Local noise reduction too weak

I often need to add a touch of additional noise reduction to some image areas such as the sky and use to apply the adjustment brush (can't say how much Lightroom lacks a layers feature). In some cases, even increasing the noise lever to 100% will still not give me enough noise reduction. I currently don't know any other way to get what I want than to escape to Photoshop with its masks, layers and filters. I'd prefer to stay in Lightroom for noise reduction, is there something I could try or would the developers need to make the effect of the slider stronger?
Andreas

Andreas: the solution is simple, even if it isn't intuitive. Just click on the "new" button next to the adjustment brush to start a new adjustment in a new location. Now start painting in another location in the sky. (Don't get to close to the original pin you started with your you'll reselect it and continue that adjustment.) Now you can paint 100% noise reduction over the sky a second time for a total of 200%. If that's still not enough, lather, rinse and repeat.
I first learned about this technique from Matt Kloskowski's Lightroom Killer Tips blog. Here's a video he created that shows this technique in action: http://lightroomkillertips.com/2010/video-stacking-multiple-adjustment-brush-settings/
Brad

Similar Messages

  • LR4 Feature request: Add local noise reduction

    Hello,
      I wish to apply noise reduction localy. On the backgroud apply a lot of and in forgroud (where the object/personn ist) a little.
      See this example.
      The current local noise reduction ist NOT the same as the one in the detail panel. It is a lof f less efficient.
      Thanks

    martin-s wrote:
    ...I had no idea there was a cut-off point...
    The only people who know about it are the one's who hang out on this forum .
    martin-s wrote:
    I use negative sharpness combined with negative clarity and/or contrast for blur effects. It's not unusual that I stack multiple brushes when -100 isn't enough 
    Thanks for the tip. My problem with blurring in Lr is that the blurred region ends up "too clean" (the rest of the photo has at least a bit of noise in it). I have dealt with it in the past by applying grain to the blurred region using an external editor - but that takes a lot of the fun out of doing the blur in Lightroom.
    Rob

  • Feature request: local noise reduction...

    I love the local corrections in LR2, and I'm using especially the local sharpening feature a lot. But I'm really missing a local noise correction feature (at least for luminance noise). It's such a shame to be able to do about any correction that I need inside Lightroom, but still having to make a round trip to an external noise editor to remove local noise. Especially since doing noise reduction as the last step doesn't seem to be very efficient at all.
    Local noise reduction would make this already great program so much better (at least, to me).
    Richard

    >My understanding is that sharpening does not add noise, but emphasizes the noise that's already there, making it appear from being insignificant to noticeable.
    We're being overly semantic here of course, but it just depends on how you define it. If you define noise as for example the root-mean square deviation from the "real" image (a very common definition but it ignores the noise's spectral distribution), than absolutely sharpening a noisy image adds more noise. Sharpening operates as a high frequency amplifier, amplifying edges that are just noise instead of real edges, so it basically amplifies the noise that is there, leading to an increase in apparent noisiness. The same is true for clarity. Clarity is basically a sharpening operation at a very high radius. If your source image is noisy (especially if it has a lot of low-frequency noise - i.e. "grain"), it will also amplify it. Conversely, negative sharpening results in reducing high frequency noise. as it is just a small radius blur effectively.
    >Moreover, sharpening in LR develop is considered capture sharpening, where the small loss in sharpness form the RAW format is regained.
    The sharpening brush is different as it is meant to be a creative sharpener. It definitely amplifies noise if you push it. And even so, using Develop's capture sharpening, it is indeed possible to amplify (=add) the noise using the capture sharpening if you use the controls wrong. The capture sharpening has the superb mask generator that can be used to protect areas that are not edges, limiting its tendency to amplify noisiness. However, it will amplify noise near edges, sometimes making them appear as if you have a waterpainting. This is also an example of amplifying noise. Remember, even if these tools are meant to do a certain thing, it doesn't mean they cannot be made to do something else.
    >To just regain lost RAW sharpness at the expense of noise would seem almost like defeating its own purpose.
    Sharpness and noise go hand in hand. There are smarter and less smart algorithms but fundamentally, sharpening always amplifies noise, and noise reduction always reduces sharpness. As I said some algorithms are better and limit the effect, but the bottom line is that there really is no way around this.
    >Or, is it more correct to say that applying -ve clarity/sharpening will make the noise "Appear" less obvious, but not actually get rid of it.
    Appear less obvious is exactly the same as reducing it. Your eye is very good in judging noisyness as it is very good at recognizing patterns and so you can easily see what is noise and what isn't. If an image appears less noisy, it is less noisy. Computers are not that smart yet and if you call a tool clarity, it does not magically know how to not amplify noise or how to not reduce noise when using it negative. Same with sharpening.
    Conclusion: negative sharpness & negative clarity == noise reduction. They are just not as good as some dedicated noise reduction algorithms as they are not primarily coded to do noise reduction. They do have that effect however.

  • Localized noise reduction

    I know this has been requested before, but this would be my highest priority in the develop module.  I would like to be able to dial up a level of noise reduction, and then paint it out (remove it) in specific parts of the image. Ideally it would work like the sharpen brush, with multiple incremental applications possible.
    My question: is this feasible in the current lightroom develop architecture or are we just barking up the wrong tree?

    function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}
    areohbee wrote:
    Hi Rory,
    I assume you already know the de-sharpener (negative sharpening) can act as a local (luminance) noise reducer in the mean time...
    PS - I sometimes entertain the fantasy that Adobe is busy working on the develop module to support more (or all) adjustments local (for Lr4) ;-}
    Rob
    Yep, and yep .

  • Photos with noise reduction filters applied shows too much noise in preview mode

    The Noise Reduction filters do an impressive job in Lightroom, but the preview of photos when zoomed out is sometimes poor.
    This becomes especially visible on photos with a high amount of noise reduction applied.
    When zooming in to 1:1 I see that the noise reduction works as it should. Also when exporting the images the noise is removed as it should.
    I wish the non-zoomed preview inside Lightroom was able to show the image with the noise reduction applied more correctly than in version 3.4.
    I'm using Lightroom 3.4 64-bit in Windows 7.
    See samples of image with heavy noise reduction applied in 1:1 screen shot, and then a unzoomed screen shot of the same part of the image. As you can see the unzoomed preview contains much more noise than the zoomed image does.

    I've had to encode with no noise reduction which is a shame, but have to get this DVD done.
    Any ideas for the next one?
    Thanks
    Mark

  • PV2010 Color Noise Reduction Robs Dark Tones

    No pun intended.
    I thought at first it was the raw-conversion/de-mosaicing, but its turned out to be the color noise reduction.
    Here is a the latest example of a picture that looks better in PV2003 than PV2010 no matter what I do, because of loss of clarity / contrast / dark-tones resulting from the new Color Noise Reduction algorithm. Note: This loss can not be restored using clarity or contrast sliders.
    This probably ought to be a feature request: A slider that controls the coarser aspects of color noise reduction (color waves or clarity/contrast) versus the most localized aspects (color specs). In this instance, just getting rid of the specs without trying to reduce the waves might leave the dark tones(?) - Something like that. In any case, there is room to improve color noise reduction so that it leaves the dark tones / contrast / clarity in certain cases like this.
    (Its a 100% crop of a section of a fish under water)
    PV2003:
    PV2010:
    The difference is striking when viewing the whole photo from afar...
    PS - I just discovered that minimizing noise reduction will maintain the dark tones better - I've therefore added down-throttling of color noise reduction to my PV2003  -> PV2010 practice.
    Rob

    dorin_nicolaescu wrote:
    Luminosity Contrast slider also helps maintain some darker tones.
    Indeed it do.
    And, last but maybe (or maybe not) least, one can cheat a bit at the end and add some grain, to give the illusion of greater detail / texture. So, if you really want to preserve full detail when converting high ISO shots from PV2003 to PV2010, you need to:
    1. Crank up the luminance noise reduction detail slider pretty darn high (if not all the way up).
    2. Crank up the luminance noise reduction contrast slider pretty darn high (if not all the way up).
    3. Minimize color noise reduction amount.
    4. Crank up the color noise reduction detail slider fairly darn high (not all the way up! - color artefacts - bleh).
    5. Maybe add a touch of grain (pretty darn low).
    (I've left out the luminance NR amount slider and sharpening because they are the more obvious ones).
    I'm guessing I'm not the first person to fall into the trap of trying to recover detail lost by noise reduction by decreasing luminance noise reduction amount and increasing sharpening detail (and maybe amount too), and winding up right back where you started - too much noise. The detail/contrast sliders of the noise reduction controls really work a lot better for that, and minimizing color noise reduction is also a hot tip for you detail junkies.
    I hope I'm not the last person on this forum to realize what is now seeming sort of obvious to me, whilst everyone has a good laugh...
    (I had previous just left color noise reduction and detail, plus luminance NR contrast at their defaults (I discovered the importance of the lum.NR detail slider long ago...) - but not anymore. It has helped me to articulate all this - hope it helps somebody else too..........
    Rob

  • Noise Reduction Mask

    There is no masking tool for noise reduction like there is for sharpening (only the other way round, so it masks out sharper transition) either in Lightroom 3 or Lightroom 4.  I cannot hazard a guess why not and wonder whether such a thing could be included in the final version?

    +1!
    The inverse of the Sharpening Mask!  Hold down ALT while adjusting the Luminance and Color sliders to view in real time.  Would be awesome.
    In the interim I've found the following workflow helpful when applying global NR...
    1) Get rid of color noise first - easily done, get it out of the way for when you evaluate detail
    2) Crank Luminance NR, crank NR Detail, zero out NR Contrast
    3) View at 3:1, nice and tight, find a section that has smooth and detailed areas
    4) Move the Detail slider back and forth and pay attention to the blur on the fine detail.  Too high and you'll get the detail back but noise as well.  Too low and will be blurred into obscurity.  Look for the best balance
    5) Do the same thing with NR Contrast.  Up and down and watch for changes. Frankly this control is so subtle I find it insignificant.  Probably aren't looking for right things.
    6) Settled on those zero out the Luminance NR and start to raise until you are satisfied with the overall noise levels, knowing that your detail will be protected from above.  Work your sharpening to compensate for any softening (and use the mask so noise in flatter areas isn't exaggerated).
    Now we can add the local NR brush to fine tune further and add or reduce that global application selectively. 

  • Noise reduction, Clarity and Masking Vs Sharpness

    Maybe I have been using too much noise reduction and clarity for bird photos. Some people on dpReview recommend no noise reduction and now I am inclined to believe them. Recently I tried using little to no noise reduction, little to no Clarity, lots of sharpening and about 40% masking.This gives the bird good feather detail and anything with less detail has little noise and better bokeh. In low detail areas it looks to me like masking reduces the noise caused by Sharpening but it has less affect on the noise increased by Clarity. Is this true? If it is, in bird photography is Clarity best used sparingly and selectively like on there heads?
    Another reason for asking all this is I once read that even a little masking degrades sharpness but now I doubt that. Maybe LR has improved that through the years.
    Thanks,
    Doug

    Indeed luminance noise reduction (and to some extent color noise reduction) has a tendency to wipe out fine feather detail.
    I recommend:
    * lowered noise reduction, and if you do use it, crank the nr.detail slider way up - this will help maintain fine feather detail and is superior to sharpening detail for maintaining feather detail otherwise lost due to noise reduction.
    * lowered sharpening detail, to keep noise down, and reduce the "need" for noise reduction.
    * and sharpen masking to taste..
    Also note: local sharpening at exactly -50 masks all global sharpening, and so can be used in conjunction with noise reduction to smooth the bokeh areas.
    And of course you can add sharpening and/or clarity locally too.
    I realize I didn't answer your exact question perfectly as asked, but I'm not sure what else to say, so..
    Have fun,
    Rob

  • Noise reduction before or after enlarging ?

    Hi. I'd be interested in your opinion:
    If the circumstances force me to work on images with noise which have to be enlarged, and if I use noise reduction based on noise-pattern-recognition, is it better to carry out the noise reduction before or after the enlargement (and in case the answer is after, which resampling method would resample the image (and thus the noise) best for subsequent noise reduction?)
    And what's the logical rationale behind the answer ?
    Thanks a lot!
    PS: I think the answer will be the same for any type of noise, but if there are significant differences between noise types, I'd be interested in that, too.

    Thanks for all your comments.
    I also thought that NR should be applied as soon as possible, leaving the noise patterns intact. On the other hand I thought that enlarging also enlarges residual noise, so maybe the bottom line is to do a regular NR initially and then, after enlarging, a second weak/careful one on parts of the image if need be.
    @Freeagent: very good tip the inverse luminosity mask! As for ACR: From my personal experience, ACR noise reduction is very effective on RAW material, but on all other sources it far lags behind noise-pattern-recognition methods.

  • Noise Reduction process in Audition

    I have a talking head video with a lot of background noise. 
    I first selected both audio and video tracks and right-clicked to Unlink them. 
    Then I selected the audio track and right-clicked to Edit in Auditon. 
    In Audition > Effects menu > Noise Reduction > Noise Reduction process, I hit the Capture Noise Print button, but an error message comes up stating my clip is too short. 
    When I follow the instructions and change the FFT to the smallest size option (512), it still doesn't work.  I have tried strining a few short background noise clips together, but it doesn't work.
    Questions:
    1) How long does a backgroung noise clip have to be?
    2) What does FFT stand for, and why are the number options in that dropdown menu as they are?
    3) How can I get this to work?

    Dinaspark wrote:
    Then I selected the audio track and right-clicked to Edit in Auditon. 
    In Audition > Effects menu > Noise Reduction > Noise Reduction process, I hit the Capture Noise Print button, but an error message comes up stating my clip is too short. 
    The step that appears to be missing here is that you haven't highlighted the section that you want to capture the noise print from - if you select nothing, then yes, your selection is too short!
    Questions:
    1) How long does a backgroung noise clip have to be?
    2) What does FFT stand for, and why are the number options in that dropdown menu as they are?
    3) How can I get this to work?
    1) You can get away with as little as a quarter of a second, depending on the FFT size. If you use a large FFT size, the analysis window won't be large enough.
    2) FFT stands for Fast Fourier Transform. In this context, the numbers relate (in simple terms) to an analysis window. Smaller numbers generally make a better job of low frequency noise reduction, and are quicker to apply, but larger numbers generally do a better job overall, if you have a large enough noise sample and don't mind waiting longer for the results. This isn't a precise science; you often have to experiment a lot to get a good result, and it's very easy to overdo it. In CS6 there are alternatives as well - you might try the automatic adaptive NR process successfully on some material, but generally the full-blown version works better.
    The other thing that a lot of people do, which also yields good results, is to do two NR passes, one with a high FFT and one with a low FFT, but not trying to reduce the noise too much on either one. The overall effect is a similar level of NR, but often with less artefacts.
    3) Read and understand this post, and its implications!

  • RAW conversion bug with Noise Reduction

    Hello,
    I have found a serious bug in the RAW conversion when noise reduction is applied. When converting from two types of Canon RAW files (a CRW from a Powershot G6 and a CR2 from a 20d) I found that if you apply Noise Reduction to a RAW file on very low settings (the default setting in the NR function will produce this reliably) single-pixel lines appear at regular intervals throughout the image. Here is an example:
    You can see several lines in this image:
    http://farm1.static.flickr.com/140/3821480263171e76604b.jpg
    A 100% detail of which is here:
    http://farm1.static.flickr.com/179/382148021af6586d27eo.jpg
    Has anyone else had this problem? Can someone from the Aperture dev team fix this?
    -Steve G

    Well I find this filter is quite good in 'masking' block artifact that codec like xvid, or other low compression codec have. I only apply it if I find the block artifact is too much and I find this filter is less offending to my eyes than the block artifact.
    In manual it said that if you have noisy video and want to lower the size then you can use this filter. It also blur the video a bit. But I suspect it is more than blur as I try gaussian blur in time line and the result is not as good. You can see the result as well. There is the tab between source and target and you can compare the result by togling between source and target tab.
    BTW, anyone with 1 core, dual, or quad core, can you tried to encode with it? Just cancel it after few minutes as I want to see what is your processor utilization with this filter on. Also you can see how long does it take to process this video from the 'estimation time left'.

  • In-camera noise reduction

    This question is directed to the technically knowledgeable out there and has to do with in-camera noise reduction settings. Although I'm shooting with a 1D4, I would guess the same would apply to all models. In a nutshell, is in-camera noise reduction (assuming it's enabled) applied to RAW files or just to JPEGs? If it's applied to RAW files (which is all I shoot), have any of you shot RAW with noise reduction disabled, and if so, how were the results? I tried to do a search here on this topic but was unable to find any information. Thanks.

    hsbn wrote:
    No, with all due respects, it is Long Exposure NR. Why would it make it worst with High ISO if it is "High ISO Noise Reduction".
    6D Manual page: 128 - 129
    5D Mark III manual page 144-145
    "Images taken at ISO 1600 or higher may look grainier with the [Enable] setting than with the [Disable] and [Auto] setting"
    With Auto setting, camera will not do LENR if the ISO is higher than 1600.
    I've tested this and it's give many kind of artifact with high ISO from time to time. Others it just gives more noise.
    Hi,
    - Great to know, thanks! It's very surprising indeed.
    LENR is supposed to remove hot pixels and noise due to long exposure. It's (sadly) surprising the in-cameras LENR may be worse than in post...
    We'll take a review about it , since shooting long exposure at higher than ISO 1600 is not uncommon for astro photography.
    I think 5D Mark 2 didn't have this "problem". Will check that too.
    - The manual tells that in-camera High ISO NR applied is lower at high ISO than the NR that can be applied in post, not "worse", sorry, my mistake.
    Thanks once again.
    EDIT: The User manual of 5D Mark 2 doesn't tell anything about this matter. The manual of 7D does, as well as 6D and 5D3 as you mentioned.
    Since I used to work with 5D2 I didn't realize the 5D3 could be different. Or at least the manual of 5D2 doesn't say the final result of LENR at 1600 or higher could be worse. Good thing to keep in mind.
    Sitll doesn't understand why the result "may" be worse, the 5D3 has enormous computing potential with the Digic 5+
    This seems to only affect if  LENR is set to "ON" / "Enabled", not to "Auto". Very likely a more agressive NR is applied in such case.
    We'll carry some test indeed.
    EDIT 2:
    In just brief tests with the 5D Mark 3 we found some inconsistency on the results between setting Long Exposure NR to "OFF", "Auto" & "On".
    We set High ISO NR, Peripheral Illumination Correction and Chromatic Aberrations to OFF, to see only the effect of LENR in JPG (not RAW yet).
    This camera (5D3) applies High ISO NR even when you set it to OFF (very noticeable in video mode).
    At ISO 6400 we didn't see a hot /stuck pixel (even when LENR set to "OFF") that appears at ISO 3200 when setting LENR to OFF or Auto. Of course "ON" deletes all hot /stuck pixels, but also increaed grain.
    We all already know that the more the sensor heats up (shooting and shooting long exposure stills - or using Live View for stills or video), the more noise we'll get in the pictures (and video).
    So far we couldn't get a "rule". Sometimes the "Auto" works better than "ON", it seems it depends on the selected ISO value and how hot is the sensor too.
    I pesonally don't understand WHY the LENR delivers more grainy images when set to "ON", if the NR is more agressive the grain should be finer than in "OFF" or "Auto", so it doesn't make sense...
     We'll test the 5D Mark 2 to compare with 5D3 in this regard
    HD Cam Team
    Group of photographers and filmmakers using Canon cameras for serious purposes.
    www.hdcamteam.com | www.twitter.com/HDCamTeam | www.facebook.com/HDCamTeam

  • Any chance Photoshop itself will get Camera Raw's noise reduction and sharpening?

    I would love to have the noise reduction and sharpening from ACR 6 in Photoshop itself for JPEG, TIFF, and PSD files. Yes, I know I can open those files in ACR, apply noise reduction and sharpening, and then have it then open the files to Photoshop. But it would be so nice if we could do that without having to go through Camera Raw.

    Matt Howell wrote:
    Yes, I am absolutely saying that the noise reduction and sharpening of ACR 6 is vastly superior to any filters in Photoshop CS5.
    For those who only work only with RAW files this is a non-issue, but I sometimes prefer to use TIFF files generated by CANON DPP software or occasionally even JPEG's straight out of Canon DSLR's. Going through ACR just for noise reduction causes unnecessary color space conversions, as well as just a needlessly complex workflow.
    Perhaps you should ask Canon to make DPP noise reduction better.  I also do not think is a good idea to get too aggressive with noise reduction  and sharpening when you first bring a image into Photoshop unless you only use the image single use for a particular output device.  Your better off working with a somewhat soft image till you ready for output and then sharpen for the output devive being used.  If you use strong sharpening and NR up front sharpeing again for your output device may produce unwanted sharpening and NR artifacts...  There are several third party noise reduction and sharpening plug-ins that are better then Adobe Photoshop built in ones.  Noise reduction has to be balanced too much will loose detail masking detail is important. ACR noise reduction provides masking adjustments and works well. Third party plug-ins offer offer advanced masking features also. Photoshop noise reduction filter has a basic preserve detail slider which I presumes does some kind of masking but this is not as good at ACR masking and third paty masking.  You can of course add you own masking before using photoshop noise reduction filter. Sharpening also needs masking for sarpening will sharpen noise as well as detail.
    IMO your better off with third party plug-ins that are designed to be the best. They keep getting better there is no clear winner for all images. I'm been satisfied with NeatImage and I have only had to pay for two upgrades.  I had to pay for the addition the 32 bit plugin then and  for the addition a 64 bit plugin.  All other updates to NeatImage has been free of charge even the lates version 7 of the 64 bit plugin was no charge for me.

  • Adjustment brush with exposure setting cancels noise reduction

    Hello,
    I just noticed the following problem:
    1) Camera Raw 6.5; Bridge CS5 (4.0.5.11); Mac OS X 10.6.8; Mac Pro 3,1; Dual Quad-Core Xeon; 8GB RAM.
    2) Start with a noisy raw file (mine is from a Canon 5D II).
    3) Apply Noise Reduction (Luminance:30; Lum Detail:75; Lum Contrast:0; Color:25; Color Detail:50).
    4) Go to Adjustment Brush and set a non-zero Exposure value.
    5) Apply brush to image and notice the Noise Reduction effects disappear (noise returns).
    6) Click Clear All button to clear Adjustment Brush and Noise Reduction works again.
    This seems to only happen with Adjustment Brushes with a non-zero Exposure value (applying brightness or other settings don't seem to produce the problem).
    Anyone else seeing this?
    Thanks!

    Richard (and others),
    Yes, very good idea to check that. The problem does indeed get applied to the full sized, opened image as well as to the display previews. After working with this more, I now notice that I was wrong to say that the entire noise reduction is cancelled - rather it "changes", sometimes subtly, sometimes more dramatically depending on what the noise reduction settings are set to. Further, how dramatic the "changes" appear depend greatly on the preview zoom (the changes are more subtle at 100%, but it can look like the noise reduction is completely turned off at 50% and 66%).
    Now I realize that the noise reduction does not ordinarily display at all preview sizes (especially smaller ones), but this is different. At preview sizes where it does normally get applied, applying an adjustment brush with any non-zero exposure value (even just +0.05) can have the appearance that the NR is completely turned off for the whole image. Simply nudging the exposure value back to zero brings all the noise reduction back.
    Also, to be clearer and avoid confusion for others, the change in noise I'm seeing is not localized to just the brushed spot. Obviously if one increases exposure, you'd expect to potentially see more noise. Instead, what I'm seeing happens to the entire image, even if I simply paint a single small brush dot, say in a far corner. Having the image change globally in response to painting a small spot with the adjustment brush cannot be a correct result. Further, this does not happen with any of the other adjustment brush settings like brightness, contrast or saturation. There must be something unique about the exposure setting that perhaps introduces a new step into the processing pipeline, and this step is affecting the entire image.
    In any case, the problem only seems to be an issue in somewhat extreme cases and is less noticeable at 100% (and the finally opened image). It's more just annoying when previews are generated for viewing in Bridge, for example.
    I suppose one alternative might be to rob a bank and go buy one of those new 1D X's. Then maybe I wouldn't have to worry about noise anymore.
    Thanks for the responses!

  • Lightroom 5 no noise reduction on file export

    Here are the steps I'm using:
                   color and luminance noise reduction
    Export with these settings:
                   jpeg ( same result with tiff}
                   quality 100%
                   resize to fit long edge 1000 px
        Lighroom screen--------------------------------------------------------Jpeg export
    Any ideas?

    JimHess wrote:
    I think it's unfair to refer to people who can provide reasonable answers as fanboys.
    Sadly Jim, we still haven't got the kind of "ignore whiney, flamebaiting troll" button that would allow us to shut the likes of him up. No, he doesn't come here for solutions, he comes here to flame. I'm baffled why he hasn't been banned.
    Torsten,
    Here's my favourite workaround. You could have done it too, and it's a simple, one-step solution:
    Don't pay for software without thoroughly testing it yourself first.
    If you've paid for Lr 5 before destruction-testing it and keeping a close eye on the forum (where this issue has been know about for ages), you've only yourself to blame.
    Adobe will fix it when they're ready and able to: but it doesn't affect me in any "I paid for this, I expect it to work" way, because I won't be buying Lr 5 until it is fixed.
    A really, really, really simple, inexpensive, trouble-free way to deal with all that stress...

Maybe you are looking for