Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: Rory on September 26, 2016, 04:45:12 pm
-
Okay, I'm an optimist. I upgraded from 2015.6 to 2015.7 in Lightroom. I was having issues with 2015.6 where the image would block up into random chunks when the graphics card was enabled in the develop module. Worked just fine before that. And yes, I am using the latest nVidia driver on a Win 10 PC. The chunking goes away as soon as I mouse over the develop panel. No issue with the graphic card turned off in performance. I had hoped this would be fixed with the update. Nope.
Picked four shots from a pano I took today and tried to do a photo merge panorama. Crashed Lr. Hmmm, this hasn't happened before. Reopened Lr and tried again - same crash. Sigh. Aw well, I'll just edit in Ps as layers. Nothing happens. Oh, right, I forgot about the existing bug where this won't work unless Ps is already open. Open Ps. In Lr edit as layers. Make Pano. Pano won't stitch. Doesn't seem to like my vertical pano.
Not giving up. Export Pano images as TIFF. Drag into Micorsoft ICE. Bingo, pano in moments. Nice to find something that works.
This is getting so tiresome that I can't muster the energy to report it to Adobe. Just thought I would get it off my chest with a mini rant here.
I hope everyone else's day is going a little better. :*)
-
I feel your pain. Adobe needs to pull back on improvements and just attempt to make a more stable core.
Paul C
-
Rory, I think you should report it to Adobe regardless of your frustration just in case they either have some suggestions or to help insure they know there is (yet another) problem they need to fix.
Paul: I think the core is stable and works just fine; it's when they implement upgrades and new features, some of which are very cool indeed, that they run into problems, probably due to inadequate QR/QC for whatever reason.
-
Rory, I think you should report it to Adobe regardless of your frustration just in case they either have some suggestions or to help insure they know there is (yet another) problem they need to fix.
I appreciate your stamina Mark. I'm tired of being a beta tester and reporting stuff that usually falls into a black hole. If it gets fixed, great. If not I'll soldier on and continue to look at alternatives. I still have lots of love for Lr. Unfortunately the hate side is growing.
-
Thanks Rory, but it's not a matter of stamina; it's a matter of attempting to enhance our success using this otherwise fine application. Personally, I'm not keen to get into alternatives, nor shall I be an early adopter of Adobe's upgrades. The Golden Rule for me now is to wait a good three months until the early adopters do Adobe's QC/QR for them and whatever bugs they find (which means reporting them) get fixed. Nothing vital gets lost waiting it out.
-
I agree with you Mark, but when every release creates as many problems as it solves how do you decide when to update? That's when paying rent for a product that seems to be going downhill gets a tad frustrating. It just doesn't feel like Adobe is upholding their end of the "bargain".
-
Rory, I think the fact is that by the time they are ready to issue a new release, it isn't to solve previous operating problems - those are dealt with long beforehand; it is to introduce support for new cameras, new security concerns and new features; more often than not those new features are very worthwhile. For example, the new Transform Panel is something I have been using every day and it is excellent. They also do stuff to improve efficiency under the hood and that is also welcome. The main problem is the self-evident short-circuiting of QC/QR, which is unfortunate, because as an application grows in complexity and sophistication, and the needs and computing environments of users expand, one has to expect scope for glitches. There was a time when Adobe had a very extensive external testing apparatus in place, especially in the very early days of the application. I think they need to seriously consider re-introducing this approach, which will be of interest to the early adopters who either don't mind or even enjoy being beta testers with its attendant risks; this would be in the interest of both the company and the rest of the clientele who just want things that work properly when the commercial release happens. Of course it uses supervisory/management resources and perhaps they are reluctant to spend that money.
-
Nothing vital gets lost waiting it out.
Except your monthly stipends to Adobe continue regardless if you update or not. Those payments continue regardless if the updates function as intended or not. At least if you get a bad cup of Mocha chino at Starbucks, you can walk back to the counter and and they will pour you a fresh cup made the right way.
Of course I understand that software development is much more complicated ... nor do I expect Adobe to be perfect ... but they certainly could put forth a bit more effort to hold themselves to a much higher standard. I thought there would be an increase in complacency once they moved to the subscription model ... but I thought it would take much longer to get there.
One of the selling points for CC was that subscribers would not have to wait for updates, they would receive them as they were available ... but what is that bonus worth if almost every update either doesn't function as intended or the implementation of same breaks longstanding traditional functionality? ... the discovery of which comes very late in the process when if they applied just a bit more effort in their testing they could avoid much of these problems. I recall Adobe said one of the great benefits for everyone involved was that they would no longer have to rush out updates based upon a number on the calendar ... but take whatever time was necessary to get it right before release ... What happened to that sentiment? Was it just empty rhetoric to entice users to subscribe? Now that they have subscribed, doe that attitude or desire no longer exist?
I look at it this way. I paid for v1 the day it was released and each and every subsequent new version upgrade since then (including v6). I have also been a CC subscriber for nearly two years now and I am working 2-3 version updates back because the current version(s) of Lightroom don't work properly for my workflow. What are we paying for? Even considering the monthly fee is small, some would say insignificant ... however, over the span of years, that total does indeed add up. Sure, Adobe is fairly diligent about adding RAW support for new cameras and lens profiles as they are possible ... but what good is all that effort if you can't install the new support because they broke something else in the schema ... it is indeed a 'Comedy of Errors' ... only problem is, it is fast becoming much less humorous.
-
Yes, the monthly stipends continue because we continue to use the application; stop using it and stop paying. That's a separate matter from whether the up-dating process is diligent enough to justify remaining a customer, and there are alternatives. Speaking personally, I would much prefer to see Adobe improve its act than to start undertaking a massive redirection of workflows that by and large suit me well; how long I shall remain in that mode remains to be seen - it depends on future experience. But each customer will have their own view of that and no doubt Adobe needs to understand very objectively where they stand now and where they want to be five years, ten years from now.
-
Yes, the monthly stipends continue because we continue to use the application; stop using it and stop paying. That's a separate matter from whether the up-dating process is diligent enough to justify remaining a customer, and there are alternatives.
No, it is not a separate issue - they are tightly linked. If that was the case then we should have been happy to rent the software from the start with no changes - and who would have done that when you already owned the right in perpetuity to use it. The argument was Adobe needed regular income in order to be able to work on the less glamorous things like QC, performance and bug fixes, while rolling out new features as they were ready, not with fanfare and a rush to meet marketing requirements. I'm not feeling the love.
-
Let's be clear - they have introduced new features - very good ones - with each update. So that part of the subscription proposition has been respected. The main issue, to judge it from a user perspective without any inside information, is slippage in QC/QA. And if this is the problem, they need to improve on this one way or another. Whether we buy software on a perpetual plan or a rental plan, we want a product that comes off the press as trouble-free as humanly possible.
-
Yes, the monthly stipends continue because we continue to use the application; stop using it and stop paying. That's a separate matter from whether the up-dating process is diligent enough to justify remaining a customer, and there are alternatives. Speaking personally, I would much prefer to see Adobe improve its act than to start undertaking a massive redirection of workflows that by and large suit me well; how long I shall remain in that mode remains to be seen - it depends on future experience. But each customer will have their own view of that and no doubt Adobe needs to understand very objectively where they stand now and where they want to be five years, ten years from now.
No, the payments is not a separate issue. Unless of course you are stating that you are willing to pay Adobe, from here to eternity, simply for time of service with the apps in there current state and you are willing to do so without any further updates ... ever. That wasn't part of the deal. The deal was that Adobe add support for new camera and lenses as well well as ancillary new features and enhancements as they are able. As I explained, I've already compensated Adobe for days gone by ... It's another issue to pay in advance for updates that don't work.
I would love to be a very supportive and content customer of Adobe products, as I once was. I too, do not totally embrace the thought of moving to another solution for my daily tasks. However, I refuse to become a mind-numbed robot sending a monthly payment in perpetuity to a business that simply lacks the resolve to do a better job. It's amazing that Adobe has never once failed to deduct their monthly payment from my account ... yet they have failed multiple times in their updates just in this calendar year. Seems they can apply proper attention to detail where they choose, when it is to their advantage.
-
Well, I think the problems are larger than QC but I think we are basically on the same page Mark.
-
Let's be clear - they have introduced new features - very good ones - with each update.
What good is a new feature if if applying the associated update breaks existing traditional workflows?
What good is ordering a steak in a 4 star restaurant ... but you can't eat it because the chef didn't prepare it properly?
-
No, the payments is not a separate issue. Unless of course you are stating that you are willing to pay Adobe, from here to eternity, simply for time of service with the apps in there current state and you are willing to do so without any further updates ... ever. That wasn't part of the deal. The deal was that Adobe add support for new camera and lenses as well well as ancillary new features and enhancements as they are able. As I explained, I've already compensated Adobe for days gone by ... It's another issue to pay in advance for updates that don't work.
I would love to be a very supportive and content customer of Adobe products, as I once was. I too, do not totally embrace the thought of moving to another solution for my daily tasks. However, I refuse to become a mind-numbed robot sending a monthly payment in perpetuity to a business that simply lacks the resolve to do a better job. It's amazing that Adobe has never once failed to deduct their monthly payment from my account ... yet they have failed multiple times in their updates just in this calendar year. Seems they can apply proper attention to detail where they choose, when it is to their advantage.
They are respecting their end of the deal to issue new features, and some very good ones, with each upgrade.
None of the flaws they have allowed into recent releases have vitiated the whole application, but they have affected the functionality of at least one specific function each time, as I have documented and published on this website for one of the more important ones to those of us who print.
Monthly payments are on auto-pilot so I don't expect that to break (not to say it can't, but much less likely). Up-dating an application is not on auto-pilot; it's a hugely complicated multi-faceted undertaking involving lots of people and procedures. So we can't expect perfection. That said, and no-one has contested this yet, I believe there is scope for implementing QC/QA procedures that could possibly have averted some of the recent debacles.
I think it's important to engage with Adobe on them identifying precisely where the management problems lie and what we as consumers expect by way of precisely targeted managerial improvement, rather than tarring the whole scheme; that doesn't help fix anything.
-
If you feel that way then you should be an early adopter/beta tester Mark instead of relying on others. I've been reporting to Adobe since the first beta and I'm tired. Your turn.
-
I think it's important to engage with Adobe on them identifying precisely where the management problems lie and what we as consumers expect by way of precisely targeted managerial improvement, rather than tarring the whole scheme; that doesn't help fix anything.
You can lead a horse to water ... but you can't make them check the water quality before they drink if they have no desire to do so.
Users have been pointing these problems out for some time and there has been zero change in results. It has just been more of the same. There has been some low level attempts at appeasement, but no real effort to actually make a difference.
-
They are respecting their end of the deal to issue new features, and some very good ones, with each upgrade.
WHAT GOOD ARE NEW FEATURES IF THE UPDATE BREAKS EXISTING WORKFLOWS NECESSITATING ROLLING BACK TO A PREVIOUS VERSION?
How wonderful is a new feature ... even a 'good one' ... if you can't use the update it was delivered in?
-
Let's be clear - they have introduced new features - very good ones - with each update.
This got me thinking. If you ignore the features that are from the ACR team, just what features have been added to Lr in the last 17 months? What has the Lr team been doing?
-
If you feel that way then you should be an early adopter/beta tester Mark instead of relying on others. I've been reporting to Adobe since the first beta and I'm tired. Your turn.
You seem to forget - I've had my turn: Whither Adobe (https://luminous-landscape.com/whither-adobe/?hlst=Mark+Segal+Articles), and I'm not giving up.
-
I refuse to become a mind-numbed robot ............. Seems they can apply proper attention to detail where they choose, when it is to their advantage.
I refuse also. I don't think the evidence points to any one here becoming a mind-numbed robot. But you do raise an interesting question about what is to their advantage as a corporation in it for the long term. Paying attention to detail in the software business has to be very important and they're smart enough to know that. The real questions are about how you do it, how much does it cost and how effective is it. There are evidently unresolved issues therein.
-
There has been some low level attempts at appeasement, but no real effort to actually make a difference.
Well, let's do some fact-checking. After the debacle with the import dialog, they changed back to the traditional workflow pretty adroitly. After the debacle with colour-managed printing they fixed that within days of incontrovertible evidence being exposed that they had a problem, not Epson. And I expect it will be the same with the recent issue. The real question is whether these inconveniences need to happen in the first place, and I would argue that there must be ways they can live with of minimizing them.
-
WHAT GOOD ARE NEW FEATURES IF THE UPDATE BREAKS EXISTING WORKFLOWS NECESSITATING ROLLING BACK TO A PREVIOUS VERSION?
How wonderful is a new feature ... even a 'good one' ... if you can't use the update it was delivered in?
Before we do some more fact-checking, just a short reminder on Forum discussion decorum: most participants are mature adults who can read normal font and understand it. There's no need to SHOUT. OK?
The fact is that new features can be good regardless that other problems opened up. The fact is - for example with the colour management debacle - that even though the print workflow was broken there were two workarounds right from the get-go: (1) roll back to the previous version, or (2) print from a previous version of Photoshop while using the new features of the latest Lr version, which is what I did for a while because I really started benefiting from the new transform panel the day it became available. Don't interpret this to mean I think all this is fine - I don't. I'm just saying we need to articulate the issues with enough clarity and precision that the company can't simply dismiss this discussion as uninformed and irrelevant - there's no mileage in it for customers if that happens.
-
This got me thinking. If you ignore the features that are from the ACR team, just what features have been added to Lr in the last 17 months? What has the Lr team been doing?
I don't know - it's quite a big group working on that application and being on the outside one doesn't get into the entrails of who contributes exactly to what. Lots of teamwork would be involved with much of it. Then there are different kinds of features. Some improve operational characteristics under the hood, some are adaptation to OS revisions, some are new tools. There's been all of it.
-
Well, let's do some fact-checking. After the debacle with the import dialog, they changed back to the traditional workflow pretty adroitly. After the debacle with colour-managed printing they fixed that within days of incontrovertible evidence being exposed that they had a problem, not Epson. And I expect it will be the same with the recent issue. The real question is whether these inconveniences need to happen in the first place, and I would argue that there must be ways they can live with of minimizing them.
Wouldn't it be awesome if in your efforts to fact check, you could be more complete and thorough and report the facts more accurately?
!. Yes, Adobe did indeed roll back the Import dialog fiasco ... but not until after a record setting and unprecedented blowup over at feedback.photoshop.com (https://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/new-update-6-2).
2. Adobe's initial response (http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2015/10/update-on-lightroom-2015-2-lightroom-6-2-release.html) was they were not going to roll back anything because their 'research' indicated new users were having great difficulty with the import process. It was only after an unprecedented negative response they realized their 'research' was flawed to the point it did not take into consideration the folks who had been using Lr for quite some time did not appreciate the offering. It was only then that Adobe realized it was in their best interest to roll back the Import dialog.
3. On the color management issue, Adobe's initial response was ... it was Apple's fault. Then it was Epson's fault. Only after all the finger pointing did they realize that the issue was far more widespread. Then, and only then did they did they go to work on a fix.
3. A couple of updates ago, Adobe broke how Photoshop Droplets worked on Lightroom exports. They did 'fix' it with the next update. However, their fix only worked on single images. They had to go back and 'fix' it again to restore the ability to export multiple images ... a function that had been around since at least Lr v2. All due to incomplete testing. Surely, they could add at least one user that employs Ps Droplets to their private beta testing group.
4. Where is it written that 'workarounds' is what users pay developers for? I thought users paid software developers for solutions, not for end users to perform more work to circumvent poorly written or executed code.
5. The cost in time and effort to correct these mistakes could have been applied to many more 'very good' features ... but without proper and more thorough pre-release testing they are forced to invest those valuable resources in repairing damage, rather than venturing forth.
I do appreciate when Adobe does repair the damage they, themselves have created. I'll repeat that I do not expect them to be perfect, though, it would be refreshing if they would take responsibility for their errors.
Adobe is a multi-billion dollar, multi-national corporation. They should not behave like a kindergarten student pointing their fingers to blame someone else because they don't want to accept responsibility for their actions.
This behavior is prevalent, consistent and repetitive with no sign of improvement.
-
Wouldn't it be awesome if in your efforts to fact check, you could be more complete and thorough and report the facts more accurately?
No it wouldn't be - I don't have the time or see the need for exhaustive documentation of failures. We know the character of it from several examples. As I said, the more important issue is what happens going forward to mitigate the problem. I think we agree on this, and with that, I am ending my participation in this discussion. I think it's gone its course.
-
It seems like the frustration and aggravation from regression in an otherwise working system outweighs the wow of new features, in most cases. Regardless of how Adobe chooses to handle the regressions (and user blowback) that affect users' otherwise intact workflow, it would be nice if Adobe prioritized eliminating regression and fixing long-standing issues, like the reported erratic GPU support, for example.
A moment of such revelation was the JDI live coding that took place in real time back at Photoshop World 2013 - more than 4 color samplers! Fixed on the spot, in real time!
Interestingly, John Nack's blog entry describing some of these JDI improvements:
http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2014/01/sweating-the-details-new-jdi-tweaks-arrive-in-photoshop-cc.html
notes:
Although we’ve sweated the details in past releases, including making tons of “Just Do It (JDI) tweaks,” I think you’ll find that the move to Creative Cloud makes it more possible & important than ever. CC = continuous, iterative improvement. Here are the tweaks made in just the newest release of Photoshop CC, including some live-coded at Photoshop World.
CC = continuous, iterative improvement.
I do not use LR frequently, but I can understand both the wonder of the application's abilities and the frustration of the application's regression. If nothing else, the implementation of the Adobe Creative Cloud desktop makes installing previous versions pretty straightforward. Obviously, one would prefer not to have to do so, but sometimes it is the most efficient and effective solution until the new problems get sorted out.
kirk
-
No it wouldn't be - I don't have the time or see the need for exhaustive documentation of failures. We know the character of it from several examples. As I said, the more important issue is what happens going forward to mitigate the problem. I think we agree on this, and with that, I am ending my participation in this discussion. I think it's gone its course.
My point was, it doesn't take much time or effort to be aware of Adobe's record of initial reaction when problems occur. Their first reaction is not to be helpful, rather it is to stand fast or place blame elsewhere. That attitude helps no-one going forward.
-
When Adobe first introduced the CC subscription model, I decided I would wait a couple of months before deciding whether to subscribe. Because of the reports of the last several "upgrades," I have stuck quite happily with PS CS6 and LR6, now LR6.7. These still work on my Win 10 machine, and I haven't heard of any "must have" features that I have missed.
If they ever do clean up their act, I may still try the CC versions, but so far I'm happy to have avoided all the headaches.
-
When Adobe first introduced the CC subscription model, I decided I would wait a couple of months before deciding whether to subscribe. Because of the reports of the last several "upgrades," I have stuck quite happily with PS CS6 and LR6, now LR6.7. These still work on my Win 10 machine, and I haven't heard of any "must have" features that I have missed.
Same with me, although I even didn't bother to upgrade from LR 5.7.1. Software by subscription is a seriously bad proposition, especially for mature software from a monopolistic supplier. The whole CC concept is only good for Adobe's bottom line (which is the reason they push it, and make it hard to find perpetual license alternatives if even available), not for its users. Shareholders are not Stakeholders, so I do not anticipate much improvement for Stakeholders as long as Shareholders are happy.
If they ever do clean up their act, I may still try the CC versions, but so far I'm happy to have avoided all the headaches.
Only if no reasonable enough alternatives are available. The convenience and quality of an Adobe solution must become much much better than the drawbacks and alternatives to even consider subscribing. I'm too busy to become a paying(!) beta tester.
Cheers,
Bart
-
That is ultimately the problem with rolling releases: there is never a version that is "safe" to use. Because bug fixing is accompanied by the release of new functionality that might indeed not work as intended, but, even more problematic, could also break existing functionality. Until LR5, that was the reason why I would never migrate to a newer major version until the x.1 or x.2 releases were made available.
One way to make this problem less acute would be to use two different versions of LR on the same computer, e.g. LR6/CC2015 for the bleeding edge features and LR5 for the stuff that must absolutely work. I realise this is not what people would enjoy using (two versions of the catalogue, only works for older cameras, etc.), but at least you would have a fallback version that is know to work.
On the bright side of things, I do not remember recent issues that would lead to catalogue corruption, so Adobe seems to have placed enough QA ressources on this vital aspect of the product.
The irony of the current release model is that people who bought the "perpetual" license of LR6 have all the QA issues without the benefit of the new functionality introduced in the CC version. Those poor LR6 users were even given the new import screen "for free" even though they were not supposed to get new functionality. :P
Cheers,
Fabien
PS: users of Windows 10 should have similar worries, because Microsoft has now moved to a similar rolling release scheme where Home users are used as beta testers for Enterprise users.
-
...These still work on my Win 10 machine, and I haven't heard of any "must have" features that I have missed.
Yeah, it's easy to make that point, though I'm sure some Japanese infantryman has just emerged from a Philippines jungle saying the same about Lightroom 1.0. If you don't push things, you never know how beneficial those new features are. I'm pretty undecided on Dehaze, though some wail about its absence from the perpetual licence version, and let's put anything in PS and Mobile to one side (you either get it or your won't). But in Lightroom itself, the Guided Upright and Smart Preview-based editing let you get more things done, better and faster too.
-
PS: users of Windows 10 should have similar worries, because Microsoft has now moved to a similar rolling release scheme where Home users are used as beta testers for Enterprise users.
Yes, it's a concern, although it's not on the basis of a subscription model (yet) for most users. Users having to pay before using a computer (operating system) would jeopardize the ability for many users to connect to the world if the ability to mske payments is compromised for whatever reason.
Fortunately, updates (and upgrades) are released relatively fast after detection (and a very large userbase will insure fast detection, which is promptly acted upon). Overall, Windows 10 has been a good user experience for me.
Cheers,
Bart
-
But in Lightroom itself, the Guided Upright and Smart Preview-based editing let you get more things done, better and faster too.
Which raises the topic of resampling quality, which is much better in e.g. Capture One. Resampling by small amounts is rather lossy when the resampling algorithms are not top notch. They are not bad in LR, but certainly not top notch for e.g. small adjustments in Rotation or perspective.
Cheers,
Bart
-
When Adobe first introduced the CC subscription model, I decided I would wait a couple of months before deciding whether to subscribe. Because of the reports of the last several "upgrades," I have stuck quite happily with PS CS6 and LR6, now LR6.7. These still work on my Win 10 machine, and I haven't heard of any "must have" features that I have missed.
If they ever do clean up their act, I may still try the CC versions, but so far I'm happy to have avoided all the headaches.
I wait about a month or so after a new release and then load up with the latest. Haven't encountered a problem yet. Funny...people download the latest greatest as soon ax it's available and get burned over and over. You see the same people continually harping on LR...yet it appears they just keep on doing it.
My suggestion, have patience...let others that don't have patience find the bugs and then download the release with the bugs fixed. Seems quite simple and has worked flawlessly for me.
-
I wait about a month or so after a new release and then load up with the latest. Haven't encountered a problem yet. Funny...people download the latest greatest as soon ax it's available and get burned over and over. You see the same people continually harping on LR...yet it appears they just keep on doing it.
My suggestion, have patience...let others that don't have patience find the bugs and then download the release with the bugs fixed. Seems quite simple and has worked flawlessly for me.
Strange reaction. If everybody would wait, no errors will surface, and future updates will get even more buggy because Adobe engineers think they've done a good job. On the other hand you seem to relish in the fact that there are those who are picking the hot chestnuts from the fire, for your benefit ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Which raises the topic of resampling quality, which is much better in e.g. Capture One. Resampling by small amounts is rather lossy when the resampling algorithms are not top notch. They are not bad in LR, but certainly not top notch for e.g. small adjustments in Rotation or perspective.
Of marginal relevance though, even if true. Just offset it with C1's weakness managing your pictures, and the conflict of interest that affects C1.
-
Strange reaction. If everybody would wait, no errors will surface, and future updates will get even more buggy because Adobe engineers think they've done a good job. On the other hand you seem to relish in the fact that there are those who are picking the hot chestnuts from the fire, for your benefit ...
Cheers,
Bart
Exactly. But human nature dictates not everyone will wait. Same thing happens with new camera releases and pre-orders...let others be the first to debug.
-
Exactly. But human nature dictates not everyone will wait. Same thing happens with new camera releases and pre-orders...let others be the first to debug.
One would expect another common trait of human nature .... the desire to do a good job ... to be more relevant in Adobe's offerings as well. Remember, one of the early selling points of CC was that new features and updates would not have to forced out the door prematurely to meet a set--in-stone deadline which was the primary cause of such problems? Or was that just a selling point to be ignored after the fact? Adobe is no longer on a hard and fast time table. They can take as much time as they choose to test more thoroughly.
If Adobe's pre-release testing was even a bit more thorough ... we subscribers wouldn't have to be relegated to pay-to-play beta testers.
I don't expect any developer to reach pure perfection, but Adobe could certainly step up their game just a bit more. The problems that have been discovered in the past several releases have been fairly wide spread and were not the result of obscure hardware configurations and/or user methodology.
-
It appears that Adobe are under extreme pressure to provide new camera raw support when high end camera models like the Canon 5D Mk IV are introduced into the market.
I think this pressure to appease users that purchase new camera models as soon as they are released is compromising the testing of new features and bug fixes, as evidenced by the problems and new bugs that get introduced with each and every update.
A possible solution to alleviate this issue is to provide updates for Camera Raw support and Lens Profiles with their own updates, since these two issues no not normally create problems.
Updates for Bug fixes and New Features can then be released when they have been fully tested and not released prematurely.
As far as I am aware the camera profiles and lens profiles are installed into their own specific folders and are shared by Lightroom and Adobe Camera Raw.
Surely Adobe should be able to store them online and users download the ones they need as they are available and place them in the appropriate folder.
Photo of Denis de Gannes
Denis de Gannes
23 Posts 1 Reply Like
-
I think this pressure to appease users that purchase new camera models as soon as they are released is compromising the testing of new features and bug fixes, as evidenced by the problems and new bugs that get introduced with each and every update.
Not really. There is zero pressure for Adobe to release a specific new feature with any particular update. We users are not privy to upcoming new features and therefore do not expect those features on any type of timetable whatsoever ... so we can't pressure Adobe to release them prematurely. Any type of rush to offer new features is self-imposed by the management at Adobe, not as a result of customer pressure. For example, I'm not aware of anyone pressuring Adobe to release the Dehaze feature before it was offered. It could have come in v2015.7 if need be. No one was expecting it in 2015.1 and would be none the wiser if it came later had it required more time to polish and fine-tune.
I do agree that it may be beneficial to separate new camera support and lens profiles from new feature offerings and general bug fixes. Although, customer pressure for new camera support has never seemed to influence release dates for those quarterly releases. They have been that way since the very early days of ACR/Lr.
-
In case anyone else is having similar problems the graphics card problem is solved by rolling back two driver releases and the droplet issue by reinstalling photoshop.
-
Though there may be no specific pressure to implement new features on a given date, no-one can doubt that strategically Adobe want as many customers on subscription as possible. I suggest that new features are not introduced mainly to satisfy existing subscribers, but to attract perpetual users and new customers to adopt the subscription model. As usual, this is driven by marketing not engineering.
You can call it selfish, but after a working lifetime in application software, I have never, and never would, implement a new release of anything on day 1. I find it incredible to read a post from someone for whom Lightroom is at the centre of their business bemoaning that a new new release has stopped them working.
Dave
-
Though there may be no specific pressure to implement new features on a given date, no-one can doubt that strategically Adobe want as many customers on subscription as possible. I suggest that new features are not introduced mainly to satisfy existing subscribers, but to attract perpetual users and new customers to adopt the subscription model. As usual, this is driven by marketing not engineering.
Hi David,
It's obvious that they are in it for the money, but there are different ways of achieving that. Some do it by winning the sympathy of loyal and future customers, and others do it by acting as a monopolist and creating obfuscation and obstacles.
You can call it selfish, but after a working lifetime in application software, I have never, and never would, implement a new release of anything on day 1. I find it incredible to read a post from someone for whom Lightroom is at the centre of their business bemoaning that a new new release has stopped them working.
While I agree that there is a risk involved with being an early adopter, in this case Adobe said there was no issue other than what was caused by Epson. The truth only came out after many people doing sanity checks on their own workflow and materials, thus wasting money and other resources. Once, after a relatively long time they acknowledged their own role in yet another bad quality check before rolling out an update (not a new release/upgrade, but mostly 'bug fixes'), only then the fix was relatively soon to follow.
Software bugs can be complicated and they may take a while for some customers to detect, so how long should one wait before starting to use the updated features? Isn't the whole idea of the subscription model that one is kept up to date without have to wait? And again, if everybody waits, nobody will find the bugs that Adobe should have.
Therefore, the only solution is for Adobe to sincerely own the problems they create themselves, and do their darnedest to avoid them in the future.
Otherwise customers will start looking elsewhere. On1 Photo 10 seems like a potent alternative for most LR users once it is established that their Raw converter (to be released soon) is good enough for prime time. The introduction price (expired yesterday but might return at a later date) is less than a year's subscription, and the license is perpetual. Other competitors will also start offering DAM + editing capable solutions, so Adobe better ramp up their efforts in taking customers more serious (not only their bank accounts).
Cheers,
Bart
-
I suggest that if there is an alternative for people then rather than continually moaning about LR, just go and use the alternative. Seems like all we hear is the same people constantly complaining...why not put your money where your mouths is and just use another solution.
I did this with my camera gear and moved to another brand rather than a constant complaint of my existing system.
-
I suggest that if there is an alternative for people then rather than continually moaning about LR, just go and use the alternative. Seems like all we hear is the same people constantly complaining...why not put your money where your mouths is and just use another solution.
Yes, we already know that you like the way Adobe treats other people, you are not affected, so screw the rest.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Yes, we already know that you like the way Adobe treats other people, you are not affected, so screw the rest.
Cheers,
Bart
Exactly...if I was affected over and over like some here, I wouldn't come continuously cry about it on the net, I would move to something else or deal with Adobe directly. Here people start to sound like whiners.
-
There is a way to effect change. Get on the Adobe forums, fill out bug reports, etc. If enough people report a bug or desire a change they won't ignore it. They may not fix it overnight though but keep on them.
-
Exactly...if I was affected over and over like some here, I wouldn't come continuously cry about it on the net, I would move to something else or deal with Adobe directly. Here people start to sound like whiners.
There is another side to the equation ... You could join the effort to enlighten your friends at Adobe to do a better job ... If they could step up their game even marginally in this respect, that would a long way to silence the naysayers in short order.
Just because you are satisfied with lower expectations, it is rather sophomoric to equate our disappointment with Adobe's recent level of quality with a 'love it or leave it' point of view. Because, eventually, if this attitude persists, it will cause issues for you as well. You can't beat the odds forever.
While you may be dismayed with what you perceive as whining, you are also not compelled to read it.
-
There is a way to effect change. Get on the Adobe forums, fill out bug reports, etc. If enough people report a bug or desire a change they won't ignore it. They may not fix it overnight though but keep on them.
I can't speak for others, but I routinely express my disappointment on several Adobe forum categories when warranted .... Even in the light of mounting contrary evidence that Adobe is not putting forth their best effort ... I am told by others that frequent there too, it's more or less my fault for downloading the update or expecting to use the software so soon to the release date ...
So, if we all diligently follow that sage advice ... And ... If no users download the update ... How is Adobe ever going to be aware they have errors to correct? If we all do follow that advice, what are we paying a subscription fee for?
-
Adobe Feature Request/Bug Report (http://www.adobe.com/products/wishform.html)
-
Adobe Feature Request/Bug Report (http://www.adobe.com/products/wishform.html)
Hi Ron,
Yes, that's the formal process. If one thinks one has a bug to report, send it to Adobe and they say they normally will not reply to you (why not?). "We normally do not send personal replies to feature requests or bug reports."
Apparently, that process is not working too well. In fact, things seem to be getting worse. Contrary to the past, each recent update seems to break something that used to work before. To me, that means that users need to get more vocal for their own benefit (rather than sitting back and wait for others to do the work for them).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Adobe Feature Request/Bug Report (http://www.adobe.com/products/wishform.html)
Been there. Done that. Still doing that. No results whatsoever on several issues.
It is indeed the proper channel ... but participation there lacks any sort of sense of accomplishment for the effort as the results speak for themselves.
-
I only have experience with CC PS and Lr. Like you, I think they've taken their eye off the goal for the desktop apps. Perhaps the same is true for the rest of the CC app family. I don't know.
They sure rev their mobile apps and they seem to work well. Again, I only use the mobile apps that interface well with PS and Lr.
Please don't think that I'm condoning their behavior as I'm just as frustrated by their buggy updates as everyone else.
I still think their eye is on mobile as that seems like everyone's new mantra. Billions of mobile devices vs millions of desktops.
Since the normal channels aren't effective I don't know how to get their attention unless we publish the email addresses for the appropriate product managers and fill their in-boxes.
-
AFAIK Tom Hogarty is still the head product honcho at Adobe for all things photography.
https://blogs.adobe.com/photoshop/author/tom-hogarty