Photography: Raw File Support - Requests and Information?

All I can say about Nikon Z6ii: soon.

And don't assume they get anything early; the camera manufactures are at fault here and why you must wait.

You must be joking.  Nikon doesn’t share any information with any software vendor.  I expect ACR support for the Z6ii in December.  In the meantime, On1 RAW 2021, Fast RAW Viewer, Luminar 4.3,and RAW Photo Processor 64 will read the Z6ii RAW files.  Capture One Pro 20 (and the latest Beta) doesn’t,Exposure X6, DXO 4.0.1, Pixelmator Pro, Raw Power, won’t read the files.  Photo Mechanic 6 and Photo Mechanic Plus will both read the files and import them, however PM is not an editor.

Those programs that read the Z6ii RAW files look pretty anemic.  I can export jpgs, but I wouldn’t want to print anything from them.  YMMV.

@andrew_rodney camera manufacturer isn't at fault, Adobe are just slow to react, Photomechanic already supports the files

Adobe is slower than some others but not at fault for proprietary raw documents.

From PhotoMechanic's site: "In Photo Mechanic 6, RAW rendering is handled through Adobe DNG Converter." So PM doesn't support the raw files either. It can just show the JPEG embedded in the raw file.

This is almost immaterial since PM isn’t a raw converter to begin with.  Photo Mechanic ingests the files and displays the embedded jpg.  It doesn’t touch the raw file and doesn’t need to use the Adobe DNG converter for anything the program is capable of.  It supported ingesting Nikon Z6ii files the day of release even though Adobe DNG converter doesn’t yet support the raw files.  

@andrew_rodney sounds like something a DNG fan would say, there are very few cameras that shoot Adobe's format, so they have to do this for all new cameras, which is pretty regular, you'd hope a company the size of adobe would have a portion of their development team dedicated to such things! When camera manufacturers have proprietary hardware it makes absolute sense to have a proprietary way of storing that data - adobe should shape up, especially with the amount of money no doubt we are all paying them.

@linda_alschuler that's the whole point of Photo Mechanic - and the fact it can get the JPEG preview out means it can read the RAW file - unlike Adobe.

"the fact it can get the JPEG preview out means it can read the RAW file - unlike Adobe."

It's more complicated.  Most raw formats are based on TIFF, and the JPEG previews are stored in the TIFFs in standards-based locations.  So it's straightforward for Photo Mechanic to read out the previews.

But the raw sensor data from the cameras are stored in proprietary ways, each manufacturer using their own method of embedding the raw data inside the TIFF format.  Photo Mechanic doesn't try to read or interpret that data (it doesn't have to), whereas raw processors like Camera Raw / Lightroom must be able to interpret it.

Canon has based its raw file format for .cr3 cameras on a newer industry standard file format, but it still stores raw data in a proprietary way inside the file.

Most camera companies have a standard way of embedding the jpg photo inside their raw files.  So all PM does is look for the begin and ending bytes for the embedded jpg file to extract and display.  It does not do the demosaic step,which is what programs like Lightroom,ACR, Capture One and many others do.  PM doesn’t follow any update path that correlates with the release of new camera hardware.  As far as I know, only SONY shares the proprietary details of their raw files to software vendors.  Nikon doesn’t, Canon doesn’t, Panasonic doesn’t.  Leica may, only because their raw format in camera is DNG.  Some vendors have access through public means of getting pre-release raw files, which they can reverse engineer to provide early support.  Invariably, these programs do more poorly with the initial support than they do once the camera is released and they can examine the raw files in detail and tune the details of their specific demosaic algorithm for subtle changes to the way the cameras do certain things.

Fan of DNG and ALL openly documented non proprietary file formats: JPEG, TIFF, DNG etc. Adobe does have a team to hack proprietary raws like every other company that has to do so to understand the new proprietary raw! As you wait and they spend time and money to always do so. Why? Because every time a new camera ships with a new proprietary raw, which is not necessary for them to do, everyone has to hack/decode that raw while you wait. Now you know who's at fault and why.

Note; no wait to use those cameras JPEG. Not proprietary! Fan of proprietary raws?

that's the whole point of Photo Mechanic - and the fact it can get the JPEG preview out means it can read the RAW file - unlike Adobe.

Not a fact. A raw converter that could only see and use that JPEG but not the raw data is not a raw converter. <g>

@andrew_rodney Not sure what you mean by that, maybe you should re-read it and post again.

No one can argue that PM is a viewer with some tagging tools, it is a fact that is can read the JPEG from the RAW, don't think you can dispute that, not sure what you are on about with the raw converter part, but as an ex-software developer who is now Head of Development for a software company, if the raw data can be read that's half the battle (if not more) and if a small company like PM can do it then one the size of Adobe has little excuse.

There are workarounds and they all work, adding a TIFF step is annoying but not the end of the world, Adobe are obviously working to some sort of schedule and I'm sure this forum thread won't make any difference to that.

Unfortunately Agree you are right. This forum change anything for Adobe 

Keri.  It isn’t the issue of “reading” the raw file.  Any dumbpiece of software can do a byte by byte read without knowing what it is reading.  PM simply looks for the jpg header and the jpg footer.  Everything between the header and footer is the embedded jpg because jpgs are encoded to a standard format, agreed on by an international committee.  That’s why all software can read jpgs.  The difference between extracting the jpg and displaying the raw file is that the raw file is the direct readout of the electrical charge at every pixel on the sensor.  To convert that to an image requires a step called demosaicing which is different for every manufacturer, every sensor tweak and requires reverse engineering to correctly interpret each site on the sensor and what information captured.  RAW data can be lossless, lossless compressed as 12 or 14 bit, lossy compressed as 12 or 14 bit, can be small RAW, medium RAW, each of which require a slightly different conversion path.  That doesn’t account for the lens, aperture, shutter speed, ISO, exposure compensation, and any other settings in the camera that might affect the final raw image. 

So, you are grossly oversimplifying the complexity of the problem.  I can just tell you flat off that PM is not reading the RAW in the sense you describe.  They are only searching for stardard pieces of code that set off the jpg from the rest of the data.  Their “reading” of the raw is simply a pass of reading the data at the bit level (or maybe the byte) to find the jpg nugget.  I’ve been writing software since 1965.

So, you are grossly oversimplifying the complexity of the problem.

Indeed. 

if the raw data can be read that's half the battle.

It isn't. A JPEG preview is. 

Earlier Linda_Altshuler cited PM saying it used the Adobe engine to convert raw to DNG. That is true, but irrelevant.  First, unless Adobe's DNG converter works with the existing RAW, which it doesn't, the conversion doesn't happen.  So PM doesn't have access to DNG conversion unless Adobe already supports the RAW file.  However, a closer inspection of what PM is doing is "offering" the user the opportunity to do "bulk DNG" conversions from deep within a menu.  It isn't part of the display algorithm, or the exif or IMPT template.  It is a tool for users, not a display option.

I assume you don’t mean me

Sorry, that response was really meant for Linda Altshuler who was the one quoting Photo Mechanic's documentation.  I apologize for suggesting it was you who was unaware.

I hope you realize I only cited PM's use of Adobe's DNG converter to point out that PM can't process raw data from the Z6ii either. My main point was that PM just shows the embedded JPEG, not the result of reading the raw data. No 't' in Alschuler...

Yes, I misread your message.  Too much in this thread to be useful anymore.  I think we agree that people need to get a grip and let Adobe do what Adobe does best.

Would you tell us what camera you are using?

Hello and thanks for the reply,

I am using Samsung NX cameras, in this particular case NX 500. 

Regards,

That camera is supported but only if you are using Lightroom 6.0 or later.

See this page for details:

https://helpx.adobe.com/camera-raw/kb/camera-raw-plug-supported-cameras.html

Thanks. I think I understand, but I'm a bit confused, as the list states the following requirements for NX500 support:

-version 1.0 for Lightroom

-version 6.0 for Lightroom Perpetual

-version 2015 for Lightroom Classic

My version is Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 / Camera RAW 8.7.1. I don't know how it corresponds to the list, but I assume I have Lightroom Perpetual then.

However, when I click on a .SRW file in Finder, it opens in Camera RAW 9.1 and works fine. Maybe because I also have Photoshop Elements 15? So from what I can see Camera RAW 9.1 does not work with Lightroom below version 6.

A bit confusing, but probably best to upgrade then.

5.7.1 was the version before Lightroom Perpetual 6.0, so yes, it's time to upgrade. The alternative is to convert the files to DNG using the free DNG converter, which Lightroom 5.7.1 would be able to understand, but that's a bit a faff.

@Pascal Fielmich If you are desperate, there are tools out there that will change the exif data in your photos to make Adobe think the photos were taken by the Nikon Z6, which uses the same sensor.  If the Z6_2 header is changed to Z6, the files will open as demosaiced raws in Lightroom 10 and ACR.  I have done this, and the files look OK.  I don’t think this is optimal both because it is tedious, but also because there are other small tweaks Nikon made to the sensor that weren’t on the Z6.  I have other software that will “read and demosaic the Z6ii” raw images, but the only one I trust right now is Nikon’s own software, which happens to be free.

https://community.adobe.com/t5/lightroom-classic/down-load-of-nikon-z6-ii-raw-files/m-p/11589888?page=1#M211767

Z6ii is not yet supported by Lightroom Classic 10 or ACR.  You will have to be patient.  Nikon does not share the proprietary raw encoding of their RAW files with any vendor of raw conversion software.  Adobe, like every other vendor has to reverse engineer the format and encoding once the release version of the camera is in the wild.  That takes time and resources.  If you need conversion of raws to display, use the software Nikon supplies for free.  Otherwise be patient.  Rome wasn’t built in a day.

See above answer to same question.

@Shrikant Hiwale Yes, please! Nikon?? Can we get an ETA on this? I'm trying to finish up an edit.

Use Nikon's software for now.  It is free and works perfectly with the Z6ii raw files.  Adobe will take its time to do it right.

@Chelsea. The only workaround for any Adobe product is to use an Exif Editor to change the header from Nikon Z6_2 to Nikon Z6.  This will fool Lightroom into thinking it is a Z6 file, but you won't be getting optimal readout of the raw images.  There are subtle differences between the Z6_2 and the Z6 at the raw file level.  Your only other alternative would be to use Nikon software to export TIFF files and then edit in Lightroom 

The only downside to editing the header as explained is that when the Adobe products are finally updated you will either have to edit the header again or just forget about those early images. Just be patient for a few weeks. Should a few JPEG's and get to know the camera in the meantime.

Some users, (No, many users) seem to feel like they are breaking a rule of photography if they shoot a JPEG image with their precious camera. And yet many times I have seen comments on the forums that suddenly a user has lost all of their camera profiles. All they have available is "embedded". They are completely unaware that they have switched to shooting JPEG mode. The quality of the JPEG image is good enough that they can't even tell that the mode has changed.

Don't misunderstand me. I prefer shooting raw. But don't let this little issue paralyze you. In a few weeks the whole issue will be gone, and in the meantime you can enjoy taking pictures and getting to know the camera.

Again, there is a free solution while waiting.  Nikon’s software isn’t a UI delight, but it does demosaic the RAW files correctly.  And it has basic editing functions, close to the level of Lightroom.  If you simply can’t abide jpg, then use Nikon’s software in the meantime and quit complaining.

As a software engineer, I decided to jump in only ONCE, to say there is a way to convert JPG to TIFF or RAW to TIF and RAW to JPG using the existing software.  I will not teach technology here, so find out for yourself.  All of you sound silly.  You are trying to side-step DNG converters.  So stupid.  But my way doesn't need a DNG converter even.  I know how to manipulate software.   Steve Lehman, MCSE   

I 2nd Marc's comment.  

While I've not used a Nikon for a couple years now, at the time, I though that the software from Nikon actually did a bit better initial job. It just lacked the functions I needed but I would compare the results and occasionally use it to help me with initial Lightroom adjustments. 

A review by a professional sports photographer (sorry, I don't have the link) liked it so much that he switched from shooting jpegs. He didn't have the time to deal with complex editing like we do in Lightroom and the Nikon tool was just enough better than jpegs from the camera that it became his new standard workflow. 

Steve, yes a jpeg can be converted to a raw or raw-like format but the raw information is lost because it is not in the jpeg. It does NOT produce a raw file. There is absolutely no reason to do this. 

"there's absolutely no reason to do this"  They why do all of you argue about it?  If its a 'normal' conversation, it's dull, boring, lacks substance, and doesn't come to any conclusion.  

Convert a JPEG to a true raw? I don't think so. 

http://www.digitaldog.net/files/ThisIsRaw.jpg

I can read the embedded jpgs now without doing anything differently.  I know how to edit the headers to get Lightroom or ACR to "think" they are reading a file created by a different camera.  I can do everything I need because, while not a software engineer, I've been writing software for more than 55 years in multiple different and ever changing languages, and have been in digital photography since its beginnings.

The point is, there is no reason to be having these discussions when existing and free software will allow you read whatever type of file your camera creates, while we wait for Adobe to modify Lightroom and ACR to be able to handle the camera released within the past four to six weeks.

I agree these conversations are silly.  People act like Adobe is completely unaware that camera company X has just released a new camera body and they need to constantly pester them to update their software.  People need to get a grip.  Early adopters almost always pay the penalty of incompatible software until it catches up with the hardware or the operating systems.  Just how many pieces of software are currently certified to run under Big Sur?  Not as many as you think.  But many uncertified pieces run anyway and people are using them.  But, if you have a problem with your software running under Big Sur, don't expect your vendor to necessarily feel any sympathy for you.

Bottom line:  all these pleas for Adobe to support X,Y,Z are just dumb.  If you want to be on the bleeding edge, expect to bleed for awhile.

Again, using the Z6ii as an example.  While the Z6 and the Z6II use the same basic sensor, the masking of the two sensors is different.  The Z6 generates raw images that are 6048x4024 pixels, while the Z6ii generates images that are 6064x4040.  This is a 16 pixel difference on each dimension - a trivial amount in the larger scheme of things - but altering the exif data will create an expectation that the image is actually slightly smaller than it really is.  Do you want to start with 16 pixels cut off each side, before you deal with the changes in dynamic range and sensor output?

Great.  This is not news.  But have you been following this thread.  There is no free lunch.

@wei660812 I've merged your post into an existing thread that will provide more information for you.

Hi Victoria,

My post re missing Adobe-sanctioned Nikon Z lens profiles (the built-in profiles are very low quality and i recently again had to manually adjust vignetting for thousands of images...) got merged here too. I'm now receiving up to 20 messages unrelated to my topic per day... i trust this was not done to discourage me from pursuing this as a Lightroom customer of the first hour (version 1 beta).

Best wishes,

Steffen

Hi @steffen_borrmann No discouragement is ever intended by merging posts, it just keeps things tidy and enables the engineers to see all of the information about a specific topic in one place instead of having to hunt for it. You can unfollow this thread using the button at the end of the first post.

I didn't merge your post, but it looks like there's another thread on Nikon Z lens profiles here, which would be the one to watch: https://feedback.photoshop.com/conversations/camera-raw-and-dng/lightroomcamera-raw-nikon-z6-raw-processing-and-adobe-wb/5f5f45ee4b561a3d4268eaf7

Hi Victoria,

Many thanks for your prompt feedback. In fact, i see that the other thread (where i had been in touch with Rikk re this issue since early 2019) is still alive. Great and phew! ;-)

Dear Victoria, just to clarify after the release of LR Classic 10.1: i hope it's not too much of an expectation to see some tiny progress on a major image quality issue for Nikon z lenses when i as your customer have been paying € 300 over the last 2 years. This may be nothing for Adobe but it's a lot for a small family budget. We are kicking off the phase 3 trial of a third COVID-19 vaccine - if we were to work at the same speed as Adobe, well we may well be out of the job by next year! It is really FRUSTRATING to see absolutely nothing being done for my hard earned money! Sorry to say this so clearly. Adobe: please at the very least release a beta version of the lens profile for Nikon z lenses.

Probably best to stick to the other thread Steffen, as this one is about raw file support.

The Nikon Z6 II isn't supported yet. 

This thread is being merged into an authoritative thread for better tracking and response.