Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Lightroom 2.7 RC Is out  (Read 5158 times)
Josh-H
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1907



WWW
« on: April 05, 2010, 06:19:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Adobe Lightroom 2.7 RC
Logged

John R Smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1357


Still crazy, after all these years


« Reply #1 on: April 06, 2010, 01:19:48 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
and a case full of (very old) lenses and other bits
Chris Sanderson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1908



« Reply #2 on: April 06, 2010, 02:33:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Yeah, I noticed today that I only had three 'current' versions of Lightroom installed. Why not four or perhaps five?  
Logged

Christopher Sanderson
The Luminous-Landscape
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7503


WWW
« Reply #3 on: April 06, 2010, 03:13:10 PM »
ReplyReply

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



Quote from: John R Smith
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.
Logged

wolfnowl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5744



WWW
« Reply #4 on: April 06, 2010, 09:45:59 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.
~ Jean Cooke ~


My Flickr site / Random Thoughts and Other Meanderings at M&M's Musings
msbc
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 83


« Reply #5 on: April 07, 2010, 01:54:48 AM »
ReplyReply

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
Logged
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #6 on: April 07, 2010, 12:20:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: msbc
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.
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5489


WWW
« Reply #7 on: April 07, 2010, 02:01:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: msbc
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?
Logged
msbc
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 83


« Reply #8 on: April 07, 2010, 06:56:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Schewe
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
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #9 on: April 07, 2010, 07:07:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: msbc
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?
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5489


WWW
« Reply #10 on: April 07, 2010, 09:16:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: msbc
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...

:~)
Logged
pegelli
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 609



WWW
« Reply #11 on: April 08, 2010, 12:19:16 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

pieter, aka pegelli
JRSmit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 379


WWW
« Reply #12 on: April 08, 2010, 02:49:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pegelli
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.



Logged

Fine art photography: www.janrsmit.com
Courses and workshops: www.centrumbeeldbeleving.nl

Jan R. Smit
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2725


« Reply #13 on: April 08, 2010, 03:11:42 AM »
ReplyReply

[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?
Logged

pegelli
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 609



WWW
« Reply #14 on: April 08, 2010, 04:23:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JRSmit
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.
Logged

pieter, aka pegelli
Scott O.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 312


WWW
« Reply #15 on: April 08, 2010, 10:30:43 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

tokengirl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 360



« Reply #16 on: April 08, 2010, 06:11:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pegelli
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.  
Logged
Scho
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 85


WWW
« Reply #17 on: April 08, 2010, 07:10:51 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2108


« Reply #18 on: April 08, 2010, 11:38:38 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

Josh-H
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1907



WWW
« Reply #19 on: April 08, 2010, 11:54:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: madmanchan
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  
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad