Lr 2.0 - are pictures not as sharp?

[azpix]

looking at pictures withing 2.', is it just me or do they not look as sharp?

 

[Braders]

Render the image at 1:1 zooming in and zoom out to standard preview size, and see if that makes a difference in your perception.

 

[bsteinagel]

Try zooming the image to 25% (1:4 ratio). If you're trying to gauge how sharp your photo will appear in print, this ratio most accurately reflects how your image will look on paper. Generally, you want to avoid the "odd" ratios when viewing your image on screen because of the aliasing that occurs due to the way the software resizes the image.

 

[zetzetone]

Im sorry, but Azpix seems to be right. I noticed this too.
When I take the same picture(NEF) in NX2 for example, same size -> it's way more brilliant/sharper. Not subjective at all.
Why should I be doing tricks like 1:1 then 25% or full preview etc.
and lie to myself in 'perception'. This is a photo (!) application ..
Apparently Im allowed to see the 'real' picture when I print or when I export to tiff etc.
But compared with 1.4, it is the same in non-brilliance.
Is there a reason for this?

 

[Braders]

When I take the same picture(NEF) in NX2 for example, same size -> it's way more brilliant/sharper. LR is not NX2...its processing pipeline is different, so the way an image looks in one compared to the other will be different.

Why should I be doing tricks like 1:1 then 25% or full preview etc.
and lie to myself in 'perception'. LR requires that 1:1 previews be built for certain intents.

This is a photo (!) application..
But compared with 1.4, it is the same in non-brilliance.
Is there a reason for this? So, nothings changed in your perception of how LR has behaved at all then?

The point here is to allow someone to help. You will see that here in this forum people are far more polite and willing to troubleshoot than in the adobe u2u. Start by filling out your signature so we know what your system specs etc are.

 

[zetzetone]

Braders: You are saying many things in your answer.
But -to me- the most important one is that you have no real reason for LR2 (or LR1) having less clearer pictures than any other raw-app I have tried since LR2Slow being so buggy. Mac or PC. While working in LR1 I never had the urge to try out other apps.
I simply agree with azpix. Thats all. If someone has a trick to solve this, or can give me a solid reason why. Fine. And yes: there is to me -in that matter- no difference between LR 1 or 2. But I started to notice this shortcoming simply because of the new tools in LR2. For example: how much 'sharper' am I going to make a part of a picture compared to the rest, something I cannot see in 1:1.
I see the real effect (the complete look and feel) only after a render to tiff/jpeg
There are more examples. But Im sure you have come across all of them.
Those 'luxury' problems simply didnt exsist in LR1.

But you attack me. Why? Because I show no specs?
Why not tell the real reason... (after all you named 'perception')
But thank you very much for your help. Much more polite and far more willing Im sure.

I will not visit this forum anymore.

 

[Victoria Bampton]

Ok, chill guys.

Zetzetone, I haven't seen any attack in this thread, but I'm sorry to hear you feel that way. I get the impression that English is not everyone's first language in this thread - perhaps there's been a misunderstanding, so let's leave it there and get back to the issue in hand.

We'd love to help BOTH of you solve this problem, but as Brad said, we'll need a bit more information.

Let's leave Capture NX2 out of the equation for the moment, as that's a different ball game entirely, and concentrate on LR 1 and 2. So how can help? Can you show examples? Azpix, did 1:1 previews solve your problem, or what are you comparing against?