1 2 3 4 Previous Next 200 Replies Latest reply on Aug 24, 2010 2:28 PM by areohbee Go to original post
      • 40. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
        klaus-2526

        I tried to publish pictures to hdd with watermark. Pictures will be published, but without watermark. Could anyone confirm this behaviour?

        I'm using LR 3.2 RC (x64). In all other cases watermarkung is working fine.

         

        KR Klaus

        • 41. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
          mei!

          Arrrghghhh!!!!

           

          And it sometime crashes completely when using the clone tool.

          *sigh*

          I thought that behaviour was a thing of the 2.x past.

           

          I then have to restart and the folder I was in, panel states etc. are all forgotten. Can't that info be stored on disk so that when it crashes (and it will) they can be restored? Even microsoft word does that sort of thing.

          • 42. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
            TK2142 Level 1

            I can confirm that the display size issue is still a problem in LR3.2 RC.

             

            I have an image with a number of tweaks and when I apply an adjustment brush stroke to it, depending on the display size the stroke will be very delayed and slow, or relatively fluid. Bringing in the bottom panel (F6) makes all the difference. This is on a 1440x900 screen and using an image in portrait orientation.

             

            LR3.2RC now can show a considerable lag between pressing "K" and the adjustment brush being ready to appear. Is that a trade-off that has been made to make the subsequent brushing quicker or avoid the impression that the brush is ready (cursor showing) but wasn't quite?

             

            BTW, only played perhaps a total of 15min with LR3.2 RC and have a nice message overlayed on the top of my image "An unknown error occurred"... Only went back and forth between images and made test applications with the adjustment brush.

            • 43. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
              mei! Level 1

              This is a 'release candidate' so users are expected to give feedback on it? What is the official channel for doing that?

              • 44. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                areohbee Level 6

                After a few more hours of use - Lr3.2RC is definitely working better than Lr3.0 did for me, examples:

                 

                - Now that Lightroom is using the ACR cache properly, develop rendering times are down (since its not re-rendering unnecessarily) - dunno if this is an Lr3.2RC thing or if I would have gotten the same improvement by moving my ACR cache when I was running 3.0 - but in any case its not a problem anymore (although there is still a bug in there! - it just isn't biting me at the moment).

                 

                - Develop hasn't gotten part way through rendering, then blinked and decided to start over again - like it used to sometimes.

                 

                - Develop is showing a reasonable preview whilst rendering a "better" one, instead of just being all blurry.

                 

                - Develop hasn't refused to display rendered changes - sometimes it used to not update the rendered image on the display so I'd end up cranking the sharpening up & up until I realized it wasn't showing me the sharpening increases.

                 

                - Paint brush hasn't shown the "several second" delays that it used to sometimes (not always).

                 

                - Before / After develop view switching is much faster.

                 

                - The program hasn't slowed to a crawl, generally accompanied by excessive RAM consumption, yet.

                 

                - Lr3.2RC has only crashed once so far.

                 

                Summary: Its too soon to tell whether any of the problems I think are better will "re-emerge", but definitely some things are better than they were.

                 

                PS - I know software engineers sometimes either don't know or can't remember what all they've fixed as they've worked on things for X months. You can be sure that the list of "fixed bugs", wherever that was posted, is far from complete. And, you can be sure they've induced a few new ones while fixing the others...

                 

                ==================

                2010-08-11 Update #1:

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

                Part1 - Lr3.2RC still using ACR cache when it should, but has slowed down in develop mode switching between photos - takes several seconds for cached photo to be loaded - accompanied by a freezy-pause thing and/or a spinning blue ring, and sometimes a stutter... before it finishes its business... Restarting Lr did not help, nor did restarting my machine - which are the only things I tried. I did backup/optimize my catalog between the time it was working good, and the now not-so-good behavior - dunno if there's a connection...

                Part 2 - After further testing, I've discovered that switching photos in develop mode is much faster at 1:1 than at fit size. I would have thought there would be some preview loadable as quickly, or more quickly than at 1:1, but thats not how its working for me at the moment. Its like its willing to load the 1:1 preview from the cache for developing, but insists on recomputing the image anew for fit view each time.

                Part 3 - I could have sworn it was loading fit-size photos quickly in develop mode there for a while, but now its back to slow ~ 15 seconds (when already cached), at 1:1 its more like 3-4 seconds. Yep, its faster again. i.e. fit-size load times are usually slow (~15) but sometimes fast (for the same photos) ~5-6 seconds. So, there is an intermittent bug here - I will report.

                Summary: As long as ACR cache is being employed properly (and there is a bug that was keeping it from being), 1:1 switching in develop mode is fast (3-4 seconds). Fit-size switching has a bug whose symptoms are significant lag in switching speed (~15 seconds).

                Fit-size viewing in library has been quite perky once previews are built - less than one second. And 1:1 viewing in library is fairly perky (5-6 seconds once 1:1 preview is available). All stats are for non-cropped 12MP images from D300. - My system specs were given in a previous nearby post.

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

                2010-08-11 Update #2:

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

                Library switching at 1:1 is now going much faster than it was - less than one second. Previously it was 5-6 seconds. (I'm talking about re-visiting after the preview has been created). It just occurred to me that sub-second timing is probably because photo is in RAM and is not being loaded from disk at all. Still begs the question of why is the behavior so inconsistent, and why is it so much slower to load a 1:1 view in library than develop. I assume in the later case Lightroom has to compute all the library stuff that it doesn't have to compute for develop, but 2-3 more seconds to initialize library panel views for a single photo seems excessive.

                Summary: Lightroom has the potential to display 1:1 library previews very quickly, but there is still a bug or two that slow it down. - will report now.

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

                ================

                 

                Rob

                • 45. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                  ianbutty Level 1

                  W.W. Webster wrote:

                   

                  This release includes camera support, bug fixes and new features.  Details here:

                  http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2010/08/lightroom-3-2-and-came ra-raw-6-2-available-on-adobe-labs.html

                  The linked page identifies only one new feature.  Are there others?

                  The biggest one appears to have slipped under the radar.... sticky filters are back!  If you aren't familiar with them I've written a blog post about them and how to enable them in LR3.2RC:

                  http://bit.ly/azjaLa

                   

                  Ian.

                  • 46. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                    areohbee Level 6

                    I'm not Tom Hogarty, nor an Adobe employee, but I'm thinkin' its the same as for Lr3.0 - i.e. this forum and the feature-request/bug-report form.

                     

                    I'm sure an insider will come along and confirm or deny...

                    • 47. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                      areohbee Level 6

                      TK2142 wrote:

                       

                      LR3.2RC now can show a considerable lag between pressing "K" and the adjustment brush being ready to appear. Is that a trade-off that has been made to make the subsequent brushing quicker or avoid the impression that the brush is ready (cursor showing) but wasn't quite?

                       

                      My experience is that the brush will not appear until develop rendering / loading is complete, after which it is immediate.

                      • 48. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                        TK2142 Level 1

                        areohbee wrote:

                         

                        My experience is that the brush will not appear until develop rendering / loading is complete, after which it is immediate.

                        Yes, I thought the same. I just don't remember such long lags from 3.0.

                        I'll reserve further judgement until I have used 3.2RC a bit more. Maybe caches have to refill, etc. It might be that after a little usage things will be back to normal.

                         

                        The same goes for the jerky scrolling of the grid in the library if you move it with the scrollbar. When I just expected that behaviour again, it wasn't as bad anymore.

                         

                        Does anyone else wish the scrolling would allow better visual tracking or is it just my machine?

                        • 49. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                          areohbee Level 6

                          Scrollbar scrolling of grid has always been "jerky" I think - Still jerky... - I too would prefer smoother scrolling, instead of "a chunk at a time". One thing I've noticed: scrolling "by chunks" is more palatable with smaller thumbnail sizes.

                           

                          R

                          • 51. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                            banikko

                            I had the same thing happen when I published to flickr. . . no watermark.  Is this a glitch or am I missing something?

                             

                            HK

                            • 52. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                              JayS In CT Level 1

                              TK2142 wrote:

                               

                              I can confirm that the display size issue is still a problem in LR3.2 RC.

                               

                              I have an image with a number of tweaks and when I apply an adjustment brush stroke to it, depending on the display size the stroke will be very delayed and slow, or relatively fluid. Bringing in the bottom panel (F6) makes all the difference. This is on a 1440x900 screen and using an image in portrait orientation.

                               

                              LR3.2RC now can show a considerable lag between pressing "K" and the adjustment brush being ready to appear. Is that a trade-off that has been made to make the subsequent brushing quicker or avoid the impression that the brush is ready (cursor showing) but wasn't quite?

                               

                              BTW, only played perhaps a total of 15min with LR3.2 RC and have a nice message overlayed on the top of my image "An unknown error occurred"... Only went back and forth between images and made test applications with the adjustment brush.

                               

                              The display size issue had been confirmed on both Windows and Macs (See the "LR3 Slow Rendering" thread), and I opened another bug report on it yesterday.  You may want to add your voice so it gets corrected (perhaps before 3.2 official release) in an update.

                               

                              https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/mmform/index.cfm?name=wishform

                               

                              While you're there, you could use the same form for the other issues. 

                               

                              The link was down near the bottom of the official notification of the 3.2 RC.

                               

                              Jay S.

                              • 53. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                JayS In CT Level 1

                                hamish niven wrote:

                                 

                                okay what is AVCHD?

                                 

                                Advanced Video Coding HIgh Defintion.  Basically a Video coding format, compatible with BluRay and used in Camcorders which can record 1920x1080 HD video.  A follow on to DV and MiniDV formats.

                                 

                                Jay S.

                                • 54. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                  JayS In CT Level 1

                                  mei! wrote:

                                   

                                  This is a 'release candidate' so users are expected to give feedback on it? What is the official channel for doing that?

                                   

                                  Mei!

                                   

                                  Here's the link.

                                   

                                  https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/mmform/index.cfm?name=wishform

                                   

                                  Jay S.

                                  • 55. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                    RGracia

                                    Intsalling this RC won't affect my product warranty right? I will still be able to install no

                                    rmal updates in the future...?


                                    • 56. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                      Jasonized Level 3

                                      err.. uhm.. no, shouldn't have any effect at all.  This is just the first update of many for 3.0..

                                       

                                      It's not quite the same as "unlocking" your iphone!

                                       

                                      Cheers!

                                      • 57. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                        RGracia Level 1

                                        I mean like a beta software which we can't upade.

                                        Thanks. You have answered my question, though.

                                        • 58. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                          WesternGuy Level 1

                                          So for us newbies at this, with Lightroom...since this 3.2 is a Release Candidate, do I need to download it now, or is it okay to wait until the official Release is available (whenever that will be)?  Also, do I also need to download Adobe Camera Raw 6.2 as well to go with it, or is the ACR 6.2 release solely for other products, e.g., can I download it and use it for Photoshop Elements which is currently using ACR 6.1?

                                           

                                          Does this RC 3.2 update 3.0 or does it replace it?  Regardless, when the actual Release comes along will it update LR3.0 (assuming I don't install the 3.2 Release Candidate) or replace it.  Not being someone who is familiar with all this stuff - Release Candidates vs. Releases, etc. it is all a bit confusing at first.  When I was using Photoshop Elements I did not have to deal with this sort of stuff, you bought the new version when it came out (there were no upgrades to individual versions), or not, and stayed with the old version, for example, I have tended to buy only the even numbered versions, e.g., PSE4/6/8 and skipped the intermediate odd numbered versions 3/5/7.  LIghtroom is obviously different in this respect and I would like to understand how all this works.  Any insight that anyone would care to provide will be greatly appreciated.  Thanks.

                                           

                                          Regards,

                                           

                                          WesternGuy

                                          • 59. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                            Lee Jay-ZyZk56 Level 4

                                            You don't need to update so you can wait if you want.  You don't need the CR plugin, that's for Photoshop.


                                            • 60. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                              JimHess-DIrcbP Level 3

                                              You are making this too difficult.  The RC will install over the Lightroom 3.0.  The release notes tell you how to go back to Lightroom 3.0 if you want to.  I haven't found it necessary to do that.  You do not need to download ACR to go with Lightroom.  Lightroom does not use the ACR plug-in.  The RC and any subsequent Lightroom releases will be named Lightroom.exe.  They simply install over the top of the old one, and your serial number and your user settings will remain in place.  If you want the RC, go ahead and try it.  If you don't, just wait for the official release.

                                              • 61. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                                Jasonized Level 3

                                                Typically, a "release candiate" is a release that if they dont' find things wrong, will be promoted to a release.  Not the same as a beta product.

                                                 

                                                3.2 will be an update from3.0 (they skipped 3.1 for numbering synchronization reasons) when it comes out.  This is 3.2RC_1, which means they could come out with 3.2RC_2, 3, 4, etc... until they get it right "enough" to be an actual release.  Then they would just drop off the RC and make it a release.

                                                 

                                                So waiting doesn't make sense, other than waiting to get rid of bugs.

                                                 

                                                If I had been reading the board before i installed 3.0, I would have waited.  The updates (like 2010 processing) wouldn't have been enough to make me upgrade in the middle of a project.  But I didn't, so now I'm stuck.  3.2RC_1 is a much better release than 3.0 (from my point of view, and particular work flow habits).  Your options may vary.  If you already have 3.0 installed, 3.2RC is a good upgrade.  If you still have 2.7, I'd have waited...

                                                 

                                                Bottom line: doesn't matter that it's an RC or not.  Don't make your choice based on that.

                                                 

                                                If you are on a mac, then LR3.0RC installs next to 3.0; on a pc, it replaces 3.0.  But as it says in the notes: you can reinstall 3.0 anytime you want.

                                                 

                                                Cheers!

                                                • 62. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                                  s_levin Level 1

                                                  The thing that's not quite clear to me is the issue of the libraries....I have installed the RC and it seems to have exactly the same library as LR3, as I expected.  But, if that's the case, why do I need to keep LR3 installed on my computer?  Shouldn't we theoretically migrate over to the RC version and dump LR3.0?

                                                  • 63. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                                    WesternGuy Level 1

                                                    Lee Jay wrote:

                                                     

                                                    You don't need to update so you can wait if you want.  You don't need the CR plugin, that's for Photoshop.


                                                     

                                                    Thanks Lee.  I appreciate your prompt reply, succinct and to the point.

                                                    .

                                                     

                                                    WesternGuy

                                                    • 64. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                                      WesternGuy Level 1

                                                      JimHess wrote:

                                                       

                                                      You are making this too difficult.  The RC will install over the Lightroom 3.0.  The release notes tell you how to go back to Lightroom 3.0 if you want to.  I haven't found it necessary to do that.  You do not need to download ACR to go with Lightroom.  Lightroom does not use the ACR plug-in.  The RC and any subsequent Lightroom releases will be named Lightroom.exe.  They simply install over the top of the old one, and your serial number and your user settings will remain in place.  If you want the RC, go ahead and try it.  If you don't, just wait for the official release.

                                                       

                                                      Jim, thanks for you reply.  Please understand that for those of us who are not familiar with the whole process, things like this probably do look more difficult than they are.  Thanks for your insight.

                                                       

                                                      WesternGuy

                                                      • 65. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                                        DdeGannes Adobe Community Professional

                                                        Yes if you are a mac you can dump 3.0. If need be you can put it back.

                                                        If you are on Win the RC update would have overwritten 3.0.

                                                        • 66. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                                          WesternGuy Level 1

                                                          Jasonized wrote:

                                                           

                                                          Typically, a "release candiate" is a release that if they dont' find things wrong, will be promoted to a release.  Not the same as a beta product.

                                                           

                                                          3.2 will be an update from3.0 (they skipped 3.1 for numbering synchronization reasons) when it comes out.  This is 3.2RC_1, which means they could come out with 3.2RC_2, 3, 4, etc... until they get it right "enough" to be an actual release.  Then they would just drop off the RC and make it a release.

                                                           

                                                          So waiting doesn't make sense, other than waiting to get rid of bugs.

                                                           

                                                          If I had been reading the board before i installed 3.0, I would have waited.  The updates (like 2010 processing) wouldn't have been enough to make me upgrade in the middle of a project.  But I didn't, so now I'm stuck.  3.2RC_1 is a much better release than 3.0 (from my point of view, and particular work flow habits).  Your options may vary.  If you already have 3.0 installed, 3.2RC is a good upgrade.  If you still have 2.7, I'd have waited...

                                                           

                                                          Bottom line: doesn't matter that it's an RC or not.  Don't make your choice based on that.

                                                           

                                                          If you are on a mac, then LR3.0RC installs next to 3.0; on a pc, it replaces 3.0.  But as it says in the notes: you can reinstall 3.0 anytime you want.

                                                           

                                                          Cheers!

                                                           

                                                          Jasonized, thanks for your reply.   Your indication that this is a good upgrade tells me then that this is something I should probably want to upgrade my LR3.0 and not to make my choice based on the fact that it is an RC.  Thanks for that insight and the explanation of possible future upgrades to the RC.

                                                           

                                                          Regards,

                                                           

                                                          WesternGuy

                                                          • 67. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                                            davidnaylor83 Level 1

                                                            A big thank you to the developers. Personally I really appreciate the improved speed of the spot removal tool. (No more stutteriness!) Also thecorrected  Flickr publishing order is very much appreciated.

                                                            • 68. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                                              banikko Level 1

                                                              I also want to thank the developers for the release candidate --the flickr publishing is so nice and works great --the whole program works much more quickly.

                                                              • 69. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                                                areohbee Level 6

                                                                I'm now seeing 2-3 seconds delays between brush stroke and effect. Haven't seen the 6-8 seconds delays that occasionally haunted the 3.0 version, but response was sub-second when I first started using 3.2RC.

                                                                 

                                                                I have noticed that the first stroke tends to have the longest delay (assuming each stroke is started only after the previous stroke has finished), and it seems to be influenced by previous edit stack - e.g. it can be speeded up by making a virtual copy then resetting all adjustments.

                                                                • 70. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                                                  TheMaxster26

                                                                  I can't see the Subject Distance field in the exif of raw files from both Nikon and Canon cameras. Anybody else has this problem ?

                                                                  • 71. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                                                    areohbee Level 6

                                                                    I don't think Lightroom supports "subject distance" natively. There are other missing exif fields too that motivated me to write the ExifMeta plugin, which you can use for free if you want to.

                                                                     

                                                                    Rob

                                                                    • 72. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                                                      TK2142 Level 1

                                                                      JayS In CT wrote:

                                                                       

                                                                      You may want to add your voice so it gets corrected (perhaps before 3.2 official release) in an update.

                                                                       

                                                                      https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/mmform/index.cfm?name=wishform

                                                                       

                                                                      Thanks, Jay, I appreciate your initiative.

                                                                       

                                                                      I've got that URL bookmarked. I used it frequently in the past.

                                                                       

                                                                      I currently have no intentions to resubmit all the bugs I found in LR3.0 that are still in LR3.2RC.

                                                                       

                                                                      If the LR team had a public bug database I'd be happy to click a "I'm seeing this bug too" button or help provide info in a response to a "We need more input for this one" request. But I won't be shooting bug reports for known bugs into the dark not knowing whether it is worth my time or not.

                                                                      • 73. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                                                        Lee Jay-ZyZk56 Level 4

                                                                        If you submitted it once for a major version to that form, that should be sufficient.  Those bug reports go directly to the team.

                                                                        • 74. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                                                          TK2142 Level 1

                                                                          areohbee wrote:

                                                                           

                                                                          ... and it seems to be influenced by previous edit stack - e.g. it can be speeded up by making a virtual copy then resetting all adjustments.

                                                                          I haven't tried to replicate what you observed, but I know something is wrong with the history.

                                                                           

                                                                          Take a heavily tweaked image where you've already notice some slowing down of the adjustment brush. Add a stroke. Even if that works quickly (e.g., because you have reduced the display size of the image) it takes a looong time till the operation is shown in the history panel. Worse, the Undo operation takes ages.

                                                                           

                                                                          Try undoing 5 edits of such an image in quick succession (enjoy your cuppa and watch the history panel to the left showing funky selections->The selection will typically end up on the wrong operation.).

                                                                           

                                                                          LR once crashed when I undid a number of operations very quickly.

                                                                           

                                                                          Just now the history panel showed me everything had been undone but the image still showed the additional strokes (even when I navigated away from and back to the image). Admittedly, I had too many other applications running since I just wanted to verify the LR behaviour before I write something incorrect, but still. It should have been slow (Windows swapping) but not leave the image uncorrected. I had to explicitly select a history step to bring the image back to normal.

                                                                           

                                                                          Hope they can fill that advertised "Sr. Computer Scientist" position for the LR team soon...

                                                                          • 75. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                                                            JayS In CT Level 1

                                                                            TK2142 wrote:

                                                                             

                                                                            JayS In CT wrote:

                                                                             

                                                                            You may want to add your voice so it gets corrected (perhaps before 3.2 official release) in an update.

                                                                             

                                                                            https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/mmform/index.cfm?name=wishform

                                                                             

                                                                            Thanks, Jay, I appreciate your initiative.

                                                                             

                                                                            I've got that URL bookmarked. I used it frequently in the past.

                                                                             

                                                                            I currently have no intentions to resubmit all the bugs I found in LR3.0 that are still in LR3.2RC.

                                                                             

                                                                            If the LR team had a public bug database I'd be happy to click a "I'm seeing this bug too" button or help provide info in a response to a "We need more input for this one" request. But I won't be shooting bug reports for known bugs into the dark not knowing whether it is worth my time or not.

                                                                             

                                                                            TK / Lee Jay,

                                                                             

                                                                            Thanks back... appreciate that comment TK.

                                                                             

                                                                            I'm not looking to raise that discussion up (bug database).  As you point out, there is a thread on it.  Lacking any other mechanism, I still felt it important for the Adobe team to know that the 3.2 RC has that particular bug.  We all have different systems and OSs, as well as Graphics Adapters, Monitors, Resolutions, etc.  Putting in a report does a couple of things.  Not only identify how wide spread a bug may or may not be, and provide the team with system info.  I'm more in the mode of trying to get the bugs in via the method that's there, and then fight the other battle later.

                                                                             

                                                                            Jay S.

                                                                            • 76. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                                                              TK2142 Level 1

                                                                              Lee Jay wrote:

                                                                               

                                                                              If you submitted it once for a major version to that form, that should be sufficient.  Those bug reports go directly to the team.

                                                                              Thanks for the info.

                                                                              We don't know whether they think they've provided a fix, though. Hence, ideally users should let the team know what still doesn't work for them. Hope someone from the team follows this thread. It's not that high-traffic.

                                                                              • 77. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                                                                imajez Level 1

                                                                                clvrmnky wrote:

                                                                                 

                                                                                hpmoon wrote:

                                                                                 

                                                                                Still no AVCHD = FAIL

                                                                                 

                                                                                Not really, considering that video support is merely a convenience that the majority of Lr users can't use or don't care about.

                                                                                No, only the selfish LR users who live in a non-existent world where stills cameras and video cameras are not the same devices and are ignoring the fact photography is changing, particularly for pro shooters who LR was aimed at would say that!

                                                                                You have such an old fashioned 20th century luddite way of thinking.

                                                                                • 78. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                                                                  imajez Level 1

                                                                                  JayS In CT wrote:

                                                                                   

                                                                                  hamish niven wrote:

                                                                                   

                                                                                  okay what is AVCHD?

                                                                                   

                                                                                  Advanced Video Coding HIgh Defintion.  Basically a Video coding format, compatible with BluRay and used in Camcorders which can record 1920x1080 HD video.  A follow on to DV and MiniDV formats.

                                                                                   

                                                                                  Jay S.

                                                                                  And a format that seems to be very popular on many camera models, hence the number of complaints that LR does not support it.

                                                                                  • 79. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                                                                    imajez Level 1

                                                                                    I've just installed 3.2RC on laptop and so far seems identical to 3.0 in it's sluggishness.

                                                                                    But how much of that is due to crappy Apple software I do not know, as 10.6 is more Slug Leopard than Snow Leopard.

                                                                                    Bridge was faster on my 7yr old single core XP PC than it is on my 1 yr 17"  dual core MBP with twice the RAM.

                                                                                    I'l try later on desktop, but to say I'm a bit fed up with lacklustre software is a vast understatement. I have a huge project to finish off with over three months of photographing 15hrs a day and there is no way I'm going to even start on this when I cannot even go through the  images to shortlist without seeing the dreaded loading icon whirl around for 6-9 secs if zooming in to 100% in Library.

                                                                                    1 2 3 4 Previous Next