LightZone 3.1 Released...

[Scott Whittemore]

I don't understand why this would be a problem. The camera you're
using now won't be around in 5 years either. And if LightZone is
bought out by Apple (smirk) the old versions of LightZone, which you
purchased and work with your old camera, won't be suddenly useless to
work with those older files will they?

But if LZ vanished without trace (not very likely, but...) the last
version you have may not run on some future hardware/OS, just as many
old Win95 programs won't run reliably - if at all - on Vista. That's
the only concern I'd have, and it's a very real if small possibility.

...and, in any case, you'd still be able to open the LightZone JPEGs or TIFFs with any image editing application.

--
Scott
http://smwhittemore.smugmug.com/

 

[John Bean (UK)]

I don't understand why this would be a problem. The camera you're
using now won't be around in 5 years either. And if LightZone is
bought out by Apple (smirk) the old versions of LightZone, which you
purchased and work with your old camera, won't be suddenly useless to
work with those older files will they?

But if LZ vanished without trace (not very likely, but...) the last
version you have may not run on some future hardware/OS, just as many
old Win95 programs won't run reliably - if at all - on Vista. That's
the only concern I'd have, and it's a very real if small possibility.

...and, in any case, you'd still be able to open the LightZone JPEGs
or TIFFs with any image editing application.

Of course. But the edits are lost, which was the concern about "future proofing".

--
John Bean [BST/GMT+1] ('British Stupid Time')

PAW 2007 Week 36:
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/2321711/3/193058674/Large



Index page: http://waterfoot.smugmug.com
Latest walkabout (30 July 2007):
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/3247039

 

[Scott Whittemore]

Of course. But the edits are lost, which was the concern about
"future proofing".

That's true. You'd lose the instructions that got the image from original to final. I don't worry about that myself. I'm an incurable tweaker & whenever I go back to an old image I feel inclined to start over again from the RAW file anyway. Still it is nice to be able to refer to what was done previously. Hopefully LightCrafts (or whoever buys them out) is in it for the long haul.

--
Scott
http://smwhittemore.smugmug.com/

 

[John Bean (UK)]

Of course. But the edits are lost, which was the concern about
"future proofing".

That's true. You'd lose the instructions that got the image from
original to final. I don't worry about that myself. I'm an incurable
tweaker & whenever I go back to an old image I feel inclined to start
over again from the RAW file anyway. Still it is nice to be able to
refer to what was done previously. Hopefully LightCrafts (or whoever
buys them out) is in it for the long haul.

Hey, we can agree on something. I do exactly the same myself

--
John Bean [BST/GMT+1] ('British Stupid Time')

PAW 2007 Week 36:
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/2321711/3/193058674/Large



Index page: http://waterfoot.smugmug.com
Latest walkabout (30 July 2007):
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/3247039

 

[Scott Whittemore]

...about a lot more than this thread would lead the casual observer to conclude. But who cares what casual observers think?

--
Scott
http://smwhittemore.smugmug.com/