LR REALLY means a lot to us

[stevebri]

With all the chatter, and very strong points of view it's obvious LR means an awful lot to us, I include myself in that, it really does tick all our boxes and let's be honest, make or desk time with images much much easier...

With that in mind, can we move on a bit from the CC/glitchy marketing fiasco that Adobe have walked into and discuss a little more LR6/CC and it's benefits and pitfalls to a working photographer...?

I think a lot has gone on behind the scenes in LR6, and we are not talking about it yet.

Personally I think we are paying for LR6/CC 'beta' here, it quite obvious that by not running a beta, this is a glitchy release at best and I will not move my catalogue over from 5.7 anytime soon, however it is a good time to create a test catalogue, play with '6/CC' and report on the forums what is good,great and awful.

For me the face recognition, map module is bloatware and I know I will never use it, but I also know reading on here that many people WILL use them, so let us know how face recognition REALLY works on a wedding shoot.  Par for the current course, in true beta style the actual face recognition is terrible so mant have said.

CPU/GPU is a tough one for Adobe and will take a year at least to iron out, with so many different cards and drivers out there and many of us not using the latest one so for now mine will be switched off.

I like the look of the updated web module as I use this a lot and the pages will work well on mobile devices I also like the fact that a lot of processes now run in the background so you can get on and work on your files (DNG conversion for example).

However, with the best will in the world it all seems like a work in progress, a beta, not the finished product.

Looks like we've all paid to be beta testers, so let's get out there and give them feedback for our own sanity if nothing else.

S

[stamper]

A thought provoking post. Well said.

[Jimbo57]

.....except that LR CC/6 was extensively Beta-tested by Adobe.

The only difference from previous issues of LR was that no public Beta or RC editions were made available on general release. The Beta program was a much more carefully managed process and, thereby, more scientifically valid.

[stamper]

.....except that LR CC/6 was extensively Beta-tested by Adobe.

The only difference from previous issues of LR was that no public Beta or RC editions were made available on general release. The Beta program was a much more carefully managed process and, thereby, more scientifically valid.

Only time will tell. Most of the bugs that will be found will in fact not be a bug but users misunderstanding the program but there will be a handful found that are a real problem.

[ButchM]

Personally I think we are paying for LR6/CC 'beta' here, it quite obvious that by not running a beta, this is a glitchy release at best and I will not move my catalogue over from 5.7 anytime soon, however it is a good time to create a test catalogue, play with '6/CC' and report on the forums what is good,great and awful.

No matter how Adobe chooses to achieve their beta testing, public or private, there is no assurance the release version will not be problematic for at least some users or that all known issues will be addressed before the paid release.

In the past, offering a more broad public beta was no guarantee that all the "bugs" reported would be squashed in the GM release. I recall several times in past public betas where users reported problems that never were really addressed until several updates past the initial version release. Either they though these reports were rare anomalies or inconsequential oddities that were of little relevance to hold up the release.

[stevebri]

Thats a fair and valid point Jimbo..

However it didn't work did it....?  Still full of bugs and glitches.

I appreciate that doing a public beta of anything must be a nightmare, especially if you had some of your code stolen not long ago so I can see why Adobe 'possibly' didn't release it before now...

Taking this a little further, if moving towards LR6/CC is off-putting for a significant percentage of users... could this affect camera sales...?

For example, if you own a D810 and have LR5.7 running sweet, what more do we need...?  Notice I said need rather than want...?

If you are a Canon user and want the new 50MP DSLR then support for it might not come until LR6/CC/6.1/6.2 etc....

As we watch the rate of development slow.... do we need newer cameras...?  Do any of us have clients that say... 'if you'd shot it on .... camera then I would have bought it...'?


As a personal note I have 5.7 running very well and I use a D810 mostly these days or a phase back for certain work and I don't need to change a thing.  I'd say most Nikon shooters are happy apart from the wide/tilt/shift lenses available and I'd say most Canon users love their tilt/shifts and just want a body with increases DR.

What I'm getting at is do we really 'need' LR6/CC at this time and in it's current 'state'...

I'm hoping 6.1 or 6.2 will have a newer processing engine and the usual bugs ironed out... but as I write this I get the feeling that the online theft that took place at Adobe has set them back  and 'possibly' that's why LR6/CC seems a 'rush release'.  Similar to the Japan earthquake, for a year or so post earthquake you could't get the very best glass without a wait...

For now I'm happy to stand by Adobe and run the two versions in parallel.

As a side note, I haven't subscribed to CC as I don't need CS6 or the mobile 'thing' but shooting to an iPad utilizing the mobile technology will I'm sure come in very handy soon.

Steve

[stevebri]

@Butch

A good point Butch however on this occasion with the GPU thing dropping in a 5.8 beta with the GPU tech might have helped throw up a lot of glitches but hey, it's out, it's up to us to 'push it' and let them know how,when,what and where.

Steve

[Iluvmycam]

I'm sticking with 5. Only thing in 6 is the pano that interests me. Not enuf for me to move.

Yes, LR is magic.

'The Sunlit Slipper'

nsfw

http://testarchives.tumblr.com/image/109513079209

Vintage silver gelatin print on left made in 1973. Ink jet print on right of same image after Lightroom.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Posted this on another thread... funny I used "beta" term as well:

My experience with LR CC: frequent crashes, beachball spinning, long time delay between a brush and its effect, freakish behavior (like when you press "L" it blackens the whole screen, not just the outside of the image - but only sometimes). If I did a perspective correction, and then moved to something else, say brushes, every time it refreshes the brush action, the images jitters as it goes into pre-perspective correction first and then settles. Etc., etc. Feels more like a beta version than a final release. I am on (thin) iMac 27", 24 GB memory, Yosemite 10.10.3

[Wayne Fox]

.....except that LR CC/6 was extensively Beta-tested by Adobe.

The only difference from previous issues of LR was that no public Beta or RC editions were made available on general release. The Beta program was a much more carefully managed process and, thereby, more scientifically valid.

I don’t think this is new either, other than LR 1.  Adobe public betas seem to be on incremental “RC” updates not on major releases.  2 and 3 were some time ago, and I am getting a little old so my memory may be failing me, but I can’t recall a public beta of 4 or 5.

For me CC is running pretty well, other than a couple of odd glitches that really don’t affect my use of it and guessing something in my system is the underlying cause.

[David Mantripp]

I guess the "Public Beta" FUD thing isn't really needed anymore since Lr1 was shipped out half baked in a panic reaction to Aperture.  Pity they never put it back in the oven.

I've recently migrated to C1.8 from Aperture, and on my prehistoric "early 2008" MacPro it is running smoothly and trouble free, albeit a little less smoothly than Aperture. I had some misgivings about not going with Lr, but by the sound of it I'm not missing much...