Lightroom 6.6.1/CC2015.6.1 Released

[digitaldog]

Do you have any reason other than optimism to believe this Andrew?

Yeah. Being a beta for them, working with a lot of good folks there since 1992.

[chez]

Bottom line is, if we are to use your explanation to defend the results of this latest release ... Adobe are either incompetent, inept or both. Either way, not a promising perspective that builds customer confidence.

There is no need to 'jump to conclusions' as there is ample evidence that once again, someone at Adobe we are paying to serve our needs, failed to live up to their end of the bargain. The fourth such occurrence since Lr CC 2015/v6 was introduced. Not to mention their first response was to place blame elsewhere instead of reviewing their own work first.

This problem seems to be systemic of late and not a result of isolated or unintended 'whoopsie daisy' mistakes that occurred by chance. It was a result that was due their failure to adhere to a more stringent level of quality checks and balance that could avoid the situation. It would be much more reassuring to we end users that they would hold themselves to a high standard. To them, we should be worth the effort.

Butch...you know all about quality control of huge software projects...right? You sound like someone talking from years of experience managing this software and under your management...perfection every time.

Oh yeh...you've never managed software...developed software...however you talk like an expert couch potato quarterback.

With huge software projects there are many modules that are in common between products. Maybe one of these common modules was the culprit that affected both builds.

[Christopher Sanderson]

Folks,
Try to keep this discussion civil and avoid personal attack. Continue and you will be banned from posting.

[ButchM]

Butch...you know all about quality control of huge software projects...right? You sound like someone talking from years of experience managing this software and under your management...perfection every time.

Oh yeh...you've never managed software...developed software...however you talk like an expert couch potato quarterback.

With huge software projects there are many modules that are in common between products. Maybe one of these common modules was the culprit that affected both builds.

With all due respect, my lack of experience as a software project manager is not the issue. Name any business that requires the customer or end user must have first-hand knowledge of how a product is produced in order to render an opinion about the finished product they received? I don't remember Adobe imposing any such requirement when I hand over my license fees.

A customer in a restaurant is not required to be a master chef in order to render an opinion if their meal was prepared improperly or with questionable ingredients.

A new car buyer is not required to be master mechanic to offer a view about how they encountered a few loose nuts and bolts or other flaws that may have missed the eyes of the final inspectors.

A new home owner is not required to be a master carpenter to complain to the builder about a floor that is not level or windows and doors that won't open or close properly.

I fail to see your reasoning that I must be required to be a project manager for my concerns to be considered valid.

If you were to observe what I have shared in this thread you would note that I don't expect 'perfection every time' ... In fact I clearly stated:

I agree whole heartedly on both points. I don't expect everything that Adobe releases to be pure perfection, but ... I would expect them to have at least a few of their testers that print from Ps and Lr using OS X. This could have been caught very early on with just a bit of forethought.

That is not an unreasonable appraisal or assertion.

I could care less as to the details of what caused the problem. It is not my responsibility to discover or remedy the cause. That is up to whomever is assigned the responsibility at Adobe to ensure QA/QC.  I pay those people to perform that task for me. My point is, the person(s) responsible for those tasks have dropped the ball in a consistent fashion of late. I have been forced to roll back to a properly functioning version of Lightroom on four separate occasions since CC 2015/v6.0 was introduced ... that's about half of the updates in that period ... that should be of concern to ALL Adobe software users. Regardless if some folks would prefer to impose qualifications on end users to discuss such matters.

[Schewe]

The preferred approach seems to be to buy out competition as was done with Pixmantex.

So, Adobe does that once and suddenly that's Adobe's "preferred approach"? If you actually knew what went on with Pixmantic and why Adobe bought them it was not to kill a competitive product it was to steal the founding engineer, Micheal Jonsson, and bring him the USA to work for Adobe. Sadly, that didn't work out so well.

So, you're opinion about Adobe is your's and you are welcome to it, but it would be useful if was formed based on actual facts.

[Rory]

So, Adobe does that once and suddenly that's Adobe's "preferred approach"? If you actually knew what went on with Pixmantic and why Adobe bought them it was not to kill a competitive product it was to steal the founding engineer, Micheal Jonsson, and bring him the USA to work for Adobe. Sadly, that didn't work out so well.

So, you're opinion about Adobe is your's and you are welcome to it, but it would be useful if was formed based on actual facts.

Good to see you posting again Jeff.  I agree Adobe seemed to want Micheal Johsson, but they also killed a product that was making serious inroads into market share.  As I recall, when Jonsson started to work with Adobe his priorities were performance and reliability.  Pity he did not stick around.  As to your assertion that "Adobe does this once" have you so soon forgotten about Aldus Corp and Macromedia. 

I respect your opinions Jeff and I believe you to be an honest broker.  I'm not optimistic about the way Adobe is progressing, with poor judgement (import module) and numerous performance and reliability issues.  The latest issue regarding mac printing had Adobe initially pointing the finger at others when the problem was theirs.  Are you optimistic or are we watching the gradual demise of a company known for great, reliable, ergonomic products?

[rdonson]

Rory, are you basing your Adobe pessimism on PS and Lr or on their entire product line (30+ products).

[Rory]

Rory, are you basing your Adobe pessimism on PS and Lr or on their entire product line (30+ products).

Lr, Ps and Bridge mainly.

[Schewe]

As to your assertion that "Adobe does this once" have you so soon forgotten about Aldus Corp and Macromedia.

Well, is a merger a buyout? Yes, some of Aldus's portfolio of apps were discontinued but the flagship apps of PageMaker & After Effects are still developed and sold by Adobe.  Freehand was sold to Macromedia as part of an anti-competition settlement. Ironic that Freehand ended up at Adobe after the Macromedia merger and has not been developed further.

But Adobe didn't do those mergers to kill competing products otherwise they would have killed PageMaker & After Effects. They merged with those companies for sound business reasons and these mergers were not hostile takeovers. Many of the officers and employees of Aldus and Macromedia ended up at Adobe and formed the core of much of the app development going on now.

The latest issue regarding mac printing had Adobe initially pointing the finger at others when the problem was theirs.  Are you optimistic or are we watching the gradual demise of a company known for great, reliable, ergonomic products?

Well, the coding errors that were caused by Apple's yanking API's were Adobe's fault...but even Andrew and Mark would have to admit the bug was subtle and difficult to detect. Yes, somebody screwed up...they got called out, outside users proved the problem, they then admitted the problem and fixed it for Lightroom really, really fast (a lot faster than I was expecting) and will fix Photoshop in the next update.

Would I have preferred the engineer/s didn't screw up the print pipeline on Mac? Yes...am I surprised that it was a move by Apple to force all developers to change the API's they were successfully using until Apple made them change? Nope, not at all. This is far from the first time something Apple didn't screwed over Adobe and it's user base. As Andrew will tell you, Apple has continuously screwed over developers many, many times and over and over.

Was it Apple's fault that an Adobe engineer screwed up the code? Nope, but it was a code change that was forced by Apple. So far, I have't seen Apple implicated in this problem much, only Adobe. Note, Windows users have been blissfully printing away without this issue.

You all can keep harping on the mistake and ignore that facts and fail to enjoy the bug fix Adobe rushed out the door...in the meantime, I'm pleased I can now print out of Lightroom again :~)

[Rory]

Thanks for the info Jeff.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Jeff,

I am pretty well aware of Apple making havoc of API's now and then and the colour management pipeline is often affected. So change is often forced by Apple.

But, Adobe's testing should have discovered the issue.

BTW, the minor new minor bugfix release of PhotoShop CS made a new install on my computer, so I need to move all my plugins to that new installation.

Best regards
Erik

Well, is a merger a buyout? Yes, some of Aldus's portfolio of apps were discontinued but the flagship apps of PageMaker & After Effects are still developed and sold by Adobe.  Freehand was sold to Macromedia as part of an anti-competition settlement. Ironic that Freehand ended up at Adobe after the Macromedia merger and has not been developed further.

But Adobe didn't do those mergers to kill competing products otherwise they would have killed PageMaker & After Effects. They merged with those companies for sound business reasons and these mergers were not hostile takeovers. Many of the officers and employees of Aldus and Macromedia ended up at Adobe and formed the core of much of the app development going on now.

Well, the coding errors that were caused by Apple's yanking API's were Adobe's fault...but even Andrew and Mark would have to admit the bug was subtle and difficult to detect. Yes, somebody screwed up...they got called out, outside users proved the problem, they then admitted the problem and fixed it for Lightroom really, really fast (a lot faster than I was expecting) and will fix Photoshop in the next update.

Would I have preferred the engineer/s didn't screw up the print pipeline on Mac? Yes...am I surprised that it was a move by Apple to force all developers to change the API's they were successfully using until Apple made them change? Nope, not at all. This is far from the first time something Apple didn't screwed over Adobe and it's user base. As Andrew will tell you, Apple has continuously screwed over developers many, many times and over and over.

Was it Apple's fault that an Adobe engineer screwed up the code? Nope, but it was a code change that was forced by Apple. So far, I have't seen Apple implicated in this problem much, only Adobe. Note, Windows users have been blissfully printing away without this issue.

You all can keep harping on the mistake and ignore that facts and fail to enjoy the bug fix Adobe rushed out the door...in the meantime, I'm pleased I can now print out of Lightroom again :~)

[ButchM]

Was it Apple's fault that an Adobe engineer screwed up the code? Nope, but it was a code change that was forced by Apple. So far, I have't seen Apple implicated in this problem much, only Adobe. Note, Windows users have been blissfully printing away without this issue.

You all can keep harping on the mistake and ignore that facts and fail to enjoy the bug fix Adobe rushed out the door...in the meantime, I'm pleased I can now print out of Lightroom again :~)

I've seen plugin developers use the same exact excuses explanations when Adobe makes changes in their API's. Sometimes, those changes seem to arrive for no good reason when the current method appears to be rock solid. Yet we all know, in order to advance, new foundations need to be built. The bottom line is, if any developer is going to support any partnering configuration ... they need to be prepared for updating and upgrading their code as technology advances. It's no secret that Apple has a history of making changes like this. It shouldn't come as a shock to anyone involved that they updated their printing API's.

Did Apple start the scenario that resulted in this issue occurring? Absolutely. However, it was Adobe that failed to fully test and recognize the issue before it reached we end users. And ... as I stated previously, for Lightroom, it has been the fourth such failure I have experienced in very recent history. It is fast becoming a pattern. A pattern that does not instill confidence.

Do I appreciate the quick response and correction of the issue? You betcha. Though, I would prefer that the good folks at Adobe would place that type of emphasis and productivity before they send me their updates. Then we end users, nor the engineers would have to be bothered with repairing such issues. Then I also wouldn't have to come here and share my dismay when my workflow is hampered or, at times completely broken resulting in rolling back to an earlier version.

If there are folks on this and other discussion forums who would prefer there to be less 'harping' and less failure to 'enjoy' the software Adobe produces ... all Adobe need do is scrutinize their work a bit more carefully before they send it our way. It's a rather simple solution.

[rdonson]

... all Adobe need do is scrutinize their work a bit more carefully before they send it our way. It's a rather simple solution.

Methinks that is quite an oversimplification.  There is no such thing as bug free software.  ALL software is shipped with known bugs.  You may not encounter them but they are real and every company is aware of them.  The bugs are prioritized and many fixed over time. Consider how many lines of code are written over the years by a LOT of programmers in the software you use.  How many people programming your favorite software do you think understand how every line of code works?  Dang few if any. 

Lest you think that software is imperfect but hardware is not just find the errata sheet or documents for your Intel or AMD CPUs.  The latest CPUs have billions of transistors.  There are bugs in the designs and there are manufacturing errors that escape test but you rarely notice it.  They are there nonetheless.

Think about NASA and the systems they've sent into space.  They have to correct the software errors mid mission, if they can.  Sometimes they've been known to miss a planet or target simply because one programmer thought they were using kilometers and another miles. The Mars landers have been rebooted periodically because of unknown bugs and any other remedy.  Sounds kind of like our computer operating systems doesn't it. 

Perfection in these systems is not attainable.  Squashing the most egregious bugs is the name of the game. 

As you've seen in NASA and Adobe bugs appear that went undetected.  Both organizations are staffed by very talented and well meaning humans and errors will happen.

Now sit back and enjoy your autonomous driving car while an aircraft on autopilot flies overhead. 

[digitaldog]

Well, the coding errors that were caused by Apple's yanking API's were Adobe's fault...but even Andrew and Mark would have to admit the bug was subtle and difficult to detect.

For us, it was subtle but it depends on the color space of the image, the color content and a bigger issue, the printer. Some reported big visual differences on Canon. All my testing was done assigning sRGB to the target. The effect of the bug could be larger depending on what's assigned. And I don't buy this Apple yanking API's causing this bug for s second! It makes no sense and it doesn't explain why Apple's own products that print were not affected. No, I really believe that this is all Adobe's bug. And someone you and I both know there admitted to it. Lastly, no visible difference from the print path should change (which it did) and Adobe clearly didn't test this before release. We beta's are at fault to some degree; we all missed it. But if Adobe's going to release products solely based on outside beta's, they need to rethink how they run their internal quality control dept.

[chez]

Methinks that is quite an oversimplification.  There is no such thing as bug free software.  ALL software is shipped with known bugs.  You may not encounter them but they are real and every company is aware of them.  The bugs are prioritized and many fixed over time. Consider how many lines of code are written over the years by a LOT of programmers in the software you use.  How many people programming your favorite software do you think understand how every line of code works?  Dang few if any. 

Lest you think that software is imperfect but hardware is not just find the errata sheet or documents for your Intel or AMD CPUs.  The latest CPUs have billions of transistors.  There are bugs in the designs and there are manufacturing errors that escape test but you rarely notice it.  They are there nonetheless.

Think about NASA and the systems they've sent into space.  They have to correct the software errors mid mission, if they can.  Sometimes they've been known to miss a planet or target simply because one programmer thought they were using kilometers and another miles. The Mars landers have been rebooted periodically because of unknown bugs and any other remedy.  Sounds kind of like our computer operating systems doesn't it. 

Perfection in these systems is not attainable.  Squashing the most egregious bugs is the name of the game. 

As you've seen in NASA and Adobe bugs appear that went undetected.  Both organizations are staffed by very talented and well meaning humans and errors will happen.

Now sit back and enjoy your autonomous driving car while an aircraft on autopilot flies overhead.

You are exactly right. One of the big decisions with product management is when to release a product. There is always a huge list of known bugs that are prioritized and products are released with these known bugs. It would be impossible to continually release bug free code...show me a single example of bug free code.

It would be a great world if all bugs are detected and fixed prior to shipping, but how much is someone willing to pay for this?

[Mark D Segal]

We beta's are at fault to some degree; we all missed it. But if Adobe's going to release products solely based on outside beta's, they need to rethink how they run their internal quality control dept.

I don't accept that you beta's are at fault to any degree. It shouldn't be the role of beta testers to need to conduct elementary functionality reviews for software of this maturity. Your role should be to catch outlier situations and environments the developer cannot be expected to have dealt with, necessarily.

As I mentioned in reply #12, at this point, the most important and constructive aspect of all this for future releases would be for Adobe to carefully draw the "Lessons of Experience" and move forward with its internal procedures on this basis.

[rdonson]

It would be a great world if all bugs are detected and fixed prior to shipping, but how much is someone willing to pay for this?

or wait for it

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I used to do a simple sanity test from time to time. Print a synthetic ColorChecker and measure the fields with my ColouMunki and calculate DeltaE vs. reference for all fields. That should indicate the problem. I would think that Adobe could apply a similar procedure?

Best regards
Erik

I don't accept that you beta's are at fault to any degree. It shouldn't be the role of beta testers to need to conduct elementary functionality reviews for software of this maturity. Your role should be to catch outlier situations and environments the developer cannot be expected to have dealt with, necessarily.

As I mentioned in reply #12, at this point, the most important and constructive aspect of all this for future releases would be for Adobe to carefully draw the "Lessons of Experience" and move forward with its internal procedures on this basis.

[digitaldog]

I used to do a simple sanity test from time to time. Print a synthetic ColorChecker and measure the fields with my ColouMunki and calculate DeltaE vs. reference for all fields. That should indicate the problem. I would think that Adobe could apply a similar procedure?

Yeah although 24 samples really isn't ideal. They should have an Auto Spectrophotometer and the ability to measure a couple hundred color patches and then something to report the dE between the two.

[ButchM]

Methinks that is quite an oversimplification.  There is no such thing as bug free software.  ALL software is shipped with known bugs.  You may not encounter them but they are real and every company is aware of them.  The bugs are prioritized and many fixed over time. Consider how many lines of code are written over the years by a LOT of programmers in the software you use.  How many people programming your favorite software do you think understand how every line of code works?  Dang few if any. 

Please spare me the lecture on nothing is perfect and how difficult Adobe's job is ... if you have been following the thread, you would have observed that I do not now, nor have I ever, expected perfection from Adobe or any other entity.

Yes, all software has bugs. But this latest bug wasn't a peculiar outlier that only affected a few end users with oddball configurations ... this bug was problem for EACH AND EVERY USER OF OS X who wished to print with the application controlling the color management.

I know a coders job is difficult. That is why I buy software licenses instead of developing my own apps. It also doesn't explain how other developers with far fewer resources updated the Apple API's and resulted in no issues for their end users to print properly.

I go to great efforts to produce photos, graphic designs and other services that my clients don't aspire to provide for themselves.

While I know I don't achieve pure perfection either ... I do have a QA/QC system in place so that the products I produce meet a minimum requirement ... before those products and/or services are delivered.

More importantly, when a problem arises ... my fist effort is not to point my finger at someone else. I take responsibility and remedy the situation to the best of my ability and don't try to rationalize that my customers should accept a certain level of poor quality work because my job is difficult to perform.