Posts Tagged ‘update’

Here We Go Again – Lightroom 2.6 Available

December 18, 2009

Adobe Photoshop LightroomAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 2.6 and its required DNG Converter (5.6) are now available for download from http://www.adobe.com/downloads/updates/. That’s a month since the 2.5 update came out.

This is the release many have been waiting for to support the Canon EOS-7D and Nikon D3s. I don’t know if they made any changes from the Release Candidate that has been available for almost a month.

What if for Lightroom 3 Adobe said that the product will only support DNG files? Then they’d only have to release a new DNG converter to support new cameras. I wonder if the photography community has enough confidence in DNG that they’d accept it. DNG is a mature technology: Adobe introduced it in 2004. DNG has immense advantages over a multitude of proprietary RAW formats. DNG is an open specification so it isn’t dependent on Adobe’s continued prosperity or whims.

Surely if DNG is good enough for Leica it is good enough for the rest of us.

Moreover Adobe could surely make the DNG converter more modular so users do not have to download the full product every time. They could release a new DLL (or the equivalent for the Mac).

This is a bigger concern for users on slower internet connections. I guess it isn’t on the radar screen for the Adobe team as they assume everybody has fast connections for their work machines.

I looked at the list of other defects fixed in Lightroom 2.6:

  • The crop tool would unlock a locked aspect ratio after a rotation adjustment
  • For Mac OS X 10.6 customers, visual artifacts could appear when panning an image viewed at 1:1 in the Develop module.
  • For Mac OS X 10.6 customers, the 10.6.2 update included a correction that prevented Lightroom 2 from opening more than two files using the Edit-in-Photoshop functionality.
  • Lightroom 2.6 provides a fix for an issue affecting PowerPC customers using the final Lightroom 2.5 update on the Mac. The issue, introduced in the demosaic change to address sensors with unequal green response, has the potential to create artifacts in highlight areas when processing raw files from Sony, Olympus, Panasonic and various medium format digital camera backs.
  • Lightroom 2.5 and earlier did not support the updated Panasonic DMC-LX3 aspect ratio modes added with the camera’s latest version 2.0 firmware.

From http://www.adobe.com/special/photoshop/Lightroom_26_ReadMe.pdf.

The Crop Tool fix is the only one that affects me and I have never noticed the issue. Again I wonder how Adobe decides what to include in a point-release.

By-the-by, there is something wrong with the Adobe Support Forums I’ve been accessing to ask and answer Lightroom questions. For the past few days the site has been impossibly slow. Other sites are fine with the new Asia America Gateway so it must be something up with the Adobe infrastructure.

Lightroom 2.5 and Camera Raw 5.5 Updates

September 17, 2009


I am downloading the Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 2.5 update and the Adobe Camera Raw 5.5 update. That’s 139MB + 83MB = 222MB across the Pacific Ocean to support a couple of new cameras (that I don’t have) and fix a couple of minor defects that I have never encountered.

Is it worth it, I ask myself? Lightroom is part of the core software that I’d find it hard to live without so I want to keep it current. I hope the update doesn’t break anything like my plugins.

I wonder how the Lightroom team decides what bugs to fix in a point release. The two bugs they chose seem minor.

My grumbles about the previous upgrades still apply. Adobe isn’t listening to me. 😦

See the Lightroom 2.5 release notes here.

Security Pros Are Focused on the Wrong Threats – Bits Blog – NYTimes.com

September 16, 2009

Security Pros Are Focused on the Wrong Threats – Bits Blog – NYTimes.com.

It’s endless! Not only do PC users have to handle constant operating system updates from Microsoft. Now the bad guys are focusing more on ancillary software that everyone has like Adobe PDF Reader and Flash. I seem to get at least one update a week from some type of software – and I try to run a very lean machine.

It is amazing to me that after many years of development these programs are not rock solid. They are backed by large companies with (we hope) the best developers and unlimited resources.

I think part of the problem comes from the features that companies are constantly adding. Originally the PDF Reader was just that – a program to read documents no matter what software produced them. But the companies had to make enhancements to make the documents “active”. They can go out to the web and update information, they can access my computer and so on.

Most people do not need or use those features. All I want to do is read documents that people have published. I don’t want it to do anything clever.

Same for Flash Movies. There’s a limit to the amount of damage a bad Flash movie can do if it is just running in a window on my computer showing me an animated demo or something. But no, Adobe had to make it “active”. Now it is a programming environment with all the attendant challenges and vulnerabilities.

I am a simple user but I have a computer that can do a lot of damage to others if it gets infected with a virus or worm. It can perform a lot of processing and communicating without me noticing. I need the computing horsepower for Photoshop and Lightroom but it is easy to subvert.

If I were Adobe I would distribute a rock solid “Lite” version of the PDF Reader and Flash Player. It would display documents and animations but that’s it. If users need the bells and whistles they can pay for a Pro version. I bet most of the bells and whistles are for corporate users anyway.

The Lite version would be stable – no more enhancements, ever. It will be a bit boring but I would know I can trust it.

The only development they will do is the minimum to support new hardware. But before it is released it should be tested to the same standards as mission critical software like flight or nuclear powerplant control.

Then Adobe will have an income stream from the Pro version and maybe more of an incentive to make them solid. As it is, its way too easy to fix a problem by doing yet another point release and asking users to download it.

In my day (a Mister Fredrickson phrase) it was very expensive to update software with bug fixes. They had to be distributed to customers on a tape. Thus we designed software conservatively and tested the heck out of it before releasing as we knew big fixes would be very expensive. I think we had the mindset that critical bugs were a firing offence.

The ease with which the Internet enables update distribution is a two-edged sword. I think it encourages developers and testers to let their end-users do the testing.

I don’t want to single Adobe out for criticism. I am tired of weekly updates to Mozilla Firefox too. Each one is touted as the safest most secure browser available. You said that last week! And the week before!

Firefox 3.5.2 Update - 4th September 2009

Firefox 3.5.2 Update - 4th September 2009

Note how I have to be concerned about my browser extensions and themes too – not just the browser. They all come from different vendors.

Firefox 3.5.3 Update - 9th September 2009

Firefox 3.5.3 Update - 9th September 2009

I’d like a rock solid web browser too. One that just displays web pages circa 2002 and does not purport to be yet another “platform”.

(Full disclosure: I think my software development career went downhill after I agreed to work on platforms rather than useful applications, so maybe I am biased.)

I guess one problem is that too many bright programmers are working for the bad guys and not for the boring corporations that make the applications they attack.

Back to Adobe. It is interesting that their major applications like Photoshop and Lightroom are on a much slower update cycle. Maybe once every six months. It seems to be a different world for those development teams.

Lightroom 2.4 is Available

June 24, 2009

The Adobe download site is here.

There’s nothing in the update that I need. I wish I was waiting for support for my Hasselblad! I have not experienced any of the bugs listed in the release notes.

Nevertheless I tried downloading it in the Thai evening – early morning in California – and the download was impossibly slow and eventually stopped completely. It’s 130MB + and internet speeds from Thailand are not great. I miss my cable modem from when I lived in California.

I can wait to download it. The Adobe servers are sure to be heavily loaded.

It’s a pity that Adobe have to make users download 130MB mainly to support more cameras. Isn’t there an easier way of making updates more modular and smaller? Many big company vendors have the idea that downloads are always  fast and free: look at the number and size of Microsoft updates. That’s not true worldwide!