from different one . The differences are terribly subtle.

[SUpER CoP]

On the exact level of effective noise decreasing, the new utility skip a softer image with the default configuration of "detail" within the NR utility and with the same frequent configurations.

To get back to parity, you have to make the maximum of "detail" in at least L-NR to 70-80 and that would be start from 50 and slightly increase frequent amount. According to me, optimal configurations are with detail near to the 80-90 and with a bit of an increase in the sharpening radius upon the old configurations (Just as 0.7-0.8 with PV2003, and like 0.9-1.2 with PV 2010). I would most specifically agree with the above member who is carrying optimal configuration the new utility allow you to find good sharpening, specifically way up there at the maximum special frequencies, but I got that I have to carry with another settings to get there.