In case you missed it, The Lr 3 beta for Mac OS X is also Intel only (pdf link to the release notes). You might want to check out the 30-day evaluation version of Lr 2.5 instead.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Adobe Releases Photoshop Lightroom 3 Beta
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So obviously you dont work in the same photography industry I used to. Lightroom is a RAW workflow program for people who shoot a lot of raw and don't need to clone, or make people thinner, etc. I rarely use photoshop because Lightroom does it all. Not to mention the cataloging system and change tracker is indespensable.
To imply Lightroom is a weak program is just rediculous. I can't imagine going back to processing 5000+ photos at a time using Camera RAW in photoshop.
Actually I have found that iPhoto works just great for all but the very most terribly exposed shots. The new iPhoto tools are really quite nice.
I have been surprised about how much recovery is available.
Both Aperture and LR, as nice as they are, lack the essential perspective control, so I have to use Elements or PTLens for that anyway.
Does Lightroom 3 Beta seem excruciatingly slow, I have a 2.4 ghz macbook uni with 4gb ram plus ssd.
Its completely unusable for me, where as Aperture 2 and iPhoto work great.
Is my machine to slow
Thanks for any responses.
It is pretty slow for me also on my macbook pro (2008 model) I am going to test it out on my mac pro tower tomorrow and can post if there are any major speed changes.
LR3 is definitely in the slow stages right now. but it's a beta so I'm not really up in arms about it. It's running in full 64-bit mode right off the bat which technically should be faster on snow leopard, but I don't think it's taking full advantage of our systems at the moment.
I installed it right away on my Macbook pro 2.33ghz and it very very slow, where lightroom 2 is very usable and quick.
I also installed it on my Mac Pro (2006 model) and it's also slow on there as well. I know it's not from too many photos as well because I only loaded up my '09 files into there and it was just crawling with loading previews.
But hey, it's a BETA, it's gonna happen. That's why we're supposed to submit bug reports
.
I'm going to be giving my macbook pro to my father this week and reclaiming the macbook I gave him (2.2ghz blackbook) I will try it out on there as well. (2.2ghz / 4GB ram / 320gb 7200rpm HDD)
I installed it right away on my Macbook pro 2.33ghz and it very very slow, where lightroom 2 is very usable and quick.
I also installed it on my Mac Pro (2006 model) and it's also slow on there as well. I know it's not from too many photos as well because I only loaded up my '09 files into there and it was just crawling with loading previews.
But hey, it's a BETA, it's gonna happen. That's why we're supposed to submit bug reports
.I'm going to be giving my macbook pro to my father this week and reclaiming the macbook I gave him (2.2ghz blackbook) I will try it out on there as well. (2.2ghz / 4GB ram / 320gb 7200rpm HDD)
How many images did you import? I did the same with my images (around 5000 to test) and it was slow. The reason, rendering 5000 preview images at 1440px.
After this I found the speed to be about the same as LR2. The develop module seems to have been improved under the hood as elements of that are smoother. Still hoping for some improvements in the print module.
Still a bit more testing to do though.
I imported about 6k on my notebook and about the same on my mac pro, then I did the full beans and did a 40k+ photo library import.
The previews are all done but it still lags every time I open an image.
Im testing it out on my macbook now and it still lags pretty bad. Im still toying around to see if there is anything else I can change or tweak. But I'm still optimistic.
I decided to instruct lightroom to build the preview database on my computer and I can tell this is going to take a really. really. long time.
After a little more test I noticed the same, the transition from preview to 1:1 view takes a few a seconds on LR3. Still as it's a Beta I've no problem yet. At least on a Mac we can do a side by side preview with 2.5 (PC owners on the Adobe Labs forum are frustrated that they don't seem to be able to run both together).
That comment reveals that you have absolutely no idea what LR is for. Completely different program than PS.
As two different tools.
Then it's rather frightening for "those people" that you don't understand the difference between the two programs.
You can't be serious.
I rest my case. Next.
Because Adobe has more resourced behind LR than Apple does have Aperture. Updates are non-exist for Aperture.
I've been waiting to jump into the Aperture/Lightroom class RAW editing software (really just waiting for the forthcoming updates before deciding which to go with), and as much as I'd like to avoid more Adobe stuff, Apple's policy of secrecy really doesn't work very well with non-OS software.
Having people seriously speculate that Apple might just drop Aperture all togetherand then not hear anything directly from Applereally isn't encouraging.
Having people seriously speculate that Apple might just drop Aperture all togetherand then not hear anything directly from Applereally isn't encouraging.
I would like to report back that on my Macbook after letting it render the standard and 1:1 previews (which took longer than an overnight on about 7k photos) it is now very very snappy, instant loading of even 21mp Raw files.
Im afraid to start it on my mac pro because it will take forever, but boy does it make an improvement!
Im afraid to start it on my mac pro because it will take forever, but boy does it make an improvement!
Since most photographers use a mere fraction of Ps (and it's mostly the same mere fraction), why not create a game changer and add just those parts of Ps into Lr?That comment reveals that you have absolutely no idea what LR is for. Completely different program than PS.
Because they have to protect the Ps/CS market share?
Apple could create a game changer by doing this with Aperture, if they did we would see Adobe add it to Lr in a matter of weeks (and, no, I'm not holding my breath in either case).
That would be very nice
Most likely. It's a nice big cash cow to have. Most people with LR and CS will upgrade so the cost for them isn't as great. It's just an initial pain when you first buy into it.
It seems like Adobe has intentionally crippled Lightroom. Is it just for image databases? Then why include RAW adjustment abilities and a hint of local adjustment capabilities? So is it also for editing your images? If so, then it's missing essentials.
If I'm going to work on an image, I want to launch into the place I intend to work, not do the Lightroom to Photoshop and back again, but not quite, dance. Rather than working around Lightroom's limitations, just use a legitimate editor. If you want a program to keep you organized, fine. But that's about the extent of its reach.
Defend it all you want, I still don't know a single professional photographer who uses Lightroom as part of their essential workflow, except for one (and he maintains that you must flatten each Photoshop layer before doing another adjustment). Otherwise, it's always the Bridge/Photoshop team.
Most photographers I know who use a workflow tool use either Lightroom/Capture One or Aperture.
These tools are designed to get the tedious work out of the way (colour correction, basic cropping, dust) with the advantage of also being a library function. Though some of the new features such as the filter mode and Adjustment brush are a welcome addition.
I hardly use PS anymore for my work, most corrections for me can be made in Lightroom. Maybe it's just me, but I like to get as much right in camera to save me time when processing. Hence why LR works for me
These tools are designed to get the tedious work out of the way (colour correction, basic cropping, dust) with the advantage of also being a library function. Though some of the new features such as the filter mode and Adjustment brush are a welcome addition.
I hardly use PS anymore for my work, most corrections for me can be made in Lightroom. Maybe it's just me, but I like to get as much right in camera to save me time when processing. Hence why LR works for me
I kicked iPhoto to the figurative curb once I realized how badly it manages files. Import a JPEG/JFIF image into iPhoto and watch the Original and Modified directory trees. iPhoto re-encodes the file if:
o The imported file has a color profile embedded
o You rotate the image
o It damn well pleases
It appears to do so with a fairly high quality factor, so the Modified copy is larger than the Original. Attempts to "revert to Original" often silently are ignored, and if one deletes the Modified copies, iPhoto silently replaces them. There's really no excuse for this -- it degrades image quality, complicates file management, and burns disk space needlessly. This is not a condemnation of iPhoto wrt features -- there's no excuse whatsoever for re-encoding an image that can be losslessly rotated.
By perspective control, are you talking about stuff like keystone transformation on buildings shot up close? That's outside of either application's charter, of course.
I read that Aperture leaves the files alone and properly stores changes as metadata, so I tried it first. Couldn't figure out the flow. I tried Lightroom, and it was quickly clear to me how the app works, so that's what I use now.