Lightroom really DOES suck

[ButchM]

Hm, so a few years down the track and they would forget those features ever existed?

Sure they may even forget to further upgrade Lightroom and/or renew their CC subscription ...

[digitaldog]

But if you've created a target design that can be measured without the scaling issue causing problems, that would explain it. As you've alluded to in reply #133 " MY target takes into account this possibility such that even if scaling occurs, I can measure MY targets without issue."

I can only speak to my targets I've created and the lack of ACPU scaling being a problem. It's not difficult either, give yourself plenty of room (margins) for the patches, absolutely do not use the minimum allowed in the product that builds the targets (i1P and Copra for me). And again, for the vast majority of other users, not working with a picky Spectrophotometer like the iSis, they should have no issues with a scaling of 6%; it is tiny. So no tricks, just being conservative when specifying the page and target layout.
This doesn't dismiss the bug in the Windows product! But it also illustrates it's rare and can be avoided. Perhaps that's why Adobe never identified the scaling prior to release?

[john beardsworth]

Sure they may even forget to further upgrade Lightroom and/or renew their CC subscription ...

Some perhaps, others can adapt. Simply reversing the changes means they retain a UI that, according to their research, loses other customers.

[digitaldog]

He has now earned a place on my very selective "ignore" list. If he ever provides the list, I hope someone will let me knoe about it.

While think John has egg on his face with respect to his inability to answer a simple question, he's far, FAR from being on my Ignore List, he's provided useful data in the past. That's why his current 'behavior' is so disappointing. He could have just pointed out ONE item that was removed and this would all be over with. I'm going to cut him some slack, maybe he's having a bad week. IMHO, he's a far cry from the two individuals I simply must ignore. But if he wants to get on more Ignore Lists, he just has to continue to avoid answering a simple question any LR expert should be able to answer after the first request.


Not sure there's anymore to be said about this unproven concept of missing LR features.

[Rhossydd]

it also illustrates it's rare and can be avoided.

No it's NOT rare, it happens EVERY time, it CAN'T be avoided.
You may have found a way for it not to be a problem in your specific case, but that doesn't mean the utility hasn't got a fundamental flaw that has never been fixed.

I note you still haven't told us where you think Adobe 'moved' the option to print without colour management within Photoshop CS5.

[jjj]

Some perhaps, others can adapt. Simply reversing the changes means they retain a UI that, according to their research, loses other customers.

Terribly flawed research it would appear from how it was explained.
Firstly, Adobe missed the point that the it is the concept and not the method of import is what newbies usually struggle with most when they first encounter LR.
Secondly you do not judge a tool aimed at experienced photographers with difficulty those with zero knowledge have when they first encounter it.
Thirdly, a new paradigm in working which once understood and that makes one's life much easier overall should not be rejected because there may be a brief learning curve to start with.
Fourthly - no matter how well designed a complex process is, it will require some effort on the part of the user. An effort that may be be beyond some folk, regardless of design. Organising a large collection of images will always require a reasonable effort on the part of the user.
And so on....

[jjj]

No it's NOT rare, it happens EVERY time, it CAN'T be avoided.
You may have found a way for it not to be a problem in your specific case, but that doesn't mean the utility hasn't got a fundamental flaw that has never been fixed.

Bugs, flaws or problems that Andrew has not personally encountered do not exist it would seem.

[digitaldog]

Bugs, flaws or problems that Andrew has not personally encountered do not exist it would seem.

True, they don't exist for me but could for others. That's true I believe for most software, unless we are to believe that companies often and regularly release known bugs on purpose. I have no idea if that's the case with ACPU or not. But I can say, one can avoid the bug causing problems if one is careful. And I stated that the bug isn't acceptable. However, if I can do something to avoid the bug producing the inability to measure the target, I can live with that. The facts are, so do my customers using ACPU.

[digitaldog]

I note you still haven't told us where you think Adobe 'moved' the option to print without colour management within Photoshop CS5.

Sorry, I don't quite understand your question.
Did I suggest Adobe moved something within CS5 to allow for printing without color management? What gave you that idea?

[john beardsworth]

While think John has egg on his face with respect to his inability to answer a simple question, he's far, FAR from being on my Ignore List, he's provided useful data in the past. That's why his current 'behavior' is so disappointing. He could have just pointed out ONE item that was removed and this would all be over with. I'm going to cut him some slack, maybe he's having a bad week. IMHO, he's a far cry from the two individuals I simply must ignore. But if he wants to get on more Ignore Lists, he just has to continue to avoid answering a simple question any LR expert should be able to answer after the first request.

Not sure there's anymore to be said about this unproven concept of missing LR features.

No egg on my face, Andrew. A few people suspect I am right, as do you, and I told you exactly why I didn't feel it necessary to give detail. Quit the personal crap - I am not "having a bad week". Your unpleasant bullying tactics are pretty obvious though.

[digitaldog]

No egg on my face, Andrew.

You're so deep in the hole of your own digging, you can't see (or feel) those eggs John. Seriously, is anyone in this series of posts taking up your side or are they asking, as I have, just what features were removed? It's a very simple question you simply can't answer because I believe, you made this up or you really do believe it's true but have no facts for that belief system.That's kind of sad.As I've said repeatedly, you may be correct but your inability to list one single item removed since LR1 provides some evidence you're just wrong. If you're right, it's very easy for you to prove it.

A few people suspect I am right, as do you, and I told you exactly why I didn't feel it necessary to give detail.

I'm sure you suspect a lot things John, it's facts I'm waiting on. Of those folks you suspect believe you're right, who are they and why will they not answer the question you cannot? No John, I think you've exhausted any hope for those of us wanting to know what features were removed from LR. I (we?) will be hard pressed to accept what you write about LR in the future as a so called LR expert. You simply can't answer a very straight and simple question! You want to take that personally, fine.

Quit the personal crap - I am not "having a bad week". Your unpleasant bullying tactics are pretty obvious though.

Then come up with a better excuse for your rather odd behavior in this thread please. I was trying to cut you some slack. I'm coming to the conclusion your ideas about LR's removed features is best ignored. But heck, if you want to keep digging a hole and putting your reputation as an expert who should be able to answer a simple question, or backup a statement you wish us to believe is factual, so be it.


You can of course tell us you were wrong or can't come up with any features removed and we'd be done, or you can tell us one stinking feature that really was removed. But I'm beating a dead horse, you can't or you would have by now. Please note, I'm not the only person here asking you to educate us on this removal of features so we can be less ignorant (ignorant being your language directed at those of us asking you to answer a simple question).

[ButchM]

Some perhaps, others can adapt. Simply reversing the changes means they retain a UI that, according to their research, loses other customers.

Haven't we been over this enough already? Did you miss all the initial unprecedented volume of negative reaction to this recent fiasco? There is more than enough proof available for you to peruse that definitively demonstrates Adobe's 'research' was extremely flawed and did not truly reflect the reality of the situation ... which, all of the above was exacerbated by the ham-fisted approach to implementation.

The issue is not whether the previous Import dialog UI lost Adobe potential customers. I don't think very many current or traditional users would have complained over an updated UI and a truly better Import dialog experience ... However, must those so-called 'improvements' come at a cost of the loss of multiple functionality.

I also think few reasonably intelligent users familiar with RAW processing software the like of Lightroom would also have difficulty in accepting that the new UI and Import dialog that 6.2 offered was indeed going to court many new customers to adopt the application. I, at least still fail to see how much easier the process would be over the past UI that served Lr users for nearly a decade. The UI of 6.2 was indeed different ... but was it better, more intuitive? Not so much.

[Rhossydd]

Did I suggest Adobe moved something within CS5 to allow for printing without color management? What gave you that idea?

You said;

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

[pegelli]

A few people suspect I am right

Only on one count of two. You're probably right some options were removed, but the were not "bloody annoying". They were minor, uneventful or immediately replaced with better functionality. So I think producing the list would undermine your theory that the changes in the import dialog are a storm in a teacup and would have gone mainly unnoticed when implemented at a slower pace and without a buggy release. So I guess that's why we will never see the list.

[digitaldog]

You said;

Yes, move from Photoshop to ACPU (at no cost to the customer).

[digitaldog]

Only on one count of two. You're probably right some options were removed, but the were not "bloody annoying". They were minor, uneventful or immediately replaced with better functionality. So I think producing the list would undermine your theory that the changes in the import dialog are a storm in a teacup and would have gone mainly unnoticed when implemented at a slower pace and without a buggy release. So I guess that's why we will never see the list.

Minor or major, be nice to see a list of what was removed after John emphatically stated features were removed. IF we knew what he was referring to, we could discuss our personal options as to their effectiveness but we can't. No such list, not even a single item has been specified. If John stated the "atom" Panel flourish was removed, we'd have one item that fits his description and we could say "I can't operate LR without it" or "It was ugly and looked like a buttcrack". But we can't because John is completely unable to list anything that was removed but can tell us how Move was always in the wrong place and that if we miss it, too bad. Move and Eject are features plenty of users have complained about missing so we have something to debate and it's pretty clear that Adobe did remove two features in a stinkin dot release despite warnings not to do so. With those facts, at least those of us bitching about Adobe have a leg to stand on. Telling us features were removed and no one cares without telling us what features were removed is sneaky and suspicious but John wants to dig that hole.

[john beardsworth]

You're so deep in the hole of your own digging, you can't see (or feel) those eggs John. Seriously, is anyone in this series of posts taking up your side or are they asking, as I have, just what features were removed? It's a very simple question you simply can't answer because I believe, you made this up or you really do believe it's true but have no facts for that belief system.That's kind of sad.As I've said repeatedly, you may be correct but your inability to list one single item removed since LR1 provides some evidence you're just wrong. If you're right, it's very easy for you to prove it. I'm sure you suspect a lot things John, it's facts I'm waiting on. Of those folks you suspect believe you're right, who are they and why will they not answer the question you cannot? No John, I think you've exhausted any hope for those of us wanting to know what features were removed from LR. I (we?) will be hard pressed to accept what you write about LR in the future as a so called LR expert. You simply can't answer a very straight and simple question! You want to take that personally, fine.  Then come up with a better excuse for your rather odd behavior in this thread please. I was trying to cut you some slack. I'm coming to the conclusion your ideas about LR's removed features is best ignored. But heck, if you want to keep digging a hole and putting your reputation as an expert who should be able to answer a simple question, or backup a statement you wish us to believe is factual, so be it.


You can of course tell us you were wrong or can't come up with any features removed and we'd be done, or you can tell us one stinking feature that really was removed. But I'm beating a dead horse, you can't or you would have by now. Please note, I'm not the only person here asking you to educate us on this removal of features so we can be less ignorant (ignorant being your language directed at those of us asking you to answer a simple question).

Andrew, you can go on asking with as much masturbatory enthusiasm as you wish.... I just hope it's just egg white that's covering your face.

[john beardsworth]

because John is completely unable to list anything that was removed ...

Change the record, Andrew. I know you have accepted that you are ignorant, but even someone of such limited expertise should be able to read that I am unwilling, not unable, and I am increasingly so thanks to your bullying behaviour.

[digitaldog]

Andrew, you can go on asking with as much masturbatory enthusiasm as you wish.... I just hope it's just egg white that's covering your face.

John's hole now a foot deeper. I'm done asking as it's super clear you have nothing to add to back up your ridiculous claims. I thought you might have a valid point, it's clear now you don't.


"It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it".
-Joseph Joubert


It's clear now we can't debate the question because you refuse to provide a lick of evidence that LR features have been removed. It is clear to me, perhaps others I hope, that in the future, your contributions informing other's about LR may be highly suspect. That's by your own doing and hole digging. I have noting else to add about this missing feature nonsense you've posted until you decide to prove yourself.


You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own made up facts!
 

[digitaldog]

I know you have accepted that you are ignorant, but even someone of such limited expertise should be able to read that I am unwilling, not unable, and I am increasingly so thanks to your bullying behaviour.

The absurd is the last refuge of a pundit without an argument.
That you cannot or will not prove your points clearly illustrates you're POV on missing features is absolutely absurd.