That is what macramdirect just told me when I asked them about how to replace my problematic ram…so now I am going to pull their 12gb of suspect chips and see if their ram is the problem as it would be nice to have a stable machine before a new OS and CS ships…
g ballard, "ACR 4.5 Did Not Fix Photoshop Bug Crashing" #1, 13 Aug 2008 9:28 am </webx?14/0>
Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!
With Bridge open, NAVIGATE to the folder that contains your .nefs.
Select a group of them and Cmd R to open them in ACR (which should now be at 4.6 in CS3). Start with a small group of .nefs and then try with a larger number of selected files.
Do you still have the same problem?
Also: how are you downloading the .nefs to your HD in the first place?
You wouldn’t be trying to open them in ACR directly from your CFC would you?
That is what macramdirect just told me when I asked them about how to replace my problematic ram
Uh huh…and what do you THINK they would say? I’ve been running Photoshop CS3 (both 10 & 10.0.1) on Leopard since Leopard came out…and yes, 10.5.0 (which kinda sucked). At this point at 10.0.1 and OS X 10.0.1, if you are having stability issues, then you are one of them few that really have hardware problems…it may be ram, it may be the motherboard, it may be one of the ports (USB, FireWire or SATA).
If you don’t have a lemon machine, then Photoshop CS3 should be really solid on 10.4.11 or 10.5.4 and above. If you are having major issues such as hangs ot actual crashes, then I would look REAL HARD at the hardware.
Well it is not user prefs, I made a new user and duplicated the problem in 20 minutes, 20 layers.
Apple is taking a detailed look under my Apple Care.
I am actually very impressed with how professional they were gathering the profiler and console dumps, the details, and how they can enter my serial number and call up all my previous crash logs I sent in when they popped up hopefully they will won’t so clueless what the problem is…
good, most people (macramdirect/apple) will always seem to be more interested in pointing to the people with problems to confuse and dismiss their responsibility
however, I am more interested in the people who are running without problems because that answers my question, does it work
in this case, [my] instinct points to BUG because I can reproduce it consistently using specific steps — Photoshop CS3, Bridge, Adobe Camera Raw, .nef, 16-bit (2008 Mac Pro 8-core, 10.5.5, 14gb ram) — and I have no problems outside of these steps
I have learned to trust my instincts and apply my time accordingly to deal with what doesn’t work here…
THE STEPS: I need 300 .tiffs at 720×540 for a Final Cut pro project slide show DVD (or web portfolio)
I drag a folder of D200 D300 .nef files into the Dock and drop on Bridge
In Photoshop, i create an sRGB 8bit 720×540 template .psd I build 720×540 up into layers with a copyright text layer on top (drop shadow effect and 30% transparency)
From Bridge, I open a nef in 16-bit aRGB Adobe Camera Raw using Option+click on Exposure/Blacks, and Exposure sliders
I then open it in Photoshop and go to work on it using mostly Adjustment Layers, Selective Color, Levels, Curves (and save it as master.psd)
I have a couple methods for resizing the 16-bit file to 720×540
Sometimes I flatten the file, drag it over to the 720×540, Transform-Shift click it to scale it down
Sometimes I flatten the file, Option 2x-click on the Background layer, Command-T to scale and rotate the image then drag it over to 720×540 .psd
Sometime I Marquee a selection, Command+J my selection, and drag it over to 720×540 and use Transform to scale rotate and stretch-squeeze into box
I build the 720×540 layer .psd up into a hundred layers or so
I typically work on the 720×540 layers to finish them off using basic Photoshop tools, selective color, sharpening, sizing, clone stamp, a lot of Fade brush or color moves, history brush
the ‘bug’ seems associated with leaving the nef/psd files open as I work, if I close the files as I work, I generally don’t have a problem and can build the 720×540 psd into over 100 layers with no problems
if I leave the files open as I work, I generally crash between 10-20 layers, usually while moving a slider in ACR
+++++++
if anyone is into this workflow, I would be interested in hearing if you are having any problems with it on Leopard, CS3, Intel 8-core
the ‘bug’ seems associated with leaving the nef/psd files open as I work, if I close the files as I work, I generally don’t have a problem and can build the 720×540 psd into over 100 layers with no problems.
So why leave so many of them open?
How many are you leaving open at a time? How big is your Scratch HD?
I think that you are probably over-taxing your System.
it’s convenient, and now it’s showing me a problem I may need to resolve under warranty
I have 400gb free on a dedicated Seagate 7200 newer internal sata (jumper removed) 100gb free on my boot drive all updates/maintenance ran no 3rd party usb/firewire no haxies or additional plugins nothing running in background (safari, itunes, mail, ect.)
overtaxing my system, eh? i never thought of that one i would expect a lag but not a train wreck on that theory have you taken these steps on an Intel/leopard mac
g, I have not used Leopard too much other than a test environment but Photoshop was not the app holding me back from using it. PS has always been rock solid. for me ID was/is the deal breaker for me.
but I occasionally need to hit my outlined workflow hard for 12-hour days in a row
I think it is specific to Intel-based boxes running 10.5x and CS3 (in the workflow i outlined) and my dual matching OEM Apple cards ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT may be part of the problem
the ‘bug’ seems associated with leaving the nef/psd files open as I work, if I close the files as I work, I generally don’t have a problem and can build the 720×540 psd into over 100 layers with no problems
With the workflow you have described (300 image files!), I would absolutely want to have a 500 GB or 1 TB drive for scratch disk, more if possible.
Remember that Photoshop sets the size of the scratch based on what it knows about your work habits, the number of history states, layers, etc, as well as the size of the image file.
I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the scratch disks for all those files are running out of drive space.
In any case, I’ve duplicated the problem numerous times between 10-15 files/layers.
But even with all that, photoshop should not be taking a dump if the scratch disk fills up, whatever happened to scratch disk full messages or going to my secondary drive (if I believed I had built 500gb scratch files).
But I do have an update:
ACR 4.6 did not fix the problem.
I got 53 files deep (further than I ever got), but it crashed with a Photoshop Crash Report.
I included the ACR 4.6 crash log in my earlier link at gballard.net/oct2crashlogs.zip
Thanks, I haven’t tried that Ramón (I already have a work around).
I am beginning to tire of all this BTDT as I’ve spent about 12 hours of my time in the last three days talking to apple, adobe, detailing my workflow and running my tests for a clue.
Right now I am hoping Apple actually has a qualified genius look at my crash reports to clue me if it looks like a hardware issue.
When I asked the Adobe person what they saw in their crash reports (for a clue), all she said was she was unable to duplicate the problem…I hope Apple can do better than just saying it is an Adobe problem…
What was causing trouble was the Vietnamese legal file.
However, a REMOVED Asian font is known to cause grief in Bridge 2.x, as, unbelievably, Bridge appears to call on one of the Asian fonts to draw the stars used in the rating system.
Thanks, I am not one to dink around with my install and I have a logical approach to that part of my workflow that should be trouble free.
I am afraid I need to side with Apple on this and point the finger at Adobe but can’t say for sure because that would take me another 20 hours to clone my current install off the OEM Apple drive, zerowrite it, reinstall from scratch, run my tests again, and followup.
At the end of all that, I would still have the problem with Jeff Schewe telling me I have bad hardware, and Adobe staff telling me they can’t reproduce the problem.
Well your crash log did refer to an Asian text problem; there is a known problem with the Vietnamese "Legal" file; and removing the Legal files that do not refer to your "locality" has been found to have no adverse effects on the performance of Photoshop.
You asked for help but are unwilling to even TRY what anyone has suggested in an effort to help you so I guess that you will just have to work this issue out for yourself.
Adobe is the first place I would look when PS or any other Adobe app crashes, both because it is likely the error handling or the memory management or both, and these are largely handled by the application and not the OS. Adobe products, and in particular Illustrator CS3, are very fragile, to put it kindly. Fonts can cause crashes as can font caches as can Adobe’s own patches. A recent patch to Illustrator’s version cue (which can cause PS as well as AI performance problems) created new problems and so Adobe has a patch to the patch. Disabling version cue in Adobe is good place to start in resolving crashes – and save often.
Having bought up its primary competitors, Adobe does not really need to use progressive software testing methods and it really shows.
Having bought up its primary competitors, Adobe does not really need to use progressive software testing methods and it really shows.
WRT progressive testing, what surprised me most was the short window (3 month) between CS3.3 and CS4. It almost seems like they had two independent development streams. So far, I’m very impressed with the workflow integration improvements seen in CS4. New features and frills aside, it also appears to be well behaved on Leopard. So far it’s a pleasant surprise.
if Adobe apps are crashing constantly you have a crappy system and machine
because I have not had any crashes using CS3.
I beg to differ (for reasons I have already stated)…AND my gut instinct on this one still points at Adobe.
I’ve sent probably 10 full crash reports to Adobe (they all end in the same line) and yet Adobe tells me ZERO clues about where the problem lies.
They did update ACR to 4.6 (Beta appeared to fix the problem, but crashed after 53 layers with the same problem).
I haven’t been tried to duplicate the problem with finished 4.6 ACR yet (after I lost a full two days dinking around on the last series of tests with Apple/ACR 4.6 beta…
Adobe Creative Suite 3.3 Web Premium combines full new versions of:
Adobe Dreamweaver CS3 Adobe Flash CS3 Professional Adobe Photoshop CS3 Extended Adobe Illustrator CS3 Adobe Fireworks CS3 Adobe Acrobat 9 Professional Adobe Contribute CS3 Adobe Device Central CS3, Adobe Bridge CS3, Adobe Stock Photos, and Adobe Version Cue CS3 ————- I see. "Full new" as in meaning "unused" versions. My olfactory glands failed me. Thanks for the clarification.
Please tell us where you got your "full new versions" information.
Hi Neil. You have to keep in mind that a press release is usually just a small component of a press kit. And a press kit is only one tool in the sales and marketing toolbox. This verbage is owned by Adobe. Instead of referencing for you ALL the sources I found, you can perform a simple google search using the following criteria:
3.3 "full new versions of"
It should return 12 pages of hits. It’s a "marketing blurb" that adobe used to describe it’s suites in other media kits — including CS2 and CS4. You may not find it used for 3.3. on the public side of Adobe’s site — but that doesn’t negate it’s existed, nor explain the twelve pages of hits. In any event, you have to ask who is the keeper of that verbage — and why it wasn’t asked to be removed?
It should return 12 pages of hits. It’s a "marketing blurb" that adobe used to describe it’s suites in other media kits>
Actually most of those listed are merely re-hashed versions of the official Adobe Press Release that have been locally editorialized by various re-sellers and consumer publications.
CS 3.3 was available as an Upgrade to existing owners of the CS3 Suite and the Upgrade DVD contained ONLY Acrobat 9 and Fireworks because we ALREADY had everything else in the CS3 Suite.
If you did buy the 3.3 UPGRADE, you get a full discount for the amount that you paid for it when you buy the CS4 Suite.
Why should I believe what third party marketers and others not associated with Adobe claim to be what the product spec is? Any time I buy a product, whether software, hardware, consumer electronics, housewares, etc., I check the manufacturers’ site first. Not that they’re always correct, but it is far more likely that the product will be improperly described by others. If I have a claim about product misrepresentation, the manufacturer is not going to honor descriptions elsewhere.
In any event, you have to ask who is the keeper of that verbage — and why it wasn’t asked to be removed if incorrect? JMO.
The "verbage" [sic] is all scattered around the world. If you believe that could effectively be reigned in, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you.
most of those listed are merely re-hashed versions of the official Adobe Press Release
Actually, they’re identically re-hashed and span at least two countries other than the US. That in itself invalidates attempts at trivializing this co-incidence with the word "merely". If that were the case then it would be merely misleading to phrase it that way, or by default to leave it that way once published.
However, I didn’t buy CS3.3 — nor am I disparaging the CS suite of products. I’m simply asserting that it was reasonable for consumers to believe there was some other significant difference and my olfactory glands failed to sense that this was another marketing tactic.
If you did buy the 3.3 UPGRADE, you get a full discount for the amount that you paid for it when you buy the CS4 Suite.
In the case of students, they would have to pay the full upgrade cost.
I see. Do you also archive every site in case the authors edit or remove their claims?
Do you always know what questions you should ask in case some information is missing or misleading? Some manufacturers are deliberately vague or imply by omission. There is no absolute certainty until you get the product into your hands and check what’s under the hood. Adobe has a brand name they deserve to ensure is adequately protected.
In any event — most people rely on the description supplied at the point of purchase. No one assumes the advertiser is out to deliberately mislead them. It’s most probable someone in Adobe’s marketing/PR department simply dropped the ball. Even if it wasn’t deliberate — it was at a minimum careless. If consumers fail to call out products with questionable verbage — or simply buy into every apologists explanation — you’d see a lot more false/creative representations. That hurts everyone.
If a student bought CS3.3 as a whole package outside of the free upgrade window to CS4 or bought the CS3 to CS3.3 upgrade package they would only be charged 440 for the CS4 upgrade. same as everyone else.
I see. Do you also archive every site in case the authors edit or remove their claims?
You’re sarcasm is unnecessary. But, yes, before I buy a product I DO go to the manufacturer’s site and print out information germane to my specific upcoming purchase.
I doubt that they exactly match the information that Adobe has officially released about the product.
The blurbs I sourced are boilerplate. Pretty much ten search pages worth. That’s beyond a coincidence — it’s evidence. Where do you think merchants get this stuff?
———–
… before I buy a product I DO go to the manufacturer’s site and print out, read and understand all information germane to my specific upcoming purchase.
Then congratulations, you have a record of your pre-sales visit. It might also fall short of getting all information that’s germane to your purchase. Only what you think might be germane.
The trigger issue was that CS3.3 was (past tense) and still is (present tense) advertised as "full new versions". Hence the confusion. We don’t need to argue the obvious.
Well, I’m not interested in any of the suites, but even to me, as an uninvolved bystander, it became pretty obvious that there were no new versions of the core applications in CS3.3.
The lack of update downloads for any of the applications, or upgrades to the individual programs, was a dead giveaway, even without reading the blurb.
It is apparently fruitless to argue with you as you hear only what you want to hear; not what I or others sincerely tried to explain logically to you in this thread.
Then again, many of us here were easily able to vet 3.3 directly from Adobe’s materials or other proven responsible sources — not hyped-up third-party merchant advertising or clueless blather — clearly understood what the product was, and purchased (or didn’t purchase) that product based upon that information. We’re not the ones who "got stuck" with a purchase we misunderstood.
You may continue to believe whatever you wish, of course. As for me, I’m outta here.
It is apparently fruitless to argue with you as you hear only what you want to hear; Now your sarcasm is unnecessary. Fruitless? Au contraire. I’m debating apples, and you seem to be arguing oranges. That’s what happens when you base your arguments on a false premise.
We both seem to be in agreement that the verbage used was/is wrong. You believe it’s the merchant’s fault, all ten pages of identical google hits, and I’m suggesting that had to be a slip up in the sales & marketing channel. What it was – who cares? We can both fruitfully agree that it’s better to disown that verbage. As others have already pointed out it’s not correct.
Then again, many of us here were easily able to vet 3.3 directly from Adobe’s materials or other proven responsible sources
No kidding?! When you live on this site, you have substantial opportunity to vet something for yourself, and with the community. What’s your point? It has nothing to do with mine. I simply object to false advertising — regardless of it’s source. Who in their right mind doesn’t?
You may continue to believe whatever you wish, of course. What I believe — is that you have completely missed the mark and have flown off on your own tangent. Since you like to print things out — next time I suggest you try that. Ciao to you too. Bye-Bye.
As an aside — I’ve lived, studied, and worked in a number of different countries and continents. Frequently for publishers who each insist on using different dictionaries and stylebooks. It’s become challenging to index subtle variations. For example, I often find myself pausing to consider whether I should write colour or color? When speaking to an international audience I’ll often compromise with my own ecclectic variation — colo(u)r.
Professionally, the style I use is local to my employers stylebook. Yet casually, here on the net, "these parts" can mean local and global . For casual communications, I frequently use whichever variation was last burned to my cache. 🙂
