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.

[Stan_Chism]

thanks for the further input and saving me needless work.

Stan

[ch_esperado]

On my computer (Xp sp3, Athon 3200+ Olympus E-3), just the images i had worked on with LR 2.5 are corrupted. If i open them back in 2.4, Previews return to original state (and corrections are  losen). No need to reconstruct the whole thumb database. Some thumb are corrupted, but you can still read the image, and, as long you do not work on it, who cares ?

But the main thing is my postprod works on those images are lost. Adobe knows that, do not care and still no warning on the download page of this dangerous 2.5 version. A lot of users will continue to download this version and will enconter this annoyance.

" I think I can still learn Aperture 2.0"

Time for me too to test intensively other softwares like Bible5, DXO etc. and get rid of this last, buggy, heavy, too intrusive and too expensive Adobe product on my computer. As a windows user (and software developper), i'm less and less happy with Adobe's philosophy and customer's care.

[dorin_nicolaescu]

But the main thing is my postprod works on those images are lost.

You should have exported as catalog, then imported into 2.4. You would have kept the adjustments. Alternatively, you could have saved metadata.

[treborserrot]

I just got a Sony 850 DSLR and found that in order to upload the ARW - raw -  files to Lightroom 2.4 I had to update to 2.5 as it was giving me an error that the files were either damaged or unsupported.  So after updating, the first thing I noticed was the digital artifacts in the bright/over exposed areas of certain files and thenI noticed they were in older files taken with the a700 camera that all looked fine in 2.4. I confirmed that the digital static confetti-looking artifacts were in the exported files which meant that they also appeared in PSCS4. So I reinstalled 2.4.

I say all this to get to my solution for using raw files with this camera until Lightroom 2.5 has an update that will deal with the issue for this camera (a850) and on a Mac G5 PPC computer.  The solution is to copy my Sony ARW files to a folder and use Adobe DNG Converter 5.5 to convert these to DNG files. I read something by Scott Kelby that it's best to convert raw files to DNG anyways as DNG files are not proprietary files and it will ensure they can be opened down the road. Anyways, this solves the problem of the static lines showing up. The only lingering question I do have is whether converting these specific ARW files to DNG results in any loss in quality to the raw image.

-r

[Guest]

Hi all,

I'm the starter of this thread.

I switched back to LR 2.4 and everything works.

But I'd like to say something, anyway.

I've heard that a 3.0 version is being released and I heard that it won't support PPCs. I bought a Mac, at the time, JUST because I wanted to use LR (windows version was far to come). I was a Minolta user, now I'm a Sony user... and I like Sony and Zeiss lenses a lot, really. I waited so long to have a better support by Adobe on Sony cameras.

Now what? Should I buy a new Mac Intel hoping again that Adobe thought about us Sony users? LR 2.5 was about something better done on Sony's raws rendering, that makes someone believe that version 3.0 could be a step forward in good Sony support.

I don't know. I think that Mac machines and Adobe software are very expensive, therefore they sould be also reliable and consistent during the time. Macs, they are so, but what about Adobe and its consideration of its clients and their money?

[Heywood_J]

I'm with you on everything you say. I've invested heavily over the

years on Macs and Adobe products. I considered moving back to Nikon

(my fav film cams, and with the D3/D700 sensor, very impressive high

ISO performance), but how do I know Adobe's implementation will not

be sub-par in the future? Adobe has been awfully lax (actually, the

language they use has been dismissive) in supporting their customers

who work on older (yet still very capable) computers. One Adobe rep

went as far as saying that Adobe was in business to make money, and

that there's not enough money in older Mac systems. Apparently, the

dude doesn't understand the value of goodwill in business.

[Guest]

Every software developer is in business to "make money", except for a few tiny shareware folk.

Hardware obsolescence is a fact, and it in turn can create software obsolescence. No one is forced to update or upgrade software nor get a new machine. Unless of course, one wants or needs the newer stuff.

[Heywood_J]

I bought the "newer stuff" with the 'promise" (according to Adobe's

list of cameras supported) that my cam would be supported. I can

always go back to using an older camera and software, but I've

already purchased the camera and the software. Making money is the

goal of any business (including mine), bad faith can certainly put a

dent in future profits.

[Guest]

Dear John, I'm sorry but, from my point of view, I have to contraddict you: hardware and software obsolescence are created by hardware and software producers! We are not talking of programs and machines who costed few dollars or bought ten years ago!

If you read carefully what I wrote, I said that I was waiting BETTER support for my gear since YEARS!

I don't want or need any newer stuff: I just want to use what I bought and that it works for what I payed! LR never rendered Sony colors well (not to mention about Minolta's), while they did develope a lot of solution for Canon and Nikon users (I think about customized profiles).

Now, the result is that if I decide to trust again LR on Sony hoping in a better raw support, I'm FORCED to buy a new computer.

Hope my point is clearer now.

[Guest]

Hi, Mary-

My comments weren't directed to you, and perhaps I should have let it all go a while back.

Best of luck to you.

[Ian Lyons]

I think it would be in everyones interests if this thread quietened down a little. If it doesn't I will lock it.

IanLyons

Forum Host

[MadManChan2000]

Mary, if you wish to discuss unsatisfactory Sony/Minolta support, please start a new thread and explain your concerns there. Thanks.

Eric

[Guest]

http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Lightroom_2.6

This version should fix the problem.

[MadManChan2000]

Glad to hear it! Thanks for checking.

[TheBilbo]

Thanks, Adobe and Adobe developers. 

You folks had to put up with a lot whinging about this issue, so maybe you are due some apologies,too.

[MadManChan2000]

No worries. Mistakes do happen, but the important thing is to get the fix out to the photographers. Thanks for your patience.

Eric