Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: Josh-H on April 05, 2010, 07:19:20 pm
-
Adobe Lightroom 2.7 RC (http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Lightroom_2.7)
-
If they're bothering to release a 2.7, it makes you think that the release version of 3.0 must be quite a long way off, still.
-
Yeah, I noticed today that I only had three 'current' versions of Lightroom installed. Why not four or perhaps five?
-
Hi,
Adobe has a cycle with about four upgrades per year, essentially to keep up with new cameras. This release cycle is probably not related to the new "major version", 3.0. I guess that 3.0 is a bit out as they had a LR 3 B2 now. It is also my impression that LR3 B2 may not be feature complete. So I guess we have to wait and see. I guess that we would like to see an LR3 with a decent feature set instead of a new version rushed out.
The features I have seen this far, better handling of noise and better sharpening are good enough for me to buy an upgrade, but the next upgrade is probably a couple of years away after 3.0 has been released, so I'd prefer that they make a complete set of improvements.
Another issue is that LR shares a lot of it's feature set with PhotoShop, so it makes sense that LR3 is not released before the next version of PS.
Best regards
Erik
If they're bothering to release a 2.7, it makes you think that the release version of 3.0 must be quite a long way off, still.
-
It's funny... I downloaded and installed LR 2.7 RC, but truth be told, since LR3 Beta 2 came out I've been using it pretty much exclusively. Opening LR 2.7 was like going 'backwards' in some respects...
Mike.
-
Have Adobe got rid of all their QA and Testing staff? Seems they release every minor change to LR as a Release Candidate i.e. using the public to beta test for them!
Mark
-
Have Adobe got rid of all their QA and Testing staff? Seems they release every minor change to LR as a Release Candidate i.e. using the public to beta test for them!
I'm glad I'm not the only one wondering about this. It's not only the Release Candidates, but also pure beta. They spend hours on forums QAing products for free. I refuse to beta test and QA software as that's something I pay the developers to do.
In Adobe's defence it's a widespread phenomenon in software circles. It's even funnier in gaming where people go to extreme lengths to get on the invitation-only closed betas.
But we really shouldn't complain: we get cheaper products since people donate their time for QA instead of having to pay for it
We're getting close to the same in some high-tech hardware with the 1.0 version being a barely functional product.
-
Have Adobe got rid of all their QA and Testing staff? Seems they release every minor change to LR as a Release Candidate i.e. using the public to beta test for them!
No, they are addressing customers' needs who have new cameras not supported in ACR 5.6 and LR 2.6. That's why they do an RC release–which is considerably different than a beta release. Additionally, people running LR 3 Beta 2 need ACR 5.7 in order to open images from Lightroom 3 into Photoshop. By releasing the RC's they give themselves a bit more time for final development while providing relief to users. Seems kinda like you are a 'black helicopters coming to get you' sort of person, huh?
-
No, they are addressing customers' needs who have new cameras not supported in ACR 5.6 and LR 2.6. That's why they do an RC release–which is considerably different than a beta release. Additionally, people running LR 3 Beta 2 need ACR 5.7 in order to open images from Lightroom 3 into Photoshop. By releasing the RC's they give themselves a bit more time for final development while providing relief to users. Seems kinda like you are a 'black helicopters coming to get you' sort of person, huh?
Why a Release Candidate rather than 2.6.1? Why does the community need to test new camera profiles? Surely they should just work! Whether you like the results is another issue.
And maybe Jeff you should refrain from taking cheap shots at people who challenge your view that Adobe is always right. Seems to me that your professional relationship with them is sometimes overshadowing your objectivity.
Mark
-
Why a Release Candidate rather than 2.6.1? Why does the community need to test new camera profiles? Surely they should just work! Whether you like the results is another issue.
How would 2.6.1 be different than 2.7?
And have there been so many bugs in this RC that you're questioning adobe? Or is it just the name?
-
And maybe Jeff you should refrain from taking cheap shots at people who challenge your view that Adobe is always right. Seems to me that your professional relationship with them is sometimes overshadowing your objectivity.
Seems to me I don't know you from Adam...so explain to me why I should give a hoot about what you think?
Really, two people were questioning why there was a Lightroom 2.7 RC...I explained it to them and gave them back a bit of what they were spouting...seems to be they deserved it...
BTW, exactly what do you think my "professional relationship" is with Adobe? I doubt you really have a clue...
:~)
-
Amazing, people complaining and taking cheap shots at Adobe for providing updates earlier and for free.
I don't know how much more you could wish for.
If you have a camera that's not supported by 2.6 you welcome this RC, and if you don't nothing forces (or even prompts) you to install it.
-
Amazing, people complaining and taking cheap shots at Adobe for providing updates earlier and for free.
I don't know how much more you could wish for.
If you have a camera that's not supported by 2.6 you welcome this RC, and if you don't nothing forces (or even prompts) you to install it.
Perhaps that is the problem: "for free", it then has no value, so all left is complaining ;-)
I concur with your statements and Jeff's, that the release of the RC is serving both Adobe and the user community.
-
[quote name='Schewe' date='Apr 8 2010, 03:16 AM' post='358847']
Seems to me I don't know you from Adam...so explain to me why I should give a hoot about what you think?
I am sure plenty of people will feel the same way about your "good self" Nobody is forced to download this "update" so why the fuss? If it is for more camera compatibility then it must be a good thing?
-
Perhaps that is the problem: "for free", it then has no value, so all left is complaining ;-)
Agree, some people must confuse cost with value.
-
I personally think that the public beta is a terrific idea. It is a much more thorough test than any developer could ever do. Hopefully bugs are discovered that an in-house procedure would never find. And the best part is that I can benefit without having to participate, unless of course I happen to want to. The chances of the final release being much more mature is greatly enhanced.
-
Amazing, people complaining and taking cheap shots at Adobe for providing updates earlier and for free.
I don't know how much more you could wish for.
If you have a camera that's not supported by 2.6 you welcome this RC, and if you don't nothing forces (or even prompts) you to install it.
A wise old man once told me:
"The more you complain, the longer God lets you live."
Made perfect sense to me.
-
Can someone clarify the LR 2.7 Mac installer behavior? It appears that LR 2.7 is either installed in parallel with 2.6 or it overwrites 2.6, depending on the Mac configuration. From comments in the Adobe forum and on DPR it seems as though those using a PPC Mac experience an overwrite whereas those installing to an Intel based Mac get a parallel installation. There is no option provided in the installer and after installation, on both platforms apparently, the new LR app is identified as simply 2.7 and not 2.7RC.
-
Hi everyone,
Would you prefer for us not to offer these public RC versions? Keep in mind that adopters of new cameras (e.g., Rebel T2i) would have to wait a few more weeks to get final support. That is, not having a public RC does not imply moving up the final release date.
We realize that there are many users who have one of the latest cameras (i.e., users who are eagerly waiting for a software update from us), and we also realize there are many users who have older cameras and don't care about these updates. Please understand that it is very difficult to please both groups simultaneously.
-
Hi everyone,
Would you prefer for us not to offer these public RC versions? Keep in mind that adopters of new cameras (e.g., Rebel T2i) would have to wait a few more weeks to get final support. That is, not having a public RC does not imply moving up the final release date.
We realize that there are many users who have one of the latest cameras (i.e., users who are eagerly waiting for a software update from us), and we also realize there are many users who have older cameras and don't care about these updates. Please understand that it is very difficult to please both groups simultaneously.
Well... personally.. RC releases dont interest me; but then I dont have a new camera that isnt supported. So I am fully siezed of the wishes of those that do wanting support as quickly as possible. So Adob'e services these users very well with their RC releases. Keep it up.
As to Beta releases - I personally have no interest in beta testing software (especially when I am not being payed for it). Again however, I fully appreciate that there are those who do want to beta test and enjoy it and want to be at the bleeding edge of each release. More power to these people as they find and report bugs that ultimately results in improved quality Control. We need these people.
Since you asked - my own personal preference would be a quick timely full release of 3.0 - with.... wait for it......
SOFT PROOFING! Please
-
Hi everyone,
Would you prefer for us not to offer these public RC versions? Keep in mind that adopters of new cameras (e.g., Rebel T2i) would have to wait a few more weeks to get final support. That is, not having a public RC does not imply moving up the final release date.
We realize that there are many users who have one of the latest cameras (i.e., users who are eagerly waiting for a software update from us), and we also realize there are many users who have older cameras and don't care about these updates. Please understand that it is very difficult to please both groups simultaneously.
Eric,
Why is Adobe's actually providing RC's? Is that just to get the support of new cameras available to customers earlier?
If that is the case, i have no issue with it. At this moment in time i have no "new camera", so for me it does not matter.
But i can imagine being in a position with a just bought new camera, and having to wait for a release of LR to have it fully supported.
What matters for me is robust software with good functionality, my focus today is much more on the image asset management side of things.
An area which appears to have much less attention in the LR3 beta's than the image development aspect, and this is not very reassuring.
-
Hi everyone,
Would you prefer for us not to offer these public RC versions? Keep in mind that adopters of new cameras (e.g., Rebel T2i) would have to wait a few more weeks to get final support. That is, not having a public RC does not imply moving up the final release date.
We realize that there are many users who have one of the latest cameras (i.e., users who are eagerly waiting for a software update from us), and we also realize there are many users who have older cameras and don't care about these updates. Please understand that it is very difficult to please both groups simultaneously.
It all boils down to ROI - whether the benefit from (almost) free feedback from RC users is higher than the investment in preparing, distributing and supporting it. It is clear that many people desire RCs (and open betas), and they tend to be the enthusiastic and technically more adept than the average user, so I don't see a compelling reason to stop RCs (and betas) as they offer invaluable insight for a bargain. But I'll stop before I'm compelled to start sending you bills
As for me, I don't mind them, and just ignore betas and RCs. Many people clearly want them so what do I know...
I've no clue what's behind the software architecture when adding RAW support for new cameras, but would it be possible to have a separate downloadable patch or LR/ACR "driver" for camera X when you have it ready, instead of releasing them in large versioned updates?
-
Thanks for the feedback.
To be clear: the only purpose of releasing a LR version 2.7 at all (RC or not) is for new camera support. In other words, the only reason is to support LR customers who have one of the new cameras (e.g., Rebel T2i, Panasonic G2, Sony A450, etc.). It follows that if you don't have one of these new cameras, the release won't interest you. And as expected, all of the feedback provided in this thread so far comes from users who do not have one of the new cameras. That's ok.
As for the reasons for the public RC: I also want to be clear about this. I strongly object to the suggestion that Adobe is getting lazy and simply wants the public to beta test their upcoming releases for free. There is a ton of internal work that goes on, under many different machine configurations and system environments, to get the best coverage we can for all the new models. So we feel reasonably confident when we put a public RC out there that it's already in pretty good shape (perhaps even final shape).
So why do a public RC at all, then? For these reasons:
1. We often add camera support by working with early sample files provided by the camera makers, or by working with early preproduction (with early firmware) units loaned to us by camera makers. Overall, this is a good thing for our users, because it means we can get camera support in much earlier, compared to if we waited for the model to ship publicly. However ... sometimes there are bugs & glitches in the files/hardware we have. Raw processing methods that are optimal for these "early" images may be suboptimal for images captured by final camera hardware/firmware (i.e., the ones that customers actually have in their hands). So the public RC is one way to help find out these unexpected changes and fix them before final release. (Yes, I know what you're thinking: If something changes between early and final hardware/firmware, wouldn't it be better & easier to just get an update from the camera maker directly? Agreed, but it doesn't work that way.)
2. As thorough as we try to be internally with our test systems, our users have more system configurations than we have. All different combinations of processors, memory, disks, OS versions, etc. We strive for as much coverage as we can, but collectively users invariably have more. So occasionally an obscure issue gets noticed this way during the RC period.
3. For the early adopters, it does give them a way to get almost-final support a few weeks earlier. If you've ever seen the threads in the Adobe user-to-user forum, you would know that early adopters are very insistent about having software support the very minute they lay hands on the camera! I recall getting berated a little over a year ago because a user had just picked up a D3X and had to wait a week before LR supported it.