Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: Robert-Peter Westphal on July 06, 2013, 08:27:00 am
-
Hello,
as can be seen here Lightroom 5 hot issues (http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2013/06/lightroom-5-hot-issues.html), there are some issues around Lightroom 5 that have a big impact on the daily work with this software.
These issues have been recognized and confirmed at June 12th, 2013.
So I'm wondering why there are no hotfixes available after that long time. Does that mean that we will have to wait until the official 5.1 release to have a fix for these issues ?
Hoping for a fast update - especially the no sharpening and noise-reduction issue for images equal or less 1/3 of the size !
Robert
-
Hi,
Calm down, things take time. You need to identify the problem, find a solution, fix and retest.
Best regards
Erik
Hello,
as can be seen here Lightroom 5 hot issues (http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2013/06/lightroom-5-hot-issues.html), there are some issues around Lightroom 5 that have a big impact on the daily work with this software.
These issues have been recognized and confirmed at June 12th, 2013.
So I'm wondering why there are no hotfixes available after that long time. Does that mean that we will have to wait until the official 5.1 release to have a fix for these issues ?
Hoping for a fast update - especially the no sharpening and noise-reduction issue for images equal or less 1/3 of the size !
Robert
-
... things take time. You need to identify the problem, find a solution, fix and retest.
Once upon a time... these things were done before money changed hands ;)
-
<snarkyness> It's only money. You should focus more on the fact that Adobe has bestowed upon you the honor and privilege of being one of their beta testers. </snarkyness>
-
Hi,
Calm down, things take time. You need to identify the problem, find a solution, fix and retest.
Best regards
Erik
Hello Erik,
sorry, I'm not upset ! To be honest, I'm very satisfied with Lightroom 5, cause it gave me back the allmost performance of Lightroom 3 on my machines.
But, I was hoping for some information about the current state and a forecast when the issues will be fixes.
Robert
-
<snarkyness> It's only money. You should focus more on the fact that Adobe has bestowed upon you the honor and privilege of being one of their beta testers. </snarkyness>
Sorry guys, this was not meant to become an Adobe bashing thread.
The dev-team of Adobe is doing a great job !
It should be an informational exchange in a friendly manner - no more or less.
So please, don't start bashing on anyone in this thread.
Robert
-
Once upon the time... these things were done before money changed hands ;)
+1
-
Once upon the time... these things were done before money changed hands ;)
When was that?
-
When was that?
Once upon a time... ;)
But seriously, I think Microsoft pioneered that approach, using paying users as testers. Once upon a time, reputable companies were proud of their products quality and reliability, now it is all about who's going to create the most hype the fastest, grab a market share, and then quietly fix half-baked things.
-
Does that mean that we will have to wait until the official 5.1 release to have a fix for these issues ?
Hoping for a fast update - especially the no sharpening and noise-reduction issue for images equal or less 1/3 of the size !
That's what Adobe say. While you can work around the sharpening problem (reimport the unsharpened exported files and export them again at 1:1) I don't think that's possible for the high ISO noise, and for some users this is a serious problem. I actually agree that this issue merits a hotfix and have made this suggestion directly to people at Adobe.
John
-
I beg to differ - this is a serious issue, almost a month has passed and not a single item in the hotlist is fixed and no info whatsoever on the progress.
Personally I don't believe the export sharpening could take one month to fix, a feature which was already working before the final release.
There must be something else going on which looks to me (well in fact it is) like a sloppy management.
Best wishes,
Ivar
Hi,
Calm down, things take time. You need to identify the problem, find a solution, fix and retest.
Best regards
Erik
-
Once upon a time... these things were done before money changed hands ;)
+2 IMHO this ongoing situation with many software companies is tantamount to fraud.
-
I beg to differ - this is a serious issue, almost a month has passed and not a single item in the hotlist is fixed and no info whatsoever on the progress.
And people think this will not get worse when everything is on the cloud and subscription based? Without serious competition what incentive does Adobe have to develop new tools on a regular basis or fix problems promptly?
-
Now here is an interesting thought.
I bought my copy of LR5 from Amazon.co.uk.
Under UK consumer legislation, all goods sold must be of "merchantable quality" and "fit for the purpose for which they are sold". The redress is not against the manufacturer but against the retailer who, if a fault is brought to their attention, must either replace with goods that are faultless or refund the purchase price and any consequential losses.
I wonder if pressure from major retailers like Amazon might persuade Adobe to get their finger out sooner rather than later?
-
Hi,
Calm down, things take time. You need to identify the problem, find a solution, fix and retest.
Best regards
Erik
I could get on board with that sentiment ... if Adobe didn't offer a public beta for Lightroom ... one would hope, with that broad of a user base participating in the public betas ... the final Gold Master release would be up to par before it was sent out the door.
Mind you, I wouldn't expect the final release to be 100% pure perfection ... however, more timely response to these issues should be warranted. If history is any indicator ... the "fix" will like appear as an "RC" version ... like we saw with the many iterations of Lr4 ...
-
Pre-internet, when you had to buy software from a store on media, companies put a LOT more time and thought in to bug correcting. For the most part, once it hit the shelves, it was gold and worked! I can think of very very few 'update' releases.
-
How could they miss the export sharpening bug? Such a basic and widely used function. I really think that is either incompetence or disregard for their customers. Based on past experience with LR, I decided to wait awhile before upgrading, and I see that I was right to do so.
-
Pre-internet, when you had to buy software from a store on media, companies put a LOT more time and thought in to bug correcting. For the most part, once it hit the shelves, it was gold and worked! I can think of very very few 'update' releases.
I don't think the internet had that much to do with products being released when they were actually ready. It's all been about market share. Release before the competition and hope that you can fix it before the competition shows up. Now that Adobe has no competition they clearly don't have that concern.
I worked for a now de-funk company that produced some of the most popular early PS plugins and a few other apps. They once shipped fully packaged blank CDs because they couldn't meet the release date they'd promised for a particular product. Then when it was 'discovered' that packages in the channel were useless it was blamed on a production error and they had a couple of weeks to actually finish and deliver the product. It's not too surprising that company folded not too long after.
-
How could they miss the export sharpening bug?
Guess you've never been involved in software development, right? Fixing one bug can introduce other bugs...bugs not seen before nor expected. That's what happened here. And, it wasn't just Lightroom that got hit with this bug, it also was introduced in Camera Raw 8.1. So, it wasn't really a LR bug it was a LR/ACR raw processing pipeline bug that got introduced in the last several builds that sadly, none of the internal testers caught. Was it a bad bug? You bet...was it "incompetence", to a degree, yes...some code was changed that introduced this new bug and nobody caught it. Was it "disregard for their customers"? You gotta be shyting me...do you honestly think so little of Adobe that this possibility is real in your mind? Or, are you simply trying to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD).
Look, it's ok to talk about what could have been done in LR5 or what should have been done in LR5 and what may be done in the future (LR6), but pulling this kind of crap out of thin air helps nobody...
I'm sure the engineers that modified the code and caused this bug are busy trying to fix it...is it a "data loss" bug? Nope...but yes, it's a problem but one that can be worked around...is Adobe embarrassed by this bug? You bet...nobody in their right mind however, would say that this bug would be a result of "disregard for their customers".
So, the work around isn't "convenient" but is it a reason not to use LR5? Nope...it simply modifies the way you need to use it. And it impacts not only LR5 but ACR 8.1 as well. So, until the bug is fixed, don't downsample images to less that 1/3 of the original capture size in Export...
-
Under UK consumer legislation, all goods sold must be of "merchantable quality" and "fit for the purpose for which they are sold". The redress is not against the manufacturer but against the retailer who, if a fault is brought to their attention, must either replace with goods that are faultless or refund the purchase price and any consequential losses.
You're confusing "merchantable quality" and "faultless". They're very different concepts.
Jeremy
-
You're confusing "merchantable quality" and "faultless". They're very different concepts.
Jeremy
Some brands of auto are a fine example. Over here, in one year, the price of one particular import plummets like a stone in hydrogen gas.
G
-
Guess you've never been involved in software development, right? Fixing one bug can introduce other bugs...bugs not seen before nor expected. That's what happened here. And, it wasn't just Lightroom that got hit with this bug, it also was introduced in Camera Raw 8.1. So, it wasn't really a LR bug it was a LR/ACR raw processing pipeline bug that got introduced in the last several builds that sadly, none of the internal testers caught. Was it a bad bug? You bet...was it "incompetence", to a degree, yes...some code was changed that introduced this new bug and nobody caught it. Was it "disregard for their customers"? You gotta be shyting me...do you honestly think so little of Adobe that this possibility is real in your mind? Or, are you simply trying to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD).
Look, it's ok to talk about what could have been done in LR5 or what should have been done in LR5 and what may be done in the future (LR6), but pulling this kind of crap out of thin air helps nobody...
I'm sure the engineers that modified the code and caused this bug are busy trying to fix it...is it a "data loss" bug? Nope...but yes, it's a problem but one that can be worked around...is Adobe embarrassed by this bug? You bet...nobody in their right mind however, would say that this bug would be a result of "disregard for their customers".
So, the work around isn't "convenient" but is it a reason not to use LR5? Nope...it simply modifies the way you need to use it. And it impacts not only LR5 but ACR 8.1 as well. So, until the bug is fixed, don't downsample images to less that 1/3 of the original capture size in Export...
In retrospect, I was responding to someone else's information, and I don't know how reliable that information is. I should have qualified my comment to say what my opinion would be if the other person's statement was well founded. Your comments seem to indicate that the information does have a reasonable basis in fact.
No, I don't know anything about software development. And why should I? I am paying for someone else to do that work and would hope that they would do their job well and deliver a product that is free from major bugs for the majority of users. I realize that the developers can't possibly test for every system on which their software might be used, but isn't that what beta testing supposed to help with? If changes are made to the software before release, shouldn't that warrant another round of beta testing, and, assuming the output sharpening bug is real and widespread, shouldn't such a fundamental feature be caught in a round of beta testing?
As for a workaround, the only one I know of is to do the output sharpening in some other software or an earlier version of LR. Your statement that those who are experiencing the problem should avoid downsizing to 1/3 or smaller leaves me bewildered, since a great deal of the output (certainly mine) is for the Web, which typically requires downsizing to that degree.
Simply put, if that bug would affect my system, I would not want to use that software at all, since that kind of output size is something I do frequently and LR4 is working fine for me (now that I have a new computer).
I hardly expect any software to be completely immune from bugs when it is released, but it seems reasonable to me to expect the software to not have bugs that affect the most widely used features and settings on a significant majority of computers, especially brand new ones.
I have gotten the distinct impression from my own experience and from the comments of many other users of LR that Adobe really could either do more beta testing of LR before final release or should be more conservative about adding features so that a very lengthy period of beta testing will be less likely.
-
In retrospect, I was responding to someone else's information, and I don't know how reliable that information is.
So, when you said "I really think that is either incompetence or disregard for their customers." you didn't really mean it? You were responding to somebody else's info?
As to work arounds, there are several LR plug-ins that can bypass the downsample not sharpening/noise reduction issue. Want to know what they are?
-
So, when you said "I really think that is either incompetence or disregard for their customers." you didn't really mean it? You were responding to somebody else's info?
As to work arounds, there are several LR plug-ins that can bypass the downsample not sharpening/noise reduction issue. Want to know what they are?
Actually, Adobe acknowledges the problem in its forums, as indicated in the OP's link, so my comment about qualifying my opinion was not necessary. The problem exists. Given Adobe's history, I rather doubt that incompetence is involved, though only Adobe personel can really be authoritative on this sort of thing, one way or the other. I was just mentioning it as a possibility, however remote. What seems more likely to me (and, it seems, to a fair number of others) is that Adobe is not doing sufficient testing before final release of Lightroom, which I think can be construed as a kind of disregard for its customers, not wholesale disregard, but still troubling if real.
As far as workarounds, will they give me the same results as Lightroom, with no additional cost and with minimal set up? I have my capture sharpening setup to work with the output LR sharpening settings. Would I have to adjust that regime? If so, I am not interested. I have Mogrify, but with that I would have to work out output sharpening pre sets for a variety of pixel dimensions I might normally use. I have LR 4, and have no overwhelming need for any of the features of LR5, so I will wait a few updates until more of the bugs are worked out.
-
If you've exported JPEGs at under 1/3, they won't contain output sharpening. So reimport them, and export them at 1:! with the sharpening. I've tried comparing with LR4 output and see no difference.
John
-
... So reimport them, and export them ...
A workaround as pathetic as Bill Gates' one (to restart computer every time Windows misbehaves)?
-
Sure, it's a shame it's needed, but feel free to suggest a better one.
-
Never in my 32 years of personal computer use.
If it were perfect, it would never get out the door.
I've accomplished great things in work and play over the years with imperfect software, computers and people (me). LOL!
Progress, not perfection!
My 2 cents.
Bud
-
Come on, people!!!
I've been using software for at least last 30 years too, and yes, I am absolutely positive every software I used had bugs. The thing is, I almost never encounter those bugs in practice. Which means they show up usually as a combination of at least two rare occurrences.
Having to save your work at less than 1/3 of the original size is not a rare occurrence by any stretch of imagination, and the Chernobyl-sized bug mutant shall be addressed by Adobe immediately, not waiting 5.1 release.
-
I said earlier in the thread "I actually agree that this issue merits a hotfix and have made this suggestion directly to people at Adobe."
-
and the Chernobyl-sized bug mutant shall be addressed by Adobe immediately, not waiting 5.1 release.
no, only for the users of subscription license... perpetual ones shall wait ;D
-
Come on, people!!!
I've been using software for at least last 30 years too, and yes, I am absolutely positive every software I used had bugs. The thing is, I almost never encounter those bugs in practice. Which means they show up usually as a combination of at least two rare occurrences.
Having to save your work at less than 1/3 of the original size is not a rare occurrence by any stretch of imagination, and the Chernobyl-sized bug mutant shall be addressed by Adobe immediately, not waiting 5.1 release.
I am with you on that, Slobodan.
With most software, including previous versions of Lightroom, Photoshop, even Windows, I keep getting automatically updated to a new sub-version that contains fixes for a multitude of bugs I never knew existed. As a D800 user regularly required to export Jpegs with dimensions of not more than 1400x1050 pixels for PDI competitions, this bug really does matter.
-
no, only for the users of subscription license... perpetual ones shall wait ;D
I have seen that for CC subscribers there is a version 5.0.1. Does anybody know if that version has the resize bug?
-
no, only for the users of subscription license... perpetual ones shall wait Grin
I have seen that for CC subscribers there is a version 5.0.1. Does anybody know if that version has the resize bug?
You mean that Adobe are saying that we will be able to continue enjoying Lightroom on a perpetual licence, without being required to get our heads in the Clouds, but that, in fact, they will leave the non-Cloud version with bugs that, at worst, make it unusable or, at best, inconvenient?
You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment on such a cynical view!
-
You're confusing "merchantable quality" and "faultless". They're very different concepts.
Jeremy
Not in UK, Jeremy. Amazon did agree to refund full purchase price.
-
You mean that Adobe are saying that we will be able to continue enjoying Lightroom on a perpetual licence, without being required to get our heads in the Clouds, but that, in fact, they will leave the non-Cloud version with bugs that, at worst, make it unusable or, at best, inconvenient?
You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment on such a cynical view!
No, only that bug fixes will only be in the regular quarterly "dot" updates for perpetual licensees, but available as soon as they are ready in the cloud. In fact, I seem to remember Jeff citing immediate updates as one of the advantages of cloud subscription.
-
From what I hear, the .01 was only to differentiate the CC-downloaded copy from a perpetual one but there are no other differences. And sorry to spike the conspiracy theory, but I don't think there's any plan for CC subscribers to get LR updates earlier than other customers. Essentially they get a licence number which they could apply to the normal download of a LR update. But yes, it's a mess!
John
-
Bitchin' & moaning about bug fixes?
You need this guy's perspective...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3dYS7PcAG4
But seriously, I still want Adobe to come up with some way for LR's (whatever version) Raw processor to override ACR's when invoking "Edit In Photoshop" without LR creating a copy when the pixel driven gamma encoded preview is opened in older versions of Photoshop. Not waiting for that to happen.
Oh well. At least I'm not waiting 40 minutes on the tarmac for my flight to take off.
-
Guess you've never been involved in software development, right? Fixing one bug can introduce other bugs...bugs not seen before nor expected. That's what happened here. And, it wasn't just Lightroom that got hit with this bug, it also was introduced in Camera Raw 8.1. So, it wasn't really a LR bug it was a LR/ACR raw processing pipeline bug that got introduced in the last several builds that sadly, none of the internal testers caught.
Unfortunately, the automated LR test-suite (which hopefully runs after each commit to the source code) didn't catch this regression.
This a good example of a bug/regression which can and should be found by a computer test program and not by a human tester.
-
So, the work around isn't "convenient" but is it a reason not to use LR5? Nope...it simply modifies the way you need to use it. And it impacts not only LR5 but ACR 8.1 as well. So, until the bug is fixed, don't downsample images to less that 1/3 of the original capture size in Export...
Jeff, Everything you're saying sounds reasonable enough. Any more news about when this export problem might be fixed? We have about one hundred photos ready to go on our website at 800 res, but need the sharpening fix to proceed. Is there a viable workaround other than going to Photoshop one photo at a time? It seems like to export to 800 res, then re-import and re-export at 800 res again would lose quality, right?
Really enjoyed all of the Tutorials you've done with Michael - very helpful.
-Wes
-
As I've posted twice before in this thread :) - reimport the files to LR and export them again without any resizing but with sharpening. Try it and examine the results.
-
As I've posted twice before in this thread :) - reimport the files to LR and export them again without any resizing but with sharpening. Try it and examine the results.
Hi John,
thanks for this hint, but I think your work-around is very basic because when you reimport the jpgs into Lightroom, the connection between capture-sharpening and output-sharpening is cut. So, I'm not sure whether the sharpening will be appropriate at all when run on a reimported jpg.
Best wishes
Robert
-
I accept it is a bit crude, Robert, and it isn't much value if the images need significant noise reduction.
But resizing down to <1/3 size is typically for web usage, and at this size the capture sharpening has less visual effect on the final image than the output sharpening. That's pretty obvious when you compare the unsharpened and 1:1 export versions.
If you need web output in any quantity, I'm not sure you have many better alternatives. Export from LR5 at full size and resize in LR4, via Image Processor in Bridge (with an action to apply sharpening), save that sharpening action as a droplet and run it as a post processing step in LR5 (bottom of export dialog), or use some other app?
John
-
So, when you said "I really think that is either incompetence or disregard for their customers." you didn't really mean it? You were responding to somebody else's info?
As to work arounds, there are several LR plug-ins that can bypass the downsample not sharpening/noise reduction issue. Want to know what they are?
I'm about to install LR5 and would appreciate knowing what the LR plug-ins are that will avoid this problem.
Thanks,
rasterdogs
-
I accept it is a bit crude, Robert, and it isn't much value if the images need significant noise reduction.
But resizing down to <1/3 size is typically for web usage, and at this size the capture sharpening has less visual effect on the final image than the output sharpening. That's pretty obvious when you compare the unsharpened and 1:1 export versions.
If you need web output in any quantity, I'm not sure you have many better alternatives. Export from LR5 at full size and resize in LR4, via Image Processor in Bridge (with an action to apply sharpening), save that sharpening action as a droplet and run it as a post processing step in LR5 (bottom of export dialog), or use some other app?
John
John,
I don't think you will receive properly sharpened images for we use when you brake the pipeline between capture-sharpening and output-sharpening, because the latter is something like an " Add-on" to capture-sharpening. So I bet if you sharpen 10 different images that way, you would receive 10 different sharping-results.
But, I'd be very interested in the info what was so crude in my former writing :-) ?
Robert
-
I'm about to install LR5 and would appreciate knowing what the LR plug-ins are that will avoid this problem.
Lr5.0 Export AutoFix (http://www.robcole.com/Rob/ProductsAndServices/Lr50ExportAutoFixLrPlugin/) is one plug-in that circumvents the issue (but takes a bit of work to install and use). Or just use the export-reimport option or use another resize/resample process such as an action saved as a droplet and called from within LR export.
-
You're confusing "merchantable quality" and "faultless". They're very different concepts.
Not in UK, Jeremy. Amazon did agree to refund full purchase price.
No, the two concepts are and remain different in the UK. Now you're mistaking what Amazon decide to do in pursuit of good customer relations for their what they might be legally obliged to do; and that is a mistake.
Jeremy
-
I don't think you will receive properly sharpened images for we use when you brake the pipeline between capture-sharpening and output-sharpening, because the latter is something like an " Add-on" to capture-sharpening. So I bet if you sharpen 10 different images that way, you would receive 10 different sharping-results.
But, I'd be very interested in the info what was so crude in my former writing :-) ?
Robert,
You were talking about my hint and had said "I think your work-around is very basic", so I began "I accept it is a bit crude". I suspect that clears up any misunderstanding!
It's the practical result that I think is more important than whether one is breaking a pipeline. Capture sharpening is a pretty subtle amount of sharpening that's applied to the full size image. That's even more subtle - invisible? - by the time you've reduced the image to under a third of its original size. Output sharpening should always be applied after resizing an image (which the workaround does) and at <1/3 it is much more crunchy and has a real impact on what you see.
You should try some examples for yourself, but I've put one at https://www.dropbox.com/sh/gqmtauk8s4wrcal/_rEe1bdcHE (I initially put them on Flickr but noticed it was adding its own sharpening). I included a couple of tests where I layered the images in Photoshop and applied the Difference blending mode. You can certainly bet on 10 examples where the crude differs from what LR should be doing, but would you bet on how many of the workaround's images aren't perfectly usable?
John
-
Looks like I'm a bit old fashioned, I thought the meaning of "hot" was to stress the importance and was the subject of quite a quick reaction.
Seriously though, I believed this is to be responded really quickly so I didn't bother to go into "tricks" and have postponed some stuff.
Look what's the date today!
-
Output sharpening should always be applied after resizing an image (which the workaround does) and at <1/3 it is much more crunchy and has a real impact on what you see.
I presume this was simplified for the sake of brevity? Because for downsizing (as opposed to upsizing) this is exactly why it may be beneficial to do sharpening prior to downsizing. It will improve the perception if microdetail in most cases as the downsizing usually is a lossy "imperfect" operation: i.e. the imperfect downsampling loses information that is then no longer available for sharpening of whatever sort.
-
Just for the sake of having practical value.
John
-
......
But resizing down to <1/3 size is typically for web usage...........
John
...and for some much more critical uses - e.g. for PDI sections of major international Salons.
I am in the process of preparing 16 PDIs for the Northern Counties and have had to revert to LR4 (which is the main reason I returned LR5 to Amazon for a refund. I could not find a way - not saying there isn't one - of getting both LR4 and LR5 to simultaneously update my LR catalogue, and the new features in LR5 are less important to me at present than getting my Salon entries as good as I can.)
-
Lr5.0 Export AutoFix (http://www.robcole.com/Rob/ProductsAndServices/Lr50ExportAutoFixLrPlugin/) is one plug-in that circumvents the issue (but takes a bit of work to install and use). Or just use the export-reimport option or use another resize/resample process such as an action saved as a droplet and called from within LR export.
Jeff,
Thank you. :D
Now we can return to bitching and moaning about bugs and proper practices for software development. :P
-
I beg to differ - this is a serious issue, almost a month has passed and not a single item in the hotlist is fixed and no info whatsoever on the progress.
As I was digging for any further info (because Adobe is not offering any kind) I found this:
"It will be fixed for sure in the next dot release. Although I can't give you a precise date of that release, we generally do releases 4 times per year, which means a release every 13 weeks or so. As Lr 5 was released in early-mid June, this should give you an idea of when the next release will be. "
http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/lr5_trial_output_sharpening_and_noise_reduction_not_working
-
I presume this was simplified for the sake of brevity? Because for downsizing (as opposed to upsizing) this is exactly why it may be beneficial to do sharpening prior to downsizing.
Handled prior with the capture sharpening which is tied at the hip to the output sharpening. All based on:
http://www.creativepro.com/article/out-gamut-almost-everything-you-wanted-know-about-sharpening-photoshop-were-afraid-ask
-
As I was digging for any further info (because Adobe is not offering any kind) I found this:
"It will be fixed for sure in the next dot release. Although I can't give you a precise date of that release, we generally do releases 4 times per year, which means a release every 13 weeks or so. As Lr 5 was released in early-mid June, this should give you an idea of when the next release will be. "
http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/lr5_trial_output_sharpening_and_noise_reduction_not_working
Thanks for the link :) What caught my eye was the post by Eric Chan 'dated one month ago' where he says we know the root cause and it will be fixed' ~ now not sure of the exact date that LR5 final was released for downloading but it seems from that comment that the cause was identified very quickly!!! So why the wait for possibly up to another 8 weeks for the "normal" dot release......................can there not be a 'hotfix' for such bugs/glitches found & cured quickly in the "fixing" cycle prior to the dot release???
-
Thanks for the link :) What caught my eye was the post by Eric Chan 'dated one month ago' where he says we know the root cause and it will be fixed' ~ now not sure of the exact date that LR5 final was released for downloading but it seems from that comment that the cause was identified very quickly!!! So why the wait for possibly up to another 8 weeks for the "normal" dot release......................can there not be a 'hotfix' for such bugs/glitches found & cured quickly in the "fixing" cycle prior to the dot release???
There hasn't even been a new blog on the Lightroom Journal since June 12. Apparently everybody at Adobe has gone off to watch the Tour deFrance and sample the bistros of Paris or perhaps they are shooting landscapes in Antartica.
-
As I've posted twice before in this thread :) - reimport the files to LR and export them again without any resizing but with sharpening. Try it and examine the results.
Thanks, John. I tried it and you were right - I was surprised that the quality didn't seem to suffer as I added the sharpening in that manner. The jpg "puddling distortion" or whatever it's called was just a bit different, but no worse, really; it just moved around a bit.
What I realized after doing this experiment (and looking very closely at the results) is that I actually preferred these photos without sharpening. These are 800 pixel reductions of architectural interiors, for the web, and the medium sharpening LR setting added just-noticable jaggies to the diagonal lines, while not improving the clarity more than just a tiny bit.
-
Okay, The Tour's over!!!! Back to work! ;)
-
See Update on Hot Issues in Lightroom 5 (http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2013/07/update-on-hot-issues-in-lightroom-5.html)
"As mentioned here, we have been investigating a number of issues that Lightroom 5 customers have reported. We are testing fixes for these issues and are planning to release an update next week."
-
That's modestly good news.
-
See Update on Hot Issues in Lightroom 5 (http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2013/07/update-on-hot-issues-in-lightroom-5.html)
"As mentioned here, we have been investigating a number of issues that Lightroom 5 customers have reported. We are testing fixes for these issues and are planning to release an update next week."
I hope it's a software release, rather than a PR-update.
-
Huh?
-
I hope it's a software release, rather than a PR-update.
Must confess I hadn't read it that way. Let's hope not!
.
-
Available now - http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2013/07/lightroom-5-2-rc-now-available-on-adobe-labs.html
-
Available now - http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2013/07/lightroom-5-2-rc-now-available-on-adobe-labs.html
Thanks for the info !
Robert
-
Did I miss something? What happened to 5.1?
-
David,
You weren't sleeping, there is not a 5.1.
Don't know why, just isn't.
Rich
-
The jump was to keep LR's dot number in sync with ACR 8.2
-
Apparently 5.2 fixes most of the major bugs of 5 (though not all) and there are one or two new features, such as the ability to specify a feather amount on the spot healing (clone) tool. I've had a quick play, and I think that might be useful.
-
It didn't mention anything about fixing the tethering bug with OSX 10.8.4 & Canon 5Dmk III. Basically fixing this problem - http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1244138
Anyone else having this issue?
-
Apparently 5.2 fixes most of the major bugs of 5 (though not all) and there are one or two new features, such as the ability to specify a feather amount on the spot healing (clone) tool. I've had a quick play, and I think that might be useful.
Do you have any idea if the bug I described here (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=79856.0) has been fixed? I daren't edit any old photos in 5.0!
Jeremy
-
Do you have any idea if the bug I described here (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=79856.0) has been fixed?
Apparently so;
...................................
Fixed Issues
The following issues have been fixed in Lightroom 5.2 release candidate:
Catalog containing images processed with PV2003 were adding a post-crop vignette when catalog upgraded to Lightroom 5.
...............................
-
Do you have any idea if the bug I described here (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=79856.0) has been fixed? I daren't edit any old photos in 5.0!
Jeremy
I just tried and choosing the upgrade old 2003 process images to the latest doesn't add the post-crop vignette stuff in history.
-
now it is all about who's going to create the most hype the fastest, grab a market share, and then quietly fix half-baked things.
Sounds like my refrigerator issue. I guess in the last 5 or so years they all decided to make them 3-4 year life span disposable. No more 10-20 year quality build. Its get in and get out, dilute devert,use loopholes, change names without backlash. These days everyone is a politician.
Hope you get your LR patches soon!
-
I just tried and choosing the upgrade old 2003 process images to the latest doesn't add the post-crop vignette stuff in history.
Excellent. Thanks to you and Rhossydd. I'll be downloading it this evening.
Jeremy
-
I just upgraded to LR5 as I was offered a close to give away deal...
I opened/updated one of my larger catalogs of 1.7TB, and it took some time, but things are looking OK.
I did notice a "FEATURE" that I don't know if it changed or if I'm mistaken........?
I was getting used to having the main of 2 screens with the image I just adjusted in DEV mode, then on the second screen... I thought I had been copying a dev setting from one image and then right click any other image and paste with those settings.....
Was this the case in Lr4 or has LR5 removed this and now only available in LIB mode?
If someone can confirm,
thanks
-
weird, now it does it ??? >:(
-
Quote from: Schewe on July 08, 2013, 12:19:30 AM
Guess you've never been involved in software development, right? Fixing one bug can introduce other bugs...bugs not seen before nor expected. That's what happened here. And, it wasn't just Lightroom that got hit with this bug, it also was introduced in Camera Raw 8.1. So, it wasn't really a LR bug it was a LR/ACR raw processing pipeline bug that got introduced in the last several builds that sadly, none of the internal testers caught. ....end Quote
Quote from knweiss, "Unfortunately the automated LR test-suite (which hopefully runs after each commit to the source code) didn't catch this regression.
This a good example of a bug/regression which can and should be found by a computer test program and not by a human tester.....end Quote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
.......as a SW Quality Auditor for DOD Systems I am required by law and contract to "find and fix"...or suffer the consequences. I am required to actually test the product in several ways, full stress, operational environment, and of course constant regression testing.....but Bottom Line is always the same: It Must Work First Time Every Time To Protect The Nation....they even spend tax-payer dollars to make big signs saying that and we have to post them around the labs....but then we do also have folks Committed to Excellence.
I realize that "Schewe" has a special commercial relationship throughout the industry resulting in his acceptance and defense of problems like this....but realistically the Customer has a right and the developer has an obligation to produce a usable product. Any notion of "must get it out the door" is just a fraud on the public.
"Get it right before you ship" ought...OUGHT be the minimum acceptable standard. Of course the Customer is responsible for "voting with their $$" to enforce this notion; but in this case there are few applications as powerful as the Adobe offerings which does give them the ability to slack off occasionally.
-
Things are looking good on my workstation!
The adjustment sliders are smoother feeling, the overall feel is smoother and I might want to say snappier!
I did notice when I opened another catalog, for a split second the preview of another image was still in the cache so it appeared and then updated to the image it was supposed to display.
This happened once that I noticed.
So far I have not hit any "Hot Issues" on my systems.
Notes on new features. Well unless you greatly value the align tool, I don't see much to LR5 Upgrade. I am happy I did it, but I could certainly have done just fine without upgrading. The radial tool is good to speed up from making 4 different gradients. Is the LIB interface a touch brighter/lighter shade of gray? I wish we could simply copy a gradient or radial, and I thought this was supposed to be added, but I can't find it. Also would be nice to group and move local brush adjusts. but not included.
I was hoping to see overall refinements in the GUI. Simple things like when exporting, We often have presets but we change them according to the image to add a text or watermark according tot he image(at least I do). Why not have the Update selection at the top of the drop down. When we have a bunch of watermarks that are not being used at the time, we don't have to carefully scroll down(maybe a KB shortcut answers this, but?). Those type of refinements would be rather welcome.
I also like the addition of making a Smart set that is transportable. I have not used it yet, but I think I will.
The biggest visual change is the cool splash screen :-)
-
The radial tool is good to speed up from making 4 different gradients . . .
In addition to the above, you can have them "off center" it so that the resulting vignette-effect brings focus to a specific area of the image. Much harder to do "smoothly" w/ multiple linears. There are lots of other uses for large radial gradients as well, e.g. warmer to cooler, sharper to softer, etc.
But what I've found especially useful is using small radial gradients, with them "inverted. " This ends up working a lot like the "control points" in NIK applications. I've found it faster in some instances than using an adjustment brush - and especially nice with the ability to feather the effect(s). The ability to duplicate and then move any given small RG, and then tweak the size/settings is also very slick, IMO.
I'm a very happy camper w/ the Version 5 upgrade. The RG and the enhanced lens correction/upright feature were worth the price of admission.
Rand
-
I came on to report a few stuttering issues on importing to a catalog from my CF card(which is what I normally use). They populate in chunks, which can be ok, but they don't until I scroll around to "force" it.
That's a problem!
Rand!
I'm smiling as I read your last point about inverting the RG...I so far just tried the gradient once, and noticed it "zeros" out the area in the center, and thought "weird, why isn't the center getting the treatment"...Then I realized I guess it works the same as the grads....UNTIL I read your post!!!! I was hoping it did this!!! (I just hadn't played around with it enough, I guess). First chance I get I will check it out.
-
I did limited testing with the beta. I found some of the features very usable for what I do.
I now converted the main catalogue to LR5, with the RC5.2 issue.
I only had one problem, while moving images from one folder to another volume on the same RAID, it froze the operation with some cryptic error. The catalogue folder then was not available in the LR catalogue yet existed in the volume. It IMO left a copy in the original volume and folder and copied what it could until it froze. Smart thinking on the dev side as this saved both copies and did not loose a single image. I simply hand copied the remaining not yet transferred images and sync'd the folder.
The RC 5.2 is quite a bit faster than LR4, so I'm happy. Although I did just go back to RAID 0 for the image volumes, which obviously is faster on opening images. The previews now are quick, importing actually all operations are good.
As someone posted something about tethering and Canon 5DMKIII; I have had zero issues there.