Lightroom CC releasing tomorrow?

[At The Gates]

Won't even open for me. Double click the icon and nothing happens. Signing in/out of CC doesn't seem to fix it. Seems a few people with the same issues. All the other CC apps work fine. Oh well :/

 

[Combat squirrel]

Updated.

Seems largely the same - a bit faster which is the nicest thing, playing with face rec now, different, useful in some ways.

Otherwise yeah, pretty much identical.

 

[SDK^]

It appears in actual use the LR CC performance is no faster than LR 5.
Yes it now uses the GPU rather than the CPU but it's not any quicker because of the switch.

 

[Jase]

It appears in actual use the LR CC performance is no faster than LR 5.
Yes it now uses the GPU rather than the CPU but it's not any quicker because of the switch.

Tony Northrup did his test and yes it does use the GPU but there was actually no difference in general use. An Exception said there is an improvement with the iMac 5K performance (maybe that's just a 5K fix), it's difficult to see any difference with my MacBook Pro.

 

[An Exception]

I have a wedding to do tomorrow, but when I get time I'll do a test with the same images as before and we'l be able to see if there is a difference. Unfortunately I've already deleted LR5, but the previous vid shows the issues.

 

[Vertigo]

Think I'll stick with LR5. If this is the best they can do after two years then it makes a mockery of the CC subscription, unless you want PS too.

 

[mrk]

Well it definitely performs better when using the tools in the develop module. I have my LR and working catalog stored on the SSD and didn't really have any LR5 issues but you can definitely notice the speed improvements in even basic things like using the crop tool and moving the crop rotation around or rolling the adjustment sliders quickly back and forth or use the mouse wheel, the response of the affect of those tools is now real time whereas there was a few tens of milliseconds delay between moving those sliders and the action taking place in the image.

this is especially useful for me as I fine tune every image after I apply any custom preset, so going through and not having a few ms delay in whatever develop module tool is a huge time saver on big workloads.

This is on a 4.5GHz i7 Haswell btw.

Indeed as above it isn't using GPU accel for exporting, that's still all down to CPU, but tool usage and the UI is all on GPU now.

 

[SDK^]

I have no motivation to upgrade to see a millisecond speed improvement when quickly moving the sliders back and forth.

Like you, fine tuning is where 99.9999% of my editing is at and that doesn't see any benefit from the CPU to GPU offload.

 

[mrk]

I have no motivation to upgrade to see a millisecond speed improvement when quickly moving the sliders back and forth.

Like you, fine tuning is where 99.9999% of my editing is at and that doesn't see any benefit from the CPU to GPU offload.

But that is where it does see benefit, I am seeing the improvement in exactly that area all over the develop module sliders when adjusting stuff, applying multiple spot heals, applying adjustment brushes and the like.

I mentioned the slider back and forth because that's a super easy comparison to make for just for the purpose of this thread.

Btw my preview size in catalog settings is 3440px. LR5 had 2560px as the max. With 3440px it's performing better than LR5...

 

[Razor-BladE]

How much of a difference from LR4? Specifically exporting. It's horrendously slow on 4, it's even slower than 3, so I might be tempted to upgrade.

 

[An Exception]

How much of a difference from LR4? Specifically exporting. It's horrendously slow on 4, it's even slower than 3, so I might be tempted to upgrade.

I don't think LR6 will help you. This is a scenario where more CPU cores makes a big difference. As well as clock speed obviously.

 

[D.P.]

Think I'll stick with LR5. If this is the best they can do after two years then it makes a mockery of the CC subscription, unless you want PS too.

Yep, glad I don't pay for CC!

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Have any of you considered PCs with less beefier CPUs or laptops?? This will help in those situations.

 

[Vertigo]

Yep, glad I don't pay for CC!

Even if LR6 was a must-have upgrade, it's still half the annual price of the CC sub and it's been two years since LR5 so it's a quarter of the price.

The sub is basically for PS with LR thrown in for free.

 

[An Exception]

I don't think photographers even need photoshop these days anyway so why sub to it? I don't think it's really worth anymore.
Elements or a free photo editor is more than enough in combination with LR for most imo.

 

[dannyjo22]

I don't think photographers even need photoshop these days anyway so why sub to it? I don't think it's really worth anymore.
Elements or a free photo editor is more than enough in combination with LR for most imo.

Yep I have been saying that for some time. Even when I watch professionals retouch photo's and go from LR to PS I can't ever recall thinking that the technique or tool is not available in Elements.

Even Matt Kloskowski who seems to know more about the programs than any of us on here said that himself. To me having a full copy of photoshop is something people seem to think they need rather than knowing why, much like when 3 months after starting with their DSLR they have to start calling lenses 'glass'.

 

[PU7E]

I don't think photographers even need photoshop these days anyway so why sub to it? I don't think it's really worth anymore.
Elements or a free photo editor is more than enough in combination with LR for most imo.

I think photoshop still has it's uses when you want to put some work into that one shot. lightroom is still lacking thinks like action sets and layering which are really easy to do in photoshop. I do agree, I think the gap is definitely narrowing but still has a fair old way to go, I'd like to see them condensed into one with switchable modes similar to how elements works.

On another note installed 6 on windows the other day as I had a large set to process and while it's slightly quicker on the preview/develop renders and takes longer to get bogged down if your making a lot of minor adjustments on a large set, it's not as noticeable of an improvement as I expected.

I'll install it on my mac later and see if I notice more difference on there, although it's getting on a bit now and could do with a bit of an upgrade

 

[mrk]

Layers is the only thing I use PS for. It's still an important tool BUT you certainly don't need the latest version of PS for stuff like that. I had a shoot recently where the multiple buffered shot (I always shoot multiples of any big group shot) had various people blinking in each frame so I used PS to copy paste eyes and blend into one master layer. Stuff like that you can't do. I am on PS5 though, it does the job and is an essential part of my Lightroom workflow, maybe not for every shoot, but when the need calls for it, there isn't a better alternative if you're accustomed to Photoshop.

 

[dannyjo22]

Layers is the only thing I use PS for. It's still an important tool BUT you certainly don't need the latest version of PS for stuff like that. I had a shoot recently where the multiple buffered shot (I always shoot multiples of any big group shot) had various people blinking in each frame so I used PS to copy paste eyes and blend into one master layer. Stuff like that you can't do. I am on PS5 though, it does the job and is an essential part of my Lightroom workflow, maybe not for every shoot, but when the need calls for it, there isn't a better alternative if you're accustomed to Photoshop.

Yep but still all that can be done just as easily and quickly for £40 on elements. Is it a better alternative that full PS, obviously not but for 99.9999% of photography just about everything from that photography module in PS is in elements. One cost's £40 the other costs hundreds (legit) per Elements release.

Of course everyone is free to decide themselves whether they need the rest of PS

 

[mrk]

I can't get on with the Elements layout, I have to have old skool style PS look!