Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Whither Adobe? Issues With Accurate Printing From Lightroom and Photoshop  (Read 10700 times)

Josh-H

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2054
    • Worldwide Photography Expeditions

Quote
Adobe has broken the accuracy of the printing workflow in both the latest versions of Lightroom CC and Photoshop CC for Mac OSX. Evidence of this began to surface on June 26th in the Adobe Forum with a complaint about wrong colours printing from the current version of Lightroom. On the same day, the issue was confirmed for both Epson and Canon printers

If you print with Canon printers from Photoshop CC and you use the Canon 16 bit plug in then this is non-issue as you bypass the Adobe problem. More than just a work around though..my own testing shows the Canon 16 bit plug in is superior in color fidelity to the OEM print driver in both Photoshop and Lightroom (before the recent updates that broke printing accuracy). Colours are cleaner and less 'muddy'. If you haven't tried the Canon 16 bit plug in.. give it a go. I think you will be surprised at the results.
Logged

crazycaptioner

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1

Quote
And, thank you for Adobe to being responsive to this issue and responding to the issue in a timely manner.
Sorry, but this sentence is absurd. Adobe was the opposite of responsive to this, as the body of the article plainly indicates. It took a LuLa to make them pay any attention at all. They did not respond in a timely manner; they did not respond at all for weeks. This is all too typical of Adobe, and they shouldn't get a pass from LuLa or anyone else when they do it.
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8217

If you print with Canon printers from Photoshop CC and you use the Canon 16 bit plug in then this is non-issue as you bypass the Adobe problem. More than just a work around though..my own testing shows the Canon 16 bit plug in is superior in color fidelity to the OEM print driver in both Photoshop and Lightroom (before the recent updates that broke printing accuracy). Colours are cleaner and less 'muddy'. If you haven't tried the Canon 16 bit plug in.. give it a go. I think you will be surprised at the results.

Hi Josh,

That's interesting that there is such a difference in output quality. I assume that is on a Mac OS based setup. AFAIK on Windows systems, less of the printing pipeline is left for the OS to handle, so the printer driver does more itself.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

GrahamBy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1799
    • Some of my photos

Nice work by Mark S... sad that it should take such a public crowbar effort to get a serious response from Adobe.

I suspect they might have been put in an awkward spot themselves by Apple's aggressive anti-compatibility attitude. Maybe someone at Apple forgot that there is not yet an i-printer (unless you count Blurb).
Logged

Josh-H

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2054
    • Worldwide Photography Expeditions

Hi Josh,

That's interesting that there is such a difference in output quality. I assume that is on a Mac OS based setup. AFAIK on Windows systems, less of the printing pipeline is left for the OS to handle, so the printer driver does more itself.

Cheers,
Bart

Bart, yes you are correct this is with Mac OSX. May not be an issue with Windows.. I don't play on that side of the fence any more  ;D
Logged

Ernst Dinkla

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3819

Not using Apple products either and I print from Qimage Ultimate so no issues here. But on Monday I visited a friend, pro photographer, and he was struggling with the color of his art reproductions on Hahnemühle, could not get the blues right where prints before were correct. I had skipped the LuLa thread in the colour management forum but mentioned it to him. He solved it by going back to pre-CC PS and LR versions, still installed. Meanwhile there was time, ink and paper lost as his desk showed. Wonder how many gallons of ink , square feet of paper, time and customer goodwill is wasted worldwide. To postpone an upgrade to August and no real Adobe information/support for a temporary solution for the time being is absurd. In my opinion enough reasons for a class action. That will not help EU customers as usual but gives a signal.

This is the only reference I could find in NL but it does not reveal the true bug or a correct solution;
https://helpx.adobe.com/nl/x-productkb/multi/unexpected-colors-when-printing-mac.html
If it actually describes the same issue. Otherwise nothing is mentioned of existing print problems.


Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
July 2016 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
Logged

jrsorders1@gmail.com

  • Guest

Ernst, your mention of Qimage reminded me that, a few years ago, Mike Chaney made a serious effort to convert Qimage to Mac.

While I don't remember, or know, the exact reasons for his giving up., I believe it was. The very difficult technical issues with interfacing with the Mac OS and the lack of support and information from Apple.

Trying not to be an Adobe apologist, I would guess the reason for these printing problems may not totally with them. 

Of course, proper testing, by definition, would have caught it.  However, it is easy to get caught in the error of, "We didn't change anything in that code, so of course it will work.". That's why I had others manage the test bucket....not a marketing, quasi-engineer such as I. 😀
Logged

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1117

Ernst, your mention of Qimage reminded me that, a few years ago, Mike Chaney made a serious effort to convert Qimage to Mac.

While I don't remember, or know, the exact reasons for his giving up., I believe it was. The very difficult technical issues with interfacing with the Mac OS and the lack of support and information from Apple.

Trying not to be an Adobe apologist, I would guess the reason for these printing problems may not totally with them. 

Of course, proper testing, by definition, would have caught it.  However, it is easy to get caught in the error of, "We didn't change anything in that code, so of course it will work.". That's why I had others manage the test bucket....not a marketing, quasi-engineer such as I. 😀

John (from jrsforums....don't know how that email address got captured....??  I did, yesterday, restore my iPad....see, ya gotta check EVERYTHING
Logged
John

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 15654
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/

This URL should be removed ASAP IMHO:
https://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/multi/unexpected-colors-when-printing-mac.html


It isn't a print driver (the 3880 or otherwise). It's just completely unnecessary and wrong.
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers"

brandon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 69

This URL should be removed ASAP IMHO:
https://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/multi/unexpected-colors-when-printing-mac.html


It isn't a print driver (the 3880 or otherwise). It's just completely unnecessary and wrong.
Hi Andrew I couldn't agree more. Why, when the problem is of their own doing and causing such frustration (and cost of time, materials and confidence in the soft and hard tools of printing) are Adobe continuing to add to the confusion for their product subscribers? It speaks of gross contempt  by Adobe IMO, (let alone of their incompetence, integrity  etc).
Logged

TommyWeir

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 243

Well done Mark, and fair play to Adobe for owning it and dealing.

MF

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10

adobe released a LR update that should fix this issue.
Logged

MF

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10

Sorry, but this sentence is absurd. Adobe was the opposite of responsive to this, as the body of the article plainly indicates. It took a LuLa to make them pay any attention at all. They did not respond in a timely manner; they did not respond at all for weeks. This is all too typical of Adobe, and they shouldn't get a pass from LuLa or anyone else when they do it.

ok 2 weeks. actually that is pretty fast for adobe.

but overall, as sad as it is, i have to agree.

it needs a big website and possible bad PR to make adobe react fast.

there are plenty of issues on the adobe forum that come up for years.
adobe just ignores them.

i guess if it does not affect at least 50% of the customers it´s not important. :(

Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com

it needs a big website and possible bad PR to make adobe react fast.

Or people who know how to get things done quickly...
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8217

Or people who know how to get things done quickly...

That surely helps to solve the issue, but it seems (from the user perspective) there was a very slow acceptance/ownership of the issue, initial laying blame with others (Epson), non-effective solutions (driver updates), and finally a solution for what seems to be an Adobe bug.

It simply is a bad experience which dragged on for too long, especially bad for those who had/have to reprint for customers, potentially taking a hit in reputation, and without financial compensation.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Zorki5

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 486
    • AOLib

initial laying blame with others (Epson), non-effective solutions (driver updates)

If only "initial"...

That... err, misleading page that Andrew linked (https://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/multi/unexpected-colors-when-printing-mac.html) is still there.
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 15654
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/

If only "initial"...

That... err, misleading page that Andrew linked (https://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/multi/unexpected-colors-when-printing-mac.html) is still there.
But updated a bit. What's ironic is before that page in it's original form was uploaded, I got into an email with group of Adobe folks. They asked everyone "how does this look?" before posting. I gave them my three cents. I told them not to mention Epson specifically since non Epson users were having issues. I told them the 'fix' they suggested with updating the driver didn't work for me. I asked IF they tested this fix (I was told yes, they did).


The bit about the 3880 is nonsense and I still think the bit about Apple's API is too but I'm no engineer. The page could have simply suggested users roll back one version (and HOW, something I also suggested they write up). The page could have simply stated that Adobe was looking into the issue rather than place blame on others. Thankfully LR was fixed super fast! PS should be out 'soon' and it's logical such a larger package will take more time to release. But a lot of this should have never happened. Water under the bridge. Let's see how Adobe reacts next time this shows up (and it will).
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers"

rmazzi

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 42

I just updated Lightroom CC and Photoshop CC (2015.5).  Would the color bug be fixed in LR (based on previous post) and still pending for an August release for PS CC?  I want to confirm before i use up my sample pack of Legacy on test prints. 
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12511
    • http://www.markdsegal.com

I just updated Lightroom CC and Photoshop CC (2015.5).  Would the color bug be fixed in LR (based on previous post) and still pending for an August release for PS CC?  I want to confirm before i use up my sample pack of Legacy on test prints.

Fixed in LR if you load 2015.6.1. Not yet released in Photoshop.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

LarryPenn

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3

Fixed in LR if you load 2015.6.1. Not yet released in Photoshop.

Does this apply to the boxed version also?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up