Adobe Faces Harsh Backlash After Removal of Features and Stability Issues Plague

[John Geerts]

Yes, I am not always sure if they 'help'.  Can sample variation have an effect?

[elsa hoffmann]

re lens correction  - see this thread I started
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,1771.0.html

[Airy]

Correction of weird distortion is most useful. The 20mm Nikkors come to mind (wave distortion). Also the 50/1.8 AFS (low barrel, but increased sharply in the corners).

Interestingly, LR provides now a CV 40/2 profile with two variants: with, or without, close-up lens.

[pluton]

Yes, I am not always sure if they 'help'.  Can sample variation have an effect?

Sample variation in Lightroom?  Ha ha... sorry...bad joke.
I've never seen nor heard of lens assembly sample variation affecting distortion, which is what I use the Adobe lens correction for.  Sometimes I leave the distortion in.
But, there's always a first time...

[Eb]

I installed the update for the update today, now ver. 2015.2.1 and no problems.  Fortunately, I also had no problem with 2015.2.0, yet I do prefer the old import interface and wish they had left it alone.  It is still a good idea to turn off the "Add Photos" screen - who needs it.  I think they are trying to attract Photoshop Elements users with this kind of gimmick.

[Jørgen Ramskov]

Adobe writes:

I think it’s important to provide some context to why we made changes to Import.  Over the years we’ve done extensive studies of customers interested in Lightroom.  The studies have been comprised of people passionate about photography and who use their cameras as a creative outlet.  In short, their motivations share the same motivations as people who already love Lightroom.

We visited them in their homes, and asked them to install, launch and use Lightroom.  Since this was their first interaction with Lightroom, we were interested in observing specifically where they encountered obstacles, and therefore where we needed to focus our attention.

Customers were universally unable to decipher the Import dialog without getting frustrated. Some people pushed forward, bolstered by spending time searching the web for help.  They might have been successful in importing files, but they didn’t feel successful.  Others gave up, deciding that Lightroom might not be the right product for them.

The previous Import experience literally made people push back from their computers in frustration.  Keeping the existing Import experience isn’t an option, and we needed to evolve the Import experience.

They seem to have only studied new users, what about existing users and "advanced" users?

Link: https://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2015/10/update-on-lightroom-2015-2-lightroom-6-2-release.html

They have also written an apology: https://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2015/10/lightroom-6-2-release-update-and-apology.html

In our efforts to simplify the import experience we introduced instability that resulted in a significant crashing bug.  The scope of that bug was unclear and we made the incorrect decision to ship with the bug while we continued to search for a reproducible case(Reproducible cases are essential for allowing an engineer to solve a problem).

I'll re-write that for you: "Management pressured us to release something we knew wasn't ready for release".

[pluton]

Crashing bugs seem always to eventually get fixed.  I don't worry about them as a rule.  Dumbing down, though, is very disappointing to the user.
This may mark the time when Lightroom went senile...time will tell.

[Airy]

Distortion correction seems OK with the 50/1.2 profile; here's a shot at f/5.6 (pavement detail in Sta Maria degli Angeli, Roma) taken at relatively short distance (body height, at an angle). I have not yet thoroughly tested the 20/3.5 profile, but I processed a couple of architecture shots and the result looked quite OK.

[elsa hoffmann]

Adobe has already apologized for fumbling its latest Lightroom update, which was riddled with bugs and missing features. Now there’s a new story that’s putting a stain on Adobe’s image: a new test has found that the latest Lightroom is about 600% slower than its competitors.

http://petapixel.com/2015/10/13/lightroom-import-is-600-slower-than-competition/

[Airy]

So was the former version too. Not an issue for me. I also wonder- the card reader seems to be the limiting factor.

[Eb]

So was the former version too. Not an issue for me. I also wonder- the card reader seems to be the limiting factor.

Maybe the difference is that Lightroom importation involves several processes, e.g. file transfer, and file handling such as setting up the catalogue and rendering previews.  The type of card and the reader make a huge difference, but I assume those parameters were kept the same.  I'm not sure about Capture One, but I'm assuming that the comparison programs only transferred files.  I'm also OK with the speed of transfer that LR is capable of but also suspect that each update of software and operating system results in a bit slower system than the previous.

[Eddie Draaisma]

Adobe has already apologized for fumbling its latest Lightroom update, which was riddled with bugs and missing features. Now there’s a new story that’s putting a stain on Adobe’s image: a new test has found that the latest Lightroom is about 600% slower than its competitors.

http://petapixel.com/2015/10/13/lightroom-import-is-600-slower-than-competition/

I am not surprised. The test was performed with 97 raw files from a Fujifilm X-T1; I know from personal experience with my X-T1 that for some reason importing these files is extremely slow compared to importing files from my Nikons including the D800e with 2.25 times the number of pixels.
Also the Adobe conversion quality is still lacking with the Fuji files, I use PhotoNinja instead.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

My experience with LR is extremely limited and apparently should remain so. The comments below are of a general nature.

When you look through shots from a shooting session, the least important aspect has to be building previews for each and every file, and catalogue them. What one needs is the ability to go quickly through the file collection and if necessary, check those [few] files that hold a promise of further processing. Only the checked files should be worthy of "importing" and maybe renamed after specified criteria by the user and/or EXIF information. Thus, some vestiges of a functional file handling system have to be present. This is where PhotoNinja in its current incarnation fails badly.

I have little faith in monolithic applications so look instead for an optimised free-standing photo viewer to sort the session shots. Irfanview has a good reputation, but obviously there are more candidates.

[Bjørn J]

I have little faith in monolithic applications so look instead for an optimised free-standing photo viewer to sort the session shots. Irfanview has a good reputation, but obviously there are more candidates.

Many photographers like Photo Mechanic http://www.camerabits.com/ for its speed, flexibility and "professional" tools. I have a plan of trying it out sometime in the near future.

[Fons Baerken]

i have been using fastStone image viewer for that since many years

http://www.faststone.org/FSViewerDetail.htm

its free used on a non-professional base