Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: zobeleye on April 06, 2018, 05:09:26 am
-
Hi there,
after the upgrade I notice, when I press <R> to crop, it always switches to the picture I've cropped before, with the crop frame around it and then it opens the one I'm actually working on. Small bug, but pretty annoying, when doing a lot of work.
Hopefully fixed by the next corrective update...
How about You ? having the same thing happening ?
cheers
Z
-
Yes, seeing the same thing on Windows 10 system. It happens very fast but quite noticeable.
Interestingly it seems to always remember the last crop you did and even changing folders the initial flash shows the previous image for a fraction of a second.
-
I'd noticed it (W10) but the wrong image disappears so quickly on my machine that I'd not even thought of it as a bug, and personally I wouldn't put a very high priority on fixing it.
However, it's possibly simply to fix (check for the correct image before rendering the screen) so I would expect it to be done sooner rather than later.
-
Seems a Windows bug, can't replicate on the Mac version.
-
I am on 10.13.3...
-
I am on 10.13.3...
I'm no 10.13.4 but I don't think that's the difference. Again, no issue on this end. Maybe reset your preferences?
-
Seems a Windows bug, can't replicate on the Mac version.
Hi,
I'm on a Mac, OS X El Capitan 10.11.6. I get that effect, it is just a flash of the previous image crop, almost too fast to see the effect in some cases. It does not repeat once I've used the crop tool on an image,but reappears with the next image. Not an issue for me, but the bug is real.
-
Hi,
I'm on a Mac, OS X El Capitan 10.11.6. I get that effect, it is just a flash of the previous image crop, almost too fast to see the effect in some cases. It does not repeat once I've used the crop tool on an image,but reappears with the next image. Not an issue for me, but the bug is real.
Try messing with GPU settings....
-
I am using the GPU.
I just imported a few images and tried the crop tool on these. If the effect is still there, it is much too short to see. And just tried with older images, and here too there is no sign of that effect. So, en français: mystère et boule de gomme!
-
And if GPU is off?
-
Interesting, I don't see this at all.. Windows 10.
-
And if GPU is off?
Will try when back in my studio. But for the last number of tries the effect is either not there or simply too quick to be seen.
-
And if GPU is off?
Win10
GPU on has the issue.
GPU off does not have the issue.
It is worse if the new image is a different orientation from the first. Portrait to Landscape and vice-versa are much more noticeable.
-
Win10
GPU on has the issue.
GPU off does not have the issue.
There you go! That's why often, it needs to be turned off.
-
having the same thing happening ?
I just triedout , yes, happening here, too. Though it's really very fast.
-
There you go! That's why often, it needs to be turned off.
Hi again,
Well, it appears that the effect of showing, very briefly, the last image edited when opening up a new image (crop or no crop) is not there if I set the GPU to off. With GPU acceleration on, there a brief, and I mean brief, flash of the previous image. I don't really know what benefit, if any, having the GPU acceleration on gives the LR performance, I've had it 'on' since I moved from an older MacPro desktop my iMac (27" retina). I'll try using it both ways and se if there are any differences in my workflow.
On a separate note, I miss having the B&W tab in the HAS/Color panel. When working in B&W I found it useful to briefly check the colour image in order to pick a hue to vary in B&W; now it requires a trip to the Basic panel.
-
On a separate note, I miss having the B&W tab in the HAS/Color panel. When working in B&W I found it useful to briefly check the colour image in order to pick a hue to vary in B&W; now it requires a trip to the Basic panel.
Just press the letter V (English version) and V again to return to B&W
Unfortunately, there is a bug which resets the B&W sliders.
-
Just press the letter V (English version) and V again to return to B&W
Unfortunately, there is a bug which resets the B&W sliders.
Thanks for the note re: V. But if the B&W sliders reset to zeroes, that becomes of no use. I imagine that since LR now has b&w profiles, they removed the preset b&w conversion. I can live with the new method, I modify b&w conversions pretty much for every image anyway.
-
Thanks for the note re: V. But if the B&W sliders reset to zeroes, that becomes of no use. I imagine that since LR now has b&w profiles, they removed the preset b&w conversion. I can live with the new method, I modify b&w conversions pretty much for every image anyway.
So to go back to colour, hit V. Then use Undo to return to the B&W sliders. It's a workaround for now.
There are other bugs in this area. The Previous button fails to copy B&W slider values, and B&W Mix is missing from the Copy Settings dialog. I'm sure that this is all a result of introducing the B&W profiles, but I don't believe it is deliberate. Just stuff that they didn't wire up in time.
-
Just stuff that they didn't wire up in time.
In time for what? Because someone in management sets artificial deadlines to release versions and the staff can't make sure all the QA is done before the product goes to market? This has become a traditional trait, where updates cause things that used to work to be broken, not get fixed before release because of insufficiently thorough testing, and then it takes the customers to find out and complain. This seems to me like not a good MO, and it would take a certain amount of solid argument to convince me it can't be done better.
-
I’m with you, Mark. With each release with new features we all feel like beta testers.
I’m just happy the Adobe doesn’t build software for aircraft.
-
I’m with you, Mark. With each release with new features we all feel like beta testers.
Which isn't true of virtually all software?
-
For some time I have observed posts on Adobe updates, noting every issue that can be found and bashing their quality control. Having spent much of my career using various electronic systems in corporate america from extremely large corporations as well as small local companies and municipalities, I am amazed at how good their updates actually are. In banking, which you would think would be top tier as far as quality control, there are always issues with an update. In payroll, I have seen updates which prevented the issuance of W-2's in a timely manner. And don't get me started with products designed for municipalities... Without going into details, I can't think of an upgrade that didn't have problems, some major. Also, many of these systems require you to buy a certain computer for access, none of this "I think I will buy this xyz component because it is cutting edge or I can save $50" attitude. I pretty much buy what I want, plug it in and Adobe still works! :D
We should make Adobe aware of the bugs. Recognize also they are not resting on their prior success, but continue to bring forward new and useful tools. At the price I am paying for the capabilities of the software I am receiving, I am very satisfied and have been for years. I only wish other companies were this good.
Miles
-
Which isn't true of virtually all software?
My experiences are likely limited. I find few bugs with Apple software, including FCP X 10.4. I haven’t found nearly as many bugs with Photomatix Pro, Aurora HDR, Luminar, etc. or even Photoshop.
What is irritating about Lightroom bugs is that they are breaking things that previously worked.
-
What is irritating about Lightroom bugs is that they are breaking things that previously worked.
Quite common with lots of software products. As a plug-in developer for PS, that product is not immune from the exact behavior you applied to LR. This comment is based on nearly two decades of experience (engineering is expensive to fix bugs that appear out of “nowhere”)!
-
...and my comments are based on over 20 years of software development in Fortune 100 companies and testing with automated tools. These things do not need to escape testing.
-
So to go back to colour, hit V. Then use Undo to return to the B&W sliders. It's a workaround for now.
And it avoids cluttering up the history, so it's not a bad thing anyway. I've always done it like that, as it happens.
Jeremy
-
And it avoids cluttering up the history, so it's not a bad thing anyway. I've always done it like that, as it happens.
Jeremy
Thanks again for the note about "V". It is unfortunate that the sliders return to all zeroes, but no big deal as it just means picking the last adjustment in history. And since my b&w conversions are always on a virtual copy, the new way of working simply becomes the new norm.
-
In time for what? Because someone in management sets artificial deadlines to release versions and the staff can't make sure all the QA is done before the product goes to market? This has become a traditional trait, where updates cause things that used to work to be broken, not get fixed before release because of insufficiently thorough testing, and then it takes the customers to find out and complain. This seems to me like not a good MO, and it would take a certain amount of solid argument to convince me it can't be done better.
Yes ...wasn't that one of the key selling features of switching to the CC subscription model? It was too tough and unfair for the engineers to try and meet an arbitrary date on the calendar. With CC, they wouldn't be held to hard and fast deadlines and new features would be delivered when they were ready. Seems they still suffer from self-imposed deadlines and deliver new versions that haven't been fully vetted.
-
Quite common with lots of software products. As a plug-in developer for PS, that product is not immune from the exact behavior you applied to LR. This comment is based on nearly two decades of experience (engineering is expensive to fix bugs that appear out of “nowhere”)!
While I do not expect every version release to be pure perfection, it's quite clear whatever standards Adobe has in place could be expanded or improved. Many of the issues with Lightroom over the past couple of years were not insignificant outliers that were not revealed until a broader user base discovered them.
-
While I do not expect every version release to be pure perfection, it's quite clear whatever standards Adobe has in place could be expanded or improved.
Remove Adobe, add any number of companies, the generalization is true.
Many of the issues with Lightroom over the past couple of years were not insignificant outliers that were not revealed until a broader user base discovered them.
Do provide a competitive matrix after defining what is insignificant and how many were detected by 'broader user base', then we can examine actual data.
-
Remove Adobe, add any number of companies, the generalization is true. Do provide a competitive matrix after defining what is insignificant and how many were detected by 'broader user base', then we can examine actual data.
Andrew, I've never been terribly enthused by that idea that just because companies W, X, Y do such and such, it's also OK for company Z. Maybe all of them need to improve a bit.
That said, I think basically Adobe does a pretty good job of it. If any one were able or willing to research the evidence you are calling for, my prediction is that there would be slim pickings. The annoyance doesn't come from quantity, it comes from a disconnect between user expectations and occurrence, even if the latter are few in number. It's natural to wonder why, if a commonly used item X worked well before and doesn't now, that it wasn't picked-up in QA before release, especially if it weren't an arcane issue that happens only on very unusual system configurations. For these, it's reasonable to expect that only user experience would pick them up.
-
Remove Adobe, add any number of companies, the generalization is true. Do provide a competitive matrix after defining what is insignificant and how many were detected by 'broader user base', then we can examine actual data.
Andrew ... you, yourself have lamented on more than a few issues that new releases from Adobe have caused. Like I said, I don't expect pure perfection from Adobe or any other developer, but Adobe is more than capable of stepping up their game in this respect and doing a better job.
-
Andrew ... you, yourself have lamented on more than a few issues that new releases from Adobe have caused.
Yes I have. And it's virtually no different with other software products. The difference is, I'm not stating, without data, that LR is worse or better than other products. As someone who's used Adobe products for 28 years, I don't believe they are worse or better than (fill in the blank) software.
-
Andrew, I've never been terribly enthused by that idea that just because companies W, X, Y do such and such, it's also OK for company Z. Maybe all of them need to improve a bit.
I didn't say it was OK, I said it's not a perfect software world and all software has bugs. It cost some of us, who have to pay engineers to fix the issues more than others who just use the product. I don't like it, I accept it, I find bitching about it doesn't really help. I find being an unpaid beta tester (for Adobe since Photoshop 2.5) at least attempts to aid the companies in fixing their bugs but I don't expect that will always occur.
-
I didn't say it was OK, I said it's not a perfect software world and all software has bugs. It cost some of us, who have to pay engineers to fix the issues more than others who just use the product. I don't like it, I accept it, I find bitching about it doesn't really help. I find being an unpaid beta tester (for Adobe since Photoshop 2.5) at least attempts to aid the companies in fixing their bugs but I don't expect that will always occur.
I agree with you - it's not a perfect software world. It's not a perfect anything in life and of course we have to accept that. But I wouldn't classify discussion about things that aren't working as "bitching"; nor would I classify some degree of lamentation or critique about things that aren't working as "bitching". The discussion and the lamentation/critique are useful for the product providers to notice and evaluate when formulating their forward-looking policies. There are different forums for doing that, this being one of them. The beta testing is of course essential but I don't think it displaces the usefulness of customer commentary.
-
But I wouldn't classify discussion about things that aren't working as "bitching"; nor would I classify some degree of lamentation or critique about things that aren't working as "bitching".
Speaking of bugs in generalities as I've seen isn't useful. Nor is accusing a company of having more than another without data to back it up.
Speaking of specifics is useful and one reason Adobe has a UtoU forum. And then the answer for those who are not on the prerelease is to file a bug report with Adobe or any other company that has such provisions. Specifically for Adobe, one goes here:
https://www.adobe.com/products/wishform.html (https://www.adobe.com/products/wishform.html)
-
It would be (would have been) helpful if Adobe included all of the changes, and reasons for those, in their release document. They listed the new profiles, moving dehaze, and such but ignored other ones. I m sure that I am not the only user that went: "hey, where is the B&W tab?". I can guess (I am not a programmer) the reason for that, but it would have ben nice to be informed about it. My guess is that the conversion is now done in one of the b&w profiles, and that the generic one that was the default in the old tab was made into the new monochrome profile.
-
Speaking of bugs in generalities as I've seen isn't useful. Nor is accusing a company of having more than another without data to back it up.
Speaking of specifics is useful and one reason Adobe has a UtoU forum. And then the answer for those who are not on the prerelease is to file a bug report with Adobe or any other company that has such provisions. Specifically for Adobe, one goes here:
https://www.adobe.com/products/wishform.html (https://www.adobe.com/products/wishform.html)
Andrew, people here have been raising specific issues and no-one accused Adobe of having more than others; Adobe just happens to be the company of interest here because it's there application being discussed. There's no reason why discussion of apparent bugs or anomalies needs to be confined to Adobe's bug reporting system. This forum is a legitimate place to discuss user experience as are other forums. I do agree, however, that the most useful place to report an apparent bug is where you indicate - that gets to them directly and we know they read it. It's any one's guess who reads what here.
-
Andrew, people here have been raising specific issues and no-one accused Adobe of having more than others...
My impression from post #30. I'm told there this is all quite clear yet no data to back it up.
-
Yes, several examples would be helpful to support the generalities being proposed there.
-
Yes I have. And it's virtually no different with other software products. The difference is, I'm not stating, without data, that LR is worse or better than other products. As someone who's used Adobe products for 28 years, I don't believe they are worse or better than (fill in the blank) software.
I never said Lightroom was better or worse in the respect of bugs and/or other issues ... only that Adobe is more than capable of doing a better job.
I too have been using Adobe products for a long time ... since 1992 Psv2.0 and dozens of of other apps since ... licensing for as many as 14 seats for individual apps and multiple entire suites ... Today I have 5 full package subscriptions, over half a dozen individual app subscriptions and the Photography package for personal use ... All I'm saying, if Adobe wants a captive audience with the subscription licensing model ... and ... they are no longer under set in granite update schedules, perhaps they could take a few more days, add a couple more private beta testers to broaden their scope and drastically reduce such issues. If that is an unfair assertion, so be it. It's what I think about the subject. If you disagree ... it won't be the first time. :)
-
I never said Lightroom was better or worse in the respect of bugs and/or other issues ... only that Adobe is more than capable of doing a better job.
You said the following, forgive me for accepting it as stated:
it's quite clear whatever standards Adobe has in place could be expanded or improved. Many of the issues with Lightroom over the past couple of years were not insignificant outliers that were not revealed until a broader user base discovered them.
Is this unique to LR and Adobe? Is LR worse than other products? Possible but let's see some data to back it up, not impressions of outliers.
-
...............drastically reduce such issues.
I don't think any reasonable person would deny there are issues. It would be amazing if there weren't any. But when you say "drastically reduce", it renders the impression that there are a large number of them. I haven't done any inventory nor could I or would I intend to, but it just seems to me that there aren't enough of them to talk about "drastically reduce". For example, if there were ten of which they caught five pre-release, is that a drastic reduction? - maybe it's getting there; if there were two of which they caught one, would that qualify as a drastic reduction? Both are 50% - but it's how one uses the language. I don't live Adobe's shoes but I wouldn't surprised if pre-release there were a very large number of them, and upon release there remain several. So perhaps the drastic reduction has occurred before we knew it and we're just seeing the tail end they missed for some reason. I don't think that changes peoples' disappointment when something which worked before gets broken and not caught, but we should keep it all in perspective.
-
Here's what would probably drastically reduce such issues:
Develop software for one OS!
Develop software for one group of hardware (just examine GPU issues which are tied to hardware that differs).
Get better prerelease testers that concentrate on finding bugs instead of going OT (a few here might know what I'm talking about from direct experience, if not I can't comment further) ::)
Only provide software to customers that recognize that all software has bugs and that if they are in a production environment maybe they should wait a few months before upgrading their software.
Recognize it's impossible to please all the people (most of the people) all the time. That complaining is often more useful to them than reporting issues to the source that can fix the issue.
-
Is LR worse than other products? Possible but let's see some data to back it up, not impressions of outliers.
Data, Schmata ... the only data I care about is if the app(s) I pay for work as intended.
I don't care one iota what the data is when comparing issues for Adobe products with other developers. If I have a problem with a Chevy Silverado ... how does comparing issues with a comparable Ford F150 going to solve my issue? GM is ultimately responsible for clearing up the issue, not Ford.
As I have indicated before, we had to roll back Lightroom four times during the lifecycle of the 6.x version. I don't ever recall such instances for any previous version cycles for LR or any other Adobe app we rely on for our livelihood spanning 3 decades of use. That's the only metric I care about. You may consider such instances as the status quo of the industry, but that doesn't solve the issue. Especially since Adobe doesn't refund even a portion of fees for such instances.
Adobe has a track record of late for update releases that flat out break long standing workflows. I firmly believe that a little more attention to detail, prior to the release, could go a long way in combatting those issues. With the subscription model, they are no longer compelled to hit a hard and fast target date. Why is it wrong to expect them spend just a bit more effort in QC before they release updates?
If you disagree and want to give them a pass on this topic ... by all means do so ... but that won't solve the problem either.
-
Data, Schmata ... the only data I care about is if the app(s) I pay for work as intended.
Without data, you're just a person with an opinion.
-
Without data, you're just a person with an opinion.
And that ... is your opinion.
-
And that ... is your opinion.
The absurd is the last refuge of a pundit without an argument.
-
The absurd is the last refuge of a pundit without an argument.
Indeed
-
OK, can we revert the thread from sparring to content? Any other bugs to be observed for LR 7.3, or is the subject exhausted. If the latter, it's a good release!
-
OK, can we revert the thread from sparring to content?
You take the words from my mouth, Mark.
Jeremy
-
In the spirit of the original issue, I am not sure I would call this a bug or just a glitch of poor programming. To me (and I code a lot of research and teaching software), a bug is something that produces an wrong result or inhibits use. It seems to me this momentary display of the last cropped image doesn't ultimately prevent the software from doing the right thing... just annoys and slows the user.
As mentioned in this thread and many others, Adobe's use of graphics card specific acceleration has displayed worse problems in the past. I generally turn it off.
-
OK, can we revert the thread from sparring to content? Any other bugs to be observed for LR 7.3, or is the subject exhausted. If the latter, it's a good release!
Since you asked....
I have found that the “camera matching” b&w profiles did not seem to have any color info. That is, the (HSL) B&W section did not have any color sliders. Other B&W profiles, including “legacy” do.
I found this to be true for Panasonic G9, G85, and GH5. also, Canon M3. I assume others are the same.
Actually, it maybe “as designed”, but I am not sure the reason as these profiles are created by Adobe in the same manner as the other b&w profiles.
-
Well, this is a carry over from 7.2, but the as shot WB does not show in develop. If you select another WB and then as shot again, then the slider will show the as shot WB.
-
Well, this is a carry over from 7.2, but the as shot WB does not show in develop. If you select another WB and then as shot again, then the slider will show the as shot WB.
Agreed, easy to work around but it is a bother.
-
Profiles are not syncing for me.
If I edit a photo, change the profile, and then go to the next photo and press the previous button, all the editing is brought across, but the profile selection is not. It's the same if I select the two photos and sync settings, with all options selected. The profile doesn't change.
MacOS 10.13.4
Sony A7R3 raw files.
-
A version 7.3.1 has just been released - bug fixes (https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/help/whats-new.html#lr-classic-cc-7-3-1) re preset sorting, syncing B&W settings, and backup catalog corruption (Windows).
-
Since version 7.3 I'm having a consistent issue where when the program sits idle for an hour or so, it gets into "thinking" mode and won't come out. I have to kill it and open again to continue work. I've tried to isolate plugins to make sure they aren't doing something to create it but so far that doesn't seem to make any difference. This latest release does it as well I've just verified it.
-
from dpreview:
the software giant (ADOBE) is back with an apology and a slew of bug fixes in the form of Adobe Lightroom Classic CC 7.3.1.
The release went live this morning, complete with this apology on the Adobe blog:
"We heard your feedback and felt that parts of the release didn’t uphold the level of quality that we hold ourselves to.
We’re happy to report that these issues were resolved and now available for immediate download.
Some of the issues resolved included converting presets, sorting and copying/pasting profiles, translation errors, along with crash fixes."
----
What i don't understand is that these bugs are very easy to spot as soon a someone works with it.
So, why not test it before putting it out?
There is no rush?/ deadline?
It saves many people/ users a lot of frustration.
I read Adobe make more money, but i guess it all goes to the shareholders...
Maybe an idea to hire a bunch of people to test new updates...
-
https://www.dpreview.com/news/1854903020/adobe-releases-important-bug-fixes-for-lightroom-classic-cc
-
Thank God, they fixed it...
cheers
Z
-
No time to check if already reported... I noticed that the crop tool tends to show momentarily a view of the previously cropped image, before showing the frame of the current image.
Lr Classic CC 7.3.1 under macOS 10.13.4.
-
No time to check if already reported... I noticed that the crop tool tends to show momentarily a view of the previously cropped image, before showing the frame of the current image.
Lr Classic CC 7.3.1 under macOS 10.13.4.
See page 1 of this thread.
Disabling the graphic card acceleration fixes that (as recommend by Andrew), not that it is a real problem as the very brief show of the previous crop is just that: brief.
-
See page 1 of this thread.
Disabling the graphic card acceleration fixes that (as recommend by Andrew), not that it is a real problem as the very brief show of the previous crop is just that: brief.
Right. The bug fix version 7.3.1 did not fix that.
-
yes it did...
-
yes it did...
Not for me on my two Macs. (Crop mode display bug).
Hopefully soon enough. It's jarring :)
-
ColorChecker Camera Profiles Problem:
While I was away on an extended trip, the new 7.3.1 was released to fix problems. On my return the other day, I updated the program thru CC.
Now, I have the latest version of LR installed, with latest Apple OS. Having updated to 7.3.1, I find my ColorChecker Profiles for my Olympus E-M1 Mkii (and all other cameras previously profiled)) are not available on my primary iMac, but are available on my MacBook Pro. So I know I am looking for them in the new, proper place :) I tried copying (while the file names looked identical, I thought there might be something I was missing) the ColorProfiles folder (which does show the files) from the MBP onto the iMac, but that didn't make them available on the iMac. They are also not available on the iMac in Photoshop (which I understand uses the same files).
With the return of daylight, I re-shot the Olympus and a Panasonic camera, processed the raws thru LR and the ColorChecker Passport process in LR, and LR said it had successfully created both camera profiles. Yet when I restarted LR and looked at raw files from those cameras, there were no custom profiles available . None of the profiles are available for ANY camera for which I had created a profile. The newly-created files are there in Users->iMac->Library->Application Support->Adobe->CameraRaw->CameraProfiles:
Olympus E-M1 Mk II.dcp and Panasonic LX10.dcp.
I even tried copying them to the other Library, where I also see files for Camera Profiles, but that has no effect
Anyone have any thoughts as to what to do? All I can access are the standard profiles from Adobe. I am pretty sure I could previously access camera-specific profiles from Adobe, but they are not shown in the drop-downs. The more things change, the more....
-
ColorChecker Camera Profiles Problem:
While I was away on an extended trip, the new 7.3.1 was released to fix problems. On my return the other day, I updated the program thru CC.
Now, I have the latest version of LR installed, with latest Apple OS. Having updated to 7.3.1, I find my ColorChecker Profiles for my Olympus E-M1 Mkii (and all other cameras previously profiled)) are not available on my primary iMac, but are available on my MacBook Pro. So I know I am looking for them in the new, proper place :) I tried copying (while the file names looked identical, I thought there might be something I was missing) the ColorProfiles folder (which does show the files) from the MBP onto the iMac, but that didn't make them available on the iMac. They are also not available on the iMac in Photoshop (which I understand uses the same files).
With the return of daylight, I re-shot the Olympus and a Panasonic camera, processed the raws thru LR and the ColorChecker Passport process in LR, and LR said it had successfully created both camera profiles. Yet when I restarted LR and looked at raw files from those cameras, there were no custom profiles available . None of the profiles are available for ANY camera for which I had created a profile. The newly-created files are there in Users->iMac->Library->Application Support->Adobe->CameraRaw->CameraProfiles:
Olympus E-M1 Mk II.dcp and Panasonic LX10.dcp.
I even tried copying them to the other Library, where I also see files for Camera Profiles, but that has no effect
Anyone have any thoughts as to what to do? All I can access are the standard profiles from Adobe. I am pretty sure I could previously access camera-specific profiles from Adobe, but they are not shown in the drop-downs. The more things change, the more....
Confusingly the location of the selection of camera profiles has changed in the latest version of Lightroom. They were in the ‘Calibration’ panel (Develop Module) but are now available in the ‘Basic’ panel of the Develop Module, at the top between the ‘Treatment’ and the white balance sliders.
I hope this helps.
-
This might be particular to my computer. If I am in Develop and use the adjustment brush to make a change, the change is not visible if I do a full screen (F). I must create a new 1:1 preview and then the result is visible. The same also happens if I go to PS and make changes. When I come back to LR the changes are not visible until a new preview is created. In other words, previews are not updated when changes are made.
Larry
-
This might be particular to my computer. If I am in Develop and use the adjustment brush to make a change, the change is not visible if I do a full screen (F). I must create a new 1:1 preview and then the result is visible. The same also happens if I go to PS and make changes. When I come back to LR the changes are not visible until a new preview is created. In other words, previews are not updated when changes are made.
Larry
Do you have your Performance options (in Preferences) set to their defaults?
-
I have increased the cache size to 60gb. and Generate previews in parallel is checked. Otherwise I do not know what the defaults are.
Larry
-
Unchecking Generate previews in parallel seems to fix the problem.
Larry
-
Mine are attached and work. More generally here is a reference that may help: Optimize Performance (https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/kb/optimize-performance-lightroom.html), but if you've fixed it, that's good!