Lightroom really DOES suck

[john beardsworth]

And just what did Jeremy remember that belongs on the list you can't create? I can't find it in these three pages.

That 's because you can't read. I said "previous thread".

And again, the things that have been removed (that was a typo and a clue) just aren't important any more - they're gone. Who gives a fxck that my memory happens to be better than yours, in this case? What is important is that removals have happened before, they were bloody annoying at the time, but people adapt and move on.

[Rhossydd]

FROM customers, ...... IF they setup the properly configured targets, I can measure them in a device that is VERY picky about scaling;

So in other words you have to rescale the targets for Windows customers because if they use ACPU it will resize the target.
Those of us that still use PMP for some tasks can't print from it anyway.

This is really off topic now, but you're being very obtuse about the fact that features have gone from PS in the past that users found useful. Just go back and read the complaints about the NCM option's removal decision here at the time of CS5's release.

[digitaldog]

That 's because you can't read. I said "previous thread".

What friggin Previous Thread John? There are a few thousands in these parts. Seems more evidence you can't support your claims.

And again, the things that have been removed (that was a typo and a clue) just aren't important any more - they're gone. Who gives a fxck that my memory happens to be better than yours, in this case? What is important is that removals have happened before, they were bloody annoying at the time, but people adapt and move on.

What 'things' John? As the LR expert, you should have no issues providing a list. Since I asked for this list, (post #76), you've posted half a dozen times without specifying a single item that was removed. Telling! It appears you're unable as the LR export to back your claim, that's cool. You should probably ping a real LR expert like Schewe or Victoria Bampton, maybe they can help you assemble that list. Until then, it may be factual that features in LR have disappeared since version 1, but it appears you're not able to supply anything factual for us to accept. That puts your credibility in a bind IMHO.

[digitaldog]

So in other words you have to rescale the targets for Windows customers because if they use ACPU it will resize the target.

Nope, not at all. I have no idea what customers are on Windows or Mac unless they tell me, they ALL get the same targets and print them using ACPU.

Those of us that still use PMP for some tasks can't print from it anyway.

Why not?

This is really off topic now, but you're being very obtuse about the fact that features have gone from PS in the past that users found useful. Just go back and read the complaints about the NCM option's removal decision here at the time of CS5's release.

Features (printing without color management) were moved, not removed; the functionality exists in a free product that does work (at least for my customers). Printing without color management is useful to what customers outside those printing targets, a task that any decent profile creating product provides directly.

[john beardsworth]

What friggin Previous Thread John? There are a few thousands in these parts. Seems more evidence you can't support your claims. What 'things' John? As the LR expert, you should have no issues providing a list. Since I asked for this list, (post #76), you've posted half a dozen times without specifying a single item that was removed. Telling! It appears you're unable as the LR export to back your claim, that's cool. You should probably ping a real LR expert like Schewe or Victoria Bampton, maybe they can help you assemble that list. Until then, it may be factual that features in LR have disappeared since version 1, but it appears you're not able to supply anything factual for us to accept. That puts your credibility in a bind IMHO.

You're getting dangerously close to going unpleasantly ad hominem, Andrew..... I'm perfectly happy to spit back.

So again, the things that have been removed just aren't important any more - they're gone. Who gives a fxck that my memory happens to be better than yours, in this case? What is important is that removals have happened before, they were bloody annoying at the time, but people adapt and move on.

Did you understand this time?

[Rhossydd]

Nope, not at all. I have no idea what customers are on Windows or Mac unless they tell me, they ALL get the same targets and print them using ACPU.

So how does that work then ? ACPU resizes the charts on Windows by about 6%.

If you recall, I did a lot of research on this at the time and spent a lot of time understanding how the XML data references for charts were structured and worked, then rewriting them to allow the charts printed by ACPU to allow them to be automatically read. Wade back through the CM forum and you'll see all the results and solutions I posted at the time.

Why not?

Because it doesn't have a print option.

Features (printing without color management) were moved, not removed;

OK, so where were was the print with no colour management "moved" to in to PS CS5 ? and if you know the answer to that why didn't you point it out at the time ?

[Rhossydd]

So again, the things that have been removed just aren't important any more - they're gone. Who gives a fxck that my memory happens to be better than yours, in this case?

If you want any credibility as as "expert" saying "I know and you don't" doesn't work.

[pegelli]

What is important is that removals have happened before, they were bloody annoying at the time, but people adapt and move on.

I'm not an expert at all but long time user of Lightroom (since beta 1) and my conclusion from Andrew and your ping-pong match is that there were either none (I can't remember any and if I were even mildly annoyed by them I would remember) or if there were some they were either useless (to me) or replaced with better/different functionality.

But, I'm happy to be proven wrong if someone would produce a list and stop this mad contest which is highly amusing but not very useful if you want to learn something 

[john beardsworth]

If you want any credibility as as "expert" saying "I know and you don't" doesn't work.

So? That isn't what I am saying, is it? Quite the contrary, "Who gives a fxck that my memory happens to be better than yours, in this case? What is important is that removals have happened before, they were bloody annoying at the time, but people adapt and move on."

[digitaldog]

You're getting dangerously close to going unpleasantly ad hominem, Andrew..... I'm perfectly happy to spit back.

Please do John as you're totally unable to simply answer questions asked of you to back up your claims. You (and I) could save precious time if you'd simply answer the question asked of you repeatedly. That you can't appears to me, perhaps others (I hope) that your text about items being removed is bogus. I believe it is very possible this could and did occur but since you can't back up your claim, perhaps it didn't until this egregious dot release where useful and expected functionality (Move, Eject Card) were clearly removed. The root of this "argument'.

So again, the things that have been removed just aren't important any more - they're gone.

Nice of you to speak for everyone! Truth is, I might actually agree with you IF you could pull up even 1 feature that was removed. You either can't or will not.

Who gives a fxck that my memory happens to be better than yours, in this case?

I do! Can you assist or are you unable, I'll ask a real LR expert.

What is important is that removals have happened before, they were bloody annoying at the time, but people adapt and move on.

Adapt from what point? You can't tell me, you can only state your opinion which isn't apparently fact based (fine, I know now to ignore you’re text on this product).

Did you understand this time?

What I understand is, you made a statement you'd like me and others to accept as fact. But you can't provide an ounce of proof despite me asking now a good half a dozen times. What I understand is, you've been called out, you've been requested to share your expertise on features removed in LR and you can't or will not. I don't know why you have to make it so difficult unless your original statement is groundless. Which is it John?

[digitaldog]

But, I'm happy to be proven wrong if someone would produce a list and stop this mad contest which is highly amusing but not very useful if you want to learn something 

As would I, really I would. It would add to my LR education. I can't find any kind of list on the web of items removed. So we have two possibilities: John is correct or John is full of poop. I haven't made any decision about which is which but the longer John wiggles out of providing the answer asked of him, as a LR expert, my suspicion is, he's making this stuff up.

[john beardsworth]

I'm not an expert at all but long time user of Lightroom (since beta 1) and my conclusion from Andrew and your ping-pong match is that there were either none (I can't remember any and if I were even mildly annoyed them I would remember) or if there were some they were either useless (to me) or replaced with better/different functionality.

But, I'm happy to be proven wrong if someone would produce a list and stop this mad contest which is highly amusing but not very useful if you want to learn something 

It'll be even more amusing when the Digital Dog has to admit I'm right, if I ever let him off the hook. The more he whines on, the less likely that is! But seriously, the point really isn't whether I remember one that he has forgotten, it's that Adobe have removed features before and that people do adapt.

You may think that there were none, but Jeremy did recall one.

[john beardsworth]

As would I, really I would. It would add to my LR education. I can't find any kind of list on the web of items removed. So we have two possibilities: John is corrected or John is full of poop. I haven't made any decision about which is which but the longer John wiggles out of providing the answer asked of him, as a LR expert, my suspicion is, he's making this stuff up.

Again, I'll remind you I'm perfectly happy to throw your shit back at you....

So, who gives a fxck that my memory happens to be better than yours, in this case? What is important is that removals have happened before, they were bloody annoying at the time, but people adapt and move on. Got it this time?

[digitaldog]

So how does that work then ? ACPU resizes the charts on Windows by about 6%.

Yes, on Windows there is a bug (OT but Adobe once fixed it, but I don't believe ever released it; I have a copy  )
So the big issue with scaling occurs with auto Spectrophotometer's like my iSis. If the patches are off, it barfs. MY target takes into account this possibility such that even if scaling occurs, I can measure MY targets without issue. If you're using a handheld device, that scaling will not have any affect unless of course you end up printing patches outside the margins! My targets don't do that.

So again OT but yes, there's a bug in ACPU on Windows that can occur. But no, it doesn't provide any issues for me with my auto Spectrophotometer and my targets. I have literally hundreds of saved CGATS files from customers all over the world, Mac and Windows and IF the user follows my instructions, I can and I do measure their targets printed from ACPU. All the time.


For folks building their own profiles, this is totally moot, the product creating the targets should print them without color management. For a dog like me, who has to deal with customers all over, with differing operating systems and copies of Photoshop, it should be a major PITA using ACPU but the facts are, outside of user error, my targets measure just fine.

[pegelli]

It'll be even more amusing when the Digital Dog has to admit I'm right, if I ever let him off the hook. The more he whines on, the less likely that is! But seriously, the point really isn't whether I remember one that he has forgotten, it's that Adobe have removed features before and that people do adapt.

You may think that there were none, but Jeremy did recall one.

You're probably right that items were removed but I don't think these removals were "bloody annoying". Because if they were I'm sure I (and a lot more people) would remember.

On a scale of annoyance where we put the change in the import module at 100 the items you refer to are (my guess) probably below 5, if not lower.

And I do hope you let us all off the hook (incl. Andrew). This is a public forum where people come to learn and not just to watch amusing but senseless ego-clashing.

[digitaldog]

Again, I'll remind you I'm perfectly happy to throw your shit back at you....
So, who gives a fxck that my memory happens to be better than yours, in this case? What is important is that removals have happened before, they were bloody annoying at the time, but people adapt and move on. Got it this time?

You can throw all you want John, but the poop is all on your shoulders with your inability to back up your so called expertise regarding LR features (removed or otherwise). Let's move on, it's clear you can't provide any facts to back up your statement. There's no reason for me to embarrass you further. Now IF indeed features were removed, we have something to further discuss. But at this point in time, you're just digging yourself into a deeper hole here. First law on holes - when you're in one, stop digging!

[digitaldog]

It'll be even more amusing when the Digital Dog has to admit I'm right, if I ever let him off the hook.

IF and WHEN you provide some facts of features removed, I'll be happy to say you're right. You'll note too that I never said you were wrong and that no features have ever been removed (useful to point out when you say I can't read). I said I want a list, even if that contains one item. Days after asking you to refresh my memory, you still haven't. So what should I make of your behavior John? I'm asking a self described LR expert a simple question of which so called expert has spent considerable time ignoring, diverting from answering. I don't know why you have to make this so difficult; simple question (again) since version 1, what features have been removed from LR?



“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”
-Søren Kierkegaard

[john beardsworth]

You're probably right that items were removed but I don't think these removals were "bloody annoying". Because if they were I'm sure I (and a lot more people) would remember.

On a scale of annoyance where we put the change in the import module at 100 the items you refer to are (my guess) probably below 5, if not lower.

Well, I find one of them bloody annoying enough to remember it, while the one Jeremy recalled was controversial at the time. But generally, people have forgotten and adapted.

Individually, the previous removals were about the same level as each of the recent ones. I think the big difference here was that the recent change bundled half a dozen removals together, all in the same area and all in the same dot release. Add to the mix the unexpectedly-wide problems running on a new OSX release, and other fears and prejudices, and you got the cut and paste anguish so exemplified in this thread.

[digitaldog]

Well, I find one of them bloody annoying enough to remember it, while the one Jeremy recalled was controversial at the time.

Those would be??
I guess I'll have to find out which Jeremy you're referring to and ask him, he must be the actual LR expert here.

[john beardsworth]

First law on holes - when you're in one, stop digging!

I hope you take your own advice to heart. Are you now deejjaaa / alterego in disguise?

As I keep telling you, it is not the specific removals that are important. I couldn't care less if you remain ignorant. Do you not understand that? My point, which I'll happily keep reiterating, is that what is important is that removals have happened before, they were bloody annoying at the time, but people adapt and move on.