Comments on: Lightroom 3.0 public beta arrives!

By: Ron McKitrick

Ron McKitrick — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:31:39 +0000

Jack, where do you comment on problems with LR3 beta. PC user and LR user since LR1 [Please go here. --J.]

By: c

Fri, 04 Dec 2009 13:36:03 +0000

not true. i’ve seen 16-bit printing and compared it to an 8-bit print (same image) from a nikon d300 and i saw significant improvement in detail, resolution, and smoothness of tonality with the naked eye.
the only problem is that 16-bit printing is not available on the windows platform.

By: Mel

Mel — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:27:18 +0000

I was elated to see the addition of the Custom Package in the Print module, but I cannot get it to work properly.
Here’s a good example: show me how to print three 4×6 images on an 8.5×11 sheet with NO IMAGE CROPPING and with AUTOMATIC IMAGE ROTATION. Two cells will be portrait, arranged side by side. The third cell must be in landscape orientation in order to fit on the page.
This is no big trick in the PS CS3 Picture Package, (or in PS CS4 with that legacy feature installed). It works as advertised. How can I duplicate that capability in LR3 beta?
Why did you remove Picture Package from PS CS4 without providing an adequate replacement? Is this shortcoming already on the list to be fixed in later beta versions of Lightroom?

By: W Thomas Manders

W Thomas Manders — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:38:43 +0000

I just looked at some of the features and a couple appear to be nice and helpful but a couple don’t seem to add much.
1. I basically import with a preset and the new system looks like it makes it more complicated not less but will have to see.
2. Music with a slide show. The next improvement needs to be to adjust the beat to each slide as Pro Show Gold does. It is annoying to have slides not follow the beat of the music.
Thanks,
Tom

By: Dawn Smith

Dawn Smith — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 09:08:30 +0000

There's a video plug-in for LR at: http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/video-assets I hope Adobe adds video archiving too!

By: Denyerec

Denyerec — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:33:48 +0000

Is Lightroom ever going to take advantage of Shadermodel 2.0 / 3.0 hardware?
The performance on my E6600 4GB RAM system is nothing short of appalling, yet I have a stupendously powerful graphics card sat there doing absolutely diddly squat… Given that the texture processing hardware on such cards is *made* for applying effects to, well, bitmaps, it’s a shame to see it go unused.

By: Phil Brown

Phil Brown — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 16:51:34 +0000

16 bit editing is great (even if you only start with 12 or 14 bits) compared to 8 bit for sure. But even if you do that, the printed output in the real world you won’t find images that benefit from 16 bit printing.
You can create images where you can show the difference and there’s no real downside to 16 bit printing (it takes larger files, more data etc, but doesn’t slow down printing and storage space is less of an issue for the most part now), but not having it isn’t a real issue and having it isn’t going to suddenly result in huge improvements :-)

By: Nick

Nick — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 06:32:35 +0000

Will it be possible in later releases in this beta periode to use older catalogs? I would love to test LR3 – but I will not use two catalogs in the near future.

By: casimir

casimir — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:48:06 +0000

16-bit printing alone, well… but a full A-Z 16-bit workflow is quite different story, isnt’t it?

By: casimir

casimir — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:26:25 +0000

Windows 7 (and with an update Windows Vista) has a support for Win32 API for XPS printing (if one doesn’t like .NET). :)
There is no problem to print in 16-bit any more.

By: casimir

casimir — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:57:45 +0000

Will the XR JEPG (ISO/IEC 29199-2) be supported on Lightroom 3 ? [I haven't seen plans to that effect. Know any cameras that shoot in this format? --J.]

By: Mark Alan Thomas

Mark Alan Thomas — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 02:28:52 +0000

Also pleased to see that the blue fire of Jesus has been exorcised, and in a way which doesn't sacrifice functionality.

By: Phil Brown

Phil Brown — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:13:02 +0000

In real world output, you have to work extremely hard to find an image that benefits from 16 bit printing, so I really wouldn’t worry.
Also, until the underlying OS printing system supports 16 bit printing on Windows, you’re unlikely to see it from applications since they’ve had to write their own system instead of using the OS.

By: David B Miller, Pharm. D.

David B Miller, Pharm. D. — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:30:52 +0000

Without soft proofing, this has no real value for me. I already use LR 2.4
Cheers
David

By: cas

cas — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 10:32:46 +0000

It all sounds great, but will the Windows World get a 16-bit printing this time…, too?