Mac Pro 10 GB RAM Bridge 2.1.1.9 pshop 10.0.1 leopard 10.5.3 D300 NEFS opening into bridge and ACR
ACR 4.4.1 erratically opening up images at different resolutions CS3 absolutely is crashing more than ever. It has never acted like this. I will get a crash 1/10 openings from ACR to Pshop.
my NEFS in bridge from the D300 are not sharp at all. I thought this was fixed!!!!!!!
It could be another Leopard problem because I don’t have any problems with OSX 10.4.11.
How have you configured your Thumbnails and Previews in Bridge? Have you tried Purging the Caches for each Folder from the Tools menu? Does you video card support Hardware acceleration or are you having to use Software Rendering?
10.5.4 fixed literally hundreds of bugs compared to 10.5.3.
Personally, I’m not going anywhere Leopard myself, but if you are committed to Leopard, you should apply the 10.5.4 update ASAP. It will still give you plenty of grief, but less so than prior versions.
for me Photoshop is pretty damn solid in Leopard, I don’t use Leopard because it does not play nice with ID. there is something really wrong with your system to have such weird problems.
I am also having similar problems using 10.5x, CS3 Bridge, ACR, Photoshop, 16 bit — so join the crowd.
I don’t know if the 4.5 ACR update has fixed the problems, or if I have bad hardware, but I have the problem on two Intel boxes both with trustworthy 10.5.4 installs…
Blurriness is usually related to having an unsuitable video card (so that you have to use "Software Rendering"; or needing to Purge the Folder’s cache so that it has to re-form with the thumbnails set to provide High Resolution.
You need to restart Bridge after changing settings in its Prefs. Also see if disabling VersionCue helps.
nefs from the d300 in bridge are not as sharp as a tif for example is this is known and has not been fixed. DO any of you have NEFS from a D300 in Bridge on a 30 inch monitor and are totally sharp like tiffs? if so then i am doing something or have something broke. but with the workspace almost covering the whole monitor NEFS are not sharp. thats it!
DO any of you have NEFS from a D300 in Bridge on a 30 inch monitor and
are totally sharp like tiffs?
Yes, 30" ACD, NEF, D300 Two matching ATI Radeon HD 2600, 8-core 2.8GHz
So much is missing from "totally sharp like tiffs" that I can’t hazard an opinion.
How exactly are you setting up Bridge window? How are you judging sharpness?
I can’t say I pay much attention to how sharp the Bridge (and or ACR) preview is…mostly because Bridge (or ACR) is not displaying at 100% Actual Pixels.
Here is my BUG thread that details the problem Buko, "Bug: Multiple Files Open ACR Crashes Photoshop…" #1, 10 Jun 2008 2:57 pm </webx?14/0>
[My] ACR is not displaying at 100% — although I do recall a couple crashes when I was zooming in the ACR window, tho I don’t recall zooming was a switch to duplicate the problem…
Bridge CS3 has been broke since day one. On my Mac Pro/10.5.4, preview density is WAY off. On my G5 Quad/10.4.11, previews are STILL soft, even though this was supposed to fixed in a previous update.
Even without these issues, Bridge is a kludge at best when dealing with large RAW files compared to LR.
Bridge CS3 is completely stable on a G5 running on 10.4.11. And I can open hundreds of NEFs or Tiffs simultaneously in ACR for batch editing with no problems whatsoever.
Leopard seems to lie at the root of your problems perhaps CS4 will fix them.
Beg to differ Phil I much prefer to work in Bridge-hosted ACR. Lightroom seems slow and cumbersome in comparison.
Come back when you have the same amount of experience with LR as you do with Bridge/ARC. (or even something more than a brief look)
I used Bridge/ACR for several years to process RAW files – I had the workflow DOWN (I average roughly 8,000 images a month). I defended it (the Bridge workflow) on many occasions … until I grew tired of CS3 issues and gave LR a serious look. Trust me, there’s no comparison in terms of speed and efficiency. For sure, it’s a different way to work and takes some getting used to, but once you do you’ll understand what I’m saying. And version 2 completely rocks (so far).
FYI – the issues with Bridge/ACR that moved me to LR wasn’t about stability – I routinely opened a few hundred images at once without a hiccup – my issues were all related to false previews and to a lesser degree, sluggish behavior. (on two different, high-end machines)
Regarding your G5 Quad/10.4.11
The answer to all of your questions is: Of course.
But as I said, even if these issues were fixed, I still wouldn’t go back to a Bridge workflow because LR is far more efficient.
I really have tried to like LR and have been working quite diligently with the LR 2 Beta but it’s no good I can’t bring myself to like LR however hard I try.
But be aware that we are not there at your workstation looking over your shoulder. We’re essentially working blind and have to depend upon you to tell us what’s going on. We can only open the door to possible causes and solutions based upon our knowledge or experience.
And very often, at least one of the ideas or recommendations presented is right.
im not sure if this has been said to you before. I have noticed two or more comments from you and I would like to get this off my chest.
Ann and Ramon and Neil many others always seem to offer me help, great help, caring skillful and get to the heart of the matter help. My work is very important to me. I take it very serious and when i come to these forums i know these aforementioned people are top notch!
You on the other hand appear negative, using comments that neither help nor provide confidence in someone who is struggling due to the glitches that occur from time to time with PSHOP/other APPS. How does saying that one is NUTS……. help anyone out? This is just one of the caustic comments i have associated with your name!
Are you trying to help? how is this helping? it is after the fact already. thats how i see it. I might be wrong but if you cannot offer constructive help please ignore my threads. thank you Glenn Losack MD
then you will have trouble. I have Leopard on a test drive and have come to the conclusion that its not ready for prime time with any of Adobe apps. I’m sorry you don’t feel my contributions are worthwhile.
Then run some CRON scripts to clean up your system. I prefer to use "Cocktail".
A couple of other tips:
1. Use Time Machine to take you back to a stable version of the OS/CS3 combo if you continue having difficulties that interfere with your production. 2. Keep your production CPU separate from your test CPU. It used to be much easier when you could install your OS on an external drive, and CS3 didn’t think you were trying to circumvent it’s security. Now you need two CPUs or a lot of time.
If you follow these steps you’ll minimize the possibility of your production machine failing. Good Luck!
——— p.s. The current version of Lightroom — LRv2 — is feature rich, but slow and buggy. Wait for the maintenance revision — which should come out shortly.
Adobe’s CS3 suite of apps were released long before Apple dropped 10.5 on us. Apple "broke" a lot of things with that release, and the problems at this point appear to still be largely with Apple — after 4 dot updates! Adobe is just as anxious as Apple to have perfectly integrated OS and app software. But it ain’t there yet.
So, some of us, especially those of us running reliably with Mac models that can boot up 10.4, have not upgraded our OS or hardware — even though we want to! My Mac is over three years old. I really would like a new one. But the current models can only run 10.5.
thanx for your wonderful explanation. I am now enlightened. but im left shocked in disbelief, that in light of all the pros who need BRIDGE and CS3 working in sync with LEOPARD how could this be? its 2008. It almost makes no sense. Doesnt Jobs give a S……..?
this is awful news…..
why isnt it in any of the journals or internet why isnt galbraith or the major forums complaining about it are there any links to the illness OS 10 is suffering
why isnt it in any of the journals or internet why isnt galbraith or the major forums complaining about it are there any links to the illness OS 10 is suffering
It’s easy to jump to conclusions when you don’t have the facts. Adobe’s timetable didn’t sync with Apple’s postponed release date. Adobe decided to finalize CS3 before they had a final working copy of Leopard.
This caused Adobe Chief Executive Bruce Chizen to tell Reuters in an interview:
"CS3 hasn’t fully been tested under Leopard. If it doesn’t work, we will make the necessary adjustments."
There is blame to go around on all sides, but especially those who haven’t researched these issues before committing to their purchases. CS3 is hardly a turnkey solution, and Adobe is possibly the last major vendor to be still experiencing significant glitches on Leopard. Hardly a reason to smear Steve Jobs or disparage Apple. There’s enough blame to go around.
There have certainly been an unending stream of Posts in the Adobe Mac Forums on the problems with using Leopard in conjunction with CS3 ever since Leopard was released.
Apple actually changed the configuration of Leopard from the standards which they had already seeded to developers like Adobe and they did that was after CS3 had shipped.
Some, but not all, of the problems have apparently been fixed in 10.5.4 but the very fact that Apple have already announced development of Snow Leopard is probably a fairly clear indication that Leopard itself is reckoned to be "beyond repair".
Ann Shelbourne – 1:19pm Aug 5, 08 PST (#42) wrote:
… but the very fact that Apple have already announced development of Snow Leopard is probably a fairly clear indication that Leopard itself is reckoned to be "beyond repair".
From my frustrations on the issues, I don’t care if 10.5.5 is the magic elixir, or if it is 10.6. I just want to have solid assurance that my apps can run as reliably as they currently do under 10.4.11.
Is there more that Adobe can do (beyond working directly with Apple)? I don’t know.
Both Apple and Adobe have made mistakes over the years. We stick by them because, in the end, they can and do produce solid products for us to use.
… but the very fact that Apple have already announced development of Snow Leopard is probably a fairly clear indication that Leopard itself is reckoned to be "beyond repair".
That’s projection, not probability.
It’s a fair bet!
What are the odds?!
———-
To me it IS a "clear INDICATION" that Apple recognize that they have a problem child on their hands.
ProTools was finally able to release version 7.4 which was held up by Leopard and not until 10.5.4 was released that they could put it on the market. So we notice that Adobe has problems because we are so close to the product but Adobe is only one company that is having Problems with Leopard.
Ann Shelbourne – 2:50pm Aug 5, 08 PST (#48) wrote :
To me it IS a "clear INDICATION" that Apple recognize that they have a problem child on their hands.
Fair enough. Then by your same reasoning:
… but the very fact that Adobe has already circulated versions of CS4 (codename Stonehenge 11.0) is probably a fairly clear indication that CS3 itself is reckoned to be "beyond repair".
Which by your own definition must mean is a "clear INDICATION" that Adobe recognizes that they have a problem child on their hands.
To my standards, there is still no "clear indication" of anything, just speculation, projection, and conjecture. To me it looks like neither Adobe or Apple are :
1. able or 2. willing
to completely solve the problems CS3 users are experiencing on Leopard. Probably both good reasons to stick with Tiger or wait for CS4.
Keep your production CPU separate from your test CPU. It used to be much easier when you could install your OS on an external drive, and CS3 didn’t think you were trying to circumvent it’s security. Now you need two CPUs or a lot of time.
Well that statement is BS.
I’ve been testing Leopard on a separate hard drive (firewire400) and when everything gets totally screwed up I just I just reclone my Main drive and reinstall leopard. no circumventing. My two installs of CS3 are on the same computer everything works. and I have my Tiger system so I can get work done when I need to.
… but the very fact that Adobe has already circulated versions of CS4 (codename Stonehenge 11.0) is probably a fairly clear indication that CS3 itself is reckoned to be "beyond repair".
Where is this CS4 circulating I have not seen it for download on Adobe’s website?
I had assumed these were betas (not public betas). I didn’t really see anything there that would clearly be in violation of NDAs. It certainly would be reasonable for betas to be circulating at this point. If specific features or certain other information were posted, it would be gone along with a report to the folks who distribute the software.
I hear you. But if you Google the code name, there’s a number of results. And the poster could have picked up this information from any one of the rumor sites.
Where is this CS4 circulating I have not seen it for download on Adobe’s website?
Google is your friend (if you know how to use it) and the term CS4 and it’s derivatives are in the public domain. As are Apple’s intentions. Both are logical and anticipated evolutions.
Ann Shelbourne – 4:32pm Aug 5, 08 PST (#53)
I have no intention of getting into an argument with Nunattack.
Gee Ann, but you did and you have. I see you still prefer Ad Hominems (name calling — meowwww) and Red Herrings to distract from your contradictory remarks. As Neil appears to be fair I don’t want to subject him to your seething wrath — so we’ll just leave it up to everyone to decide for themselves why and where the incompatibilities exist. True knowledge is power. K? Anny? Let’s get back on track and all be friends. 😉
FWIW (I know, not much) (hm, ambiguous), I’m running CS3 + ACR + Bridge + Leopard on an iMac 2.16 GHz with no problems… Your mileage may vary. I wonder, though, if there are anywhere in the world two Macs that are identically configured, what with all the choices there are for 3rd-party software. It’s not surprising that some problems some users have are not universal problems.
Agreed, but (excuse that) as a working pro, I bought photographic wet prints daily for 20 years.
I can tell you [my] least favorite part of the business during that time was picking up crappy color daily from some of the best labs in the business — and then having to deliver it to my clients with my name on it.
The last 10 (digital) years have been much better (I no longer have to deliver someone else’s crappy color).
My point is digital photography is in its infant stage. Novices can already take technically good digital photos consistently and print them with little forethought.
I will predict that as the medium matures, so will the convoluted state of the profession.
The sheer size of the screen shot you posted totally explains the inadequate previews you are seeing in Bridge.
Your previews on your football-field-sized screen are far, far larger than what the Adobe Bridge engineers foresaw. Plain and simple.
I forget the exact maximum pixel size for the moment, but what Bridge does for purposes of displaying the preview is render an image up to a maximum number around 1024 pixels in either dimension, size or width, from your original image, raw or otherwise.
When you stretch the Bridge preview window beyond 1024 pixels, Bridge doesn’t go back to your original image but to the 1024-maximum-pixel rendering I just described and then interpolates (invents pixels) to upsample it to the size required to fill your preview window.
Of course it’s a shortcoming, but you can work around it by modifying (shrinking) the size of your preview window so that it’s not larger than 1024 pixels on your cinema screen. It should be crisp then if you use High-quality Previews, although you then expose yourself to seeing spurious thumbnails and previews, meaning that the thumbnails and the previews will not always correspond to the true content of your image but to the contents of older images in very different folders, mostly images saved in older versions of Photoshop or even different graphics programs. IMO this is the worst, so I put up with the soft images. Big bummer.
If I’m correct, which you can determine by shrinking the preview window below 1024 pixels, your problem has nothing to do with Leopard at all. The easiest way to see how big 1024 pixels look on your monitor, of course, it’s to create a 1024x1024piexel document.
Are you running the complete CS3 Suite on Leopard or do you use only Photoshop and Bridge?
Just the two. I use Macaroni instead of Cocktail, it runs the usual cron maintenance tasks– daily, weekly, monthly, has its own disk utility function. And I back up regularly with SuperDuper.
It should be crisp then if you use High-quality Previews, although you then expose yourself to seeing spurious thumbnails and previews, meaning that the thumbnails and the previews will not always correspond to the true content of your image but to the contents of older images in very different folders, mostly images saved in older versions of Photoshop or even different graphics programs. >
I have never had that experience. It may have happened with earlier versions of Bridge but it has never happened to me on v. 2.1.1.9.
What does seem to be important, is that you MUST rebuild the cache for each folder after installing an Update for Bridge.
I used to have to use "Software Rendering" but after installing a 256 MB VRAM card, I can now use, and do use, Hardware Acceleration.
Images shown in Slide View (Cmd L) are perfectly sharp on my 27" NEC 2690.
The spurious images problem with High-quality Previews checked is very, very real Ann. It was confirmed by Adobe Bridge engineers (e.g. David Franzen) AFTER the release of 2.1.1.9.
The spurious images are invariably older images saved in CS2 or an older graphics aplication (PsElements, Adobe Illustrator, for instance) and/or viewed in older versions of Photoshop / Bridge 1.x.
Purging the cache, by whatever means, does not alleviate the spurious images problem, Ann. Under certain circumstances, it aggravates the problem, meaning it triggers the issue right away as the cache gets rebuilt.
In this regard, I’ve learned to use Bridge to my advantage putting up with the soft previews for browsing and resorting to using the image rendering of the slideshow at 100% stopping the slideshow action. It was just a matter of building up confidence in my equipment and my technique to know the actual images are not soft at all. 🙂
Could the problem lie in the old PSDs being partially corrupt?
The spurious images can be the first page of a multi-page PDF manual, an Illustrator .ai image, a JPEG, a TIFF, etc. It doesn’t have to be a PSD file. The spurious image doesn’t have to be in the same folder, nor on the same volume, not even on the same drive.
In a couple of cases they were images (illustrations, not photos) I have never seen before in my life and I have no idea where Bridge went to fetch them from. In one case I recognized one as a long-deleted file. :/
You might want to try it again?
Never! 😉 There have been no updates since the last time I went over this with the Bridge engineers, and they suddenly dropped not only the subject but their entire participation in the Bridge forum. They won’t even acknowledge direct emails to Adobe staff with whom I have had very extensive private communications on a variety of subjects before. They just gave up, and they have obviously been muzzled from up the chain of executive command.
As far as I’m concerned, what I have is what I get, and this is the end of the road for me in terms of upgrading any Adobe applications, ever. I refuse to keep on paying the biannual Adobe tax for the dubious privilege of being an uncompensated Guinea pig.
Adobe Chief Executive Bruce Chizen to tell Reuters in an interview:
CS3 hasn’t fully been tested under Leopard. If it doesn’t work, we will make the necessary adjustments.
CS4 might indeed be a very different experience. It may finally work correctly under Leopard, although nobody suspected the adjustments would be had for the price of an upgrade. But then there’s this:
John Nack, Adobe’s product manager for Photoshop, said in an interview.
We’re not going to ship 64-bit native for Mac with CS4 … Adobe generally keeps features in the Windows and Mac versions at a level of parity, but that wasn’t possible this time around.
Another problem child?
All our life’s a circle Sunrise and sundown The moon rolls through the nighttime Til the day break comes around. — Harry Chapin
John Nack, Adobe’s product manager for Photoshop, said in the same interview:
No one Apple, Adobe, Microsoft has attempted to move an application the size of Photoshop from Carbon to Cocoa.
I believe that. Not to mention an aging and brittle architecture.
On the plus side, it’s my understanding that moving to a 64-bit native environment would also mean upgrading each plugin to fit a 64-bit architecture. For those of us who like our plugins, that suggests the same delays and hiccups as was experienced between OS9 -> OS X. This time around, I’d prefer to see the Vista platform run through the mud first.
