LR CC 2015.6 and Photoshop CC 2015.5 print bug (Mac)

[Tim Lookingbill]

Nope.
The check is using colorimetry to measure (in my case) a mere 700 different patches printed in Photoshop CS6 (the control) and whatever version is being tested. A max dE of 15 isn't correct.

Geez! That's not reassuring. Are you being compensated for the ink and paper by Adobe?

[rdonson]

Certainly not if you are staying entirely with LR. I believe you can "Edit In" from LR to a previous version of PS, but not 100% certain.

Thanks, Mark.  I'd like to stay with the most recent release of PS CC as I like the new Select and Mask Tool space.

[Mark D Segal]

Thanks, Mark.  I'd like to stay with the most recent release of PS CC as I like the new Select and Mask Tool space.

Printing from the latest releases of PS and LR CC for OSX will not be accurate. But a bit more patience will have its rewards  :-).

[rdonson]

Mark, what I'd like to do is regress LR not PS to the previous level. 

If they'll ship the updates this week then I'll just hold off.

[digitaldog]

But a bit more patience will have its rewards  :-).

I think Adobe owes us a much better reward than fixing something they broke themselves, and as bad, blamed upon others.

[CoyoteButtes]

CC = Compulsory Complexity 

[Mark D Segal]

I think Adobe owes us a much better reward than fixing something they broke themselves, and as bad, blamed upon others.

From the Legal Terms of Use for Photoshop CC (emphasis added), to which we all signed-up when agreeing to use these products:

8. Disclaimers of Warranties.
 
8.1 Unless stated in the Additional Terms, the Services and Software are provided “AS-IS.” To the maximum extent permitted by law, we disclaim all warranties express or implied, including the implied warranties of non-infringement, merchantability, and fitness for a particular purpose. We make no commitments about the content within the Services. We further disclaim any warranty that (a) the Services or Software will meet your requirements or will be constantly available, uninterrupted, timely, secure, or error-free; (b) the results that may be obtained from the use of the Services or Software will be effective, accurate, or reliable; (c) the quality of the Services or Software will meet your expectations; or that (d) any errors or defects in the Services or Software will be corrected.
 
8.2 We specifically disclaim any liability for any actions resulting from your use of any Services or Software. You may use and access the Services or Software at your own discretion and risk, and you are solely responsible for any damage to your computer system or loss of data that results from the use and access of any Service or Software.
 
9. Limitation of Liability.
 
9.1 Unless stated in the Additional Terms, we are not liable to you or anyone else for: (a) any loss of use, data, goodwill, or profits, whether or not foreseeable; and (b) any special, incidental, indirect, consequential, or punitive damages whatsoever (even if we have been advised of the possibility of these damages), including those (x) resulting from loss of use, data, or profits, whether or not foreseeable, (y) based on any theory of liability, including breach of contract or warranty, negligence or other tortious action, or (z) arising from any other claim arising out of or in connection with your use of or access to the Services or Software. Nothing in these terms limits or excludes our liability for gross negligence, for our (or our employees’) intentional misconduct, or for death or personal injury.
 
9.2 Our total liability in any matter arising out of or related to these terms is limited to US $100 or the aggregate amount that you paid for access to the Service and Software during the three- month period preceding the event giving rise to the liability, whichever is larger. This limitation will apply even if we have been advised of the possibility of the liability exceeding the amount and notwithstanding any failure of essential purpose of any limited remedy.

I suppose they could pay us a hundred bucks each, but the cost of actioning that claim may well exceed the award limit.

[digitaldog]

Mark, I'm not suggesting anything legal and everting to do with good will towards customers, beta testers, ex-Adobe Fan Boys and people who spent years looking out for Adobe's best interest in producing the best products for us. I could say 'This isn't your father's Adobe' but the more accurate statement would be, this isn't the old Adobe I spent years and years supporting because they supported me with really good products due to a the kind of dedication to software we don't see any longer. Very sad. I started using Photoshop 26 years ago. Even 5 years ago, I couldn’t imagine not using Photoshop (or LR). Today, I'm not sure I'll be using these products in a couple years. Maybe sooner if Adobe continues to be as sloppy and unfriendly as recently witnessed publicly and privately.

[Simon J.A. Simpson]

From the Legal Terms of Use for Photoshop CC (emphasis added), to which we all signed-up when agreeing to use these products:

8. Disclaimers of Warranties.
 
8.1 Unless stated in the Additional Terms, the Services and Software are provided “AS-IS.” To the maximum extent permitted by law, we disclaim all warranties express or implied, including the implied warranties of non-infringement, merchantability, and fitness for a particular purpose. We make no commitments about the content within the Services. We further disclaim any warranty that (a) the Services or Software will meet your requirements or will be constantly available, uninterrupted, timely, secure, or error-free; (b) the results that may be obtained from the use of the Services or Software will be effective, accurate, or reliable; (c) the quality of the Services or Software will meet your expectations; or that (d) any errors or defects in the Services or Software will be corrected.
 
8.2 We specifically disclaim any liability for any actions resulting from your use of any Services or Software. You may use and access the Services or Software at your own discretion and risk, and you are solely responsible for any damage to your computer system or loss of data that results from the use and access of any Service or Software.
 
9. Limitation of Liability.
 
9.1 Unless stated in the Additional Terms, we are not liable to you or anyone else for: (a) any loss of use, data, goodwill, or profits, whether or not foreseeable; and (b) any special, incidental, indirect, consequential, or punitive damages whatsoever (even if we have been advised of the possibility of these damages), including those (x) resulting from loss of use, data, or profits, whether or not foreseeable, (y) based on any theory of liability, including breach of contract or warranty, negligence or other tortious action, or (z) arising from any other claim arising out of or in connection with your use of or access to the Services or Software. Nothing in these terms limits or excludes our liability for gross negligence, for our (or our employees’) intentional misconduct, or for death or personal injury.
 
9.2 Our total liability in any matter arising out of or related to these terms is limited to US $100 or the aggregate amount that you paid for access to the Service and Software during the three- month period preceding the event giving rise to the liability, whichever is larger. This limitation will apply even if we have been advised of the possibility of the liability exceeding the amount and notwithstanding any failure of essential purpose of any limited remedy.

I suppose they could pay us a hundred bucks each, but the cost of actioning that claim may well exceed the award limit.

Actually we don't have a choice but to ‘agree’ Adobe's terms if we want to use their software.  It is forced on us as a fait accompli.  Of course, those who wrote this ‘agreement” believe that these terms then indemnify Adobe of any responsibility for any failures in their software, negligence on their part, and any unfortunate effects their failures may have on their customers.  Sad that it comes to this in the end, this lack of corporate responsibility.

Interestingly, in the UK, some of these terms might well fall foul of the Unfair Contract Terms Act should any one wish to challenge this in court.  Not me.

[Mark D Segal]

The legal stuff is the backstop that spells out the ultimate recourse. It doesn't mean the company actually behaves that way. I posted it just to be sure we all understand that matters of goodwill aside, there is very little formal obligation; so it is in fact a sense of professionalism, good will, good customer relations and an eye for the competition that we depend on - and this is true of most software most of us use. If the law of the land were different and they were actually exposed to liability, they would need insurance cover and the cost of this would be added to what we pay for using the products. There's no free lunch.

[rdonson]

In the USA all companies regardless of T&C, warranties, laws, etc. are held accountable in the court of public opinion.  That is why so many corporate executives, politicians, etc. deem it necessary to resign and leave their positions.  In some cases the public turns away from their products.

Adobe hasn't reached that point.

Their products are still arguably the best in the industry.  They have some PR cleanup to do to restore some faith from their customer base but it's nothing that an apology, quick fix and better attention in the future can't fix.  They took their eye off the ball and I hope they don't repeat a mistake like this for quite some time.

[Mark D Segal]

Their products are still arguably the best in the industry.  They have some PR cleanup to do to restore some faith from their customer base but it's nothing that an apology, quick fix and better attention in the future can't fix.  They took their eye off the ball and I hope they don't repeat a mistake like this for quite some time.

This is pretty much where I'm at.

[Simon J.A. Simpson]

This is pretty much where I'm at.

+1

[Chris_Brown]

They took their eye off the ball  . . .

Meaning, among other things, no one at Adobe made a color print for evaluation from a Mac using Photoshop.   

[digitaldog]

Meaning, among other things, no one at Adobe made a color print for evaluation from a Mac using Photoshop.   

I was told they did. I was told they tested the so called fix of updating the 3880 driver. I don't believe either is true.

[RMW]

As someone who uses PS without understanding much of what's 'under the hood', I can accept how difficult it must be to create and deliver sophisticated photographic software. Problems will arise; bugs will be bugs. What I can't and won't accept is Adobe's indecent disregard for all of us who have loyally supported them. For now, I'll keep my subscription going. But if they act this irresponsibly again, I'll have no choice but to leave Adobe and its lower-then-cockroach-standards for good.
Richard

[John Chardine]

Sorry if this has already been mentioned but over on the Adobe thread about this topic, Adobe has emailed contributors asking them to beta-test a new version of Lr with the bug fixed. Haven't had a chance yet because I'm on the road, but will do so soon.

[digitaldog]

Sorry if this has already been mentioned but over on the Adobe thread about this topic, Adobe has emailed contributors asking them to beta-test a new version of Lr with the bug fixed. Haven't had a chance yet because I'm on the road, but will do so soon.

I'd love to know how Adobe expects people to evaluate if the bug exists or not considering it's often darn subtle and the correct way to do this is using colorimetry (printing from multiple app's, measuring hundreds of color patches with a Spectrophotometer and producing deltaE reports). Something someone inside of Adobe could and should have done for every release after messing with the code for printing.

Seems more like Adobe 'damage control' (look, we've worked on a fix and we want you to know about it).

Anyway, the good news is indeed, the next release has fixed the bug, I've got the dE reports to prove it and yes, Adobe knows this.

[Mark D Segal]

In the Printing Forum, Adobe has just now posted an announcement that the Lightroom fix is now available, along with a link listing the bug fixes and how to install.

[Mark D Segal]

Anyway, the good news is indeed, the next release has fixed the bug, I've got the dE reports to prove it and yes, Adobe knows this.

Likewise.