Adobe Lightroom 4 Keygen Download
Latrisha Adan
Stay in the moment with generative AI in lightroom knowing you can create photos that look exactly the way you want. Remove anything in a click with new Generative Remove, without leaving a trace.
I want to download everything stored in my adobe lightroom cloud (about 107gb) to an external drive. Lightroom Downloader is the tool for that so I installed it. When I selected the destination folder it gives me an error that says "not enough space" despite the external drive having more than 2tb available. I have also tried saving to my Mac HD which I have 500gb available, and get the same error.
This might be a long shot, but how much space is on the internal drive? I know your final destination is the external drive, but perhaps Lightroom makes a temporary copy to the internal drive first? Yes, this is speculation, but I have a vague recollection of something about this. It may also be completely wrong.
So I just realized that currently I pay for 100gb of adobe cloud. And I am using 107gb, meaning I've been getting error messages saying the cloud is full and I need to upgrade my plan. I am wondering if this may be contributing to the issue? Either way though I should be able to remove the things that are in the cloud (because I don't want to upgrade). I didn't even want all these items there anyway, photos on my phone were automatically synced with creative cloud when I downloaded the Lightroom iOS app. Very frustrating....
Unfortunately, there is no other version of the Downloader available.
It is possible for the downloads to be created by us manually and emailed to you as a series of zip files. It is a very slow process however.
It looks like the Adobe Lightroom Downloader tries to make a copy on my internal disk, because she is now full...But I would like to use the external drive just because of the missing space on my internal drive. )I do not have 100 GB left there, but some 20 GB)
The files in the LR-cloud in total use 11,7GB in the cloud. The downloader app says, that my target-folder to download the files is not big enough. But it is, with 2 TG it should work. Can someone help?
Lightroom Classic is playing catch-up. AI-based masking had been around for a long time in programs like ON1 Photo Raw, but has only recently been released in Lightroom. Now, Adobe has turned its hand to noise reduction. Does it stand up to scrutiny?
My first DSLR I could use up to ISO 400 without the photos becoming too noisy to use. With my second, that leapt to ISO 800. I swapped to mirrorless Micro Four Thirds, and that doubled again to ISO 1,600, and then to ISO 3,200. I can use my OM-1 at ISO 6,400 or even 12,800 without thinking of applying noise reduction.
Adobe should have introduced this feature three years ago. Nevertheless, it will be a welcome addition for those who use Lightroom, especially if they use older cameras and shoot moving subjects in low light.
There were a couple of issues I found. Firstly, I was disappointed that the preview image did not fill the entire screen, something that does happen with ON1 and Topaz, although it is a complaint I've heard with Deep Prime. Worse than that, though, Lightroom's preview was unclear, so it was hard to judge the final outcome after processing. All the other programs I have used give a clear and precise preview of the final image.
Secondly, I have an old computer; I built it about eight years ago. Nevertheless, it has a quad-core Radeon R7 processor that runs at 3.4 GHz, 32 GB of RAM, and solid-state hard drives. Despite its age, it runs pretty quickly for most tasks. ON1 applies noise reduction almost immediately, DxO PhotoLab 6 Deep Prime takes a little longer, Topaz Denoise longer still, but they still work in seconds. Lightroom took 14 minutes to denoise some of the images. Those with newer machines will cut this time down considerably, but it shows that the Adobe noise reduction engine is slower than others I use. Photographers with older machines might think twice before employing it that often.
My tests were shot using different ISOs, conditions, and exposure settings, so I would get a variety of images to try. I'm using one image to illustrate my findings. It was shot at ISO 6,400, 1/12,800 second, at f/5. I used aperture priority and dialed in -1 EV.
I was eager to push the software further. So, I found the noisiest photo I had in my catalog. It was one I shot for the sole purpose of testing noise reduction software over four years ago, long before I started writing for Fstoppers.
Lightroom Classic AI Denoise did good work with noise reduction. On close inspection, it did remove more hot-pixel artifacts than other programs, but nowhere near all of them. There were many white speckles left on the image that I can see when pixel peeping. It also did a good job of removing the color noise, even if, once again, it left the image looking a bit muddy.
This was an extreme test. None of the programs were able to transform this very poor-quality image into a wall hanger. But it did give an idea of what could be achieved. Similarly, with all these tests, I was pixel-peeping, zooming in to 100%, something that is rarely necessary.
The Denoise function also comes with a Super Resolution option that allows you to increase the number of pixels in an image. As yet, I haven't tested that, and that will be a topic for a whole other article.
Something to remember is that this is just one element of an entire package. Lightroom is a great catalog-based asset management program, arguably the best available. It also does a reasonably good job of developing raw images, and it has a superb user interface for doing that.
In short, it will be a welcome addition to those dedicated Adobe users, but the question remains whether it is necessary. On the following cropped image shot at ISO 2,500, can you tell which has noise reduction applied and which hasn't?
A professional photographer, website developer, and writer, Ivor lives in the North East of England. His main work is training others in photography. He has a special interest in supporting people with their mental well-being. In 2023 he accepted becoming a brand ambassador for the OM System.
It does take a long time to run on my computer. The main issue I have seen is that if I try to run a second image, I get an error after several minutes. To deal with this I have to close and relaunch Lightroom if I want to denoise another image.
May I ask what camera you're shooting? My reason for asking is that I shoot raw files on a Sony a7III (24mp sensor uncompressed raws), my wife shoots raw files on a Sony a6500 (24mp sensor compressed raws), we each have our own PC, but they are identical. Her images take several minutes to denoise, mine take 30 to 45 seconds to denoise. I'm wondering why the difference and maybe, knowing what others are shooting, would help create an understanding.
Both machines were identical, drivers are fairly up to date (I'd be lying if I said we updated every time new drivers were released for the graphics cards, they do it way too often). I did find out today though that her machine is having issues with the hardware, the card is failing to load the graphics driver, so I imagine her times were without graphics acceleration. Thanks,
Nikon Z7ii, so it has 45.7 MP image. I don't know why one would take longer than the other. Are the both 14-bit? Maybe the RAW files are different in some way and they have to be processed differently.
Slight update, today she got a message that her graphics card wasn't found and I had a look at her machine...the graphics driver has been failing to load for some time now. I think I have the 'root cause' figured out. On the bright side, she'll be getting a new card, on the bad side, my machine will be the "old" one. :)
As for muddiness, I wouldn't call the image muddy but I would say soft. Topaz gave me almost identical results if I turned the sharpening to 1. Personally, if I decided to use LightRoom AI denoise, I'd run sharpening as a separate process - Less to go wrong.
If working with large files or many layers (basically anything where your work in progress will result in a .psb file, then photoshop can use a lot of RAM. Though if can be limited at the cost of extra writes on the SSD and slower performance.
If you do a lot of other work that is memory latency and throughput sensitive, you are looking at close to $280 for a decent 64GB kit where you will get good out of the box latency, but will have ample room to overclock the RAM and tighten the timings more depending on your airflow and temperature.
I used the Adobe AI noise reduction via ACR on a iso 12800 concert photo with a lot a shadow in it. It did reduce the noise better than the noise reduction from Capture one that I normally use. But it took my computer (a 2016 MacBook Pro , the base model 13 inch) four minutes to get a result that made the person in the shot look like a doll. I preferred the image with a bit more noise in it.
That is one of the issues I noticed with the noise reduction as well, compared to others such as topaz, it struggles more with skin textures. though it has fewer artifacts of mistaking noise for texture and trying detail enhancement on it. Sadly due to how it behaves, by the time you lower the slider enough to make the skin look proper, the rest of the image will have so much noise that you might as well not waste time waiting for the noise reduction to process.
Hi Nick, yes, I appreciate that a newer machine would give me better performance, and I should be upgrading later this year. However, there are other noise reduction apps that carry out their work almost immediately on my computer. Speaking to other users with faster machines, they are noticing the difference too. Other prograpms, expecially ON1, which gives a full screen preview too, is much faster.
I have managed to get the super resolution working but not in conjunction with denoise. I'm going to do comparison tests with other options to see if there is a difference in quality. Watch this space.
b1e95dc632