Skip to main content
Adobe Photoshop Family

Adobe Administrator

 • 

158 Messages

 • 

14.3K Points

Fri, Mar 25, 2011 10:47 AM

Answered

Photography: Raw File Support - Requests and Information?

I just got a new camera and Camera Raw and/or Lightroom does not recognize the raw files, has no camera-specific profiles or has some features not enabled. What do I do?

Responses

Official Solution

Adobe Administrator

 • 

15.4K Messages

 • 

291.4K Points

10 years ago

For a complete overview on camera support in Photoshop and Lightroom, visit the following article:

Why doesn't my version of Photoshop or Lightroom support my camera?

  1. Make sure your version of Photoshop or Lightroom is up-to-date for the latest camera support.
  2. If you own an older version of Photoshop (CS6 or earlier) or Lightroom (5 or earlier), Adobe provides backwards compatibility for the latest cameras through the FREE Adobe DNG Converter.

Sr. Product Manager, Adobe Digital Imaging

3 Messages

 • 

92 Points

yes, but I have last updated adobe SW and my Samsung nx5 is still not supported (but NX10 - exactly the same camera with different display is supported from ACR 6.3) - I must edit all picture ̈s exif tag from NX10 to NX5 when I can do somethink in photoshop.. :-(

2 Messages

 • 

70 Points

My Mac G5 Power PC is running Photoshop CS4 and Lightroom 2. I can import my Nikon D300 raw files with no problem, however cannot with my new Panasonic Lumix LX5. As suggested, I downloaded the DMC converter that was compatible (6.4) on to my hard drive, however still cannot import the files. Do I need to somehow link the converter to the LR software?

Champion

 • 

2.6K Messages

 • 

33.7K Points

You need to run the DNG Converter program you downloaded, point it to a folder of your LX5 RAW files and tell it to convert them to DNG files--you will be selecting folders not individual files, then you can open those new DNG files (but not the original camera raw files) in your older ACR via Photoshop (or Bridge I think).

2 Messages

 • 

70 Points

Steve, I did this and it works. After converting, I was able to open in photoshop and also import into Lightroom. Thanks for the tip, this will save me some Christmas money this year.

Jim Blakeley

1 Message

 • 

62 Points

Hallo, I use Photoshop CS6 and i am fully satisfied with it. Now I bought Panasonic FZ300 and Photoshop cannot open RW2  files. I tried to install Cameraraw_9_1_1, the files opened only once, when I started Photoshop once more, it couldnot open RW2 files again. V. Kral, xxvkral@seznam.cz

3 Messages

 • 

92 Points

Why should I have to convert my CR2 files to DNG when my camera is supported by the up to date Lightroom?

10 Messages

 • 

286 Points

This string no longer refers to my problem re Lightroom and my Nikon D850. Get with the program Tranberry.

223 Messages

 • 

3.5K Points

And maintain two versions of the same picture? (either in two separate files, or have the RAW embedded in the DNG)
I don't think so. Bad workaround.

Lightroom INCLUDING OLDER VERSIONS should be updated with new RAW profiles/formats. The RAW formats reader is a separate engine (hopefully) shared between at least Lightroom and Photoshop. Why can't an older Lightroom not use the newer formats, just like Photoshop can? Just use what's there, and don't impose arbitrary limits.

That, or just update older Lightroom versions as well. Forcing users to BUY an update is an what's known as a dick move.

Champion

 • 

5.9K Messages

 • 

103.9K Points

> Why can't an older Lightroom not use the newer formats

Because the camera manufacturer's don't use a standardized format for their raw files, unlike, for example, the JPEG format which is recognized regardless of which camera it comes from. Some camera manufacturers do use a standardized format, so even old versions of Lightroom work with their new cameras. You might like to talk to your camera manufacturer about the possibility of them doing the same, since they're the ones you're paying for the new camera.

Victoria Bampton a.k.a. The Lightroom Queen

www.lightroomqueen.com

Author of Adobe Lightroom Classic - The Missing FAQ and Adobe Lightroom - Edit Like a Pro books.

148 Messages

 • 

2.4K Points

I wished Adobe would also provide a converter, converting imported RAW-Files in iPad Pro to DNG.... Lightroom CC for my personal use is virtually useless since I still find JPG files created by my Lumixes are still by far not as good (DR, contrast, sharpness) as the real RAWs produced by those cameras.

33 Messages

 • 

300 Points

FIX THE ISSUES

Champion

 • 

882 Messages

 • 

19.2K Points

10 years ago

In addition, one should always use the latest version of the DNG converter, (see Jeffrey's link) and the latest version of Camera Raw available for one's Photoshop version.

90 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

10 years ago

And sometimes Adobe does not support a major technology at all, so the latest ACR or DNG converters do not help.

I would like to see Fuji's newest CMOS-EXR sensors supported in ACR so that Photoshop, Elements and Lightroom are all available to die-hard Adobe users. I've tested the new F550EXR extensively and the new sensor is a winner. The RAW files are amazing for a compact with a 1/2" sensor. See http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com for my articles (31 and counting.)

But my all-Adobe work flow is seriously hampered by Fuji's RAW being forced through its proprietary converter first before I move it to ACR6 and then CS5. It's messy and the results, in my opinion, are inferior to what they would be if I could go directly to ACR6 first and then to CS5 Elements 9 or Lightroom 3. As a long time all Adobe user, I and a lot of others would deeply appreciate support for this wonderful new sensor.

Adobe Administrator

 • 

15.4K Messages

 • 

291.4K Points

Thanks Kim. That camera is pretty new and looks like it was right on the edge of the 90 day release cycle I discuss in the article I linked to in my answer called "Why doesn't my version of Photoshop or Lightroom support my camera?" so support may still be on the way.

It never hurts to make your request as a separate Idea that folks can vote on it.

Sr. Product Manager, Adobe Digital Imaging

903 Messages

 • 

11.2K Points

Note to Jeff T.    

New cameras such as the Samsung utilize common file formats such as JPG, TIFF, RAW and will convert RAW to TIFF or JPG in the same usual way.   I searched for newer file formats and most newer cams save images in JPG, RAW or TIFF.   There is no special format on new cams, such as found on Nikon and Canon.   
Converting their file formats is as normal as with the same converter we know.   

Steve Lehman, MCSE   

90 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

10 years ago

Yes, I tried to make mine a separate idea and will again, but I was thwarted on my first try by this web site's confused login state machine.

Meanwhile, the S200EXR has a similar sensor and has never been supported by Adobe. What I am hoping is that Adobe will consider supporting the newer CMOS version of the EXR sensors (unusual pixel-paired bayer-like mask pattern, multiple modes for split sensor, multiple blend technology for dynamic range extension or low noise mode) in ACR as they have spread to five models of camera of which several have RAW support.

3 Messages

 • 

92 Points

10 years ago

PLEASE add support for samsung nx5 raw file in ACR! It is exactly the same camera, like the supported NX10 - there is difference only in lcd / amoled display, the produced raw (.srw) file is the same (but has different exif model tag) I must edit all pictures exif before I can do somethink with ACR / Photoshop

Adobe Administrator

 • 

15.4K Messages

 • 

291.4K Points

Please create a new "Idea" with the request for the Samsung Camera you need so users can vote on it.

Sr. Product Manager, Adobe Digital Imaging

7 Messages

 • 

122 Points

10 years ago

I recently got a new Nikon D7000 DSLR.
I usually use Bridge CS4 to go through my pictures, mark them and send them to Camera Raw for retouching and editing.
At first i noticed D7000 raw files were not supported, and waited for an update from Adobe. When the update arrived i realized it's for CS5 users only.
What this basically means, is that if i want to go on with my regular workflow, to which i am accustomed, i would need to upgrade to CS5.
This makes me furious at Adobe for acting like a bunch of other vicious money-squeezing corporate companies who shall rename nameless.
Furthermore, it makes me furious at myself for going out and paying a lot of money for software which will not provide me with the ability to do my work as time goes by.
It's basically the same as Adobe deciding that if you want to go on opening JPG files, you need to pay more money and upgrade. It's utterly rediculous.
If I was using a really old version like CS1 or CS2, even CS3, maybe i would have accepted this, seeing that Adobe can't really keep all legacy versions up to date.
But i'm using CS4! it's only one version back! i bought the software a little over a year ago, it can't possibly be that this suite will be worth nothing to me after so little time.
Oh, and i've heard about the solution that i can convert the files to generic raw format and then use camera raw, but this is not an acceptable solution. Adobe can't just start adding processes and wasting users' time like this.
Please make sure all new cameras are always supported in camera raw for older versions of CS.

This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
D7000 NEF Support for CS4.

90 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

It's rare in the industry that you get no support for the previous release, but DNG support technically meets the minimum bar, so you can't really say that you are not supported. But I agree that you are forced to upgrade whenever you acquire new equipment if you want to maintain the best work flow.

The counterpoint to your rather stinging rebute is that, unlike many software vendors, Adobe has managed to improve performance and features in every release of Photoshop ... especially since CS2. Every release since then has been much faster and has included features that alone are worth the couple of hundred bucks for the upgrade. YMMV of course, but it really is worth the upgrade. Specific to your issue, ACR6 is a major step forward from ACR5 in noise handling etc.

7 Messages

 • 

122 Points

I'm not saying upgrading to CS5 isn't worth it. But i can't afford an upgrade right now, so i'm forced by Adobe to introduce a new, time-consuming process into my workflow. I see no reason for a camera raw update to be available only to latest version users. I think it's discriminatory, shows a lot of disrespect to the small Adobe user, and is even somewhat unethical, considering they're basically telling me i have to upgrade my software to be able to preserve my work habits. So i'm sorry, i can't accept your arguments. Adobe software is not cheap, and i think using my camera as i'm used to is a reasonable demand. I basically feel like a sucker. I intended to upgrade in the next few months, but why should i, now that i know that one day my software will suddenly be useless to me? suddenly i may need a special new software to do a special conversion, to be able to edit files the way i'm used to, and the way they're intended to be used.
In fact, i'm surprised there aren't more angry comments on this issue.

Champion

 • 

882 Messages

 • 

19.2K Points

It has always been the case that only the current edition receives camera raw updates. Adobe does not just change a line of code, there is a lot of testing and quality assurance that should be done, and supporting older versions (how many versions back?) would cost money and time, slowing down the release of new camera raw/Lightroom updates. I do not think that other raw converter software companies act differently. Only Adobe came with the DNG route that allows users of older versions of Photoshop to open their raw files.
And Nikon does not even provide a free full-blown raw editor.

90 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

While I fully understand and agree that it is most unfortunate that you are forced to pay another couple hundred bucks to upgrade your RAW converter to handle the D7000 RAW files, there are two further points that mitigate your right to complain:

1) A tiny bit of research would have informed you of this before buying the D7000. So complaining after the fact seems somehow hollow.

2) The D5100 is about half the cost of the D7000 with the same IQ and would have allowed your budget to contain the upgrade to CS5 plus another small lens.

The latter point is especially important. You chose to buy the premium consumer body instead of the D90, D5100 or a used D300s, all of which would have allowed you to also get the upgrade to the software. And since software is half the battle, you cannot complain that you want that for free while buying an expensive body like the D7000.

My point being that your argument is very lopsided ... hammering on Adobe for making you pay 200 bucks for a very nice upgrade while giving Nikon a pass for making you pay 1200 bucks for a consumer camera body.

1.3K Messages

 • 

22.5K Points

"...while giving Nikon a pass for making you pay 1200 bucks for a consumer camera body. "

And while giving Nikon a free pass for altering its raw format and not providing DNG as an option.

62 Messages

 • 

1K Points

OMG, I just bought some Blue-ray but I don't have Blue-ray DVD player. "This makes me furious at xxx for acting like a bunch of other vicious money-squeezing corporate companies who shall rename nameless." Geez.

7 Messages

 • 

122 Points

Wow. this is just a sad thread. are you all such huge Adobe fans, that any bit of criticism is so unacceptable? I came here trying to get in touch with Adobe to let them know i'm not satisfied, and it's a part of being a smart consumer. You're all reacting as if i'm dissing Adobe for sports.
I'm not supposed to choose my camera according to the software that i will use to edit the files, and i doubt anyone checks this kind of stuff when buying a camera, these things are things you expect from a leading brand product. Adobe are presumably making the leading photo-editing software, so they have a responsibility towards photographers, to keep their software up to date, and compatible with all leading cameras and manufacturers. It's not like i'm using some weird camera by a small brand.
Furthermore, they have a responsibility towards their customers and their users, even ones that have the "ancient" CS4 version they bought "so long ago".
Had Adobe prevented use of nikon's raw format as a policy, maybe i would have blamed Nikon for altering their raw. But I've had several Nikon cameras, and have always used the same software for editing my photos. That should not change if i upgrade my equipment. I accept that it can take time to release an update, and i'm patient. but ignoring CS4 is disappointing.

D5100 is not suitable for my needs as the D7000, and Adobe should not dictate which camera i buy. They should allow support for as many cameras as they can, at least for the last couple of versions of CS.
You're all treating CS4 as if it's obsolete, but people use it. And if i used it for D70s and for a D90, there's no reason for me to have to pay Adobe to be able to use it for my D7000.

When the Adobe team made the 6.3 raw update, they had a choice whether to add its support for new cameras to CS4, but they chose to neglect these customers and not invest the time, and i believe CS4 is not old enough to be neglected just yet.

You're also all saying it's just a couple hundred bucks, well it isn't. I have the production package, so an upgrade is more expensive than that, heck, i can buy another camera with that money.

Champion

 • 

220 Messages

 • 

3.9K Points

Noam, you can use the latest DNG convertor (on this page, right hand side: http://www.adobe.com/downloads/) to convert the D7000 NEF's which will allow use with CS4. It is free.

Champion

 • 

882 Messages

 • 

19.2K Points

Noam, I am sorry if my answer was received as a critic of your post.
I really tried to show the other side of the coin. But do read carefully Andrew Rodney's answer: Pentax, Leica users get first day support for their camera, even in older versions of Camera Raw/Lightroom or another converter that would support DNG completely, because those brands decided to support the open standard that Thomas Knoll, the man behind Photoshop and the Camera Raw engine, created.

Adobe Administrator

 • 

15.4K Messages

 • 

291.4K Points

9 years ago

Hi Naom,

We hear you. Did you read my entire article Why doesn't my version of Photoshop or Lightroom support my camera?

I tried to cover most of the concerns that users have around camera support. The last section is especially devoted to users like yourself.

Similar to our users, the Digital Imaging teams at Adobe have limited time and resources. From my article:

"It’s untenable to keep updating previous versions of the Adobe Camera Raw plug-in going back to CS2 to support new cameras/raw formats in a timely fashion. Using the DNG converter is the fastest way to deliver backwards compatibility to ALL users (CS2, CS3, CS4, Lightroom 1 & 2, as well as 3rd party apps that support DNG). This allows us to support the greatest number of customers and cameras as possible."

I encourage all users visiting the feedback site read the Welcome to the Photoshop Family Feedback Site - Getting Started & FAQ and to review the Community Guidelines and Company & Customer Pact.

Sr. Product Manager, Adobe Digital Imaging

7 Messages

 • 

122 Points

Hi Jeffrey, Thanks for your reply.
I did read your article. I also work at a software company, so i understand supporting previous versions is not magic, and people have to work on it and that it takes time and resources. However, you are talking about backwards support going back to CS2, i'm just talking about supporting one previous version. I think it really makes a lot of sense, as i'm sure it's not a small percentage of users that use this version. As i said in my posts, i don't think it's old enough to be discarded. I understand the DNG solution is the easiest for you, but as a user, it's not a comfortable one. Copying my photos and opening them straight in camera raw is quick and easy, and i wouldn't want to add another step in between. Obviously, this is what i will do, because i'm left no other choice, until i upgrade my CS. But i really think buying CS4 entitles me to 2-3 years without the expense of HAVING to upgrade. For my personal home use i don't feel i need to upgrade every year.

3 Messages

 • 

90 Points

Dear Jeffrey,

I am working as an artist using the CS4 creative suite. As well as the edit- and animationsoftware, a suitable computer and video and photo-equipment and so on and so forth. When I can afford it I invest in updates or equipment. And o, silly me, I recently exchanged my Nikon D50 for a D7000. So after some hours I ended up in this thread.
It is very frustrating indeed.
I do understand I have to invest every 3 to 5 years in one end of the workflow I built in order to keep up with technical developments, but I do not understand at all why I would HAVE to invest so much money on a yearly basis, just to be able to continue doing what was already doing. And with which I am perfectly happy the way it is working. A plugin update is in no balance with an CS4 suite update.
It is not a stupid question to ask to make a raw-plugin compatible with one previous version of your software.
Adobe's limited sources are understandable, but are you saying that your customers earnings are limitless?? You are totally mistaken!

7 Messages

 • 

122 Points

Hear, hear, Conny. I'm glad i'm not the only one with this story here who thinks this is inappropriate.

946 Messages

 • 

13.8K Points

"but I do not understand at all why I would HAVE to invest so much money on a yearly basis, just to be able to continue doing what was already doing. "

Let me be blunt. Use Lightroom.

Updates are every 1.5-2 years, and cost under a hundred dollars. Use it for all your raw processing. There's just no need to have Camera Raw at all if you are using Lightroom. If you can afford a D7000, you can afford 50 to 67 dollars a year for Lightroom updates.

If you really need to do pixel edits, render your images in Lightroom and go to PS for the edits. That will work with any version of PS. Heck, I was using Lightroom 3.x (brand new) with Elements 3.0 (six versions old)! Now I have Elements 9 for pixel editing - plenty of power there - but if you really need CS, then keep your old version and just use the latest version of Lightroom for raw processing.

2.1K Messages

 • 

32.2K Points

Hello Conny,

These updates are not just about adding new cameras; new features and bug fixes are added as well, which are not always going to be compatible with the previous versions.

Adobe Administrator

 • 

15.4K Messages

 • 

291.4K Points

Conny and Noa,

"... I do not understand at all why I would HAVE to invest so much money on a yearly basis, just to be able to continue doing what was already doing."

Looks like you did not read the entire article: You don't have to invest anything. Use the FREE Adobe DNG Converter for the latest camera support using your older version of Photoshop.

I also cover why we don't update the ACR plug-in on older versions of Photoshop in the article as well:

The problem with supporting Adobe Camera Raw plug-in updates for legacy version of Photoshop and Lightroom is camera manufacturers insist on creating a new proprietary raw format each time they come out with a new camera – and new cameras are coming out faster and in greater volume. If camera manufactures either settled on a single raw format for their brand of cameras or just used DNG it would make compatibility a non-issue.

It’s untenable to keep updating previous versions of the Adobe Camera Raw plug-in going back to CS2 to support new cameras/raw formats in a timely fashion. Using the DNG converter is the fastest way to deliver backwards compatibility to ALL users (CS2, CS3, CS4, Lightroom 1 & 2, as well as 3rd party apps that support DNG). This allows us to support the greatest number of customers and cameras as possible.


There are limited resources. Updating older version of the plug-in would be at the expense of supporting fewer cameras and longer turnarounds for the cameras we can support which would be a less favorable scenario.

Sr. Product Manager, Adobe Digital Imaging

3 Messages

 • 

90 Points

@Lee,

"Let me be blunt. Use Lightroom."
Thank you for your suggestion, but no I am not going to: please don not tell me to change a way of working that is working fine for years and years. You are projecting your own solution for your workflow on me.

@Brett and Jeffrey,

Thanks for your reply. It is not that I don't understand your arguments. The point is that using the free Adobe DNG converter seems a 'gaffertape-solution' to me. I commented on this thread, because I hope some day developers like yourselves, could help out on your part of this update-mania that seems to have taken over. As a high-end user I am trying to keep the number of parameters limited to a number I can manage without 'compromising my workflow' and it turns out this is impossible no matter how much effort I put into this. We still have hardware, software, equipment, cables, protocols, storagedevices that keep on changing 'standards' faster and faster: at the moment the industry seems not to be able to define 'standards' that last for more than a year.

It's nobody's fault, but it's everybody's burden.

That must be frustrating for you as developers as well as it is certainly frustrating for me, because a want to make beautiful images and animations...
No wizard, nor nerd aspirations here ;-))

1.8K Messages

 • 

21.6K Points

>It's nobody's fault, but it's everybody's burden.

No its clearly someone’s fault. The people (manufacturers) who continue to force a proprietary file format on us for every new camera. Funny, no issue what so ever if you want to pull a JPEG out of that shiny new product.

Author “Color Management for Photographers"

Champion

 • 

2.6K Messages

 • 

33.7K Points

"Innovation" not "fault". What you're trying to blame the manufacturer's for is changing something about the sensor or other camera hardware and software since the very first RAW format was developed. I, for one, would rather see improvements and choose when to upgrade my camera and the software to process the images.

1.8K Messages

 • 

21.6K Points

Not so. There is no reason why the manufacturers are kept from innovating and still writing an open format. Private tags are available for proprietary stuff the manufacturers could only access in their converters while allowing those who don’t care to render the DNG in a legacy Adobe or other converter. Again, they don’t innovate when the camera writes its JPEG but does when you ask for your raw data? The argument doesn’t wash.

Author “Color Management for Photographers"

Champion

 • 

2.6K Messages

 • 

33.7K Points

Following “open standards” takes time and slows things down, and as the standards evolve then different players will be supporting different versions and not everything will work.

A case-in-point from discussions on here the last few months, was one of the high-end DNG-producing cameras that a division of the German military produces the software for. The DNGs produced by the camera are modified by Adobe software which updates the DNG to a newer standard than the camera’s own software recognizes. Who’s fault is that: the German army for not supporting the latest DNG standard as soon as Adobe roles it out or Adobe for assuming it can do what it wants with a file in DNG format? The DNG standard may be open, but the manufacturers interpret it as they please, and Adobe seems to feel they “own” it enough to modify images in incompatible ways. Adobe might be seen as to blame whenever they don’t transparently support all versions of DNG with any of their software, and they clearly don’t.

All the complaints about Adobe not supporting new cameras with old software, even this open-standards argument, boil down to finding other people at “fault” whenever they don’t do what you want so that you can get things for free—having everyone pay for the benefit you are receiving. Despite its popularity, not everyone agrees with this philosophy.

When there is a one-world government that can dictate how all cameras have to work, then you’ll get what you say you want, but also be stuck with whatever everyone can agree on. It would be a lot easier just to outlaw cameras, though, especially if pictures are against the religion of those in power.

1.8K Messages

 • 

21.6K Points

>Following “open standards” takes time and slows things down.

Even if that’s true, I don’t care. I’m the customer, the image data is my data. I don’t want a proprietary format. The comment also doesn’t explain how JPEG implementation has never been an issue. Nor that DNG is a format that’s been developed, used, utilized by other manufacturers of camera systems and is openly documented (and from what I hear from engineers, pretty easy to deal with, being a variant of TIFF). It cost the virtually manufactures nothing to implement.

>Who’s fault is that: the German army for not supporting the latest DNG standard as soon as Adobe roles it out or Adobe for assuming it can do what it wants with a file in DNG format?

I’d say so yes.

>When there is a one-world government that can dictate how all cameras have to work, then you’ll get what you say you want

Actually it would be a lot easier if customers who knew more about what they were purchasing and the ramifications of proprietary file formats made a big enough stink that the two main manufactures who still force proprietary raws on us just put a simple switch on the camera: JPEG/DNG/NEF (or CRW). This is NOT a technological issue one bit, its totally political. As long as customers complain about Adobe’s older raw processors not working with the newest proprietary raw, get a clue, and place the blame where it belongs, the sooner we’ll get that switch (and hopefully another switch that shows us the damn raw histogram instead of the joke they show on the LCD, but that’s another story and rang).

Author “Color Management for Photographers"

Champion

 • 

2.6K Messages

 • 

33.7K Points

You won’t get that switch with a DNG option on the camera. As you said it’s political, and the ideas that provide the most political gain will win. Political power comes from either a large monopoly of power, or a vast convergence of thought from the masses, neither of which are behind DNG.

Cameras produce JPGs because the internet was dialup-slow is the short answer. The slightly longer answer is that cameras produce JPGs because the internet and computers were slow at the point that the masses started using both because of the commercialization of the internet, which was before cameras started being mass produced, the timing of which probably has to do with the US prosperity of the 80s and the initial 2000s and the cheapness of foreign labor and international shipping which continues to this day.

The same sort of market forces are not on the side of DNGs, and a few of the smaller camera manufacturers have decided to forego doing their own RAW format in lieu of what someone else provides, and they might have picked one of the Nikon or Canon formats except those are not public, so they went with the next best thing.

DNG-format isn’t something that either a dictator is mandating nor the masses are clamoring for, and as such is a niche format, as much as some of us RAW-philes would like things to be different.

1.8K Messages

 • 

21.6K Points

>Political power comes from either a large monopoly of power, or a vast convergence of thought from the masses, neither of which are behind DNG.

Well I’d like to think that if the vast majority of Canon and Nikon users made a stink, or if one or the other company really felt that implanting the switch would provide a big competitive advantage, we’d get that switch. But since you admit its not a tech issue, we can move past the discussion of implementing DNG as being to slow or not providing the innovation as a reason we don’t (yet) have the switch. In my mind, those are just excuses.

>DNG-format isn’t something that either a dictator is mandating nor the masses are clamoring for...

One reason is the masses need to be educated (duh). Its evident here in this thread in that Adobe is getting blamed for not having the ability to support a legacy proprietary format! The role of some is to educate them such that maybe someday, the masses have a bloody clue and things change. My god, its happening in Arabic countries as we speak (Arab Spring). Eventually, one can hope people get a clue, then change can happen.

Or we can continue to excuse the major camera manufacturers in holding our data hostage and misdirecting our discontent at a company like Adobe that has done the opposite, provided a robust and useful alternatives.

Author “Color Management for Photographers"

Champion

 • 

2.6K Messages

 • 

33.7K Points

There is no vast user base of Nikon and Canon users clamoring for RAW format instead of JPG--analogues to the Arab Spring are not valid because JPG people don't feel they are severely oppressed by a tyrant needing to escape--on the contrary, DNG would entail an oppressive amount of work and JPGs are preferable for most, and there is no large subset of RAW-format users clamoring for DNGs, either, so you can wish all you want, but it won't happen. Canon and Nikon are competing on image quality and can only do that by comparing JPG processing. If both manufacturers produced DNGs that could be compared, easily, it would remove their ability to hide the imperfections being noise-reduction and auto-toning tricks.

3 Messages

 • 

90 Points

@ Andrew
Do you mean that Adobe as well as Nikon and Canon are to compare with a tyrant? Hmm, interesting.
Please stick to the subject.

"One reason is the masses need to be educated (duh)."
No matter how deep I dig into the techspecs; in the Nikon manual I never found any text like: note - the newest (altered) RAW version will not be compatible with the all the (rather new) software you are using.
But that is not a discussion I want to start here, for it does not belong here.

Then again: the question of implementing a plugin that solves this in your latest version of the software CS5 ass well as one version below that CS4 is not a rude question. That is where this discussion started, right?
The Adobe site offers no information whatsoever on why it did not make this plugin compatible with CS4 (like bugfixes-issues etcetera (Brett N.) Please educate me on that...
Adobe communicates the plugin is non-compatible with earlier versions than CS5 and advises to either update a whole suite or to gaffer-tape with a DNG-converter until you update.
That is what you get the blame for: I think this is a very very poor solution for such a professional piece of software.

It's nobody's fault, but it's everybody's burden.
All you guys (software houses and manufacturers altogether) are world leading companies making as much profits as possible on new developments. Fair enough; but so far for the 'educating the masses' then. For you will never give the mass full insight in what arguments are used for deciding when develop updates and for whom.
You can not blame us, costumers in general, for choosing to work with a variety of what the world market is offering with noting more then the information of your own advertisements. And yes, sometimes this plugin-shit makes us pissed. For you are getting payed for all your time you put in development. I don't get payed for all the time I am spending to solve all technical issues caused by all these changes 'for the best of technical development' over and over again. So I get furious if I read that I am being advised to update a whole suite in order to be able to install a plugin or to convert all my raw data!
Let's keep things in perspective please.

Pointing fingers is bringing nobody nowhere; in a worldwide effort to develop higher digital technical quality for an affordable price you need all players in the field.

90 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

@Jeffrey -- this comment is often repeated:

> It’s untenable to keep updating previous versions of the Adobe Camera
> Raw plug-in going back to CS2 to support new cameras/raw formats in a
> timely fashion. Using the DNG converter is the fastest way to deliver
> backwards compatibility to ALL users (CS2, CS3, CS4, Lightroom 1 & 2,
> as well as 3rd party apps that support DNG). This allows us to support the
> greatest number of customers and cameras as possible.
>
> There are limited resources. Updating older version of the plug-in would
> be at the expense of supporting fewer cameras and longer turnarounds for
> the cameras we can support which would be a less favorable scenario."

There is little credibility attributed to such statements. We are talking about photoshop and ACR, an application and a plugin whose interfaces have changed little or not at all in a decade. Yet Adobe insists on tying the latest version of each together and disabling the launching of the latest version of ACR with any older version of photoshop, even the minus 1 version, for which such support should be a given.

Since the newest version of ACR always understands the latest cameras, we are simply talking about allowing the launching of the latest ACR on the computer from any version of Bridge and with some number of backversions of photoshop. A trivial technical exercise (unless the software is entirely incompetent, and I am certain that is not true.)

So this is simply a marketing decision. The DNG solution is the salve for the wound, and of course removes all possibility of legal challenge.

So far I have been happy to pay the freight because Adobe have been cleverly dripping excellent new features and performance improvements into each generation since Photoshop 7. But to purport that you have to modify older versions of the plugin to support newer cameras just mitigates Adobe's credibility.

1.8K Messages

 • 

21.6K Points

> Do you mean that Adobe as well as Nikon and Canon are to compare with a tyrant?

No I don’t mean that, I never said that.

>No matter how deep I dig into the techspecs; in the Nikon manual I never found any text like: note - the newest (altered) RAW version will not be compatible with the all the (rather new) software you are using.

Ah, so the Nikon manual is the extent of the research on this topic you feel covers everything relevant to that issue?

>The Adobe site offers no information whatsoever on why it did not make this plugin compatible with CS4 (like bugfixes-issues etcetera (Brett N.) Please educate me on that...

For the same reason you can’t use Content Aware anything in CS2! Or soft proofing in Photoshop 4. Or layers in Photoshop 2.5.

> You can not blame us, costumers in general, for choosing to work with a variety of what the world market is offering with noting more then the information of your own advertisements.

Advertisements? I’m sorry, first you put words in my mouth. Then you imply that everything you ever need to know about raw format issues should be found in the Nikon manual. Then you ask why old software products don’t have all the provisions of newer software. Lastly you ask me not to blame consumers for not demanding of their producers better solutions and bring up something about advertisements. Forgive me, your post is unintelligible and not worthy of further response.

Author “Color Management for Photographers"

946 Messages

 • 

13.8K Points

"Since the newest version of ACR always understands the latest cameras, we are simply talking about allowing the launching of the latest ACR on the computer from any version of Bridge and with some number of backversions of photoshop. A trivial technical exercise (unless the software is entirely incompetent, and I am certain that is not true.) "

Wow...that's just remarkable. The authors tell you something about the code they write and you tell them you don't believe them.

Have you considered other possibilities like, say, that a new version is developed in a different development environment in order to support new OSs and new features such as CUDA etc., and that back-supporting previous versions would require them to maintain two development and QA environments simultaneously?

90 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

@Lee Jay -- I've been around the block many times with software development projects of huge scale and I know what should be possible. If you feel otherwise, that is your right.

1.8K Messages

 • 

21.6K Points

>I've been around the block many times with software development projects of huge scale and I know what should be possible.

Your experience has absolutely no bearing on understanding or commenting on the validly of what the Adobe engineers have said about their code, and if you feel otherwise its your right. But the validity of the comment is nill.

Author “Color Management for Photographers"

90 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

ACR runs inside three applications right now -- Photoshop, Photoshop Elements, Lightroom ... the issues in adapting to those environments are almost certainly one or two orders of magnitude larger than the issues with running in CS5 *and* CS4.

Further, there are numerous 3rd party plugins out there (e.g. PTLens) that seem to work just fine against essentially any version of these Adobe applications and quite a few others as well.

Do you think that these people are performing rocket science that Adobe engineers are incapable of?

Those shouting me down ... have your fun, but think a bit more critically about what I've just written and see if the dice don't come up "marketing choice."

1.8K Messages

 • 

21.6K Points

>ACR runs inside three applications right now -- Photoshop, Photoshop Elements, Lightroom ...

You better do a bit more homework with a reply like that, especially with respect to Lightroom. If what you imply were true, everyone using Lightroom would have to have Photoshop installed (and thus ACR installed) and that’s absolutely not the case nor necessary. Further, if you have a newer version of LR than ACR, guess what happens when you ask for example, for 2010PV? LR tells you it has to process that data because you have an old version of ACR. Go ahead, trash Photoshop and ACR, LR will gladly process the data using its newer engine.

>Further, there are numerous 3rd party plugins out there (e.g. PTLens) that seem to work just fine against essentially any version of these Adobe applications and quite a few others as well.

ALL those 3rd party plug-in’s simply call ACR or LR (and LR doesn’t need ACR in this context or elsewhere) to render the data after which they do their thing. Without ACR or the LR engine which has to undergo updates, the 3rd party products can’t do squat. They have zero access to the ACR engine.

>Do you think that these people are performing rocket science that Adobe engineers are incapable of?

No, I think (I know) they ask Adobe and their engineers to do the rocket science and hand them rendered data.

No one is shouting you down. Some are asking you to get your facts straight, sorry.

Author “Color Management for Photographers"

90 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

@Andrew

> You better do a bit more homework with a reply like that, especially
> with respect to Lightroom. If what you imply were true, everyone using
> Lightroom would have to have Photoshop installed (and thus ACR
> installed) and that’s absolutely not the case nor necessary.

I neither said nor implied that LR would need Photoshop to be installed. LR is actually a red herring in this discussion, but ACR and Lightroom do share a heritage, LR having both ACR and Pixmantec code merged together. Or so I have read. LR also used the ACR cache and finally, ACR and LR updates are always released simultaneously.

But ... this is obscuring the fact that there is no technical reason (other than artificial) why two ends of a protocol cannot be updated independently. Especially a protocol that is as simple as passing image data. That protocol has likely not changed in a decade or more.

You are choosing to pick nits instead of clearly articulating why you agree that it is simply too difficult to allow a newer version ACR to pass a processed image to photoshop.

Anyway, say what you will ... only Adobe knows why things are how they are. And what the public reads is what Adobe wants the public to think ... try not to forget that.

I will continue to buy every upgrade to CS because it has always been worthwhile to me. But not everyone shares that feeling about Adobe products. And I certainly think that have a perfectly legitimate point, at least as far as N-1 support of camera formats is concerned.

1.8K Messages

 • 

21.6K Points

>I neither said nor implied that LR would need Photoshop to be installed.

You wrote clearly: ACR runs inside three applications right now -- Photoshop, Photoshop Elements, Lightroom ...

Is this a different Lightroom product from Adobe? ACR is part of Photoshop. ACR does not run inside of LR.

> LR is actually a red herring in this discussion...

How so? You first brought it up. Its not immune from the issues of proprietary raw files that need updating and which DNG helps solve.

> Especially a protocol that is as simple as passing image data. That protocol has likely not changed in a decade or more.

That’s nonsense! There’s a huge difference in image processing between ACR 4 and ACR 5 just in terms of PV 2003 vs. 2010. The demosaicing algorithms are totally different. You really, really need to study up.

>only Adobe knows why things are how they are

Exactly, you finally understand and admit your post to Lee Jay (I've been around the block many times with software development projects of huge scale and I know what should be possible) is as nonsensical as your ideas about Adobe raw processing.

Author “Color Management for Photographers"

90 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

@Andrew

>> Especially a protocol that is as simple as passing image data.
>> That protocol has likely not changed in a decade or more.

> That’s nonsense! There’s a huge difference in image processing
> between ACR 4 and ACR 5 just in terms of PV 2003 vs. 2010. The
> demosaicing algorithms are totally different. You really, really need
> to study up.

Where exactly do you think the NEF file goes to get demosiaced? Into ACR. That's where it all happens. By the time it is fully processed using ACR's features, it is an in memory image and can be passed across the threshold to photoshop for further processing.

That you don't see this tells me that you have no inherent feel for how software is typically architected.

>> only Adobe knows why things are how they are

> Exactly, you finally understand and admit your post to Lee Jay (I've been
> around the block many times with software development projects of huge
> scale and I know what should be possible) is as nonsensical as your ideas
> about Adobe raw processing.

No ... you misunderstand. Only Adobe knows why they have chosen to disable the obvious compatibility feature.

That you choose to focus on me instead of the actual software architecture tells me that you are one of those forum warriors who wants to stray into ad hominem territory (as you have a couple of times now) and in fact has no experience in this area. I frankly don't care either way because debating with mr. ad hominem is always a colossal waste of time.

1.8K Messages

 • 

21.6K Points

>Where exactly do you think the NEF file goes to get demosiaced? Into ACR.

Or Lightroom (or some other converter). What’s your point?

>No ... you misunderstand. Only Adobe knows why they have chosen to disable the obvious compatibility feature.

They haven’t disabled anything. ACR 4 can’t possibly know or use features that are later coded into ACR 5. The conspiracy grassy knoll theory doesn’t wash.

The issue is simple. Newer cameras come onto the market that are not supported in older versions of ACR because they can’t possibly know how to deal with them (they were not released when that version was written). If you have an older version, and you don’t want to upgrade, you convert to DNG because its an open format. Just as ACR in older versions can still handle a TIFF or JPEG. If you want to use a non DNG, the proprietary format that is newer than the older version of ACR, you have to upgrade. You seem to think Adobe should give away newer versions of ACR which is ridiculous. They are no more expected to give CS4 users the CS5 version of ACR than they are going to give them CS5!

>That you choose to focus on me instead of the actual software architecture tells me that you are one of those forum warriors who wants to stray into ad hominem territory ...

All I’m focusing on in terms of your posts are the silly, non salient and incorrect text you wrote. You said ACR is in LR which is blatantly incorrect. You told Lee Jay that based on your wealth of software experience, you know more than the Adobe engineers who told you the facts of their product. Your a legend in your own mind!

Until you can come up with correct, salient, intelligent text in the forums, there is little reason to reply. Yes, its a colossal waste of time, for once we agree!

Author “Color Management for Photographers"

90 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

@Andrew: Last response. You are entertaining, I must admit. But this discussion is pointless. So let me be very clear and then you can say any fatuous thing you like. Free pass.

1) I have not discussed at all whether older versions of ACR should support newer cameras. In fact they should not. Why? Because they do not need to. It is a simple matter to connect the newest ACR to an older CS. Adobe simply do not allow that to happen.

2) No one is advocating "giving away" ACR or Photoshop. What a ludicrous thought. Supporting new RAW formats on a software package for which upwards of $600 has been laid out in the first place is called "supporting the customer" ...

3) Changes in the internals of a plugin -- the demosaicing algorithm for the next RAW format to come along is a great example -- have no effect on the eventual transfer of an in-memory image to CS. This is called loose coupling if you are interested. It uses a "contract" at the interface and the plugin is treated by the application as a "black box" ... if you are interested. A little discipline is all it would take to make it all work just peachy. That is, if someone wanted it to work.

4) Stringing together half the dictionary to further your puerile ad hominem rant adds no credibility to your posts.

I find no evidence that having this conversation with you is different in any way from having it with the wall behind my monitor. My wall is not as adept with a dictionary, I will grant you that. I therefore leave you to pick your nits and enjoy your fantasies. Adieu.

15.1K Messages

 • 

195.8K Points

>> It is a simple matter to connect the newest ACR to an older CS.

No, that is not the case. The newest ACR may use new APIs, may be written for newer OS versions, newer compilers, newer architectures, etc.

Andrew is right.

And yes, you're asking for the unreasonable.

90 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

@Chris: You are positing a new API between the application and the plugin, because what the plugin does with the OS etc is irrelevant.

The API for this plugin is largely designed to accept a file name and then pass an in memory demosaiced image. I see no rocket science at all. A simple contract at that interface and it just works.

If new API is needed, it can be handled any number of ways ... a second interface that is not mandatory is one common method. In this example, ACR defaults to using only the original interface if necessary.

It is just silly to have a conversation in which you guys constantly give up because *maybe* Adobe screwed up their architecture so thoroughly that they cannot perform the obvious.

15.1K Messages

 • 

195.8K Points

No, I'm talking about OS APIs (which are not irrelevant). But yes, the plugin could also use new APIs with the application.
Um, ACR has a lot of UI, plus memory management. It's far from simple.

Sorry, but it's a lot more work than you seem to realize. Again, you are asking for something unreasonable.

90 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

@Chris: Yes, ACR has a lot of GUI. But it does not seem to share any of the GPU improvements in photoshop's UI. For example, the flick does not work to throw the image around in 100% mode as it does in photoshop. This tells me that the UI is *not* managed across that plugin API boundary. That would be a nasty architectural choice anyway (each using the same rendering code works far better in such a case, and they obviously do not anyway.)

As for memory management, I do recall a conversation with the author of one of the more commonly used plugins on that topic when I asked him to update it for 64 bit photoshop. He said that he makes calls to photoshop across that boundary for memory allocation, which is why a simple recompilation to go to 64bit architecture was not quite adequate. But he made the fix in a matter of days anyway. ACR does have a separate cache from photoshop, indicating that they do not share all that much otherwise.

This other plugin also has a lot of GUI. It does all the same things as ACR when it comes to displaying GUI panels and rendering the image. And yet I do not have to download a new version when I buy a new version of photoshop. It just continues working. Has all along. In fact, I am quite sure that I could mix and match versions of the plugin and versions of photoshop and it would all just work, so long as I respected the 32bit / 64bit dichotomy. I actually use several plugins about which I can say all of this.

The whole point I am making is that all the rocket science inside ACR is self contained. The NR algorithms, the sharpening algorithms, the demosaicing and so on. It is generally better than the equivalents in photoshop, which tells us all that ACR shares little code with the host application and acts like a true plugin. And since there are several examples of similar plugins with all sorts of GUI, in fact it does not take a crystal ball to divine that ACR could almost certainly act as the rest do and simply work when mixed and matched with host versions.

Thus, I believe that there is nothing unreasonable in what I am suggesting.

I do understand that the cost might simply be too high to shoe horn such flexibility into your software. There are many technical mistakes that can create an inflexible architecture. The builds could be linked to closely, version management could be a mess. But none of these reasons entails some sort of insurmountable technical difficulty.

Software engineers and architects are in fact paid quite well precisely because they are able to solve such problems. And it they are actually not able, then that is an issue with the team or the software itself, not the problem's inherent complexity.

Tom DeMarco and Tim Lister have measured over the years the quality of software teams. There is a 14:1 difference in productivity between the best and the worst, which affects everything the team does. I refuse to believe that Adobe's team is at the low end of the scale and cannot solve such issues as backwards compatibility of plugins. One man shops have solved it just fine with similar GUI and memory management architectures.

I think it would serve better to just say "we cannot do it for undisclosed reasons" instead of "you are being unreasonable" ... why not just leave it at that?

And for the record -- I am not technically asking for anything. I have been clear that I have so far been willing to pay the freight for each upgrade. I like these applications and I think they are evolving very nicely, if slowly.

946 Messages

 • 

13.8K Points

Sure, it's technically possible, but they've decided their quite limited time is better spent improving the product (ACR) and developing new products (Lightroom, Carousel) than it is supporting EOL'd products. I agree, especially since the whole situation is caused by the camera manufacturers' failure to adopt DNG (with a couple of notable exceptions) and the fact that they provide - FOR FREE - a way around that failure that works very well and provides exactly the functionality being asked for.

90 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

@Lee Jay: Of course. We all understand that. I was merely explaining why the statements we were seeing that implied that it was too complex, or too difficult in a technical sense were not in fact accurate. In fact it is very much technically feasible. The lack of interoperability across versions is a *choice* ...

And yes, one can manage two sets of originals ... RAW and DNG and leave it at that. It's a big pain, but it works. The key is to accept the conversion and storage overhead up front. And to accept the delays inherent in converting every image after downloading it.

1.8K Messages

 • 

21.6K Points

>I agree, especially since the whole situation is caused by the camera manufacturers' failure to adopt DNG (with a couple of notable exceptions) and the fact that they provide - FOR FREE - a way around that failure that works very well and provides exactly the functionality being asked for.

Exactly. Its odd that so many don’t get that fact and would rather argue with the engineering team (Kim should probably read the Photoshop splash screen before arguing again with Chris). There is a problem caused by the camera manufacturers, fixed for free by Adobe, yet Adobe gets the heat. Some people just don’t think objectively.

Author “Color Management for Photographers"

90 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

@Andrew. I know I said you would get a free pass. Maybe next time. I am looking at things perfectly objectively. I know what is possible and what should be possible. I know that this issue is an engineering and/or marketing choice.

Fixing something for free that should not be broken in the first place does not justify the accolades you give it. I can see, though, that you are an Adobe apologist and are easily dazzled by names on splash screens.

And I have already agreed that DNG works. It is a bit painful, but it works.

Yet since it is so easy to keep the DNG converter up to date alongside ACR and LR, stop and think a moment about how difficult it would be to do the same thing for ACR 5 in addition to ACR 6 and the DNG converter. We're only talking about the addition of another few cameras to a library of hundreds after all.

The answer is that it would not be difficult at all. But I am not even preaching that solution, because it is even less work (IMO) to allow ACR 6 to work with CS4.

Champion

 • 

882 Messages

 • 

19.2K Points

And as far as I know, there is no Pixmantec code in Lightroom.

1.8K Messages

 • 

21.6K Points

>And I have already agreed that DNG works. It is a bit painful, but it works.

Been using DNG since day one, with LR before it was released, not a pain at all. Would it be less painful if my Canon’s would save off a DNG from the camera itself? Yes, on the day the camera is released, before Adobe has to hack the proprietary format and update the DNG converter.

The crux of the original complaint way at the top of the thread is that someone has a new camera that isn’t supported by Adobe and we can thank the manufacturer for that pain. Once the DNG converter is updated and one downloads the FREE product, problem solved. Once the user pays for an upgrade to ACR or LR which they should do for the additional functionality and improvements, problem solved. This is not difficult at all. What is difficult is having a shiny new camera system and a proprietary raw file you can’t use in your converter of choice and that is solely due to the manufacturer. I simply can’t explain this any more simply to you. Its got NOTHING to do with Adobe who will eventually fix the pain caused by the manufacturer either with a free or upgraded product.

Author “Color Management for Photographers"

90 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

@PECourtejoie: I qualified that with "or so I have read" ... if what I read was wrong, then I stand corrected. But I note that you qualified it with "as far as I know" so what we really have here is two competing speculations :-)

90 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

@Andrew: At least try to get into others' heads before you apologize for Adobe yet again. You use DNG and feel no pain. Yet everyone else has to change from this workflow:

1) Download from camera in Bridge (or LR).
2) Launch images directly into ACR/CS or work in LR

to this workflow:

1) Download from camera in Bridge (or LR).
2) Leave Bridge (LR) and make a backup copy or the originals somewhere else. (Skip the backup if you cannot possibly imagine a scenario where you cannot recover them from the DNG files.)
3) Run converter to DNG.
4) Go back to Bridge and now you can launch images directly into ACR/CS or work in LR

Note: Don't nitpick the LR workflow ... I don't have LR, but there must be something similar that has to happen.

Most would consider switching from the former to the latter as a bit of a pain. Some would consider it a monumental PITA. I would never agree to make that change, yet there may come a day when I can no longer afford the constant upgrades to avoid it.

The rest of your apology is part of a continuing stream of nonsense that pins the issue on all manufacturers. If they would just adopt DNG the world will be a better place. There is no answer for that fantasy because it is just that. I suspect that Adobe could fix this problem for at least N-1 in a heartbeat, so this FREE solution is what we call a "work around" or possibly a "kludge" in the business.

Your loyalty is admirable, but your logic is not.

1.8K Messages

 • 

21.6K Points

>At least try to get into others' heads before you apologize for Adobe yet again

At least try to learn to correctly use Adobe products and understand logical workflow before you complain about the process. Your steps are both sentimentally incorrect and illogical. As for the saying “most would consider this or that“ you mean you and based on an ineffective workflow and understanding of the products.

Really, this is pointless. You argue with people who know vastly more about engineering and coding than you do. You make completely stupid rants such as “We are talking about photoshop and ACR, an application and a plugin whose interfaces have changed little or not at all in a decade“. That is just blatantly wrong. You say ACR runs inside Lightroom, that’s also absolutely not the case. In short, you don’t have a clue about what you are talking about. When shown this fact, you ignore it and go on another tangent that is equally filled with misinformation. Move on. Go educate yourself and if possible, once you have some clue how these products work, maybe come back and attempt to post something useful. You are just wasting our time. After X number of your posts, its pretty clear to me, and I suspect others that you simply have no idea what you are writing about and based on viewing your web site, don’t have the chops to be auguring with anyone here.

Author “Color Management for Photographers"

90 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

@Andrew. I see that we are back to your descent into ad hominem attacks. I try to refrain from ad hominem on the Internet but frankly, your points (and sometimes entire posts) are fatuous and your puerile choice to denigrate my web site (and I presume you meant my blog) simply underscores a lack of arguments of any substance. That you don't see how your ranting and lashing out reflects on you is a big part of the problem as far as I can tell. Adobe must be cringing to have you as their chief apologist.

15.1K Messages

 • 

195.8K Points

>> Thus, I believe that there is nothing unreasonable in what I am suggesting.

"Go to moon, get rock. How hard can that be"?

Unless you work on Photoshop and the ACR team, you don't know how difficult it would be. Someone who does work on those teams is telling you that it is unreasonably difficult just from a technical perspective (heck, just keeping old machines and OSes running that long is a heck of a challenge). That's ignoring the effort that would be put into supporting older versions of the application *instead* of working on newer features and support for new OSes and new hardware (and supporting old versions can be a lot of effort).

Andrew seems to be the one with logic and facts on his side.

946 Messages

 • 

13.8K Points

"Yet since it is so easy to keep the DNG converter up to date alongside ACR and LR, stop and think a moment about how difficult it would be to do the same thing for ACR 5 in addition to ACR 6 and the DNG converter. "

They have to keep the DNG converter up to date anyway because that functionality is integrated into the other products (like Lightroom's import screen). Thus, that's not much additional effort.

Keeping the Camera Raw plugin up to date the same way is also not a problem for the same reason (Lightroom's Develop module, etc.).

The problem is keeping two versions of the same plugin - one that works with the new processing and the new applications and one that works with the old processing and the old applications. They would have to keep the old code, the old version control, the old development environment and the old testing procedures, and they'd have to update the code twice and test the code twice (or three times if you include CS3, or four times if you include CS2), for each dot-release of Camera Raw, four times a year. That's a big duplication of effort whereas using the DNG approach isn't.

90 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

@Chris: "go to moon, get rock" is cute and funny, but also specious. There is no way that allowing an N-1 compatibility is akin to the Apollo 11 mission, and to even make the suggestion in jest (and you do not appear to be jesting) smacks of desperation and disrespect for others' intellects. Not just mine, but all of your customers.

You purport that I am suggesting some sort of matrix where *every* version of the two applications must interoperate, and that is simply ridiculous. I have never suggested that you actually make that a reality. That ship has obviously sailed. But I *have* said that they could *probably* interoperate if there was sufficient discipline in the architecture. Again, that ship has sailed.

To make this perfectly clear yet again:

I am suggesting that ACR 6 should be loadable by CS4. Nothing more. N-1 camera compatibility is all anyone is really asking for ... that would be enough to satisfy almost anyone.

In other words: force us to spend a few hundred bucks on an upgrade every 3 to 4 years instead of every 18 to 24 months ...

If you actually *had* a technical argument why ACR cannot load in CS4, perhaps because of API compatibility (which does not affect any of my other plugins by the way), then there is still the almost trivial possibility of releasing an update for ACR 5 along with ACR 6 to include only the newest cameras. Nothing more.

This is a matter of adding a few extra demosaicing library entries (however it is you modularize them) and then running a new build, which you must be able to do since you have done it many times before ACR 6 came along.

That you would choose to play the "we cannot keep the old machines running" for a software package costing nearly a grand that is only a few years old is absolutely shocking. How deep does this lack of discipline go? Are you saying that somewhere deep inside is a pocket of incompetence so endemic that you cannot release a simple patch once every 3 months?

What you are doing is trying to justify a marketing decision by violently waving your hands and hoping no one sees what is behind the curtain. Instead of taking such extreme positions to justify what cannot be justified, perhaps you should just stop at "we're not gonna do it."

90 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

@Lee Jay: No. They have two choices.

1) Allow the new ACR to run with CS4. You and others seem to think that everything is different on both sides of the protocol and that this is therefore impossible. That may be, but it would indicate a terminal lack of engineering discipline. Other plugins load into either host with no complaints. ACR can too.

2) Add *one single* patch to the three they already do. Today they add the new demosaicing to ACR6 for CS, ACR6 for Elements and LR3.whatever. The alternative to allowing ACR to run against the N-1 host is to simply patch the N-1 ACR. That's one new patch. It is not a matrix, as you fellas are fond of pretending.

Honestly, preserving the patch mechanism for a short while is not all that big a deal (except perhaps for you, Andrew and Chris.) They could even put a time limit on it. New cameras that are announced within the first year after the next version ships will be supported yada yada yada ...

1.8K Messages

 • 

21.6K Points

Come on Adobe, why are you forcing us to upgrade? I want Content Aware Fill in CS3, how hard can that be? I know you can just write a patch to do this.

I’m suggesting Photoshop 5 should be loadable (is that a word?) into Photoshop 4. This is just a matter of writing more lines of code.

And I want ACR 5 in that version of Photoshop I purchased 3 years ago that uses ACR 3. In other words, instead of forcing us to upgrade to get new functionality ever 18 months or so, when you build new versions, let us have the new functionality every 36 months.

And yes Chris, go to moon, get rocks. It is easy. I saw this on TV in the 60’s. Its 2011. With all our modern technology, it should be even easier today. And I don’t want to pay for it either. I want free moon rocks. Once you get there, they are easier to pick up then rocks here on earth. Man, you engineers are so picky....

This guy Kim is a genius. He should be the lead engineer on all Adobe products, or certainly the ones that deal with pictures! Yada.

Author “Color Management for Photographers"

90 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

@Andrew: You are arguing a straw man position (look it up.) I understand that critical thought is not your thing, but posting a rant that drips with sarcasm and yet is fatuous to the core make you look ... well ...

15.1K Messages

 • 

195.8K Points

Let me repeat the technical arguments: The compilers changed, the supported OSes changed, the OS APIs changed, the host application APIs changed, the machines needed to compile and test the older application are now scarce and unsupported, and it's a heck of a lot of work for little benefit compared to writing new functionality.

This has nothing to do with a lack of discipline, and a lot to do with real-world reality. Sorry, but those G5 machines and Pentium4 machines don't last forever. We have very few left (most have died and gone to recycling).

Kim, you keep ignoring what I tell you and claiming that things are easy.
Yet someone who knows better keeps telling you that it is far from easy.
Please listen.

Champion

 • 

2.6K Messages

 • 

33.7K Points

To keep a plug-in viable across multiple versions of Photoshop, the choice is whether to maintain older versions of Photoshop to test with and patch to remain compatible with an evolving plug-in or limit the plug-in evolution to whatever happened several versions of Photoshop, ago.

Adobe chooses neither, and instead limits plug-in compatibility to the current Photoshop version.

90 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

@Chris: I am definitely listening. But most of the answers I am getting can be sensed just as easily with the nose.

You tell me everything changed ... compilers, OS APIs, host application APIs and so on. Did this happened between each and every version of CS? Because I cannot remember ever seeing ACR run against an older CS host. Please correct me if I am wrong.

You tell me your old machines are on their last breath and are scarce and unsupported. I am not talking about Photoshop 3 here ... CS4 was a couple of years ago. It runs fine on machines built this morning. Sheesh. And don't forget that N-1 compatibility requires only that you maintain the build environment for ACR5 ... nothing else. Adding a few demosaic algorithms is pretty trivial since you have done it hundreds of times, so you cannot expect anyone in the business to believe that there is any significant cost associated with an ACR update for version 5.

You are as guilty of attacking your own straw man (old, dying machines) as Andrew was.

90 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

@Steve: There is another choice ... to maintain the build environment for ACR 5 and add the new cameras to it for perhaps a year or two after ACR 6 ships. The testing can be on an installable version of CS4 ... that does not have to be rebuilt since the contract is not otherwise changing at either end. This is not rocket science.

15.1K Messages

 • 

195.8K Points

Yes those sorts of things change between versions - those are what makes it a problem to go back and support older versions of the application.
Does your G5 still run really well? Ours don't. How about your Pentium 4?

No straw man here, just trying to explain reality to someone who isn't listening.

5 Messages

 • 

130 Points

While I, most of the times, agree with the Adobe employes comments here and appreciate their help (the article in question here being a good example "why doesn't my version ...." to clarify things), the fact they cannot fully support CS4 is ridiculous to me. I have CS5 so it's a problem for me, but an expensive software still sold in 2010 (wikipedia says CS5 was released in April 2010) should be supported. It's either an arrogant stance or a worrying failure. My current feeling is that it's the former...

90 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

@Chris: What you are explaining is that you cannot do N-1 support because "things change." Further, your ability is mitigated by your old G5s and Pentium 4s.

Now ... let me tell you why I consider that explanation to be a crock.

I've been in the biz since 1979 and have worked at several companies that were larger than Adobe and a few that were smaller. What they all have in common is a lab environment where builds and testing are performed. Further, they all have in common a plan to cycle assets periodically to ensure that the lab continues to function at peak performance. In this way, the company avoids the situation you are describing.

As for changes like APIs and OS APIs and so on ... the need for backward compatibility is planned into each release just as is every other feature and adoption cycle. There is no rocket science in any of that ... none of it comes as a surprise because major companies are on all the betas for all the changes you claim to be victims of.

The common thread here is competence. Appropriate planning at all stages makes everything tick along smoothly. Yet you claim that Adobe cannot do what many other companies do ... provide a level of support that guarantees that their software is not obsolete 6 months down the road. Yes, the DNG converter provides some level of that, but it does not bring you back to *original performance* ... it forces changes to your work flow that some will consider to be considerably less convenient.

Now ... it is quite possible that you believe that this is how labs should be run. But trust me that screwing up your API compatibility, getting caught by surprise by changes in API, or having your lab fall apart because you forgot to cycle your hardware is really not professional practice.

So again ... I am listening. But I find it hard to believe that your description of this gong show is supposed to pass as a quality reason for leaving people hanging as soon as the next version ships. Who does that?

My alternate theory, by the way, is that your customer facing role demands explanations that sound plausible for decisions that are pure marketing. But only you know the answer to that ...

Champion

 • 

2.6K Messages

 • 

33.7K Points

And if something doesn't work with ACR5 and the installable version of CS4 two years after CS5 is shipping which would likely be when CS6 is shipping, actually,, you only will have the source and build environment for ACR5?

I would think you'd want CS4's source and build environment available for debugging purposes when something didn't quite work, which is a variation of the first choice that Adobe didn't make: keeping multiple versions of Photoshop alive in the development environment for testing purposes even if no patches are released.

What you want is that Adobe pay for more people to maintain older environments so you won't pay for an upgrade and get it for free. What would Adobe want to do this?

90 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

@luc: The explanations I'm getting all point to the failure scenario ... a lack of foresight and skills that would be shocking for a company with Adobe's portfolio. But in fact I consider your suggestion a far more likely explanation.

90 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

@Steve: The current product (CS5/ACR6) is in full swing and is patched every quarter as they always have been. I am suggesting that the older ACR5 be patched as well at the same time, which requires that its build be preserved overlapping the time frame for ACR6. That's what N-1 compatibility means. I am wondering if people are being deliberately obtuse here.

I am suggesting that they simply add the new cameras to both the most recent and the next most recent ACR plugins. Full stop. These demosaic algorithms are absolutely isolated from anything else since they operate only on the content of the RAW image. The new ACR would be released as an update to ACR 5 for CS4 alongside the release of ACR 6 for CS5 (and LR and Elements' ACR.)

In other words, not one of these excuses about APIs etc is relevant. Because each plugin retains all of its behavior and interface. Only the camera supports gets enhanced. This is trivial in case everyone is wondering. Really.

Keeping multiple releases alive for debugging is the bread and butter of *any* competent software engineering team. You *must* be able to patch images in the field as bugs role in. Sheesh ... are you seriously saying that it is ok to shut down all your development the moment a new version is available? That would entail withdrawing all support for new bugs within as little as 6 months of thousands of purchases of an expensive product. That will not fly.

Adobe does not have to pay for more people ... they -- like every other software team on the planet in this economy -- have to get better at planning so they can slot in the small increment needed to test ACR5's new demosaicing algorithms alongside the tests for ACR6. No rocket science here.

To again be clear:

1) It is not acceptable to claim that "things change" so you don't have to give even a lousy N-1 support.

2) It is not acceptable to claim that "our machines are old and no longer running well" so you don't have to give even a lousy N-1 support.

I was a manager in a small team building a public switching system (enormous software base running on dozens of hardware platforms) and our maintenance mandate was 20 years. We had to maintain development environments for that long so a bug could be fixed at any time. There were entire countries being run on our switches, and they have no patience whatsoever when the national phone system goes down.

So forgive me if I have little sympathy for whining about older machines and changing APIs. Excuses like that from professionals are just embarrassing ... I find them insulting.

15.1K Messages

 • 

195.8K Points

I thought you honestly wanted to understand the reasoning - so I tried to give you more information. Now I understand that you're just here to insult people who know more about the situation than you do.

I'm sure that armchair quarterbacking is just as good as professionals on the field.

Champion

 • 

2.6K Messages

 • 

33.7K Points

Actually, I'd hope that CS6/ACR7 development is in full swing, and CS5/ACR6 is being patched as the currently-released version.

Having supported government contracts for hardware with decades of longevity helps explain the difference in point-of-view.

90 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

@Chris: My skepticism is *very* strong in this area, but obviously I have no direct knowledge of the situation inside Adobe's software labs. My logical fallacy radar went off based on some of the things said to me, but again without any direct knowledge I am left to rant in general terms and that is inevitably a waste of time for everyone. My apologies if I insulted anyone along the way.

1.8K Messages

 • 

21.6K Points

>My logical fallacy radar went off based on some of the things said to me, but again without any direct knowledge I am left to rant in general terms and that is inevitably a waste of time for everyone.

This is a prefect example of someone having far too much time on their hands, little actual knowledge of the facts and an internet connection. Despite a high ranking and long employed Adobe Engineering who has provided a huge amount of functionality and code over the years, the uneducated argue, a sign they don’t know what they don’t know.

A quick look at the posters blog and abilities as a photographer speak volumes.

At this point, why continue to reply to this person? To be further insulted? To be sucked into a deeper black hole of misunderstandings and incorrect assertions? Why pour gas on this fire?

The issue is simple as is the solution which has been posted multiple times by multiple people. Time to move on.

Author “Color Management for Photographers"

90 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

@Andrew ... These condescending insults are becoming a real drag. You like to denigrate my blog and my skills yet your own qualifications are not in evidence anywhere at all. Obsequious pandering and arrogance are definitely on display, though.

And since you cannot seem to accept my previous apology and would rather just continue your attacks, let me again run through the issues for you ... I hope you enjoy what you brought on ...

1) Several *customers* who paid *a lot* of money for Photoshop would like direct support for the latest cameras in the N-1 version of ACR. That would be ACR 5 today. Next year it will probably be ACR 6 as ACR 7 will likely have shipped with CS6.

2) The excuses for not providing that support have boiled down to three things:

2a) Adobe apparently have a lab filled with decade old machines (G5, Pentium 4 were mentioned several times) that are not running well. This came more than once directly from the horse's mouth.

2b) Adobe is apparently hamstrung by all the changes to their own APIs, OS APIs and other undefined things. Again, repeated many times from the horse's mouth.

2c) There is a FREE DNG converter that changes the workflow and doubles the time and the space for handling originals. Somehow that does not sound free to me.

3) I discounted the first two as excuses because it seems so ludicrous for a major company to be hamstrung by their own failure to cycle assets and their inability to plan for evolution of their software and the surrounding computing environment.

4) I also discounted the DNG converter because it is a change to the work flow for which we paid a grand in the first place. Few would be perfectly happy with a lower level of support so shortly after buying a very expensive piece of software.

At this point, I see two things happening ...

a) Adobe is responding with "you're not listening."
b) The faithful are repeating everything written by Adobe and are throwing in lots of interesting insults.

This discussion has obviously run its course ...

I will again repeat my apology to anyone I have offended. I am obviously criticizing Adobe's approach to the N-1 support issue and that likely ticked a few people off. Can't be helped with the kind of responses I saw.

And the presence of arrogant nuisance posts did not help the mood of the thread either. Again, can't be helped. Trolls are everywhere and never contribute anything useful to a discussion.

In the end ... I still consider Adobe tools to be best of breed and I will continue to pay the freight to stay up to date.

Champion

 • 

2.6K Messages

 • 

33.7K Points

Adobe has chosen not to support older versions of Photoshop for even minor updates such as new cameras. The same is true for Lightroom.

1.8K Messages

 • 

21.6K Points

>You like to denigrate my blog and my skills yet your own qualifications are not in evidence anywhere at all

That thing that looks like a link by my name, you click on it. Then you get all the info you need.

>I hope you enjoy what you brought on ...

Nope, cause you still don’t get it.

>Several *customers* who paid *a lot* of money for Photoshop would like direct support for the latest cameras in the N-1 version of ACR. That would be ACR 5 today. Next year it will probably be ACR 6 as ACR 7 will likely have shipped with CS6.

Lets say ACR 5 ships December 2010 as a hypothetical date OK? It supports a hypothetical 100 cameras. February 2011, 3 new cameras come onto the market and solely due to the manufactures creating another 3 proprietary raw formats instead of DNG Adobe has to update next rev of ACR with 3 cameras, problem solved. They update the product like the DNG converter several times a year. Its not their fault that between rev’s someone built a new, proprietary raw file. Their older version of ACR was perfectly capable of opening the JPEG those new cameras could optionally produce the day the new camera was released. Where in this scenario is Adobe at fault?

ACR 6 ships. It supports all current cameras on say a hypotonic date of December 2011. It also has lots of new features. New releases (not dot releases) of ACR and LR have done this FROM DAY ONE. Its totally unreasonable to expect Adobe to give away ACR6 with both newer functionality and new camera support. You even agreed after a slew of posts to that. In the meantime, the DNG converter is updated for all the newer cameras released between ACR5 and ACR6, a free solution for users who don’t want to upgrade but do want to process the newer proprietary data. Where in this scenario is Adobe at fault?

>I also discounted the DNG converter because it is a change to the work flow for which we paid a grand in the first place.

It changes YOUR workflow because you have a sloppy one or decide you will not upgrade. Or you refuse to even look at Lightroom which will convert on the fly to DNG as it imports. But again, DNG converter in this context is ONLY MANDATORY because you have a proprietary camera format thanks to whoever you purchased the camera from and an older version of ACR. Where in this scenario is Adobe at fault? And you paid less than a Grand I hope (unless yo like to over pay) and you got far more than just ACR plus, your over spent grand still works if you just stop buying new camera systems that spit out a proprietary raw file before Adobe can update to access that data.

>Few would be perfectly happy with a lower level of support so shortly after buying a very expensive piece of software.

Few being you unless you can gather a petition to back up the claim. And again, the low support is misdirected simply because the people who built your camera again decided to spit out a proprietary raw file that ONLY THEY can process until every other raw converter manufacturer does what Adobe does. Hack that format to access it. Where in this scenario is Adobe at fault?

The discussion has indeed run its course. Because you continue to misunderstand the problem and misdirect the blame to Adobe. In fact you are proposing a solution in search of a problem. The problem is clear, its proprietary raw formats that are forced onto users and because they have to wait for every other raw converter to update their software, you seem to feel those engineers are at fault (or specifically Adobe).

Author “Color Management for Photographers"

1.8K Messages

 • 

21.6K Points

>Adobe has chosen not to support older versions of Photoshop for even minor updates such as new cameras. The same is true for Lightroom.

Can you explain this (the bit about new camera support):

http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/
http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjourn...

It certainly appears that free dot releases for a product update new cameras.

Author “Color Management for Photographers"

946 Messages

 • 

13.8K Points

"1) Several *customers* who paid *a lot* of money for Photoshop would like direct support for the latest cameras in the N-1 version of ACR. "

Those people paid far more money for their new camera that it would cost to upgrade. An upgrade for CS is in the $200-$300 range. Given they probably bought a minimum $1,000 camera that doesn't seem like a big burden if they really want to use CS.

Lightroom is really much more well-suited to photographers with Photoshop now catering to the graphics community instead. Lightroom's upgrades are $99, and it'll save so much time over using CS it'll pay for itself the first day or two you use it. If you really, really need a pixel editor once in a while, use Elements if you are so cost conscious that you won't pay the CS upgrade cost. That's what I do - use Lightroom and Elements. Very, very powerful and very well-suited to photography. Not as well suited to graphic artists.

90 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

@Lee Jay: Really, give it a rest. No one should care how much their new camera cost. If it is a D3100 it cost half of Photoshop. If it is a Fuji compact with RAW support, it cost a quarter of Photoshop. The relative cost is yet another excuse to ignore the actual issue and that is getting to be a real drag.

The whole Lightroom versus Photoshop argument is another straw man. The people asking have bought CS4. Your assertion that Lightroom saves so much time over Photoshop is total baloney to someone who has used Photoshop for years and has built expertise. Also, Lightroom is sufficiently limited that one has to do the difficult stuff in Photoshop anyway. Elements will not suffice as it is weak in the advanced areas (e.g. no 16 bit support.)

It is really tiresome to see such limited scope (beginner) viewpoints continue to be used as arguments and data. They are neither ... they are just an opinion, and not very interesting in this context at that.

90 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

@Andrew: Steve explicitly stated "older versions of Photoshop." This means Lightroom 2 and CS4. Would it be too much to ask you to read for comprehension and stay on point?

1.8K Messages

 • 

21.6K Points

>Steve explicitly stated "older versions of Photoshop." This means Lightroom 2 and CS4. Would it be too much to ask you to read for comprehension and stay on point?

Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 2.2 (that’s a dot release bud):
http://www.adobe.com/support/download...
• Additional camera support for the Canon EOS 5D Mark II, Canon PowerShot G10, Panasonic DMC-LX3 and more**

Would it be too much for you to learn about a product and its history before jumping to more incorrect conclusions? EVERY version of Lightroom has had free dot releases with newer camera support and in several cases, new features (for free). But don’t let the facts get in your way of being wrong. Again!

>Your assertion that Lightroom saves so much time over Photoshop is total baloney to someone who has used Photoshop for years and has built expertise.

Look, the only one spouting baloney is you. I’ve been using Photoshop since 1990 (1.0.7). I’ve been a beta for them since 2.5 and an Alpha since I think CS. I’ve been a alpha and beta tester for Lightroom since before it shipped. Do you even own LR? Seems you said you did not. You don’t have a clue about what you are talking about (again) with a silly statement like the one you just made.

The more you post, the clearer it becomes that you are indeed the hack and troll. And when someone asks you to address salient points (like why is any of the above Adobe’s fault), you just dismiss it. Then you have the nerve to ask for us to comprehend a post when again, you show a total disregard for the facts.

You’re clueless.

Author “Color Management for Photographers"

90 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

@Andrew: Seriously, are you having us on? Those are 2 year old cameras. The context is "older releases NOW, not THEN" ...

No one disputes that Adobe does dot releases on the CURRENT release. The problem is that they choose to not do dot releases on the N-1 release.

Your staggering lack of comprehension is only eclipsed by your stunning lack of manners. Thanks very much for all those fresh insults.

1.8K Messages

 • 

21.6K Points

We’ve been over that a million times. You are asking Adobe to update legacy products continuously, for free which is just stupid. If you have such an old product, due to being too cheap to upgrade for new features in addition to newer camera support, convert to DNG and live with you ancient software. That a new product was released who’s file format isn’t backwards compatible is in your mind Adobe’s fault. That’s idiotic! The newer camera’s JPEG doesn’t suffer this issue but because the camera manufacturer force a new file format onto the world, its Adobe’s job to code old, outdated products and give them to users for free. What planet are you from? What on earth do you do for a living, seriously? You can’t possibly have a business model or sense about you to make the suggestions you have made.

Its super simple, but I’m sure you’ll dismiss or ignore it like everything else:

Old software, new camera:

*Upgrade product and get new features and new camera support.
*Don’t upgrade, Convert to DNG for free.

Absolutely reasonable of Adobe, and excepted from just about anyone with half a brain.

>Thanks very much for all those fresh insults.

You earned em.

Author “Color Management for Photographers"

90 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

@Andrew:

> That thing that looks like a link by my name, you click on it. Then you get
> all the info you need.

The Digital Dog web site is indeed a dog. (As in a format that is as ugly as sin.) But it does point to a few interesting articles and bits of work.

What I glean from seeing your work is that you assume that your photoshop expertise (and I will grant that you have plenty) and your professional photographer status (you lead tours, that qualifies) somehow further qualifies you to comment on my area of expertise, which it definitely does not. On the other hand, I have been using Photoshop for a decade and I *can* comment on your area of expertise with some of my own.

[I'm not trying to compare my body of work to yours as it will not stand up. Further, I am unwilling to engage in your petty insult-fest, but let's just say that your work is not quite as impressive as your constant arrogant tone might imply.]

I can definitely tell you that the distance between my understanding of photography and your understanding of large software system development appears to be quite large, and not in your favor.

And this discussion is about software development issues --- N-1 support for new cameras. This has *nothing* to do with photography and *everything* to do with software architecture, management practices and marketing choices.

> Its totally unreasonable to expect Adobe to give away ACR6 with both newer
> functionality and new camera support. You even agreed after a slew of
> posts to that.

I agreed with no such thing. Of course they should allow ACR 6 to run against the N-1 host, which is CS4. But they say they cannot. So I agreed that they cannot. I still think it is a lame excuse. But they insist.

> Or you refuse to even look at Lightroom

Why should I? I have built expertise with Bridge and CS and ACR and I don't really need to add yet another application or change my work flow. I might someday change my mind for its abilities to organize images, but I don't need it for editing at this time. And as I said ... I will pay the freight for now.

Your insistence that people should change their favored work flows is not an argument at all. It is an attack on a straw man.

> The discussion has indeed run its course. Because you continue to
> misunderstand the problem and misdirect the blame to Adobe.

I understand the problem just fine. And Adobe *is* the cause. They will not add camera support to the N-1 ACR. Plain and simple and anyone can see it.

> In fact you are proposing a solution in search of a problem. The problem is
> clear, its proprietary raw formats that are forced onto users and because
> they have to wait for every other raw converter to update their software, you
> seem to feel those engineers are at fault (or specifically Adobe).

DNG is also proprietary, so this approach becomes just another religious format war and thus an incredible waste of time.

1.8K Messages

 • 

21.6K Points

>DNG is also proprietary,

About as much as TIFF.

Author “Color Management for Photographers"

90 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

@Andrew:

> We’ve been over that a million times. You are asking Adobe to update legacy
> products continuously, for free which is just stupid.

Now that I know what you are about (you dawg you), I can see why perhaps you are having so much difficulty comprehending what I have written. You made two logic mistakes in that one sentence, which I think pretty much defines the last word you used.

1) I am not asking for anything. I have said probably half a dozen times that I am personally willing to upgrade. But other people in different circumstance are not.

2) I am not asking them to update legacy products at all. N-1 is not legacy ... it could be as little as a few months old when support is dropped. Depends on when it was purchased. And N-1 is all that I am suggesting should be possible, and only until it becomes N-2. If this logic is too difficult to grasp, then please just stop responding. You are making a real hash of it anyway.

Oh yeah ... and "a million times" is hyperbole. Spewing that does not enhance your arguments.

>>Thanks very much for all those fresh insults.
> You earned em.

And it takes a healthy lack of maturity to constantly deliver them. Bravo.

90 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

@Andrew:

>>DNG is also proprietary,
>About as much as TIFF.

Wikipedia attributes this to Adobe:

> Adobe stated that if there was a consensus that DNG should be controlled by
> a standards body, they were open to the idea

Has this happened?

Further, the big manufacturers don't support it. Have you got an opinion on why? Perhaps these unfriendly consumer policies like no N-1 support are part of the issue? One wonders ...

1.8K Messages

 • 

21.6K Points

What does that have to do with DNG being proprietary as you state? Nothing. But then its par for the course you would introduce some non salient text and dodge the original question. So what makes DNG (and TIFF) proprietary?

Big manufactures don’t support it. I suppose we now have to take YOUR metric of big (and probably manufacturer), dragging the post further from an answer.

Do I have an opinion of why? Yes.

Author “Color Management for Photographers"

90 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

@Andrew: *sigh* ...

> What does that have to do with DNG being proprietary as you state?

Big companies don't tend to adopt other big companies' formats unless they are already given up to standards body control. Just promising is not enough. That pretty much defines proprietary. This happens in software as well.

What is interesting is that, in my quest to get the EXR sensors supported in ACR I asked Fuji to support DNG. I also asked Adobe to support EXR formats. I also created one of these threads and got over 40 votes for that support. Adobe came through right away and Fuji did not. The ACR support is not perfect, but it functions well enough.

However, it took several years to get the EXR format supported, and DNG would have made no difference unless Fuji stored a less RAW format by rotating and binning the pixels beforehand so the envelope could work.

Adobe in the end had to write a complex demosaic, rotation and binning algorithm (or possibly cheat somehow) and all owners of previous versions of any of the Adobe editors had to purchase the newest version to get the new support for a cheap compact. No matter how recently they had purchased their editor ...

> Big manufactures don’t support it. I suppose we now have to take YOUR
> metric of big (and probably manufacturer), dragging the post further from
> an answer. Do I have an opinion of why? Yes.

Does your paragraph make any sense? No.

946 Messages

 • 

13.8K Points

"Big companies don't tend to adopt other big companies' formats unless they are already given up to standards body control. Just promising is not enough."

Promising?

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0805/080...

"Adobe is submitting its DNG 'universal RAW' format to the International Standard's Organization (ISO), in a move aimed at increasing acceptance and usage. The format is being proposed as part of ISO's TIFF/EP (electronic photography), standard. We spoke to Adobe about the move."...

90 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

@Lee Jay: I said "giving it up control to standards bodies" whereas Adobe is submitting DNG for ratification as a standard with them remaining in control. If you find something that indicates otherwise, I would find that very interesting.

Champion

 • 

882 Messages

 • 

19.2K Points

Kim, I understand the motives that lead you to push for N-1 support, but imagine that Adobe decided to do that, remove resources from new features development, move QE engineers away from the current and next programs. (At the expense of bug smashing for customers that did and will pay for the upgrade?)

When, suddently, another person stands up and asks N-2 support (with whathever good or bad argument to support it.) Should they remove more Software and Quality Engineers (for multiple languages!) from the current and next program (for customers that did upgrade) when there are already efforts done in maintaining the DNG converter, that offers N-3+ compatibility, sometimes also for non-Adobe software?

Maybe should the DNG converter be integrated inside ACR, that would be updated automatically, and convert files on the fly at opening time, giving a warning to the users? Then what about non-networked computers... And what about users that do not want a direct conversion to happen because they want to use their camera manufacturer's converter? (BTW, can you open D7000 files in Capture NX in its N-1 version?)

I would understand that DNG conversion might be seen by some as a patch on a broken bone, but the ones breaking the bones are the ones that do not allow direct DNG output on their camera.

Did you see Pentax, Leica or Samsung customers complaint about camera support here (or at any software manufacturer that supports DNG totally)?

90 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

@PECCourtejoie: Imagine that the their software was properly architected such that the demosaic algorithms are located in a shared library and need only be linked in. Further imagine that their builds are fully automated so there are no significant extra costs. Imagine even further that their sanity testing is fully automated as well, and that the shared libraries are already tested in the other three variations. Since it is the same code, the fourth test is hardly necessary.

Finally, imagine that the update is posted with only best-efforts promises of support. Since only a completely isolated shared library has changed, and since that exact code body has been tested one, two or three times already (depends on how efficient their planning and architecture is), there is a 99.9% chance that everything will work perfectly and that customers will be perfectly satisfied with the result at very little cost to Adobe.

As I have said ... I've done this for a lot of years and there are many ways to skin a cat. Unfortunately, risk averse managers abound everywhere so automation is far too rare and costs get unmanageable in a lot of teams.

And speculating that people will ask for N-2 support is pointless. If Adobe does N-1, it will be a miracle and will extend the life of every version of CS by two years. Why would we not be satisfied with that?

And finally, I do not subscribe to the "fault lies with the manufacturers" theory ... Adobe made a killing and became what they are precisely because they were the best at reverse engineering RAW formats and processing image data.

Now that they have been established as the top dog, they want to turn the tables and get an easy ride. Well, it does not look like they will get that, so they should just concern themselves with their customers and not with trying to push the manufacturers around. These are two separate concerns that *may* one day interact.

1.8K Messages

 • 

21.6K Points

>If Adobe does N-1, it will be a miracle and will extend the life of every version of CS by two years

Oh yeah ... and "miracle" is hyperbole. Spewing that does not enhance your arguments.

Author “Color Management for Photographers"

90 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

@Andrew: Not very original and blatantly incorrect.

I am speaking figuratively, not literally. The two relevant definitions (after the obvious supernatural and religious ones) are:

3. a wonder; marvel.
4. a wonderful or surpassing example of some quality

Such an event would easily fit these definitions.

1.8K Messages

 • 

21.6K Points

>I am speaking figuratively, not literally.

True, so true. In all modes of your text here. Far be it for me to imply you are a hypocrite. My apologies. When I said we have been over this a million times, I just lost count, I was speaking literally, not figuratively. My bad. How could I have missed count?

And I’ve now seen the light. You are indeed correct in every post. I even got a call at midnight from Thomas Knoll who said you inspired him to code ACR to now be IN LR. He was so impressed with your posts, he did this in a few hours and supplied a build. All these years, he could not understand how Lightroom was processing raw data, hopefully he’ll call you and you will explain it to him.

Yes, there is no question all these back and forth posts were extremely valuable and I understand from Thomas that the board of directions at Adobe are meeting to discussing your ideas, as implementing N-1 as you love to call it, will indeed result in a miracle and Adobe’s stock will benefit. I want to thank you for opening our eyes here, I intend to buy a few shares. I’d spend more, but I want to save some money to show you my appreciation by purchasing a fruit basket for you. Just send me your address.

I must bow out now from these enlightening discussions as I should have earlier and will just sit back and take in all your superb insights into software design. I only hope the day comes when you produce a product we call all go out and purchase as I’m sure it will be ground breaking.

Author “Color Management for Photographers"

90 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

@Andrew:

>>I am speaking figuratively, not literally.
>True, so true. In all modes of your text here. Far be it for me to imply you are
> a hypocrite. My apologies. When I said we have been over this a million
> times, I just lost count, I was speaking literally, not figuratively. My bad.
> How could I have missed count?

> w seen the light. You are indeed correct in every post. I even got a call at
> midnight from Thomas Knoll who said you inspired him to code ACR to now
> be IN LR.

> blah blah blah

> I must bow out now from these enlightening discussions as I should have
> earlier and will just sit back and take in all your superb insights into software
> design. I only hope the day comes when you produce a product we call all
> go out and purchase as I’m sure it will be ground breaking.

Do you fancy yourself clever enough with both software and language to carry off this sort of sarcastic attack? Because I have seen no evidence of that at all.

I'm sure that Thomas is very proud to star in your continuing rant ...

3 Messages

 • 

90 Points

@ Andrew. Well what is your problem to think you should be so impolite.
I have been working with photoshop since quite a few years now (started in Photoshop 3 and Premiere 4 on both platforms, since I have been working as a trainer in digital image processing techniques for all kind of groups and individuals over the years).
What would you suggest a user should do when new products are launched? Other than read all techspecs and reviewtexts that there are to be found to help her/him when to buy what in order to keep improving a personal workflow?
(please do not answer, this is a rhetorical question)

It is the customer that finds out his new gear is not being supported AFTER she/he has bought it. And then the costumer starts looking for support to get things working that were not broken in the first place!

The DNG convertor solution is gaffer-tape to me for I have to convert all data (as an animator it can be up to a lot of GB's at a time).
Your reply on a similar remark of Kim Letkeman three days ago:
"It changes YOUR workflow because you have a sloppy one or decide you will not upgrade. Or you refuse to even look at Lightroom which will convert on the fly to DNG as it imports. But again, DNG converter in this context is ONLY MANDATORY because you have a proprietary camera format thanks to whoever you purchased the camera from and an older version of ACR. Where in this scenario is Adobe at fault? And you paid less than a Grand I hope (unless yo like to over pay) and you got far more than just ACR plus, your over spent grand still works if you just stop buying new camera systems that spit out a proprietary raw file before Adobe can update to access that data."

Sorry for probably being stupid seen through your eyes, but to me it sounds rediculous that the only solution to this problem of opening newer raw-files is to manually CONVERT what supposed to be a realy high quality image STANDARD. Pointing to cameramanufacturers does not account for your 'older version' argument. The failing downwards compatibility of RAW support is more like an incapability of manufacturers and softwaredevelopers to actually come up with a proper mutual used standard.
I am just frustrated, and again sorry for probably being stupid seen through your eyes, being told I just have to spend an extra 300 Euro's on a CS update or 250 Euro's on buying Lightroom (and thus purchasing yet an other programm that will need to be updated with new releases) just to be able to convert the data on the fly like I did before I bought the new camera.

You are totally missing the point here in this discussion's origin.

Your earlier comment to me "your post is unintelligible and not worthy of further response." is from this moment on mutual I guess.
I simply do not like to be insulted for the fact that I am a USER!

@Kim
"And this discussion is about software development issues --- N-1 support for new cameras. This has *nothing* to do with photography and *everything* to do with software architecture, management practices and marketing choices."
Thank you for all your comments.

Working with a variety of digital tools on a daily basis, I would certainly regret it if ever changing file standards (we should stop calling them standards I guess) and rapidly forwarding expiration dates of software support are to be the perspective for the future.

1.8K Messages

 • 

21.6K Points

9 years ago

Keep in mind the frustration here should not be directed at Adobe but at the manufacture of your camera forces, demands a proprietary raw format that Adobe has to hack to support. IF the manufacturer would simply provide a switch to save off a DNG (as they do when you want another open file format, a JEPG), you’d have support the day the camera is released. But the manufacturers by and large don’t do this. They make you wait for Adobe to get their hands on the camera system (which they have to pay for) and figure out how to convert that data in their converter. This is true for ALL other 3rd party converters too, not just Adobe. The bad guys here are the manufacturers! DNG is an openly documented format and free to use, just like your JPEG. They could save off a DNG, a proprietary raw and/or a JPEG if they wanted to with nearly no costs to them. If more end users directed their frustration at the manufacturers instead of Adobe, maybe, maybe they would do this.

Author “Color Management for Photographers"

946 Messages

 • 

13.8K Points

"The bad guys here are the manufacturers! DNG is an openly documented format and free to use, just like your JPEG. They could save off a DNG, a proprietary raw and/or a JPEG if they wanted to with nearly no costs to them. If more end users directed their frustration at the manufacturers instead of Adobe, maybe, maybe they would do this. "

Absolutely, 100% agree.

One reason I haven't replaced my 20D or 5D is because the new cameras don't support DNG. That's not the only reason, but it is one of them.

7 Messages

 • 

122 Points

This may be true. I agree the manufacturers are to blame for making it harder on users and on Adobe. It's all part of the scheme of preventing users from switching from one camera make to another.
But i've been using NEF since i had a D70s, one of the oldest Nikon SLR's, and Adobe have always supported this format. They made a decision to go along with these proprietary formats, and i don't think they can just quit supporting them whenever they want and absolve themselves by sending users to the DNG converter.
Anyway, i think i've made my point on the matter clear in this thread, whether people agree with me or not.

62 Messages

 • 

1K Points

You don't make your point at all. Your NEF file from your D70 IS NOT THE SAME as your D7000 file. Like my DVD player can play DVD all a long, now I buy Blue Ray and it cannot be played on my DVD player anymore. Although they're both disc but they're different, the same thing is true with D70 and D7000. Just because it is ending with *.nef doesn't mean it is the same file. Technology moves on.

7 Messages

 • 

122 Points

You obviously didn't read the rest of my comments on this thread.
Technology moves on, but CS4 is not old enough as not to support this new technology, it's as simple as that.
Plus, your comparison to DVD/Bluray is silly, because there is a hardware difference between the two formats. A firmware update wouldn't make a dvd player read bluray discs, because it requires a different bit of hardware.
In your metaphore, Photoshop/Camera Raw plugin is the dvd player.
But in Photoshop a firmware update CAN in fact help read "newer technology" files. Adobe simply decided that this "newer technology" will only be read by CS5 and not CS4. This means Adobe think CS4 is obsolete, and can be discarded, and that CS4 users can be sent out to use converters and waste their time on conversions, instead of giving them the same software update CS5 users are getting.

Adobe Administrator

 • 

15.4K Messages

 • 

291.4K Points

We don't think think that CS4 is obsolete and DNG is the 'firmware' needed to let CS4 read your newer files.

Sr. Product Manager, Adobe Digital Imaging

946 Messages

 • 

13.8K Points

"In other words: force us to spend a few hundred bucks on an upgrade every 3 to 4 years instead of every 18 to 24 months ... "

You aren't "forced" to upgrade at all!!! They provide the FREE DNG CONVERTER so you don't have to! In essence, they are providing virtually unlimited backwards compatibility FOR FREE for people that spend thousands on new camera equipment that didn't exist when the host code was created, on sale, or purchased.

"Allow the new ACR to run with CS4."

Read what's being written to you. It's not a matter of "allowing" it, it's a matter of supporting older APIs and development environments while at the same time supporting the new ones too.

How can you presume to know more about the software the developers are developing than the developers do? Isn't that the height of arrogance?

90 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

@Lee Jay: You missed ... the thread you wanted to post into is the one above. But no matter.

You and Andrew seem to like that FREE thing. It is not free if it takes a lot of extra time and changes file formats, forcing the risk averse to maintain two copies (I sure would.) So it is FREE only for people who do not value their own time or their resources.

Further, you take the naive view that Adobe has no obligation to support future cameras once you have spent your thousand bucks. Wrong. It is an axiom that new cameras ship every year so ACR will be updated at least every quarter. DNG is one solution, but N-1 support in ACR is far better for someone who spent the big bucks.

You've bought into the "woe is us" story about everything changing and all our machines are old and dying. But N-1 means CS4, which was never running on those old and dying machines. And if it was, so what. They need to cycle their lab resources just like everyone else. That part of the story is pure CYA. The part about everything changing does not hold water because they've been doing it this way for a long time, and everything did not change every release. AND ... the plugin interface did not wildly change because we know for a fact that other plugins run fine on both.

That you cannot see CYA when you read it does not surprise me. As for your charge of arrogance ... it is not arrogant to be skeptical of logical flaws.

15.1K Messages

 • 

195.8K Points

That you cannot see common sense, won't listen to reason, and continue to argue something you lost long ago... also doesn't surprise me.

90 Messages

 • 

1.6K Points

@Chris: The post to which you are replying has been supplanted by a dozen others since then.

I do not quite get what I lost? I am arguing with Andrew because he is acting rather puerile, which is a little out of character for a partner in a respected plugin company like pixel genius.

But I am not arguing with you since you played the "decade old machines and API changes" card, as if that somehow defeated my premise that N-1 support is rather easily accomplished. You consider that explanation common sense, while I consider it much closer to nonsense. No argument to be had.

It remains my opinion that Adobe *chooses* not to give N-1 support for demosaicing.

10 Messages

 • 

376 Points

9 years ago

Panasonic G3 raw fileformat is not recognized by current Lightroom/Camera Raw.

This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
Panasonic G3 raw / Lightroom / Camera Raw.

1 Message

 • 

62 Points

9 years ago

WHY is there not an upgrade for PSE8 to support Camera Raw 6.3 or higher. I bought PSE 8 a year ago, and a Sony A580 in September - with no support in Camera Raw. Now it is in CR 6.3, but it does not apply to PSE 8, therefore requiring the replacement of software bought a year ago.
It is inconceivable that PSE 8 cannot be set to use later versions of CR, since basically CR just knows how to deal with the various file formats and uses PSE as an interface.
Regards
Chris

This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
Outdated and less that a year old..

Adobe Administrator

 • 

15.4K Messages

 • 

291.4K Points

Same article applied to Photoshop Elements. The FREE Adobe DNG Converter will give your copy of Elements 8 the ability to work with files from the Sony A580.

Sr. Product Manager, Adobe Digital Imaging

1 Message

 • 

60 Points

I think Chris' point is one of my big beefs:
Why I am forced to upgrade the base app simply because a plugin isn't updated for older releases?

I'm a system software developer so "mumble-mumble incompatible" doesn't cut it - I can't believe that the newer raw formats are _so_ different than the previous that the current ACR really wouldn't work with older PSE. I was happily using PSE5 with our D70 & D50. Bought a D300 - oops! gotta upgrade to PSE7. Not happy (I liked the PSE5 interface _much_ more than PSE7), but no real choice. Then we bought a Canon G12. Guess what? ACR for PSE7 doesn't understand CR2. Another upgrade to PSE9 (which I like even LESS than PSE7) and now (even before I've sent in the rebate coupon for PSE9 I see PSE10 is out!!)

I most certainly understand the issues around backwards compatibility - doing QA on old releases with every new camera raw format would be a staggering task. A solution: make newest ACR _work with_ older PSE, but not be supported. I bet your users are able to figure out that difference - here's the latest; if it works great! but if not, upgrade to latest PSE before we'll answer any questions.

edc

1.8K Messages

 • 

21.6K Points

>I can't believe that the newer raw formats are _so_ different than the previous that the current ACR really wouldn't work with older PSE.

Well how about the older version of the Nikon software? Did it just work with the NEWER raw file or did you have to use the newer software that came with the newer camera. That will answer you suspicions.

Author “Color Management for Photographers"

4 Messages

 • 

94 Points

9 years ago

Hello

Cyberlink Photodirector 2011 has just come out on Beta. I have no problems with RAF file conversions here. I will stick with this program until Adobe sort themselves out in the future.

62 Messages

 • 

1K Points

It looks exactly like Ligthroom. They can even call it Lightroom Lite.

4 Messages

 • 

94 Points

Yes Son, you are right. It need tweaking of course but looks ok so far. Adobe?

2 Messages

 • 

82 Points

9 years ago

Hello. I'm using CS4 on Mac and have a new Canon 60D. I can't find an update to support the .cr2 files from the Camera for CS4. I updated to Camera Raw 5.7.0.213 but it doesn't recognize the Canon Raw files. What can I do?

This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
Canon 60D not compatible with CS4?.

Champion

 • 

5.9K Messages

 • 

103.9K Points

Correct, support for the Canon 60d was added in 6.2 for CS5. You can either update to CS5, or you can use the free DNG converter mentioned in the first post to convert the files to an open format that CS4 will be able to open.

Victoria Bampton a.k.a. The Lightroom Queen

www.lightroomqueen.com

Author of Adobe Lightroom Classic - The Missing FAQ and Adobe Lightroom - Edit Like a Pro books.

1 Message

 • 

62 Points

9 years ago

I have installed Lightroom 2 onto a new computer and when attempting to import RAW photos from files Lightroom says the file type is not supported (MG_8888:CR2) and I am unable to locate how to change File Support to All. When the program was installed on another computer this problem didn't occur. It will open tiff, jpeg or PSD.

This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
Import File Support.

Champion

 • 

220 Messages

 • 

3.9K Points

Dennis, the camera you are may be newer than your version of Lightroom. Check here: http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/407/kb407111...

1 Message

 • 

62 Points

9 years ago

Looking for RW2 support for LightRoom3 and CS5. I use both and my new Panasonic G3 is not yet supported. Is there an update ETA?

This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
Panasonic G3 RW2 file support for LR and CS5.5 please..

1 Message

 • 

62 Points

9 years ago

Ladies and Gentleman,

I can ́t find a update for my Photoshop Elements 8 or Adobe Bridge CS4 (mac Version) regarding the reading of the CR2 files from my new CANON 60D!

I read some blogs and I found the information that this Version will be not updated by ADOBE!?

I know that I am only one of hundreds / thousands of customers and only a rookie but I will not buy a new version of this product if this is only a question of some c-code which you can implement easy in the older CS4 Version!

I like the Bridge and the Photoshop Elements product so I hope you will help other customer and me on this issue!

Best regards,

Damian Budnik (Germany)

This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
RAW-Files Issue on the CS4 Version "Canon 60d, ...".

Adobe Administrator

 • 

15.4K Messages

 • 

291.4K Points

You can use the FREE Adobe DNG Converter for new camera support in Elements 8.

Sr. Product Manager, Adobe Digital Imaging