Important Lightroom 1.4 and Camera Raw 4.4 Update

The Lightroom 1.4 update for Mac and Windows has been temporarily removed from the Adobe.com web site.  Those Lightroom users who have installed Lightroom 1.4 should uninstall the update and install Lightroom 1.3.1.(Mac, Win) until a further update can be provided. For those not in immediate need of the updated camera support available in Camera Raw 4.4 or the DNG 4.4 Converter, it’s recommended that you also continue working with the 4.3.1 versions. (Mac, Win)  This decision is based on the following errors that have been discovered with the recent update:

  • EXIF Time Stamp Error: There is an error in the EXIF time stamp update technology that causes Lightroom to believe that the files are out of sync with the correct time stamp as displayed in Lightroom. Any ensuing metadata update will attempt to incorrectly modify the EXIF time stamp in the original raw file itself.  This is the only metadata field that Lightroom will write to an original proprietary raw file. This error will not impact the integrity of your image data.  The Camera Raw plug-in also will incorrectly change the EXIF time stamp in files converted by the plug-in.  The information written to the XMP sidecar files or XMP metadata in the converted files will remain correct.
  • DNG Conversion Error(Windows Only): With the latest version of the Lightroom 1.4 and Camera Raw 4.4 applications, Adobe has included technology to verify that the image data in a DNG file is unchanged from when it was originally converted to DNG.  Unfortunately, when converting to DNG using Lightroom 1.4 on Windows, the application will write an incorrect verification tag to describe the image data.  When Lightroom attempts to work with those files in the Develop module, the application reads that incorrect tag, believes that there is something wrong with the raw data and will present an error.  Rest assured, there is nothing wrong with the integrity of your image data or metadata.  For those that have already converted their files to DNG using Lightroom 1.4(Windows only) we recommend using the DNG 4.3.1 converter to convert the DNG files you’ve created with Lightroom 1.4.
  • Olympus Conversion Error:  There is an error in converting Olympus JPEG files to other formats in Lightroom 1.4 and the Camera Raw 4.4 plug-in. 

To uninstall Lightroom 1.4 please see the instructions per your platform:
Mac: Delete the Lightroom application in the Application folder(Mac) and Delete the following file:  Library/Receipts/Adobe Photoshop Lightroom.pkg
Windows: Choose the Uninstall Lightroom 1.4 menu item from the Windows start menu.  The Add/Remove Program utility on Windows will also achieve the same result. 

To replace the Camera Raw 4.4 plug-in with the 4.3.1 plug-in, follow the manual installation instructions provided on the download page linked above.

I will post additional updates to this blog as we have more information on the timing and scope of the future update.

68 Responses to Important Lightroom 1.4 and Camera Raw 4.4 Update

  1. You have no idea how much pain this caused over the weekend. I can only hope that the QA folk have learned some important lessons about regression testing so we don’t see this kind of thing repeated.I have no problems with the odd bug slipping through – we’re all human – but to _introduce_ such massive problems into something that was functional really has no excuse.(BTW – QA guys: I’m not having a dig at you. If Adobe is anything like pretty much any other software shop on the planet, you’ve got the least staff and the highest workload of any department. But use this incident to your advantage!)

  2. Jacek Maryan (home) says:

    This explains why the 1.4 link points to the old 1.3.1 file.

  3. Ryan Sinn says:

    I guess what I don’t understand is that none of the “bugs” were listed as feature enhancements in the “release notes” or whatever you want to call it…It’d be great if you guys would be a bit more detailed with the release notes.All that was listed as changed for 1.4.0 is “support for additional camera models.”I updated one workstation just to see what had changed … not expecting anything to be difference because according to your notes you didn’t mess with DNG or EXIF data.I think it’s beneficial in many ways to be descriptive with the updates that are being committed to the new versions and perhaps people would be more excited to download the latest version if we knew what was ACTUALLY changing.[Ryan, by removing the update from Adobe.com, we’re indicating that we did not know about these issues prior to the release. -TH]

  4. Mel says:

    I checked my MacLibrary/Receipts/Adobe Photoshop Lightroom.pkgand there is no Adobe Photoshop Lightroom.pkg in Receipts folder????I did just move the program to my new Mac via Migration assistant….I also checked in my user’s Library as wellno such .pkg file found[Mel, are you looking at the user Library or the system Library? You’ll want to make sure your checking your system Library. Try searching on Lightroom.pkg. -TH]

  5. Fazal Majid says:

    Ugh! There is no excuse EVER for tampering with RAW files. This seriously makes me reconsider my switch from Aperture.

  6. Antonio says:

    Oh well! it happens. We all know how difficult it can be to release a piece of complex software. It is an inconvenience, but it should not take away from the superb job you guys have done! keep up the good work, we all make mistakes and honesty and admission goes a long way in my book, well done to you all.

  7. Info has been relayed on our community website.Any planning on a patch availability or new release would be appreciated.LR writes to the RAW files ? How is that possible ? Was it mentionned somewhere ? Some more infos on this typical item would be a nice feedback from the LR team.[I don’t have an update on the timing of a subsequent release. EXIF capture time is the one field that is written to the original raw file in order to provide compatibility with other applications. -TH]

  8. Tamas says:

    How can I check my RAW files?How can I find the incorrect files (EXIF time stamp error)?[Tamas, you would need to use a third party software that ignores Adobe sidecar XMP files to view the updated EXIF field in the raw file. The XMP metadata still holds the correct information, so files that have been impacted will be corrected by Lightroom 1.3.1. -TH]

  9. Tamas says:

    Ryan: You should check your Macintosh HD/Library/Receipts folder not your Home/Libary.

  10. Rolf Hicker says:

    ohhh oh, we just switched from Aperture to LR – I was quite happy but this is a big one.Any ideas how to reverse it?? Just replace the DB with the backup DB??I hope one of those days that they think about the user once too.[This won’t impact your catalog in any way. Open your current catalog in Lightroom 1.3.1. -TH]

  11. Hurt says:

    Guess it was wrong decision to use DNG, its still not mature enough (after 4 years?). WHo knows what you will mess up in next version.[Actually, it was a new DNG feature intended to provide validation of the integrity of the image data that was handled incorrectly by Lightroom. Camera Raw and the DNG converter handle this new feature correctly. -TH]

  12. Claude says:

    There is great differences between Adobe and Apple:When you do a mess you apologize…Here in France, there is a say:”A fault confessed is half redressed”

  13. Microscopia says:

    What a mess – just sheer incompetence!

  14. Crash says:

    I’m having the same problems as Mel. Cannot locate the lightroom.pkg I’m unable to get rid of Lightroom 1.4[Make sure you’re looking in the system library not the library located under the user account. -TH]

  15. Marty Cohen says:

    As of 5:30 am PDT, after deleting ver 1.4 and reinstalling ver 1.3.1, running 1.3.1 still gives the message that a new version, 1.4, is available. Adobe needs to remove this as well until the new 1.4 version is available.[The update notification has been removed. -TH]

  16. CMD says:

    Cripes. This implies you are neither fully testing your updates and more importantly, not being transparent with the changes being made.Now I’m afraid to do the uninstall gymnastics on my system for other things to break.

  17. Markus says:

    What about Unit testing Adobe ? Seems the test base for this product is by far not complete – or even worse, there are not tests ;)Best regards,Markus[I can’t speak to the details of unit testing but I do know that this is something that should have been covered in a our update testing. -TH]

  18. clvrmnky says:

    Hmmmm. For those of us that heaved our lazy selves of the couch and did a lot of photoprocessing in the last few weeks, both on data a few months old, and quite a lot of new photos, what does this mean to our libraries?I mean, is the damage already done, and I should just press on until the next fix, or do I downgrade anyway, and /somehow/ find a way to determine which metadata is wrong and correct it by hand?What are the circumstances around your first bullet point up there?[If you revert to Lightroom 1.3.1 you should press on until a new update can be provided. The first bullet point error will occur when you select images and choose to save metadata to the files. (CMD/CTRL – S) -TH]

  19. John Hollenberg says:

    > Ugh! There is no excuse EVER for tampering with RAW files.That’s why the release was pulled–it’s a (serious) bug.

  20. David Zeller says:

    TH, I think what Jacek Maryan was referring to is that just adding new cameras wouldn’t seem to have resulted in problems in these areas. Therefore, I would guess something else was also being worked on. These other things were not mentioned in the list of changes. I would think many people would like to know if there are changes being made that could affect various areas of the program. Including this information does not reveal your actual changes of course – but gives everyone a heads-up as to potential improvements or caveats. A case like this is a really good example of why this type of disclosure would be valuable.D.[Good point David. We’re constantly updating the underlying architecture of our raw processing. In this case, a pending update to the DNG specification required changes to how Adobe applications read or write DNG files. -TH]

  21. Tom Klose says:

    I have serious trouble with exporting a slideshow since upgrading to 1.4. It is hanging and my clients need to see the results without me spending hours on trying to solve a problem that is really a programming issue.[Tom, please revert to Lightroom 1.3.1 per my post. -TH]

  22. Norman Hedge says:

    So why does the Adobe web site download section only show “Download Lightroom 1.4″ ? No reference now to 1.3.1[Several pages are still in need of updates to clarify the currently available version. Thanks for your patience while we get these cleaned up and localized into various languages. -TH]

  23. mark says:

    @ Fazal, probably not as a general rule BUT I prefer my images to have correct “where shot” local time recorded so when I shoot in a different time zone and (as I often do) forget to change the camera’s time to match it’s handy to be able modify the exif data in lightroom, that said why it would try modify it, by its self, automatically, on import is a mystery to me

  24. Jim Hayes says:

    EXIF Time Stamp error statement not clear: does it or does it not change the original file, and under what exact circumstances? The statement seems to state that it does change the EXIF date, then goes on to say “integrity of image data is not affected”…?If I don’t need to use Lightroom for awhile, can I just wait for update 1.4.1 to be posted and install on top of version 1.4?If I do uninstall ver 1.4 and install ver 1.3.1, will the database files be affected or removed during the process (i.e. keywording forgotten or previews need to be regenerated)?[Jim, raw files consist of two essential pieces: the block of data that was captured by your sensor and metadata to describe that image data. In this case, Lightroom would incorrectly update the metadata when you explicitly update the metadata. If you’re not planning on using Lightroom you can certainly wait for the subsequent update and install it over Lightroom 1.4 if you prefer. -TH]

  25. George Purvis says:

    Unfortunately, I spent this past rainy weekend reorganizing my Lightroom keywords and library structure (160GB). I now have a time-stamp catastrophe on hand. Even restoring the .NEFs from backup will be a major pain because each file will have to be restored individually. Will Adobe provide a utility to restore the original time stamps?[The time stamps will be restored when you revert to Lightroom 1.3.1. No need to restore your NEFs from backup. -TH]

  26. Bob Cooley says:

    The link you have above for the 4.3.1 files is for CS3 only. I have Elements 6.0 – where can I find the older RAW update? All I can find is the newest 4.4 update, which is still available, it seems. Wasn’t this taken off, per the announcement above?[Bob, Camera Raw 4.3.1 will work with Photoshop Elements 6.0. Camera Raw was not removed from Adobe.com, only the Lightroom update. -TH]

  27. John says:

    Check what platform instructions? I am totally computer illiterate. Is using the add/remove win program all I have to do to uninstall. Is it a big deal to use LR 1.4 until Adobe gives detailed instructions on how to uninstall and reinstall. I have CS3 and LR and would hope I get a little more details on how to do this stuff(step by step)u. It looks like I can use the add/remove utility but then what -where is LR 1.3–. I don’t want to screw up and end up with nothing. I love Adobe but I bought a tool not a computer program. I need to chill and keep the faith- I guess I will continue will LR 1.4 until I get more info. I’ll just stay away from those issues for wa while.[John, add/remove program will work to remove Lightroom 1.4. Then you can download and install Lightroom 1.3.1 through the link in my post. -TH]

  28. Mike Ornellas says:

    To error is to be human. Considering that we are in a constant flux of development and you can go back to a later version – I think people should be happy that they have something to play with. Put things in perspective. I do. I work in commercial print where as everything is screwed up. Be positive about the future. Things will change.

  29. DavidGordon says:

    I used LR 1.4 over the weekend and updated metadata. How do I know if its messed up the EXIF in my original RAW files? (Thought I was only writing to XMP…)[The easiest method to determine if your EXIF data has been updated is to look at the modification date of your raw files. If it was over the weekend, then chances are that Lightroom updated the EXIF data. The incorrect EXIF will be corrected through Lightroom 1.3.1 -TH]

  30. A. Dias says:

    Tom:When running the Mac version of Lr 1.4 I noticed that the new ACR 4.4 profile was not being picked up by RAW files (sRW, CR2) that had never been edited. Is this correct behavior? I would imagine not. Is the new ACR filter assigned only upon RAW import into Lr? Since running Lr 1.4 I have not imported new RAW files, so I do not know if the import process assigns the new profile.Thanks.A. Dias[Thanks for the report. I’m fairly certain that if the new profile is not applied by default, that the files were previously ‘touched’ by Camera Raw or Lightroom. -TH]

  31. Brian Moffet says:

    Any ideas on the timeframe for a new fix for these issues?And, should I not uninstall the 1.4 update, will the new 1.4 update do the correct thing? (assuming I can’t get to my lightroom machine before the update is pushed out.)THanks,Brian[Sorry Brian, I don’t have any details on the timing of the update yet but it will do the ‘correct’ thing in terms of installing over the 1.4 update. -TH]

  32. David Strick says:

    I just spent the last three days before seeing this notice working hundreds of RAW files into shape, and adding new caption data. When I uninstall the update, will those file changes be lost, or will the program revert to the prior version and retain the file changes in that older version?[David, all of that work is immediately stored in your Lightroom catalog and will still be there when you revert to Lightroom 1.3.1. -TH]

  33. Jay S. says:

    Tom, I’m sure you will do the internal self review to try and make sure this doesn’t re-occur, so thanks in advance. If I might offer a suggestion especially while LR is still in the 1.x age. Before putting out a release with more than just camera updates, perhaps offer it to a broader set of users to assist with regression tests via beta especially if certain areas of the code are touched (somewhat along the release note thought above). If you are looking for profiles of camera types, shooting patterns, etc., I’d imagine there would be no shortage of volunteers (although you’ll have to excuse in advance the cries for more functions) :-) . I know I’d certainly be willing to help.[Thanks Jay. I mentioned in a subsequent post that broadening the scope of testing before considering the release final could be a possibility in the future. -TH]

  34. Peter Davis says:

    Agreed with Fazal Majid — why does the relevant code even *exist* to modify RAW files? This is not just a horrible regression bug; this raises questions about what’s really going on in Lightroom under the hood.

  35. Ron Hardesty says:

    I guess I’m pretty stupid because I don’t know what this statement means: “For those that have already converted their files to DNG using Lightroom 1.4(Windows only) we recommend using the DNG 4.3.1 converter to convert the DNG files you’ve created with Lightroom 1.4.”Could you restate this pleaase?[Ron, just use the DNG 4.3.1 converter to ‘reconvert’ your DNG files. -TH]

  36. Rick Brown says:

    Ok, I’ve downgraded to 1.3.1, but only after I spent a good part of the weekend working in 1.4 with a set of 100+ raw files. Is there an easy way to see which files, if any, have had their EXIF data corrupted by 1.4? I would like to know which RAW files I should reload from the camera. Hopefully not all of them.[Rick, none of your files have been corrupted. An incorrect time value may have been written to the raw file but it can be easily fixed by downgrading to Lightroom 1.3.1. The easiest way to tell which images may have been affected is to check the modification date of the raw files. If it was within the last few days, they were probably affected by the bug. But again, there’s no corruption involved, only an incorrect value so there’s no need to reload your raws. -TH]

  37. Paul Swortz says:

    Argh. I updated to 1.4 and spent hours working on my DNG files in LR.What happens to my catalog? If/when I revert, will my hours and hours of edits made in Develop mode be lost?[Paul, nothing happens to your hours of edit. They’ll be right where you left them when you launch Lightroom 1.3.1. -TH]

  38. brent says:

    i agree with the previous poster that there should NEVER be a situation where the original RAW file should be modified without the awareness or approval of the user.One issue that is not clear with the background on the bug is whether this problem only occurs if the user performs a Save Metadata operation, or whether the original RAW file is modified at the time of import into Lightroom. Can you clarify?I’ve got a number of pictures I’ve already imported into Lightroom 1.4 and am concerned that I need to trash all the work I’ve done and restore the original RAW files from a backup.thanks[Brent, in the case of proprietary raw files, the bug would only occur during a save metadata operation. No need to throw away the work you’ve done. Your files are fine and the work will still be there when you revert to Lightroom 1.3.1. – TH]

  39. ChrisJD says:

    So what does this actually mean for RAW file users.I installed 1.4 and updated all my RAW files with ACR4. whatever.Now installed 1.3.1 and am now updating back to ACR 2.4.And will the RAW Exif timestamp error now correct itself?And what does that actually mean to me if it doesn’t.And what did the error in LR 1.4 change the RAW timestamp to?And why the h*ll are Adobe mucking around with my RAW files anyway – that’s not part of the RAW deal (excuse the pun).[TH: Chris, the EXIF timestamp error will correct itself. I believe the incorrect timestamp written is 00:00:00. -TH]

  40. Bruce says:

    It would certainly help if you posted a notice on your Support download site about this problem. I realize bad news doesn’t like to be flashed about but this is pretty important news and I had to search and search just to find this page. Not cool![Thanks Bruce. I’m working on creating a Tech Note on our support site. -TH]

  41. Kent Daiber says:

    Is this why, when I exported out of LR to my website this weekend, all my metadata was intact EXCEPT for my time stamps? I incurred major brain damage manually sorting 119 images on the site, and have now put my web engine providers through all sorts of grief trying to figure out the problem (having told them that it CAN’T be a LR issue because I have the time stamps in my metadata in LR).An answer to the opening question would be much appreciated. I’d also like to know how to revert to 1.3.1.[Kent see the information in the blog post about uninstalling Lightroom 1.4 and installing Lightroom 1.3.1. Yes, the problem with the timestamp on your exported files could have been caused by this bug. -TH]

  42. Pyry Ekholm says:

    Does the DNG conversion bug affect LR 1.4 and ACR 4.4 or LR 1.4 and any version of ACR?I just finished going back to LR 1.31, ACR apparently was 4.31 all along. I can use develop on my latest imports just fine without errors, but I’d like to be sure.[I would recommend using Camera Raw 4.3.1 and Lightroom 1.3.1. This does not affect those versions or earlier. Lightroom 1.3.1 is the same version of camera raw support as Camera Raw 4.3.1. -TH]

  43. Mike says:

    I have to agree with Fazal – it’s frightening that Lightroom writes to the RAW files at all. Not writing to the originals is one of the primary reasons we use Lightroom (or Aperture) to begin with. Have I been wrong in understanding that Lightroom normally does no writing at all to the original?This bug warrants further explanation. Among other things, you wrote that “This is the only metadata field that Lightroom will write to an original proprietary raw file.” What does this mean? Does it mean that Lightroom normally writes to the EXIF date field, but only to that field? Or does it mean that the bug is limited to causing a write to the EXIF date field, whereas Lightroom normally does not write to any field in the original file?Thanks. I appreciate what a great product Lightroom is, and I appreciate your open communication on this blog. But it’s pretty major for a non-destructive app to make destructive writes.[Yes, Lightroom has written the time stamp EXIF field back to raw files since the product was launched. This is intended to provide compatibility to other products that ignore the same field written to XMP metadata. -TH]

  44. Matt Ginzton says:

    Tom, I think the point of Ryan’s comment, which I also agree with, wasn’t what you took it as.The complaint/suggestion isn’t that you knew 1.4 had the bugs listed here and didn’t put “known bugs…” in the release notes; it’s that you knew 1.4 changed the handling of DNG and EXIF data, and didn’t put *that* in the release notes.If the release notes said “we added DNG verification”, people who didn’t want to tolerate any changes to the DNG processing code could hold off on upgrading, and people would be less surprised when DNG import functionality that worked in 1.3.1 was broken in 1.4.[Matt, there was no *intended* EXIF behavior change in Lightroom 1.4 that’s why I didn’t address it in the readme. The underlying architecture change to provide DNG validation is arguably a little too technical to address in a readme file particularly when there’s not supposed to be any visible presentation of it to the photographer. That was clearly not the case. -TH]

  45. Scott says:

    None of the stated problems really concern me in the immediate term. To be able to download and re-install 1.4 when your correction is ready will I have to still uninstall 1.4 and reinstall 1.3.1? Or can I just install over 1.4 when you guys have the new update?[Scott, the new update, likely to be Lightroom 1.4.1, will install over 1.3.1 or 1.4 without additional action required. -TH]

  46. don vine says:

    So, if the 1.4 pkg is removed, what is left to tell Adobe that you already own a copy when you try to download and reinstall 1.3?And what happens if you have already converted some files.And what happens if you continue using the 1.4 version. All of your exif data appears incorrect?[Don, Revert to Lightroom 1.3.1 and we’ll take care of it from there. -TH]

  47. Martti Vepsalainen says:

    I agree with Fazal Majid. Certainly the time stamp should NOT be updated EVER without approval by the user (if even then).However, Adobe, thank you for a quick response to the bugs. With software these kind of errors tend to happen.[This is certainly the prevailing sentiment. -TH]

  48. Djordje Z. says:

    So how do I go back to 1.3.1? Do I just install it over 1.4 OR do I uninstall 1.4 first?If the latter, what will happen to my catalog if I uninstall 1.4 first?Please advise.Thank you![Please check my notes in this blog post on how to revert to Lightroom 1.3.1. -TH]

  49. Why is Adobe Updater still telling me that I need this update and allowing to download and install it? AND I MEAN TODAY TIUESDAY 3/18! I would not even know about this if I hadn’t gone to the user forum to find out if there was a way to take advantage of a dual monitor set up with LR on a Mac. Lucky for me I’m still using Aperture and just playing with Lightroom. I’m just not going to launch it again until there’s a patch. Releasing software that’s not ready is SOOOOOO Microsoft.[David, could you be more specific? The standard Adobe Update Manager does not provide updates for Lightroom. The Camera Raw 4 plug-in has not been loaded into the update manager. -TH]

  50. Don Eddy says:

    Tom,I upgraded LR 1.4 on both my G5 (OS X 10.4.11) and my MacBook Pro (OS X 10.5.2). The program is working just fine. I see no problems with the EXIF time stamp either through the stand-alone Adobe converter or straight into LR converting while importing from card.I have monitored the LR Forum and noted that the problems appear to be with Windows XP only.I’ll leave the update 1.4 as is until I find that I have a problem.I also worked with the Betas since Beta 2. Excellent program, good support, friendly folks both on the forum and at Adobe. I cannot say enough about how closely and positively they all get together. I also worked with Aperture from early on but have since discarded it from the many problems it created, e.g. changing file names when creating web pages! Lots of other ticky-tick things as well.Keep up the good work!Don Eddy[Don, I would recommend reverting to Lightroom 1.3.1. You don’t see the EXIF bug because Adobe applications do not read that specific field once the XMP value for the field is available. -TH]

  51. Steve says:

    Tom thanks for your patience.

  52. Franz Pritz says:

    Nachdem ich LR 1.4 deinstalliert und LR1.3.1 wieder installiert habe, war alles wie vorher. Nur die mit 1.4 konvertierten DNGs habe ich nochmals mit 1.3.1 konvertiert. Scheint also nicht ganz so schlimm zu sein …[Perhaps someone who speaks German can lend a hand with this post. -TH]

  53. Rick Silva says:

    The funny thing is I have been running a bootleg copy of LR for a while. Calm down now let me talk! I did the upgrade to 1.4 and had problems since. I also use the Nikon D60. I tried to print some D60 shots and no print just a blank page. I then figured since I use a legal copy of CS3 I should do the right thing and get a paid for,legal copy of LR. So I did. I updated it this morning and I am glad it installed the 1.3.1 version. HEHEHE I did the right thing. Sure this inconvienced me for a couple of days but installing 1.3.1 resolved my problems. I do hope these problem can be resolved so I can work with my D60, but for the mean time 1.3.1 works just fine for me. So my final comment to the bootleggers out there. Do the right thing ;-0

  54. Larry Williamson says:

    1.3.1 does not want to re-install.I followed (I think) the uninstall instructions…1. deleted the application file2. did not find any receipt file (looked in both the system and home Library folder)Installing 1.3.1 shows the hard drive icon with a red exclamation mark and says it cannot install because a version of Lightroom is already installed:([Larry, did you try using the operating system search to find the word Lightroom? That should show you all of the files on your system related to Lightroom. -TH]

  55. Marcos says:

    The reverting to Lightroom 1.3.1 does not work as it is suposse to do. I’ve followed intructions: no such file as Library/Receipts/Adobe Photoshop Lightroom.pkgThe only files in “Receipts” are to do with Acrobat.Uninstalled Lightroom then proceed to reinstall version 1.3.1 and it does not allow me as it says that there’s a newer version of lightroom.I’m working with Mac Intel core 2 Duo on Leopard and now without Lightroom or with a version that it exists in my computer but there’s no way the find where. I made searches for “lightroom”: no result. And also searched anything with an extension “.pkg” and zero results.[I’ll ask the team to look into this but a search for Lightroom.pkg should turn up the file. -TH]

  56. J Chesham says:

    If 1.4 was taken down why was I allerted to the update just two days ago which I downloaded and installed. I have not been able to import files since the programme just locks up (ctrl+alt+del they only course). Reverting to 1.3.1 does not cure the problem. I still cannot import with out the programme locking up! Please help since LR is a bit of a chocolate teapot without the ability to import!!![Unfortunately it would appear that the alert was not pulled before you were notified on Sunday the 16th. Can you make sure that Lightroom 1.3.1 is the version of the application you’re launching? Sometimes the application shortcuts we use will link to other versions. -TH]

  57. Mike Seale says:

    If I choose NOT to do anything and keep running v1.4 what will happen? I ask because I think I can live with the wrong time stamp for a while and I don’t use DNG do I? [i]I use RAW and then export to photoshop for editing before saving as either tiff or jpeg[/i].I’d rather do nothing than risk wasting loads of time with a dodgy uninstall/reintall process.Mike[Mike, if you have a backup routine that uses file modification time, you may incur unnecessary disk churn on your proprietary files and backup files. -TH]

  58. Diane says:

    OK – I’ve been trying to open LR all day and restarted my computer several times, however, I keep getting an error and the program closes. I then read this post, uninstalled 1.4 and reinstalled 1.3. I am still unable to open LR – could this problem I’m having have anything to do with this newest 1.4 upgrade? and if so, how can I get the program to open???[Diane, this sounds unrelated to the 1.4 problem. Are you trying to open a catalog from a network volume? -TH]

  59. Rick Brown says:

    Tom: Thanks for your help and honesty in regards to fixing the issues caused by Lightroom 1.4. I decided to double check that Lightroom 1.4 did not mangle any of my original RAW files by running a diff command (in the terminal on a Mac) for the files catalogued by Lightroom versus the original raw files on the camera’s SD card.I did actually find that one of the RAW files was changed by Lightroom. I had cropped this file in Lightroom 1.4, which generated an XMP file but also changed the RAW file (which Lightroom is not supposed to do, I think). I ran Phil Harvey’s excellent exiftool, dumped the results to text files, and ran diff again to see the differences. Here is what I got (I had to replace the greater/less than signs from the diff output with “a” and “b” to make the text appear correctly in preview):catamaran2:raw drb$ diff lightroom.txt original.txt5c5a Directory : card2—b Directory : /Users/drb/Desktop/DCIM/100NCD407c7a File Modification Date/Time : 2008:03:14 17:11:28—b File Modification Date/Time : 2008:03:14 16:03:2029c29a Modify Date : 2008:03:14 12:03:21—b Modify Date : 2008:03:14 16:03:2165,66c65,66a Date/Time Original : 2008:03:14 12:03:21a Create Date : 2008:03:14 12:03:20—b Date/Time Original : 2008:03:14 16:03:21b Create Date : 2008:03:14 16:03:20So, it seems to me that Lightroom 1.4 did actually change “Date/Time Original” and “Create Date” (not counting the modify date, etc.). So even after downgrading to 1.3.1, this particular RAW file has incorrect EXIF data.In my case, this is not a problem since I can delete the RAW and XMP files from Lightroom and reimport the original RAW file from the camera. But users of Lightroom 1.4 should know that just downgrading to 1.3.1 does not appear to actually fix the EXIF data that was changed by 1.4, at least not in my experience.[Rick, Had you run an update metadata command on those files to correct the time stamp in Lightroom 1.3.1 prior to checking the EXIF values? You’ll need to use command or ctrl S to update the field. -TH]

  60. John says:

    Well I imported and processed over 1500 images over the weekend, and now I have downgraded to the previous version, but I can’t export full sized tiffs. I get an error:readNegative: dng_error_unknownHow about some detailed instructions on how to fix our DNGs or a utility?For some of us, deleting everything and reimported under 1.3 is not an option.[John, save metadata to those files prior to export by choosing the CMD or CTRL S. Please let me know if that does not correct the error. -TH]

  61. Ross Harris says:

    I installed LR 1.4. If I reinstall 1.3.1, can I just install Camera Raw 4.3.1 over 4.4, or do I have to delete 4.4 first? If yes, where do I find Camera Raw on my Mac? –Ross[Ross, when you download the 4.3.1 update the installation instructions will indicate the plug-in location so that you can replace the 4.4 version. -TH]

  62. Alex says:

    If I continue to use 1.4 when 1.4.1 is released will it correct any invalid changes to the exif date brought about by using 1.4 in the same way you are saying a roll back to 1.3.1 will? I don’t use DNG files so am not bothered by that problem.[Alex, the EXIF time stamp issue isn’t limited to DNG so I recommend reverting to Lightroom 1.3.1 until Lightroom 1.4.1 is released. -TH]

  63. roger says:

    Is the 1.4 uninstall, just an update uninstall, or for the whole program, in which case, the activation and registration process must be undertaken again?thank,rb[Reverting to Lightroom 1.3.1 should not require additional serialization or registration processes. -TH]

  64. Gerard Duveen says:

    I have a problem with re-installing Lightroom 1.3.1I uninstalled LR 1.4 (but like other commentators I could not locate a Lightroom.pkg in either User Library or System Library, or by searching for it).But when I try to install 1.3.1 the installation program tells me that it cannot be done as there is a later version already installed.I have also tried going back to my distribution CD, but I get the same message.So now I have no access to Lightroom at all!!!!!What can I do?[Gerard, I’ll ask the team to look into this and will post an update when possible. Have you searched on ‘Lightroom.pkg’ to make sure that you haven’t missed it? -TH]

  65. Jonathan Disher says:

    I have to agree with most of the posters, there is NEVER EVER EVER EVER a reason that you should automagically touch the RAW file. The RAW file is intended to be the digital negative, regardless of DNG or whatever – I pull CR2 off the flash card, I expect it to be the same in 4 years as it was the day I captured the image. If you need to modify the EXIF Captured timestamp, then this needs to either be a manual process (click the field and manually change the number) or a automated-manual process where I select a bunch of photos and hit a menu option to “correct timestamps”, or whatever.I too forget to change the time on my camera when I leave PST, but I also tend to forget to change the TZ on my laptop, too. Regardless of WHY this “feature” is there, it needs to not be automatic, or if it is going to, IT NEEDS TO BE EASY TO DISABLE. Period.This raises serious concerns for me over the viability of LightRoom as a processing product, and I do not look forward to the prospect of converting to Aperture, or going back to Photoshop full-time. LR provides a great workflow, but I DO NOT want something futzing with my raw files. They are originals for a -reason-.[Many agree with this comment. -TH]

  66. randy says:

    Why do we bother to register our Adobe products with Adobe when notice of an egregious error like this that can affect our livelihood is not broadcast to registered users via email, rather than having to find out about it by luck FOUR DAYS LATER through the UK version of MacUser????? Outrageous!!!!![Randy, the errors are correctable and do not cause loss of any data so it did not require an ‘active’ recall. -TH]

  67. MichaelM says:

    It seems also that LTR v1.4 doesn’t allow to modify the image in PS CS3 and then return to LTR as usual.. the image can’t be read by LTR cause image is “corrupted”. I don’t know if there is a relation with version 1.4 but with old one 1.3 there’s no difficulty to achieve this common transformation.

  68. Len Metcalf says:

    I am having trouble with sizes of the raw… Mine are usually cropped, and show up cropped in previous versions… Now I get a full size image (which is a good thing actually)… But in develop I get it the right cropped size but it is all compressed or squashed…

    Reinstalling and then upgrading is going to be a pain… Oh well…

    I would have thought it would be working for it to be recommended as an update… Am printing an exhibition over the weekend, and that really €>#+++~£? me up….

    Very unhappy adobe… But at least I now know where the problem comes from… Thanks for posting and letting us know…

    Len metcalf