Lightroom 5 has been released

FYI!

I've been using LR 5 beta since 15 April (that's when I DL'd it).

While in LR 5B, I clicked on "check for updates".

The reply:  "Your software is up to date.  No updates are available at this time".  So I'm wondering why it's been "announced".

Ten minutes later and now the update shows up.

Also checked and found out Camera Raw is now 8.1.

Updated without incident (Win 7).

Glenn NK wrote:I've been using LR 5 beta since 15 April (that's when I DL'd it).

While in LR 5B, I clicked on "check for updates".

The reply:  "Your software is up to date.  No updates are available at this time".  So I'm wondering why it's been "announced".

Ten minutes later and now the update shows up.

Because you have to buy the upgrade.  LR5 is not a free upgrade.  the Updates feature in the program only works for paid versions like 4.2 to 4.3 or once you pay for 5.0 to 5.1.

As stated, ACR 8.1 is now available for CS6 users. You can simply update within Photoshop.

if you use the publish feature in Lightroom, be sure to check out this post: http://regex.info/blog/2013-06-10/2268

Wow, that looks like a super serious bug.  Any bug that has data integrity issues makes a program a non-starter.  i would advise to stay away until this is verified to be fixed.

Also bugs with the output sharpening module being reported in the adobe Forums.

I think waiting for 5.1 might be in order here.

Ditto EJ - waiting here.. (did not even tough the beta) 5.1 for me...

Holy crap. How does a bug like that get by QC. Hopefully this isn't the type of quality control we can expect on perpetually licensed products. [couldn't resist the sarcastic CC comment]

E.J. Peiker wrote:Wow, that looks like a super serious bug.  Any bug that has data integrity issues makes a program a non-starter.  i would advise to stay away until this is verified to be fixed.

Also bugs with the output sharpening module being reported in the adobe Forums.

I think waiting for 5.1 might be in order here.

++1.  Also appreciate EJ's very sound advice.

DOglesby wrote:Holy crap.  How does a bug like that get by QC.  Hopefully this isn't the type of quality control we can expect on perpetually licensed products. [couldn't resist the sarcastic CC comment]

Think of all the fun to be expected "in the Creative Cloud."

I won't be upgrading for quite a long while, and won't use that feature.  The new brush feature is only half-baked IMO.   My LR 5 beta catalogue has 127 images - all of them "gigantic" 30D RAW images, and I think LR4.4 with a catalogue of 30,000 plus images (1/5 of which are 5DII), runs as fast.  Odd because others are reporting a speed increase.   What's that psychological effect called that makes something new seem better even when it's not?

I'll keep trying LR 5B, but so far I'm somewhat under-whelmed.

Glenn

Not that big of an upgrade, so I'm unsure if I'll be going to LR5 at all. The new features are almost as useful as the new bugs...

The healing brush is a really nice feature. If it makes me less dependent on photoshop then that's a good thing.

I've upgraded but see no difference in speed which I never saw as a problem before. It was already a very good program IMHO. The radial tool is nice for darkening a background and/or lightening a face but the addition of a Viveza-like feature with control points would have been preferred. There was no compelling reason to upgrade other than keeping current and the price was right at $79.

A friend of mine has reported that LR5 seems to be a bit slower for him than LR4, and it still doesn't do a good job of organizing video files. He hasn't used it much, but that was his initial impression.

I have always upgraded to the newest version of LR... but this time I wont. The upgrades (except the healing brush) don't interest me, and for prints and posts here, etc... I generally export to photoshop to utilize the far superior sharpening tools (layer masks or smart sharpen depending on the scene) and cloning brush.

If LR adopts a "smarter sharpen" I would be much more inclined. I know I can't ask for all the photoshop features in LR, but it sure would be nice to not have to create a duplicate .tiff with LR to then edit in PS. In other words, I would much rather Adobe improve the editing capabilities of LR to include some very commonly used features of Photoshop so that the workflow would be simplified. I would much prefer to make LR adjustments to a DNG then have duplicate in tiff right next to it for those more involved edits.

That and the bugs are a turn-off.