LR 2.5 strange lines on highlights...

[Guest]

Hello, LR has just updated itself at the last version, 2.5.

I immediately noticed this strange thing (see attached images) on the library module preview, but I felt reassured when I switched to develop module and the lines disappeared.

I exported the raw images and, once opened in photoshop, I saw again the lines!

Anyone has already noticed something like this in the new version?

I'm on a mac with Leopard.

Now I have to finish my job using camera raw (not the 5.5 yet, fortunately)... I hope, if this is a bug, they could fix it soon. Meanwhile I accept suggestion on how to turn back to 2.4.

[photohoward1]

2 weeks in and no answer from Adobe?  I thought they were better than that.  It is pretty obvious that the issue is with G5 macs or pre Intel Macs.

Did they just abandon us?  I would love a new Machine but todays economy does not allow it.

Dedicated mac user for 20 years and Photoshop user.

[MikeLeone]

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 4:15 PM, photohoward1 <forums@adobe.com> said:

>

2 weeks in and no answer from Adobe?

There was an official acknowledgement and workaround posted 5 days ago

- 2009-09-26.

<http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/>

Link has been mentioned here on this forum at least a few times.

--

Michael J. Leone, <mailto:turgon@mike-leone.com>

PGP Fingerprint: 0AA8 DC47 CB63 AE3F C739 6BF9 9AB4 1EF6 5AA5 BCDF

Photo Gallery: <http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikeleonephotos

[photohoward1]

A work around Not a fix.  This is not only a LightRoom Problem but a PS4 (cs4) Raw problem. I don't use LightRoom and I am experiencing the same issue.

I use PS3 (cs3) Raw to work on everything.  Too bad because I paid for the Upgrade to PS4 (cs4) and have to go back to PS3 (cs3) to use the Raw filters.

Maybe they should just down grade everyone to Raw 5.4.  in the next update.

[MikeLeone]

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 4:58 PM, photohoward1 <forums@adobe.com> said:

>

A work around Not a fix.  This is not only a LightRoom Problem but a PS4 (cs4) Raw problem. I don't use LightRoom and I am experiencing the same issue.

If you don't use LR, why are you posting in a LR forum? Could it be

that you're posting from under a bridge, perhaps? LOL

I use PS3 (cs3) Raw to work on everything.  Too bad because I paid for the Upgrade to PS4 (cs4) and have to go back to PS3 (cs3) to use the Raw filters.

Nonsense, If you follow the instructions, you can continue to use CS4,

with the correct revision of ACR, or convert to DNG first, then use

those ...

Highly aggravating bug, I will grant you.But show-stopper? Not quite, no.

--

Michael J. Leone, <mailto:turgon@mike-leone.com>

PGP Fingerprint: 0AA8 DC47 CB63 AE3F C739 6BF9 9AB4 1EF6 5AA5 BCDF

Photo Gallery: <http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikeleonephotos

[Heywood_J]

It IS a show stopper when you're on a deadline and your customer also has a deadline. This problem is not confined to LR (I am having the same problem in Photoshop CS4), nor is it a small problem with a simple work-around. How is one supposed to revert to the old software when ACR is only available for certain cameras in CS4 (e.g: ACR in CS3 does not support and is not upgradable for newer cameras)?

I get good results in Aperture, SilkyPix, Raw Photo Processor, Oly Studio, and Photomatix. Adobe can't equal these folk's technical capabilities?

[MadManChan2000]

An update is in the works. Thanks for your patience.

[ch_esperado]

If you are a man from Adobe, i would just say that the reason of my anger is not much the bug itself (it happens sometimes with the best) but the fact you do not care about your customers.

As soon this bug was known, this version should had been removed from download, or, at least, a serious warning published on his page.

And/or a tool added in the installer to test the material configuration in order to cancel the installation if the bug has a chance to appears.

And some code added in order for the customer to can return to previous version easily,  too difficult for your developers ?

But  nothing,  and  more  and more people had suffer serious annoyance and more will in the next days.

Not good for your image, worse that to confess your mistake, and warn about this bug. (nobody 's perfect).
Let-me   tell-you   that,  even in the Linux world where softwares are free, you never see such a flippancy. And your softwares are expensive enough to be considered as "professional".

Apologies for my poor English.

[MadManChan2000]

Sorry there is nothing more I can offer you at this point. There was an announcement made in this forum when the bug was discovered, as well as on our product manager's "lightroom journal" blog. I do not have the ability/authority/power to update the Adobe product download page. Removing the software from the page doesn't help, because it ships as a universal binary (for intel and ppc); so removing it entirely also means removing it for all the intel users who don't encounter the problem. To the best of my knowledge, going back to LR 2.4 is just a matter of downloading the LR 2.4 installer and running it.

[jlw97]

I'm one of the original complainants, and I agree with Chan that the actual development team has done about all we can reasonably expect them to do at this point -- further bashing doesn't have much utility.

They've already accepted that there's a problem, acknowledged it, and told us how to avoid it (stick with 2.4 for now, or download and reinstall it.)

Putting a warning on the download page would avoid a certain amount of angst, but in a big company such as Adobe I expect that's beyond the dev team's jurisdiction.

[Heywood_J]

Thanks for the reply.

I'm not looking for solutions from forum participants. I have both

PPC and intel Macs - the problem exists on both platforms. I expect

more from Adobe (I have bee a user since the very beginning), as

several smaller firms have implemented raw development for my latest

camera (Oly e30) without so much as a snag. If i remember correctly,

this problem has been around for months. Is Adobe waiting for

critical mass before fixing an obvious (and apparently not

insurmountable) flaw in their implementation of their raw development

software.

[jlancasterd]

I had this problem with Leica M9 RAW* files on a MAC G5 PPC, running OSX

10.4.11 and reverted to LR2.4. I've recently switched to an iMAC Intel

running OSX 10.6.1 (Snow Leopard) and find that LR2.5 will handle M9 RAW*

files without any problems on this machine.

The bug in LR2.5 is plainly both CPU and OS dependent, and upgrading to Snow

Leopard may be the answer on certain types of MAC.

• That is uncompressed M9 RAW files - I haven't tried opening compressed M9

RAW files on either machine using LR2.5.

John L Dobson

Editor

Ffestiniog Railway Magazine

Ride the Ffestiniog Railway, the world's oldest independent railway company

and narrow-gauge pioneer. Established 23 May 1832 by Act of Parliament.

www.festrail.co.uk

2009/11/1 Heywood J <forums@adobe.com>

Thanks for the reply.

>

I'm not looking for solutions from forum participants. I have both

PPC and intel Macs - the problem exists on both platforms. I expect

more from Adobe (I have bee a user since the very beginning), as

several smaller firms have implemented raw development for my latest

camera (Oly e30) without so much as a snag. If i remember correctly,

this problem has been around for months. Is Adobe waiting for

critical mass before fixing an obvious (and apparently not

insurmountable) flaw in their implementation of their raw development

software.

>

[Heywood_J]

Thanks for the reply.

I have both PPC and intel Macs - the problem exists on both platforms

(it's less pronounced on the intel-based machine, but it's definitely

there). I expect more from Adobe (I have bee a user since the very

beginning), as several smaller firms have implemented raw development

for my latest camera (Oly e30) without so much as a snag. If I

remember correctly from reading the forum, this problem has been

around for months. Is Adobe waiting for critical mass before fixing

an obvious (and apparently not insurmountable) flaw in their

implementation of their raw development software?

[ramarren]

Jeez, you do go on and on.

If it's support for the Olympus E-30 you're looking for, just re-install Lightroom v2.4 or Camera Raw v5.4 and you'll be fine. The ONLY new cameras supported in Lightroom v2.5/Camera Raw v5.5 are

Nikon     D300s
Nikon D3000
Olympus     E-P1
Panasonic     DMC-FZ35
Panasonic DMC-GF1

The E-30 was already supported in LR v2.4 (and Camera Raw v5.4). There's no need at all to use the later version, the PowerPC bug surfaced in LRv2.5 and Camera Raw/DNG Converter v5.5.

I am using the Panasonic GF1 files with NO problems whatever in v2.4 by converting the files with DNG Converter v5.5 and loading them with LR v2.4 on a PowerMac G5.

[Heywood_J]

Jeez, your reading comprehension seems to be lacking.

I'm answering emails - not on the forum, and not posting repeatedly

there. You should try to read the prior comments before you reply — it

would save us both some time. If you had read my prior comments, you'd

understand why LR is not a solution for me. If you can't offer a

solution (especially without being snarky), why don't you simply

ignore the comment?

[ramarren]

As I posted good solutions to this thread for the problem (several times already) and specifically addressed both Lightroom and Camera Raw, it seems to me that all you really want to do is complain.

Specifically when it seems that the camera for which you've mentioned you're want support for (the Olympus E-30) doesn't even need Camera Raw v5.5 or Lightroom v2.5 ... it's well supported in the previous versions which do not have these issues at all.

Perhaps you should try working out your reading comprehension disability before accusing others of same.

[Heywood_J]

Listen up and at least try to understand this: I'm not using LR, and ACR does not handle e30 files well (in ACR 5.3) or at all in (ACR 5.5).

From Adobe (re: ACR 5.4):

• Canon EOS 500D (Digital Rebel T1i/EOS Kiss X3 Digital)


• Canon PowerShot SX1 IS


• Epson R-D1x


• Hasselblad CF-22


• Hasselblad CF-22MS


• Hasselblad CF-39


• Hasselblad CF-39MS


• Hasselblad CFH-22


• Hasselblad CFH-39


• Hasselblad CFV


• Hasselblad 503CWD


• Hasselblad H2D-22


• Hasselblad H2D-39


• Hasselblad H3D-22


• Hasselblad H3D-31


• Hasselblad H3D-39


• Hasselblad H3DII-22


• Hasselblad H3DII-31


• Hasselblad H3DII-39


• Hasselblad H3DII-39MS


• Hasselblad H3DII-50


• Kodak EasyShare Z980


• Nikon D5000


• Olympus E-450


• Olympus E-620


• Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH1


• Pentax K-7


• Sigma DP2


• Sony A230


• Sony A330


• Sony A380

and this, from these forums (in reply to your assertion that "it's well supported in the previous versions which do not have these issues at all":

May 10, 2009 8:17 AM

Olympus e30 Raw support?  Will there be a UPdate?

I am using LRf2.3 64-bit  Vista,  and a new Olympus e30

When I import and convert to DNG  I notice on the e30 files that I am using Adobe Standard  as the Camera Calibration.  Does not even have a listing for the current ACR 5.3 to choose.

Read on DPR  that the Olympus e30 support in LR v2.3  is not optimal (sub-optimal as DPR put it)    Which my gut feeling tells me it is true.

link to DPR  mention of this:  http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse30/page31.asp

Also,  strange goings on when I import with AUTO exposure  ... which was pretty close before (only had to change the Brightness slider down on other OLY files).

Question:   Is the Update comming Soon?

Question: What are my solution options?   Has anyone found a good workaround for now?

Strange to me  Adobe did not correct this already.

_________________

Never wrong, are you? Strange that all of the other converters work on both of my machines.

Do you work for Adobe or are you the self-appointed fan boy/apologist?

[ramarren]

Heywood J,

You can call people names all you want. It demonstrates more about you than it says about anyone else.

I don't work for Adobe, I'm an independent photographer and consultant nowadays. I use Lightroom and Photoshop in producing the photography I do for my clients and myself. I stay up to date on what's going on with these software produces as well as Apple's hardware and Mac OS X because I do consulting on these systems (I worked for Apple in engineering support and strategic software development for 13 years). I also teach workshops focused on Photoshop and Lightroom use.

Camera Raw v5.3 added the E-30, so it is fully supported in v5.4 as well. See

  http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/cameraraw.html

which articulates all supported cameras added to Camera Raw v5.5 and Lightroom v2.5, as well as all the ones supported by v5.4/v2.4.

Do yourself a favor: 

Install Camera Raw v5.4 and wait for Adobe to announce the updated v5.5.1 or whatever they call it.

[Heywood_J]

MadMan:

Thanks for the offer, but I know what I'm doing, know what I'm

seeing, and know what is causing the problem (Adobe's

implementation). In order to recreate the problem on an Intel-based

Mac, I'd have to send 7 bracketed exposures of .orf files @ 11.5MB

each (as the bracketed exposures have 3 over exposures, the artifacts

are substantial, and extend into the properly exposed areas of the

image). The artifacts look exactly like those shown previously on the

Adobe forum. I have sent JPG crops to Adobe tech support.

I'm going to go back to an older camera for projects such as I'm

currently working on (residential interiors), and an older version of

PSCS. If Adobe doesn't fix the problem, so be it — I'll work around

it and wait for a competitive product. I have an expectation that the

software I have purchased will work correctly — I can't afford to

reshoot projects, or to miss deadlines. I did all due diligence

before I purchased the camera and software, and I was given no

reason to suspect that the software would not work as advertised.

ramarren:

TMI regarding your qualifications. I do believe you began this

exchange with this comment: "Jeez, you do go on and on." I explained

that I was answering emails — not visiting this forum or posting

repeatedly on my own initiative — yet you continued the condescending

and irrelevant comments. I even invited you to forgo reading or

responding to my comments, as your responses weren't germane to my

comments.

Thanks to everybody who responded civilly to my OP.

[MadManChan2000]

Heywood, I am not suggesting that you don't know what you're doing. I am suggesting that there may be a bug in our code, that we have overlooked. If you can provide example files, that would help me to determine whether or not that is indeed the case. In other words, I am asking for your help. You said you have seen cases where there are artifacts. That means you have example raw files that demonstrate the issue. I am asking you to submit those raw files so that I can see if I can reproduce your issue and track it down. If I do not have the ability to examine such files, I cannot track it down, which means it will not get fixed. If you are willing to help out in this manner, please let me know.

Eric

[Heywood_J]

Hi, Eric,

I had no idea you were part of the Adobe team. Apologies. Do you have

an FTP site I can upload to? If not, I could send a CD. Thanks.

[MadManChan2000]

No problem, Heywood. I understand that having "madman" in my forum name does not necessarily convey the impression of employee status.

I do not have an FTP site, but you can use YouSendIt.com:

http://www.yousendit.com/

Just enter my email address "madmanchan2000@yahoo.com" for the "To" email address.

Eric

[MadManChan2000]

Hi John,

Just to clarify, this problem is only CPU-dependent. Specifically, for those interested in the technical details, it affects machines that do not support the Intel SSE2 instruction set. This includes PowerPC machines, as well as much older Intel and AMD processors. Almost all of the newer Intel and AMD processors do support SSE2 (e.g., your new iMac) and won't have the problem.

Cheers,

Eric

[Heywood_J]

No, it's not CPU dependent. I'm working on machines with both

processors (the Intel-based machine is less than a year old), and I'm

getting the artifacts on both. As I said, it's not as bad on the Intel

machine, but it's there (it is particularly bad when using the "Merge

to HDR" function of PSCS4 on the Intel machine).

Cheers.

[ramarren]

I would be delighted to test using any RAW files you are willing to supply on both PowerPC and Intel based Apple systems. I don't own an E-30 so I cannot generate my own E-30 files. I have already posted evidence that the solutions I posted work fine on both cpu platforms with my cameras.

[Heywood_J]

You can get a sampe e30 file at DP review (link, above). I want the functionality of the software I paid for - not a work around, and not confirmation (or worse yet, denial) of the problem.