Adobe Lightroom Beta 4.0

[Photo-John]

I just downloaded the Adobe Lightroom 4.0 Beta. I think it's much improved over the previous version. I've been using Pixmantec's RawShooter. After Adobe bought RawShooter I really wanted to see some of the tools from that software incorporated into Lightroom. Then I bought the Canon Digital Rebel XTi and couldn't use RawShooter for RAW conversions anymore and really really wanted to have RawShooter tools included in Lightroom. I haven't shot a Rebel XTi RAW file to test with Lightroom yet. But the Develop stage of the software has RawShooter's excellent crop tool, Fill Light, and Vibrance controls. It doesn't appear to have RawShooter's separate highlight and shadow contrast controls, which I really like. But I'll have to experiment some more. They may just have different names now. In any case I'm pretty pleased with the new version. Lightroom is starting to look good to me.

Who else here has been experimenting with Lightroom? What do you think so far? Can you compare it to anything else? I'm curious how it compares to Apple Aperture and Phase One's Capture One.

[SmartWombat]

If you hover over or click in the histogram you will find several different regions labelled shadow, highlight and so on. You can then manipulate those parts of hte tone curve separately.
Freaked me out when I first saw it, and it's amazingly easy to use.

I just wish it was faster, and could cope with 1000 or more photos without having to run overnight.
Oh and I want a batch mode for the conversion, so I can convert a whole folder full of raw images to jpeg at the press of a button, with full size and auto web resize.
A scripting language to do that would be nice

[Sebastian]

PJ,

I don't have the time right now since I'm working about 90 hours a week, but I will eventually put together a piece on it. I plan on doing a comparison of it to Aperture once I get my Macintel.

BTW, Lightroom has a really, really sweet crop tool. All that stuff is in the "Develop" section. Can't compare it to C1 though, C1 is a browser and developer, Lightroom/Aperture are meant to be DAMs as well as one-stop developing tools. But, Lightroom comes way short in really important feature like versioning compared to Aperture.

[Photo-John]

Sebastian-
What is "versioning?"

I want to play with Aperture. My dad has a Mac but he'd have to update his OS and doesn't want to. I've been reading that other people have the same issue with Aperture. On the other hand, I went to load Lightroom on my desktop at home and realized it isn't compatible with Windows 2000. So the same problem exists with the Adobe software. Now I have to decide if I like Lightroom enough to install a new OS on my home computer

I do think Lightroom is slow. But it's not done yet. I hope and expect they will speed it up before the final product is released. RawShooter was super fast, although it didn't manage photos like Lightroom does.

The crop tool you like is from RawShooter. It's just one of the really great features that RawShooter has and have been incorporated into Lightroom.

[Photo-John]

I've been forcing myself to use Lightroom and figure out how to accomplish my regular tasks with it. I haven't been able to do everything with it - yet. Of course, I won't be able to as it doesn't support layers or masking. But I'm finding more, like the export tool I used to create this JPEG from a RAW file. Yes - it converts my Rebel XTi RAW files. That's wonderful. It means that I have access to my beloved RawShooter tools (most of them, anyway) for Rebel XTi RAW conversions.

[mjs1973]

I downloaded Lightroom yesterday. I only played with it for a few minutes, but it looks pretty cool. I wish I had more time to play with it and learn what it's all about.

I heard on Photoshop TV this week that they have officially changed the name to Adobe Photoshop Lightroom. I was under the impression that Lightroom was going to be a seperate, stand alone program, but the name change makes me wonder... Anyone have any insite into where Adobe is going with this? Is LR going to be a stand alone program or could it be built into CS 3 when it comes out next spring? Perhaps it will replace the RAW converter that CS 2 uses or is that just wishfull thinking?

[Sebastian]

PJ,

Versioning is making multiple version of the same shot. One cropped square and B&W while the other is cropped horizontal and color, for example. With Lightroom you have to export the file to PS, make your changes, and then Lightroom automatically reimports the new file. But, then you have two files for no reason. Aperture makes as many versions as you want without ever duplicating the original file. All its changed are rendered as previews based on the original file, your edits get stored in a database. This saves loads of space, and allows for much more creative freedom. In addition, the clone tool works the same exact way, you clone something out but the original file is never touched. Canon's DPP does the same thing, BTW, the clone tool is non-destructive.

As for upgrading, there are many more reasons for your dad to upgrade than just running Aperture, plus you really have to make sure the hardware can support it.

[Photo-John]

I gotcha. RawShooter was very good at versioning, too. You could make and preserve many versions of the same RAW image without having to actually convert them. I am actually working on an image in Lightroom right now where I did two conoversions of the same image - one for the sky and one for the foreground. I was looking for a way to make and save multiple versions but couldn't do it. Bummer. I will hold out hope since this feature was in RawShooter and I have seen Adobe intergrate a bunch of RawShooter tools into Lightroom Beta 4.

My Dad doesn't want to upgrade because he's got an old version of Illustrator that only works on OS9.

[Sebastian]

Well, makes sense since they bought them.

"My Dad doesn't want to upgrade because he's got an old version of Illustrator that only works on OS9."

So how does that prevent him from running Tiger? The classic environment runs in Tiger just fine. I'm curious.

[Photo-John]

"My Dad doesn't want to upgrade because he's got an old version of Illustrator that only works on OS9."

So how does that prevent him from running Tiger? The classic environment runs in Tiger just fine. I'm curious.

You got me. That's just what he told me. I don't know much about the Apple OS except that it's real purty.

[cr_mmurillo]

I think a cool addition to lightroom would be the history style function like in Photoshop, instead of just pressing "ctrl+Z". I was using Picasa before. I liked it because it was easy and fast. When I saw Lightroom 3, I switch over. Although version 3 was super slow, it was still powerful. Lightroom 4 is miles away from 3 with lots of improvement and speed.

Adobe should also consider HDR functionality, just a simple tool nothing too complicated. One of the reason why I like Lightroom 4 is because it's easy to use. I don't think they will add layers or make it too complicated because they don't want this product to compete with Photoshop.

I wonder how much lightroom is going to cost? I think Lightroom beta 4 is going to expire in 2007:idea: .

[Photo-John]

I am loving the results I get from Lightroom. But I hate it's lack of reliability. It locks up on me regularly. I know it's only a beta right now. But I sure hope they make it more stable and faster. Right now the performance is too much like Adobe's Album and Bridge. Bridge works ok. But there are a lot of other programs which work better. That's why I keep using BreezeBrowser. It's a much better browser. Lightroom needs a lot of speed and reliability improvement in order for me to be able to fully commit to it. The features and results are very, very good. But it doesn't cut it when yet as a professional production tool.

[Photo-John]

We have a review page up for Adobe Lightroom beta 4, in our software reviews. The discussion is great. But the reviews are the best permanent home for your thoughts and experience with Lightroom or any other photo-related product.

Read and write reviews for Adobe Lightroom beta 4 >>

Thanks in advance for your reviews. Every review gets you entered in our review contest, too.

[SmartWombat]

Has anyone got hte install to work on Windows XP?

I had 4.0 installed.
It auto-downloaded the 4.1 release for me.
I ran the install and it still came up as Beta 4.

I've found Beta 4 a bit faster than Canon's raw converter Digital Photo Professional (huh, it's amateur software).

But Beta 4 has been crashing regularly. No error, no message, just sudden disappearance from the screen. Very annoying.

[Photo-John]

Has anyone got hte install to work on Windows XP?

I had 4.0 installed.
It auto-downloaded the 4.1 release for me.
I ran the install and it still came up as Beta 4.

I've found Beta 4 a bit faster than Canon's raw converter Digital Photo Professional (huh, it's amateur software).

But Beta 4 has been crashing regularly. No error, no message, just sudden disappearance from the screen. Very annoying.

I thought it only worked with XP - with Windows anyway. I tried to load it on my Windows 2000 machine and was denied. That means I have to reformat and upgrade the OS to use it at home. That's a pain in the ass.

I haven't downloaded and installed 4.1 yet.

I wouldn't exactly say that it's been crashing on me. It just locks up or gets really, really slow. It seems to me that however it's caching data is crappy. It seems like it's filling something up and getting slower. maybe I'll look into the preferences and see if there's a way to define where and how it caches.

[JSPhoto]

Photo John,
According to the readme file that is installed with 4.1 there are known issues that cause this program to crash and they include:
Minimum of 758MB of ram required but they suggest having 1GB!
it crashes when libraries are created at the root of any drive
it's not optimised for 1028x768 and they suggest running it with one panel hidden in this mode.
And it won't run on Win 2000, only on XP svc pack 2 and up machines

That should help you out on the crash problems, but you'd think they would fix these things before releasing it!

JS

[Sebastian]

That should help you out on the crash problems, but you'd think they would fix these things before releasing it!

It's a BETA. The whole point is for us to test it and give suggestions.

The features and results are very, very good. But it doesn't cut it when yet as a professional production tool.

Depends on what your definition of "professional production tool" is. For my corporate and wedding work 4.1 is actually pretty usable. For my editorial work on deadline, I shouldn't be using Lightroom, or Aperture or anything else like that. It's Photo Mechanic all the way.

I ordered Aperture last night, can't wait for it to get here.

[JSPhoto]

It's a BETA. The whole point is for us to test it and give suggestions.
.

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

[Photo-John]

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.

Both points of view make sense to me. I don't expect it to be perfect. But I sure wish it was stable. It makes it frustrating to use and hard to really test if it locks up on me. I just want to shut it down and find another solution. And then there's the fact that RawShooter was working just fine for me.

[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

[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