Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: pflower on December 25, 2016, 12:22:02 pm
-
After the debacle with the previous version of LR with the printing bugs, I have stayed away from upgrading. However the new version - 2015.8 - with reference view could be useful. I haven't seen anyone (here or elsewhere) complaining about bugs in this version. So is it safe to upgrade? I am running Mac OSX 10.11.3.
Thanks
-
Using with no problems today (re keywording day before Christmas Dinner ;) ), no problems reported, but haven't tried printing yet...
Merry Christmas !
Stan
After the debacle with the previous version of LR with the printing bugs, I have stayed away from upgrading. However the new version - 2015.8 - with reference view could be useful. I haven't seen anyone (here or elsewhere) complaining about bugs in this version. So is it safe to upgrade? I am running Mac OSX 10.11.3.
Thanks
-
On Windws 10 machine I have extensively used library, develop and print modules without any problem.
cheers,
Boudewijn Swanenburg
-
I'm seeing a problem in library view: a color label is sometimes applied to the wrong image. Restarting the program fixes it. I'd never seen that problem before.
-
After upgrading to 2015.8 (perpetual) I found that when images in the Develop module are marked with a "X" as rejected, and then using CMD-Delete the program freezes, which then requires a restart to solve the problem.
System: MacPro 2009 32GB Ram, OS 10.10.5
-David.
-
Your title might be a little optimistic. There's an old programmers' rule:
1. All non-trivial programs have at least one bug.
2. It is a sufficient condition of program triviality that it have no bugs.
Jeremy
-
Your title might be a little optimistic. There's an old programmers' rule:
1. All non-trivial programs have at least one bug.
2. It is a sufficient condition of program triviality that it have no bugs.
Jeremy
+1, although I'd add that for a program to be trivial enough to have no bugs, then it also is likely to have no use either.
-
The real question is whether is has any serious flaws and glad the O/P asked. This would be a good place to collect the experience of the early adopters.
-
The real question is whether is has any serious flaws and glad the O/P asked. This would be a good place to collect the experience of the early adopters.
Hi Mark,
While I agree that it can be useful to collect user experiences (here or on the Adobe forums), it still strikes me as strange that 'early adopters' play such an important role in what's supposed to be an otherwise stable subscription product. I'd have thought that getting the latest bugfixes and optimizations is one of the benefits of updates, whether perpetual license or subscription license?
And even new features, which may have some teething issues, seem slow to mature. Take the Chromatic Aberration correction for the individual Raws used in HDR or Pano stitches. Has it materialized yet?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Bart,
We have Adobe and their brilliant engineers to thank for a considerable portion the image processing capability we currently enjoy, but there has been a number of mishaps of late that raised questions about the readiness of updates for prime-time. I think part of it is the sheer complexity of all there is out there that can go wrong with so many system configurations and applications in use, and the other part perhaps less thorough-going QA than warranted under the circumstances - though I'm not trained to really know this - I can only make empirical inferences which may or may not be well-founded. From the discussion that ensued after these incidents, I was impressed with the comments of those experienced with software development suggesting that in the very nature of the inherent issues arising from complexity and diversity, we have to expect that a number of problems may only be discovered through the user base. In light of all that, a good number of us have become a bit hesitant to be early adopters, especially if the need is not compelling; we therefore need to depend on the experience of those who are early adopters for guidance, so perhaps we need to stop expecting perfection from the get-go and learn to live with a certain sense of adventure and uncertainty, and adopt our own risk aversion strategies, though of course I wouldn't want to see this taken too far. I don't think the software acquisition model is a variable in the causal factors of this situation whatever they may really be; but it is a differentiating factor at the curative end. You may recall that when the printing bug was unearthed and fixed mid-year, Adobe issued a "dot-release" update very quickly after understanding it was their issue to fix. This is the welcome kind of flexibility that the subscription model carries with it. As for the time taken with new features to "mature", I'm all for that if it will make for more bullet-proof releases. We already have so many excellent tools to work with. If it needs to take some time for new features to mature, there are likely good reasons for it and so be it. Sooner or later they happen and we'll all benefit.
-
You may recall that when the printing bug was unearthed and fixed mid-year, Adobe issued a "dot-release" update very quickly after understanding it was their issue to fix. This is the welcome kind of flexibility that the subscription model carries with it.
While I agree with the rest of your post, I don't see how the subscription model has anything to do with a dot release to fix a serious bug. The bug would have been fixed and a dot release made available just as quickly if no subscription model existed.
-
For a serious bug, yes, that's likely, but not so for new features, where according to Adobe the subscription update model provides more flexibility to introduce new features as they get developed rather than awaiting the conventional upgrade cycle.
-
+1, although I'd add that for a program to be trivial enough to have no bugs, then it also is likely to have no use either.
Windows notepad :)
-
For a serious bug, yes, that's likely, but not so for new features, where according to Adobe the subscription update model provides more flexibility to introduce new features as they get developed rather than awaiting the conventional upgrade cycle.
True, but I haven't seen anything in LR CC that would make me want to switch from the standalone version.
-
Do you have the new Upright panel yet in the stand-alone?
-
....Adobe issued a "dot-release" update very quickly after understanding it was their issue to fix. This is the welcome kind of flexibility that the subscription model carries with it....
There's nothing specific about the subscription model that allows fast dot releases, it's nothing new and has been around since software started.
What has changed with subscription is stopping public beta releases. So now you get the latest idea released to everyone without, voluntary, mass testing first.
-
For a serious bug, yes, that's likely, but not so for new features, where according to Adobe the subscription update model provides more flexibility to introduce new features as they get developed rather than awaiting the conventional upgrade cycle.
From a technical perspective? Really? How so? They are both simply downloads of a new version of the program. Adobe argued that would be an advantage of the subscription model, where there would not be pressure to produce gee whiz features at the expense of nuts and bolts improvements. The flexibility is in the financial model, where they can maintain cash flow.
-
From a technical perspective? Really? How so? They are both simply downloads of a new version of the program. Adobe argued that would be an advantage of the subscription model, where there would not be pressure to produce gee whiz features at the expense of nuts and bolts improvements. The flexibility is in the financial model, where they can maintain cash flow.
Adobe never made a distinction between what you call "gee whiz" features and "nuts and bolts improvements". Their argument favouring the subscription model was that it would depart from the practice of creating updates on the 18 month cycle during which ALL changes would accumulate and be introduced at the same time; instead, on the subscription model they offered the prospect of introducing amendments and new features as and when they are readied without waiting-out the 18 months. In their view this is a more flexible approach, and as long as they do it that way, I would have to agree.
As for the financial model, in their last 10-K submission to the US Government before they introduced this new approach to software marketing they said that for some time into the future this model would actually impair cash flow because it would cut-off the huge gob of cash that would otherwise come in all at once at upgrade time, replacing it with a monthly stream of much smaller amounts. I can also picture that being plausible. Nonetheless they opined in the same document that over the long term this approach would prove to be a superior business model in terms of retaining customers and earning at least as much as they did under the traditional licensing model. Apparently other software companies view it likewise as other big players, such as Microsoft with its Office product, are doing the same thing. I recall from the pricing of the 18 month upgrades of both Photoshop and Lightroom that with the subscription mode, 18 months of these monthly payments on the Photography Bundle would actually cost me no more, if not somewhat less, assuming I would upgrade every cycle as they always provided some new attractive features that were too hard to resist. But all this takes us somewhat afar from the concern of the O/P which was whether the new release is buggy. Perhaps the thread should focus on that hereafter.
-
Yes Mark, getting back to the original topic. I've used the latest LR to process about 500 images and made 25 prints without any issues.
-
Good to hear. Thanks.
-
I've processed over 1000 photos on my iMac and MBP with the latest version (CC). No serious problems.
I do have one oddity that I haven't figured out yet. On my MBP I can't figure out how to get Lr out of fullscreen mode. It just takes over the desktop as soon as I bring it up and there are no red, yellow, green button to be seen nor any keyboard shortcuts that stop the behavior. If anyone has an idea about how to fix this I'd be very indebted.
-
Shift F cycles through the screen modes. The standard menu should also be available when you move the cursor to the top.
If you are in the true full screen mode, Esc or F get you out of it.
-
Thanks, John!!!
The Lr app was in true Mac OS fullscreen mode - moving the cursor to the top had no effect. I cycled through Shift-F a few times and then things returned to normal.
Thanks again!!!!
-
Thanks, John!!!
The Lr app was in true Mac OS fullscreen mode - moving the cursor to the top had no effect. I cycled through Shift-F a few times and then things returned to normal.
Thanks again!!!!
Shift-F cycles through LR as a window, full screen with menu bar and full screen without menu bar as F did in the past. I believe this was a change from LR 4 to 5. When this was changed F would display a selected picture in full screen. F (or esc and a number of other shortcuts) again takes it out of full screen for that image.
-
Yes, it was a change, and I think you've got the timing right.
There is an acknowledged bug on Mac where the side panels are blanked. It doesn't happen that often and fixes itself or is fixed by a restart, but it can be confusing when first encountered. It shouldn't stop anyone upgrading.
-
Yes, it was a change, and I think you've got the timing right.
There is an acknowledged bug .......... It shouldn't stop anyone upgrading.
Nor should it be left unattended; and one can ask why it wasn't detected before release.
-
Yes, it was a change, and I think you've got the timing right.
There is an acknowledged bug .......... It shouldn't stop anyone upgrading.
Nor should it be left unattended; and one can ask why it wasn't detected before release.
-
Infrequent minor bugs are harder to spot and easy to filter out. This one appears to have been knocking around for a couple of versions but it looked a lot like Lights Out mode. You might get it once, it's fixed with a restart or switching to another module, you might never see it again, so you just shrug and move on.
Acknowledged means it''l be fixed.
-
Sounds reasonable enough to me.
-
There are significant bugs in Lightroom 2015.8 running in Mac OS Sierra 10.12.2.
1. The point curve (tone curve panel) is extremely difficult to use when adding and adjusting custom curves.
2. Subtle adjustment of colors in the HSL adjustment panel using the drag tool cannot be made. Only with a jerking motion are adjustments possible.
The above problems and others have been documented since the release of Sierra, back in September, 2016. But Adobe has not even tried to fix these issues. So much for their CC promises.
https://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/tone-curve-still-broken-in-lr-cc2015-8?topic-reply-list%5Bsettings%5D%5Bfilter_by%5D=all
-
But Adobe has not even tried to fix these issues. So much for their CC promises.
What makes you so sure of that? Do you have inside information on what their staff is doing or not doing? Once a bug has been acknowledged, which if I'm reading correctly it seems that it was, it means they know it's there and intend to fix it. We have no way of knowing how much time they need to fix an issue like this, test it and get it released into an update, so I would cut them a bit of slack on the timing - and there's been a holiday season recently. The fact that these problems are OS-specific also suggests that Adobe may not be alone in fixing the problem. Cooperation with Apple may also be needed. We don't know whether this is the case or how that works, or doesn't. I think the important thing is the acknowledgement, because nothing happens without that. My preference would be that all aspects of elementary functionality get thoroughly tested and bugs fixed prerelease, but here again going back to John's post, being on the outside we don't know quite what's reasonable to expect for a prerelease testing process, versus the customers being the ultimate beta testers - probably a combination, which is awkward and why discussions like this are valuable. But that said it's preferable to keep the tone level and focused on useful information for potential upgraders.
-
On Win10 LR 2015.8 the second line of the loupe info will not render. See attached. Any tips on how to get it back?
Rory
-
I do have one issue with Lr 2015.8 CC - it still stinks at sharpening RAW files from the Fuji X-T2.
I do have a workaround though. I simply zero out the default sharpening settings and do sharpening in PS using Nik Sharpener Pro converted to a Smart Object. It works great but adds steps to my workflow.
Others have given up and use Iridient, CaptureOne, etc. for RAW processing.
How is it that there are other RAW processors are capable of sharpening files from a non-Bayer sensor but Adobe isn't? Is there something amiss with their sharpening algorithms?
-
The complaints about Lr's handling of Fuji files are much quieter than in the past.
Returning to a pre-Lightroom "workflow" of multiple apps holds very little appeal, and I also judge the results by examining the final print rather than pixelpeeping. So I certainly haven't given up sharpening XT2 files in Lr. But by comparison with Nikon raw files, for example, I do notice how one needs to fine tune the sharpening for each image (or group of similar images) rather than setting a default and largely sticking to it.
-
What makes you so sure of that? Do you have inside information on what their staff is doing or not doing? Once a bug has been acknowledged, which if I'm reading correctly it seems that it was, it means they know it's there and intend to fix it. We have no way of knowing how much time they need to fix an issue like this, test it and get it released into an update, so I would cut them a bit of slack on the timing - and there's been a holiday season recently. The fact that these problems are OS-specific also suggests that Adobe may not be alone in fixing the problem. Cooperation with Apple may also be needed. We don't know whether this is the case or how that works, or doesn't. I think the important thing is the acknowledgement, because nothing happens without that. My preference would be that all aspects of elementary functionality get thoroughly tested and bugs fixed prerelease, but here again going back to John's post, being on the outside we don't know quite what's reasonable to expect for a prerelease testing process, versus the customers being the ultimate beta testers - probably a combination, which is awkward and why discussions like this are valuable. But that said it's preferable to keep the tone level and focused on useful information for potential upgraders.
This problem, exiting since a beta version, was in fact reported to Adobe during the summer. One thing I did not mention is that both ACR 9.8 and Photoshop 2017.0.1 work perfectly with Sierra 10.12.2 It is unlikely that Mac OS is consort to this problem as Lightroom is basically ACR with a shell. And frankly, that the other two programs work makes me wonder.
One of the promises Adobe made to justify CC was the promise of quick bug fixes. So while you may be happy to pay monthly fees for a faulty product many others are not. And yes, for anyone wishing to upgrade, the knowledge that Adobe is not fulfilling it's obligation is indeed useful information. While you ask fairness for Adobe there are customers who deserve the same.
-
The complaints about Lr's handling of Fuji files are much quieter than in the past.
Returning to a pre-Lightroom "workflow" of multiple apps holds very little appeal, and I also judge the results by examining the final print rather than pixelpeeping. So I certainly haven't given up sharpening XT2 files in Lr. But by comparison with Nikon raw files, for example, I do notice how one needs to fine tune the sharpening for each image (or group of similar images) rather than setting a default and largely sticking to it.
Hi John,
I was able to get Lr to the point where it sharpened files from my X-T1 quite satisfactorily. The jump to the X-T2 with a 50% increase in resolution definitely changed things for me though. All I could achieve was blah/average results in Lr before the "wormy" look set in. Using Nik Sharpener definitely provided a significant difference for me using the Pre and Output sharpener.
As you say it does depend a lot on subject matter. My night photography gets by with the X-Pro2 settings that Pete Bridgwood recommended. Highly detailed landscapes that I've been working on though require more attention than that.
I generally confine myself to 100% pixel peeping but with Lr and the X-T2 I feel compelled to look at 200% to ensure I avoid the "worms". Using Nik Sharpener Pro with the suggestions provided by Dan Hughes video has made a significant difference for me. There I'm automatically zoomed to 300% to ensure things don't get out of hand (over sharpened).
Yes, I do print. I use my Epson SC P800 and print up to 17x22 routinely.
Do you print from Lr? What output print sharpening do you select for that, if you use Lr?
-
Do you print from Lr? What output print sharpening do you select for that, if you use Lr?
It's as I described before, Ron, in that I don't have a rule for XT2 images and decide individually to a greater extent than with other cameras. With my own Nikons I feel I have a default - high output sharpening - but with the XT2 I can go for low or standard or high output sharpening, dependent on the photo's content and the print size. I don't feel I've settled down after 3 months.
The main point related to this thread is that Adobe have continued to improve rendering of Fuji raw files, and fewer people are dissatisfied with it. It's not a reason to avoid upgrading - quite the contrary.
-
This problem, exiting since a beta version, was in fact reported to Adobe during the summer. One thing I did not mention is that both ACR 9.8 and Photoshop 2017.0.1 work perfectly with Sierra 10.12.2 It is unlikely that Mac OS is consort to this problem as Lightroom is basically ACR with a shell. And frankly, that the other two programs work makes me wonder.
One of the promises Adobe made to justify CC was the promise of quick bug fixes. So while you may be happy to pay monthly fees for a faulty product many others are not. And yes, for anyone wishing to upgrade, the knowledge that Adobe is not fulfilling it's obligation is indeed useful information. While you ask fairness for Adobe there are customers who deserve the same.
What beta version? There haven't been any public betas since....
Like I said before, some bugs are difficult to assess. You've really got to screw around with the tone curve to replicate the bug you mentioned, and I've never been seen the other one. Significant? Either of them? Not really. A reason to avoid upgrading? If you are on CC, features like the Reference View vastly outweigh these minor irritations.
-
The main point related to this thread is that Adobe have continued to improve rendering of Fuji raw files, and fewer people are dissatisfied with it. It's not a reason to avoid upgrading - quite the contrary.
I agree. I would NOT avoid upgrading. I have CC and I am committed to the Adobe platform and filling in where necessary with plugins.
As I understand it Adobe and Fuji continue to work on the getting the most out of RAF files in the Adobe world.
-
What beta version? There haven't been any public betas since....
Like I said before, some bugs are difficult to assess. You've really got to screw around with the tone curve to replicate the bug you mentioned, and I've never been seen the other one. Significant? Either of them? Not really. A reason to avoid upgrading? If you are on CC, features like the Reference View vastly outweigh these minor irritations.
Minor irritations? Ha! Maybe to you but to those of us who use the custom point tone curve adjustment regularly it is a major problem. You don't mention what OS you use, so perhaps this problem doesn't effect you. And as I said before, paying customers deserve respect from Adobe. The two links below illustrate how other users feel. The first link is older which contains links to youtube video samples of the problems. Curiously Adobe merged the older discussions into one, and in doing so purged the links to the videos:
https://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/lightroom-6-toning-curve?topic-reply-list%5Bsettings%5D%5Bfilter_by%5D=all
https://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/tone-curve-still-broken-in-lr-cc2015-8?topic-reply-list%5Bsettings%5D%5Bfilter_by%5D=all
-
Minor irritations? Ha! Maybe to you but to those of us who use the custom point tone curve adjustment regularly it is a major problem. You don't mention what OS you use, so perhaps this problem doesn't effect you. And as I said before, paying customers deserve respect from Adobe. The two links below illustrate how other users feel. The first link is older which contains links to youtube video samples of the problems. Curiously Adobe merged the older discussions into one, and in doing so purged the links to the videos:
https://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/lightroom-6-toning-curve?topic-reply-list%5Bsettings%5D%5Bfilter_by%5D=all
https://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/tone-curve-still-broken-in-lr-cc2015-8?topic-reply-list%5Bsettings%5D%5Bfilter_by%5D=all
FWIW I use both OS's equally heavily and could read they were both on Mac. I'm aware of both bugs (I actually helped Alan Harper diagnose the problem) and can only replicate one of them, and only after unusual use of the point tone curve. When it happens, Cmd Z fixes it. So yes, annoying to some, but minor irritations by comparison with the new Ref View feature. They'll be fixed in due course.
-
FWIW I use both OS's equally heavily and could read they were both on Mac. I'm aware of both bugs (I actually helped Alan Harper diagnose the problem) and can only replicate one of them, and only after unusual use of the point tone curve. When it happens, Cmd Z fixes it. So yes, annoying to some, but minor irritations by comparison with the new Ref View feature. They'll be fixed in due course.
I'm not being argumentative or want to be. But your suggestion of a fix, "Cmd Z," doesn't fix anything, it simply reverts. In using the custom point curve we are purposely making a needed adjustment that needs to remain. The thing is, getting to that needed adjustment is extremely difficult (I am wondering if we are discussing the same problem.)
What does "fixed in due course" mean? We've had this problem since September with the release of Sierra. In that time I've taken thousands of photographs which have needed to be imported first into ACR, made custom point tone curve adjustments and then import those same files into Lightroom. Is that a new Adobe work flow?
PS You mention the Ref View feature which I never use, so to me issues with that mean nothing.
PPS You seem to have a connection to Adobe, so; I'm not anti-Adobe, and use Lightroom/Photoshop because I believe those are the best PP programs. But won't be an apologist, especially when paying.
-
I'm not being argumentative or want to be. But your suggestion of a fix, "Cmd Z," doesn't fix anything, it simply reverts. In using the custom point curve we are purposely making a needed adjustment that needs to remain. The thing is, getting to that needed adjustment is extremely difficult (I am wondering if we are discussing the same problem.)
Adobe will assess each bug using a range of criteria. If it crashes the program or requires Lr to restart, it'll obviously rank higher than when users can simply undo their way out of the problem or re-apply a preset. How often users encounter it, how easy it is to fix - those are probably other factors. But their actual criteria are very hard to discern, and I can think of at least one stupid bug that hasn't been fixed since version 1 (on Windows it fails to display the full keyword list if you have a list of >2000 keywords). Here I've no feel for how easy it will be to fix, but the bug doesn't seem too painful - for most users. For you, obviously it is.
What does "fixed in due course" mean? We've had this problem since September with the release of Sierra. In that time I've taken thousands of photographs which have needed to be imported first into ACR, made custom point tone curve adjustments and then import those same files into Lightroom. Is that a new Adobe work flow?
By "fixed in due course" I mean it looks like they are acknowledged and I'd be surprised if these bugs aren't fixed in the next dot release.
Given my assessment of the their significance, that seems reasonable. I just don't think most Mac-based Lr users will be greatly affected by the tone curve bug. Maybe you have a special reason for applying custom point tone curve adjustments as a matter of routine, as you imply. But if someone came to me and said they were doing this, I would question such reliance on the tone curve. I have certainly encountered plenty of people who learnt Curves in Photoshop and carry this practice over into Lightroom, largely overlooking the Basic panel and trying to accomplish everything with the tone curve. But maybe there is some special requirement?
PS You mention the Ref View feature which I never use, so to me issues with that mean nothing.
There aren't issues with it - it's a really good new feature that, for almost everyone, makes it worth upgrading, which is what this thread is about.
John
-
Besides it not working with large files 36/42/50+mp....For some odd reason when I used the Print module, and if I did clicked Page Settings, it would send off a print. So the Page Settings tab allowed to edit, but forced off a print as well. 6.8 still does, as did a number of versions before.
-
Besides it not working with large files 36/42/50+mp....For some odd reason when I used the Print module, and if I did clicked Page Settings, it would send off a print. So the Page Settings tab allowed to edit, but forced off a print as well. 6.8 still does, as did a number of versions before.
This is strange. Is it happening only with large files? I have not experienced this with any of the LR CC subscription versions, on a Mac using El Capitan OSX 10.11.x. Most of my files are in the range of 25MP, but I do import some larger ones as well. It does not print unless I click "PRINT" (lower right bottom of the Print Module), or press the "PRINTER..." button beside it and click Print from within there.
-
Adobe will assess each bug using a range of criteria. If it crashes the program or requires Lr to restart, it'll obviously rank higher than when users can simply undo their way out of the problem or re-apply a preset. How often users encounter it, how easy it is to fix - those are probably other factors. But their actual criteria are very hard to discern, and I can think of at least one stupid bug that hasn't been fixed since version 1 (on Windows it fails to display the full keyword list if you have a list of >2000 keywords). Here I've no feel for how easy it will be to fix, but the bug doesn't seem too painful - for most users. For you, obviously it is.
By "fixed in due course" I mean it looks like they are acknowledged and I'd be surprised if these bugs aren't fixed in the next dot release.
Given my assessment of the their significance, that seems reasonable. I just don't think most Mac-based Lr users will be greatly affected by the tone curve bug. Maybe you have a special reason for applying custom point tone curve adjustments as a matter of routine, as you imply. But if someone came to me and said they were doing this, I would question such reliance on the tone curve. I have certainly encountered plenty of people who learnt Curves in Photoshop and carry this practice over into Lightroom, largely overlooking the Basic panel and trying to accomplish everything with the tone curve. But maybe there is some special requirement?
There aren't issues with it - it's a really good new feature that, for almost everyone, makes it worth upgrading, which is what this thread is about.
John
You are eagerly minimizing these problems. And you are suggesting paying customers should wait on a $50 B company. Really? It doesn't matter which feature is used less or more. Unfortunately, the CC service is beginning to come off as a bait and switch scheme.
-
Adobe will assess each bug using a range of criteria. If it crashes the program or requires Lr to restart, it'll obviously rank higher than when users can simply undo their way out of the problem or re-apply a preset. How often users encounter it, how easy it is to fix - those are probably other factors. But their actual criteria are very hard to discern, and I can think of at least one stupid bug that hasn't been fixed since version 1 (on Windows it fails to display the full keyword list if you have a list of >2000 keywords). Here I've no feel for how easy it will be to fix, but the bug doesn't seem too painful - for most users. For you, obviously it is.
By "fixed in due course" I mean it looks like they are acknowledged and I'd be surprised if these bugs aren't fixed in the next dot release.
Given my assessment of the their significance, that seems reasonable. I just don't think most Mac-based Lr users will be greatly affected by the tone curve bug. Maybe you have a special reason for applying custom point tone curve adjustments as a matter of routine, as you imply. But if someone came to me and said they were doing this, I would question such reliance on the tone curve. I have certainly encountered plenty of people who learnt Curves in Photoshop and carry this practice over into Lightroom, largely overlooking the Basic panel and trying to accomplish everything with the tone curve. But maybe there is some special requirement?
There aren't issues with it - it's a really good new feature that, for almost everyone, makes it worth upgrading, which is what this thread is about.
John
John...you nailed it exactly how bugs get prioritized and fixed. I managed a large product and we had quarterly meetings with customers that would prioritize known bugs and new features. It would amaze you how many bugs get filtered down and how many features get voted on to be implemented before the bugs...especially if the bugs are minor in nature and occur rarely.
Bottom line, resources are limited and I for one don't give a rat's azz about the bug being discussed so I vote to work in new features.
-
Bottom line, resources are limited and I for one don't give a rat's azz about the bug being discussed so I vote to work in new features.
That's a very empathetic and tolerant attitude. Glad you hold your fellow Lightroom users in such high esteem.
While I agree that resources are do have limits, I have little confidence and less empathy for such a huge corporation that would tolerate such an attitude. If Adobe's back were against the wall and they were struggling to survive, I could get your point. Such is not the case.
It really isn't a lack of resources, it's a lack of will to get it right. Heck, how many engineers could be hired if they reduced the CEO's annual bonus by just 1 percent?
-
...................Unfortunately, the CC service is beginning to come off as a bait and switch scheme.
The mode of licensing bears no necessary relationship to the questions about how and when bugs get discovered, prioritized for repair and the code amendments released.
-
It really isn't a lack of resources, it's a lack of will to get it right. Heck, how many engineers could be hired if they reduced the CEO's annual bonus by just 1 percent?
Well, according to www1.salary.com (and I have no idea how reliable that is, of course), Shantanu Narayen's "compensation" (what a wonderful term: we don't really use it over here) for the year ending 2015 was $995,404 base pay and $1,418,450 "bonus and non-equity incentive". So 1% of the bonus would be $14,184.50 and the answer to your question is "not many".
There's mention also of stock award of $15,851,410. It's not clear if that's a holding or an annual bonus. 1% of that would be $158,514.10, which might fund two or three good software engineers; but it's not cash and no doubt has some constraints on realisation.
I am aware that, carried away by rhetoric, you had probably given no real thought to what you were actually saying. Sometimes it's useful to consider facts, though.
Jeremy
-
You are eagerly minimizing these problems. And you are suggesting paying customers should wait on a $50 B company. Really? It doesn't matter which feature is used less or more. Unfortunately, the CC service is beginning to come off as a bait and switch scheme.
Not "minimizing", but putting it into perspective. Why should your bug be fixed faster than those that do affect more people? Ever heard that fixes often have unintended consequences? Does yours merit a hotfix or should it be handled according to established procedures? How do you know if this one wasn't triggered by Sierra? Non-critical bugs are a fact of life with complex software - the difference between companies is often how openly they acknowledge and fix them.
-
There's mention also of stock award of $15,851,410. It's not clear if that's a holding or an annual bonus. 1% of that would be $158,514.10, which might fund two or three good software engineers; but it's not cash and no doubt has some constraints on realisation.
I am aware that, carried away by rhetoric, you had probably given no real thought to what you were actually saying. Sometimes it's useful to consider facts, though.
Jeremy
Sure, you can pick all the nits you wish ... but when we are discussing the value of compensation for a single individual employee in the neighborhood of $16M+ annually, it is proof positive that Adobe has ample resources at their disposal to apply to the effort, if they had the resolve to do so. They are not just 'getting by' ... I'll let you captain the drudgery of applying the correct semantics that you feel were unjustly applied by me to the discussion.
I don't mention the CEO's compensation to speak ill of the executive or think the amount is too much. I begrudge no one the ability to earn as much as they can. I only mentioned such to point out that Adobe's resources, while not infinite, are also not in any form should be considered meager.
-
That's a very empathetic and tolerant attitude. Glad you hold your fellow Lightroom users in such high esteem.
While I agree that resources are do have limits, I have little confidence and less empathy for such a huge corporation that would tolerate such an attitude. If Adobe's back were against the wall and they were struggling to survive, I could get your point. Such is not the case.
It really isn't a lack of resources, it's a lack of will to get it right. Heck, how many engineers could be hired if they reduced the CEO's annual bonus by just 1 percent?
Butch, we've been down this road before and concluded your lack of knowledge of how large software is managed hurts your arguments. Let's just stop it here before you display this ignorance again.
-
Butch, we've been down this road before and concluded your lack of knowledge of how large software is managed hurts your arguments. Let's just stop it hear before you display this ignorance again.
'We' have been down this road before? "We have concluded?"
Sir, I have no clue who you are. Therefore I have zero information to consider if your opinion on the matter is of any value whatsoever. Anyone can claim any expertise they wish anonymously on the internet. So you'll forgive me if I place the value on your advice it has earned.
-
Guys, quite frankly I think none of this latest tangent of the discussion contributes an ounce of value-added to the purpose of the thread. There is a competitive market for senior managerial talent and Corporate Boards need to pay compensation that will attract the quality they want. Whatever the CEO of Adobe gets paid, how they manage their QC/QA procedures is another matter altogether, and from the perspective of the users - us - the much more important one. I like to be results-oriented, because it is the results that affect my experience using their software and I know I'd be getting nowhere trying to pick the entrails of the input factors based on the little operationally significant information available to us. So may I suggest we take this discussion back to the technical questions of the application's usability?
-
Mark, I think you're correct. It's time for this conversation to end. Its way beyond its intended intent and serves little purpose but to provide a platform for bickering.
-
Not "minimizing", but putting it into perspective. Why should your bug be fixed faster than those that do affect more people? Ever heard that fixes often have unintended consequences? Does yours merit a hotfix or should it be handled according to established procedures? How do you know if this one wasn't triggered by Sierra? Non-critical bugs are a fact of life with complex software - the difference between companies is often how openly they acknowledge and fix them.
Yes, I'm frustrated and ticked. And with all due respect, nothing you've said appeases me. So how do you know that Sierra triggered the problem? After all, both ACR 9.8 and Photoshop 2017 have, in Sierra, tone curve adjustments that work well, while in Lightroom that adjustment is a mess.
"Established procedures"? We both know one of the promised CC features was fast fixes. Come on, we are not talking about a mom & pop shop working out of a garage. Whatever negative publicity Adobe is getting, they own it.
PS Nice photography.
-
Mark, I think you're correct. It's time for this conversation to end. Its way beyond its intended intent and serves little purpose but to provide a platform for bickering.
Hi Ron - well if not end it, at least contributors should bring it back to its original intent if there be more of value to add. :-)
-
Yes, I'm frustrated and ticked....
Cheers. Why should it appease you - the problem obviously does affect how you use Lightroom - but I think one must keep a sense of perspective. The CC deal hasn't been to fix bugs immediately (it's tough to market bug fixing!), but to deliver new features every few months. Some bugs certainly merit an immediate bugfix, but that's only done in exceptional circumstances such as 6.6.1, and this tone curve problem doesn't seem to meet that high bar.
I only suggested Sierra because the problem appears to be limited to that OS. When I was helping Alan Harper, I couldn't reproduce it on El Capitan. Since I upgraded my Mac, I can. Also, to the best of my knowledge, I don't think Adobe have been doing any work on the point curve recently. So it might be that some perfectly-OK bit of Lightroom code has been broken. But one simply can't tell.
-
Cheers. Why should it appease you - the problem obviously does affect how you use Lightroom - but I think one must keep a sense of perspective. The CC deal hasn't been to fix bugs immediately (it's tough to market bug fixing!), but to deliver new features every few months. Some bugs certainly merit an immediate bugfix, but that's only done in exceptional circumstances such as 6.6.1, and this tone curve problem doesn't seem to meet that high bar.
I only suggested Sierra because the problem appears to be limited to that OS. When I was helping Alan Harper, I couldn't reproduce it on El Capitan. Since I upgraded my Mac, I can. Also, to the best of my knowledge, I don't think Adobe have been doing any work on the point curve recently. So it might be that some perfectly-OK bit of Lightroom code has been broken. But one simply can't tell.
Going back to the original question - "Is it Bug Free?" - the answer of course is NO. And you made a valid point early on about the extreme difficulty of producing software that is. In these conditions, I'm tempted to think that rapid bug repair could well be a valuable marketing point. Marketed properly, it would reduce peoples' expectations of getting bug-free software, but increase their confidence that once bugs are reported and acknowledged they will be fixed in a reasonable and roughly predictable time period. Now, you say you don't think Adobe has been working on the point curve recently - of course we don't know, but that almost isn't the issue. The real issue goes back to basics on the content of QA/QC procedures. Some of the things that have been happening over the past year or two raise a question in my mind about whether every function of the application - in particular the core ones in each module - are thoroughly retested with every OS and LR upgrade, including the recent OS versions behind it that remain supported. I simply don't know the answer to that question, but I think how "bug free" to expect an application partly depends on that answer. And by the way, this is a generic matter - many more vendors than Adobe are relevant. I think it leaves us customers with a choice of being in essentially one of two modes: (1) be an early adopter because you want to be on the front line helping the vendors clean-up the new releases, or (2) be a late adopter because you don't want the trouble and you're in no hurry. Sometimes I find myself in the one, sometimes in the other. It depends on a number of factors. But I don't expect out of the box perfection. I think it's important not to over-reach with one's expectations and then be frustrated.
-
... I'm tempted to think that rapid bug repair could well be a valuable marketing point. Marketed properly, it would reduce peoples' expectations of getting bug-free software, but increase their confidence that once bugs are reported and acknowledged they will be fixed in a reasonable and roughly predictable time period.
I agree that no software can ever be totally bug free. But I also agree that a determined mindset to squash as many bugs as humanly possible as quickly as humanly possible could very well be an extremely valuable marketing tool. I also think that new features need not be hampered or delayed significantly due to bug fixing. The two items need not be mutually exclusive. In a good business model, there should be ample motivation to accomplish both.
If the Adobe marketing department can go to the effort to send me an email touting the 'professional caliber' capability slideshows that can be created in Lightroom (which almost made me choke on the coffee I was sipping at the time) .... surely that team is creative enough to promote such an emphasis for prompt bug squashing that would benefit far more Lr users than does the current dismal Slideshow module.