marc_rochkind

<p>It would help if we knew what exact version of LR you have, the version of the Flickr plugin, and where you got the latter. Also, the exact text of the error message, perhaps via a screenshot.</p> <p>With LR 2015.8 and the Flickr plugin that came with it (version 6.8.0.1099473) it works for me.</p>

<p>Easy to use and easy to learn are different things. Lightroom is complicated, and, as you've seen, it's possible to get yourself into situations that are hard to understand and get out of. But, once learned, I would say it is extremely easy to use.</p> <p>And, because it's so capable, I think putting in the work to learn Lightroom is worthwhile.</p> <p>But, then, I've been using Lightroom and it's pre-release beta for 10 years.</p>

<p>Ashcroft, just outside Aspen, is an abandoned mining town.<br> <img src="https://photos.smugmug.com/Photography/Marc-Rochkinds-Gallery/i-kXzdWPC/0/L/MJR_20070331_0284-Edit-L.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="571" /></p>

<p>Here's what I would do:</p> <p>1. Run Windows 10. Windows 7 is two releases and many sub-releases old. Released about 8 years ago.</p> <p>2. As Ross mentioned, with time numerous background processes start running when you boot. Even if you've installed something and decided not to use it, there's a chance it keeps something running to increase performance. You need to prevent all these background tasks from running, and there are various ways to do that, all pretty technical. This is very likely the cause of the problem.</p>

<p>There's a book with that exact title by Julieanne Kost, the well-known Adobe Photoshop/Lightroom trainer. Search on Amazon.</p> <p>Here's my contribution to this thread. That's an engine on the left.</p> <p><img src="https://photos.smugmug.com/Photography/Marc-Rochkinds-Gallery/i-LPCcHMH/0/XL/MJR_20070602_0628-XL.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="727" /></p>

<p>Dave's story reminds me of something that happened when I was hanging out in a ComputerLand store in Boulder (CO USA) around 1983. Two sloppily-dressed guys came in and bought about $12K of computers and printers in the space of 15 min., for which they paid cash.</p> <p>We guessed they were laundering drug money.</p>

<p>Yes, TIFF is a well-defined format that will be understandable probably forever. (I'm referring to the data, not the medium it's on.)</p> <p>However, I've almost never seen a so-called TIFF file that doesn't contain extensions, which is still TIFF, because the rules allow for extensions. Whether those extensions to the format will be readable is anyone's guess.</p> <p>Probably if the TIFF is generated by a well-known application, such as Photoshop, it will continue to be readable. If it's generated, on the other hand, by Whiz-Bang Converter, which comes free with the Pretty-Good Digital Camera that you bought on a Black Friday sale, then who knows?</p>

<p>@Brooks: I did read the links. Not a word about any exploits of DNG Converter. Only generic information about memory corruption in general. Which is what I said in my post.</p>

<p>I think that</p> <p>memory corruption ==> security vulnerability</p> <p>is a generic concern. Doesn't mean that what's wrong is exploitable. But, even if it were, Adobe wouldn't (and shouldn't) tell us what the mechanism is.</p> <p>My issue is that there are so many security problems being reported that the general public is now thinking that the situation is hopeless (like climate change or poverty or Cleveland Browns football) and therefore there's nothing to be done. Crying wolf, that is.</p> <p>Adobe would probably get a better result (that is, more updates) if they instead reported that conversion quality might be compromised.</p> <p>Anyway, thanks for the links.</p>

<p>Are you sure those other programs are doing any raw-to-JPEG conversion? There is a full-size JPEG inside most raws, and it may be that that's all they're showing.</p>

<p>I think calling this a security flaw is a stretch. Perhaps a photo.netter can explain the mechanism. With technical details -- I'm a programmer.</p> <p>The title of the notice says "Security Update", but the problem seems to be memory corruption, which to my way of thinking results in application failure or incorrect conversion. The OS wouldn't let one app corrupt memory of any other app.</p> <p>Perhaps this is the mechanism:</p> <p>Bad guy: Show me the photo or I'll shoot you.</p> <p>Victim: I will! But I have to convert it first.</p> <p>(Short time later.)</p> <p>Victim: F--k. It won't convert!</p> <p>Bad guy's gun: BANG!</p>

<p>OK, with these responses, I think the situation is clear. Carole's message doesn't mean she didn't get a good backup. That message is advice that she might have to use if she ever needs to do a restore.</p>

<p>The word "extract" suggests to me that this message comes not from creating a backup, but perhaps from restoring from a backup. Or, perhaps you are accessing a backup outside of Lightroom?</p> <p>Anyway, 4GB is the limit for traditional ZIP files. For bigger ZIP files, so-called ZIP64 has to be used, as I recall. (Reference documentation not at hand, so I may have the name slightly wrong.) Many unZIPping utilities can't handle ZIP64, which is why those other apps are being suggested.</p> <p>The question is, suggested by what? Lightroom should have no need to unZIP anything in order to create a backup.</p> <p>So, my guess is that you are not creating a backup from within Lightroom, but are doing something else.</p>

<p>A column just posted by Thom Hogen:</p> <p>http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/how-bad-is-it.html</p> <p>His last two sentences: "The question is this: what breaks the on-going decline? Nothing so far. Nothing currently foreseeable."</p> <p>(The decline is true of both DSLRs and mirrorless.)</p> <p>The fun part, probably all opinion, as I don't know of any facts, is WHY. Phones are part of it, of course, but I'd guess that's not the entire explanation.</p>

<p>Thanks, all. Fromex did respond very quickly to my email. Their default is uncut, but they will cut to my specification. No response from Dwaynes. However, I have the info here.</p>

<p>When they return negatives, how many are in each cut strip? It's probably 4, 5, 0r 6.</p> <p>It would be really great if the number somehow matched the film carrier for my scanner.</p>

<p>Terrific, thanks! And he has other books for downloading, also.</p>

<p>One reason why I hesitate to buy from my local retailer is that they handle a small volume of high-end equipment, and they're always opening boxes to let potential customers play with the cameras. So, your camera may not have been returned, but it may have been operated.</p> <p>When I buy locally, I always ask for an unopened box. Occasionally I have to wait a few days. Oddly, this makes the local retailer much less convenient than one hundreds of miles away, such as Amazon.</p>

<p>Here's what I did: Switched to Micro 4/3 because it's so much smaller and lighter.</p> <p>Nikon DSLR and a bunch of lenses sold and selling on eBay.</p> <p>And, when my Micro 4/3 is too big, I have a Sony RX100 IV.</p>

<p>With Sandy's "Naked Photos" and everyone else's raw photos, I'm wondering if we should post some of them? ;-)</p> <p>More seriously, a few people mentioned that processing raws is slower and takes more skill. I haven't noticed that, mostly because in Lightroom JPEGs and raws are processed exactly the same way. When I make changes to a raw using the various sliders, the effects are instantaneous.</p> <p>But maybe that's because I have a highly optimized system for Lightroom, though very inexpensive. An Intel i7 NUC with 16GB RAM and an SSD + hard drive. Very cheap and very fast.</p>

<p>A few problems that made me not want to take this survey:</p> <p>1. The huge URL in your post is not a link.</p> <p>2. Name and email are required. That makes me suspect that this is really a marketing gambit.</p> <p>3. "development of our new product" and "nothing to sell" are opposites, unless you are proposing not selling your new product. (I have products that didn't sell, but that was never my initial intention.)</p>

<p>Things have changed over the years. Here's the very latest from Thom Hogan:</p> <p>http://www.dslrbodies.com/accessories/software-for-nikon-dslrs/software-articles/raw-or-jpeg.html</p> <p>Spoiler: "The answer is still raw if you’re trying to get the most out of your images that you can."</p>

<p>Look at the total printing cost over time. Cheap printers often take expensive ink.</p> <p>For snapshots I upload to Amazon Prime Photos and get prints for as little as 9 cents for a 4x6, shipping free.</p>

<p>The OM-1 is one of the greatest cameras ever. Small but with an amazingly large viewfinder image, bigger than any other SLR I own, and I have over 50.</p> <p>If it's in good working order, go for it!</p>

<p>Got me started around 1961. Then I bought a used Federal enlarger, and the guy I bought it from gave me a free Argus A.</p> <p>Still hooked, but all that darkroom equipment has now been replaced by Lightroom.</p> <p>Alan's story is better, that's for sure.</p>