Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 26 of 26

Thread: lightroom 3.0 beta

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    85
    Post Thanks / Like

    lightroom 3.0 beta

    I started to use it and it's nice, can't wait for the alpha version...but still no soft proofing!

    I wonder now: I am using lightroom since V1 and bought the upgrade to v2, therefor I didn't need to download it for my m9.

    So my thinking now is: once LR3 hit release, I will use my M9 Voucher, so I don't have to pay for the upgrade.

    but then I just read in LFI, that you always get the current version, so does that include major otherwise chargeable upgrades?

  2. #2
    Workshop Member Reynolds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    206
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    24

    Re: lightroom 3.0 beta

    I have been with LR for a couple of years. They have always updated me to the current version since the initial purchase. I am now at LR2.5 and will upgrade, presumably at no extra charge, to 3.0 after the Beta. I would say go ahead and buy 2.5 now and expect no additional charges for 3.0. The more experienced here may have a different view??
    Best to all,

    Reynolds

  3. #3
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: lightroom 3.0 beta

    Quote Originally Posted by Reynolds View Post
    I have been with LR for a couple of years. They have always updated me to the current version since the initial purchase. I am now at LR2.5 and will upgrade, presumably at no extra charge, to 3.0 after the Beta. I would say go ahead and buy 2.5 now and expect no additional charges for 3.0. The more experienced here may have a different view??
    Hi Reynolds
    Yes - you'll have to pay for the upgrade. Adobe always make you pay for full number upgrades. They aren't usually cheap either.

    If you've just got an M9, and you want to use version 3, then I would have thought you were best to keep to the beta until the full version is released, then register your number.

    Seems like a no- brainer to me!

    Just this guy you know

  4. #4
    Workshop Member Reynolds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    206
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    24

    Re: lightroom 3.0 beta

    And, according to Luminous Landscape:

    "LR3 Beta supports a number of new cameras, with not only raw support but profiles. This includes the recent Canon G11, Panasonic GF1 and Leica M9. M9 owners will be pleased to note that there is now an M9 profile, which does a very nice job with the new camera."
    Best to all,

    Reynolds

  5. #5
    Senior Member Robert Campbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Norn Iron
    Posts
    1,097
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: lightroom 3.0 beta

    LR3 beta doesn't have the full features of the final release. Strong suggestion that soft proofing will be supported.
    Sláinte

    Robert.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    North Carolina western foothills
    Posts
    1,860
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: lightroom 3.0 beta

    I think so too---the real extra goodies (like gradient and brush tool in 2.0) seem to come with final version.

    My issue is still--can't open Print module. I've followed 2 suggestions but neither work. Too bad as print is important to me. Not sure what the issue is. I'm going to install it on my Vista laptop and see if I have the same problem (as on my XP Pro big machine built for photo editing).

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    678
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: lightroom 3.0 beta

    I downloaded the beta and am a diehard adobe bridge/cs3 user. I find it much easier to browse my files in bridge and process in CS3 using ACR than using Lightroom so far. Lightroom seems much slower to me. Just took me 20 minutes to process one image.

    I am going to mess with it more and see if it gets better as I learn more but for me, CS3 seems much easier and more versatile. Did anyone else feel this way when first using LR?
    Leica M8, M9 & Lens Reviews!
    http://www.stevehuffphoto.com

  8. #8
    Senior Member Robert Campbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Norn Iron
    Posts
    1,097
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: lightroom 3.0 beta

    It did take a while to get the hang of LR; but once used to it, it is so much easier than Bridge>ACR>CS3 -- even if Bridge>ACR is essentially what happens after import into LR. Many people don't find much use for CS if they have LR -- except for localised adjustments that the gradient/spot/brush tools can't do.

    LR3beta does seem slower than LR2.5, but I expect the final release will be better.
    Sláinte

    Robert.

  9. #9
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: lightroom 3.0 beta

    Quote Originally Posted by stevem8 View Post
    I downloaded the beta and am a diehard adobe bridge/cs3 user. I find it much easier to browse my files in bridge and process in CS3 using ACR than using Lightroom so far. Lightroom seems much slower to me. Just took me 20 minutes to process one image.

    I am going to mess with it more and see if it gets better as I learn more but for me, CS3 seems much easier and more versatile. Did anyone else feel this way when first using LR?
    HI Steve
    It sounds like you might be missing the point rather. (or possibly I'm missing your point).

    Presumably using CS3 you open the files using ACR, then make any adjustments and save them as TIFF or JPG files?

    Forgive me if I'm being stupidly obvious, but so many people I've talked to just use Lightroom or Aperture as a converter program in their same workflow.

    The idea is that you only convert the files when you actually need them, so you leave the files as raw, if you need to send a bunch of files to a client, you export them, burn them to a DVD, and then delete them - if you want web output you output as a web page.

    When I was using photoshop, I used to have 4 or more folders:
    1. original RAW
    2. Print output files (after conversion)
    3. web output files
    4 thumbnails

    One of the major problems was that if you revisit a raw file, then you have to decide whether to make another lot of versions (for instance for a black and white copy)


    Nowadays I have one folder
    1. originals

    If I need web output then I do that, similar for printing - it means that the 'corrected' version is always based on the original RAW file.

    If I need a 'fixed state' (for instance for a wedding) then I'll make up an album and put 'versions' in the album (but they still only reference the original raw file).

    The point is that lightroom IS slow if you are using it in the same way as CS3 . . . but not if you make the adjustments and versions, and only do the output when you need it for a purpose.

    Just this guy you know

  10. #10
    Workshop Member Reynolds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    206
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    24

    Re: lightroom 3.0 beta

    Thanks, Jono! That clears up the cost issue for me and Gees. BTW, I still have my WATE and am STILL waiting on the M9. Can you send me one of your spares?? LOL
    Best to all,

    Reynolds

  11. #11
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,868
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: lightroom 3.0 beta

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    HI Steve
    It sounds like you might be missing the point rather. (or possibly I'm missing your point).

    Presumably using CS3 you open the files using ACR, then make any adjustments and save them as TIFF or JPG files?

    Forgive me if I'm being stupidly obvious, but so many people I've talked to just use Lightroom or Aperture as a converter program in their same workflow.

    The idea is that you only convert the files when you actually need them, so you leave the files as raw, if you need to send a bunch of files to a client, you export them, burn them to a DVD, and then delete them - if you want web output you output as a web page.

    When I was using photoshop, I used to have 4 or more folders:
    1. original RAW
    2. Print output files (after conversion)
    3. web output files
    4 thumbnails

    One of the major problems was that if you revisit a raw file, then you have to decide whether to make another lot of versions (for instance for a black and white copy)


    Nowadays I have one folder
    1. originals

    If I need web output then I do that, similar for printing - it means that the 'corrected' version is always based on the original RAW file.

    If I need a 'fixed state' (for instance for a wedding) then I'll make up an album and put 'versions' in the album (but they still only reference the original raw file).

    The point is that lightroom IS slow if you are using it in the same way as CS3 . . . but not if you make the adjustments and versions, and only do the output when you need it for a purpose.
    Jono,

    I agree on this, but how would you handle then files coming from Hasselblad or Phase, which need vendor specific corrections (lens correction etc. Then you need to make a TIFF with the corrections and continue work in another preferred SW - say Photoshop.

  12. #12
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: lightroom 3.0 beta

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    Jono,

    I agree on this, but how would you handle then files coming from Hasselblad or Phase, which need vendor specific corrections (lens correction etc. Then you need to make a TIFF with the corrections and continue work in another preferred SW - say Photoshop.
    Hello Peter
    Thank you for chipping in.
    I'm not using either of these, but I do use Silver efex pro / Photoshop / Vivezza. and I'm sure that the procedure would be the same.

    you can set a number of 'external' editors such as this in preferences. You can then choose to edit in whatever you need - LR (or Aperture) will create the tiff file for you (either including any variations you've already made, or not, as you choose). This is then saved with the original file, and then opened in whatever.

    Obviously you then have the extra space for the tiff file (you can choose PSD or other formats if you choose). However, you see them together, and both 'versions' are available, and in your library.

    Just this guy you know

  13. #13
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: lightroom 3.0 beta

    Quote Originally Posted by Reynolds View Post
    Thanks, Jono! That clears up the cost issue for me and Gees. BTW, I still have my WATE and am STILL waiting on the M9. Can you send me one of your spares?? LOL
    HI Reynolds - sorry it hasn't turned up yet (I'm still waiting for the one I ordered as well).

    Just this guy you know

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    North Carolina western foothills
    Posts
    1,860
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: lightroom 3.0 beta

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Hello Peter
    Thank you for chipping in.
    I'm not using either of these, but I do use Silver efex pro / Photoshop / Vivezza. and I'm sure that the procedure would be the same.

    you can set a number of 'external' editors such as this in preferences. You can then choose to edit in whatever you need - LR (or Aperture) will create the tiff file for you (either including any variations you've already made, or not, as you choose). This is then saved with the original file, and then opened in whatever.

    Obviously you then have the extra space for the tiff file (you can choose PSD or other formats if you choose). However, you see them together, and both 'versions' are available, and in your library.
    I've not tried any of the 'round trips' (as many call them) to PS or other editing apps in 3.0--in fact, I think I read somewhere that its not available yet to set up in preferences for CS3 (which I use as external--first time since vs. 2 or 3 that I have not upgraded since I do so much in LR now). The round trip is useful for me to occasionally use plug ins, a bit more local work--and I do a trip to PS to use my frame action for Pbase--but I don't save the tiff and can just delete it (in fact, I think if I used CS4 it wouldn't even create the tiff unless I did save it--but can't remember). I don't output anything until I need it--a resized jpeg for export wtih appropriate sharpening to email, etc.--or a print--where sharpening again is done based on paper, size, etc. So--the RAW just sits there with the info but there is no additional file--until if and when you choose to use that file for output in some manner.

    Besides the Develop module I find a lot of use for the Library (database)--collections, etc.--and search based on metadata or keywords (which won't work unless you input keywords LOL--but in 2.5 they made it even easier to do that on import). I haven't explored 3.0 in Library at all--and just a bit in develop so am basing this just on 2.5.

    Diane

  15. #15
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: lightroom 3.0 beta

    Hi Diane
    Quote Originally Posted by Diane B View Post
    I've not tried any of the 'round trips' (as many call them) to PS or other editing apps in 3.0--in fact, I think I read somewhere that its not available yet to set up in preferences for CS3 (which I use as external--first time since vs. 2 or 3 that I have not upgraded since I do so much in LR now).
    They're all working fine on the Mac - first thing I did (as I use them often in Aperture), was to set up the 'round trips' to Vivezza, Silver efex pro and CS3.
    Quote Originally Posted by Diane B View Post
    The round trip is useful for me to occasionally use plug ins, a bit more local work--and I do a trip to PS to use my frame action for Pbase--but I don't save the tiff and can just delete it (in fact, I think if I used CS4 it wouldn't even create the tiff unless I did save it--but can't remember). I don't output anything until I need it--a resized jpeg for export wtih appropriate sharpening to email, etc.--or a print--where sharpening again is done based on paper, size, etc. So--the RAW just sits there with the info but there is no additional file--until if and when you choose to use that file for output in some manner.
    I'm the same here - trying to keep to the original folder and as few files as possible.
    Quote Originally Posted by Diane B View Post
    Besides the Develop module I find a lot of use for the Library (database)--collections, etc.--and search based on metadata or keywords (which won't work unless you input keywords LOL--but in 2.5 they made it even easier to do that on import). I haven't explored 3.0 in Library at all--and just a bit in develop so am basing this just on 2.5.

    Diane
    Again - I've got presets setup in LR3, and it works okay . . . but it doesn't feel anything like as 'natural' doing selections as I found it in Aperture - especially selecting combinations of keywords . . . you know . . . People / Crete / Livaniana including all which have all keywords and none which don't. . . but perhaps I haven't really gone deep enough yet.

    Just this guy you know

  16. #16
    Senior Member Robert Campbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Norn Iron
    Posts
    1,097
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: lightroom 3.0 beta

    My round trips were automatically lifted from LR2.5, though the direct to SilverEfex gives a warning that it doesn't work -- but it does.

    I don't understand your problem with the keywording, Jono. There are keywords sets you can make and LR usually offers suggestions.
    Sláinte

    Robert.

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    302
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: lightroom 3.0 beta

    Unfortunately, the new version 3.0 will only run on Intel based MACs. I have a PPC based MAC so no go with 3.0.

    I hope that Adobe will make new versions of Camera RAW in PPC version so I can make use of the new camera profiles.

    Do you think that the exclusive Intel version will be an indication for the rest of Adobe upgrades??

    Martin

  18. #18
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: lightroom 3.0 beta

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Campbell View Post
    I don't understand your problem with the keywording, Jono. There are keywords sets you can make and LR usually offers suggestions.
    Hi Robert
    it isn't adding them (works fine) it's filtering on them which doesn't seem to be so good (correct me if I'm wrong).

    without actually remembering the key words and typing them manually, how would I get to all the Chihuahua pictures that I'd taken in Cornish Beaches in Thunderstorms?

    Just this guy you know

  19. #19
    Senior Member Robert Campbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Norn Iron
    Posts
    1,097
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: lightroom 3.0 beta

    This should work -- it's how I do it, there may be easier ways:

    In the keywords panel to the left, find Chihuaha, click on the arrow at the right -- all Chihuaha pix will appear [unless you have already filters active]

    go to the very top panel [you may have to hit \ to view it], select metadata

    In the filter bar at the top the left hand one will say Keywords, and have Chihuaha highlighted

    Move to the next one along, select Keywords -- only those second keywords that you have entered for these pix will appear -- scroll to Cornish Beaches and select it -- all pix of Chihuahas on Cornish beaches appear

    Move to the third, select keywords, scroll to Thunderstorms [again, not all keywords appear, only those that have been entered] select it -- only those pix of the dogs on the beach in a thunderstorm will appear

    And you can use the fourth for more keywords, or to find which camera you used or whatever

    I don't think it's easily possible to have more than 4 combinations -- you would have to make a quick selection [or a collection] of the 4, then open that and filter more.

    BTW, I didn't think Blue was a Chihuaha -- am I missing something?
    Sláinte

    Robert.

  20. #20
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: lightroom 3.0 beta

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Campbell View Post
    This should work -- it's how I do it, there may be easier ways:

    In the keywords panel to the left, find Chihuaha, click on the arrow at the right -- all Chihuaha pix will appear [unless you have already filters active]

    go to the very top panel [you may have to hit \ to view it], select metadata

    In the filter bar at the top the left hand one will say Keywords, and have Chihuaha highlighted

    Move to the next one along, select Keywords -- only those second keywords that you have entered for these pix will appear -- scroll to Cornish Beaches and select it -- all pix of Chihuahas on Cornish beaches appear

    Move to the third, select keywords, scroll to Thunderstorms [again, not all keywords appear, only those that have been entered] select it -- only those pix of the dogs on the beach in a thunderstorm will appear

    And you can use the fourth for more keywords, or to find which camera you used or whatever

    I don't think it's easily possible to have more than 4 combinations -- you would have to make a quick selection [or a collection] of the 4, then open that and filter more.

    BTW, I didn't think Blue was a Chihuaha -- am I missing something?
    Thank you . . how could I have missed it Still, if it works . .

    understanding is a real issue . . and there's you not realising that Blue is a Chihuahua

    Just this guy you know

  21. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    North Carolina western foothills
    Posts
    1,860
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: lightroom 3.0 beta

    To me the metadata search is one of the things I value a lot--with or without keywords because you can filter by camera, lens (except Pannies LOL)dates, etc., etc.--Robert's way works great. I think Jono, you won't have to go too deep--just work with it and it will become pretty intuitive. Its not like PS where you never ever never get to know it all. Its actually not hard to know all of it with LR--whether you USE it all is another thing (I don't use 2 of the modules--the web and slideshow), but one of the things I like is that it is possible for them to add more modules--and other 'stuff'--and that I can do so much just in the Develop module.

  22. #22
    Senior Member Robert Campbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Norn Iron
    Posts
    1,097
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: lightroom 3.0 beta

    I'm with Diane; it does take some time to get to know it, but it's [almost] all straightforward and logical -- and I've never used the Web or Slideshow either. I've never really got to grips with PS -- all that 'if you want to do such-and-such, then don't use the such-and-such filter' nor did I understand painting with white or black when you clearly weren't -- in the 'foreground' or 'background'.

    I find the edit in external editor set-up a bit back to front -- I'd rather name the editor first, not when I've set it up.

    Filtering: occasionally, you may not find what you were loooking for -- because you have already set the filters for something else -- use the \ to see the full panel to check what you've done -- if necessary click on 'none' to clear things, and start again.

    LR does show Apple influences with all the keyboard 'shortcuts' -- I mostly right-click on Windoze, rather than trying to remember them all.
    Sláinte

    Robert.

  23. #23
    Senior Member Robert Campbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Norn Iron
    Posts
    1,097
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: lightroom 3.0 beta

    Quote Originally Posted by geesbert View Post
    I started to use it and it's nice, can't wait for the alpha version...
    The alpha version comes before the beta; the alpha is a very rough 'first go' at software, the 'beta' is more stable but not complete or debugged -- which is why we get to do some [free] testing for the makers.

    You're waiting for the 'release candidate' which is more or less finished, or the 'release' which you pay for.
    Sláinte

    Robert.

  24. #24
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    carstenw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    2,530
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: lightroom 3.0 beta

    There used to be gamma releases, but I guess there is no time for such things today.
    Carsten - Website

  25. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    North Carolina western foothills
    Posts
    1,860
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: lightroom 3.0 beta

    And-normally, even the beta for most software wasn't public--allowing anyone to use it, have input into the finished version. In fact--a lot of the changes in 2.0+ came from public input.

    Understanding that it is beta, buggy, not complete is important (and I expect everyone here does understand that). Its not for use for critical work. Its to Adobe's advantage also---they have things really well ironed out by the time the final version comes out because its probably been used on most all possible machines and with beginners and more advanced alike---and they likely have some new users who have been using it for 6 months and are now willing to buy the software they feel a bit invested in.

  26. #26
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: lightroom 3.0 beta

    Quote Originally Posted by Diane B View Post
    A

    Understanding that it is beta, buggy, not complete is important (and I expect everyone here does understand that). Its not for use for critical work.
    Hi Diane
    You're right here of course, but from my point of view LR2 simply doesn't produce results that I like for either the A900 or the M9, whereas LR3 actually looks rather good. Which means that it's worth taking a chance for me for a while.

    It's ironic that the day before the beta had come out I'd spent lots of time with LR2.5, and decided that it simply wasn't okay, and that I'd use Aperture, and shoot raw+jpg on the GF1 until someone else supported it. Now I'm going through the same procedure again, and the two main reasons I rejected LR 2.5 (conversion and printing of A900/M9 files) have both been greatly improved.

    Just this guy you know

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •