Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Lightroom 5 hot issues  (Read 15677 times)
Glenn NK
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 235


« Reply #20 on: July 08, 2013, 10:56:33 PM »
ReplyReply

You're confusing "merchantable quality" and "faultless". They're very different concepts.

Jeremy

Some brands of auto are a fine example.  Over here, in one year, the price of one particular import plummets like a stone in hydrogen gas.

G
Logged

Economics:  the study of achieving infinite growth with finite resources
David Eichler
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 283


WWW
« Reply #21 on: July 11, 2013, 10:16:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Guess you've never been involved in software development, right? Fixing one bug can introduce other bugs...bugs not seen before nor expected. That's what happened here. And, it wasn't just Lightroom that got hit with this bug, it also was introduced in Camera Raw 8.1. So, it wasn't really a LR bug it was a LR/ACR raw processing pipeline bug that got introduced in the last several builds that sadly, none of the internal testers caught. Was it a bad bug? You bet...was it "incompetence", to a degree, yes...some code was changed that introduced this new bug and nobody caught it. Was it "disregard for their customers"? You gotta be shyting me...do you honestly think so little of Adobe that this possibility is real in your mind? Or, are you simply trying to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD).

Look, it's ok to talk about what could have been done in LR5 or what should have been done in LR5 and what may be done in the future (LR6), but pulling this kind of crap out of thin air helps nobody...

I'm sure the engineers that modified the code and caused this bug are busy trying to fix it...is it a "data loss" bug? Nope...but yes, it's a problem but one that can be worked around...is Adobe embarrassed by this bug? You bet...nobody in their right mind however, would say that this bug would be a result of "disregard for their customers".

So, the work around isn't "convenient" but is it a reason not to use LR5? Nope...it simply modifies the way you need to use it. And it impacts not only LR5 but ACR 8.1 as well. So, until the bug is fixed, don't downsample images to less that 1/3 of the original capture size in Export...

In retrospect, I was responding to someone else's information, and I don't know how reliable that information is. I should have qualified my comment to say what my opinion would be if the other person's statement was well founded. Your comments seem to indicate that the information does have a reasonable basis in fact.

No, I don't know anything about software development. And why should I? I am paying for someone else to do that work and would hope that they would do their job well and deliver a product that is free from major bugs for the majority of users. I realize that the developers can't possibly test for every system on which their software might be used, but isn't that what beta testing supposed to help with? If changes are made to the software before release, shouldn't that warrant another round of beta testing, and, assuming the output sharpening bug is real and widespread, shouldn't such a fundamental feature be caught in a round of beta testing?

As for a workaround, the only one I know of is to do the output sharpening in some other software or an earlier version of LR. Your statement that those who are experiencing the problem should avoid downsizing to 1/3 or smaller leaves me bewildered, since a great deal of the output (certainly mine) is for the Web, which typically requires downsizing to that degree.

Simply put, if that bug would affect my system, I would not want to use that software at all, since that kind of output size is something I do frequently and LR4 is working fine for me (now that I have a new computer).

I hardly expect any software to be completely immune from bugs when it is released, but it seems reasonable to me to expect the software to not have bugs that affect the most widely used features and settings on a significant majority of computers, especially brand new ones.

I have gotten the distinct impression from my own experience and from the comments of many other users of LR that Adobe really could either do more beta testing of LR before final release or should be more conservative about adding features so that a very lengthy period of beta testing will be less likely.
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5255


WWW
« Reply #22 on: July 11, 2013, 11:33:45 PM »
ReplyReply

In retrospect, I was responding to someone else's information, and I don't know how reliable that information is.

So, when you said "I really think that is either incompetence or disregard for their customers." you didn't really mean it? You were responding to somebody else's info?

As to work arounds, there are several LR plug-ins that can bypass the downsample not sharpening/noise reduction issue. Want to know what they are?
Logged
David Eichler
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 283


WWW
« Reply #23 on: July 12, 2013, 12:57:50 AM »
ReplyReply

So, when you said "I really think that is either incompetence or disregard for their customers." you didn't really mean it? You were responding to somebody else's info?

As to work arounds, there are several LR plug-ins that can bypass the downsample not sharpening/noise reduction issue. Want to know what they are?

Actually, Adobe acknowledges the problem in its forums, as indicated in the OP's link, so my comment about qualifying my opinion was not necessary. The problem exists. Given Adobe's history, I rather doubt that incompetence is involved, though only Adobe personel can really be authoritative on this sort of thing, one way or the other. I was just mentioning it as a possibility, however remote. What seems more likely to me (and, it seems, to a fair number of others) is that Adobe is not doing sufficient testing before final release of Lightroom, which I think can be construed as a kind of disregard for its customers, not wholesale disregard, but still troubling if real.

As far as workarounds, will they give me the same results as Lightroom, with no additional cost and with minimal set up? I have my capture sharpening setup to work with the output LR sharpening settings. Would I have to adjust that regime? If so, I am not interested. I have Mogrify, but with that I would have to work out output sharpening pre sets for a variety of pixel dimensions I might normally use. I have LR 4, and have no overwhelming need for any of the features of LR5, so I will wait a few updates until more of the bugs are worked out.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2013, 03:57:24 PM by David Eichler » Logged

john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2458



WWW
« Reply #24 on: July 12, 2013, 02:45:16 AM »
ReplyReply

If you've exported JPEGs at under 1/3, they won't contain output sharpening. So reimport them, and export them at 1:! with the sharpening. I've tried comparing with LR4 output and see no difference.

John
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5002



WWW
« Reply #25 on: July 12, 2013, 10:39:47 AM »
ReplyReply

... So reimport them, and export them ...

A workaround as pathetic as Bill Gates' one (to restart computer every time Windows misbehaves)?
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2458



WWW
« Reply #26 on: July 12, 2013, 11:36:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Sure, it's a shame it's needed, but feel free to suggest a better one.
Logged

budjames
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 687


WWW
« Reply #27 on: July 13, 2013, 09:12:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Never in my 32 years of personal computer use.

If it were perfect, it would never get out the door.

I've accomplished great things in work and play over the years with imperfect software, computers and people (me). LOL!

Progress, not perfection!

My 2 cents.

Bud
Logged

Bud James
North Wales, PA
www.budjamesphotography.com
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5002



WWW
« Reply #28 on: July 13, 2013, 11:53:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Come on, people!!!

I've been using software for at least last 30 years too, and yes, I am absolutely positive every software I used had bugs. The thing is, I almost never encounter those bugs in practice. Which means they show up usually as a combination of at least two rare occurrences.

Having to save your work at less than 1/3 of the original size is not a rare occurrence by any stretch  of imagination, and the Chernobyl-sized bug mutant shall be addressed by Adobe immediately, not waiting 5.1 release.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2458



WWW
« Reply #29 on: July 13, 2013, 11:59:17 AM »
ReplyReply

I said earlier in the thread "I actually agree that this issue merits a hotfix and have made this suggestion directly to people at Adobe."
Logged

Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1149


« Reply #30 on: July 13, 2013, 12:17:27 PM »
ReplyReply

and the Chernobyl-sized bug mutant shall be addressed by Adobe immediately, not waiting 5.1 release.
no, only for the users of subscription license... perpetual ones shall wait  Grin
Logged
PhotoEcosse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 545



« Reply #31 on: July 13, 2013, 03:23:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Come on, people!!!

I've been using software for at least last 30 years too, and yes, I am absolutely positive every software I used had bugs. The thing is, I almost never encounter those bugs in practice. Which means they show up usually as a combination of at least two rare occurrences.

Having to save your work at less than 1/3 of the original size is not a rare occurrence by any stretch  of imagination, and the Chernobyl-sized bug mutant shall be addressed by Adobe immediately, not waiting 5.1 release.

I am with you on that, Slobodan.

With most software, including previous versions of Lightroom, Photoshop, even Windows, I keep getting automatically updated to a new sub-version that contains fixes for a multitude of bugs I never knew existed. As a D800 user regularly required to export Jpegs with dimensions of not more than 1400x1050 pixels for PDI competitions, this bug really does matter.
Logged

************************************
"Reality is an illusion caused by lack of alcohol."
Alternatively, "Life begins at the far end of your comfort zone."
elied
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 235


« Reply #32 on: July 13, 2013, 03:41:12 PM »
ReplyReply

no, only for the users of subscription license... perpetual ones shall wait  Grin
I have seen that for CC subscribers there is a version 5.0.1. Does anybody know if that version has the resize bug?
Logged

Roll over Ed Weston,
Tell Ansel Adams the news
PhotoEcosse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 545



« Reply #33 on: July 14, 2013, 04:53:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
no, only for the users of subscription license... perpetual ones shall wait  Grin
I have seen that for CC subscribers there is a version 5.0.1. Does anybody know if that version has the resize bug?

You mean that Adobe are saying that we will be able to continue enjoying Lightroom on a perpetual licence, without being required to get our heads in the Clouds, but that, in fact, they will leave the non-Cloud version with bugs that, at worst, make it unusable or, at best, inconvenient?

You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment on such a cynical view!
Logged

************************************
"Reality is an illusion caused by lack of alcohol."
Alternatively, "Life begins at the far end of your comfort zone."
PhotoEcosse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 545



« Reply #34 on: July 14, 2013, 05:12:35 AM »
ReplyReply

You're confusing "merchantable quality" and "faultless". They're very different concepts.

Jeremy

Not in UK, Jeremy. Amazon did agree to refund full purchase price.
Logged

************************************
"Reality is an illusion caused by lack of alcohol."
Alternatively, "Life begins at the far end of your comfort zone."
elied
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 235


« Reply #35 on: July 14, 2013, 05:33:08 AM »
ReplyReply

You mean that Adobe are saying that we will be able to continue enjoying Lightroom on a perpetual licence, without being required to get our heads in the Clouds, but that, in fact, they will leave the non-Cloud version with bugs that, at worst, make it unusable or, at best, inconvenient?

You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment on such a cynical view!
No, only that bug fixes will only be in the regular quarterly "dot" updates for perpetual licensees, but available as soon as they are ready in the cloud. In fact, I seem to remember Jeff citing immediate updates as one of the advantages of cloud subscription.
Logged

Roll over Ed Weston,
Tell Ansel Adams the news
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2458



WWW
« Reply #36 on: July 14, 2013, 05:59:10 AM »
ReplyReply

From what I hear, the .01 was only to differentiate the CC-downloaded copy from a perpetual one but there are no other differences. And sorry to spike the conspiracy theory, but I don't think there's any plan for CC subscribers to get LR updates earlier than other customers. Essentially they get a licence number which they could apply to the normal download of a LR update. But yes, it's a mess!

John
Logged

Tim Lookingbill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1055



WWW
« Reply #37 on: July 14, 2013, 11:38:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Bitchin' & moaning about bug fixes?

You need this guy's perspective...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3dYS7PcAG4

But seriously, I still want Adobe to come up with some way for LR's (whatever version) Raw processor to override ACR's when invoking "Edit In Photoshop" without LR creating a copy when the pixel driven gamma encoded preview is opened in older versions of Photoshop. Not waiting for that to happen.

Oh well. At least I'm not waiting 40 minutes on the tarmac for my flight to take off.
Logged
knweiss
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 71


« Reply #38 on: July 14, 2013, 03:00:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Guess you've never been involved in software development, right? Fixing one bug can introduce other bugs...bugs not seen before nor expected. That's what happened here. And, it wasn't just Lightroom that got hit with this bug, it also was introduced in Camera Raw 8.1. So, it wasn't really a LR bug it was a LR/ACR raw processing pipeline bug that got introduced in the last several builds that sadly, none of the internal testers caught.

Unfortunately, the automated LR test-suite (which hopefully runs after each commit to the source code) didn't catch this regression.

This a good example of a bug/regression which can and should be found by a computer test program and not by a human tester.
Logged
Wes Lachot
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #39 on: July 14, 2013, 03:10:13 PM »
ReplyReply


So, the work around isn't "convenient" but is it a reason not to use LR5? Nope...it simply modifies the way you need to use it. And it impacts not only LR5 but ACR 8.1 as well. So, until the bug is fixed, don't downsample images to less that 1/3 of the original capture size in Export...

Jeff, Everything you're saying sounds reasonable enough. Any more news about when this export problem might be fixed? We have about one hundred photos ready to go on our website at 800 res, but need the sharpening fix to proceed. Is there a viable workaround other than going to Photoshop one photo at a time? It seems like to export to 800 res, then re-import and re-export at 800 res again would lose quality, right?

Really enjoyed all of the Tutorials you've done with Michael - very helpful.

-Wes
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad