This content has been marked as final. Show 25 replies
The version number of the buggy ACR 4.4 is 126.96.36.199; date modified is March 7th, 2008, 2:28 AM; size is 10,679,664 bytes.
I'm pretty sure the update will have a new version number and will be loudly announced when ready.
Excuse me for asking a stupid question but:
The Lightroom update has been pulled but the plain ACR update is OK yes?
Yes Mr Lyons I read your message. It didn't actually help.
You mean Adobe is still alowing people to download the defective ACR 4.4?
> plain ACR update is OK yes?
Not really. :/
Read what Jeff had to say:
> The Camera Raw plug-in also will incorrectly change the EXIF time stamp in files converted by the plug-in.
>There is an error in converting Olympus JPEG files to other formats in Lightroom 1.4 and the Camera Raw 4.4 plug-in.
> You mean Adobe is still alowing people to download the defective ACR 4.4?
Yes; for the benefit of those who absolutely need the support for the cameras added in this version.
As an aside:
It's amazing to me how some people seem unable to read simple, straightforward notices and cautionary notes.
Believe me, I have tried to understand those "simple, straightforward notices and cautionary notes" and I had come to the same conclusion as you. But I thought some users, who may not share either the mastery of the English language that some of us are fortunate to possess, nor the knowledge of the strange argot with which Adobe has chosen to communicate with its customers, might be grateful for a little clarity.
OK so the problem with ACR 4.4 is:
The Camera Raw plug-in also will incorrectly change the EXIF time stamp in files converted by the plug-in.
What does 'conversion' mean? When I open a RAW file in ACR 4.4 and do my adjustments, then choose DONE--and I'm using xmp side car files, will this change the the EXIF in the RAW image itself? I don't know what Adobe means by 'convert' and it should not be so cursory. I didn't even know ACR converted anything. I thought it simply stuck the changes made in the program into side car files and that was it, unless you embed them--and I never have done that.
One has to read between the lines. Deep-pocket software developers are severely constrained by their legal departments as to what they can say or admit.
It amazes me that Adobe would allow people to download this file without explicitly stating on the download page that the file is defective.
For example, I wanted to update ACR so i simply went to the download page and installed it. I had no idea it was defective. That's dishonest on Adobe's part, unless you think it would be ok for me to sell you a car that had defective brakes, and when you found out the hard way, tell me, "Well, you didn't ask or read our service bulletins." That's bull.
Defections in a product should be stated on the download page so peple who are not reading all of the Adobe releases know what they are getting.
Come on Ramon.
Are you saying that a software developer cannot tell it's customers that they are downloading a defective product? And that is exactly what people are doing when they download it. If they are truly "constrained" to the extent that they cannot tell customers they are downloading a defective product, then that's a done deal, if it's even legal. But the consequence is even worse--Adobe can't tell you if it's product downloads are defective and might cause devastation to your business. That's the necessary condition of that line of logic. Now you think about how you would like to live in a world where every person behaved like that.
Let's state it frankly:
Adobe Systems Allows Customers to Download Defective Software without Warning Them at the Time of Download.
And one more time for the search engines:
Adobe Systems Allows Customers to Download Defective Software Without Warning Them at the Time of Download.
The Adobe position from the web site:
Lightroom is a no-no.
ACR update You guess!
Adobe did tell you everything you need to know. If it's too much for your brain to process, that's outside my bailiwick's and Adobe's.
>ACR update You guess!
What's to guess? If your cameras are supported by ACR 4.3.1, stay with 4.3.1.
If you absolutely need the support for newer cameras, download 4.4.
I've been running ACR 4.4 from day one and see no ill effects, even in the Exif data allegedly susceptible to be affected.
The problems must be with certain brands or models. I am like Ramon. I installed 4.4 the first day it was available, and I haven't had any problems whatsoever.
No Ramon, Adobe told me nothing on their download page about the file being defective, and this is circular reasoning on your part. If a defective product is offered for download without warning and the entity offering the product knows it defective, that's deception.
Let's take it one step further too. I went to the Adobe Download page, looked up Camera Raw, then went to the RAW page, and then clicked on the RAW file for Windows. NONE of those pages said anything about a defective file. Are you seriously trying to defend that behavior?
It's a little like writing an article in the weekly paper explaining that on such and such corner, there is a gate that opens into a field that was mistakenly sown with explosive mines, and then not posting the same warning ON the gate, and even leaving the gate wide open for people to walk through. That's a moral problem only a sociopath would defend.
Imagine if we all acted like that.
I've also read many of your posts, and not many of them seem to do anything except troll for responses like these.
Let me give you some advice: If you have a solution or possible solution to a problem, please post it. Otherwise stop taking up space with untenable comments.
And if you need accurate reds when shooting in tungsten light, you NEED 4.4. Simple as that.
You are reading-challenged. I will post when I want, where I want and in the manner I see fit.
The s.o.b. (or b*tch) that tells me how to post has not been born yet.
It's too bad there isn't an ignore function in the Adobe forums :(
Your problem, not mine, Zippy.
However, you can use a newsreader and ignore to your heart's content. Now you can ***** about "Adobe not telling you that." :D
I use OS X 10.4.11 and have not seen the timestamp issue with ACR 4.4. So I use 4.4 because the colors are correct in the tungsten profile. I've tried to see/reproduce the bug, but it doesn't seem to affect me. Maybe it's Windows only? I don't know. Maybe on Leopard? No clue. So far 4.4 is the best ACR version I've used :)
Re post #8 by Zippy:
>What does 'conversion' mean? I don't know what Adobe means by 'convert'
What everybody (who understands what a raw file is) does. "Converting" is the demosaicing process that turns a raw file into a visible color image.
In other words: Open a file in ACR and save it as a PSD or TIFF (or whatever you use). You have demosaiced or converted the raw file.
ACR is a raw converter. It takes what is essentially a very, very dark grayscale linear image as captured by the sensor and converts it to a visible color image. When you shoot JPEGs, the raw image captured by the sensor is converted inside the camera by the camera's built-in software.
Check out the primers and white papers listed in the FAQs, which are on the same page where you added this topic.
OK then what that means to me is that the RAW file and it's EXIF data is left unchanged?
So in other words, only date stamp of the file you save after the conversion is altered, which means any format (jpg, tif, psd, etc)?
Are there any other instances where the original RAW file EXIF time stamp could be changed?
The EXIF (camera created data) from the Raw file is read and added to the newly created sidecar file.
There it is stored, together with the Raw coversion metadata, and the optional user added data (IPTC).
So yes, the original camera file remains unaltered. If you delete the sidecar file the settings revert to default.
The timestamp of the file can be changed in Explorer, The shooting time (shutter time) not.