Skip navigation
This discussion is locked
Currently Being Moderated

Lightroom 4 beta #1 test complete - final results.

Jan 31, 2012 1:11 PM

Regarding the default processing and basic tone controls:

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---

 

Default processing (automatic shadow/highlight recovery) is awesome, usually. In cases when it's not it can be painstaking (and not always satisfying) to compensate for using basic controls and/or tone curve.

 

Basic tone controls have a fundamental design deficiency:

    

     - One can not make successive refinements, where each gets you closer to the goal. Sometimes you have to make corrections that goof up much of what you've already done, then settle everything back in, and then do it again. For example, one may need to increase exposure in order to have a little more "fill light". That will destroy all the work you've already done on the highlights, necessitating readjustment. I see this as a fundamental design flaw. And no, one can not always predict the proper exposure up front, when the proper setting means a massively blown out top end, for example. You must see what happens with the rest of your settings, in order to know what the proper exposure is.

 

Basic tone controls do not allow one to adjust photos with sufficient control without a lot of work (and sometimes even with a lot of work):

 

     - Too many of my photos end up with most tones good, but one or two tones are off. And there seems to be no good way to correct it without a lot of fiddling, tone curve, or locals. The reason is obvious if you adjust the various controls and watch their behavior in the histogram. Even if the tones in the photo click really nicely with PV2012 (and >50% do), it's possible to see the potential for trouble - for example, the adjustment of highlights and shadows do not have a smooth and organic blending with the adjacent zones. Maybe this can be corrected with some tweaks, but it definitely needs to be corrected.

 

Bottom-line:

--------------

I'm done for now. I really hope Adobe will address these issues - I don't want to have to throw away the thousands of hours I've invested in Lightroom and plugins...

 

PS - I apologize in advance to those who would like me to post more examples than I and others already have. My sense is that most respondees will try to refute, and I just don't have the time/energy to take up a fight. Adobe will either get the message or they won't, and either remedy or not...

 

Recommendation to others:

----------------------------------

Make up your own mind about it. I'm sure results are just fine for some folk, but I can not, in good conscience, recommend Lightroom 4 to anyone at this point. The big print giveth, but the small print taketh away...

 

Rob

 
Replies 1 2 3 ... 5 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 31, 2012 1:35 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Rob..

     

    With all due respect, I do think you definitely have made the point!

     

    Sometimes even ignoring the fact that Lee has explained that there could be some algorhythm/behaviour refinements needed or even beta related bugs..

     

    Now I know your passion about Lr, having read many of your posts in the last couple of years, but I hope I'm not reading any more posts from you with regard to this issue!!

     

    Man, you're starting to sound like a broken record, and I personally don't think this attitude is going to bring the developement of PV 2012 anywhere far from where it's meant to go..

     

    I, speaking for myself, prefer the new controls way more, but that's not the point. That's a beta and surely it'll be fine tuned before reaching final state.

     

    Hope no offense is taken, but please stop polluting the forum with such reiterating posts!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 31, 2012 2:13 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Rob Cole wrote:

     

    I'm done for now.

     

    Rob

     

     

    Rob Cole wrote:

     

    I'm done.

     

    From Aesop:

    "A shepherd-boy, who watched a flock of sheep near a village, brought out the villagers three or four times by crying out, "Wolf! Wolf!" and when his neighbors came to help him, laughed at them for their pains.

         The Wolf, however, did truly come at last. The Shepherd-boy, now really alarmed, shouted in an agony of terror: "Pray, do come and help me; the Wolf is killing the sheep"; but no one paid any heed to his cries, nor rendered any assistance. The Wolf, having no cause of fear, at his leisure lacerated or destroyed the whole flock."

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 31, 2012 5:02 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Rob Cole wrote:

     

    I'm done.

    Thankfully....

     

    While I know it is human nature to find that what you know is easy to use and what is new is difficult or "impossible"....however, I think it is important for us to learn to use the new tools.  I am finding, with time, much better results with PV2012.  I think it gives a much better starting point, yet lots of control to adjust as required.  Some of my first attempts were 3 steps forward, 5 back, to get 4 more forward, until I got where I wanted and explored what was possible with the controls.....but I am getting better at knowing what controls do what and how they effect each other.  I think it would be helpful if we informed each other of what we have found in the new tools....and less about how the PV2010 worked better for us.

     

    John

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 1, 2012 12:17 PM   in reply to jrsforums

    Sorry John,

     

    I think you are really unfair now to Rob.

    I have read a lot in his posts about describing what the starting situation of an image is and what he wants to achieve.

    Then how he progressed using the LR4-tools.

    Where he had success and where not, because it drove him into an endless iteration circle starting again from exposure adjustment.

     

    Nobody could adress his concerns or offer a solution how to better apply the new tools. Though he has asked several times for enlightenment, if such were to be had.

     

    All we hear is that LR4-functionality had been compromised with for the sake of interoperability with other tools (in which not necessarily every LR-user might be interested).

     

    I will be interested in reading updates of "Real Word Camera Raw" or Michael Frye's  "Light and Land - Landscapes in the digital darkroom" and see how they cope - definitely a challenge.

     

    Cornelia

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 1, 2012 4:57 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Rob Cole wrote:

     

     

    It could be that Eric Chan is more unhappy than anyone about the decision to make Lightroom 4 compatible with Revel. It could be that he has to bite his tongue every time he gets on the forum to keep from revealing how he really feels (thanks boss for asking me to produce a first-rate pro photo processor, and then binding my hands and feet...). Or, maybe not... - maybe he likes being able to process his raws on his iPhone and have them available for friends and family to see before he gets home...

     

    You are welcome to your opinion regarding PV 2012 (regardless of how ill formed it may be) but you would do well to leave Eric out of any of your ramblings and speculation bud. All you are doing is making yourself look like a brat...(and that's the kindest word I could come up with for polite company). In any event, it ain't Eric, it's Thomas Knoll who has control over the ACR pipeline...and in all my experience, Thomas never does anything without good reason...you are not at all on the inside of ACR/LR development (and posting what you did above cements the fact you never will be).

     

    Grow up and get a life....and quite crossing the line.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 1, 2012 4:59 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    rob,, nice to see your return,,

    in an earlier post i had mentioned to you that i flow directly into the tonal curve for the bulk of editing...you raved the "magic" of the local & adaptive nature of the 'new' basics....personally,, i found that the giant sweeps of the exposure/contrast tools to be a step towards mediocrity in the initial edit...a broad levels adjustment with a heap of contrast..seems a dilution of data..? why am i in a raw flow if that's the goal? a jpeg out of the camera would work well here..no,,the point curve is the best approach for me, extremely! sensitive at both ends and able to lock out all but what i need to tweak.... when i want local/adaptive,,i opt out to nik for the seamless nature of it's u-point algorithms...

     

    i do find however,, that using the basic tools in softproofing is a rapid and precise means of matching for print !! nice..tnx LR team!! that's worth the price!!

     

    & fwiw rob....turn off the histogram and use the selective point tool in curves to tune your pictures...

     

    den

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 1, 2012 10:54 PM   in reply to Cornelia-I

    Cornelia-I wrote:

     

    Sorry John,

     

    I think you are really unfair now to Rob.

    I have read a lot in his posts about describing what the starting situation of an image is and what he wants to achieve.

    Then how he progressed using the LR4-tools.

    Where he had success and where not, because it drove him into an endless iteration circle starting again from exposure adjustment.

     

    Nobody could adress his concerns or offer a solution how to better apply the new tools. Though he has asked several times for enlightenment, if such were to be had.

     

    I was reacting to the constant whining....and was getting tired of hearing what could not be done (relative to PV2010) vs. what could be done on PV2012.  New software requires new learning....and I am sure Rob knows that...he even admits that he was reacting in frustration.

     

    As Rob...and Eric...have said....the sliders are going to only get you so far....and eventually we will learn the fastest path, if we share that info....after that fine tuning maybe (will be) needed by doing it the old fashioned way....curves, dodging, burning, etc.

     

     

    Cornelia-I wrote:

     

    I will be interested in reading updates of "Real Word Camera Raw" or Michael Frye's  "Light and Land - Landscapes in the digital darkroom" and see how they cope - definitely a challenge.

     

     

    Jeff does "Real WOrld CR", and we are hearing from him....and will in the LuLa video.  I am sure there will be lots of other authors such as David Du Chamin, Guy Tal, George Jardin, Lee Varis....who will update there workflow techniques to PV2012.....and all of them in a positive can do and here's how to do it manner.

     

    The Adobe team wants to put out the best product/tool that they can.  How anyone could think that they would want to replace a nicely working (pv2010) solution with a "compromised" solution (pv2012) is quite unimaginable to me....and it is not change for change sake....the only reason to make this big and drastic a change at this time would be with the expectation that it will be dramatically better.  I am sure it will be....it might take some additional minor tweaks....but more important, positive attitude and learning of new things by us.

     

    John

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 2, 2012 8:55 AM   in reply to Jeff Schewe

    Speaking personally, I'm quite happy to read Rob Cole's posts,even though, on this occasion, I disagree with him after my short use of the beta. He is always amiable, never claims to speak for anyone but himself, and is generally an ornament to this forum, so if he cares to make any observation, fine by me.

    And on a general note, I didn't realise that this forum was owned by one particular person - silly me thought it was put out by Adobe so that anyone could give their opinion or views on Lr, so that everyone could gain from a wide exchange of posts. Ah well, shows how wrong you can be...

     

    Perhaps I should add that I don't know Rob Cole personally or professionally.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 2, 2012 10:19 AM   in reply to johnhawk666

    ....and all I did was give my opinion.  Sorry you did not like it. 

     

    No statement made per ownership... :-)

     

    John

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 2, 2012 10:46 AM   in reply to jrsforums

    No,no,I wasn't criticising you or your posts at all - as you say, you were giving your opinion; what I was criticising was the statement that anyone was not allowed or entitled to give their opinion, no matter how right or wrong they might be, and that anyone other than Adobe could decide who could post.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 2, 2012 11:02 AM   in reply to johnhawk666

    johnhawk,

     

    I think you totally misread Jeff's post. He was saying that Rob has no right to publicly speculate about what Eric Chan is thinking or feeling. And I agree.

     

    Hal

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 2, 2012 11:25 AM   in reply to Hal P Anderson

    Hal P Anderson wrote:

     

    johnhawk,

     

    I think you totally misread Jeff's post. He was saying that Rob has no right to publicly speculate about what Eric Chan is thinking or feeling. And I agree.

     

    Hal

     

    Exactly ... it is one thing for Mr. Cole to throw a hissy fit and threaten to take his toys (and withhold his recommendation for Lr4) and go home ... it is quite another to project what Mr. Chan is thinking, doing or otherwise specualte on his state of mind concerning PV 2012 ... or any other aspect of the conversation for that matter ...

     

    Such comments serve no useful purpose other than to stroke the poster's own ego and should never see the light of day. This conduct is insulting to all parties involved regardless if the comments were inspired by valid concerns. Stooping to this level of speculation and conjecture is unbecoming, unprofessional and absurd for someone who is a supposed expert on the issues at hand.

     

    But this has been Mr. Cole's forte for some time and will not likely change anytime soon.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 2, 2012 11:40 AM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Without getting into what should/shouldn't be posted, I do sympathize with Rob's basic point, although I'd put it slightly differently.

     

    What I'm finding is that for 95% plus of images, LR4 is better/easier/quicker than LR3. But for a small number of images, call them "edge cases" if you will, LR4 is really a pig - there's just no other way to put it. The problem I have is that the basic controls just aren't predictable, at least to me. I adjust for one thing, and three other issues spring up in the other corner, quite unexpectedly. Now maybe I've spent too much time with "classic" raw developers, but the behavior of simple things like the exposure control gives slightly strange results, and its really difficult to get to what I want, to the point that I want to fire up the other machine with LR3 on it, rather than persevere with LR4.

     

    Now maybe after a few more weeks, this will go away, but right now it feels like I'll be wanting to keep both LR4 and LR3 available, and that doesn't feel like a good answer.

     

    Sandy

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 2, 2012 11:44 AM   in reply to sandy_mc

    LR 4 will do things the old way, if you want.

     

    Hal

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 2, 2012 11:51 AM   in reply to sandy_mc

    To put it into more explicit terms than Hal:

     

    You can always choose PV2010 for your "edge cases" i.o. PV2012. Then you will have the LR3-sliders available for them.

     

    Should enable best of both worlds?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 2, 2012 11:58 AM   in reply to Hal P Anderson

    Yes, I should have clarified - I've been using the new process version exclusively for testing LR4 - I haven't tried to see whether LR4 accurately emulates the old version. Not enough time for that. But I'm not sure that using the old process versions should be the answer - having them is good for backward compatibility no doubt, but life is going to get hugely complex if we need to get used to two different ways of editing. LR4's complex enough already!

     

    Sandy

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 2, 2012 12:24 PM   in reply to sandy_mc

    Cornelia,

    Sorry, I was channeling Lee Jay.

     

    Sandy,

    I think PV 2010 has to be the exact same code as LR3--otherwise, the backward compatibility wouldn't work.

     

    You said that you were tempted to fire up LR3 for your difficult cases. I guess the operative word in that sentence was "tempted".

     

    Hal

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 2, 2012 12:31 PM   in reply to Hal P Anderson

    Hal,

     

    So far it's "tempted", but to be honest, that's only because I feel like I have to give PV2012 my best shot at getting used to it. It's sort of "nearly great" - I keep on feeling like if I just use it some more it will stop frustrating me on the difficult images

     

    Sandy

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 2, 2012 12:41 PM   in reply to sandy_mc

    Don't forget, there will likely be some tweaks to PV12 in the final.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 2, 2012 12:51 PM   in reply to Lee Jay

    "Don't forget, there will likely be some tweaks to PV12 in the final."

     

    Which puts a bit of a damper on further testing.  Will what we learn about the current state of pv2012 be applicable to the final version?

     

    John

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 2, 2012 1:13 PM   in reply to jrsforums

    John,

     

    I'll bet that most of your (and my) learning will carry over. We're talking tweaks here, not major changes, after all.

     

    I wouldn't count on any work you do with the Beta transferring to 4.0 completely unchanged, though.

     

    Hal

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 2, 2012 3:05 PM   in reply to Hal P Anderson

    Hal P Anderson wrote:

     

    John,

     

    I'll bet that most of your (and my) learning will carry over. We're talking tweaks here, not major changes, after all.

     

    I concur.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 2, 2012 8:34 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Rob Cole wrote:

     

    If Eric Chan can tweak PV2012 such that it's possible to process 99% of photos without a heroic effort (instead of 90-95%), Lr4 may be one of the best releases ever. However, I don't see how it will be possible given the constraints under which he is working.

     

    And what makes you think Eric is working under any specific contraints? Again this is idle speculation...

     

    If you have problem images, post a link so Eric can look at them...he will respond to reasonable attempts at providing useful feedback and this will help the overall process…complaining about PV 2012 without example images is a waste of time.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 4, 2012 1:53 AM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Why most people should take much notice of Rob Cole's 'Beta #1 test -final results' I don't know! Is he a world authority on LR? I thought he was just someone who wrote a few LR plugins in his spare time. I've obviously missed something somewhere - sorry, Rob.

     

    From my own experience with LR4 beta, which is probably just as extensive, I am delighted with the new 2012 develop process. I can see that I am going to reprocess large numbers of my old images to get the better results that 2012 is giving me. Congratulations to Thomas, Eric, and the rest of the LR team for a good upgrade. It'll be even better when the remaining bugs are removed.

     

    So my recommendation is UPGRADE, you won't regret it, once you get the hang of the new develop workflow. And if you find 1 in a 100 images that doesn't look good after developing, use the delete button. Life is too short to mess around trying to perfect that 1 in a 100, when you have 99 good images to use.

     

    So who's this Bob Frost? Why should we listen to him instead of Rob Cole? Because I'm just a happy user of LR - not a self-proclaimed pundit?

     

    Bob Frost

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 4, 2012 4:50 AM   in reply to bob frost

    bob frost wrote:

     

    Why most people should take much notice of Rob Cole's 'Beta #1 test -final results' I don't know! Is he a world authority on LR? I thought he was just someone who wrote a few LR plugins in his spare time. I've obviously missed something somewhere - sorry, Rob.

     

    Bob Frost

     

    Ditto ... I too must have missed the coronation announcement proclaiming Mr. Cole the center of the Lightroom Universe. While Mr. Cole is certainly entitled to his opinion and has every right to express it ... his opinion is of no more importance or credibility than any other opinion expressed here. I personally take umbrage in his futile attempt to blackmail Mr Chan and other forum/Lr4b participants into believing his apprasial is indeed fact and Adobe sales of Lr4 will suffer because Mr. Cole is not on board.

     

    What is the purpose of such claims? Is Mr. Cole upset that Mr. Chan and other team members did not instantly concur with Mr. Cole's assessment and immediately rectify his concerns with pv 2012 and relase a fresh new beta for his perusal? While it may very well be that Mr. Cole has discovered an issue with pv 2012, it is nothing more than bloviating until he can share the evidence to back it up.

     

    Mr. Cole has refused to post example images where pv2012 fails because he wants to avoid controversy and or possibility that his claims will be refuted. This is akin to a prosecutor refusing to share evidence of guilt to the jury because the defense attorney will attempt to knock it down under cross examination ...

     

    There are many heavy hitters that participate hear who do have extensive credetials when it comes to the technical issues of Lightroom. They have written extensive books, conductined in-depth tutorials, workshops, seminars, etc. ... and yet they do not proclaim to be the end-all when it comes to the worthiness of Lr4b ... nor have they rushed to concur with Mr. Cole's findings. Why is that the case? Is Mr. Cole so gifted that only he can identify this issue?

     

    I am Old School ... if you have a point and want to prove it ... put up ... or ... shut up. The proof is in the pudding. Hearsay, conjecture and opinion are just pure fiction unless or until you can share the empirical ecidence to prove the claim. Otherwise you are just flapping your gums just to hear your own voice.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 4, 2012 5:15 AM   in reply to Butch_M

    @Butch_M

     

    I asked Mr. Cole to send me a raw file with his PV2012 and PV2010 version and he did. So he isn't trying to hide evidence

     

    My conclusion is that for a very small percentage of photos (like the raw file from Mr. Cole) PV2010 might indeed be easier to get the desired results. However PV2012 is pretty close.

    For the majority of photos PV2012 seems to be superior to me.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 4, 2012 8:04 AM   in reply to bob frost

    bob frost wrote:

     

    I can see that I am going to reprocess large numbers of my old images to get the better results that 2012 is giving me. Congratulations to Thomas, Eric, and the rest of the LR team for a good upgrade. It'll be even better when the remaining bugs are removed.

     

    This.

     

    It absolutely astonishes me - I mean a real "what the *^%$..?" reaction - that anyone might see these fantastic improvements (for me, for my subject matter and requirements, "fantastic" is certainly the word) as cause for complaint.

     

    There'd be something to complain about if Lr 4 was simply Lr 3 with say, better video handling and book publishing (neither of which I have the remotest personal interest in) but I'm thrilled at the prospect of reworking some (many/most) of my best images in PV 2012.

     

    The possibility that - maybe - the odd image won't respond as well to PV 2012 as to 2010 doesn't faze me one little bit...  

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 4, 2012 8:27 AM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Rob Cole wrote:

     

    Rob Cole wrote:

     

    ... I can not, in good conscience, recommend Lightroom 4 to anyone at this point...

     

    Let me try that again.

     

    - If you want to Revel in the clouds with Lightroom, then Lightroom 4 is for you - no question: highly recommended.

    - If you are universally happy with the kinds of images you get from PV2012, then by all means - proceed to the check-out line...

    - However, if you are picky about the results you get, and 90-95% hit rate ain't good enough, then Lightroom 4 may not be for you (but worth waiting for beta 2 and/or final release to decide).

     

    Summary:

    ------------

    Potential for great results most of the time, but limited control over them, and potential for long and frustrating edit sessions.

     

    Rob

    I am sure that "conspiracy theorists" would claim that only providing your claimed "90-95% hit rate" is a deliberate plan by Adobe to justify the need for LR4 users to continue utilizing Photoshop to provide what LR cannot do.

     

    :-)

     

    I am not shocked that there has been no admision that some of the "difficult" images might be the result of improper capture....and that better techique there would not have made any post processing easier.  I don't know about you, but I find that some of my shots are just impossible to save....which is why I normally bracket and/or take multiple shots at different settings....plus spend a fair time checking the histogram (and understanding what works and doesn't work in my capture/processing workflow).

     

    John

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Andrew Rodney
    1,391 posts
    Apr 16, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 4, 2012 8:41 AM   in reply to jrsforums

    jrsforums wrote:

     

    Rob Cole wrote:

     

    Rob Cole wrote:

     

    ... I can not, in good conscience, recommend Lightroom 4 to anyone at this point...

     

    Let me try that again.

     

    - If you want to Revel in the clouds with Lightroom, then Lightroom 4 is for you - no question: highly recommended.

    - If you are universally happy with the kinds of images you get from PV2012, then by all means - proceed to the check-out line...

    - However, if you are picky about the results you get, and 90-95% hit rate ain't good enough, then Lightroom 4 may not be for you (but worth waiting for beta 2 and/or final release to decide).

     

    Summary:

    ------------

    Potential for great results most of the time, but limited control over them, and potential for long and frustrating edit sessions.

     

    Rob

    I am sure that "conspiracy theorists" would claim that only providing your claimed "90-95% hit rate" is a deliberate plan by Adobe to justify the need for LR4 users to continue utilizing Photoshop to provide what LR cannot do.

     

    Agreed! Good point about the possibility of sloppy capture techniques too. 

     

    The statement Rob is making is absurd and this thead (and his rants) should come to an end. He keeps saying he’s done. He keeps going on. Is this necessary? Doesn’t he have a high enough post count to satisfy?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 4, 2012 12:45 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Ehm..

     

    As the one who started 'attacking' Rob (even if by no means it was supposed to be an attack, let alone a crusade starting post) I think I need to clarify a little bit my position..

     

    I do agree that some refinements need to be made, as Lee also acknowledged, and I do find some quirks and strange behaviours in how the tonal palette is handled by the adjustment sliders in basic panel..

     

    My only point was that at this stage of the beta development some adjustments are supposed to be made to the algorhythms, and that it looks like the development team has already got the buzz about what's behaving in a less than satisfactory way and there's nothing left to do other than wait for a beta 2 or a final solution.

     

    But, given that the thing has been acknowledged, I think that any other speculation regarding the development of the software are just futile.

     

    Much more important would be sending problematic files to the supporting developers here to give them the material they need to refine LR's behaviour.

     

    That's what a public beta is released for.

     

    Not to work with it, but to refine an imperfect by name pre release algorhythm.

     

    My 2 ¢

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 4, 2012 12:50 PM   in reply to tommaso ferrarese

    tommaso ferrarese wrote:

     

    Much more important would be sending problematic files to the supporting developers here to give them the material they need to refine LR's behaviour.

     

    Right!

     
    |
    Mark as:
1 2 3 ... 5 Previous Next
Actions

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (1)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points