Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: bjanes on April 19, 2017, 09:13:39 am
-
After the recent PS and LR updates, I am trying to edit a raw file in Photoshop from Lightroom, but receive an error message stating that I should install Camera Raw 9.10, but this version of Camera Raw is already installed. ACR 9.10 loads and works normally from Photoshop. Using the help-updates... command from Photoshop confirms that the CR is up to date. I am on Windows 10. I downloaded the Camera Raw installer from Adobe and reinstalled ACR, but this did not resolve the problem. Has anyone else had this problem?
-
https://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/lightroom-edit-in-photoshop-warning-message-since-update
-
And to save you the time of three clicks to get to the bottom line, here it is:
<<This is an erroneous warning. Select Open Anyway to edit your image with full compatibility.
Our engineering team is investigating a fix for this issue. Thanks for your patience.>>
-
After the recent PS and LR updates, I am trying to edit a raw file in Photoshop from Lightroom, but receive an error message stating that I should install Camera Raw 9.10, but this version of Camera Raw is already installed. ACR 9.10 loads and works normally from Photoshop. Using the help-updates... command from Photoshop confirms that the CR is up to date. I am on Windows 10. I downloaded the Camera Raw installer from Adobe and reinstalled ACR, but this did not resolve the problem. Has anyone else had this problem?
I suspect it is because there is no code in Lr to check for the installed version of ACR. One can open anyway - and it works - and check the box 'do not show warning again'. Not really a bug.
-
I suspect it is because there is no code in Lr to check for the installed version of ACR. One can open anyway - and it works - and check the box 'do not show warning again'. Not really a bug.
Just in case you aren't aware, Rikk Flohr is an Adobe spokesperson, so if he says it's a bug, it's a bug. Now why that bug should be there for a piece of core functionality like this........but perhaps better not to ask and just push the Open Anyway button till they fix it, which they undoubtedly will.
-
Just in case you aren't aware, Rikk Flohr is an Adobe spokesperson, so if he says it's a bug, it's a bug. Now why that bug should be there for a piece of core functionality like this........but perhaps better not to ask and just push the Open Anyway button till they fix it, which they undoubtedly will.
Anyone can see that as it is in RikkFlohr's sig line on each of his posts.
FYI... I understand software development. Is it a bug? It may be if the check for another app was in the design spec. But I can see a scenario where that check would not be there.
People these days get hung up in issues which really are not worth the anxiety.If you expect perfection in a complex program, you can wait forever.
-
Anyone can see that as it is in RikkFlohr's sig line on each of his posts.
FYI... I understand software development. Is it a bug? It may be if the check for another app was in the design spec. But I can see a scenario where that check would not be there.
People these days get hung up in issues which really are not worth the anxiety.If you expect perfection in a complex program, you can wait forever.
Yup, anyone CAN see, but whether they do or not is another matter. We can all miss stuff from time to time.
I agree we cannot expect perfection in a complex application, but we have reason to expect a very high standard of QC/QA for basic functions before an update is released. There are equally if not more complex areas of human endeavour where anything short of near perfection in execution could be a life or death matter. Think about it. Fortunately Photoshop and Lightroom don't fall into that category, so they can miss stuff and the consequences may be rather trivial, which is fortuitously good for them and good for us.
-
Is it a bug? It may be if the check for another app was in the design spec. But I can see a scenario where that check would not be there.
The check was always there, this time it is not working correctly. Quack. It's a bug.