Adobe Lightroom beta3 for windows is up now

jfriend · July 19, 2006

I'm downloading it now from http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/entitlement/index.cfm?e=labs_lightroom.

gluwater · July 19, 2006

I was just checking that out. The link I got in the email from Adobe didn't work. Thanks for posting this.

Nikolai · July 19, 2006

Gee, John

jfriend wrote:

I'm downloading it now from http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/entitlement/index.cfm?e=labs_lightroom.

Beat me in a punch, I was out in the kitchen

[EDIT] Direct link to Windows .msi in case you don't want to go through several layers of yadayada:
http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/entitlement/index.cfm?event=custom&sku=RC00244&e=labs_lightroom
[/EDIT]

jfriend · July 19, 2006

Nikolai wrote:

Beat me in a punch, I was out in the kitchen

I had seen a rumor that it would go up around 9pm tonight. I happened to be at my computer around 9:15 so I thought I'd check for it. The main Adobe Labs page didn't show it yet, but if you dove down into the downloads pages, there it was waiting to be downloaded. I've got it installed now. I have played with it on a Mac before, but now I'll be seeing if I'll really use it in my real workflow.

Nikolai · July 19, 2006

I installed it, too..
... and... and.. it looks so... orange... I mean, applish...

Reminded me of the times when I opened PS for the first time without knowing what the layers are and what they are for...

I guess it will take me some time to figure it out...

Good news: it understands 30D's CR2s

However, it will be a tough call for me to abandon Bridge in favor of the LR, now that I finally learned how to use it for the most of my workflow...

Will be looking for tips and tricks from the apple crowd, I hope they will have easier time with it, especially since they got to play with two previous betas already...
Hey David, care to start an "Lightroom 101" thread?

Nikolai · July 19, 2006

After one hour of playing
Well, two things I can say: it's definitely a beta, but it's a beta of a very slick product. Some features are missing (against what Mr.Kelby was describing in "PS User" March 2006 issue), some are not working, some are hard to guess what they do, but in all fairness I can see that once it's polished and deployed it may come in handy.
Hey, Adobe: two thumbs up

colourbox · July 19, 2006

As far as where the info is, from a Mac user who has been trying out the Mac version for a while, you might want to know about the Lightroom forums where many threads exist, and the Lightroom podcasts on iTunes where the team tells you what they're doing in each part of the app and why, and sometimes they answer questions from voice mail. Some Lightroom podcasts discuss digital photography industry issues in general. Very informative!

The Lightroom forums are at the bottom of this link. Much of the existing explanations and answers are in the "Lightroom General" forum. They have started a Windows forum. Videos are also on the linked page.

To get the free podcasts (8 so far), fire up iTunes, go to the Music Store, do a search on Lightroom, then subscribe. If you do not have/do not like iTunes, I think there was an alternate link posted somewhere on the Lightroom forums.

Here is the NAPP's Lightroom Learning Center which I haven't actually looked through yet, but Google turned it up. Looks like lots of movies there.

Nikolai · July 19, 2006

Thanks, CB!
Appreciate the info, I'll start checking it out!

PossumCorner · July 19, 2006

colourbox wrote:

.... The Lightroom forums are at .....

Thanks Colourbox. We just finished downloading and like Nikolai I've got a meal to prepare - so Paul can have first play with it and I'l come back soon and have a read before I proceed. Also haven't had the Capture NK beta for long so it's all learning new stuff at present.

Mike Lane · July 19, 2006

Hey Nick, I wouldn't use lightroom instead of bridge just yet. The XMP files are not compatible with the ones that bridge produces.

Mike Lane · July 19, 2006

Actually, here's a bit of a clarification about the xmp compatibility between bridge and lightroom:

Bridge and Lightroom can "read" (probably more correct to write "share") each others metadata, but you need to ensure each is configured correctly. OK, so some metadata (eg the coloured labels) is currently Bridge specific, but most others can be written in one app and happily read in the other. To get it working: -

In Lightroom Preferences (File Management) you should have "Automatically writes changes into XMP sidecar files" activated. With this setting activated Lightroom will record all of your metadata (rating, keywords, etc) and it's own adjustments settings into an XMP sidecar. With the exception of the Lightroom adjustments Bridge can read and use everything in the sidecar. However, If using DNG rather than proprietary raw files, then you'll need to deactivate "Ignore sidecar XMP files" in Camera Raw Preferences (see Bridge menu) .

Metadata written into xmp sidecars by Bridge can also be read by Lightroom - select the files in Lightroom, then from the Library module's Photo>XMP sidecar menu choose "Import metadata from XMP sidecar file". Since the Lightroom library does not auto refresh you'll need to use the Import XMP any time you change metadata in Bridge.

Above applies whether you're using a Managed or Referenced Library.

Apparently this is by design and will probably change eventually.

CalfeeRider · July 19, 2006

Adobe Lightroom beta for Windows is out!
Check out their webpage. http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lightroom/

Nikolai · July 19, 2006

Thanks, Mike!

Mike Lane wrote:

Actually, here's a bit of a clarification about the xmp compatibility between bridge and lightroom:
Apparently this is by design and will probably change eventually.

Appreciate the info!

Cheers, partner!

Nikolai · July 19, 2006

2 l8, dude!

CalfeeRider wrote:

Check out their webpage. http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lightroom/

John beat us all: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=38512

Glad to have you on this bandwagon: UI seems a bit alien, so I think the more people start tearing it apart, the faster we all learn..:):

photobug · July 19, 2006

What good is a podcast?

As far as where the info is... you might want to know about ... the Lightroom podcasts on iTunes where the team tells you what they're doing in each part of the app and why...

I'm sure these are going to sound like the dumbest questions some of you have ever heard in your life, but --

If I don't have an iPod (and have no interest in lugging one around), then what good is a "podcast"? (no, I've never listened to a podcast)

Futhermore, why should I want to slog through an incredibly slow verbal explanation? Wouldn't it make more sense for them to post web articles that folks can read (quickly) instead of (listen to slowly)? Not to mention, then they could include graphical elements as well (a picture is worth...).

Anthony · July 19, 2006

photobug wrote:

I'm sure these are going to sound like the dumbest questions some of you have ever heard in your life, but --

If I don't have an iPod (and have no interest in lugging one around), then what good is a "podcast"? (no, I've never listened to a podcast)

Futhermore, why should I want to slog through an incredibly slow verbal explanation? Wouldn't it make more sense for them to post web articles that folks can read (quickly) instead of (listen to slowly)? Not to mention, then they could include graphical elements as well (a picture is worth...).

I know what you mean but....

1. Using iTunes* you can listen to podcasts (and see movie ones too**) on your PC or Mac. The Lightroom beta ones have several people in conversation and is pretty much like a group gathering with a drink in hand, talking about aspects of Lightroom and digital Photography in general.

* you can download the broadcasts (podcasts) as mp3 files and use something else to play them instead of iTunes.

** PhotoshopTV is an example of this genre - although I leave it to you to say if it is 'good' or not - Scott Kelby is an..ahem.. aquired taste, although I am sure his Mum loves him.

2. In general, podcasts are not slick expositions on 'how to...' but invariably slightly rambling discussions on some aspect of 'life, the universe and everything'.

3. Listen to a podcast and you will get the idea. What have you got to lose, apart from the will to live? (With some of them.)

Anthony.

System · July 19, 2006

FYI: Adobe Lightroom Beta now available for Windows
http://direct.adobe.com/r?xJHJHTHElnlJEnJHclqHc

DavidTO · July 19, 2006

photobug wrote:

I'm sure these are going to sound like the dumbest questions some of you have ever heard in your life, but --

If I don't have an iPod (and have no interest in lugging one around), then what good is a "podcast"? (no, I've never listened to a podcast)

Futhermore, why should I want to slog through an incredibly slow verbal explanation? Wouldn't it make more sense for them to post web articles that folks can read (quickly) instead of (listen to slowly)? Not to mention, then they could include graphical elements as well (a picture is worth...).

To answer the first part of your question, podcast is a generic term, like kleenex is to tissues. Not really generic, but used as such. You can play a podcast nearly anywhere you can play audio. Burn it to a CD, listen on the computer.

The second half of your question I can't answer.

colourbox · July 19, 2006

photobug wrote:

If I don't have an iPod (and have no interest in lugging one around), then what good is a "podcast"? (no, I've never listened to a podcast)

Podcast is a term that came into use in a de facto way by enthusiasts who started formatting audio/video programs intended to be downloaded to an iPod for mobile viewing, but at this point the iPod is incidental to the process. It's just a downloadable audio or video file. An iPod is not required. I don't have a nice iPod. I have the cheapo iPod shuffle, and I rarely listen to podcasts on it. Because a podcast is a regular old file, you can just play them back on your computer. If it's iPod-optimized video (.m4v file), you probably need QuickTime. Many podcasts are also linked from the sites that supply them, so there are a number of "podcasts" that I never watch through iTunes or iPod - I just play back the video on the web site.

So, for the Lightroom podcasts, the first two are video and show you what's going on. The last 6 are audio and provide background. I just play them back in iTunes on my laptop.

claudermilk · July 19, 2006

Can't wait to D/L it & give it a try. Keeping in mind it's still beta software, I've read numerous reports on FM (there's about 4-5 threads there already) that it's dog slow even on pretty robust rigs.

CalfeeRider · July 19, 2006

Nikolai wrote:

John beat us all: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=38512

Glad to have you on this bandwagon: UI seems a bit alien, so I think the more people start tearing it apart, the faster we all learn..:):

Ahh. I didn't check that forum. Oh, well, maybe there will be other interested parties that may not catch it there as well.

I've heard/read good things about it, but that it is pretty radically different from a workflow perspective. I'm anxious though to d/l it this evening and check it out for myself.

Nikolai · July 19, 2006

Me 2

CalfeeRider wrote:

Ahh. I didn't check that forum. Oh, well, maybe there will be other interested parties that may not catch it there as well.

I've heard/read good things about it, but that it is pretty radically different from a workflow perspective. I'm anxious though to d/l it this evening and check it out for myself.

If anything, it is *very* different, as it is *very* slow. Hopefully they will tune it up for production. I heard guys were complaining the Bridge was slow, well, they haven't seen LR yet.. On my XPS Bridge usually flies, unless I tell it to process 4K files at a time. LR was slow on a dozen, and only curiosity forces me to wait when it decides to show the whole picture...

But - that's beta, so I hold no grduge whatsoever.
As they say, beta means beta than nut'in'

cambler · July 20, 2006

My take after a day playing with it...

RAW editing: A+
Library for RAW files: B
Grouping and Filing: B- (but excellent effort, and I trust they'll make this better)

but...

Suitability for photographers who will eventually want to process their RAW files into PSD files, edit them, and either generate web images or print them as part of their workflow: F

Fail. No marks. Pack your books and go home.

In other words: it sucks. Any professional photographer who needs to go from RAW (or, in my case DNG) to PSD as part of their managed workflow will find this application USELESS.

jfriend · July 20, 2006

You might be missing the point

cambler wrote:

In other words: it sucks. Any professional photographer who needs to go from RAW (or, in my case DNG) to PSD as part of their managed workflow will find this application USELESS.

I think you're missing the point of Lightroom. If you take all your images to PSD as part of your normal workflow, then you are certainly not the center of the audience that Lightroom was built for.

In a way oversimplied view, I see three main points to Lightroom:

1) A set of digital asset management features that help you file, categorize and organize better than Adobe Bridge.

2) The ability to do more of your workflow using non-destructive editing (even if you shoot JPEG) without going into Photoshop, both boosting efficiency and exposing these editing features to an audience for which CS2 is probably overkill or too difficult or just not as quick.

3) A set of output features designed for photographers that CS2 either doesn't do at all or sucks at such as printing proof sheets, print multiple shots per page, slideshows, etc...

If you take every image into a PSD and are an expert in CS2 already, then you could possibly use the features in 1), but it sounds like you wouldn't be interested in any of the benefits that 2) and 3) were designed to offer. No problem, but then Lightroom just wasn't designed for you.

Are you at all interested in tools that will replace your need for most of your images to go into PSD? Are you at all interested in categorizing, organizing tools? Are you at all interested in better printing tools?

Nikolai · July 20, 2006

Day 2: Lightroom Saga continues
I spent some time in LR today (prolly 2 hours or so). I also read some materials on it (mostly from NAPP and Adobe Lab).
In addition to "just playing" I also gave it an honest try of processing my fresh series of sunset shots. In such cases I often limit all my editing to ACR, so I thought it would be a fair play for LR, which is also supposed to be a "better RAW editor".

Library.
Well, the import is easy (I leave files in place, and only tell LR to "manage" them there). However, this Import means and extra step. With Bridge (or ACDSee, etc) I only had to copy images from the camera to my HDD, Now I have to perform an extra step. Not a showstopper, but still a point off.
As to the navigation - I'm still suspicious. Thus far I only "fed" LR with less than a 1000 pictures - and it still keeps processing them in the background. Mind you, I have a fairly fast machine. I didn't dare to point it to my whole collection, which consists of dozens of thousands of 8MP jpegs and RAWs...

I guess we'll postpone this test for a while.

Develop.
Unlike Chris Ambler, I can't give it A+. Call me stupid, but I simply could not make it work for me. Tons of sliders, most with unpredictable or unnoticeable effects. Guess I need to wait for more info...

One thing I liked a lot though is its cropping tool. Much better done than the ACR's.
And - did I mention it's *sloooooow*?
Current grade: C.

Print and Slideshow
While these areas definitely show some very nice features (like Contact sheet is *way* better than Contact Sheet II), I cannot possibly review them, since I don't use either in my regular practice. So I'm gonna give it a benefit of a doubt.

PS
Despite of my best intentions I ended up processing all the sunset shots in ACR. Couldn't do it with LR. Yet, at least...

To be continued....

cambler · July 20, 2006

jfriend wrote:

Are you at all interested in tools that will replace your need for most of your images to go into PSD? Are you at all interested in categorizing, organizing tools? Are you at all interested in better printing tools?

Absolutely. And for 70% of my images, I would never need to take them into PS for the image itself.

But 30% of them need a zit retouched, or a flyaway hair removed, or a wrinkle swiped out - that's part and parcel of glamour photography. Furthermore, generating web output requires that my watermark go on each and every image. I don't see how to do that in LR. LR is geared towards doing non-destructive editing and outputting the result. But that means no watermarks, no retouching, and, most importantly, rendering my Nik Sharpener useless. Nik sharpens orders of magnatude better that Photoshop, but now I can't use it.

No, my work will benefit from LR in terms of getting the image that much better in RAW, but there's a final step in the output workflow that requires that I go from RAW to PSD before going to JPG or Print.

For my discussion of this issue on Adobe's forum, see http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/webforums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=589&threadid=1173943&enterthread=y

As for the speed, yes, it's slow. This is a beta, so I'm going to cut them slack on the speed, with the note that I fully expect it be real-time when released. If not, they lose. Badly.

cmason · July 22, 2006

What a pig. I use CS2, Bibble and PSE now, and I never notice any performance issues on my Atholon XP 3000+, with 1GB RAM. LR is almost unusable..do not zoom in on a photo, unless you are ok with going out to lunch while you wait.

I understand this is a beta, but they have a very long way to go to get this thing usable.

I had very high hopes for it, finally a tool that allowed easy sorting, tagging, and quick fix all in one tool! This has huge potential, but if this is indeed aimed at a different audience than CS2, then Adobe needs to accept that this same audience does not have Dual Core machines.

Adobe Lightroom beta3 for windows is up now

Comments