Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: digitaldog on June 30, 2016, 08:44:29 pm
-
Over on the Adobe forums (https://forums.adobe.com/message/8848998#8848998), reports of both new versions of PS/LR are not printing correctly. I'm seeing this on my end too. I got confirmation this is indeed a 'bug' from (Adobe? Apple? Epson?) we've seen this all before but it's been some years. Got confirmations this is the issue: Apple killed the old CMProfileRef ColorSync APIs.
Figures since both app's are affected, I'd post this data point here. So beware.
Tomorrow I'll measure targets from LR/PS and PS CS6 (it works fine) and report the dE differences. Or just don't use either products on Mac to print! :-\
-
VERY interesting, because just over the past two days I have been experiencing major disconnects between reference and measured patch values on my newly created profile round-tripping. I didn't think of broken system CM softwre as the cause, but rather perhaps some profiling glitch, however I wasn't convinced of that either because I was using the same saved workflows in i1Profiler I used in the past, and re-measurement today of test charts printed back in March returned correct values, so the i1Pro2 works OK.
Now, I printed my profiling targets with the ACPU, so I'm wondering whether this CM problem also applies to ACPU output, in which case the printed profiling charts are garbage, or only to the printed round-trip test patches I made from the new profiles. This is quite a mess and suggests I should stop wasting ink and paper until the matter gets resolved.
For those of us on the CC subscription plan, is there a way to roll-back to the previous version? Or would that not matter if it is an Apple problem. If it's an Apple problem why does it show up just now, as the El Capitan upgrade has been with us for a while now. I wonder how all this works for Windows users.
-
The differences, at least on my 3880 is subtle visually. Enough that when I viewed my color reference image, I knew something wasn't right but it didn't stick out like a sore thumb. But yeah, this is broken. Adobe admitted it. I'll have some better idea how different (and where) this occurs tomorrow after the targets dry down. You can try re-profiling which should work, but should you have to? No. Further, how could both LR and PS get released without anyone testing it? A sad, rhetorical question that don't need an answer.
-
Actually Mark you're right. I don't see how we can profile our way out of this mess. Now IF LR or PS allowed us to print our targets without color management and the new API affected this, we could. Sending a target through the very old ACPU isn't going to transfer to the new Adobe app's, how can it? Big mess. Best we can do is print in older versions of both LR and PS until someone fixes this bug.
-
Indeed - reprofiling seems not to be the solution this time because the disconnects I'm getting are based on profiling and testing with the same up-dated versions of Photoshop and Lightroom CC, and the results indicate very substantial disconnects between reference values and printed values of the measured patches. For clarity, I printed the new profiling targets with ACPU, created the profiles with i1Pro2/i1Profiler using a standard workflow, and then printed my test patches with those new profiles in Photoshop CC (new) using Absolute RI as usual, and the measurements are way off. I'm beginning to wonder whether there is a disconnect between the use of ACPU and Photoshop's latest version, as that could perhaps explain why re-profiling is not solving anything. But we need ACPU to print unmanaged profiling targets!
-
And how do we get the old versions back?
Big lesson of experience here: do not upgrade until the more eager customers notify Adobe of the bugs and Adobe fixes them. This is my usual mode, but I was keen to use some new tools in the new versions. Trust in QC is once again seriously shaken.
-
And how do we get the old versions back?
Big lesson of experience here: do not upgrade until the more eager customers notify Adobe of the bugs and Adobe fixes them. This is my usual mode, but I was keen to use some new tools in the new versions. Trust in QC is once again seriously shaken.
Good question, and asked over on the Adobe forum. I have no idea how to do this with CC and hopefully an Adobe employee will tell us.
Personally, I have LR5 and Photoshop CS6 installed and plan to keep them that way as long as they will run.
This isn't our father's (well our older) Adobe with this messy and untested release of both products over the last couple years.
-
Agreed - they have major QC issues in Adobe. Something as basic as this should never have escaped. Even if it originates from something Apple did, my understanding is that Apple notifies application developers of such changes at least 6 months before the change goes public so they have time to adapt and there should be no surprises. I wonder if this is true. These guys need more real-time co-operation and attention to detail. Rant over.
Now back to the issue of previous versions, someone on the Forum just provided a link for LR previous version. I also need Photoshop so I posted a request for the route to that one. I'll see if any of this works, otherwise I may need to revert to my 10.6.8. drive and Photoshop CS6 for printing. A mess indeed. Not sure the Epson P800 driver is available for that far back, but it will be fine for the 4900. Best that Adobe get this mess fixed ASAP.
-
Conrad just posted an updated link on how to roll-back to previous versions in CC. Here it is for those who will need it till they fix the mess:
Rolling Back (https://blog.conradchavez.com/2014/06/30/how-to-install-earlier-versions-of-creative-cloud-applications/)
-
Conrad just posted an updated link on how to roll-back to previous versions in CC. Here it is for those who will need it till they fix the mess:
Rolling Back (https://blog.conradchavez.com/2014/06/30/how-to-install-earlier-versions-of-creative-cloud-applications/)
You beat me to it, thanks.
Since I have CS6/LR5 installed, I think for the time being I'll use them just for printing.
-
You beat me to it, thanks.
Since I have CS6/LR5 installed, I think for the time being I'll use them just for printing.
Uhuh, but there may be one "gotcha": what happens if you have performed edits in the new LR version with tools that did not exist in the previous version (such as the new Transform toolbox with the new implementation of Upright). Presumably the older version of LR will not recognize these edits, so it will be necessary to render the raw file from the new version into a TIFF, and then print the TIFF from a previous version.
-
I want to reprint and test Photoshop CC 2015.5 vs. LR CC 2015.6 again because they are providing differences too large as well. I want to make sure I didn't pick the wrong RI between each print as a sanity check. But the differences between Photoshop CS6 and Photoshop CC 2015 are huge:
Difference between Photoshop CS6 and CC 2015.5
--------------------------------------------------
dE Report
Number of Samples: 700
Delta-E Formula dE2000
Overall - (700 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE: 3.23
Max dE: 15.66
Min dE: 0.07
StdDev dE: 3.01
Best 90% - (629 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE: 2.36
Max dE: 6.57
Min dE: 0.07
StdDev dE: 1.27
Worst 10% - (71 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE: 10.91
Max dE: 15.66
Min dE: 6.58
StdDev dE: 3.04
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
Difference between Photoshop CC 2015.5 and Lightroom CC 2015.6:
--------------------------------------------------
dE Report
Number of Samples: 700
Delta-E Formula dE2000
Overall - (700 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE: 2.28
Max dE: 4.43
Min dE: 0.25
StdDev dE: 0.83
Best 90% - (629 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE: 2.12
Max dE: 3.33
Min dE: 0.25
StdDev dE: 0.69
Worst 10% - (71 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE: 3.75
Max dE: 4.43
Min dE: 3.33
StdDev dE: 0.29
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
That is not good! LRCC and PSCC should be closer, far closer! I think more testing is in order to see if that's also an issue.
Here's the deltaE sorted in ColorThink so you can see the issues are largest with blues.
-
Yes, my measured outcomes also show the largest errors in Blues and other colours with a substantial Blue component. But none of it is any good.
You know Andrew, what bothers me the most about this, apart from all the wasted time, ink and paper I've consumed over the past several days on the research I'm doing, is that we've seen this movie before, and one would think by now that Adobe would have sufficient QC procedures in place not to let this happen to THEIR applications, regardless of whether the problem started with something Apple did or not. Even assuming a move by Apple is at the core of the issue, Adobe should have known about this and dealt with it before issuing these new versions and causing this mess. This is core functionality, while the new versions only add some nice features - they could have waited until between Adobe and Apple the colour management issues get sorted out. And who is responsible for the consequences? Will Adobe excuse a couple of months of subscription payments to compensate me for the waste that happened over the past few days? It will be Frosty Friday in Hell before that happens!
-
Andrew, Mark
Any idea if this bug affects people that let the printer manage color? If it happens there too that's a big population of folks that will just tweak their images when the print seems off then have to tweak back when Adobe/Apple fixes this. What a mess.
-
Any idea if this bug affects people that let the printer manage color? If it happens there too that's a big population of folks that will just tweak their images when the print seems off then have to tweak back when Adobe/Apple fixes this. What a mess.
Printer Color Management (according to Adobe) is fine. I don't think that's an acceptable fix or suggestion for some (many?). But Adobe should point that out as well as provide simple instructions how people can roll back one version so they can continue to print. They should also let their customers know if it's possible to have that older version and the current installed at the same time such that one could use the older app just for printing.
-
Printer Color Management (according to Adobe) is fine. I don't think that's an acceptable fix or suggestion for some (many?). But Adobe should point that out as well as provide simple instructions how people can roll back one version so they can continue to print. They should also let their customers know if it's possible to have that older version and the current installed at the same time such that one could use the older app just for printing.
So apparently this bug is limited to those of us that depend on good color management. How nice.
-
They should also let their customers know if it's possible to have that older version and the current installed at the same time such that one could use the older app just for printing.
For Photoshop, the answer is yes. I now have both Photoshop CC 2015 and CC 2015.5 installed on the same system drive and roll-back one works. I made a test print with it earlier today. I don't know for LR. The research I'm doing needs Absolute R.I, which LR doesn't provide so I am on Photoshop for the time being.
-
Over on the Adobe forums (https://forums.adobe.com/message/8848998#8848998), reports of both new versions of PS/LR are not printing correctly. I'm seeing this on my end too. I got confirmation this is indeed a 'bug' from (Adobe? Apple? Epson?) we've seen this all before but it's been some years. Got confirmations this is the issue: Apple killed the old CMProfileRef ColorSync APIs.
Figures since both app's are affected, I'd post this data point here. So beware.
Tomorrow I'll measure targets from LR/PS and PS CS6 (it works fine) and report the dE differences. Or just don't use either products on Mac to print! :-\
Andrew,
I haven't read this entire thread, but does this problem affect Windows users also?
Bill
-
Andrew,
I haven't read this entire thread, but does this problem affect Windows users also?
Hi Bill,
I'm not Andrew, but he said in his first post "Got confirmations this is the issue: Apple killed the old CMProfileRef ColorSync APIs".
So if that's the root cause, then it's unlikely to cause issues on Windows machines.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Bill,
I'm not Andrew, but he said in his first post ""Got confirmations this is the issue: Apple killed the old CMProfileRef ColorSync APIs.
So if that's the root cause, then it's unlikely to cause issues on Windows machines.
Cheers,
Bart
I can confirm that Windows and the latest Photoshop work as well as ever and I'm picky about color. I think Andrew's note about the Apple API change in their XCode toolset is the culprit.
Turns out my automatic Photoshop Update stopped and I don't have the latest addition. Am testing it now.
Verified. CC 2015.1.5 works fine in windows. Identical results.
-
.............Apple API change in their XCode toolset is the culprit.
No. Whatever change to an operating system Apple introduces, Adobe is responsible for the behaviour of their own application in the context of that OS. Normally Apple informs application developers months ahead about significant changes to the OS. Even if they failed to do so this time, when Adobe is preparing to issue an update version of an Adobe product, if they haven't properly tested it for this kind of CORE FUNCTIONALITY (especially as new code was written for the Apple OSX changes) it is my opinion that Adobe is directly responsible. I'm willing to be proven wrong about this, but there is risk of chaos unless there is some pecking order about who is responsible for what product at what stage.
-
No. Whatever change to an operating system Apple introduces, Adobe is responsible for the behaviour of their own application in the context of that OS. Normally Apple informs application developers months ahead about significant changes to the OS. Even if they failed to do so this time, when Adobe is preparing to issue an update version of an Adobe product, if they haven't properly tested it for this kind of CORE FUNCTIONALITY (especially as new code was written for the Apple OSX changes) it is my opinion that Adobe is directly responsible. I'm willing to be proven wrong about this, but there is risk of chaos unless there is some pecking order about who is responsible for what product at what stage.
You are absolutely right it is Adobe's fault. Apple dropped some APIs and Adobe presumably could have used the older dev if allowed by their licensing. At a minimum they could have just not pushed the update until the problem was fixed. It is core functionality and it is a major screwup. Hard to believe their QC didn't catch this and indicates really poor QC.
-
Yes indeed, very poor QC; but in the final analysis in a corporate environment the buck stops with the Product Manager. Whoever that group or person is needs to be on top of the whole chain of operations from concept through programming through QC to release. I frankly find this kind of thing incomprehensible especially in the context of previous experience with such screw-ups, but there we have it.
-
What would be super useful would be to find someone who sees a print issue (difference) on either LR or PS that isn't using an Epson printer on Mac. I've spent most of my day talking with and emailing Epson and Adobe. It would be useful to know if this is solely an Epson issue (despite some reporting it's not but I don't know how savvy they are) or more wide spread.
On my 3880, blues are most affected. I can visually see that on my targets. A Granger Rainbow shows this off too in this area of color space with more severe banding from the 'bug'.
-
https://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/multi/unexpected-colors-when-printing-mac.html (https://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/multi/unexpected-colors-when-printing-mac.html) </blockquote>[/color]
The older Epson 3880 printer drivers have incorrect profiles associated with the following paper types: Ultra Premium Luster, Premium Photo Glossy, WaterColor Paper Radian White, and UltraSmooth Fine Art. When you select one of these paper profiles, the colors are incorrect and do not match the previous versions of Lightroom.
To resolve this issue, download and install the latest printer driver for the Epson Stylus Pro 3880 (http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/support/supDetail.jsp?oid=141552&infoType=Downloads) :
Mac OS: Download printer driver v9.33 or later.
Note:
On Epson's download page, make sure that you select the correct operating system and that you download the driver version with the latest release date.
So I took that advise. Downloaded the 3880 driver again. I did an uninstall by removing the printer from Print/Fax. This is what I'd expect 90+% of Adobe customers would do as there is no Epson uninstaller!
Then I reinstalled the driver as they recommend.
I printed my color reference image, on Exhibition Fiber. That paper isn't listed as being an issue above. Doesn't matter however as they tell us that following the suggestions with the latest driver is a fix anyway.
I printed with LRCC and LR 5. THEY DO NOT MATCH! Of course, if what they wrote above were accurate, they would match.
-
Would it be possible to intercept the data being sent to the printers (Ethernet with wireshark, etc) between the two releases to examine exactly how the colors are being changed? Might be a useful clue for the Adobe folks and hard, specific duplicable evidence of the bug.
-
Would it be possible to intercept the data being sent to the printers (Ethernet with wireshark, etc) between the two releases to examine exactly how the colors are being changed? Might be a useful clue for the Adobe folks and hard, specific duplicable evidence of the bug.
We could examine the print spool from CUPS but the bigger question and thus issue is this; does the fix Adobe suggests work? It didn't for me.
-
I would think that by the time the image hits the network wire, it's been rasterized and munged into what the printer wants which is a binary data stream so 'color' doesnt exist.
-
Would it be possible to intercept the data being sent to the printers (Ethernet with wireshark, etc) between the two releases to examine exactly how the colors are being changed? Might be a useful clue for the Adobe folks and hard, specific duplicable evidence of the bug.
I think at the moment the relevant Adobe staff are in denial. They really do need to be shown that the problem comes from their new software versions, not the printer drivers. This should not be difficult: comparing (in a quantitative manner as Andrew and I have been doing) a print of exactly the same reference file printed in the same way with the previous version app versus the new version app and the latest Epson or Canon drivers should be convincing enough. From there no doubt they have the technical skill to trace what went wrong and fix it. But the first priority is to get them out of denial.
-
Has anyone talked to Jeff Schewe about this? He is well linked to a number of the folks at Adobe and I know from the videos that he uses MacOS. Maybe he hasn't done any printing since this new release or is otherwise occupied and doesn't know of the problem.
-
Has anyone talked to Jeff Schewe about this?
Yes.
-
I am going back home to do some printing of original art work that artists need for shows in the next 3-4 weeks. Especially my other half. When I printed for one of them using latest photoshop cc2015.5 I did have a few issues with two - 3 areas of blue skies. I assumed that, as he is a painter that uses many different techniques on the same painting oil, watercolour, gouache etc etc. He tends to be diffficult to color manage anyway.... (the original sold a week ago and gone to a place down under) no painting to compare to anymore. Likewise all the originals for the other artists that I may print in the next month have all sold and gone to good homes.
Therefore will go back home tomorrow try to to back to the older version of photoshop...... If this is not possible any thoughts on using an old version of Photoshop Elements 9 or 11 just to do the printing????? all the work is ready to print. I know that it is only 8bit instead of 16 bit.. but on mat textured paper will there be as big a difference as printing with the print bug in 2015.5???
thanks elo laugesen (3880 - epson inks)
-
There is a post in the Adobe Photoshop Family Forum which is dedicated to Feature requests / Bug report. your experiences can be added there.
https://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/lightroom-2015-6-printing-broken-on-mac-os-10-11-5?topic-reply-list%5Bsettings%5D%5Bfilter_by%5D=all&topic-reply-list%5Bsettings%5D%5Bpage%5D=1#reply_17008525
-
Have a look at this help post from Adobe.
https://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/multi/unexpected-colors-when-printing-mac.html
-
Have a look at this help post from Adobe.
https://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/multi/unexpected-colors-when-printing-mac.html (https://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/multi/unexpected-colors-when-printing-mac.html)
Why? IT (their 'fix') DOESN'T WORK! It's no help at all. For me and others. Of course I encourage any and everyone to try it so we can get some proof of concept (or lack thereof) that Adobe tested this suggestion and it's useful. So far, I've not heard from anyone on three well populated forums that reinstalling the driver fixes this bug.
-
Why? IT (their 'fix') DOESN'T WORK! It's no help at all. For me and others. Of course I encourage any and everyone to try it so we can get some proof of concept (or lack thereof) that Adobe tested this suggestion and it's useful. So far, I've not heard from anyone on three well populated forums that reinstalling the driver fixes this bug.
Could it be that there are no updated drivers yet, until which the issue will remain unsolved?
Cheers,
Bart
-
They (Adobe) do indicate that v9.33 of the driver is the *fix* for the 3880. I haven't gotten around to doing comparisons yet between PS versions but I did install the prior version of LR/CC
-
Could it be that there are no updated drivers yet, until which the issue will remain unsolved?
Cheers,
Bart
Firstly, they haven't offered a shred of evidence as to why the Epson driver may be the issue, while all who reported implementing their fix find it useless - several Adobe staff are the ones saying this driver version fixes the problem but apparently it doesn't; secondly, they haven't evinced any counter-argument to the fact that with the same Epson driver and OS, the previous versions of LR/PS reproduced colours just fine while the current ones do not; thirdly they haven't provided us with any confidence that they've collaborated with either Epson or Apple to insure that these new releases make correct prints before releasing them or indeed testing that they do; and fourthly, they've shown no interest whatsoever in reaching out to those in the community who have real evidence shedding light on this problem.
I think we need to let the holiday weekend pass and then see whether anything intelligible and intelligent comes out on this matter from any of the named companies. I suspect/expect that after the holiday weekend there will be some intensive conversations behind the scenes between technical people in the three companies to make sure this gets sorted out one way or another.
-
Could it be that there are no updated drivers yet, until which the issue will remain unsolved?
Bart, did you read the suggestions for the fix on the Adobe URL? Did you read what they wrote, singling out, for no logical reason, the Epson 3880 of which I own, tested and found the fix failed to correct? Can you explain how the driver which is said to be buggy, works with every app outside the two products just updated by Adobe using the same OS version? We're supposed to believe a 'hidden' bug which didn't manifest itself does, simply due to an update to two CC apps?
Virtually everything Adobe stated in that URL either makes zero sense and doesn't work. And yet we're supposed to believe WE should contact our print vendors and demand they fix this?
-
Bart, did you read the suggestions for the fix on the Adobe URL?
Yes, I did.
Did you read what they wrote, singling out, for no logical reason, the Epson 3880 of which I own, tested and found the fix failed to correct?
Yes, the mention of a single printer model was puzzling, if indeed it is caused by an update to newer APIs.
Can you explain how the driver which is said to be buggy, works with every app outside the two products just updated by Adobe using the same OS version?
The only logical reason I can think of is that they sofar only/mainly received complaints about the interaction with that printer model (which would be statistically likely due to it's supposed popularity, so complaints surface sooner).
We're supposed to believe a 'hidden' bug which didn't manifest itself does, simply due to an update to two CC apps?
I could imagine that the deprecated API versions were also used to compile parts (dependencies) of those drivers. After all, part of the print pipeline on MacOS is done by the OS (Quartz graphics layer and ColorSync), unlike on Windows where the driver does almost all. So the printer driver at some point will hand of the data to the APIs, and may do so expecting the wrong (old) APIs or entry points.
Virtually everything Adobe stated in that URL either makes zero sense and doesn't work. And yet we're supposed to believe WE should contact our print vendors and demand they fix this?
No, I agree it's totally fucked up and unsatisfactory. I'm just trying to understand what the real issues are, since Adobe seems to be not forthcoming with working solutions. This is a very serious issue that affects many professional users, and hurts their reputation and they are left dangling by Adobe (or the printer driver programmers if they have to make a followup move as well). This should be fixed without hesitation, and not left to users to analyze (although their reports can help).
Cheers,
Bart
-
What happens to individuals who are using old printers? I'm still using a 7600UC and it is still going strong. So is a friend of mine (although he has Imageprint and can bypass the problem maybe.) Unlikely that Epson will update a driver for that, though it seems better on the Mac side. In Windows, the latest driver is for XP and was written in 2007! I find that unacceptable for a pro printer and that is why, when I do get another, it'll probably have Canon written on it.
Lloyd
-
I'm not convinced taht Canon is that much better. Try locating an updated PRO9000/9500 driver.
-
What happens to individuals who are using old printers? I'm still using a 7600UC and it is still going strong. So is a friend of mine (although he has Imageprint and can bypass the problem maybe.) Unlikely that Epson will update a driver for that, though it seems better on the Mac side. In Windows, the latest driver is for XP and was written in 2007! I find that unacceptable for a pro printer and that is why, when I do get another, it'll probably have Canon written on it.
Lloyd
I've run windows from XP to 10 with many vintages of drivers including an Epson 9800 and have never had a color shift like this.
-
I'm just trying to understand what the real issues are, since Adobe seems to be not forthcoming with working solutions.
At this point, I think that's the focus to take. What are the real issues and who's responsibility is it to fix?
-
just one thing. I have used the latest Epson Printer driver 9.33 for the 3880 since it came out. should note that epson sneaked sneaked in an update to the firmware in late 2015...??? anything in there???
I know this is not OSX upgrade but a hardware... but....... did they do this to other printers too???
at the time nobody knew what this firmware upgrade was for ???? I did not apply it as I did not want to mess up my printer just in case....
-
No, I agree it's totally fucked up and unsatisfactory. I'm just trying to understand what the real issues are, since Adobe seems to be not forthcoming with working solutions. This is a very serious issue that affects many professional users, and hurts their reputation and they are left dangling by Adobe (or the printer driver programmers if they have to make a followup move as well). This should be fixed without hesitation, and not left to users to analyze (although their reports can help).
Cheers,
Bart
Well, in a nutshell, yes. However it is a holiday weekend so I'm prepared to cut them some slack for a few days - IF they get serious about finding out what is REALLY going on.
What makes printer drivers an implausible cause is the sequence of events, which I think I have correctly here:
(1) Some time ago Apple released El Capitan. I presume that release included the new code that several of those Adobe posts mentions. I upgraded to El Capitan and there were NO issues with printing, or any other aspect of colour management.
(2) Some time after that, Epson issued an updated set of drivers for various current models primarily to include the new Legacy papers. There was, if I remember correctly also a firmware upgrade for the P800. I installed all of that. Still NO issues with printing or any other aspect of colour management.
Since then there have been no further updates of either Apple or Epson software or firmware for the P800 and SP4900 printers.
(3) A few days ago I upgraded to the latest versions of LR and PS, and lo and behold, my colour-managed print flow got whacked. And I know this statistically because I am doing research on the relationship between the accuracy of colour rendition on paper versus visual perception with reference files having known, repeatable colour values, so everything I'm doing is being measured with an i1Pro 2 spectro and i1 Profiler - i.e. high-end colour management gear, with great attention being paid to the "M" factor and all the rest of it.
Therefore, the logical, and very strong inference to be drawn from this sequence of events is that item (3) is the culprit. Now, if I were Chief Inspecteur Clousseau of the Surete Nationale and knew how to unearth obscure smoking guns causing simultaneous damage under the hood, perhaps I would have by now stumbled on parallel or hidden causality, but somehow I think the probability is low enough to dismiss any such thing out of hand. Remember when the dog bit and he said "so sorry, but it's not my dog". Speaking of which, keep up the good work Andrew - the time you are committing to this will pay off sooner or later! I think sometime after the weekend there should be traction.
-
just one thing. I have used the latest Epson Printer driver 9.33 for the 3880 since it came out. should note that epson sneaked sneaked in an update to the firmware in late 2015...??? anything in there???
I know this is not OSX upgrade but a hardware... but....... did they do this to other printers too???
at the time nobody knew what this firmware upgrade was for ???? I did not apply it as I did not want to mess up my printer just in case....
I don't see how they could "sneak in" a firmware update. It gets posted on their website as such, and the user needs to go through a whole procedure to install it - nothing sneaky about that.
-
Tried to find out what the firmware was about?.... No answers anywhere.... Just throwing in all known changes for consideration. Especially as adobe seems to be telling us to update to latest printer drivers.
-
One of the advantages to Windows is that MSFT tries to keep things backwards compatible. There has been no firmware update for the Win driver since October 2013. The drivers will have a new version when Epson release new papers and they include the profiles and paper settings in the driver download.
-
if you *keep* your auto nozzle checks, the 3880 firmware version # is printed on it so you can compare pre-v9.33 values.
I also really doubt they snuck in a firmware update. I think I recently threw out a couple of years worth of nozzle check output so :(
-
One of the advantages to Windows is that MSFT tries to keep things backwards compatible. There has been no firmware update for the Win driver since October 2013. The drivers will have a new version when Epson release new papers and they include the profiles and paper settings in the driver download.
Has Epson not released new Windows drivers for the Legacy papers?
-
Here is a question that just popped into my head after email from someone: does the OS X version matter? I'm on 10.11.5. When did this so called API of Apple's change? Does anyone here with a pretty old version of OS X, say 10.10 encounter this bug?
-
No. Whatever change to an operating system Apple introduces, Adobe is responsible for the behaviour of their own application in the context of that OS.
The fundamental purpose of an operating system, is to provide a stable set of API's to applications. An operating system that is unable or unwilling to do that, is a failure. Rapidly deprecating API's, or (worse yet) changing the behavior of existing API's, shows either great arrogance in dealing with those you have locked into your ecosystem, or a reckless disregard. Consider this simple fact: one bad change to an operating system will break thousands of applications and heavily inconvenience millions of users. Insisting that the application vendors work around the change will overall cost thousands of times more, and be much less certain of delivery, than the OS vendor doing the right thing in the first place.
Having said that, from what's been relayed here it appears to be a more subtle sort of issue. Apple has been deprecating and replacing a huge number of API's in OS X, triggering a great deal of inconvenience and many potential problems with applications. Switching development kits is something that has to be done to keep up with the API churn. The question is really whether Adobe have misunderstood something about the new API's, or whether Apple have not implemented them as expected. Either is possible, and pretty likely if Apples documentation of it's colorsync API's is as good as it was last time I looked for it (i.e. it didn't exist). I think it's reasonable to think that Adobe hasn't done the sort of sanity checking of it's print path that one would hope for though.
(As a developer I can tell you that I have a dim view of Apples API churn. The fact that they feel the need to deprecate so many API's indicates to me how poorly they were thought out in the first place, and the last thing I want to be doing is spending precious development time working around OS changes, which adds nothing for the user, rather than actually improving my application.)
-
In Windows, the latest driver is for XP and was written in 2007!
But if the Windows drivers are still working fine, and can be color profiled reliably, that's not a criticism - that's a boast! An operating system so stable, and drivers written so well that they still don't need updating!
-
Has Epson not released new Windows drivers for the Legacy papers?
Yes they have Mark.
-
OK thanks David, so referencing Alan's reply #48, the latest Windows driver update would have been fairly recent.
-
I had recently upgraded to print driver 6.63 (epson17589.exe) for Windows.
-
The fundamental purpose of an operating system, is to provide a stable set of API's to applications. An operating system that is unable or unwilling to do that, is a failure. Rapidly deprecating API's, or (worse yet) changing the behavior of existing API's, shows either great arrogance in dealing with those you have locked into your ecosystem, or a reckless disregard. Consider this simple fact: one bad change to an operating system will break thousands of applications and heavily inconvenience millions of users. Insisting that the application vendors work around the change will overall cost thousands of times more, and be much less certain of delivery, than the OS vendor doing the right thing in the first place.
Having said that, from what's been relayed here it appears to be a more subtle sort of issue. Apple has been deprecating and replacing a huge number of API's in OS X, triggering a great deal of inconvenience and many potential problems with applications. Switching development kits is something that has to be done to keep up with the API churn. The question is really whether Adobe have misunderstood something about the new API's, or whether Apple have not implemented them as expected. Either is possible, and pretty likely if Apples documentation of it's colorsync API's is as good as it was last time I looked for it (i.e. it didn't exist). I think it's reasonable to think that Adobe hasn't done the sort of sanity checking of it's print path that one would hope for though.
(As a developer I can tell you that I have a dim view of Apples API churn. The fact that they feel the need to deprecate so many API's indicates to me how poorly they were thought out in the first place, and the last thing I want to be doing is spending precious development time working around OS changes, which adds nothing for the user, rather than actually improving my application.)
Hi Graham,
These are interesting and important insights coming from a developer perspective - much appreciated.
I think the current crop of comments trying to isolate the cause and responsibility for the problem being discussed here, at least to my mind, is not so much to find culprits to blame - just yet, but more importantly to understand the cause so that the problem can be fixed; over the holiday weekend this is turning out to be difficult, possibly on account of defensive behaviour, but there may be other factors. Priority number one is to get this issue resolved; then priority number two should be for the responsible company/ies to take actions substantially reducing the probability of repeat episodes. We've had several too many over the past 18 months or so.
Your insight into AP degradation is most likely highly relevant, but to my mind not determinative. So in that regard, I have one question and one comment. The question is about the reason for the degradation. You mention the possibility of poor initial design. I really wonder about that. OSX on the whole is a fine operating system, but Apple has been putting a tremendous effort into continued evolution and updating to take advantage of new technologies, enhanced technologies and most importantly system security. Would you rule out the possibility that the changes they are making are in response to these factors rather than poor initial design? And a supplementary, is it not the case that Apple sends developers the new development materials well ahead of the changes being implemented to give other application developers time to adapt (and yes, I hear you about the time and cost involved)?
The comment I have is where responsibility ultimately lies for what a developer brings to market. Given the inter-relatedness and complexity of this industry, there needs to be clear protocol on who is responsible for what and when, otherwise there would be (perhaps is) chaos. I sense from what you are saying that Adobe, for example, remains responsible for properly proofing the performance of an update to its own product, regardless of prior changes that Apple may have made to the OS. This is my understanding; I'm interested to know whether you share that view - i.e. as an application developer, you would want to thoroughly pretest an update before issuing it, especially knowing what you do about how changes to the system environment under the hood could affect your product in unexpected ways.
-
OK thanks David, so referencing Alan's reply #48, the latest Windows driver update would have been fairly recent.
Correct. I was unclear in my post about that. I did install the latest driver but the firmware was unchanged, only difference was support for the new paper line. I'm on Win8.1 so I cannot comment whether any change in firmware was required for Win10
-
Your insight into AP degradation is most likely highly relevant, but to my mind not determinative. So in that regard, I have one question and one comment. The question is about the reason for the degradation. You mention the possibility of poor initial design. I really wonder about that. OSX on the whole is a fine operating system, but Apple has been putting a tremendous effort into continued evolution and updating to take advantage of new technologies, enhanced technologies and most importantly system security. Would you rule out the possibility that the changes they are making are in response to these factors rather than poor initial design? And a supplementary, is it not the case that Apple sends developers the new development materials well ahead of the changes being implemented to give other application developers time to adapt (and yes, I hear you about the time and cost involved)?
The comment I have is where responsibility ultimately lies for what a developer brings to market. Given the inter-relatedness and complexity of this industry, there needs to be clear protocol on who is responsible for what and when, otherwise there would be (perhaps is) chaos. I sense from what you are saying that Adobe, for example, remains responsible for properly proofing the performance of an update to its own product, regardless of prior changes that Apple may have made to the OS. This is my understanding; I'm interested to know whether you share that view - i.e. as an application developer, you would want to thoroughly pretest an update before issuing it, especially knowing what you do about how changes to the system environment under the hood could affect your product in unexpected ways.
As I noted in an earlier post, MSFT worries about backwards compatibility with software and always has. The same cannot be said of Apple and there have been a number of instances documented on LuLa where things have run afoul after new version of MacOS were released. I had an interesting talk with my daughter's boyfriend yesterday about this. He's a software developer and just got his PhD in EE and computer science. He's done a fair amount of app development in the music area and told me that it's often difficult to decipher what Apple has done regarding APIs in new OS releases. Ultimately, he and others on the team work through these issues but it's not always easy.
To answer your main question, Adobe is responsible for LR/PS and insuring that it works correctly with the OS. As Graeme notes it can be a challenge to correctly implement a new software application if the documentation from the OS supplier is sketchy. That's no excuse for releasing a buggy product. Since the print module of LR is maybe the most critical portion of LR it's mandatory that Adobe get it right. They failed in this regard. We don't know what type of QA/QC they employ in testing the new release. I hope this involved some actual printing! ;D Assuming it did, how much printing was done and what types of images were printed. Ideally they would do a standard patch set in the way you have done in your paper testing and checked the results of each patch. As one who has also done this type of research, it's not terribly hard to do. I've printed and measured 100 patch sets to compare paper from different batches of Museo Silver Rag and it was pretty straight forward (and I manually scan using an i1Pro).
I hope the problem gets addressed quickly and it would be good to get an explanation of what went wrong during the development and QA/QC. I doubt that Adobe will tell us what went wrong.
-
So in that regard, I have one question and one comment. The question is about the reason for the degradation. You mention the possibility of poor initial design. I really wonder about that. OSX on the whole is a fine operating system, but Apple has been putting a tremendous effort into continued evolution and updating to take advantage of new technologies, enhanced technologies and most importantly system security. Would you rule out the possibility that the changes they are making are in response to these factors rather than poor initial design?
Apples development of a 32 bit, protected mode operating system was an unbelievable circus. They had several go's at it themselves (Pink, Taligent, Copeland), before buying someone else's (NeXTSTEP), all the while ignoring established OS alternatives (UNIX). Microsoft's development of WindowsNT makes a sobering comparison, and Dave Cutler's work has really stood the test of time. That Apple ended up with something of a dogs breakfast of API's that don't seem to have anticipate future requirements very well, would seem to be one result of the convoluted development history.
And a supplementary, is it not the case that Apple sends developers the new development materials well ahead of the changes being implemented to give other application developers time to adapt (and yes, I hear you about the time and cost involved)?
If one has the time and resources to look into this as an application developer, that's great. But providing such doesn't compensate for having to re-write a bunch of code that achieves exactly the same outcome, just because the API's have been changed.
[ For a really outrageous historical example, Apple and Adobe come up once again, when Apple reneged on it's commitment to Carbon, and Adobe had to completely re-write the GUI of application like Photoshop using Cocoa. ]
i.e. as an application developer, you would want to thoroughly pretest an update before issuing it, especially knowing what you do about how changes to the system environment under the hood could affect your product in unexpected ways.
That's an ideal situation, but once again, time and resourcse impose limitations. If one has a comprehensive automated testing environment, then that helps a lot - but automated testing suit's for GUI based applications are hard, and they themselves need a lot of maintanence as an application and OS evolve. So expecting an application vendor, even one as well heeled as Adobe to test every possible combination of OS, hardware platform, application, and application feature is a tall order. The combinatorial explosion is hard to tame, and one mechanism for taming it is to try and divide things into independent layers - say that the OS provides a stable and dependable API, so that different OS versions are not a variable!
-
I hear you about Apple, but based on their filings, I think Adobe's balance sheet is strong enough to support the wherewithal to keep their applications functioning correctly. If they don't of course the balance sheet is at risk. Nothing prevents Adobe from working with Apple to the extent needed for their own Adobe products survive the tempest, if this is what it takes. They must all know each other pretty well!
-
Hi: followed the suggested procedures to restore the older version of photoshop I now have 16.0.0 installed instead of 17.0.0. the cloud shows upgrade to this version Adobe photoshop 2015.1.2 and numerous fixes etc.... also mentions Raw9.6
The interesting thing is that the 2015.0 version already included new Raw 9.6.
-
One of the advantages to Windows is that MSFT tries to keep things backwards compatible. There has been no firmware update for the Win driver since October 2013. The drivers will have a new version when Epson release new papers and they include the profiles and paper settings in the driver download.
Try to tell this to someone who moves from 32 bit Windows XP to 64 bit Windows 7 or from Windows 7 to Windows 10. You will be surpised that their so called backwards compatibility does not strench far enough backwards to support devices that some may still use...
-
Try to tell this to someone who moves from 32 bit Windows XP to 64 bit Windows 7 or from Windows 7 to Windows 10. You will be surpised that their so called backwards compatibility does not strench far enough backwards to support devices that some may still use...
This takes us a bit off-topic, but I think it important to recognize that it takes at least two to tango; the manufacturers of those devices will have to upgrade their drivers periodically regardless of how much effort Microsoft puts into backward compatibility - they can't be expected to cover every one of the thousands of devices going ions of time back. That gets unreasonable. If the device manufacturers decide to stop support at some point, well, time to change.
-
Here is a question that just popped into my head after email from someone: does the OS X version matter? I'm on 10.11.5. When did this so called API of Apple's change? Does anyone here with a pretty old version of OS X, say 10.10 encounter this bug?
The API change for ColorSync (if Adobe were referring to this) were supposedly deprecated from 10.6 - https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/GraphicsImaging/Reference/ColorSync_Manager/index.html
-
This takes us a bit off-topic, but I think it important to recognize that it takes at least two to tango; the manufacturers of those devices will have to upgrade their drivers periodically regardless of how much effort Microsoft puts into backward compatibility - they can't be expected to cover every one of the thousands of devices going ions of time back. That gets unreasonable. If the device manufacturers decide to stop support at some point, well, time to change.
My point was that Microsoft is not significantly better that Apple in this respect.
-
My point was that Microsoft is not significantly better that Apple in this respect.
OK, understood. But I was on Windows till 2010 and then switched to Mac. I think I did give up some sustained reliability in the realm of colour managed printing in making that move. This is one area where I believe Microsoft has performed better.
-
But if the Windows drivers are still working fine, and can be color profiled reliably, that's not a criticism - that's a boast! An operating system so stable, and drivers written so well that they still don't need updating!
Point well taken. When either Win 8 or 8.1 came out (I forget which), the Epson web site stated that the 7600 was not compatible. Indeed the drivers would not find the printer. That caused me to use PrintFab beta for awhile, which of course meant creating new profiles for that and dealing with the beta's non-intuitive orientation scheme with rolls. (I can't tell you how many cross-way prints i started.) Sometime later I discovered that the Epson drivers would correctly install if one would simply disable driver signing temporariliy when installing them. That also works for Win 10, or did until last Dec. It would have been nice for Epson to say that. It would have saved me time, paper, ink, etc.
Lloyd
-
...Switching development kits is something that has to be done to keep up with the API churn. The question is really whether Adobe have misunderstood something about the new API's, or whether Apple have not implemented them as expected. Either is possible, and pretty likely if Apples documentation of it's colorsync API's is as good as it was last time I looked for it (i.e. it didn't exist). I think it's reasonable to think that Adobe hasn't done the sort of sanity checking of it's print path that one would hope for though.
...
Graeme
What seems to have happened here is that colour management has been compromised. In my case, printing from LR2015.6 with a good custom profile, which has worked fine with earlier versions of Lightroom, and still works with other (non-Adobe) apps with the current drivers and OS (and presumably the same API), introduces noticeable colour desaturation and banding.
I do not have your colour management or programming background so this may be nonsense: but it is as if the handoff of the image to the driver has gone through some kind of clipped profile connection space. Is it possible that an API change could be responsible for that?
Tim
-
Try to tell this to someone who moves from 32 bit Windows XP to 64 bit Windows 7 or from Windows 7 to Windows 10.
It's not unreasonable that kernel drivers be the same code space as the kernel.
This is not to say that Microsoft don't carefully let support drop in older operating systems, to "incentivize" people to upgrade.
Fundamentally, there's nothing wrong with Windows XP - the kernel differences between it and Win 10 are minor. But why give people free upgrades, when you can make them pay, as well as moving them along your agenda to take over the phone and tablet space, and bolster your "App store" which adds a 30% tax on everything ?
-
So do you mean by this that Windows 10 should be about as insecure as Windows XP, except that support has ceased for the latter, while vulnerabilities will be patched as discovered for the former?
-
So do you mean by this that Windows 10 should be about as insecure as Windows XP, except that support has ceased for the latter, while vulnerabilities will be patched as discovered for the former?
It is as secure as the software it runs and it still runs pretty much the same - just actively patched/maintained by MS as opposed to XP.
-
For those concerned about using Create Cloud to install older version of Photoshop. It works. I installed the 2015.0 version they showed. Then, voila, they indicated there was an update available. Next day I downloaded and installed the 2015.1.2 update. It seems to run fine. Used it all day no issues. As to colors, I have no tools to verify. Just let my other half(the artist) judge images from before and after. She has an amazing eye for colors. No issues to date.
Only thing to point out if you have any extensions installed (like PerfectResize(GenuineFractels)) etc.. you must move them over manually from the other photoshop folders.
I now have 2 versions of photoshop 2015 installed and no issues so far. I am waiting for adobe to tell me there is something wrong with my subscription???
-
Just to say, I have a printing problem along the lines described in this thread with my aged Epson SP7600. I print from Lr with the latest version (CC 2015.6) installed, and a Mac with the latest OS installed (10.11.5 El Capitan). With my particular combo of paper (Velvet Fine Art in this case) and pigment inks (American Inkjet Systems) I am now seeing a strong reddish/magenta cast to the images. Saw exactly same problem with latest Photoshop. Tried letting printer handle colour management and then set various combinations of Epson Color Controls, or Colorsync with correct paper profile chosen, and Color Settings (no color adjustment, vivid, photo-realistic) and colour cast was gone.
I think this experiment says something about what might be causing the problem. Specifically, if I print from latest Lr and select the correct icc paper profile under Color Management I get the color cast. If instead I select Managed by Printer under Color Management and then under Print Settings-Color Matching I select Colorsync and choose the same icc paper profile, the cast disappears. Any ideas here from those of you who know what's going on under the hood?
As a temporary fix I rolled back to Lr CC 2015.4 and I am printing as usual (no cast, happy with output and color management). Not sure if the problem occurs with 2015.5.
By the way this problem is not affecting all Epson printers. My R2000 spits out nice looking prints with the newest version of Lr and Ps, and a friend's R3000 does the same thing. It might be worthwhile compiling a list of printers that are affected as this may say something about the root-cause of the problem.
-
Interesting- it suggests to me that colour management using colour management controlled by the application is whacked for Epson professional printers on Mac OSX El Capitan. But as a previous post on one the three threads where this issue is mentioned also raised the fact of a Canon professional printer facing the same problem, the specific printer model is not likely the generic cause of the problem.
-
... Specifically, if I print from latest Lr and select the correct icc paper profile under Color Management I get the color cast. If instead I select Managed by Printer under Color Management and then under Print Settings-Color Matching I select Colorsync and choose the same icc paper profile, the cast disappears. Any ideas here from those of you who know what's going on under the hood?
...
I just tried to replicate this. Reinstalled 2015.6. Latest driver for SC-P800, and MacOS 10.11.5.
Print (i) selecting my custom ICC profile for color management in LR's print module.
Print (ii) using "managed by printer" then selecting Colorsync and my custom profile in the Color Matching dropdown in the driver.
Result not like John's sadly. Print (i) is still wrong, as it has been since 2015.6; but print (ii) is really awful! a deep gray cast over the whole test image.
Might be a clue for Adobe in this though. Should these two options give such different results? It does suggest something awry in the application handoff doesn't it?
Anyway: back to LR2015.5.1 yet again. Sigh....
Tim
-
... Should these two options give such different results? ...
Apparently they should. I just repeated the exercise in 2015.5.1 Going via 'Mananged by Printer" and then choosing Colorsync and my custom profile still gives the grey coat. I misunderstood something there...
Tim
-
Interesting- it suggests to me that colour management using colour management controlled by the application is whacked for Epson professional printers on Mac OSX El Capitan
Same problem appeared here with latest PS and Epson 7800 on Yosemite, not El Capitan, using long standing custom profile.
But if I do the print profile conversion manually in PS and then print from Adobe Print Utility, it gives the correct result.
-
And it's not just Epson Pro printers. I did a couple of profiles last week for a friend's Canon Pro-100. The profiles verified perfectly but the prints from PS (latest CC version) showed a noticeable red cast in the greys and other colours were off in various degrees. Converting to the profile in PS and printing through ACPU (on the same new iMac) gives correct colour. Unfortunately not a terribly convenient work-around.
-
Yes they have Mark.
Interesting, where? I've been checking via the Utilities menu for driver updates, and have not seen an update. I'm using Epson's recommendations for media settings and downloaded ICC profiles for the Legacy Papers. I'd love to have a link to where I can download a Windwos driver with the Legaicy Papers included.
Rand
-
Interesting, where? I've been checking via the Utilities menu for driver updates, and have not seen an update. I'm using Epson's recommendations for media settings and downloaded ICC profiles for the Legacy Papers. I'd love to have a link to where I can download a Windwos driver with the Legaicy Papers included.
Rand
I suggest you go to the Drivers and Downloads section of the Support tab for your printer model on the Epson website and see what the latest available versions are of the driver, firmware and utilities packages compared with what is installed on your computer.
-
Hi: up and running photoshop 16.1.2(2015.1.2) instead of Photoshop 17.0(2015.5) I ran a printer test with the Digidog "Gamut test file". Printed it out using my profile for the smooth matte art paper, setting relative colorimetric..... with both PS versions. 3880 with the up todate driver. latest Mac 10.11.5
The change in colors are obvious and very easy to see. Especially the banding in the area hi-lighted by digitaldog in a previous post(reply 24). I found that the blues in the top of the test file (with all the fish) darker with the earlier version of PS ???? this is different than the cloths/material at the top right that seem all darker in the 2015.5 version of PS.
In fact my other half (the artist) feels that the 2015.5 version has a very different colors all over the place especially if you look at the cloths at the right top of the test print. All colors seem to me to slightly darker. (one of the cloths is purple with the old version of PS while the new version looks blue...
Will now let the papers dry for 24 hours and then look again. in the meantime .... thank heaven I did all my printing yesterday with the older version of PS
all this is purely visual observation. cheers elo
-
I suggest you go to the Drivers and Downloads section of the Support tab for your printer model on the Epson website and see what the latest available versions are of the driver, firmware and utilities packages compared with what is installed on your computer.
Mark,
Just did, latest version is 6.72 released on 6-19-15. Here: http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/support/supDetail.jsp?oid=273233&infoType=Downloads
And this is what is installed on my machine for my SC P800. No "in driver" support for Legacy papers.
Rand
-
Mark,
Just did, latest version is 6.72 released on 6-19-15. Here: http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/support/supDetail.jsp?oid=273233&infoType=Downloads
And this is what is installed on my machine for my SC P800. No "in driver" support for Legacy papers.
Rand
Hmm, strange, because the latest driver for OSX DOES include the Legacy Media Types and profiles. Perhaps give Epson ProGraphics tech support a call and ask them about it.
-
here are the ICC profiles for the SC P800 Legacy papers. Extracted from the OSX driver package, the files are platform agnostic.
https://app.box.com/s/m21zhqt4a8r0ojatrhxylawb5ci6d76f
-
That will be very helpful to him Howard for having the right profile selected in his printing application, but *I think* he still won't be able to select those papers as Media Types in the driver. This means he will need to use the next closest Epson Media Types in his version of the driver. If I remember correctly, it would be Premium Luster for Legacy Baryta and Platine, and possibly Velvet Fine Art for Legacy Fibre and Etching, but I may be mistaken - best to try sample prints on those papers with several alternative Media Types, such as VFA, Hot Press Natural, USFAP, etc.
-
Interesting, where? I've been checking via the Utilities menu for driver updates, and have not seen an update. I'm using Epson's recommendations for media settings and downloaded ICC profiles for the Legacy Papers. I'd love to have a link to where I can download a Windwos driver with the Legaicy Papers included.
Rand
-
Sure, here's one for Windows 64 bit (6.63): http://esupport.epson-europe.com/ProductHome.aspx?lng=en-IE&data=0ccCGROWIYNdWlmxuZKeSGNKMMPMkVzX3tXUIkzO7L8U003D&tc=6 (http://esupport.epson-europe.com/ProductHome.aspx?lng=en-IE&data=0ccCGROWIYNdWlmxuZKeSGNKMMPMkVzX3tXUIkzO7L8U003D&tc=6)
David,
Thanks, but your link is for an Epson 3880.
Rand
-
here are the ICC profiles for the SC P800 Legacy papers. Extracted from the OSX driver package, the files are platform agnostic.
https://app.box.com/s/m21zhqt4a8r0ojatrhxylawb5ci6d76f
Howard,
Thanks. I have the ICC profiles from Epson. The instructions that came with them provide "media type" to use in the Epson driver. What I was hoping for was a driver w/ the Legacy papers as a media type choice so that the proper feed and thickness etc. are included automatically.
I'm properly color managed, in other words, but I find it odd that Epson would have a Mac driver that has the Legacy papers as a proper media type selection, yet not one for Windows.
Rand
-
David,
Thanks, but your link is for an Epson 3880.
Rand
Ahh, I saw it referenced in an earlier post. :P
-
Howard,
Thanks. I have the ICC profiles from Epson. The instructions that came with them provide "media type" to use in the Epson driver. What I was hoping for was a driver w/ the Legacy papers as a media type choice so that the proper feed and thickness etc. are included automatically.
I'm properly color managed, in other words, but I find it odd that Epson would have a Mac driver that has the Legacy papers as a proper media type selection, yet not one for Windows.
Rand
I have the SC8000 and it does include Legacy paper types as well as profiles. The (W10) driver is dated from 1/26 so it seems strange that a later driver for the SC800 doesn't include them
-
Been traveling for a while so just getting up to speed on this bug.
Using printer managed color, then choosing the colorsync option in the printer dialog allows you to use the profile of your choice. Output using this path visually appears identical to my test on OS X 10.11.0 and LR 6.0. definitely different than OS X 10.11.5 and LR CC 2015.6. as mentioned, very subtle, in most images maybe not even visually perceptible.
This is on a p800. The test I printed with the older version of LR was using the most recent version of this driver (9.79), the LR 2015.6 text an older one (9.41). Noticed this p800 driver was just updated in the past couple of weeks along with several other Epson printers, so need to update the driver and retest with the 10.11.5 and 2015.6 (although based on this thread guessing that will be an exercise in futility).
Using ColorSync not a great work around, as colorsync doesn’t allow a choice of rendering intent ... and i’m not even sure what rendering intent it is using. I think there is a way to choose and set a default, but seems easier just to roll back a version.
-
Been traveling for a while so just getting up to speed on this bug.
Using printer managed color, then choosing the colorsync option in the printer dialog allows you to use the profile of your choice. Output using this path visually appears identical to my test on OS X 10.11.0 and LR 6.0. definitely different than OS X 10.11.5 and LR CC 2015.6. as mentioned, very subtle, in most images maybe not even visually perceptible.
This is on a p800. The test I printed with the older version of LR was using the most recent version of this driver (9.79), the LR 2015.6 text an older one (9.41). Noticed this p800 driver was just updated in the past couple of weeks along with several other Epson printers, so need to update the driver and retest with the 10.11.5 and 2015.6 (although based on this thread guessing that will be an exercise in futility).
Using ColorSync not a great work around, as colorsync doesn’t allow a choice of rendering intent ... and i’m not even sure what rendering intent it is using. I think there is a way to choose and set a default, but seems easier just to roll back a version.
From the rigorous testing I have done with Photoshop (because the methodology needs Absolute RI) the differences between the current and previous versions of LR/PS are less subtle in some colours than others. The driver update for the P800 has nothing to do with this problem and no impact on it, so you needn't waste your time on it.
-
From the rigorous testing I have done with Photoshop (because the methodology needs Absolute RI) the differences between the current and previous versions of LR/PS are less subtle in some colours than others.
I concur. Some colors have tiny dE differences. Blues on this end (3880) are affected the most. I should have a P800 here tomorrow and wish to test it as well.
-
Using ColorSync not a great work around, as colorsync doesn’t allow a choice of rendering intent ... and i’m not even sure what rendering intent it is using.
Probably Perceptual since that's what most profiles define for the RI when not asked by the user. IOW, the profiles are built to have a default set in such cases.
-
I was printing out one of my partner's designs a couple of days ago ( from PS 2015.5 ) & noticed that the colours were a bit off. I did a quick & dirty print test ( attached ) printing from PS CS2015.5, Lightroom 2015.6 & PS CS5 all using the same paper / printer profile & rendering intent. I got the best soft proof to print match using PS CS5. The other two were noticeably less satisfactory. Puzzlingly PS CC 2015.5 & Lightroom CC 2015.6 gave different results although I'm pretty sure I used identical print settings.
I'm using OS X 10.10.5 so I'm assuming that this is a result of the bug that this thread's about. ( The printer is a low end dye based Canon but it's profiled & I've been getting good print to screen matches from it ).
Have any of you guys tried printing from Affinity Photo? I've been working with Affinity Designer ( their Illustrator rival ) for a couple of months & am quite impressed with it. Wondering if I can get good results by outputting jpegs from Lightroom's print module & printing them from Photo. I know I can use PS CS5 but it's a bit cranky with Yosemite & will probably cease working entirely when I eventually upgrade the OS. I know I can try & revert to earlier versions of PS & Lightroom CC but I'm getting heartily sick of the Creative Cloud & Adobe in general so I'm starting to think about leaving the Adobiverse. ( I can't believe I'm writing this - I used to love using Adobe stuff ).
-
re changing rendering intent... go to colorsync utility then select the calculator option and a screen comes up which allows you to change the intent for any profile.... never tried it assume it works..
-
re changing rendering intent... go to colorsync utility then select the calculator option and a screen comes up which allows you to change the intent for any profile.... never tried it assume it works..
I think that only affects the calculator values.
-
Tried the colorsync change I did not see any change in the headers afterwards - think it does not work as I hoped it would..
-
There have been a few reports this is affecting windows 10 x64 as well. I was concerned the "trick" of assigning the printer profile to an untagged target and printing it as a way of avoiding APU would be affected as I use this to make profiles on odd sized, small paper which can't be set directly using I1Profiler.
Continues to work fine. I get the same readings with APU as with PS 2015.5 on a Canon 9500 II. This would also have shown color shifts from this bug if it existed in the Windows version.
-
For what it's worth: Recent communication with Adobe Tech support.
Richard Waller: Many photographers with the latest version of PS find a problem with printing. Prints come out dark and the blues show banding. Please tell me how Adobe is addressing this problem and when we will get a fix.
Richard Waller: There's a long discussion of this issue on Adobe Forums.
Shikhar Jaiswal: Yes, there is some issue
Shikhar Jaiswal: Let me check the latest update on that
Richard Waller: thank you.
Shikhar Jaiswal: Please try pressing Space bar before going to File>Print and check if you are still getting the issue
info: Your chat transcript will be sent to waller.richard@gmail.com at the end of your chat.
Richard Waller: I will try that. Thank you very much.
-
Well Richard, what is it worth? Did you try it? Did it do anything? And he didn't explain the logic of it?
-
Hi Mark,
I have not tried it yet.
Am leaving town today (NOLA) for a little while.
Seems kinda farfetched, but who knows?
Will check it out when I return.
Wish Adobe would make you and Andrew and some other LuLa stalwarts their paid advisors.
Richard
-
Hi Mark,
I have not tried it yet.
Am leaving town today (NOLA) for a little while.
Seems kinda farfetched, but who knows?
Will check it out when I return.
Wish Adobe would make you and Andrew and some other LuLa stalwarts their paid advisors.
Richard
Thanks for the confidence Richard, but I am certain there is no shortage of internal talent in Adobe that could sleuth this issue and fix it. The main problems in that company are at another level and that is something they themselves need to come to grips with. Have a great holiday! And once you are back and have pushed the space-bar, let us know the outcome - like you I think it weird.
-
Unfortunately Adobe has a history of not fixing things they break with a new release until the next release. It has been pretty rare for them to just simply fix one issue and then patch. Twice they have broken the ability to do pano merges in PS, and both times the "fix" was something that happened in the normal course of releasing a new version several months later. The issue with using droplets wasn't addressed until the next release. Of course the famous import interface issue wasn't addressed very quickly either.
Hopefully they would consider this a serious enough problem, but since the issue manifests itself in such a subtle way I'm not sure enough users will complain. This issue to me is serious enough they should push a fix out ASAP, but guessing we'll have to stay with 2015.5.1 for a couple of months.
Hope I'm wrong. 2015.6 seemed more responsive with many functions for me.
-
Unfortunately Adobe has a history of not fixing things they break with a new release until the next release. It has been pretty rare for them to just simply fix one issue and then patch. Twice they have broken the ability to do pano merges in PS, and both times the "fix" was something that happened in the normal course of releasing a new version several months later. The issue with using droplets wasn't addressed until the next release. Of course the famous import interface issue wasn't addressed very quickly either.
Hopefully they would consider this a serious enough problem, but since the issue manifests itself in such a subtle way I'm not sure enough users will complain. This issue to me is serious enough they should push a fix out ASAP, but guessing we'll have to stay with 2015.5.1 for a couple of months.
Hope I'm wrong. 2015.6 seemed more responsive with many functions for me.
Hi Wayne, the presentation of the issue is not at all subtle when one goes about the technical diagnosis with some simple procedures and arithmetic. It is quite stark seen through the numbers, though admittedly can be somewhat less so on paper, depending on the photo. Most of the complaints came from people who immediately noticed a visible deterioration of print quality. Users are complaining. I agree with you that it is a pretty fundamental problem, and as such there should be no hesitation to issue a fix as soon as they actually fix it. One of the whole purposes of the CC approach was to give them flexibility to issue updates, rather than being glued to a fixed timetable. That was part of the ""CC promise" if I can put it that way. So now is the time for them to respect their own previous commitments. Part of the delay we're seeing is the initial period of denial; I don't know how long that lasted, or even whether it is over; but by now they should know they own this issue and need to fix it. When that realization dawns, time will be needed to analyze where the code went wrong, repair it, and THIS TIME quality-assure it every which way, then prepare the release. I don't know how much time all that will require.
Adobe, of course, are being completely unhelpful by not having uttered a word about it since their initial rubbish blaming Epson drivers. Some people are simply irate, while others have been pressing hard on this matter, because of its importance; but you may well be right that perhaps a larger groundswell of dissatisfaction will be necessary to shake them into more responsiveness. We seem to be suffering from a corporate ethos where pride of workmanship takes a back seat to the bottom line and reputational risk means little. Somehow or other that needs to change, and the only effective vehicle I know of is real competition. Where is it, all factors considered?
-
This debacle makes me wonder if the developers at Adobe ever bother to make prints as part of their beta testing.
-
For what it's worth: Recent communication with Adobe Tech support.
Shikhar Jaiswal: Please try pressing Space bar before going to File>Print and check if you are still getting the issue
That sounds like a low voltage USB connect issue not pinging or updating API communications with the printer driver and/or OS. It's sort of like Fonzi on "Happy Days" sitcom slapping the coin operated jukebox to get it to play without inserting a coin.
I notice when I don't print for a long time on my Epson NX330 "All In One" I get an insert paper warning when I already have paper loaded. It takes several tries to get the low voltage signal to wake up both the hardware on my computer and printer to talk to each other through software.
Just speculation though, but that keyboard spacebar suggestion seems to indicate that may be the issue.
-
The scope and etiology of this problem do not suggest this is plausible. It's interesting how my computer and printer communicate just fine with both versions of Photoshop, but the penultimate version produces pretty accurate colour and the new one doesn't - repeatedly and sytematically.
-
Just got a new P800 (Nice), ran some tests today. It's not the darn print driver.
Here's the baseline: Photoshop CS6 versus Lightroom 5. Largest dE's sorted (max a bit over 1). Targets didn't dry over night. I'm therefore fine with these differences.
And then the difference between Photoshop 6 versus CC 2015. Huge differences in blues.
-
Good demo; so just for added clarity, you are showing here that comparing two previous versions of LR and PS for which CM worked properly, the dE readings are very low - well within the acceptable range for the whole list; however, when comparing a previous version of LR with the current version of PSCC, the blues in particular get whacked. Going about in a somewhat different manner, but same idea, my results are consistent with your results and indeed have nothing whatsoever to do with the Epson driver, but everything to do with the version of Adobe software.
-
Good demo; so just for added clarity, you are showing here that comparing two previous versions of LR and PS for which CM worked properly, the dE readings are very low - well within the acceptable range for the whole list; however, when comparing a previous version of LR with the current version of PSCC, the blues in particular get whacked.
Yes. Similar on the 3880 too. It's not going to show up for a lot of users depending on the image too. I see it visually in a Granger Rainbow or a blue gradient.
-
Yes. Similar on the 3880 too. It's not going to show up for a lot of users depending on the image too. I see it visually in a Granger Rainbow or a blue gradient.
Sure, but whether it shows up or not on any particular image to me is immaterial - I think we agree they should have the algorithms working correctly so that where it COULD show up, it won't.
-
Apparently Printer Manages Color is OK, I haven't tried, it's not an acceptable fix for me.
I just compared Apple's Preview to Photoshop CS 6. The max dE is very small, less than 1. So Apple's product prints correctly (as it once did on Photoshop and LR). The difference between CS 6 and Photoshop CC 2015.5 is a max of 16 all in blues. Meaning you need to look carefully at least on two Epson's to see this. Shows in a Granger Rainbow and blue gradients.
-
Apparently Printer Manages Color is OK, I haven't tried, it's not an acceptable fix for me.
I just compared Apple's Preview to Photoshop CS 6. The max dE is very small, less than 1. So Apple's product prints correctly (as it once did on Photoshop and LR). The difference between CS 6 and Photoshop CC 2015.5 is a max of 16 all in blues. Meaning you need to look carefully at least on two Epson's to see this. Shows in a Granger Rainbow and blue gradients.
The max shift is 16 dE2k but much, much larger in the standard dE1976. To me dE2k's of over 5 are slightly visible side by side if you have a reasonably large area of the affected colors. dE2ks of over 10 are very visible side by side. Essentially, using standard profile based color management is going to be highly problematic until the applications are fixed. Worse, it puts an unfair burden on businesses that use, make or distribute printer profiles as they will often be blamed for results the photographer doesn't expect when printing. And color managed printing seems to be confusing enough to many as it is.
-
Tested output using the ColorSync utility. I ended up converting the image in Photoshop then printing as target through that driver. Compared to Photoshop CS6, tiny! So it seems two of Apple's most current products behave with the print drivers correctly. Adobe's products don't.
-
So when is Adobe going to wake up?
-
So when is Adobe going to wake up?
Some time Monday I suspect :o
-
So when is Adobe going to wake up?
Stay tuned.
-
Some time Monday I suspect :o
Some Monday in this millennium?
-
Some Monday in this millennium?
The day after tomorrow. :-)
-
When Apple Preview is used for printing (in lieu of Photoshop CC 2015.5, "Photoshop Manages Colors"), what rendering intent do you get? What black point compensation is used?
Jim
-
When Apple Preview is used for printing (in lieu of Photoshop CC 2015.5, "Photoshop Manages Colors"), what rendering intent do you get? What black point compensation is used?
The RI selected as the 'default' when the profile was created (usually Perceptual). No BPC with the Apple CMM AFAIK.
-
The RI selected as the 'default' when the profile was created (usually Perceptual). No BPC with the Apple CMM AFAIK.
That pretty much appears to be the case when I print using "Printer Manages Color" whether I'm printing out of Photoshop or Preview on my Epson NX330 "All In One". Note below how the black point isn't as dense and the tonal gradient out of black is more gradual.
-
Sent out by Adobe this afternoon.
Hi all,
I'm the Group Product Manager for Photoshop. I want to thank you all for bringing this to our attention. After a thorough investigation, we have identified a fix and will be releasing an update to Photoshop and Lightroom that will resolve this issue in August.
In the meantime, you can use the prior version of Photoshop and Lightroom. If you are unsure how to install the previous version, you can find instructions here: http://blogs.adobe.com/adobecare/2015/06/16/how-to-find-and-install-previous-version-of-ad obe-apps-in-cc-2015/
Thanks again for your help in identifying the issue.
If the reply above answers your question, please take a moment to mark this answer as correct by visiting: https://forums.adobe.com/message/8885519#8885519 and clicking ‘Correct’ below the answer
-
Looks promising.
-
Looks promising.
I'm optimistic. I fully expect to see it fixed.
-
Excellent.
I hope nearer 1st August than 30th! Good to see the investigation and analysis lead to a fix.
Well done Mark and Andrew.
-
Do not rush them. Enough comments were made in this list about quality control, testing etc. Lets give them the time to do the job right. Last thing we need is more problems due to rushing a fix out. However would be nice if they let one or two of you be part of the final testing process to verify that they have solved the problem before final release.
cheers Elo
-
I missed this thread and was not aware of the issue until I read Mark's article yesterday. Ugh! I printed a 30x40 print for a client last Friday and I noticed that the color was very slightly off, but just chalked it up to a profiling issue. (New paper, Epson Legacy Baryta.) After I read the article about the printing glitch in CC 2015.5, I reprinted the image with PS CS6 and was amazed at the difference. Yes, the color in the new print was very subtly different, but the tonality was even more different. The highlights were brighter and warmer in the new print.
-
Thanks for your response RMW. And to Mark and Andrew for all your work.
-
Hi Mark
Thank you for you efforts!
A quick update with respect to this and also my colour-matching artwork problem, I made two test prints yesterday:
1) The first one was of a Colorchecker Passport and the result was most satisfying, the match between the display, the print and the actual Colorchecker is as close to perfect as I think one can get.
2) I reprinted "the" piece of artwork, and it too was accurate!
Regards
William
-
Another 'Thank you' to Mark & Andrew. If not for this thread I'd have spent a bunch of time trying to work out what I was getting wrong.
Am printing from PS CS5 as a workaround.
-
Hi Mark
Thank you for you efforts!
A quick update with respect to this and also my colour-matching artwork problem, I made two test prints yesterday:
1) The first one was of a Colorchecker Passport and the result was most satisfying, the match between the display, the print and the actual Colorchecker is as close to perfect as I think one can get.
2) I reprinted "the" piece of artwork, and it too was accurate!
Regards
William
Pleased to hear things are working out.
-
First, a tip of the hat to RMW for the link to regress CC apps.
Now for my question. I'd like to start printing again and I mostly use Lr. I plan on regressing Lr shortly. Do I need to regress PS as well if I don't print from it?
-
First, a tip of the hat to RMW for the link to regress CC apps.
Now for my question. I'd like to start printing again and I mostly use Lr. I plan on regressing Lr shortly. Do I need to regress PS as well if I don't print from it?
Certainly not if you are staying entirely with LR. I believe you can "Edit In" from LR to a previous version of PS, but not 100% certain.
-
I'm optimistic. I fully expect to see it fixed.
It is fixed (I can state I've seen the fix) and, it took a fraction of the time to fix this than it took Adobe to realize it's their bug. Let's not forget the time to put up a web site that blames another company when that company wasn't at fault. The so called fix on that web page is bogus so doesn't appear they ever tested it. And then there is Adobe's failure to actually test two products for printing prior to release to detect these bugs. Sloppy, very sloppy despite being told prior to each issue, what not to do and then doing so anyway. Zero sympathy from this often called Adobe Fan Boy.
-
It is fixed (I can state I've seen the fix) and, it took a fraction of the time to fix this than it took Adobe to realize it's their bug. Let's not forget the time to put up a web site that blames another company when that company wasn't at fault. The so called fix on that web page is bogus so doesn't appear they ever tested it. And then there is Adobe's failure to actually test two products for printing prior to release to detect these bugs. Sloppy, very sloppy despite being told prior to each issue, what not to do and then doing so anyway. Zero sympathy from this often called Adobe Fan Boy.
Andrew, did the fix (if you're allowed to divulge) have anything to do with the "space bar" tip given to a poster here by an Adobe call center tech support?
Or from what you now know does it point to a way to check for a behavior after an update to LR or Photoshop that indicates an Adobe bug so users don't have sort it out in similar long threads in the future?
What and where was the problem that was so easy to fix but was overlooked?
-
Andrew, did the fix (if you're allowed to divulge) have anything to do with the "space bar" tip given to a poster here by an Adobe call center tech support?
Nope.
The check is using colorimetry to measure (in my case) a mere 700 different patches printed in Photoshop CS6 (the control) and whatever version is being tested. A max dE of 15 isn't correct.
-
Nope.
The check is using colorimetry to measure (in my case) a mere 700 different patches printed in Photoshop CS6 (the control) and whatever version is being tested. A max dE of 15 isn't correct.
Geez! That's not reassuring. Are you being compensated for the ink and paper by Adobe?
-
Certainly not if you are staying entirely with LR. I believe you can "Edit In" from LR to a previous version of PS, but not 100% certain.
Thanks, Mark. I'd like to stay with the most recent release of PS CC as I like the new Select and Mask Tool space.
-
Thanks, Mark. I'd like to stay with the most recent release of PS CC as I like the new Select and Mask Tool space.
Printing from the latest releases of PS and LR CC for OSX will not be accurate. But a bit more patience will have its rewards :-).
-
Mark, what I'd like to do is regress LR not PS to the previous level.
If they'll ship the updates this week then I'll just hold off.
-
But a bit more patience will have its rewards :-).
I think Adobe owes us a much better reward than fixing something they broke themselves, and as bad, blamed upon others.
-
CC = Compulsory Complexity >:(
-
I think Adobe owes us a much better reward than fixing something they broke themselves, and as bad, blamed upon others.
From the Legal Terms of Use for Photoshop CC (emphasis added), to which we all signed-up when agreeing to use these products:
8. Disclaimers of Warranties.
8.1 Unless stated in the Additional Terms, the Services and Software are provided “AS-IS.” To the maximum extent permitted by law, we disclaim all warranties express or implied, including the implied warranties of non-infringement, merchantability, and fitness for a particular purpose. We make no commitments about the content within the Services. We further disclaim any warranty that (a) the Services or Software will meet your requirements or will be constantly available, uninterrupted, timely, secure, or error-free; (b) the results that may be obtained from the use of the Services or Software will be effective, accurate, or reliable; (c) the quality of the Services or Software will meet your expectations; or that (d) any errors or defects in the Services or Software will be corrected.
8.2 We specifically disclaim any liability for any actions resulting from your use of any Services or Software. You may use and access the Services or Software at your own discretion and risk, and you are solely responsible for any damage to your computer system or loss of data that results from the use and access of any Service or Software.
9. Limitation of Liability.
9.1 Unless stated in the Additional Terms, we are not liable to you or anyone else for: (a) any loss of use, data, goodwill, or profits, whether or not foreseeable; and (b) any special, incidental, indirect, consequential, or punitive damages whatsoever (even if we have been advised of the possibility of these damages), including those (x) resulting from loss of use, data, or profits, whether or not foreseeable, (y) based on any theory of liability, including breach of contract or warranty, negligence or other tortious action, or (z) arising from any other claim arising out of or in connection with your use of or access to the Services or Software. Nothing in these terms limits or excludes our liability for gross negligence, for our (or our employees’) intentional misconduct, or for death or personal injury.
9.2 Our total liability in any matter arising out of or related to these terms is limited to US $100 or the aggregate amount that you paid for access to the Service and Software during the three- month period preceding the event giving rise to the liability, whichever is larger. This limitation will apply even if we have been advised of the possibility of the liability exceeding the amount and notwithstanding any failure of essential purpose of any limited remedy.
I suppose they could pay us a hundred bucks each, but the cost of actioning that claim may well exceed the award limit.
-
Mark, I'm not suggesting anything legal and everting to do with good will towards customers, beta testers, ex-Adobe Fan Boys and people who spent years looking out for Adobe's best interest in producing the best products for us. I could say 'This isn't your father's Adobe' but the more accurate statement would be, this isn't the old Adobe I spent years and years supporting because they supported me with really good products due to a the kind of dedication to software we don't see any longer. Very sad. I started using Photoshop 26 years ago. Even 5 years ago, I couldn’t imagine not using Photoshop (or LR). Today, I'm not sure I'll be using these products in a couple years. Maybe sooner if Adobe continues to be as sloppy and unfriendly as recently witnessed publicly and privately.
-
From the Legal Terms of Use for Photoshop CC (emphasis added), to which we all signed-up when agreeing to use these products:
8. Disclaimers of Warranties.
8.1 Unless stated in the Additional Terms, the Services and Software are provided “AS-IS.” To the maximum extent permitted by law, we disclaim all warranties express or implied, including the implied warranties of non-infringement, merchantability, and fitness for a particular purpose. We make no commitments about the content within the Services. We further disclaim any warranty that (a) the Services or Software will meet your requirements or will be constantly available, uninterrupted, timely, secure, or error-free; (b) the results that may be obtained from the use of the Services or Software will be effective, accurate, or reliable; (c) the quality of the Services or Software will meet your expectations; or that (d) any errors or defects in the Services or Software will be corrected.
8.2 We specifically disclaim any liability for any actions resulting from your use of any Services or Software. You may use and access the Services or Software at your own discretion and risk, and you are solely responsible for any damage to your computer system or loss of data that results from the use and access of any Service or Software.
9. Limitation of Liability.
9.1 Unless stated in the Additional Terms, we are not liable to you or anyone else for: (a) any loss of use, data, goodwill, or profits, whether or not foreseeable; and (b) any special, incidental, indirect, consequential, or punitive damages whatsoever (even if we have been advised of the possibility of these damages), including those (x) resulting from loss of use, data, or profits, whether or not foreseeable, (y) based on any theory of liability, including breach of contract or warranty, negligence or other tortious action, or (z) arising from any other claim arising out of or in connection with your use of or access to the Services or Software. Nothing in these terms limits or excludes our liability for gross negligence, for our (or our employees’) intentional misconduct, or for death or personal injury.
9.2 Our total liability in any matter arising out of or related to these terms is limited to US $100 or the aggregate amount that you paid for access to the Service and Software during the three- month period preceding the event giving rise to the liability, whichever is larger. This limitation will apply even if we have been advised of the possibility of the liability exceeding the amount and notwithstanding any failure of essential purpose of any limited remedy.
I suppose they could pay us a hundred bucks each, but the cost of actioning that claim may well exceed the award limit.
Actually we don't have a choice but to ‘agree’ Adobe's terms if we want to use their software. It is forced on us as a fait accompli. Of course, those who wrote this ‘agreement” believe that these terms then indemnify Adobe of any responsibility for any failures in their software, negligence on their part, and any unfortunate effects their failures may have on their customers. Sad that it comes to this in the end, this lack of corporate responsibility.
Interestingly, in the UK, some of these terms might well fall foul of the Unfair Contract Terms Act should any one wish to challenge this in court. Not me.
-
The legal stuff is the backstop that spells out the ultimate recourse. It doesn't mean the company actually behaves that way. I posted it just to be sure we all understand that matters of goodwill aside, there is very little formal obligation; so it is in fact a sense of professionalism, good will, good customer relations and an eye for the competition that we depend on - and this is true of most software most of us use. If the law of the land were different and they were actually exposed to liability, they would need insurance cover and the cost of this would be added to what we pay for using the products. There's no free lunch.
-
In the USA all companies regardless of T&C, warranties, laws, etc. are held accountable in the court of public opinion. That is why so many corporate executives, politicians, etc. deem it necessary to resign and leave their positions. In some cases the public turns away from their products.
Adobe hasn't reached that point.
Their products are still arguably the best in the industry. They have some PR cleanup to do to restore some faith from their customer base but it's nothing that an apology, quick fix and better attention in the future can't fix. They took their eye off the ball and I hope they don't repeat a mistake like this for quite some time.
-
Their products are still arguably the best in the industry. They have some PR cleanup to do to restore some faith from their customer base but it's nothing that an apology, quick fix and better attention in the future can't fix. They took their eye off the ball and I hope they don't repeat a mistake like this for quite some time.
This is pretty much where I'm at.
-
This is pretty much where I'm at.
+1
-
They took their eye off the ball . . .
Meaning, among other things, no one at Adobe made a color print for evaluation from a Mac using Photoshop. :-\
-
Meaning, among other things, no one at Adobe made a color print for evaluation from a Mac using Photoshop. :-\
I was told they did. I was told they tested the so called fix of updating the 3880 driver. I don't believe either is true.
-
As someone who uses PS without understanding much of what's 'under the hood', I can accept how difficult it must be to create and deliver sophisticated photographic software. Problems will arise; bugs will be bugs. What I can't and won't accept is Adobe's indecent disregard for all of us who have loyally supported them. For now, I'll keep my subscription going. But if they act this irresponsibly again, I'll have no choice but to leave Adobe and its lower-then-cockroach-standards for good.
Richard
-
Sorry if this has already been mentioned but over on the Adobe thread about this topic, Adobe has emailed contributors asking them to beta-test a new version of Lr with the bug fixed. Haven't had a chance yet because I'm on the road, but will do so soon.
-
Sorry if this has already been mentioned but over on the Adobe thread about this topic, Adobe has emailed contributors asking them to beta-test a new version of Lr with the bug fixed. Haven't had a chance yet because I'm on the road, but will do so soon.
I'd love to know how Adobe expects people to evaluate if the bug exists or not considering it's often darn subtle and the correct way to do this is using colorimetry (printing from multiple app's, measuring hundreds of color patches with a Spectrophotometer and producing deltaE reports). Something someone inside of Adobe could and should have done for every release after messing with the code for printing.
Seems more like Adobe 'damage control' (look, we've worked on a fix and we want you to know about it).
Anyway, the good news is indeed, the next release has fixed the bug, I've got the dE reports to prove it and yes, Adobe knows this.
-
In the Printing Forum, Adobe has just now posted an announcement that the Lightroom fix is now available, along with a link listing the bug fixes and how to install.
-
Anyway, the good news is indeed, the next release has fixed the bug, I've got the dE reports to prove it and yes, Adobe knows this.
Likewise.
-
I'm looking forward to seeing the new update in the CC app so I can upgrade Lr.
I'm also delighted to see support for the not quite yet available Fuji X-T2.
-
Update for LR is now live
http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2016/07/lightroom-cc-2015-6-1-now-available.html
-
I have tried the update to Lr and the colour cast I noticed before has gone.
-
new version of photoshop cc just showed up on my Creative Cloud announcements... have installed it but will not be able to test for the next week.. away at an art show.