Comments on 1.4 Release

The entire Lightroom team is extremely sorry for any problems we’ve caused our loyal customers with the March 14th 1.4 update. In our eagerness to get new camera support into customers’ hands as promptly as possible, we let some bugs slip past our testing that were frankly unacceptable. Compared to other Adobe applications, we’ve taken a much more aggressive approach to releasing frequent new versions with new features, but it’s clear we need to take a hard look at our release process to make sure that this aggressive approach doesn’t sacrifice quality. One thing that we may consider is continuing the community approach we’ve taken in the past by releasing betas of our updates, so that they can get the broadest testing possible before they are certified as final. The timing for what will need to be a Lightroom 1.4.1 release has not been determined but updated information will be posted to this blog when available. 

66 Responses to Comments on 1.4 Release

  1. Tom:I’ve tried to revert the 1.4 version installation and followed your instructions but there’s no such file file: Library/Receipts/Adobe Photoshop Lightroom.pkg so I ended up deleting lightroom itself. Now I’m trying to install version 1.3.1 and the mac is coming up saying that it is not possible the installation as there’s an earlier version of Lightroom. I’ve made a search for lightroom.pkg and the only file it comes up with is the one from version 1.3.1. Hope you find a solution as soon as possible as I don’t know what to do. Maybe copy all my lightroom backups and eliminate any trace of lightroom from my mac.Thanks for your time.[Marcos, make sure you’re looking at the library that’s listed under your system hard drive and not the library listed under your home or user directory. -TH]

  2. No problems. A few errors will always make into the software.It’s better to have LR than nothing!

  3. Samson says:

    Not only is “Lightroom 1.4 Update” still on Adobe’s website (linking to 1.3), the fact that this update can mess up the dates is nowhere to be seen. I wouldn’t have found out had I not been reading John Nack’s blog (I am sure not too many of us do that).It’s obviously not up to you guys whether this bad news should go on’s top page, but it just shows what kind of company Adobe is when it comes to f*ckups.We as users have little choice.Happy belated birthday by the way.From a fan, more disappointed as a customer of a huge company than as a user of a great software.[Samson, some pages are easier to update than others. Customers have not been able to download Lightroom 1.4, regardless of what other pages indicate, since Sunday. -TH]

  4. David B says:

    I think the apology is admirable, and much appreciated. I’m impressed by how quickly and effectively news of the recall was spread. I was also extremely pleased with how simple (and fast!) it was to uninstall 1.4 and reinstall 1.3.1. In well under two minutes I was back on the old version. Keep up the great work, and that great attitude.[Thanks David. -TH]

  5. Tom,Just wanted to say that I for one appreciate the candor you have shown in this issue.I work for an organisation with an active development team, and I can sympathise with the QA guys and the pressure they are under. Here’s hoping they can get a budget increase to keep up with the aggressive release schedule![Much appreciated Richard. I believe we have world class engineers and quality engineers and they appreciate the sentiment. -TH]

  6. Patrick says:

    Hi Tom,Don’t worry, we are all very happy to get very quick integration of new DSLR modules, so that what happened to this 1.4 is really not a tragedy and easily understandable and acceptable.Please don’t change anything in your way of working and remain as reactive as possible (since it’s really painful when you have a new DSLR without the possibility to develop the raw files in your usual workflow).Thanks for all, good luck for the debugging, and kind regards from a very happy french Lightroom user :-)Patrick[Thanks Patrick. -TH]

  7. Photo_op says:

    Tom- THIS too shall pass. In your attempts to rectify the situation that lead to the “premature” release, please do not go to far in the other direction. I applaud your attempts to keep the dialogue going on this Blog. AND, I for one, hold no ill will for the release, since I was one who clamored for the printer fix. Buyer beware or upgrader beware. ANY software buyer not living in a cave or denial knows that they update at their peril. RISK versus REWARD. Doesn’t LR provide for backup. IT happens. You want to try the update, be ready to use the novel idea of restore. SO, my vote goes to the BETA process. Photo Mechanic does it and I’d go out on a limb and suggest that their customers love it. I do. Give me BETAs any day and then you can ignore every request for when v2. will be released. I’ll know what your working on, where LR is going AND not have to get ansy at the gurus who hint at what they have on their computer. Alas, I ramble. Keep up the good work.–Dave[Thanks Dave. -TH]

  8. Maurizio says:

    I’ll be very glad to help the Lightroom team, beta testing new version updates.For example, as a Sony A700 user, I’d like to test some solutions to the high iso “watercolor” bug.See here for more info: RegardsMaurizio

  9. Kenneth Bird says:

    It has been a problem. Nevertheless, I for one appreciate the regular updating and would willingly be involved in testing to help avoid similar difficulties in the future. One of the great features of Lr has been the sense of community and long may that continue.

  10. Ollivier Robert says:

    I can understand it may be difficult but would it be possible to separate new camera support from the other features/bug fixes releases? Support for new cameras is really important and I am more or less sitting on my K20D purchase because of K20D support in LR… Thanks.[Ollivier, I leave it to software architects to determine how much more the camera update technology can be abstracted from the rest of the code and it’s clearly something they will continue to discuss. As to the K20D, I recommend capturing DNG files natively in camera. -TH]

  11. Aaron says:

    An update for those of us that have already applied 1.4 would be real nice.[Aaron, I’m not sure what you’re asking? If you’ve applied the 1.4 update, please revert to Lightroom 1.3.1 per my earlier post. -TH]

  12. karen says:

    I spent 3 days converting thousands of files to dng. I then deleted my backups. Do I have to revert to the previous version or would it be possible to wait for the next update and will that be programmed to fix the problem?[Karen, your DNG files will work perfectly in the previous version so I would recommend using Lightroom 1.3.1 until an update can be provided. -TH]

  13. Rohn Blake says:

    having been involved in the software industry, I can understand how some bugs (even doodies) can slip by.I’ve also really appreciated the frequency and speed of the Lightroom updates and would hope that you don’t slow them down too much based on this one incident. Reevaluating your procedures and processes is a good thing, but know that you have at least this one fan who applauds the approach you’ve taken with this product.

  14. Katherine Mann says:

    Oh hell Tom, on any scorecard, Lightroom, the Lightroom team and the Lightroom community are winners. This minor glitch is just that: minor.Lr 1.3.1 Land is a pretty good place to be while we wait for the team to come up with 1.4.1.

  15. Thik Hai says:

    Does this mean we have to downgrade to LR 1.3?CheersTH[Yes, that’s correct. -TH]

  16. Petra Hall says:

    I hope you guys get the new update going soon. I read about the “mishap” about the update just minutes after I had run the install. I haven’t started LR since I ran the update, just in case. But I have a job to do, so I hope you can get things up and running soon. 🙂[Petra, go ahead and revert to Lightroom 1.3.1 per my earlier post and you can work on your job. -TH]

  17. Martin Doudoroff says:

    I would simply like to express my fervent support for the use of open betas in future releases. They’re a win-win strategy.

  18. 007 says:

    Please advise on how to uninstal the 1.4 version now that I no longer have the origina installer and it can no longer be downloaded. Thank you.[Please see my previous post for the 1.3.1 installation process. -TH]

  19. Dennis H. Vied says:

    Why not just consider this one a beta release?[Dennis, the DNG behavior on Windows and the EXIF time stamp bug are not appropriate even for a beta release. -TH]

  20. Mike says:

    On the considering of the community approach… if there’s a good way of having two versions installed one one computer, I’m up for it.

  21. Thank you to the team for the immediate response to the problem, not the least of which was an honest admission and apology.The largest issue for me is that I do not want to uninstall the update, that is a hassle! I’m hoping the fix is coming soon and it will update the 1.4 rather than me having to go back to 1.3 and update from there.Peace, Curt

  22. Mark daly says:

    what a nightmare. if we all ran our business like this. We would be broke.

  23. John says:

    1. I appreciate that bugs happen. I’m a maintenance developer.2. Is there a place that describes /exactly/ what to expect and, potentially, how to repair the damage a few hours worth of work might have done to a library.Or is the damage done? What is the seriousness of the defect? I don’t have the information I need to make this judgement for myself.Thank you.[John, reverting to Lightroom 1.3.1 will correct the errors introduced with the Lightroom 1.4 update. -TH]

  24. Alessandro Rosa says:

    No harm; no foul that I can see.What I find refreshing is that you are willing to accept accountability and get the word out as quickly as you did. Thanks for thinking of your users over your pride![Thanks Alessandro. -TH]

  25. meerkat says:

    I’m confused, three days after Adobe yanks the lightroom 1.4 and CR 4.4, it is still listed on adobe website, go to, click download->update, it is still listed right at the top of the list. or follow this link: does not appear to be yanked.[Camera Raw 4.4 was never pulled from Not all of the pages have been updated yet to reflect the Lightroom change. -TH]

  26. Jason Smith says:

    I can’t imagine editing my event photos now without Lightroom. So even though glitches will happen, I appreciate the updates and look forward to the fix. Thanks![Thanks Jason. -TH]

  27. Zbigniew says:

    No one is happy with any bugs in his everyday-use software. But this statement is clear and strong so I am sure we will not see such problems in the future. Anyway good work!

  28. Matt says:

    Tom and LR Team:Your honesty and communication greatly overshadows everything. I can’t thank you / your team enough for treating us like people, in a world where too many companies treat us like faceless “customers”.Your team is doing the right thing. For us. Thank you.[Thanks Matt. -TH]

  29. Tom:I finally managed reverting to LR 1.3.1 although the lightroom.pkg file did not existed in my computer. I checked both directories; system and user (just in case), but fortunately I found a message from Scot Ballard in Adobe forums who nailed it.If someone has the same problem as I did, I’m sure this system will solve it just right from the start.The procedure for Mac is the following.1. to remove your current installation you can paste the following lines into Terminal (as root)killall “Adobe Lightroom”rm -Rf /Library/Receipts/Adobe\ Photoshop\ Lightroom.pkgrm -Rf /Applications/Adobe\ Lightroom.appNow you should be able to install the new build because lightroom should now really be gone.And it really cleared any trace of Lightroom and reverted perfectly.[Thanks Marcos. That sounds like a very technical solution. I’m hoping I can find one that’s more straightforward. When you looked for Lightroom.pkg originally, were you logged in with Administrator privileges? -TH]

  30. Mathew L says:

    Since you ask… I don’t think betas for point releases are the answer. There were regressions for existing customers using existing cameras & functionality. That should have been caught by regression testing before anyone even thought of posting a beta or otherwise.Really good that you have a constructive attitude about this, and great app in general with lots of potential.Mathew

  31. Jeff Steel says:

    Tom, thanks for all the upfront information and assistance you’ve given us; other software companies could learn a lot from you on how to handle problems with software releases. I do have some lingering questions, though.I’ve downgraded back to 1.3.1, but I’ve seen some comments saying that “update metadata” commands need to be issued, and your statements that data will be corrected using the .XMP files. What if we don’t have .XMP files that correspond with all files in LR? Should I restore from my backups in that case just to be safe? Does the “modified date” in question show up in Finder on the Mac, or is it strictly in the EXIF?My apologies for not getting it, but I just want to be absolutely clear on the exact, full procedure.Thanks and best regards,Jeff[Jeff, XMP files are only associated with proprietary raw files after you save metadata to the file. The lack of those files isn’t a problem although I do recommend saving the metadata out to the file system as a solid asset management practice. -TH]

  32. owin thomas says:

    @Mark Daly and all other who have “slagged off” the Adobe development teams. That’s a UK euphemism by the way.Mark you say “.. if we all run our business like this. We would be broke.”To you I say “If I put software into a production system, untested, I would be sacked!”Didn’t you check the software update worked correctly before using it in YOUR production system? Maybe you should be thinking more about your own methods of blindly putting software into your system, without 1st checking the software is safe to do so.As for the Adobe development team, they are under pressure constantly and sometimes this kind of thing happens to the best of teams. I’m just glad they owned up to the mistake and have publicly apologised for the inconvenience caused.Thanks for the hard work guys and … please hurry up with version 2 ;-)CheersOwin[Sorry Owin, I’m behind on my comment approvals so this is a bit of a duplicate. -TH]

  33. karen says:

    Tom, one more question. I reinstalled the earlier version of Lightroom and also the earlier Camera Raw. I wasn’t quite sure how to install the DNG converter for Photoshop, but since I convert in Lightroom, can I just leave that until an update is available for CS3 Bridge and Photoshop?[Yes. -TH]

  34. Wolf White says:

    Hi Tom,As per many of your other respondents I applaud your open handed “mea culpa” honesty which is a welcome surprise from a large corp given that many try to hide their mistakes. So “big up” to you for keeping it real and also operating on a personal level. It seems clear from the majority of the above postings that this is very much appreciated. Stating that the bugs were even unacceptable for a beta release gives me hope that, ultimately, QUALITY is what Adobe wants to give its users. Amen!The community feedback approach to app dev has surely got to be the way to go since was that not at the base of LR’s original and successful dev? Why buck such a good complexity handling model? “Slow and sure” is surely a preferred operational MO than rapid and sorry methinks otherwise quality gets trampled underfoot. After all “slow” is very relative since the updates are coming extremely rapidly when compared to, say, CS suite dev or an OS dev.May I make a request? As a straight (rather than “art”) photographer I’d still appreciate it if LR could have some kind of “selection” tools/functions built in. No, I don’t want you to turn it into PS! But I have noted that some lessons could be learnt from Lightzone’s approach to selective tonal enhancement.Thanks again for your effortsWolf[Wolf, thanks for your note and for sneaking in a feature request while you’re at it. You’re not the first person to ask for that functionality. -TH]

  35. arjen says:

    Is my understanding correct that those of us who should in jpg (and not in raw) are not affected by any the 1.4 bugs?Thanks for clarifying this.[The EXIF time stamp bug is also likely to affect JPEG shooters as well. -TH]

  36. Answering Tom´s question:[Thanks Marcos. That sounds like a very technical solution. I’m hoping I can find one that’s more straightforward. When you looked for Lightroom.pkg originally, were you logged in with Administrator privileges? -TH]Yes Tom I was logged with Administrator privilege and went round and around looking for the .pkg extension and no trace of it. Weird but true.[Thanks for confirming. -TH]

  37. Joss says:

    Please please please finally make lightroom faster. It is incredibly slow on my quad core machine with 4GB of RAM. The CPU is doing virtually nothing…Hey, it’s 2008, multicore is here![Joss, this really isn’t relevant to this blog post. Post feature requests or bug reports here:'ll need to be specific about what aspects of the application are slow for you. -TH]

  38. K51773 says:

    I have lightroom 1.3.1 and notice when I want to add keywords to photos already in the library that I can no longer keyword groups of photos, I have to add to each picture individually. Group keywording worked in previous versions but not this one. [Nothing has changed around keywording in recent updates. You’re probably noticing the difference in behavior when you’re in Grid View vs. Loupe View in the Library. In Loupe View, even if you have multiple images selected, the keyword will only be applied to the single image currently displayed. In Grid View, the keyword will be applied to all selected images. -TH]

  39. brian says:

    I’ll add another fly to the oitment, I’ve been trying assemble a slide show, each time I get to the last 8 images and LR refuses to allow me to move them into the order i want.. they will literally jump from one spot on the strip to anyplace they feel to land on..not happy about this at all.[Brian, can you submit a bug report for this issue:}

  40. It’s nice to know you are humin/humn/human…

  41. Wtin Jalanugraha says:

    I usually select CONVERT TO DNG (from Canon 5D RAW files) onto a folder (that I create)–then after I go through and adjust whatever needs to be adjusted–I EXPORT them to DNG files (to the same folder), overwriting the files. This time, the whole thing went boom (and the entire folder ended up being emptied). Thank goodness, I suppose, that I had not deleted the CR2 files from the cards yet.That error sometimes happened with every version of LR, did you know? I think it’s almost risky to convert to DNG while importing and EXPORT them onto the same folder, overwriting the files.Also happened with export to JPG, too. How very odd. But I do love the program and can’t live without it.[I definitely do not recommend that workflow. If you’ve converted your files to DNG on import, why would you overwrite the files again after making corrections? Choose the Update DNG Preview and Metadata option from the Metadata file menu. That’s all you should need to do. -TH]

  42. Eric says:

    It’s nice to see such a fast and honest reaction. Such a problem is also the right time to ask yourself how to separate the camera support from the software itself. I guess you have a modular design that makes it quite easy to release a camera library update separately.[The camera support is tightly integrated with how we read and write metadata regarding those files. But I’ll leave it up to software architects to determine if we can find a better implementation. -TH]

  43. Rory Hill says:

    Tom,If anything, the way you have responded to this “hickup” gives me more faith in Adobe. A quality product and an honest vendor – what more could a customer want. Errors sneak into all processes, especially when we try to speed them up. I hope the internal QC Lr team are not taking this on the chin, but rather, are using this as an opportunity for improvement.I like the idea of betas. Code abstraction of individual camera updates is also a good thing, albeit tricky.I probably should try to sneak in feature request here, like Wolf, as I am also a fan of localized editng, but I’ll save that for another time .Hang in there.Rory[Thanks Rory. -TH]

  44. Cezary Raczko says:

    Hi,Please add my voice of support for Lightroom and CameraRaw to NEVER EVER modify the original RAW files. I don’t care about compatibility with other software. For those who want workarounds and hacks that require editing of the original RAW file, they should require explicit enabling in the software with a clear warning of the implication. I use cryptographic checksums on my raw files to ensure their integrity as copy / move my RAW files (it would be nice if an SHA1 hash was added automatically to xmp files first time they are created and then validated on every opening, make it optional if it impacts performance) and had I been exposed to this bug I would have been fuming. Fortunately I was travelling abroad and never downloaded 1.4. Please learn from your mistakes. Bugs happen. But the decision to edit the original RAW file must have been made conciously and I hope you listen to the feedback and learn from it. My RAW files are sacred.Otherwise, thanks for a great piece of software.Regards,Cezary

  45. Pat Little says:

    Thank you for the frank apology, it helps a lot.As you are looking at your release process I would like to make a suggestion about feedback to the users about bug fixes and feature additions for the future. I have posted bug reports to the forum (some had to do with timestamps, as it happens) but it seems that there is no mechanism for Adobe to post replies to the forum when/whether a particular bug is being addressed or when a fix is being developed or what new release the fix will be in.Please, as you refine your process, could you include a step where the decision to work on a bug, and the decision on which release it is aimed for, get communicated back out via the forums? It’s probably not practical to reply to every post that reported a given bug, I imagine there may be hundreds for each, but it would help a lot to see somewhere that a given bug is being worked on, along with a definition of what is wrong, would help greatly.At present the bug report postings seem like they are going into a black hole, and we don’t know what happens to them. Some times there is a corroborating post from another user (e.g. “timestamps are broken and this is a well known bug” was posted in a thread a while back) but beyond that we don’t get any information from Adobe officially to suggest when the problem is going to be solved, or even if it is considered a problem (is it a bug or a feature?.To be specific, the timestamp issue I have is that the timestamps displayed by LR for all my photos change by an hour when my computer’s clock switches to DST, or by many hours if I am going to a different time zone and I manually change the computer’s clock. I have many travel pictures which now have suspect timestamps, but there’s no point me taking the time to go through them, trip by trip, and checking/ correcting, until I know that LR will no longer adjust them based on the PC’s clock setting. So I’d really like to know when this bug will be addressed in a releaser of LR. There could be two ways to help us – one with a list of bugs being examined/worked on, and another, as already mentioned in this column, a complete list of changes in new releases.

  46. Dan Vomastek says:

    For what it is worth, Lightroom updates have been consistently less buggy than any other software I have ever worked with. Period. The Lightroom beta worked better than most companies’ RTM’s. You and your team deserve a whole lot more praise than belittlement. While I know you and your team are disappointed, the reality is software is tough to make perfect. All a customer can ask is an honest, sincere, and prompt response. A+ to you guys.

  47. Peter Dinella says:

    Fortunately, I missed the recent updates and did not partake in the festivities. I would have been extremely unhappy since I now rely completely on Lightroom for image sorting etc. given the ruinous state of Bridge CS3!While being candid about the update foul-up is the proper route to take, I am beginning to wonder about Adobe as a company. Maybe you’re moving too fast and becoming sloppy? If Bridge CS3 were a pharmaceutical product it would have been removed from the market, and the FDA would have been all over you. Very poor quality control; a common sign of a company with problems.

  48. Richard Yim says:

    I have v 1.3.1 and it quits during exporting from Development menu after doing it some time say about 10 exporting….It’s happening quite regularly now.Can someone tell me what’s the fix for my problem?thanks!

  49. Mark Feldman says:

    Tom,Are you aware of how to turn off automatic updates? I have to wrap the application for delivery to our users and we don’t want the auto update screeen to appear when first using the program.[Mark, Lightroom doesn’t have any official support for customizing the installation process. It is controlled by the Lightroom preference plist file on Mac however. -TH]

  50. Tony Blackett says:

    Tom,Congratulations to you and your team on a fantastic product for digital photographers. The decision to pull LR 1.4 from the download site so quickly should be applauded, not criticised. Thankfully, most comments here are positive. Bug free software is not the easiest product to produce, no matter how much it is tested, there is always a chance something has been missed and occasionally it’s serious. In this case, the bug probably should have been picked up much earlier, but with such a rapid response to users concerns, damage has been minimised. If something is learned from the experience, then it must be positive in the end.On the whole, LR performs very well for me, although I am very disappointed that two bugs I reported through the Adobe bug reporting system still had not been addressed in the 1.4 update – I tested them before uninstalling.One of these is a bug that I consider very serious and relates to moving folders within LR. If this is done with a folder containing RAW+JPEG photos, the RAW connection in the database gets lost and you end up with JPG+JPEG and develop settings meant for RAW being applied to JPEG. Although this problem can be fixed with some SQL outside of LR, most users would be reluctant to attempt it. While this bug remains unaddressed, the potential for losing a considerable amount of work is significant.The second bug introduced in LR 1.1 is trivial and its fix must be equally trivial – on the camera calibration panel, the green saturation slider has the wrong graphic (it is the same as the hue). Although this is likely to be way down in the priority list, being cosmetic, it would surely be only a two second job to fix. After all, someone slipped up and changed it in the first place between LR 1.0 and 1.1.I have to agree with Pat Little’s comments that the Adobe’s bug reporting system is far from satisfactory. I am a beta tester for an unrelated software package and although it can take a long time for bugs to be fixed, the web-based reporting system is excellent. At any time I can get the status of my own and anyone else’s bug reports, with information about which build the bug was tested and fixed. Your beta testing site may have such a system also, but ordinary users who are reporting bugs are in the dark and need something to indicate that they are being heard. When (serious) bugs persist after many updates, you can’t help but feel that you are not being listen to.Sorry for being a bit on the negative side. Keep up the great work and I look forward to LR becoming even greater.Tony[Tony, thanks for your comments. You mention two valid bug reports and I agree that we could do more to provide insight into our bug reporting. We have been making strides internally in this area, hopefully we can provide better visibility externally in the future. -TH]

  51. rob-b says:

    Any idea why the 1.4.1 release is taking so long. Is it a major rewrite that’s required here, or is the delay due to increased focus now on QA during the development lifecycle? If so, can we expect future updates to be delayed too? It has been 10 days since the apology was issued.[Rob, Lightroom 1.4.1 will be released in April. Sorry for not being more specific but you can understand why we wouldn’t want this update to go out the door prematurely. -TH]

  52. Michael Tuminello says:

    Well, if you need more beta testers sign me up…MT[Thanks Michael. -TH]

  53. Ian says:

    Thanks for keeping us up-to-date and being open about this. I only wish you were working on a plugin interface[1] rather than scrabbling over bugfixes…—-[1] Apple have just thrown the gauntlet today – dodge-and-burn within aperture today! and vendors lined up to add even greater functionality in the near future, *very* tempting.[Ian, I wouldn’t exactly call the destructive, modal plug-in experience in Aperture a gauntlet throwing event. -TH]

  54. Tom I hope you don’t mind me posting this to your blog, but it could make sense for future releases of Lightroom.I sometimes find myself working on hundreds of pictures at once or maybe in different projects at the same time and making adjustment to many pictures on one row. Obviously there’s a time when I’ve to stop and continue with it the next day or week or whenever. I personally think that a good feature to be included in future releases would be a filtering system for those pictures already with developed adjustments or without them so it would be much easier to find those one pending to be worked with. I’m sure it will save a lot of time sorting out the remainings.Thanks Tom & Team[Good suggestion Marcos. -TH]

  55. Rick Silva says:

    Using LR and D80 NEF is no problem ,but using the D60 NEF is a no go. Is it possible(and how) to use the current RAW updates to work with LR to view the D60 NEF format. I know I can use it to work with CS3.ThanksRick[Rick, we’ll have the added camera support in Lightroom 1.4.1 shortly. -TH]

  56. Fabio says:

    I would like to know if Lightroom 1.4.1 will support Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ18. It´s a long time the camera has been launched and we don´t have support yet !Thank you very much.Fabio.[Fabio, we don’t pre-announce when we’ll add camera support but we do care about providing timely support. -TH]

  57. Carl says:

    Thanks for commenting the issues with the 1.4 release.I can only add in on the raw+jpeg folder issue Tony Blackett describes. This is a very annoying problem (and should be threated as a dataloss bug). I’ve tried to report this to adobe, but the last feedback I got was that adobe was not able to reproduce this issue inhouse(?).Yesterday I made a video screencast showing how I could reproduce this issue, even on another PC, and updated my support case on this issue.I really hope this is just some sort of misunderstanding, at least I hope the LR team is aware of this issue?Thanks and looking forward to the next release![Carl, thanks for taking the time to provide us with details on the problem. -TH]

  58. Tim Howland says:

    Pondering a comment by Thomas that “news spread so quickly” -just how did news spread so quickly? How was one to know about this? Browse a specific web site? What should I have been doing to notice this news quickly? Tell me, which website should I look at daily to be sure to see the next recall announcement? Send me an email![Tim, in general, the same sites that provided information about the update provided information about the need to revert to Lightroom 1.3.1. No automatic updates were provided through Lightroom or Adobe directly. -TH]

  59. Gert Weber says:

    I’ve read a lot about LR 2 and it seems to be promising.But I still wait for LR 1.4.1, because LR 1.3 refuses to install, as it always finds a newer installation and terminates.I’ve tried to delete the file lightroom.pkg, but could not find it.What about a small deinstaller?Meanwhile I’m not glad with the decision, to bring out LR 2 and let us wait for a working 1.4.1 – without a working 1.3!Gert[Gert, have you searched your entire hard drive for all files named Lightroom? Lightroom 1.4 wouldn’t have installed successfully without leaving the package file in place. -TH]

  60. Gert Weber says:

    Hi Tom,thank you for your answer.I have searched my Macintosh HD for Lightroom.pkg and did not find a trace of it.Then I started the Installation of LR 1.3.1 again.LR 1.3.1 refused to install, telling me, that there was a newer Version it. But to my astonishment, it even refused to install on the Drive Windows – a NTFS-Partition with Windows Vista on it. It refused to install on this drive for the same reason – I never ever installed any Version of LR on it!With kind regards, being at a loss with the installation!Gert[Gert, the package file was only installed on Mac computers. Windows computers only needed to do a basic uninstall. Regardless, download Lightroom 1.4.1 and move forward with that version. -TH]

  61. Gert Weber says:

    Hi Tom,as a last attempt I tried the solution of Marcos G. Meider (March 20th) and Lightroom 1.3.1 is up and running.Interestingly, Spotlight or a search of the entire Disk had not found the files he removes.Happy againGert

  62. Elliot Correa says:

    On LR 1.4 or Beta 2 I can not drag my photos to change the order. Is this a bug or something I am doing wrong?ThanksElliot[You’ll need to change the sort order that’s available in the toolbar. -TH]

  63. Frank says:

    I would like to get a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ18I But I dont know if the Lightroom 1.4.1 will support it??[Yes, it will. -TH]

  64. business says:

    I have not understood – Is better to us now update to 1.3?[If you’re still using Lightroom 1, then update to 1.4.1 -TH]

  65. I am new to lightroom and am considering getting the program. At the same time capture one is also attracting my attention, so I am a little unsure as which application to choose. One thing that is leaning me in favour of lightroom is the really handy and informative forums and help articles that are regularly published.

  66. What version of photoshop do you use cause when i press CTRL ALT R it dosent show up anything. I got Adobe light room journal? Thanks for the valuable content.