Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs

Report · Aug 09, 2010

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

http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2010/08/lightroom-3-2-and-camera-raw-6-2-available-on-adobe-...

Regards,

Tom Hogarty

Lightroom, Camera Raw and DNG Product Manager

Report · Aug 15, 2010

JayS In CT wrote:

As for magic, I don't know, but having it sit there made the image to image exchange faster. I'm getting ready to "load up" another batch of images that I'll put in a separate catalog with cache set to some very low amount to get a timing (hate to give up the magic ) but like you, I'm not sure I understand totally how the develop cache is loaded. If you're in a particular catalog event (say a wedding or sporting event you shot the day before), and do nothing, does LR put as many images of that event into cache? If I'm in Develop and I'm pointed at an image somewhere in the middle, does it load images before and after that one into cache? Perhaps I should, but I don't know that I've ever seen that documented anywhere.

Anyone? (since cache seems to be a topic of interest right now)...

Jay S.

....................................

If you are using Windows, don't forget that Windows hates leaving empty RAM sitting idle, so Superfetch is always filling it up with things it thinks you might need, based on your previous usage.

Bob Frost

Report · Aug 13, 2010

Actaully the double cache file bug took me the longest time to figure out. On my system that is. LR 3.0 not only created a cache file when switching into Develop module the first time. After any type of adjustment, switching back to Libary created a second cache file.

That said, I am somewhat sure that LR3 waisted a good amount of time to figure out which cache file (of the two) is actually the correct one.

BoKo

Report · Aug 13, 2010

CanonRAW_Shooter wrote:
Actaully the double cache file bug took me the longest time to figure out. On my system that is. LR 3.0 not only created a cache file when switching into Develop module the first time. After any type of adjustment, switching back to Libary created a second cache file.

I don't see that with LR3.2RC. Does the caching work for you now? Did you do anything in particular to make it work? Do you see "Loading..." delays that depend on the number of edits done to an image?

The .dat cache files LR3.2RC creates on my system are always of the size 2,536KB. That doesn't seem to be enough to avoid recomputation of edits. My files are only 6MP files but still should require more space than the ACR cache .dat files require, if any considerable recomputation time is going to be saved.

What is the file size of .dat files in the ACR cache for others?

Report · Aug 13, 2010

About 5MB per 12MP - same as you. And, now that you mention it, that does seem too scant for a full-size image. Hmmm...

Report · Aug 13, 2010

If I switch between an image and its virtual copy the "Loading..." delay is very short compared to switching between different images.

Should I be seeing "Loading..." delays that depend on the number of edits done to an image if the image has been cached in the ACR cache?

P.S.: I thought I found a set of images for which the caching worked for a pair of them but I found out that the pair was an original and its virtual copy.

Report · Aug 13, 2010

I have not been able to reproduce your symptoms, although switching delays are not consistent for me (usually 2-3 seconds, but sometimes 4-5 develop-mode pre-cached) - can you make a video of it? (DT said that videos really help sometimes).

Report · Aug 13, 2010

TK2142 wrote:
CanonRAW_Shooter wrote:
Actaully the double cache file bug took me the longest time to figure out. On my system that is. LR 3.0 not only created a cache file when switching into Develop module the first time. After any type of adjustment, switching back to Libary created a second cache file.

I don't see that with LR3.2RC. Does the caching work for you now? Did you do anything in particular to make it work? Do you see "Loading..." delays that depend on the number of edits done to an image?
The .dat cache files LR3.2RC creates on my system are always of the size 2,536KB. That doesn't seem to be enough to avoid recomputation of edits. My files are only 6MP files but still should require more space than the ACR cache .dat files require, if any considerable recomputation time is going to be saved.
What is the file size of .dat files in the ACR cache for others?

Please note: My statement refers to LR 3.0 not LR 3.2RC

Cache behaves now as it should. Also, in my software development experience a single cache file represents the last iteration of whatever is supposed to be cached. Creating or keeping cached history in a single file ... I don't consider that a good practice.

Virtual copies seems to be rerendered and using the same cache file as the original.

My Cache files are 8.8MB based on 15MB RAW - this makes sense to me. The cache does not represent a copy of the RAW file. I think I would store a pixel copy based on the algorithm used.

I cannot figure out what is causing the time differences. I see them too. The only thing I can think of that additional data must be retrieved from the database files causing additional delay.

BoKo

Report · Aug 12, 2010

TK2142 wrote:
In the post I'm replying to (http://forums.adobe.com/message/3043466#3043466) I mentioned a new lag between activation of the adjustment brush (K) and it being available.
Turns out that the lag is exactly the time for the "Loading..." message to disappear. I had switched off the display of the "Loading..." message so I didn't see the connection first.
I'm quite sure it didn't take LR3.0 as long as LR3.2RC to "load an image". Am I wrong?
I see that files are created in the ACR cache but still every navigation to a new image in the Develop module incurs some delay, even when *no* edits have been done to the images yet.
The "fuzzy image" bug is still there. The first rendering will look OK-ish but only after zooming in once to 100% and zooming out again, the image will be rendered in full detail.
Are there activities to address these issues?

TK,

There is a thread about the fuzzy image http://forums.adobe.com/thread/659107?tstart=30

Dan Tull said there were able to reproduce that one in the lab (if what is being described in the thread is what you're experiencing).

Jay S.

Report · Aug 13, 2010

JayS In CT wrote:
There is a thread about the fuzzy image http://forums.adobe.com/thread/659107?tstart=30

Thanks Jay, I was aware of that thread but (as always) am not sure if the team needs feedback as to whether an issue persists in LR3.2RC.

@Dorin: Do you work for Adobe or did you just help debugging lens correction issues in ACR 6 voluntarily?

Report · Aug 13, 2010

@Dorin: Do you work for Adobe or did you just help debugging lens correction issues in ACR 6 voluntarily?

No, I just reported some issues in the ACR forum and Eric asked me for sample files.

Report · Aug 13, 2010

Self censored - this post previously showed a total lack of good judgement.

Report · Aug 13, 2010

dorin_nicolaescu wrote:
No, I just reported some issues in the ACR forum and Eric asked me for sample files.

That's what I thought. I was just curious.

The forum wouldn't be the same without your input.

Report · Aug 11, 2010

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

HK

Report · Aug 11, 2010

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

Report · Aug 11, 2010

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...

Report · Aug 11, 2010

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.

Report · Aug 11, 2010

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

rmal updates in the future...?

Report · Aug 11, 2010

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!

Report · Aug 11, 2010

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

Thanks. You have answered my question, though.

Report · Aug 11, 2010

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

Report · Aug 11, 2010

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

Report · Aug 11, 2010

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

Report · Aug 11, 2010

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.

Report · Aug 11, 2010

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

Report · Aug 11, 2010

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!