Not new to LR5, it was introduced in LR4. ... View more

hamish niven wrote: oops, oh well, good news for those hoping LR will be improving soon How long can you hold your breath? Literally :~) Check out the Lightroom Journal in a short while... ... View more

jdwild wrote: Exclusive features for Cloud purchasers only!  Do us software owners get a free minor upgrade with these features??? probably not That's the deal with perpetual licenses...and you knew that going in. Buying a perpetual license entitles you to use the software without a time limit. Adobe will provide free updates (not upgrades) for bug fixes and maintenance issue for the period of time that particular version is currently shipping. During that time, no new features have ever been added. Once a new upgrade is released (a new version) then  free updates to your current version stop (although Adobe has released security updates for version that are no longer shipping). With the subscription license, the deal is, you are entitled to new updates (same as with a perpetual license) AND new upgrades with new features… I don't see how you can possibly think that is screwing people with perpetual licenses because perpetual licenses have never gotten upgrades with new features. That always required a paid upgrade. What the people who get subscription licenses are paying for is a time limited license that includes free updates and upgrades with new features for the period of time they maintain their subscription licenses. Adobe will release a new upgrade (probably on a similar time frame as the past upgrades) that will role in all the new features of the subscription license upgrades and you can decide at that time if the new features are enough for you to pay for the new perpetual license upgrade, same as it ever was. It's a choice you have to make for yourself...subscribe and get free upgrades or buy a perpetual license and pay for the upgrade in the future. This is not a bad thing...it's just a new thing (which a lot of people don't understand and assume Adobe is just being evil). In any event, this is completely off topic...and fortunately, the OP has solved their problem. Time to move on... ... View more

CB-Images wrote: Can you think of any processes that can be done to test the stability of the DNG file? Using the DNG Converter to convert a raw to DNG will put the image through error checking although the report doesn't really offer any further info in the event the raw fails to successfully convert to DNG. It's possible (just thinking out loud) that when a file is being read into Develop, LR or ACR will cashe the raw file to make additional loads quicker. If on the read and write of the cahe something get's corrupt, it's possible that it's the cache file getting corrupted on the write to disk. I really don't know...I do know for a fact that the ACR/LR engineers are familiar with this thread and engineers are looking into this issue. When I asked Eric about it, he gave me the answer I quaoted and then followed up with an email saying he was passing the question off to Thomas Knoll to see what he thought. No feedback from Thomas as yet (not sure he will respond). Roab says: "More food for thought: those who are vested in what they want the answer to be (or not to be), or what they think the answer should be (or shouldn't be), are sometimes blind to what the answer really may be (regardless of how smart they may otherwise be)". If this was directed in my general direction, understand that I have no "want" or "should" be in this hunt...what I don't want is misinformation or FUD being spread becaue that helps nobody...nobody wants their images corrupted. Anything that can be done to eliminate corruption would be useful, right? ... View more

Rob osted a screenshot from Windows, yes. On Mac there is no command key for purple. ... View more

On Mac, there is no short cut for Purple... ... View more

KristaMarieSetera wrote: They're numbers 6-9, so did Adobe just not give purple shortcut because they ran out of numbers? Correct... ... View more

Actually, I asked Eric Chan about the rewritting issue and this is what he said (which is what my understanding was based on): When updating only XMP metadata, only the headers are rewritten (in-place update).  So the image data should stay intact. But there are cases where the user has the option to update not only the XMP metadata, but also the embedded previews (in the case of DNG).  This would be like choosing "Update DNG Previews" from the flyout menu in ACR.  In this case, the entire file gets rewritten, including the primary image data. So, I'm now wondering what is actually happening to John's JPEG file in his tests...writing into the XMP header which was totally empty after removal of the xmp metadata using ExifTool and then saving the metadata from Lightroom may have moved the image data to a new offset without actually rewriting (altering) the image data. Could image corruption come because of moving the image data, perhaps. ... View more

John R. Ellis wrote: Here's evidence that LR is rewriting an entire JPEG file when I add metadata and do Save Metadata To File, just as Rob has described. -snip- Obviously, if there's a hardware fault anywhere in the path from the disk to memory and back, the contents of the image data could get corrupted. Thanks for the explanation…this would apply to DNG, TIFF, JPEG and PSD files, correct? It would not apply to proprietary raw files since the .xmp file is a side car file, correct? And, if you did NOT write xmp into DNG, TIFF, JPEG or PSDs, then any image corruption would not be the result of corruption caused by LR, correct? My appologies for claming Rob was wrong about the potential for faulty ram (or any potential hardware faults) causing image corruption due to writing xmp metadata back into image files... ... View more

Rob Cole wrote: ...what I said was that files can become corrupted under Lr's watch due to faulty hardware (e.g. bad ram), when embedded xmp is being saved, due to the fact that the entire file sometimes gets re-written, image data and all - if you think otherwise, then you think wrong. The entire file (including image data) get's rewitten? You think that? Then you don't understand the way .xmp is written to the headers of files. Those headers reserved for .xmp metadata have built in padding to allow for the expansion of new additional xmp data. It may be that if a header gets too full, the headers will be rewitten to expand the header padding. At no time (that I'm aware of) does that require rewritting the image data in the file. Can corrupt header data make the image inaccessable? Perhaps...I've never seen a case of that. Have you? Lightroom does load the entire image into Lightroom when working in the Develop module...but the only thing LR alters in Develop is the xmp settings, not the original image data. What I have seen is image corruption happening because of faulty cards, faulty writting to the card from a camera, faulty cabling when trnasfering the image to the HD or a faulty card reader. I've also seen image corruption caused by failing hard drives (files there were good becoming corrupted or unreadable due to loss of data ingetraty on the drive). I've seen images corrupted by faulty ram in Photoshop (but never in Lightroom). You'll note that  DdeGanes image corruption was being caused by faulty ram but the images were corrupted during an import (copy) process...not once the images were safely copied to the HD... ... View more

Rob Cole wrote: No you didn't, and you know it. Yes...I did...you started out ok but when you said faulyt ram could corrupt .xmp data (and thus corrupt image data) you went off the reservation... ... View more

Rob Cole wrote: PS - If it weren't apparent that you didn't read my posts very carefully (since you've totally misrepresented what I said), I'd consider responding to the accusations. Oh, I read every single word you've posted...make no mistake about that. We've been around this before. You do a disservice to other users by saying Lightroom could corrupt image data because you know that it doesn't. That's the problem I have with what you post. Again, it's 99.9999999% due to hardware. Could a mini black hole fly through your computer and corrupt you image in Lightroom while working on it. Yes, I suppose it's "possible". How likely? Not very. Could faulty ram corrupt an image in Lightroom? Perhaps...but I think the chances of that happening is as likely as your computer being hit by a black hole. If you have ANY evidence to dispute that, post it. ... View more

Geoff the kiwi wrote: Rob, I'm not insinuating anything I simply asked a question which you refuse to answer, simple!! Here it is again, have you seen any corruption from this? Easy yes or no! Of course Rob has never seen data corruption in Lightroom due to bad ram because while it may be theoretically possible, the chances of it happening are infinitesimal. Rob seems to like to spread FUD about Lightroom and image corruption and teases people with the possibility (no matter how remote) that Lightroom could in some near impossible situation corrupt image data… Fact is, he knows better… If you have image corruption it's 99.999999% hardware, somewhere, that is causing it–not Lightroom. To even suggest that somehow, Lightroom might be at fault is completely disingenuous. He knows better…and no, he has no proof or any experience that Lightroom could be at fault. Which is really the sad part of this…Lightroom doesn't corrupt images, hardware does. ... View more

CRCJJ wrote: Correct, and I told him I'm sorry... what's your point? My point is that nothing you've posted has been in the least bit useful...do you want help? Or do you simply want to waste bandwidth? I've got CS6 working on 3 Macs and a Win 7 PC that is working just fine...so, assuming it's not working for you (don't know because, well, you've not bothered to provide any info) what's different? Do you care? Or do you simply want to rant? BTW, the odds are that what you may have obtained in late 87 was BarneyScan XP because it wasn't actually named "Photoshop" until late 1988/early 89 when the deal went through with Adobe...before then it was called PhotoHut. ... View more

CRCJJ wrote: I should be singing the praises of PS as I've done since the 80's, but now I've been let down because of corporate greed to rush something out not tested well enough. Not for nothing but I doubt you've been using Photoshop since the 80's since Photoshop 1.0 shipped Feb 10th, 1990. Illustrator shipped in the late 1980's (Illustrator '88 I think). You might wanna actually post some useful info to allow others to help troubleshoot instead of making accusations about normal users deleting your posts which, of course doesn't happen (which you might know if you had been here in the forums a while). What Chris said is true...CS6 (with the most recent updates) runs just fine for the vast majority of users. If it ain't working for YOU, outlining what's NOT working for you and detailing what steps you've done troubleshooting would be useful. ... View more

juggalord2k13 wrote: I totally get what you're saying Noel. Here's a missing piece of the puzzle too.. Suppose that you're Joe Casual. It's January 7th. You're doing your Twitter thing and one of your friends tweets that Adobe is giving away CS2 for free. He read it on legit sites like Gizmodo or Forbes and wanted to pass it on. You download it. You install it. You use it. You never give it a second thought. In fact, like everybody else that day, you've got no reason to think that it's not free. You're not likely to lurk on the Adobe forums and you got the direct page link second hand. What then? A guy like that, who probably represents the average person, will never know what's being talked about on these forums. He certainly wasn't misled, as credible sites repored that CS2 was free. He's not a criminal and has no cause to believe that he is; Adobe did, after all, leave it out in the open as they would any other free download. He's not trying to get away with anything either. I don't disagree that Adobe screwed the pooch...(wouldn't be the first time Adobe made an announcement that was flat out wrong). The motivation was, however, trying to do the right thing for the legit users of CS2 that would be impacted by turning off the activation servers for CS2. Why that happened and what prompted the turning off of the activation servers isn't clear (it may never be). But Adobe acted to try to help out legit users. Was this a total FUBAR situation? Yes... Was Adobe trying to help out the CS2 users? Yes... Did Adobe screw up? Yes... However, Adobe is "trying" to correct the situation...prolly sticking a finger in the dam to try to prevent a flood. But, CS2 is old tech...it won't run well on ANY currently shipping OS. So, those people who think they've scored a cool freebie will find out the moment they buy a new computer with a modern OS will be shyte out of luck...they'll have to go out an BUY Photoshop to run it (I can see the tech support nightmares now–hey, you guys–Adobe-gave aways CS2 and now I have a new computer and why aren't you updated the software I though was free to something that runs on my new computer? Anybody here should know that only license holders of CS2 are entitled to download and install the non-activation versions of CS2 and use the serial numbers provided. You guys can go on slugging it out here if ya want...but the bottom line is if you read this thread you know darn well that downloading the non-activation versions of CS2 without a legit licence is bogus (even if it's Adobe's fault it happened). ... View more

Under the Help menu in Photoshop CS6 on Mac is the Updates... command ... View more

cromwell99 wrote: I'm not a luddite, I have benefitted as much as anyone from the switch away from analogue but some of the changes over encoding and software features are frankly just a marketing ploy. Actually, you are...you are still using OS X 10.5 Leopard which was released in Oct 2017 on a 5 year old Mac Pro. You didn't upgrade to Snow Leopard (your choice) and now you are totally out of the OS X loop (again, your choice). You now go buy a brand new camera and are shocked the rest of the Mac community has left you behind. Your MacPro has been parked at 10.5 (aside from the 10.5.x updates) and now you want to upgrade your applications–that require a more modern OS and there's no easy way of doing that. Apple has fundamentally changed their OS delivery system (while you weren't paying attention I guess). The way to get either Lion or Mountain Lion is via the Apple App Store–which didn't exist until 10.6.8-which you can't "buy" any longer. Apple isn't selling Snow Leopard any more. I understand this doesn't please you...but lashing out at Adobe will do you no good. LR4 and Photoshop CS6 require 10.6.8 or above. None of this was "secret"...(although the Lion + delivery system was a surprise to some who weren't paying attention). Your only option is to try to find a 10.6.x installer (prolly 10.6.3), update to 10.6.8 to get the App Store and go to Mountain Lion (you could hover at 10.6.8 for a while since that's all that is required for CS6 and LR4). You can't even buy Lion any longer... Yeah, it sucks to be in your position...but the person responsible for your position is you. You really should stay up to date on your OS and applications or at least no older than one version back. Otherwise you'll end up in the same position in the future. Good luck fixing your mess (I actually mean that). ... View more

MPpulido wrote: You know camera raw is a great plugin and you are forcing us to upgrade in order to have the version 7.1 You are not being forced...you are being encouraged to upgrade to a superior raw processing output. That's why the engineers keep advancing the art. You can keep using DNG Converter (which allows people using as far back as Photoshop CS) that allows free backwards compatibility. Sure, you're pissed because in order to get the best, most recent raw processing you need to upgrade to Photoshop CS6 and ACR 7. This has been the policy since ACR was first released in Photoshop 7. You want the new stuff? Pay up, otherwise use the free DNG Converter...(which BTW, Adobe is under zero obligation to provide) Really, you aren't going to get much sympathy from current users of Photoshop CS6 and ACR 7. Really, the new version is worth the upgrade price by itself. ... View more

LWAA wrote: I'm complaining that they don't make updates to camera Raw compatible with older versions of Photoshop thus forcing people to spend hundreds of dollars just so they can access one plug in. What part of using the FREE DNG Converter to convert your raw files don't you understand? You are forced to upgrade if you want the most recent raw image processing available in Camera Raw 7.x but you can convert to DNG and use those files all the way back to Photoshop CS. (BTW, scroll down to the Downloads section and choose Mac or PC) ... View more

Environmental_Artist wrote: you are right in pointing out the phenomenon that causes the problem. However, I took a lot of time to create the images and wanted them to stay exactly as they were captured, with exactly the same colour characteristics. The only way that's gonna happen is if you use the Nikon software to process the files. Lightroom's default for raw files are not designed to match the camera LCD nor what the camera software can do. Lightroom's defaults are normalized rendering of the raw file. There is no "correct rendering" of a raw file...all raw software (except for Camera Raw and Lightroom which share the processing engine) will produce different raw processed results. There are ways of modifying the Lightroom defaults to more closely match many camera's rendering by using different DNG profiles in the camera Calibration panel, not your desire to have Lightroom render the files the way the camera LCD shows them isn't a realistic expectation. You'll be better off learning how to use Lightroom's controls to get what you want... ... View more

Read this and get back to us Why does the color and or tone of my image change after import? Also, it would be useful if you could describe what you mean when you say "completely ruined". What you you mean? Too light/dark? Too warm/cold? Too saturated or unsaturated? I see Keith beet me to the post :~) But we still need to know what's "ruined" Message was edited by: Jeff Schewe ... View more

Nope...JPEG, PSD, TIFF or raw files only. ... View more

Regardless of the flags, the fact is that backwards compatibility testing and offering official "support" is different than the plug-in "maybe working" in CS5...for example there is no longer a 32-bit version of Photoshop CS6 for Mac. Bridge is now also 64-bit. So, Mac Camera Raw 7.x is a 64-bit only binary. Are you suggesting that letting ACR 7 work in the CS5 32-bit Mac binary is a simple recompile? Face it, the Adobe policy is based upon technical issues of backwards compatibility as well as not giving away new features and functions for nothing. Could ACR 6.x keep getting new cameras added? Yes, but then it's a branch in the code that substantially complicates the development. The policy of only offering free updates to currently shipping software is a pretty long standing policy since the begining of Camera Raw in Photoshop 7 in 2003–almost a decade. And again the root cause of the problem users of older software buying new cameras and not getting support could be resolved by the camera makers adopting a standard like DNG. And again Adobe offers a free (as in no cost but downloading) DNG Converter solution for people with new cameras an old software. It's either that or upgrade to the most recent version of Photoshop. Let's see, photographhers are happy to spend money on new cameras but hate spending money on software upgrades...do you not see the disconnect there? Penny wise, pound foolish. ... View more

deejjjaaaa wrote: myth about SDK (see Schewe) is not exactly true - everybody heard that ACR 7 from leaked/stolen prerelease was working with CS5. "working" is not the same as full backwards compatibility testing on each platform and OS versions that CS5/5.5 worked on...could Adobe make ACR 7.x work on CS5? Prolly for many/most platforms and OSs, but it would be a lot of work to do so–work that would take the engineers away from fixing bugs and adding new cameras to the current customers running CS6 with ACR 7.x. The technical limitations of backwards compatibilities and cross-SDK support issues are not a myth. If you knew anything about developing plug-ins for Photoshop you would know better. ... View more

MPpulido wrote: That is exactly the point, how is possible to consider a software OLD and OBSOLETE and UNSUPPORTED if the software ADOBE CREATIVE SUITE 5.5 PRODUCTION PREMIUM, was sold DIRECTLY by ADOBE, 9 months ago. It is not unrealistic it is a rip-off. Again, your expectations are unrealistic...while you may have bought CS 5.5 only 9 months ago, you did so on the end of the upgrade cycle...you should have expected a new upgraded version would not be released not long after you bought CS 5.5. Nature of the beast...your expectations that CS 5.x would be upgraded was unrealistic...once a new version ships, the outdated versions will not ever be upgradable...your bad dooode...and again, the solution to your issue is the free DNG Converter–which is free BTW...something Adobe did NOT have to do... ... View more

The Adobe policy is to provide free updates for currently shipping products. The current version of Photoshop is CS6, the current Camera Raw is 7.1. Providing backwards compatibility of older software with newer versions of Camera Raw is a major technical problem. Camera Raw is a plug-in with dependancies on the host version of Photoshop's SDK. Camera Raw 7.x is designed to use the CS6 SDK. Photoshop CS6 has different platform requirements than Photoshop CS5 had. So, trying to force fit Camera Raw 7.x to work in Photoshop CS5 would require a code branch of the Camera Raw code that would substantially complicate future development–meaning it would put a major dent in the development resources that Adobe could apply to future updates–a bad thing for current customers. Personally, as a CS6 user, I would not like that at all. Adobe provides backwards compatibility for new cameras in old versions of Photoshop for free. Yes, it's an additional step but one that only costs a bit of time on your part. The free DNG Converter is capable of producing DNGs that are compatible back to Camera Raw 2.4 in Photoshop CS...and again, this is free and something that Adobe didn't HAVE to do... You want new cameras to be supported in older software–fact is these new cameras produce new raw file formats that are proprietary and undocumented–it takes a lot of work o decode new formats. This problem is a direct result of the failure of the camera companies to adopt a raw file format standard that would eliminate the need for new camera format decoding...you are perfectly happy buying a new camera that creates a new, un-compatible raw format and blame only Adobe for failing to upgrade old software? Your expectations are unrealistic and you are trying to place blame on the wrong party, it's the camera company's who are at fault for not adhering to some sort of standard that would free users of the problems they face now. Blame the company that sold you the camera that is not compatible with your software...it ain't Adobe's fault. ... View more

Noel Carboni wrote: Jeff, your comment seems inapplicable to the specific problem being discussed here. I guess you missed the part about the difficulty in determining EXACTLY why some people are seeing slowdowns and other are not? Lately I've noticed a real slow down when turning on the Adjustment Brush mask preview and trying to work...painfully slow (and I've pinged Eric about it). If there was a repeatable use case where the engineers could say, if you do this then things turn to crap I suspect they would work hard to fix it in a dot release...the problem is that as far as I know there's no reliable method of determining exactly what series of steps results in serious slowdowns. Can you shed light? If not then you are just adding to the chaos and not resolving any issues...let us know when you have any definitive answers...otherwise you're taking a stab in the dark like the rest of us. ... View more

Noel Carboni wrote: Adobe seems to be a bit silent across the various forums lately.  I hope they haven't been instructed to avoid participating...  That would be a shame, as it's one thing Adobe has been doing right. They (I'm assuming you mean Eric) haven't been active on the forums because some of the engineers are taking time off while planning for the future. After a major release (LR4 & ACR 4) there's a serious lack of energy and spending a lot of time on the forums isn't how you get your juices back flowing... As regarding performance problems, it really, REALLY depends on what you are doing and how you've done it. There are lots of image adjustments that are processor intensive and when added together are likely to compound performance issues. Lot's of little isolated things can add up to painfully slow working...I've seen it at times. Lens Corrections plus high noise reduction plus multiple adjustment brush pins plus Grain (reducing noise and adding grain can be a real slowdown when previewing and zooming). If you decide to show the brush mask expect another performance hit. Add this on top of PV 2012 which is much more CPU intensive than PV 2010 and things multiply...sometimes geometrically. So, either the engineers need to speed up the pipeline or we need to wait for new, even faster CPUs...both will take some time... ... View more