If you are using public beta for any program don't count on it for production work. In fact don't count on the actual program release being able to even open those files. Had it happen to a client using InDesign beta to do actual print files. I couldn't open them and after the beta expired neither could he.

[GoremanX]

No offense, but isn't that a big "duh"? Beta software, by its very nature, should never be used for production work. Sure, it can be sometimes and everything works fine, but it's beta for a reason: because it needs testing to iron out bugs which might render your workflow useless.

I bet all kinds of people jump out of the woodwork now and start claiming *they* used Lightroom beta for months and it was fine! Blablabla, anyone doing this is essentially doing it at their own risk, and doing it for actual production work is a very, very bad idea.

No offense, but isn't that a big "duh"? Beta software, by its very nature, should never be used for production work. Sure, it can be sometimes and everything works fine, but it's beta for a reason: because it needs testing to iron out bugs which might render your workflow useless.

I bet all kinds of people jump out of the woodwork not and start claiming *they* used Lightroom beta for months and it was fine! Blablabla, anyone doing this is essentially doing it at their own risk, and doing it for actual production work is a very, very bad idea.

I know it's a big duh. You know it's a big duh. Do you realize how many people still do it?

I may or may not be in the process of beta testing PS CS5. (This is the prepublic beta) It may or may not have been recommended to use a dual boot so that it wouldn't screw up your main OS.

[GoremanX]

I know it's a big duh. You know it's a big duh. Do you realize how many people still do it?

My favourite is when they do it, and then bitch and rant when things go wrong and start acting like it's the software maker's fault. "What the hell is this? Don't you people check for bugs before releasing beta software?!?" bahahaha!!

I may or may not be in the process of beta testing PS CS5. (This is the prepublic beta) It may or may not have been recommended to use a dual boot so that it wouldn't screw up your main OS.

Since you're clearly a privileged Adobe customer, I'll withhold my giant rant against recent Adobe software quality...

My favourite is when they do it, and then bitch and rant when things go wrong and start acting like it's the software maker's fault. "What the hell is this? Don't you people check for bugs before releasing beta software?!?" bahahaha!!



Since you're clearly a privileged Adobe customer, I'll withhold my giant rant against recent Adobe software quality...

I never said I was privileged. I stated I may or may not be.

[Wheatfield]

Were I a CS5 beta tester, I would pretty choked if a .psd out of CS5 wouldn't open in CS4, or was rendered unopenable after the beta period expired.
It would make me very unwilling to partake in any further beta tests.
I'm sure some of the testers are working professionals with limited time budgets. If they can't test the product in real world conditions......

Were I a CS5 beta tester, I would pretty choked if a .psd out of CS5 wouldn't open in CS4, or was rendered unopenable after the beta period expired.
It would make me very unwilling to partake in any further beta tests.
I'm sure some of the testers are working professionals with limited time budgets. If they can't test the product in real world conditions......

Wheatfield it is pre public beta. There stands a good chance that features that are tested won't even be in the actual release. Remember it is the time when they are trying to work out the bugs and also which features will actually work together. In pre release beta it is close to what will be released. This is where it is tested harder by more people on more OS's with many more different components. In any event no one should use any beta on live work.

[GoremanX]

Wheatfield it is pre public beta. There stands a good chance that features that are tested won't even be in the actual release. Remember it is the time when they are trying to work out the bugs and also which features will actually work together. In pre release beta it is close to what will be released. This is where it is tested harder by more people on more OS's with many more different components. In any event no one should use any beta on live work.

It's all irrelevant, the interface will still suck, long-standing bugs will continue to sit dormant, and the whole thing will continue to be a counter-intuitive mess for all of eternity, just like it has been since the late-90's. (oops, couldn't avoid a little rant I guess)

[Michaelina2]

If you are using public beta for any program don't count on it for production work. In fact don't count on the actual program release being able to even open those files. Had it happen to a client using InDesign beta to do actual print files. I couldn't open them and after the beta expired neither could he.

Are you telling me that RAW files processed with LR3 beta 2 saved as TIFF or JPG files can become unreadable if Adobe tweaks the program prior to its final release? Why can't TIFFs and JPEGs be used in production work? Don't TIFF and JPG protocols conform to readability standards that are independent of Adobe?

In all honesty, what is it about your "warning" specifically related to LR3 beta 2 that should make me hesitate?

[Ben_Edict]

Are you telling me that RAW files processed with LR3 beta 2 saved as TIFF or JPG files can become unreadable if Adobe tweaks the program prior to its final release? Why can't TIFFs and JPEGs be used in production work? Don't TIFF and JPG protocols conform to readability standards that are independent of Adobe?

In all honesty, what is it about your "warning" specifically related to LR3 beta 2 that should make me hesitate?

These incompatibilities usually affect the native file formats. InDesign has always problemeatic in backwards compatibilty of its files. And LR Beta catalogue's may not be useable with the finally released version (if I remember rightly, Adobe warned expressedly about possible changes in catalogue formats, whenever they released a piublic beta of LR). Ofcourse your original image files (RAWs) or exported standard file formats would be unaffected.

Ben

[Michaelina2]

These incompatibilities usually affect the native file formats. InDesign has always problemeatic in backwards compatibilty of its files. And LR Beta catalogue's may not be useable with the finally released version (if I remember rightly, Adobe warned expressedly about possible changes in catalogue formats, whenever they released a piublic beta of LR). Ofcourse your original image files (RAWs) or exported standard file formats would be unaffected.

Ben

Thank you.

Good luck to InDesign.... eh?

[Parallax]

Are you telling me that RAW files processed with LR3 beta 2 saved as TIFF or JPG files can become unreadable if Adobe tweaks the program prior to its final release? Why can't TIFFs and JPEGs be used in production work? Don't TIFF and JPG protocols conform to readability standards that are independent of Adobe?

In all honesty, what is it about your "warning" specifically related to LR3 beta 2 that should make me hesitate?

I'm Guessing here, but it is a somewhat educated guess. It is conceivable that Lightroom Beta (or any other Beta) could embed information in in the saved TIFF or jpeg that would make it unreadable, alterable, or printable on any machine that did not have the <software name> Beta program installed. As to the original RAW file, I doubt that they would be altered but if you make backup copies of them BEFORE working them with the Beta program then it is a non issue.
If you want to try LR3 Beta copy some raw files to a separate folder, process them and save as both jpeg and TIFF, then open the saved files on a different computer and see if there is anything that you can't do with them that you would normally be able to.(Print, re-size, reprocess, copy, etc.)

[Michaelina2]

...a somewhat educated guess. It is conceivable that Lightroom Beta (or any other Beta) could embed information in in the saved TIFF or jpeg that would make it unreadable, alterable, or printable on any machine that did not have the <software name> Beta program installed.

Anything is 'possible', but 'probable'?

Can you imagine the PR disaster??

Brand suicide is not pretty... Yikes!!!

[Mike.P®]

No offense, but isn't that a big "duh"?

Nope, this is a big Duh.


Duh !!

Anything is 'possible', but 'probable'?

Can you imagine the PR disaster??

Brand suicide is not pretty... Yikes!!!

It depends on what part of beta testing you are doing. If it's beta before public there is a good chance that some features in the pre public won't make it. The pre public is chock full of bugs and code may need to be rewritten to solve the problem. Public beta is to get it out on all major OSs and get the final bugs (yeah right) out before release. Little code will change, however even then it's not recommended to use a beta, or public beta for production work.