Lightroom 3 beta

[dof]

Wow, Count Me Out

Wow, Count Me Out

It appears that the final release of Lightroom 3 will require an Intel-based Mac. Per Jeff Schewe in the Adobe LR Forums:


9. Oct 23, 2009 12:26 AM in response to: mccafmac
Re: Installation failed Mac OS X version 10.4.11
mccafmac wrote:

Will the final version require Intel based mac archectecture? (sic)

Yes...there's no going back.

-- Geez, I thought I was cool and was ready to jump into the beta and WHAMMO! I'm now officially a luddite!

 

[1948nikon]

No Intel Count me out also.

No Intel Count me out also.

I will not buy anymore Macs.

It appears that the final release of Lightroom 3 will require an Intel-based Mac. Per Jeff Schewe in the Adobe LR Forums:


9. Oct 23, 2009 12:26 AM in response to: mccafmac
Re: Installation failed Mac OS X version 10.4.11
mccafmac wrote:

Will the final version require Intel based mac archectecture? (sic)

Yes...there's no going back.

-- Geez, I thought I was cool and was ready to jump into the beta and WHAMMO! I'm now officially a luddite!

 

[craygc]

It appears that the final release of Lightroom 3 will require an Intel-based Mac.

Will the final version require Intel based mac archectecture? (sic)

Yes...there's no going back.[/I]

Its becoming a real PITA that the PPC platforms have been dropped. I'm running a 2003 dual 1.8GHz G5 and have more or less locked down my current OS and software. Given I'm only having to deal with scans at the moment I can live with it, and for me LR2 is fine given I only really use it as a DAM tool.

I don't mind paying $6K+ for a machine and monitor combination but I do expect to be able to extract quite a few years of work from it. It seems that the digital revolution machine has really begun to fine tune itself to where end-to-end systems - in this case, cameras, software, OS, hardware - create such interlinked dependencies that over a couple of releases of each link in the chain, you are lead into a trap of unavoidable upgrades.

 

[martin s]

It wasn't a secret even way back when PPC was Apples prefered platform that buying a 6k computer in the believe of saving in the long run is a theory that simply doesn't work in the technology world.

Intel based Macs were unavoidable and imo a great and necessary step, to support PPC would be a burden on everyone except those few who still run machines with said architecture.

martin

 

[craygc]

The unfortunate aspect that curtailed the life of the PPC prematurely was IBM's (historic) inability to reduce heat dissipation from the chips to a point that they could be place in notebooks.

That said, I still more than happy with the box and don't need any more for the mid term... 😀

 

[gavinlg]

found a few little glitchy bugs so far. Nothing that's stopped me from doing anything though, just a little fiddling clears the problems.

I know this is like the 3rd time I've said this, but I'm absolutely astounded at how much better the raw conversions are from this version of lightroom. IMO it's easily better than aperture/capture one etc etc. It's seriously good.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

I really do wish I could go ahead and import my collection now, though I totally understand why they won't allow this...

Anyone had a chance to test out the purple fringing correction? This is always something that was only mediocre in LR2.

 

[semordnilap]

This all sounds excellent... Great news for lightroom-which I use and has an excellent interface. However, can anyone tell me if they've bothered to include SOFT PROOFING in LR!!!!!???!?!??!?!?!? I mean... !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT IS THE POINT OF A PRINT MODULE WITHOUT SOFT PROOFING!!!!!!! WHY EVEN BOTHER!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!! [tears hair out] Sorry for yelling, but it's really a pita. Who likes to make all their adjustments in LR, then having to go make MORE adjustments in PS just to print?!

Okay, rant off.

Sounds great! I wonder what it'll do to high iso M8 files?

 

[arturo]

Is it possible to keep in the computer both LR 2.5 and LR 3 in parallel? I need to continue accessing my LR 2.5 catalogs although I do not mind to create new separate LR 3 catalogs for the new pictures I add.

I also wonder if it will be possible to unistall LR 3 beta and return to LR 2.5 when the beta expires. LR 3 looks good so far but the price tag will determine if I update or not.

Does anyone have answers to those questions? Thanks,

Arturo

 

[fbf]

Is it possible to keep in the computer both LR 2.5 and LR 3 in parallel? I need to continue accessing my LR 2.5 catalogs although I do not mind to create new separate LR 3 catalogs for the new pictures I add.

I think so.
I am perfectly happy with 2.5 as for now.

 

[arturo]

I see the LR 3 release notes say 'Lightroom 3 beta will not overwrite or interfere with a machine that currently has Lightroom 1 or Lightroom 2 installed.' but I am not 100% sure that answers my question above.

Anyway I think I will give it a go after having updated my Time Machine backup.

Arturo

 

[pevelg]

Very interesting on the Chroma noise correction. How well does this work on scanned files? I have a bunch of color .tiffs from a local lab and the scans have lots of chroma noise (I did not know that was what it was until seeing the examples posted here, thanks). I will download the beta after I get back from work and try this out. Maybe my color photos from the wedding can be salvaged after all!

 

[Range Loser]

Hi, quite new to Lightroom, been using the clunky NX from Nikon, I don't like the way I have to import images into Lightroom, is there a way of just picking one RAW image from a folder and converting it to a tiff without messing about with imports. I realise this is all about workflow, and I don't know the software very well yet. Any tips?

 

[gavinlg]

Hi, quite new to Lightroom, been using the clunky NX from Nikon, I don't like the way I have to import images into Lightroom, is there a way of just picking one RAW image from a folder and converting it to a tiff without messing about with imports. I realise this is all about workflow, and I don't know the software very well yet. Any tips?

Research lightroom catalogs and let lightroom organize your images for you. It's 100 million times better than just converting random files here and there in your library.

 

[Range Loser]

My problem is, I only ever get the odd decent shot from a shoot and don't want hundreds of rubbish pictures hanging round in Lightroom somewhere, even if they are well catalogued. I just want to be able to browse the folder and select the odd one for conversion.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

I have a bunch of color .tiffs from a local lab and the scans have lots of chroma noise (I did not know that was what it was until seeing the examples posted here, thanks).

I have never seen chroma noise on lab scans--that's awful! You should give it a try and see if it works.

My problem is, I only ever get the odd decent shot from a shoot and don't want hundreds of rubbish pictures hanging round in Lightroom somewhere, even if they are well catalogued. I just want to be able to browse the folder and select the odd one for conversion.

This is easy in LR2, and I have no idea why LR3 is so bent on automating this process. I find it extremely irritating, and hope there will be a way to switch it off.