Adobe Launches Lightroom 2.0 Beta

Adobe big

Adobe launches Lightroom 2.0 beta | Fotohacker Although I’ve personally only played around with Lightroom, many photographers that I admire swear by it.

In my own workflow I use a combo of Adobe’s Bridge (about 90% of my processing) and Photoshop (about 10% of my processing). The central power for me of the Adobe suite is Adobe’s RAW plug in which I believe is the same plug in in both Bridge/Photoshop and Lightroom.

Anyways. It looks like the latest beta version of Lightroon is out now and like the last beta version can be downloaded for free during the beta time frame.

According to Adobe’s site, enhancements in Lightroom 2.0 include:

* Localized corrections — Enhance specific areas of an image for unsurpassed nondestructive flexibility and control reminiscent of the traditional darkroom dodge and burn experience.
* Improved organizational tools — Find the images you need quickly and easily.
* Multiple monitor support — Add an additional monitor to efficiently manage photographic workflow and presentation.
* Flexible print package functionality — Create custom layouts containing multiple sizes of a photograph on a single page.
* 64-bit support — Lightroom 2.0 now takes advantage of the latest hardware architectures with improved memory handling and performance.

You can download the free beta software here.

Be Sociable, Share!
Loading Facebook Comments ...

No Comments

  1. I am really surprised that Aperture is now on par with lightroom. I really thought that Aperture coming out with a new version first would set the bar for adobe to break, but there really aren’t any new features that lightroom 2.0 is introducing that Aperture doesn’t already have in it’s 2.0 version. I would be curious to find out your take on Aperture as well Thomas. I have been using Aperture for a couple weeks now and love it!

  2. kelco says:

    To say that the two apps are now “on par” is not entirely true. First of all, Lightroom 2.0 is still in Beta. The improvements to Aperture 2.0 are more “on par” with Lightroom 1.3.1. Secondly, and most importantly, Lightroom 2.0 offers non-destructive local editing, while Aperture does not.

  3. kelco says:

    BTW Thomas – Thanks a ton for the shout out last week.

  4. Actually with Aperture 2.1 local editing ability was added. I have used it and it works great. So I think they are in fact “on par” now I am not a lightroom expert, but if I look at Adobe’s marketing material and check things off, I can pretty much check off what aperture does in the lightroom 2.0 feature list. I could be wrong but just wanted to mention that Aperture has the dodge and burn tool too. =)

  5. suden says:

    Aperture was the one that first introduced non-destructive editing to begin with…Adobe hoped on board after that with Lightroom beta.

    Both are great programs and very capable…it’s just a matter of which one fits your workflow best. For myself, I love Aperture and have always preferred it’s free flowing, non-moduler approach but Lightroom’s speed and array of develop tools took the edge up until the release of Aperture 2.0. Now I’m happy to say that I am back to Aperture and plan to stay there. I have a feeling these two programs will be in healthy competition for a long time to come which is great for us photograpers-choices are always good!

  6. Thomas Hawk says:

    I have a feeling these two programs will be in healthy competition for a long time to come which is great for us photograpers-choices are always good!

    Agreed. Competition is always a good thing and the consumer wins in the end.

    I did try Aperture about two years ago and liked it for the most part. I stopped using it though when I learned that it did not have vignette controls. I understand that they have added this in now which is great.

    I might try Aperture again at some point. I haven’t yet for a few reasons.

    1. Don’t want to pay to buy it when I have a perfectly good solution with Bridge/Photoshop today.

    2. Don’t want to spend the time learning it after I already know Bridge/Photoshop reasonably well.

    Unless Aperture can offer me something sensational that Bridge/Photoshop can’t, I’m just not that motivated to spend time with it right now.

    That said, I’m sure Aperture is an awesome program and know lots of people who use it and love it.

    I think the Aperture vs. Lightroom thing is akin to the Canon vs. Nikon thing. Neither really is that much better than the other, but once you pick one and invest money and time in that system you will be unlikely to switch in the future for minor advantages one may have over the other at any given time.

  7. kelco says:

    “Aperture was the one that first introduced non-destructive editing to begin with…Adobe hoped on board after that with Lightroom beta”

    Lightroom’s local adjustments are stored with the RAW file as metadata, meaning you can go back and adjust them later, this allows users to remain in a truly non-destructive RAW workflow. Aperture requires you to first generate a TIFF file to perform local editing functions. There is a big difference.

    Thomas – as a current ACR/Bridge user, I’d say that you are about a 20 minute demo away from seeing the light. Bridge/ACR/PS used to be my workflow too, but after learning Lightroom, I couldn’t imagine going back.

  8. Thomas Hawk says:


    Thomas – as a current ACR/Bridge user, I’d say that you are about a 20 minute demo away from seeing the light. Bridge/ACR/PS used to be my workflow too, but after learning Lightroom, I couldn’t imagine going back.

    Hmmmm.. Kelly, certainly your work by example is about as high an endorsement as one might need.

    I may have to check out the beta here and give Lightroom a spin again.