Adobe Lightroom Beta 4.0

[masdog]

actually, BETA tests are supposed to be run on the very best version of the software, not one that is known to have serious flaws such as these. How can they expect to get better software when many of the users are having crash issues that could and should have been dealt with prior to releasing the updated BETA?
I have done BETA testing for Quickbooks and a couple others and none of those companies would have released something this buggy. Heads would roll...right out the front door! And I can't beleive the Adobe would allow it, I thought they had more sense than this.

JS

It sounds like they're doing a long, public beta in realistic settings to see how the program reacts. With software this complicated, it could easily work in the shop, but when faced with real world circumstances, it could fail miserably.

This by no means is a release candidate, which is probably what you've tested. They are usually denoted by the letters RC following the software name. While they are still Beta software, they are much more mature and bug-free than regular betas.

On another note, Adobe releasing a public beta that has bugs isn't a big deal. Microsoft releases software to production that has serious security flaws and other bugs

[Sebastian]

Aperture 1.5.1 demo is out:

http://www.apple.com/aperture/trial/

Considering trying it? READ THE REQUIREMENTS! This things needs a lot of ponies. That being said, it runs really well on my (unsupported) 12" PowerBook with only a few minor glitches due to me hacking the binary to get around the hardware checks.

[Photo-John]

Aperture 1.5.1 demo is out:

http://www.apple.com/aperture/trial/

Considering trying it? READ THE REQUIREMENTS! This things needs a lot of ponies. That being said, it runs really well on my (unsupported) 12" PowerBook with only a few minor glitches due to me hacking the binary to get around the hardware checks.

Hey, Sebastian-
Start an Aperture thread. This Lightroom discussion is a good one. I think Aperture deserves its own.

I sure wish I had a computer to try it on.

[Sebastian]

John,

I will once I get my new Mac. Should be by the end of November. These two programs and very powerful, but largely misunderstood. I would like to get something put together that shows how they both work so people get a better idea. And hopefully stop thinking that these are Photoshop competitors.

[Photo-John]

And hopefully stop thinking that these are Photoshop competitors.

Yes!

I got a PM from someone this week asking why I use both Lightroom and Photoshop. It seems so obvious to me. You do your RAW conversion and then you bust out the adjusment layers and masks to polish it up. To use only one is to not do your images justice. Of course, it's also a matter of style. One of the nice things about a good RAW converter / workflow program is that you can produce high-quality images without any Photoshop. I can make really nice proofs with RawShooter and Lightroom.

[masdog]

I got a chance to try Lightroom out today. I like it better than the Adobe Camera Raw plugin for Photoshop, and I found that it had many more features to control the final outcome. I felt like I had more control over my image.

However, the program isn't ready for the prime time. I found that my computer would randomly slow to a crawl for about 30 seconds while I was doing minor corrections to the image, probably due to memory leaks or possibly because I had other programs (email, IM, web browser) open in the background.

But I like where this program is going, and I can't wait to see the next version of this software.

[mjs1973]

Matt Kloskowski has jut come out with a new podcast called Lightroom Killer Tips. If you don't know who Matt is, he's one of the "Photoshop Guys" who host Photoshop TV, and he's also written a photoshop book or two.

I haven't had a chance to watch any or them yet, but I'm sure they will be very helpfull for those of us who haven't played with LR much yet.

[Sebastian]

One thing I need to mention is that I was wrong about Lightroom not having versioning. You can, in fact, save history states inside the develop module. Not nearly as intuitive as Aperture's approach, but just as effective.

[Photo-John]

One thing I need to mention is that I was wrong about Lightroom not having versioning. You can, in fact, save history states inside the develop module. Not nearly as intuitive as Aperture's approach, but just as effective.

I'll have to track that down. Because I consider this an essential tool.

[SmartWombat]

Matt Kloskowski has jut come out with a new podcast called Lightroom Killer Tips.
I haven't had a chance to watch any or them yet, but I'm sure they will be very helpful

I watched them, to say I'm underwhelmed is an overstatement.

[Stillsky]

I ran into a wacky problem with Lightroom. I would make some adjustments in Lightroom, then save it out into Photoshop where I would put some final touches on. Whenever I would save in Photoshop, the file would revert back to its original captured state. This was happening with both NEF and JPG files.

I don't really use it anymore because I don't want to run into that problem again. I thought it was quite a good program.

[SmartWombat]

I ran into a wacky problem with Lightroom. I would make some adjustments in Lightroom, then save it out into Photoshop where I would put some final touches on. Whenever I would save in Photoshop, the file would revert back to its original captured state. This was happening with both NEF and JPG files.

Because when working with RAW files it gets converted to TIFF and then saved as a .TIF file, I don't have that problem. Once edited in PS then the raw is untouched by PS and etiding continues in the new file.

[Stillsky]

Ah, so that's a normal thing? I don't really know much about it.

[cr_mmurillo]

Lightroom 4.1 now available for download. 4.0 was so buggy, I didn't like it too much. The bad thing is you can't go back to the previous version. So I hope 4.1 is better.

http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/entitle...bs%5Flightroom

[livin4lax09]

i personally love lightroom. it's like a better iphoto. makes it so much easier to fine tune everything quickly. and the b&w conversion is much better than PS elements, thats for sure.

[SmartWombat]

I'll have to track that down. Because I consider this an essential tool.

In the develop module, click on history in the left hand pane.
Then at the bottom of the screen is an ADD button that creates a version by collapsing all the changes since the last version FROM WHERE YOU CLICKED IN THE HISTORY LIST into a new date/time stamp and LOSES THE INTERMEDIATE HISTORY steps.

Yes, I'm shouting because it is very flexible, but a pain in the bum if you get it wrong.
There also seems to be no Undo on there, so once it's gone, it's gone.

[Sebastian]

In the develop module, click on history in the left hand pane.
Then at the bottom of the screen is an ADD button that creates a version by collapsing all the changes since the last version FROM WHERE YOU CLICKED IN THE HISTORY LIST into a new date/time stamp and LOSES THE INTERMEDIATE HISTORY steps.

Yes, I'm shouting because it is very flexible, but a pain in the bum if you get it wrong.
There also seems to be no Undo on there, so once it's gone, it's gone.

It feels like an afterthought. In Aperture I just make a new version and a duplicate image pops up next to the original. I can then make new versions that are duplicates of that version, or I can make a new version from the master RAW file.

So we have blogs now? Fancy.

[Medley]

Just a heads up for Lightroom users. There is now a Lightroom Killer Tips website and podcast available. Step right up, get your tuts and tips:

http://www.lightroomkillertips.com/

-Joe U.

[BMWJNKY]

I am liking Lightroom so far. Easy to use and for basic stuff it is a one stop program. The one thing I don't like is when I'm using the slider on an adjustment the photo will go blurry for a sec then the adjustment will show up making it kind of hard to fine tune an adjustment. I do like the before and after split view for showing people what can be done to a photo.

[rzozaya1969]

actually, BETA tests are supposed to be run on the very best version of the software, not one that is known to have serious flaws such as these. How can they expect to get better software when many of the users are having crash issues that could and should have been dealt with prior to releasing the updated BETA?
I have done BETA testing for Quickbooks and a couple others and none of those companies would have released something this buggy. Heads would roll...right out the front door! And I can't beleive the Adobe would allow it, I thought they had more sense than this.

JS

Sorry to put it this way, but you're terrible wrong on this issue. When a software releases to the public a Beta software, the purpose for the beta is to find as many bugs as possible to fix them. The purpose is not to give a demo software or "free until it's finally released" software. I don't know if there is a clause or something, but in part you're supposed to return feedback to Adobe, not complain that the software has bugs.

If you want to use production quality software, wait until Adobe releases the software, and just keep tabs on the beta results in forums.

I love beta software, but there are restrictions and stuff to be aware before just using beta software. And I think you're expectations are way off. Every software company is releasing software that has more features than they had in the past, and this means that the testing stages must be run more time and on more variations. That's why everytime we will see more companies offering beta versions to the public. And that means that the beta software will have more bugs than previously.

If a program only has two features, it's easy to debug, as the developer starts to build more features, the testing requirements increase exponentialy. There are more things that can go wrong.

Judging a company becase a BETA version has bugs is like demanding that ALL your shots are perfect. It's just not going to happen. You take multiple shots so you decide on which shots are the keepers.

I haven't even entered the site or the software, but there should be some clauses that says what a BETA is and what it's not.

Software quality control is not easy, and for the developer to release a bug free (or as much bug free as possible) version he needs the software to be tested as much as possible, and using as many configurations as well.

I think that before you enter a beta period you should be aware that bugs can and will apear, and some of those bugs can freak the system. And in such instances, it's not that the company or developer is doing sloppy things, it's that they want you to test it.

[Photo-John]

rzozaya1969-
I think you're right about the purpose of Beta - it's a testing tool for the software developers. However, my complaints are a result of Adobe's purchase of RawShooter. I love RawShooter and think it's great that Adobe recognized it and bought Pixmantec's great technology. However, I think they should have contnued RawShooter support until Lightroom was a finished product. When I bought my Rebel XTi I could use the included Canon software, which I have no use for, or I could use something else. But since Adobe had decided not to update RawShooter, I couldn't use it. And I'd become accustomed to the tools it provides. I might even say I need them. And the only way to have them for XTi images was to use the Lightroom beta - even though it's not a finished product.

Right or wrong, it's a bummer. RawShooter was working just fine.

The next issue is I'm going to be forced to reformat my home machine and install XP if I want to use either Lightroom or the CS3 Beta. Damn! :mad2:

[rzozaya1969]

rzozaya1969-
I think you're right about the purpose of Beta - it's a testing tool for the software developers. However, my complaints are a result of Adobe's purchase of RawShooter. I love RawShooter and think it's great that Adobe recognized it and bought Pixmantec's great technology. However, I think they should have contnued RawShooter support until Lightroom was a finished product. When I bought my Rebel XTi I could use the included Canon software, which I have no use for, or I could use something else. But since Adobe had decided not to update RawShooter, I couldn't use it. And I'd become accustomed to the tools it provides. I might even say I need them. And the only way to have them for XTi images was to use the Lightroom beta - even though it's not a finished product.

Right or wrong, it's a bummer. RawShooter was working just fine.

The next issue is I'm going to be forced to reformat my home machine and install XP if I want to use either Lightroom or the CS3 Beta. Damn! :mad2:

John, what I wanted to say was that I felt there were wrong expectation in this thread regarding bugs on a beta software. I think that it's good to expose the bugs of a beta product so that everyone is aware of them, and more importantly, the developer knows of them. But I think it's wrong to judge a company because they feel that a beta product has more bugs than one 'expects'.

I also understand your frustration on FEATURES dropped from previous versions. Specially when they were good and productive. I don't know why a company might decide to drop a feature already built (unless they change the software engine too much that the feature requieres rewritting that module and the company isn't that intrested on it). Yep, it really sucks when this happens, but I think that the only thing we can do is inform Adobe that we want this feature. If they feel that X and Y features are demanding, they might decide to incorporate that for future release.

Thanks

[Photo-John]

I think you expressed yourself well and your message was good and appropriate. I understood. It just gave me another opportunity to complain about the loss of my beloved RawShooter