Lightroom 2015.7 Comedy of Errors

[Mark D Segal]

I refuse to become a mind-numbed robot ............. Seems they can apply proper attention to detail where they choose, when it is to their advantage.

I refuse also. I don't think the evidence points to any one here becoming a mind-numbed robot. But you do raise an interesting question about what is to their advantage as a corporation in it for the long term. Paying attention to detail in the software business has to be very important and they're smart enough to know that. The real questions are about how you do it, how much does it cost and how effective is it. There are evidently unresolved issues therein.

[Mark D Segal]

There has been some low level attempts at appeasement, but no real effort to actually make a difference.

Well, let's do some fact-checking. After the debacle with the import dialog, they changed back to the traditional workflow pretty adroitly. After the debacle with colour-managed printing they fixed that within days of incontrovertible evidence being exposed that they had a problem, not Epson. And I expect it will be the same with the recent issue. The real question is whether these inconveniences need to happen in the first place, and I would argue that there must be ways they can live with of minimizing them.

[Mark D Segal]

WHAT GOOD ARE NEW FEATURES IF THE UPDATE BREAKS EXISTING WORKFLOWS NECESSITATING ROLLING BACK TO A PREVIOUS VERSION?

How wonderful is a new feature ... even a 'good one' ... if you can't use the update it was delivered in?

Before we do some more fact-checking, just a short reminder on Forum discussion decorum: most participants are mature adults who can read normal font and understand it. There's no need to SHOUT. OK?

The fact is that new features can be good regardless that other problems opened up. The fact is - for example with the colour management debacle - that even though the print workflow was broken there were two workarounds right from the get-go: (1) roll back to the previous version, or (2) print from a previous version of Photoshop while using the new features of the latest Lr version, which is what I did for a while because I really started benefiting from the new transform panel the day it became available. Don't interpret this to mean I think all this is fine - I don't. I'm just saying we need to articulate the issues with enough clarity and precision that the company can't simply dismiss this discussion as uninformed and irrelevant - there's no mileage in it for customers if that happens.

[Mark D Segal]

This got me thinking.  If you ignore the features that are from the ACR team, just what features have been added to Lr in the last 17 months?  What has the Lr team been doing?

I don't know - it's quite a big group working on that application and being on the outside one doesn't get into the entrails of who contributes exactly to what. Lots of teamwork would be involved with much of it. Then there are different kinds of features. Some improve operational characteristics under the hood, some are adaptation to OS revisions, some are new tools. There's been all of it.

[ButchM]

Well, let's do some fact-checking. After the debacle with the import dialog, they changed back to the traditional workflow pretty adroitly. After the debacle with colour-managed printing they fixed that within days of incontrovertible evidence being exposed that they had a problem, not Epson. And I expect it will be the same with the recent issue. The real question is whether these inconveniences need to happen in the first place, and I would argue that there must be ways they can live with of minimizing them.

Wouldn't it be awesome if in your efforts to fact check, you could be more complete and thorough and report the facts more accurately?

!. Yes, Adobe did indeed roll back the Import dialog fiasco ... but not until after a record setting and unprecedented blowup over at feedback.photoshop.com.

2. Adobe's initial response was they were not going to roll back anything because their 'research' indicated new users were having great difficulty with the import process. It was only after an unprecedented negative response they realized their 'research' was flawed to the point it did not take into consideration the folks who had been using Lr for quite some time did not appreciate the offering. It was only then that Adobe realized it was in their best interest to roll back the Import dialog.

3. On the color management issue, Adobe's initial response was ... it was Apple's fault. Then it was Epson's fault. Only after all the finger pointing did they realize that the issue was far more widespread. Then, and only then did they did they go to work on a fix.

3. A couple of updates ago, Adobe broke how Photoshop Droplets worked on Lightroom exports. They did 'fix' it with the next update. However, their fix only worked on single images. They had to go back and 'fix' it again to restore the ability to export multiple images ... a function that had been around since at least Lr v2. All due to incomplete testing. Surely, they could add at least one user that employs Ps Droplets to their private beta testing group.

4. Where is it written that 'workarounds' is what users pay developers for? I thought users paid software developers for solutions, not for end users to perform more work to circumvent poorly written or executed code.

5. The cost in time and effort to correct these mistakes could have been applied to many more 'very good' features ... but without proper and more thorough pre-release testing they are forced to invest those valuable resources in repairing damage, rather than venturing forth.

I do appreciate when Adobe does repair the damage they, themselves have created. I'll repeat that I do not expect them to be perfect, though,  it would be refreshing if they would take responsibility for their errors.

Adobe is a multi-billion dollar, multi-national corporation. They should not behave like a kindergarten student pointing their fingers to blame someone else because they don't want to accept responsibility for their actions.

This behavior is prevalent, consistent and repetitive with no sign of improvement.

[Mark D Segal]

Wouldn't it be awesome if in your efforts to fact check, you could be more complete and thorough and report the facts more accurately?

No it wouldn't be - I don't have the time or see the need for exhaustive documentation of failures. We know the character of it from several examples. As I said, the more important issue is what happens going forward to mitigate the problem. I think we agree on this, and with that, I am ending my participation in this discussion. I think it's gone its course.

[kirkt]

It seems like the frustration and aggravation from regression in an otherwise working system outweighs the wow of new features, in most cases.  Regardless of how Adobe chooses to handle the regressions (and user blowback) that affect users' otherwise intact workflow, it would be nice if Adobe prioritized eliminating regression and fixing long-standing issues, like the reported erratic GPU support, for example.

A moment of such revelation was the JDI live coding that took place in real time back at Photoshop World 2013 - more than 4 color samplers! Fixed on the spot, in real time!

Interestingly, John Nack's blog entry describing some of these JDI improvements:

http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2014/01/sweating-the-details-new-jdi-tweaks-arrive-in-photoshop-cc.html

notes:

Although we’ve sweated the details in past releases, including making tons of “Just Do It (JDI) tweaks,” I think you’ll find that the move to Creative Cloud makes it more possible & important than ever. CC = continuous, iterative improvement. Here are the tweaks made in just the newest release of Photoshop CC, including some live-coded at Photoshop World.

CC = continuous, iterative improvement.

I do not use LR frequently, but I can understand both the wonder of the application's abilities and the frustration of the application's regression.  If nothing else, the implementation of the Adobe Creative Cloud desktop makes installing previous versions pretty straightforward.  Obviously, one would prefer not to have to do so, but sometimes it is the most efficient and effective solution until the new problems get sorted out.

kirk

[ButchM]

No it wouldn't be - I don't have the time or see the need for exhaustive documentation of failures. We know the character of it from several examples. As I said, the more important issue is what happens going forward to mitigate the problem. I think we agree on this, and with that, I am ending my participation in this discussion. I think it's gone its course.

My point was, it doesn't take much time or effort to be aware of Adobe's record of initial reaction when problems occur. Their first reaction is not to be helpful, rather it is to stand fast or place blame elsewhere. That attitude helps no-one going forward.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

When Adobe first introduced the CC subscription model, I decided I would wait a couple of months before deciding whether to subscribe. Because of the reports of the last several "upgrades," I have stuck quite happily with PS CS6 and LR6, now LR6.7. These still work on my Win 10 machine, and I haven't heard of any "must have" features that I have missed.

If they ever do clean up their act, I may still try the CC versions, but so far I'm happy to have avoided all the headaches.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

When Adobe first introduced the CC subscription model, I decided I would wait a couple of months before deciding whether to subscribe. Because of the reports of the last several "upgrades," I have stuck quite happily with PS CS6 and LR6, now LR6.7. These still work on my Win 10 machine, and I haven't heard of any "must have" features that I have missed.

Same with me, although I even didn't bother to upgrade from LR 5.7.1. Software by subscription is a seriously bad proposition, especially for mature software from a monopolistic supplier. The whole CC concept is only good for Adobe's bottom line (which is the reason they push it, and make it hard to find perpetual license alternatives if even available), not for its users. Shareholders are not Stakeholders, so I do not anticipate much improvement for Stakeholders as long as Shareholders are happy.

If they ever do clean up their act, I may still try the CC versions, but so far I'm happy to have avoided all the headaches.

Only if no reasonable enough alternatives are available. The convenience and quality of an Adobe solution must become much much better than the drawbacks and alternatives to even consider subscribing. I'm too busy to become a paying(!) beta tester.

Cheers,
Bart

[FabienP]

That is ultimately the problem with rolling releases: there is never a version that is "safe" to use. Because bug fixing is accompanied by the release of new functionality that might indeed not work as intended, but, even more problematic, could also break existing functionality. Until LR5, that was the reason why I would never migrate to a newer major version until the x.1 or x.2 releases were made available.

One way to make this problem less acute would be to use two different versions of LR on the same computer, e.g. LR6/CC2015 for the bleeding edge features and LR5 for the stuff that must absolutely work. I realise this is not what people would enjoy using (two versions of the catalogue, only works for older cameras, etc.), but at least you would have a fallback version that is know to work.

On the bright side of things, I do not remember recent issues that would lead to catalogue corruption, so Adobe seems to have placed enough QA ressources on this vital aspect of the product.

The irony of the current release model is that people who bought the "perpetual" license of LR6 have all the QA issues without the benefit of the new functionality introduced in the CC version. Those poor LR6 users were even given the new import screen "for free" even though they were not supposed to get new functionality.

Cheers,

Fabien

PS: users of Windows 10 should have similar worries, because Microsoft has now moved to a similar rolling release scheme where Home users are used as beta testers for Enterprise users.

[john beardsworth]

...These still work on my Win 10 machine, and I haven't heard of any "must have" features that I have missed.

Yeah, it's easy to make that point, though I'm sure some Japanese infantryman has just emerged from a Philippines jungle saying the same about Lightroom 1.0. If you don't push things, you never know how beneficial those new features are. I'm pretty undecided on Dehaze, though some wail about its absence from the perpetual licence version, and let's put anything in PS and Mobile to one side (you either get it or your won't). But in Lightroom itself, the Guided Upright and Smart Preview-based editing let you get more things done, better and faster too.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

PS: users of Windows 10 should have similar worries, because Microsoft has now moved to a similar rolling release scheme where Home users are used as beta testers for Enterprise users.

Yes, it's a concern, although it's not on the basis of a subscription model (yet) for most users. Users having to pay before using a computer (operating system) would jeopardize the ability for many users to connect to the world if the ability to mske payments is compromised for whatever reason.

Fortunately, updates (and upgrades) are released relatively fast after detection (and a very large userbase will insure fast detection, which is promptly acted upon). Overall, Windows 10 has been a good user experience for me.

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

But in Lightroom itself, the Guided Upright and Smart Preview-based editing let you get more things done, better and faster too.

Which raises the topic of resampling quality, which is much better in e.g. Capture One. Resampling by small amounts is rather lossy when the resampling algorithms are not top notch. They are not bad in LR, but certainly not top notch for e.g. small adjustments in Rotation or perspective.

Cheers,
Bart

[chez]

When Adobe first introduced the CC subscription model, I decided I would wait a couple of months before deciding whether to subscribe. Because of the reports of the last several "upgrades," I have stuck quite happily with PS CS6 and LR6, now LR6.7. These still work on my Win 10 machine, and I haven't heard of any "must have" features that I have missed.

If they ever do clean up their act, I may still try the CC versions, but so far I'm happy to have avoided all the headaches.

I wait about a month or so after a new release and then load up with the latest. Haven't encountered a problem yet. Funny...people download the latest greatest as soon ax it's available and get burned over and over. You see the same people continually harping on LR...yet it appears they just keep on doing it.

My suggestion, have patience...let others that don't have patience find the bugs and then download the release with the bugs fixed. Seems quite simple and has worked flawlessly for me.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I wait about a month or so after a new release and then load up with the latest. Haven't encountered a problem yet. Funny...people download the latest greatest as soon ax it's available and get burned over and over. You see the same people continually harping on LR...yet it appears they just keep on doing it.

My suggestion, have patience...let others that don't have patience find the bugs and then download the release with the bugs fixed. Seems quite simple and has worked flawlessly for me.

Strange reaction. If everybody would wait, no errors will surface, and future updates will get even more buggy because Adobe engineers think they've done a good job. On the other hand you seem to relish in the fact that there are those who are picking the hot chestnuts from the fire, for your benefit ...

Cheers,
Bart

[john beardsworth]

Which raises the topic of resampling quality, which is much better in e.g. Capture One. Resampling by small amounts is rather lossy when the resampling algorithms are not top notch. They are not bad in LR, but certainly not top notch for e.g. small adjustments in Rotation or perspective.

Of marginal relevance though, even if true. Just offset it with C1's weakness managing your pictures, and the conflict of interest that affects C1.

[chez]

Strange reaction. If everybody would wait, no errors will surface, and future updates will get even more buggy because Adobe engineers think they've done a good job. On the other hand you seem to relish in the fact that there are those who are picking the hot chestnuts from the fire, for your benefit ...

Cheers,
Bart

Exactly. But human nature dictates not everyone will wait. Same thing happens with new camera releases and pre-orders...let others be the first to debug.

[ButchM]

Exactly. But human nature dictates not everyone will wait. Same thing happens with new camera releases and pre-orders...let others be the first to debug.

One would expect another common trait of human nature  .... the desire to do a good job ... to be more relevant in Adobe's offerings as well. Remember, one of the early selling points of CC was that new features and updates would not have to forced out the door prematurely to meet a set--in-stone deadline which was the primary cause of such problems? Or was that just a selling point to be ignored after the fact? Adobe is no longer on a hard and fast time table. They can take as much time as they choose to test more thoroughly.

If Adobe's pre-release testing was even a bit more thorough ... we subscribers wouldn't have to be relegated to pay-to-play beta testers.

I don't expect any developer to reach pure perfection, but Adobe could certainly step up their game just a bit more. The problems that have been discovered in the past several releases have been fairly wide spread and were not the result of obscure hardware configurations and/or user methodology.

[Denis de Gannes]

It appears that Adobe are under extreme pressure to provide new camera raw support when high end camera models like the Canon 5D Mk IV are introduced into the market.
 I think this pressure to appease users that purchase new camera models as soon as they are released is compromising the testing of new features and bug fixes, as evidenced by the problems and new bugs that get introduced with each and every update.

 A possible solution to alleviate this issue is to provide updates for Camera Raw support and Lens Profiles with their own updates, since these two issues no not normally create problems.

Updates for Bug fixes and New Features can then be released when they have been fully tested and not released prematurely.

As far as I am aware the camera profiles and lens profiles are installed into their own specific folders and are shared by Lightroom and Adobe Camera Raw.

Surely Adobe should be able to store them online and users download the ones they need as they are available and place them in the appropriate folder.

Photo of Denis de Gannes
Denis de Gannes
23 Posts   1 Reply Like