Lightroom 5.6 Released

[Dave410]

<p>I'm downloading it right now. Cheers.</p>

[EricM]

<p>...kinda of annoying...every week it seems there is a 900mb "update".</p>

[howard_m]

<p>hardly. there was a Release Candidate release which of course no one forced you to download.</p>

<p>Would you prefer it be like Aperture and die a slow un-updated death?</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>In a choice between Aperture's slow disappearance of the scene or 900MB updates, there are also middle roads. It's a fake argument to defend updates this large, really. Apart from the fact that I always have been amazed at the size of the Lightroom installation (competing packages are nearly all much smaller, by factors 2 to 5), there is also a thing as incremental updates, where you download only the files that need updating - like any modern operating system does basically.<br>

Doesn't Lightroom offer anything of that kind? Much like "just" updating ACR within Photoshop?</p>

[howard_m]

<p>I dont think it's fake at all. In fact, it's probably better. I'll take a 'combo' update or full update instead of having files sprinkled here-n-there (ala 'delta' updates). So the argument is 'it takes a a few minutes to d/l a 900MB file and extract/install it vs. a minute or two less' ? Binary sizes have a lot to do w/ libraries and how the app is architected.</p>

<p>This whole this is a huge who cares? We're not exactly using 9600 modems and 8086 processors.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Sorry Howard, but maybe your home situation isn't universal. Large parts of the world are not on broadband and downloading 900MB isn't done in a few minutes. Up till 9 months ago, my internet access at home was a 3G connection - would have been really unhappy with 900MB updates. That made for ~14 days of downloading approx, on the speeds I had. Exceeding my monthly limit. And at my previous apartment, this was the fastest possible connection even. And for large parts of the world, it is simply like this, and acting like we can all easily download 900MB would be very shortsighted from Adobe.<br>

There are other very good reasons for them to keep update packages as small as possible; even if we all have broadband connections, the servers at Adobe will be congested much easier if all have to download 900MB instead of something like 40-50 MB which is the realistic part that actually needs updating. Using update mechanism you create yourself, you can impose better controls also between client and server to balance your traffic. Huge downloads also affect their ability to serve as many customers as possible too (and all the traffic does have a pricetag).<br>

Since Lightroom is not a continuous running service, patching parts of it should be no problem at all. Updating all isn't better in any way - it's just a lazy way out and skimping on creating a decent update mechanism. If done proper (and there are plenty options available) it's nothing like sprinkling files here and there.<br>

So, no, technically there aren't many good reasons, let alone it being "better".</p>

<p>But I am genuinely amazed LR wouldn't do incremental updates - I do not use the product, so I cannot verify. I just always assumed it would have such functionality, and maybe it actually does?</p>

[howard_m]

<p>what is interesting is that it's the Windows version that is 930MB whereas the Mac version is 500MB. Obviously a big difference attributable to perhaps bundling of 32 and 64 versions or whatever other 'issues' Windows has w/ binaries in a way that Mac's dont have (ala their 'fat binaries')</p>

<p>So, the answer is *obviously* 'Get a Mac' when you're bandwidth constrained ;) ;) :D</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>hardly. there was a Release Candidate release which of course no one forced you to download.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And further, you just can't keep some people happy all the time (anytime?). Either the software isn't updated enough or it's updated too often. 900mb takes about 2 minutes to download anyway, no big deal. Time to upgrade that 1200 baud modem ;-)<br>

On this end, LR seems a tad faster in Grid mode too. Nice!</p>

[digitaldog]

<p>Howard, I'm told by Adobe that the dual 32/64 bit installer is the reason it's so much larger. </p>

[EricM]

<blockquote>

<p>hardly. there was a Release Candidate release which of course no one forced you to download.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i guess you don't keep up to date or notice the frequency, Howard. 5.6 this week, 5.5 was a just couple weeks ago, 5.4 was a couple weeks before it, a month before that 5.3...It's a highly unusual pattern even in LR's update history. But this is argue.net so...</p>

[howard_m]

<p>I do. And again, no one is forcing anyone to upgrade. There are usually new camera & lens support and the inevitable bug squashing. Pick your poison. If you dont have the new camera and haven't gotten bitten by a stated bug, then why upgrade?</p>

<p>I do agree that there has been a 'rash' of activity but since I have decent bandwidth it simply isn't a consideration. And it's a reflection of their 'new' model of distribution where they do not wait *forever* to release new point-releases w/ bug fixes. Of course, the hard integration of camera raw functionality complicates things a bit (vs. the ACR separation and updatability of PS).</p>

<p>According to the Adobe blog posting.....<br>

5.3 Dec 2013<br>

5.4 Apr 2014<br>

5.5 Jun 2014<br>

5.6 Aug 2014</p>

<p> </p>

[EricM]

<blockquote>

<p>Since Lightroom is not a continuous running service, patching parts of it should be no problem at all. Updating all isn't better in any way - it's just a lazy way out and skimping on creating a decent update mechanism. If done proper (and there are plenty options available) it's nothing like sprinkling files here and there.<br />So, no, technically there aren't many good reasons, let alone it being "better".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly, Wouter. Downloading the whole application for simple bug fixes is unheard of. I use five or six adobe products and it doesn't happen elsewhere.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>There are usually new camera & lens support and the inevitable bug squashing. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you examine the blog postings as Howard has, you'll see the biggest differences in all the text noted by Adobe is new camera support. All thanks to this silly inability for the camera companies to output a standard raw format. Yes there were bug fixes thankfully (some attributed again to odd raw format changes too). Lens profiles too but of course, you can roll your own if you have the desire to do so. <br>

Recent changelog can be found here: http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/<br>

As far as I'm concerned, software companies who discover bugs can't put out a new dot release fast enough so kudo's for Adobe doing so with ACR/LR! </p>

[EricM]

<blockquote>

<p>I do agree that there has been a 'rash' of activity...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's better! Much different than "hardly" :)</p>

[Carl Stone]

<p>Undeniable fact: If Adobe offers anything, Eric will find a way to complain about it. </p>

<p>Those who do have a fast internet connection are not imposing on those who don't. Many people can't afford a nice big juicy ribeye steak, but, that does not mean that I shouldn't enjoy one! If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch. </p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Undeniable fact: If Adobe offers anything, Eric will find a way to complain about it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh man, the s&^t is going to hit the fan now (even though I couldn't agree with you more). argue.net is a creation all his own...</p>

[EricM]

<blockquote>

<p>Undeniable fact: If Adobe offers anything, Eric will find a way to complain about it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Right on que, here comes the other one</p>

[digitaldog]

<p>Photoshop and similar (huge) Adobe applications do have patches instead of a full install (unless it's a brand new version). That said, LR's full application download is usually smaller than the patches so it's kind of moot. Download while you sleep. If it takes more than 8 hours to download 900MB, sleep more. ;-)</p>

[pics]

<p>I don't have a problem with Adobe making these frequent releases. Most of them are simply support for new cameras/lenses and if yours are already supported then there isn't a compelling reason to update. The exception would be a noticeable bug or problem that is addressed. I do wish Adobe would specify what the bugs are and allow the option of downloading specific parts of the update.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>I do wish Adobe would specify what the bugs are and allow the option of downloading specific parts of the update.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They do somewhat specify the bug fixes (see the URL I posted above) but not all. There's fixes and such that are not always specified outside pre-release. And pre-release testers are under NDA's about this. Unless the update only specifies camera or lens support, best to download and update. </p>