# Adobe Apologizes for Bugs in Lightroom Classic CC, Releases Update



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 24, 2018)

```
The “massive update” to Adobe Lightroom Classic CC released earlier this month came with a lot of bugs that made a lot of the photography community quite angry, especially considering people are now paying monthly for the software.</p>
<p>We’ve had a lot of comments and questions from readers about Lightroom Classic CC and if there are any other options for software. We generally shy away from making recommendations like this, but it’s inexcusable that Lightroom would suffer from the types of bugs it has after so many years of development.</p>
<p><strong>From Adobe:</strong></p>
<p>“We heard your feedback and felt that parts of the release didn’t uphold the level of quality that we hold ourselves to. We’re happy to report that these issues were resolved and now available for immediate download. Some of the issues resolved included converting presets, sorting and copying/pasting profiles, translation errors, along with crash fixes.”</p>
<p><!--more--></p>
<p><strong>Bug Fixes:</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>An issue where some presets were not converting to the new format.</li>
<li>An issue with B&W legacy presets where the profile resets to Adobe Standard</li>
<li>An issue where Develop presets were not sorting correctly</li>
<li>Translation errors in other languages for some profiles</li>
<li>An issue where users were unable to copy/sync Black and White Mix settings</li>
<li>Lightroom backup catalog error issues.
<ul>
<li><strong>Note: </strong>To resolve corruption issue in the backed up catalogs, update to Lightroom Classic CC v7.3.1 and then back up your catalogs again. <em>If you’re backing up your catalogs on macOS, see this known issue related to catalog compression below.</em></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Known Issue on macOS only: When backing up your catalogs on macOS, Lightroom Classic doesn’t compress (zip) catalogs that have a file size less than 4 GB. As a workaround to this issue, manually compress the backed up catalog files. Compressed files take up less hard disk space. By default, Lightroom Classic saves backed up catalogs to the following location on macOS:
<ul>
<li><em>/Users/[user name]/Pictures/Lightroom/[catalog name]/Backups</em></li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<p>You can read more about the update <a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/help/whats-new.html#lr-classic-cc-7-3-1">at Adobe</a>.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## BeenThere (Apr 24, 2018)

Disappointing that Adobe’s quality control process has failed. The company seems to be losing it’s grip on photography software.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 24, 2018)

I'm downloading now. I just finished editing a big batch of images a week ago using the latest. The issues were not apparent with my usage, but I would have had the issue sooner or later.


----------



## Tony Bennett (Apr 24, 2018)

All Adobe cares about any longer is making more money.


----------



## Mark Webb Photography (Apr 24, 2018)

I lost track of how many crashes I had with 7.3.... I would have rolled back but I really liked the new profiles.


----------



## IglooEater (Apr 24, 2018)

Canon Rumors said:


> it’s inexcusable that Lightroom would suffer from the types of bugs it has after so many years of development.</p>



Yes.


----------



## cayenne (Apr 25, 2018)

Give On1 RAW a look (free 30 day trial)....I think I"m about to call it my LR replacement, as I'm migrating to it.

They've just added a great workflow for importing images in, which I liked in LR, renaming, and copying to work directory AND to my NAS for backup at same time.

And the masking within the RAW workflow...is truly amazing.

There's some tidbits here and there they need to work on, one being it doesn't appear they have history set up to view and be able to go back and forth on.

However, so far, they've been putting forth free updates this year and I hear another one is coming this Summer timeframe.

The price is right, they seem to be actively working on things with new features and catching up to LR on the few things they are missing.

It isn't rental....which is nice too, and you don't have someone shoving an update on you which can disrupt you like Adobe has done a few times to date....

I'd say it is worth taking a look at....30 days free to try.

HTH,

cayenne


----------



## Ladislav (Apr 25, 2018)

BeenThere said:


> Disappointing that Adobe’s quality control process has failed. The company seems to be losing it’s grip on photography software.



I doubt there is any quality control for Lightroom. They let customers do their QA and fix only those bugs which are affecting significant percentage of customers. 

I have older AMD graphic card. Since upgrading to LR Classic CC, development module works only occasionally. Very often I get just a black screen and have to restart the application. Advice from Adobe community - turn off graphic card acceleration for LR and enjoy even slower performance. Response from Adobe to the bug - none.


----------



## Talys (Apr 25, 2018)

Ladislav said:


> BeenThere said:
> 
> 
> > Disappointing that Adobe’s quality control process has failed. The company seems to be losing it’s grip on photography software.
> ...



On the PC that I like to use LR, I have a 3 year old NVidia. There are weird bugs since the last update for me, too, though none crash the system. There is some image caching going on, such that when I go to crop, it shows up an old image for a little while, and it's very jarring. Also, performance actually went down.

I turned off the GPU acceleration, and LR is actually faster than it was before this last patch (I think).

Then again, I have no idea how the 3D video card can be helpful in LR. In the past, I couldn't really see any noticeable gain by turning GPU acceleration on. Ironically, the latest patch fixed the GPU weirdness. But.... It doesn't _feel_ any faster than with GPU acceleration turned off, so who knows. LOL. :


----------



## IglooEater (Apr 25, 2018)

Ladislav said:


> BeenThere said:
> 
> 
> > Disappointing that Adobe’s quality control process has failed. The company seems to be losing it’s grip on photography software.
> ...



With the brand new LR 6 I got exactly that on my old mbp. When LR 6.x was released a week later my gpu was no longer supported. And it was excruciatingly slow.


----------



## YuengLinger (Apr 25, 2018)

Talys said:


> Ladislav said:
> 
> 
> > BeenThere said:
> ...



Ha! Exactly the same with my gtx 1070 ti!


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 25, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > Ladislav said:
> ...


It probably depends on your graphics card. I can see a high end card making a difference, and a low end (or older) card making very little to none...... and even with a high end card, the difference only showing up when you do bulk operations.

Having a fast SS hard drive probably matters a lot more......


----------



## jprusa (Apr 25, 2018)

Adobe is getting good at apologies.Why don't they start a beta program?


----------



## Talys (Apr 25, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...



The NVidia 980ti (mine) and YeunLinger's 1070ti are flagship/near-flagship models that were near a thousand bucks a pop at launch 

Having a discrete graphics card seems to help, but whether it's a $150 one or a $1,500 one doesn't seem to matter =X It certainly is not like gaming, where there graphics card is _everything_.

I own a nVidia 1080 in my gaming computer, but that is attached to smaller, fast-refresh monitors, and isn't the ideal setup for photoshop and software development work. When I first put it together, I tried to install PS/LR on it, just to check out the speed of PS on large files and LR generally, and I was unimpressed -- any improved speed in the 2017 PC over my 2015 PC was marginal at best. The things that are slow still feel laggy, and the things which are responsive were already fast enough.


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 25, 2018)

Talys said:


> The NVidia 980ti (mine) and YeunLinger's 1070ti are flagship/near-flagship models that were near a thousand bucks a pop at launch
> 
> Having a discrete graphics card seems to help, but whether it's a $150 one or a $1,500 one doesn't seem to matter =X It certainly is not like gaming, where there graphics card is _everything_.
> 
> I own a nVidia 1080 in my gaming computer, but that is attached to smaller, fast-refresh monitors, and isn't the ideal setup for photoshop and software development work. When I first put it together, I tried to install PS/LR on it, just to check out the speed of PS on large files and LR generally, and I was unimpressed -- any improved speed in the 2017 PC over my 2015 PC was marginal at best. The things that are slow still feel laggy, and the things which are responsive were already fast enough.



I can't even try GPU acceleration. I built my PC in 2013, and the video card that I got at the time was good but not top of the line. When Adobe LR first used GPU acceleration, LR would crash every few minutes. Even though my card was listed to be compatible with LR GPU acceleration at the time, I could never get it to work properly, so I just disabled the feature, and it's been off for years. Looking forward to building a new PC later this year that will bring me back to state-of-the-art standards/components. My computer definitely became less stable at the end of last year, after hardware vulnerabilities were discovered and I assumed patched through software...


----------



## Talys (Apr 26, 2018)

Random Orbits said:


> I can't even try GPU acceleration. I built my PC in 2013, and the video card that I got at the time was good but not top of the line. When Adobe LR first used GPU acceleration, LR would crash every few minutes. Even though my card was listed to be compatible with LR GPU acceleration at the time, I could never get it to work properly, so I just disabled the feature, and it's been off for years. Looking forward to building a new PC later this year that will bring me back to state-of-the-art standards/components. My computer definitely became less stable at the end of last year, after hardware vulnerabilities were discovered and I assumed patched through software...



If it makes you feel any better, you're probably not missing out on anything. Well, other than losing 5 hours trying to figure out if it is actually any faster and then 5 more hours trying to figure out if it's worth all the weird crap that happens before unchecking the box ;D


----------



## Ladislav (Apr 26, 2018)

Talys said:


> Then again, I have no idea how the 3D video card can be helpful in LR. In the past, I couldn't really see any noticeable gain by turning GPU acceleration on. Ironically, the latest patch fixed the GPU weirdness. But.... It doesn't _feel_ any faster than with GPU acceleration turned off, so who knows. LOL. :



It is not using 3D capability. It is using processing power of modern GPUs and computes some tools / effects on GPU instead of CPU. Just quick search came with this result about what is supposedly accelerated and what is not. 
https://photographylife.com/gpu-acceleration-in-lightroom

I previously read that GPU acceleration really matters only on 4k+ screens but at the same time many people are complaining that after turning it off some operations became terribly slow even without 4k screen - for example zooming in development module. That probably depends on the CPU processing power - especially single core processing power.


----------



## YuengLinger (Apr 26, 2018)

Perhaps a genuine expression of goodwill from Adobe would be a new version that allows use of the editing software without any catalog. The scariest of the recent bugs is the catalog corruption.

What does deserve loathing, in my opinion, is Adobe's implied impending termination of "allowing" images to be stored locally on a user's desktop. Naming the desktop/laptop version of Lightroom "Classic," seems a shot across the bow, suggesting those of us who don't want to use cloud storage are anachronisms.

I'm ok with a subscription based payment scheme. Fine. But pressuring photographers to move images to the cloud or see an end to functionality and upgrades would be a bridge too far. I don't understand what motive, other than keeping cloud stored files as hostages, a company could have for heading in such a direction.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 26, 2018)

It's ok, shit happens, it's good they fixed it fast enough.

However, before the latest update or after, LR CC is till freakingly slow. It's been slow for last couple of years or so, and performance improvements and fixes they made didn't really help. That's what I'm angry about.


----------



## LDS (Apr 26, 2018)

Expect this to be a problem of the subscription model for a while. Companies feel the need to release something to justify the model, and also to skimp on QA to save money - more frequent releases usually *increase* QA needs.

You see this effect outside Adobe as well. There is a reason, for example, why Microsoft releases new upgrades to Windows 10 to determined group of users first and others later.

My advice is not to run to install the latest update, unless you know it fixes a blocking issue for you. Wait for a while to see what issues are found.


----------



## cayenne (Apr 26, 2018)

Hmm.....you might consider giving On1 RAW a try as an alternative.
- No rental model, and very reasonably priced
- Regular meaningful update
- So far, no updates that break your system or slow it down
- No forced upgrades
- Use a catalog or don't, its up to you
- No perceived moves to have you store your content on the cloud rather than locally.

So far, so good for me at least......


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 26, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Perhaps a genuine expression of goodwill from Adobe would be a new version that allows use of the editing software without any catalog. The scariest of the recent bugs is the catalog corruption.
> 
> What does deserve loathing, in my opinion, is Adobe's implied impending termination of "allowing" images to be stored locally on a user's desktop. Naming the desktop/laptop version of Lightroom "Classic," seems a shot across the bow, suggesting those of us who don't want to use cloud storage are anachronisms.
> 
> I'm ok with a subscription based payment scheme. Fine. But pressuring photographers to move images to the cloud or see an end to functionality and upgrades would be a bridge too far. I don't understand what motive, other than keeping cloud stored files as hostages, a company could have for heading in such a direction.



I see value in a cloud-based model for those that travel to well-connected spots or for multiple people to work on a file from different locations (in the field and at the home office). Unfortunately, I don't travel that much so the feature does not appeal to me. And the biggest trips the last couple years have to been to national parks, which have horrid to no internet/cell phone connectivity. And yes, naming it LR Classic is clunky/bad marketing... It would have been better if they kept the original LightRoom name and called the new product LightRoom Cloud.


----------



## Otara (Apr 26, 2018)

The cloud issue isnt really a problem as long as they have to charge for online storage - as soon as you try to copy pictures and they tell you that it cant be uploaded till you make room or pay more, thats a customer gone.

They can try to convince people to use it, but actually stopping local storage as an additional backup would be a whole different story. I dont have any concerns about 'cloud only' being compulsory any time soon.


----------



## coldmist (Apr 27, 2018)

Adobe still hasn't fixed the bug since Classic CC's launch that allows some people with a perpetual license for Lightroom 6 to upgrade to a "perpetual" Classic CC which shouldn't even be possible. Doing that leads to a screwed up install that functions but numerous things are totally broken or missing.

Some people have updated from Lightroom 6 without realizing they're not supposed to be able to and it's been going on for 6 months now.


----------



## scottkinfw (Apr 27, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Perhaps a genuine expression of goodwill from Adobe would be a new version that allows use of the editing software without any catalog. The scariest of the recent bugs is the catalog corruption.
> 
> What does deserve loathing, in my opinion, is Adobe's implied impending termination of "allowing" images to be stored locally on a user's desktop. Naming the desktop/laptop version of Lightroom "Classic," seems a shot across the bow, suggesting those of us who don't want to use cloud storage are anachronisms.
> 
> I'm ok with a subscription based payment scheme. Fine. But pressuring photographers to move images to the cloud or see an end to functionality and upgrades would be a bridge too far. I don't understand what motive, other than keeping cloud stored files as hostages, a company could have for heading in such a direction.



Given the option of cloud storage only or leave, I'll leave.

Scott


----------



## LDS (Apr 27, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> I don't understand what motive, other than keeping cloud stored files as hostages, a company could have for heading in such a direction.



The same Google and Facebook have. User data processing and reselling for 'marketing' (for many different meaning of 'marketing') targeting. There's a lot of data actual 'AI' technologies can extract from photos. They need you to give them, though....


----------



## Quirkz (Apr 29, 2018)

LDS said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand what motive, other than keeping cloud stored files as hostages, a company could have for heading in such a direction.
> ...



It’s more than that. To some of us, it’s a really useful feature. I transfer photos on my desktop Mac, later pick up where I left off on my laptop, and finally it’s great to review on my iPad, or share photos with family while sitting around the kitchen table. Seamless experience, no matter what device I use.

They’re moving in a direction of a new market that is opening up. Many of you don’t like the change, and that’s ok. I’m one of the other crowd that really likes some of what they’ve done. Time will tell whether they were right in this move, but looking at their currently increasing subscription base, they are doing what most of their customers want.

To be fair, there’s a lot about the new Lightroom I strongly dislike, and even the cloud features could be improved In significant ways. But they’re heading in a direction on offering a service where there is no competition. Pretty smart move.


----------



## BeenThere (Apr 29, 2018)

A few terabytes of cloud storage is going to double or triple monthly subscription costs. No thanks! ‍


----------



## LDS (Apr 29, 2018)

Quirkz said:


> It’s more than that. To some of us, it’s a really useful feature. I transfer photos on my desktop Mac, later pick up where I left off on my laptop, and finally it’s great to review on my iPad, or share photos with family while sitting around the kitchen table. Seamless experience, no matter what device I use.



That's one of the baits to get the photos. Client/server applications has been common in the past 25 years at least, when servers and their software became cheap enough. You don't really need a "cloud" for that. You just need the "server" part. Other sectors where teamwork is very important have been working across people and devices for years, well before the "cloud".

Adobe has and is strengthening a big "marketing" business - it has also a convention like Adobe Summit dedicated to that, and "marketing" today means profiling consumers and targeting them.

Why Microsoft too turned Windows 10 into a huge data gathering software? Just look at Facebook and Google revenues and profits. Others want a slice of the cake too, Adobe included, especially now there's the technology to extract useful information from images at relatively cheap costs.


----------

