New Beta for Adobe Lightroom: 4.1

Direct link:
http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/entitlement/index.cfm?e=labs%5Flightroom

Do not install over any prior version of the LR, even 4.0, uninstall older one first.

Nikolai Sklobovsky said:

Direct link:
http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/entitlement/index.cfm?e=labs%5Flightroom

Do not install over any prior version of the LR, even 4.0, uninstall older one first.

Click to expand...

Right. I did the usual form of upgrade, and nothing was changed.

scott

So is LR worth wasting my time with yet? With prior deficiencies of ACR I've become somewhat skeptical and have not bothered so far. For that matter I've just hunkered down since spending quite a bit of time looking at Bibble and RSP a year or so ago - call me a C1 bigot but it still looks to be the best - and the prerelease views of v4 look even better, particularly wrt to the dramatic speed increase of an already fast RC - looks like maybe they've finally recovered from Michael's departure .

- DL

Don Lashier said:

So is LR worth wasting my time with yet?

Click to expand...

No.

It is still very slow, the UI is more baroque than helpful [or flexible], downloading and installation [on Windows] are ... complicated. Abobe Studio servers seem to be run by fattened guinea pigs instead of lean, speedy hamsters. Honestly, I was really miffed at today's experience, server reaction was worse than biking uphill in a thunderstorm in Hamburg [believe me, that's hard even for well-syringed pro biker], I had to tell them again what my status is (I was signed in, damn) ...

While for beta 4.0 it was recommended to unisntall beta 3 before installing, there was nothing like that with 4.1, so I installed over 4.0. Curiously afterwards I had the old built number, the old About screen, most probably nothing from the new installer. Running the installer again I chose Repair, which didn't do any good, then I used Remove, which did not remove it. I had to go through Windows' system applet.

Installing 4.1 on a clean plate was then a charm, the program is [see above] sloooooooooooooow, over-eager to give every possible user any probable setting to control.

I still hope that one day Lightroom will meet the original intent instead of being just a slow, over-blown RAW converter. Perhaps Adobe shouldn't have gone public to get to know all features everybody in the world thinks is good.


[Edit:] I forgot, Adobe's servers have problems with download accelerators, non-IE browsers, and their own database. I still have trouble convincing their system's to use just my Adobe ID with one password instead of having to enter my e-mail address, probably even with a different password.

the result of 'design by committee', I guess. I installed it, having had to give Adobe a load of personal information - almost to detail of 'inside leg measurement'. When I opened it some sort of other screen opened, which I couldn't be bothered with reading, then it runs slow, the worst gui ever, does nothing that I can see as being better than anything else. I expect they will make a fortune from Apple users and others with 'adobe' tatooed across their foreheads, but imnsho at the moment, for a beta, its junk. They would have to pay me to use it, I certainly have no interest in doing any free testing for them.. They must try harder. I will be sending them an invoice for 20 minutes of my time and for preparing this professional assessment... ;-)

Best wishes,

Ray

Don Lashier said:

So is LR worth wasting my time with yet?
...and the prerelease views of v4 look even better, particularly wrt to the dramatic speed increase of an already fast RC - looks like maybe they've finally recovered from Michael's departure .

- DL

Click to expand...

LR at least will open a random .DNG file from a camera that hasn't been carefully profiled and let you see what you can do with it. That describes my GR-D. C1 is picky about this. It can see the bootleg M8 files, but not GR-D raw files that I do care about.

Is there Beta in progress for V4? If so, I'll send a note to my friends there and see if I should be on the list, as I have beta-tested in the past for C1.

scott

Nikolai Sklobovsky said:

Direct link:
http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/entitlement/index.cfm?e=labs%5Flightroom

Do not install over any prior version of the LR, even 4.0, uninstall older one first.

Click to expand...

It takes more than that. Also remove the folder "Adobe Lightroom" from the Program Files directory. Then the installer will actually install something. When you are at the new level, the "about" label will say "build 264255 Beta 4" without confirming the upgrade to .1 .

scott

I have been using Lightroom more and more over the last week (on my Windows laptop), and am beginning to like it more and more, after giving up on Beta 3 for being too slow. My main Raw converter has been RSP, but I have used C1, Silkpix, Bibble, ACR (which I don't like), and others. I really like the quality of the output I am getting from LR, and some of the tools are very cool, like merely mousing over a portion of your image and using the up and down arrow keys to adjust the exposure for that area. There are also a lot of options for B&W conversions (the Luminous Landscape DVD goes into this in detail). The new fill light and highlight recovery tools help, as do the vignetting controls, etc. I am not crazy about the Library and being forced to use "Shoots" but I need to get used to the UI more and hopefully they will make many more improvements by the official release.

I didn't install the new 4.1 beta since I haven't run into the bugs it fixes, and it sounds like 4.1 is a pain to install and may make the program slower.

Since I have a strong feeling I will ultimately be using Lightroom, I figure I should get comfortable with it now. I am interested to see the upcoming version of C1 as well, though.

My 2 cents, Peter

"Also remove the folder "Adobe Lightroom" from the Program Files directory. "

I'm beginning to think that might the best solution. Or perhaps a complete low-level format of the disk. I want to like LR but it's much like having a high-maintenance girl-friend, there comes a time when the benefits are no longer worth the effort.

Will_Perlis said:

"Also remove the folder "Adobe Lightroom" from the Program Files directory. "

I'm beginning to think that might the best solution. Or perhaps a complete low-level format of the disk. I want to like LR but it's much like having a high-maintenance girl-friend, there comes a time when the benefits are no longer worth the effort.

Click to expand...

On another forum, others had installed over their 4.0. Not having done this, I'm just relaying the news.

Remember--this is a beta *smile*. One 'suffers' a bit with a beta---but I find that I really like the develop module a lot. I'm not sure if I'll ever like the library module and I guess I'm sort of hoping that the develop module would make its way into PSCS3--or something very similar. It truly gives one the most control over a RAW file of any RC I've worked with over the last several years. I have not even tried the print or web modules yet---just looked at them. I still export and open in PS where I do anything else necessary (less an less on many files) and sharpen with PKS.

I've now installed--totally without incident. After checking the Pixmantec site, I decided to go to the add/remove in settings and just remove LR. Did that, installed and everything went quickly and easily--history appears to be there for developed files, library just as was--and it took just a few moments--including the dl which was very fast.

Diane

"Remember--this is a beta *smile*. One 'suffers' a bit with a beta---"

Diane,

I've been suffering with hardware and software since the mid-sixties & I don't mind some pain for a good cause.

What I don't want to bother with is gratuitous cruelty like Adobe not putting "4.1" on the splash screen or disabling the CD drive during an un-install of 4.0. That sort of crap should have been dealt with in their alpha builds.

Yes, "Develop" has potential. So far, the rest is fluff and nonsense.

Diane Fields said:

I've now installed--totally without incident. After checking the Pixmantec site, I decided to go to the add/remove in settings and just remove LR. Did that, installed and everything went quickly and easily--history appears to be there for developed files, library just as was--and it took just a few moments--including the dl which was very fast.

Diane

Click to expand...

I think some that were having problems were uninstalling from the LightRoom program uninstall and not from the Add/Remove in Windows Control Panel. This is the procedure that Windows recommends for all program removals.

From your other comments, I agree with you and very much like LightRoom Develop mode but am not thrilled with Library. I am reasonably sure that I will purchase this software when it is released.

Bev

it's been an interesting beta so far. it doesn't like processing large files ( i deal with betterlight images and pano's, so i have tif files that mostly range between 500Mb and 2Gb, with dimension's of > 50,000 pixels in a given direction).

the workflow still doesn' t have the ease of the RSE workflow for the raw images

On Mac I didn't had any prob installing 4.1 over 4…
BTW LR is much faster than C1 (G5 bi-pro) I like the results, despite that files appear desaturated when open in PSCS2…
Very interesting software but a lot to learn with so many possible adjustments…
I don't like either the library and would very much like that all windows could be organized separately on my second screen as the image appears on the main one.

Nicolas Claris said:

BTW LR is much faster than C1 (G5 bi-pro)

Click to expand...

Are you referring to conversion speed (which is irrelevant) or to import of new images, tweaking facility, moving between images etc. (which is entirely relevant). ACR always converted an order of magnitude faster than C1, but with C1 workflow this is almost totally irrelevant. C1 workflow has always been an order of magnitude faster than ACR.

- DL

Bonjour Don
I'm referring to conversion speed. ONLY.

For all the rest that you mention, in terms of speed and easyness, I do prefer C1.

I don't use ACR with the exception of DNG made with DxO, but these are one by one images so speed is not an issue with ACR but with DxO!
Maybe we do need to (if one wishes so) get used to the LR GUI…
I don't like the system of libraries (same with Aperture), I do my own with my folders and like to keep the "sidecars" files together with the hires files.
After a shoot, I organize my folders by center of interest and derush in order to keep the…"keepers" make some general adjustments (curves, saturation etc.), make horizon horizontal, crop when needed, and export 1000 pix tifs so I can make slideshows from PSCS2 and put them online for the client.
When this is done, I burn data DVDs with all the files (except the previews) as back-up.
Easy workflow. Thanks to C1.
But one more time, it's maybe because I love C1/PSCS2 (I mean, it's my dayly food when I'm not shooting!). I know that some others cannot get thru C1 interface…

But I do like the LR conversion so I'll keep on trying/testing the beta and may buy the final version, and certainly C1 4 and DxO 4 as well when they'll be out on the shelves for the Mac.

After all, as you said, each RC as its own advantages, and for special treatment, for special pictures, it happens that I first convert the same file with different RC in order to choose the one that fit me the best…

Cheers! (breakfast time here, LOL)

Why would conversion speed be irrelevant? To me it certainly is quite irrelevant, but to somebody else it may be highly relevant. It all depends on how you work and what you do.

Regarding LR's library feature, its funny that I have yet to see anybody who likes it. It is not powerful enough to be really useful yet it is mandatory. I personally find it extremely frustrating. For example, I use another tool to edit IPTC meta-data, but there is no way to get LR to update the meta-data view except to remove the file from the library and re-import it. Just one of many irritations.

I do like the Develop module a lot though, but I miss the automatic CA removal from RSP which worked wonders for me.

KrisCarnmarker said:

Why would conversion speed be irrelevant?

Click to expand...

Because it is several magnitudes faster than anything else you do in the converter. It is also something that can be done in the background while you work on something else or even leave your computer for the next session.

Like counting pixels and sensor sites the conversion speed is easily measured and compared, but how important is a difference of a few 10th of a second in reality? You can throw very large numbers at any of the big converters [if they support batching in a meaningful way] and they difference is still not important - unless your day is dependent upon 5 minutes.

Dierk Haasis said:

Because it is several magnitudes faster than anything else you do in the converter. It is also something that can be done in the background while you work on something else or even leave your computer for the next session.

Click to expand...

For some jobs, I convert pictures one by one and open them immediatly (automatically) in PS, for me it is a continuous workflow, I know (well, I think I do ;-)) what I do in the RC and after in PS, I need to keep concentrated, therefore speed for converting is -also- a really important matter…

Otherwise, batching are done during the night…

Nicolas Claris said:

For some jobs, I convert pictures one by one and open them immediatly (automatically) in PS, for me it is a continuous workflow, ...
Otherwise, batching are done during the night…

Click to expand...

I think the difference between your workflow and Don's (mine's, too) is that a hard core C1/RSP user doesn't always go to PS to finish up, since C1 can crop, adjust, and resize in one step, starting from the raw file. Then you put the image on the rendering queue and go on to the next one. PS use (for local as opposed to overall adjustments) may be only 10-20% of the images. If you concentrate on a single image and take it through PS most of the time, then I would agree that rendering time is important.

scott

Bev Sampson said:

I think some that were having problems were uninstalling from the LightRoom program uninstall and not from the Add/Remove in Windows Control Panel. This is the procedure that Windows recommends for all program removals.

From your other comments, I agree with you and very much like LightRoom Develop mode but am not thrilled with Library. I am reasonably sure that I will purchase this software when it is released.

Bev

Click to expand...

Nice thing is that I get a free vs.1 because I'm a licensed RSP owner. Now--whether I use it as a total package or not is the question. I use Imatch for database (primarily because of archived image files), print from Qimage or PS and like final PP and def. sharpening from PS (PKS)--and use C1 or RSP for my RC at this point--though I've been using LR for most of my personal shooting recently. My workflow also consists of saving to a native sized unsharpened tiff so that means export no matter what---and, at present, exporting requires a number of steps--so isn't my cup of tea. I'd like to see it be able to be set up once for that series of images, then just put that file in line to be processed behind the scenes as I go to the next file. As it is now---I have to go through all the 'stuff' once again to export each file. I hope that changes---and its certainly been brought up time and again on the Pixmantic site where its being watched and moderated by Adobe.

Diane

Nicolas Claris said:

For some jobs, I convert pictures one by one and open them immediatly (automatically) in PS, for me it is a continuous workflow, I know (well, I think I do ;-)) what I do in the RC and after in PS, I need to keep concentrated, therefore speed for converting is -also- a really important matter…

Click to expand...

I generally do this too, but after spending 1/2 hour in C1 picking and adjusting the few I want to work on in PS, the dif between 10 seconds and 4 seconds for the handful I convert is inconsequential. Plus if I'm doing more than one, it gets processed in the bg while I do final tweaks on the next one.

When I do convert a bunch, it's usually for web proofs and in this case C1's quickproof is orders of magnitude faster than generating them with ACR/PS.

- DL

Did anyone else have their notification icons (in WinXP) disappear after installing LR 4 & 4.1 and having them reappear after uninstalling LR? I've done three times (thus demonstrating my willingness to suffer on occasion) and it's happened each time in exactly the same way.

TBH I need to know if my AV is running, the speakers are muted, and my net connections are solid a hell of a lot more than I need another RAW converter. C1 is next on the list to try.

I’ve put around 10 hours into LRb4.1 and here’s my findings:

1) Its still slooooow! My intial test for all RCs is to throw 650 RAWs at it, LR took 90 secs to do the intial thumbnail load, Silkpix did it in 25 secs, RSP also took 25secs while DPP took 15 secs. All these RCs then grind away in the background doing other stuff. LR was by far the most memory and CPU intensive, which meant wating time!

2) I’m getting use to the workflow but really cant see the benefit of a seperate library and develop module. Ok, Adobe say its serves different purposes. The library is designed for sorting and organising, while the develop is for post proecessing. To be honest if there was a significant performance difference between the two I’d buy into the idea, but there is not.

3) The flexibility of output, image colour and quality are excellent. I still find the Tiffs warm and when I send them to CS2, the colours differ. Strange as I have a colour matched workflow and both CS2 and LR are set up for ProPhotoRGB.

4) The develop module is groundbreaking, to be able to drag histograms and put your cursor on a spot on the image and use the arrows keys to add/subtract curves is amazing. I’d prefer the ability to add some more points though!

5) The print module is nice, but lacks the WYSIWIG view of ICC profiles which you get in CS2. The up sizing of images is good but not as good as using tried and tested CS2 techniques. e.g bicubic smoother over sizing then reducing.

6) The web module seems pointless to me as dont package images in that manner, however it makes a nice flash output. Likewise with the Slideshow module.

7) It crashes a lot, mainly when cropping and rotating images, although it never complains about a restart, I hate to think what its doing to its database…which brings me onto its library database.

8) I'm not too keen to lock my image edits into a proprietary database. I use Iview and even that has XML outputs so you can access metadata later, but LR locks both metadata and edits into a massive libary index system on your hard drive that just keeps on growing.

9) I still found that I was outputting to CS2 to do lens correction and dust bunny removal!

I’ve just revisited a collection of images from a trip to Rome last April and put togther a small gallery with all edits manily being done in LRb4.1. It was a slow tedious but enjoyable process and I was quite impressed with the varied output. So if you are partial to some Vatican art take a look here!!

Jhon
Interesting point of views, what machine and OS did you use for this trial?
Thanks for your time and efforts to let's know your experience with LR.

WinXP sp2 laptop with Intel duo core T2600, 2 Gb Ram, ATI X1600 gfx card and defraged sata drives. I use DVI out to a calibrated EIZO Flexiscan s2100. All images are stored on external Firewire drives via a PCI express bus docking port, caches and libraries are written to local drives.

John_Nevill said:

2) I’m getting use to the workflow but really cant see the benefit of a seperate library and develop module. Ok, Adobe say its serves different purposes. The library is designed for sorting and organising, while the develop is for post proecessing.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that tweaks have to be done in a different place than sorting and pruning? If so, this wouldn't work well for me as at least initial tweaks (WB, EC, etc), plus two-up or four-up viewing are essential for my pruning. I'm under the impression that Adobe still doesn't really get how photographers work - guess I'll have to break down and install LR to see for myself.

- DL

Indeed, the library module serves as place to grade, prune, classify, add keywords etc, while the Develop module does all the detailed processing tweaks.
Ok you have access to basic quick develop tools within the library (wb, exposure, recovery, fill, contrast and vibrance) but they are pretty limited as all you can do is hit the + or - buttons. Which really begs my earlier question, why separate the modules? It would make sense just to add collapsable tabs to reflect the differences in either and then combine.

I installed the C1 LE demo this weekend and compared some conversions I did with it with conversions of the same files in Lightroom (all photos taken on my 5D and 135L - most were casual portrait shots).

I found I could get very pleasing results from either RC, except: 1) LR provides more useful tools, like highlight recovery, histogram adjustments, vignetting control, etc. (on the other hand I find C1 very easy and quick to use); 2) C1 provided better default noise reduction - I found both RCs to have similar default sharpness levels, but the LR pics were noticeably noisier. I could use Noise Ninja on the LR pics if needed (or change the default de-noise or smoothing levels), but I liked the output from C1 a bit more for photos where I did not have overexposed areas.

Conclusion: it's too close to call for me at this point. I will get LR free as a RSP user, and I can get C1 LE from buying a Sandisk Extreme III card, so I will probably get both and see how the final version of LR compares to the new C1 4 that is coming out at the beginning of next year.

Just my 2 cents.

Peter

8) I'm not too keen to lock my image edits into a proprietary database. I use Iview and even that has XML outputs so you can access metadata later, but LR locks both metadata and edits into a massive libary index system on your hard drive that just keeps on growing.
John

Click to expand...

You can ask LR to output the meta data to XMP files alongside the RAWs by setting it up in the preferences.