Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: creativepro on March 19, 2009, 06:35:55 am
-
Hullo
I have a Mac Version 10.5.6.
Hullo
1. Photoshop CS3
2. Lightroom 2.1.
I did not download Lightroom 2.2. after reading the the issues it was presenting.
Do you think it is safe to download 2.3.?
If so, be grateful if you would provide a step by step best practice to install 2.3.
I read somewhere that in order for the pre-sets to not disappear one should tick "Store Presets with Catalog" box ?
thank you
sue
-
Hullo
I have a Mac Version 10.5.6.
1. Photoshop CS3
2. Lightroom 2.1.
I did not download Lightroom 2.2. after reading the the issues it was presenting.
Do you think it is safe to download 2.3.? If so, be grateful if you would provide a step by step best practice to install 2.3.
I read somewhere that in order for the pre-sets to not disappear one should tick "Store Presets with Catalog" box ?
sue
Well, I upgraded via 2.2 (and 2.3RC) so your experience may be different, but I had absolutely no problems at all. I simply downloaded the installer, ran it and started using the new version. The only extra steps were to delete the old version from the dock and to run ImageCapture to set the new version to launch automatically when I insert a card into the reader.
I didn't have to do anything special with the presets (which are stored in ~/Library/Application support/Adobe/Lightroom and so shouldn't be affected): they just appeared in the new version as they had in the old. The link to CS3 carried on working as well.
Sometimes (not always) people fret too much. It's a Mac, after all, and not running Windows!
Jeremy
-
I downloaded 2.3 ten minutes go. Works well, whole process took 30 seconds after the download complete.
Bill
-
I've updated a few Intel & PPC Mac to Lightroom V2.3 and had zero problem. Just to be safe, do a full backup of your library.
-
If you have Photoshop CS3 like me, don't upgrade to Lightroom 2.3, the reason is:
(1) you don't need it, unless you're shooting with Nikon D3x that 2.2 don't read the raw file.
(2) after you upgrade to 2.3, you file can't travel between PS CS3 unless you're in CS4. you may find the function in LR "edit in PS" that can shuttle between.
-
If you have Photoshop CS3 like me, don't upgrade to Lightroom 2.3, the reason is:
(1) you don't need it, unless you're shooting with Nikon D3x that 2.2 don't read the raw file.
(2) after you upgrade to 2.3, you file can't travel between PS CS3 unless you're in CS4. you may find the function in LR "edit in PS" that can shuttle between.
Lightroom and Photoshop are very different programs. One is a database program and a RAW converter and the other is a pixel editor.
Also, you can specify PS3 as an external editor in Lightroom 2.3.
Mike.
-
If you have Photoshop CS3 like me, don't upgrade to Lightroom 2.3, the reason is:
(2) after you upgrade to 2.3, you file can't travel between PS CS3 unless you're in CS4. you may find the function in LR "edit in PS" that can shuttle between.
Untrue nonsense. Why do you write this?
Jeremy
-
Speaking of utter nonsense!
Sometimes (not always) people fret too much. It's a Mac, after all, and not running Windows!
Sorry a pet hate of mine. 'Macs just work' is so not true. I've never had a PC as buggy and unreliable as my curent MacPro.
Mac mags/websites are full of articles 'How to fix/troubleshoot your Mac. Just like PC mags/websites. Apple kit has faults and Leopard is very buggy, heck one of the 'Geniuses' in my local Apple store said he never upgraded to a new Mac OS until service pack 4 or 5 as they were too unstable. Look at the tethering issues with 10.5.6. I've reverted back to 10.5.4 and get less freezes and OS crashes now.
The Beta Version of CS4 ran better/crashed less [if ever], on my aging PC laptop than the full release on my MacPro. It ran so well I forget to upgrade to release version and used it unti it expired months later.
LR 2.3 is defintely an improvement on 2.2 and updating LR on either OS is quite painless.
Converting a 1.4 cataogue to a 2.x cataloue was not however, did it on the mac and it corrupted. which loses you, all your virtual copies and if you don't autosave to XMP all your work - If you haven't backed up.
-
Speaking of utter nonsense!
Sorry a pet hate of mine. 'Macs just work' is so not true. I've never had a PC as buggy and unreliable as my curent MacPro.
Mac mags/websites are full of articles 'How to fix/troubleshoot your Mac. Just like PC mags/websites. Apple kit has faults and Leopard is very buggy, heck one of the 'Geniuses' in my local Apple store said he never upgraded to a new Mac OS until service pack 4 or 5 as they were too unstable. Look at the tethering issues with 10.5.6. I've reverted back to 10.5.4 and get less freezes and OS crashes now.
The Beta Version of CS4 ran better/crashed less [if ever], on my aging PC laptop than the full release on my MacPro. It ran so well I forget to upgrade to release version and used it unti it expired months later.
LR 2.3 is defintely an improvement on 2.2 and updating LR on either OS is quite painless.
Converting a 1.4 cataogue to a 2.x cataloue was not however, did it on the mac and it corrupted. which loses you, all your virtual copies and if you don't autosave to XMP all your work - If you haven't backed up.
Well, our experiences differ. You've plainly had a bad time with your Mac. I can only relate my own history, which is that having used Macs since 1985, both at work and at home, and having had, I think, some 6 desktop machines and 5 laptops, used for low-level programming (with frequent system crashes due to my buggy software) as well as more general work, I've had no (that's right, no) hardware or system software problems of any significance. I've seen the articles to which you refer: I've read them: and I've wondered what on earth all the fuss is about.
YMMV, as they say (I believe) in the States, and clearly yours has.
Jeremy