Lightroom: Problems with Develop with a brand new Imac I5 computer running program

  • 6
  • Problem
  • Updated 8 years ago
  • In Progress
  • (Edited)
lightroom 3 with my new imac I5 software editing program is freezeing up when I am trying to edit photos in Develop. It shows lightroom is not responding error message.
Photo of Gina Pemberton

Gina Pemberton

  • 14 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
  • sad

Posted 8 years ago

  • 6
Photo of Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen

Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen, Champion

  • 5094 Posts
  • 1992 Reply Likes
Mark, try one other thing as well - it's looking like a possible workaround at the moment - create a virtual copy or clear the history. Restart LR and see if it runs better on that same image without the long history. No promises, but it's reduced the issues in some cases.
Photo of Mark Sheehan

Mark Sheehan

  • 11 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Thanks for the advice, but I've tried this one numerous times. Clearing the history helps... for about a minute. As soon as the history states start building up, Lightroom slows down again. Restarting doesn't help either...
Photo of Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen

Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen, Champion

  • 5088 Posts
  • 1988 Reply Likes
That's useful to know Mark - that seems to confirm that it's related to History in your case? If it wasn't recording History (or had that issue fixed, you know what I mean), would that solve it for you? Or is there more involved as well?
Photo of Mark Sheehan

Mark Sheehan

  • 11 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Frankly I think that I may have experienced something analogous to a placebo effect here, as since clearing my history would work in Photoshop, I expected it to work here...

History in PS works considerably different than it does in LR. The reason that PS needs a limit to history states is that all changes made are made to the image file, so each history state uses memory from the scratch disk. More history states = more memory needed. One can have up to 1,000 history states in PS, but for most people this is just not practical. Changes in LR are not made to the image file, but are made in the catalog as what amounts to a list of instructions for when the file is exported. LR also does not use a scratch disk, as again, since your image file is never being changed directly, a scratch disk should be unnecessary as doing more work on a file does not increase the file size. Even when files are exported, if no changes are made in the Export window, all non cropped files from a given camera should be the same same size (memory-wise) if they are exported as the same type of file, regardless on how many changes were made to the file.

To confirm this, I tried constantly and consistently deleting my history while working on my problem image. Unfortunately, I have confirmed that deleting the history is really not helping at all, and was really just wishful thinking on my part. I tried deleting the history after every 10 history states, and I did this for about 50 states total, but the program continued to respond just a slowly.

Thinking about the way PS and LR handle history has given me an idea though. I have read that some folks using PS put their scratch disk on a different drive than the drive that their images are located on. Apparently have one's files on one drive and the scratch disk on another has lead to an improvement of performance. Now, though LR does not use a scratch disk, I am wondering if I can apply the same principle. Would having the LR catalog on a different drive from my image files work in the same fashion? I may have to try this, possibly keeping my .lcat on it's own drive, in the same way some PS users have put their scratch disk on its own drive to improve performance. Won't get to try this until next week most likely, though.
Photo of Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen

Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen, Champion

  • 5088 Posts
  • 1988 Reply Likes
You're right, it does work differently to PS History, but there are some issues with History that need attention, particularly with regards to localized adjustments. That said, it sounds like there are other issues involved here too. The team are looking into the performance issues.

Having the catalog on a separate drive to the images (and having the ACR cache on another again) can help with moving from image to image, although I'm not so sure it would make a difference once the image is in memory. Perhaps someone has further information on that.
Photo of Mark Sheehan

Mark Sheehan

  • 11 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Thanks Victoria. I have sent my problem file to Benjamin Warde at Adobe, who has been very helpful to me in this forum. Maybe he will be able to figure something out. Anyhow, I will look into having the catalog on separate drives and report back whether or not it has any effect on LR's performance on my machine.
Photo of doug roll

doug roll

  • 8 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
My comment at this stage is that this is supposed to be a professional product. It is not handling like one. I would wager that if brushes in Photoshop behaved as frustratingly slow as they do here, Adobe would not be so silent because the uproar would be deafening.

I earlier pointed out multiple problems I've experienced without a peep from anyone. I am a Windows user redirected here.

If recommendations such as clearing caches, histories, etc. temporarily alleviate problems then perhaps it points more to a file handling deficit on the part of LR than it does to incapable systems. For example, many of my problems went away after I created a new catalog and reimported my images (a few hundred.) After using this catalog for a couple of weeks LR is slow again, menu panels spontaneously decide not to auto-expand, adjustment brush settings take forever, etc.

Perhaps Adobe could provide debugging versions of code for some folks to use and logs could be gathered. I'd be happy to help in that fashion.
Photo of Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen

Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen, Champion

  • 5079 Posts
  • 1987 Reply Likes
We've already got 3 Adobe guys on this thread, so they're definitely not ignoring it. These specifics, such as clearing the history definitely helping in Mark's case, are helpful in tracking things down. Unfortunately these performance problems and the hardware and drivers involved are so varied, they're proving difficult to track down.
Photo of Mark Sheehan

Mark Sheehan

  • 11 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
What I think Doug is commenting about is not that Adobe is completely ignoring us, but rather he is experiencing the same problem that I mentioned in my first post on this thread. The problem is a lack of follow up on the thread. Sure, 3 people from Adobe HAVE commented on this thread, but only 1 of the 3 has stuck around long enough to contact me about my issue, (and though we have yet to find my problem, he has been extremely helpful). He is also the only employee who has provided a possible SOLUTION on the forum itself. It is possible that the other two employees have contacted the original poster off site, but there is no way to see that by looking only at the forum. Heck, the last time one of the other 2 Adobe people posted here was 27 DAYS AGO. And like I just said in my original post here, though they asked questions, they NEVER followed up on them. It is not good enough to simply ask a question and NEVER SHOW UP AGAIN. If the other two did not contact the original poster directly, they were not helping; they we simply placating the poster enough until she stopped posting, which is horribly patronizing (I really hope they contacted her. seriously)

We have ONE Adobe guy on this thread, we had 3.

For those lurking in the forums, which I must have browsed forums for a month or so before I got the gusto to actually post my concerns, it appears that the employees here have simply asked questions of the original poster but have provided no possible solutions. Also, this thread was started over a month ago, and had seemingly stalled out before I decided to post (2 people posted before me that same day... before that the last post was over 2 weeks ago). So who knows how many others out there are feeling just as stuck I was (and still am)?

Personally, I agree with Doug on this issue. I have posted questions about a similar problem here before. The post was titled: "Lightroom: Local Brush issue (square artifact)." I posted this about a month ago. I had a few people offer suggestions, and that was that. No one from Adobe responded. I arrived at this forum because I attempted to report a bug (similar to the current post). This is where you are sent when you click the link to report a bug on Adobe.com. A forum. Your question DOES NOT go to the Adobe staff directly, but you are sent to a forum. Now, everyone here on the forum has been great in trying to help others and I with our problems, but I don't think this is where people should be sent when attempting to report a bug. This does leave one with the feeling of being completely dismissed,especially since NO ONE from Adobe responded to the thread I posted a month ago. Personally, when I try to get customer service I want to speak with someone from the company I am trying to contact, not just any random person on the web.

Again, I know everyone on here is trying to help. For instance Victoria, though your suggestion to me about clearing my history did not end up working (after testing this quite a bit) I did lead me to another possible solution, and I probably would not have thought of that had you not brought up the history. And if my idea does not work for me, it might be the solution to someone else's problem. But people can't find these solutions if they are not posted in the forum. The problem the Doug is mentioning arises when there are NO SOLUTIONS POSTED. Too often, the problems brought up in these posts go completely unresolved. Heck, based upon this thread alone (as I stated in the first paragraph), one can see that the original poster never had her problem solved. That last time she posted was 22 days ago. Did we forget about her? I never meant to hijack this thread, and I originally posted here because I was displeased with the fact that nothing was ever solved here and I was trying to make light of that.

Seriously, I appreciate the help with my problem, but what happened with Gina Pemberton's problem? This is what Doug is complaining about, and I wholeheartedly agree. (Sorry it took me another 4-5 paragraphs to explain that ;)
Photo of Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen

Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen, Champion

  • 5079 Posts
  • 1987 Reply Likes
> This does leave one with the feeling of being completely dismissed,especially since NO ONE from Adobe responded to the thread I posted a month ago. Personally, when I try to get customer service I want to speak with someone from the company I am trying to contact, not just any random person on the web.

I do understand your frustration Mark. This forum is not customer service though. It's a place to report bugs and features, to be able to see what other people have reported, and to vote on feature requests so that Adobe can see which are most popular. It's far better than the black hole that used to be the bug report system, believe me!! This way people can see the reports that have been made, and knowledgeable users can often help offer workarounds.

Adobe staff are far more visible on this forum than they are elsewhere, but just because they don't post on a thread doesn't mean they're ignoring it. It means they're trying to do some proper work!!! Many others are reading but not posting. This software allows threads to be sent directly to the specific staff members who need to see it. They ask questions to try to find additional information and will provide a solution if there is one. In many cases, however, they can't give a solution, but the information obtained can help them to put a bug fix in a future update.

It works both ways. Many users post here once, and never bother to come back to respond to questions and help.

I'd love to be able to offer you, Doug and Gina a solution, but right now, there isn't one. Some solutions we can suggest work for some people, but not everyone. There are a lot of different variables involved in these performance problems, and it's difficult to track down which problem is affecting each person. We'll carry on working with the team, gathering information and testing possibilities. They're not giving up, and nor are we.

Regards

Random Person
(AKA Victoria, Adobe Community Professional)
Photo of Mark Sheehan

Mark Sheehan

  • 11 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Thanks again Victoria. I understand that sometimes there isn't a solution, and I really appreciate the effort that those of you have helped have put in. If there is no solution at the time, then this should be stated clearly, as you have now done. No one like to be left hanging and it's obvious that you understand that this can make users feel ignored. Being told that "for now you're out of luck" is much better than no response at all. It is at least an answer. Of course, I thought that I was being brought to a customer service site when I clicked "Report Bug," as this has been my experience with links and forums like this with other software companies...

If this isn't a customer service site, however, there doesn't seem to be any available at all on the web. If I am at Adobe.com, I see a link that says "Report bug," I, and apparently many others, am expecting customer service from Adobe.com. When I first posted here, I thought that's where I was. Heck, I thought that until you just said something. When I clicked the "report bug" link, I thought would would just be reporting a bug. That's it. There is really no indication when being brought here that this is not a customer service site. Then when I see Employees replying to some posts and not others, and some people not receiving help, It makes me think "Man, what the heck is Adobe doing and why are they ignoring us? This is the worst product help site ever"

Well, now that clears up a lot. Really wish Adobe.com made that A LOT more clear... Considering this is where I was sent when, you know, looking for Lightroom customer service. This whole time I thought I was at a DEDICATED CUSTOMER SERVICE SITE. wow. Kinda feel like a jackass now... Really wish that was made a lot more clear at Adobe.com, that, you know. I wasn't a being sent somewhere where people are paid to help us, which is generally what happens when I click the "report bug" link at other software sites...
Photo of Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen

Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen, Champion

  • 5094 Posts
  • 1992 Reply Likes
This thread might help to clarify the purpose of this forum: http://feedback.photoshop.com/photosh...
Photo of doug roll

doug roll

  • 8 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I am with Mark on this one, as I thought exactly the same thing as he with respect to this forum. That was not clear at all. I do thank you for bringing this to our attention. I also thank you for providing help where you are able. If I may make a suggestion, it would be to pin a link to that information at the top of every forum page to which it applies. It could save some confusion.

I would like to make a last comment. I work for a large software company of similar size to Adobe. When consistent bugs present in our user community we are able to gather debugging information from them, either from the software itself, supplementary utilities, or via a debug version of code that the customer voluntarily installs. We are provided with debug files that undergo analysis to establish where any deficiencies are. I cannot imagine a solution materializing out of Adobe's labs without such data coming in from real user systems. I hope there is some data-mining activity like that going on. I volunteered above to assist in such a capacity. I never received a reply, nor do I expect one understanding more clearly the nature of this forum.
Photo of Jeffrey Tranberry

Jeffrey Tranberry, Sr. Product Manager, Digital Imaging

  • 15586 Posts
  • 2344 Reply Likes
Sorry if it wasn't clear.

The Photoshop family of products is unique in using a public forum for bug reporting and feature requests. The engineering teams reads every post and try to provide answers/workarounds for issues that are encountered by our users.

The benefit of using a public forum is once we answer a problem, the community has access to the answer. If we don't have an answer, or a reproducible case, the rest of the community can help chime in with ideas, suggestions and troubleshooting that may lead to understanding the root cause or provide a solution.

Overall, this site is a collaboration between the product teams at Adobe (a cross-functional group of over 70 employees participate including engineers that make the products, the senior support agents that support the products, the people that write the help documentation, product management and product marketing) and our user community.

This collaboration has been wonderful for us to track down a number of issues and identify feature requests that resonate most with our users. (You'll see a number of topics marked "answered," "acknowledged," "solved," "under consideration," and "implemented")

No system is perfect, but we're doing our best and we appreciate your involvement.
Photo of Randall Leifer

Randall Leifer

  • 17 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Sept, 2011

I have the same problem.
Do ANY of the test systems at Adobe share this problem ?...anywhere in their offices ?

Anyway...when using the clone/heal function, my PC freezes, as noticed by a locked "clasped hand" pointer. I need to kill LR (3.4.1) via Task Manager, and restart.
Luckily, my last edits are saved. But each time I do this routine, it takes fewer and
fewer clone clicks before it locks up again. Eventually, about two clones causes lock-up.
My workaround...use an external editor for those functions.

Now, I have not run LR through all it's paces on my new Win7 PC, and if this issue bleeds over to other "develop" functions besides Crop / Spot / Redeye / Brush....I will become VERY concerned.

[B]Can you tell us what to post (and how to do so) that will assist you in solving this problem ?[/B]

Here is some info for now...

Win7 pro, SP1 64bit
i7-2600K, 3.40GHz socket 1155
Gigabyte GA-Z68XP-UD3-iSSD mobo
16 GB ram DDR3
(Nvida) EVGA GTX 560 SC vid card
SSD C: drive for OS and programs
Raid 0 for storage, more drives for Acronis backups.
850 watt PSU
One 19" digital monitor (for now...lol)
18 gig dedicated to LR cache on separate SSD drive (onboard iSSD)

No antivirus.
No other programs open.

Task Manager memory usage with no lock-up, LR Library open, Firefox open, Task manager open...
3.16 GB
CPU 0-1%

...will now create lockup.....

A fresh instance of LR....took 7 clone edit clicks before slowing down, and temporary lockup......unlocks after about 10 seconds.
2 more clone edit clicks and is seems permanently locked-up.

At the time of lockup, Task Manager reports.....
Mem usage 3.28GB
CPU usage 28%
Photo of Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen

Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen, Champion

  • 5094 Posts
  • 1989 Reply Likes
Randall, would you be up for trying the 3.5 RC and seeing if that improves it at all for you? http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/li...
Photo of Randall Leifer

Randall Leifer

  • 17 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Victoria, I installed the 3.5 RC.
Initially it seems to be better. So far I cannot get it to "lockup".
But after 50 Spot Remover edits on a single image, it will slow down a bit, but nothing awful like before. Still testing though.
Was this the issue that has possibly now been "fixed" ?....
>>Lightroom 3.2 introduced preview cache inefficiencies.<<

Thank you.
Photo of Randall Leifer

Randall Leifer

  • 17 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Now, trying to open LR...popup box says "The beta version has expired. LR will now close."
I'm unable to open LR at all.
I went to Adobe to download the current version (or any version), and they've lost all my reg info, and say my previously valid ser.# ....is now invalid.....the one printed on the packaged box.
Opened a support case. They say the ser.# is in fact "invalid". (???? it was purchased in June of this year and was registered too.) They want my original Amazon invoice to verify my purchase.
I did so....but what a hassle !!....No LR until it's resolved.....perhaps days, or more... we'll see.
Photo of Randall Leifer

Randall Leifer

  • 17 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Sent Adobe scans of the original receipt, the outer LR box with SKU #, and the CD outer case with the ser.# on it......still they say that the ser# is not valid, and will get back to me within 2 days.
I purchased and used LR since June of this year and registered it on Adobe.com. Then I installed the Beta 3.5 RC last month. Now that the RC has expired, my ser. # is not valid.
What the %%% ?
Photo of Steve Sprengel

Steve Sprengel, Champion

  • 2673 Posts
  • 348 Reply Likes
You mention you have an Amazon invoice. It is possible you purchased a pirated or other non-Adobe-authorized version of LR and you're out of luck once Adobe figured it out and blacklisted the serial numbers. Just because the box looks legit doesn't mean it is an authorized version.

How much did you spend for the LR on Amazon.
Photo of Randall Leifer

Randall Leifer

  • 17 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
It's possible....but Amazon invoice said "brand new, factory sealed", bought through Bestseller7 ...they're still on Amazon, 4.9 out of 5 stars customer rating, @ $201.00. (in June, 2011)
Package has the holographic Adobe SKU sticker.
Photo of Randall Leifer

Randall Leifer

  • 17 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I NEVER buy or use pirated copies....it's not my nature, I don't believe in that.
If it's so.....Amazon deserves me a refund and an investigation. I won't call judgement until I hear from Adobe.
Currently other Amazon sources are selling it at $214.00
I have been using it since June with no registration probs.
Photo of Steve Sprengel

Steve Sprengel, Champion

  • 2673 Posts
  • 348 Reply Likes
LR is usually $300 or $100 for an upgrade. I do see other copies of LR for $200ish on Amazon, although I don't see your seller, specifically. Have you contacted the seller? What is the seller's Amazon storefront URL?

It could be that a company went bankrupt and someone bought the LR copies at auction but Adobe eventually got wind of it and cancelled that seller's authorization and blacklisted the serial numbers, and while they initially worked, now they don't. I am not sure if LR uses server-validation of the serials or if it is just something built-in to the program, itself. If it is program-oriented, then perhaps LR 3.0 would accept the serial number, and only after upgrading to a newer version like LR 3.5 would the problem arise. What is the last version of LR that worked for you and how long ago was it and does that older version still work with the serial number?
Photo of Steve Sprengel

Steve Sprengel, Champion

  • 2673 Posts
  • 348 Reply Likes
I see that the seller is in Brooklyn and they don't sell any Adobe products, now, except an older version of Acrobat, so I would guess they are selling stolen or bankruptcy-auction items that Adobe would take a while to blacklist the serial numbers of.

I would contact the seller and see what they say. From the 1/5 ratings it looks like it is not easy to contact the seller and Amazon, themselves, are the only ones that give any relief. Since the translaction was months ago, it may be difficult to get any refund if Adobe confirms the serial number is no longer valid.

BTW, I always ignore the 5/5 feedback items and assume they are fake, and only look at the 1/5 or 2/5 ratings to see what the actual problems are. Of course some of those could be fake, too, but usually the more detailed, the more realistic.
Photo of Randall Leifer

Randall Leifer

  • 17 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Seller storefront...
http://www.amazon.com/gp/shops/storef...
I don't want to give the seller a bad rap until I know for sure.
I installed from the CD 3.0 or 3.?.....then updated to the current ver. at the time = LR 3.4.1.......then recently went to the beta ver. 3.5 RC
I suppose I could re-install LR to the original CD version, then try updating to 3.5 current.
Photo of Randall Leifer

Randall Leifer

  • 17 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I appreciate the feedback, Steve.
I was unaware such practices exist.....a flaw for an end-user trying to be legit.
Photo of Steve Sprengel

Steve Sprengel, Champion

  • 2673 Posts
  • 348 Reply Likes
Contact the seller and say that LR 3.5 rejects your serial number and see if they offer a refund. If they do that means they know they weren't officially authorized to sell it to you. Don't leave negative feedback for the seller until you have your money back, or until you've given up because neither the seller nor Amazon will refund it.

If LR uses program-based serial-number validtion, then installing LR 3.0 should work as long as updates don't check it, again. Of course if Adobe has blacklisted the serial number then you wouldn't be able to use it to upgrade to LR 4 and would need to pay full price.
Photo of Steve Sprengel

Steve Sprengel, Champion

  • 2673 Posts
  • 348 Reply Likes
Here is a link to a page of photographs of physical storefronts in Brooklyn & Queens that sell cameras and other electronics. It is probably somewhat dated, by now, but gives some idea you might be dealing with in the online version of a Brooklyn business: http://donwiss.com/pictures/brooklyns...
Photo of Jeffrey Tranberry

Jeffrey Tranberry, Sr. Product Manager, Digital Imaging

  • 15586 Posts
  • 2344 Reply Likes
Randall, I'll send you an email off line so I can have someone investigate. We have a group that investigates counterfeit sellers to prosecute and shut them down. You should definitely report the vendor to Amazon.
Photo of Randall Leifer

Randall Leifer

  • 17 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Reply from Adobe......

"" We would like to inform you that We cannot provide an exception and process your request further as Amazon marketplace is not an authorised dealor for Adobe. You need to contatc your reseller. We are really very appologies for the inconveniance caused. ""

They closed the case.
I sent the Amazon seller an email asking for a refund, but I am not getting my hopes up.
Next is to contact Amazon.
Photo of Randall Leifer

Randall Leifer

  • 17 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I called Adobe again....because I had a specific question :
"Why is the serial # now invalid ?"

There answer was, "it could be an number of reasons...from piracy, to a duplicate number., or a never before distributed/generated number".
I asked them if they knew which explanation it was.
They continued to say..."it could be a variety of reasons, but we cannot help you in this case".
I said, "I realize you cannot help me get a valid copy, but I want to know WHY the # was not valid, so I know what I'm working with, in attempting to gain a refund from the seller." .
I said, "If you know it is a counterfeit, then aren't you interested in who is creating these fakes ?".
The person on the line did not seem interested at all , as to why I was sold a bogus copy..

I also asked them "how was I able to update my copy 3 times with no problems over 4 months, then later ,suddenly be told it was not valid ??"
Their reply was..."at any time the product will be flagged as invalid...not necessarily between updates". This screws the buyer from gaining a refund from his/her seller, because it could be recognized as "invalid" months later.....after the refund policy of the seller.

I find this kind of "service" from adobe, to a customer who was screwed....quite appalling.
As a customer who never (knowingly) buys pirated software because I feel like I want to support the company and it's goods....I would expect some sort of same-support, when I attempt to honestly but their product.
If I am expected to vote for their loyalty by attempting to legally pay for their product, why can't they stand-up for my efforts by at least investigating my situation ?
Am I too small a fish ? Is one customer too small ?
Is this how they expect to gain loyal-ship.....by casting aside those who try to legally purchase software ?
I gave them every opportunity to at the very least say, "we are investigating the situation".....but they treated me as if I was non-consequential, and perhaps part of the problem.
Photo of Steve Sprengel

Steve Sprengel, Champion

  • 2673 Posts
  • 348 Reply Likes
It's possible the person on the phone doesn't know why, if the computer screen they see may not have any information why a particular serial number is invalid.

It also could be that it is their policy not to tell because you could be a hacker fishing to see how well your methods of serial number generation are working.

The seller knows very well they are not an Adobe authorized dealer so you shouldn't need to know the specific reason the serial number turned out to be invalid. A print-screen of the message from the software should be enough evidence.

Adobe doesn't owe you anything. You unknowingly paid someone to try out Adobe software longer than the 30-day limit. If you like it, pay Adobe for it.
Photo of Randall Leifer

Randall Leifer

  • 17 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
All this is true, Steve. Although I wish the software would have been flagged as "invalid " much earlier, so gaining a refund would be easier.

Perhaps I was expecting too much from the bottom-level support staff.

I have not heard back from the Amazon seller yet. No surprise there.
Perhaps I took a $200 lesson in legit software purchasing.
If I can help prevent others from doing so, I will.
Photo of Randall Leifer

Randall Leifer

  • 17 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
(bottom-level support staff = India)
Photo of Randall Leifer

Randall Leifer

  • 17 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Would Abobe cancel or blacklist a formerly valid ser. #, because the found out it was sold by an unauthorized seller ?
Are they that strict ?
Photo of Steve Sprengel

Steve Sprengel, Champion

  • 2673 Posts
  • 348 Reply Likes
Serial numbers are validated algorithmically by the program when it is installed so as long as the letters and digits fit the pattern they are supposed to it is accepted, any pirate-keygen serial-number will work, initially.

For a more expensive product such as Photoshop, an activation process validates the serial number with Adobe servers relatively quickly after you run the software, and if a bad serial number is detected, then the software ceases to function. You're right that it takes less time, because Adobe has put more effort into the process since they lose more money on each copy of pirated Photoshop.

I assume LR doesn't have any immediate activation process like Photoshop, but the software would probably at least get a list of blacklisted serial numbers compiled into it each update, and so it can cease to function after you update, which is apparently what happened to you.

I am using my imagination, but I would guess that Adobe keeps track of each serial number they generate and give to the packager to use for stickers on each package, but there is a delay of a few or many months before a sale is made and a serial number is associated with a legitamate sale that Adobe knows about--maybe Adobe has an expiration for each serial number and don't black list until no sale has been made within several months time, and also they wouldn't necessarily know immediately or perhaps ever that a retailer has gone out of business or a truck has been hijacked in Shanghai or Newark or a container has slipped into the sea after the cargo ship has run aground off the Alaskan coast or a train had derailed or a plane has run off a runway, much less more devious means where a person at the third-world software-publishing plant takes a sheet of serial number stickers that they sell to someone else where they eventually end up on a box in the Bronx, so it might take a while for information to trickle back to them that a block of legitimate serial numbers has been compromised and no longer associated with an authorized reseller.

Depending on the circumstances, if Lightroom does have an online server check then they won't know a serial isn't legit until it shows up more than one time from different areas of the world. If not, then the only way Adobe has of knowing of multiple usage would be when an unsuspecting user registers the serial number on the website. Maybe it wasn't until earlier this year that your serial number was registered at Adobe for a second time if that's how they detected it.
Photo of Randall Leifer

Randall Leifer

  • 17 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Thanks Steve.
I'll post back if Amazon helps me gain a refund. There is a sense on the net, that Amazon is willing to help others in difficult situations as this.
Photo of Randall Leifer

Randall Leifer

  • 17 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I still have faith in Adobe, as they are trying to help me in my situation.
I have been asked not to reveal the details, so I will not.
Thanks to Jeff as well +++
Photo of Jeffrey Tranberry

Jeffrey Tranberry, Sr. Product Manager, Digital Imaging

  • 15586 Posts
  • 2344 Reply Likes
Randall, you may want to check out this thread: http://feedback.photoshop.com/photosh...

Unfortunately, many "Amazon Marketplace" vendors aren't authorized resellers, even though "Amazon.com" is.

For example, here is Photoshop listed on Amazon:



Would be nice if Amazon.com was the default seller. Amazon Marketplace is more like buying a product off of eBay or Craigslist where you're buying from individuals under the banner of another website.
Photo of Randall Leifer

Randall Leifer

  • 17 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
"Amazon Marketplace is more like buying a product off of eBay or Craigslist where you're buying from individuals under the banner of another website."

True enough. But as on eBay, if the seller gets bad marks, eBay has consequences to persuade the seller to "make good".
Not sure about Amazon....
Photo of Adebayo Olumide

Adebayo Olumide

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
Howdy.

Was wondering if a fix for this "bug" was ever found? Any updates?

I'm running LR3.6 on Windows XP (yes....I know ;-)), and I'm seeing the clone/heal brush lag as described by a number of folks on this thread earlier.

Thanks!