photoshop_faq

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

JeffreyTranberry

Adobe Administrator

•

15.1K Messages

•

288K 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?

Make sure your version of Photoshop or Lightroom is up-to-date for the latest camera support.
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

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.. :-(

9 years ago

jim_blakeley

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?

9 years ago

steve_sprengel

Champion

•

Champion

•

5.8K Messages

•

102.6K 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.

3 years ago

christian_f_rst

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.

2 years ago

an_coats

33 Messages

•

300 Points

FIX THE ISSUES

4 months ago

pierre_courtejoie

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.

kim_letkeman

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.

JeffreyTranberry

Adobe Administrator

•

15.1K Messages

•

288K 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

10 years ago

steve_lehman

901 Messages

•

11.1K 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

3 years ago

kim_letkeman

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.

ond_ejretromantiklobo_tindl

3 Messages

•

92 Points

9 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

JeffreyTranberry

Adobe Administrator

•

15.1K Messages

•

288K 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

9 years ago

noam_hamou

7 Messages

•

122 Points

9 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.

kim_letkeman

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.

9 years ago

noam_hamou

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.

9 years ago

pierre_courtejoie

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.

9 years ago

kim_letkeman

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.

9 years ago

john_beardsworth

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.

9 years ago

son_nguyen_2405250

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.

Adobe Administrator

•

15.1K Messages

Adobe Administrator

•

15.1K Messages

•

288K 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

9 years ago

conny_de_vugt

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 ;-))

9 years ago

andrew_rodney

1.6K Messages

•

20.4K 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"

9 years ago

steve_sprengel

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.

9 years ago

andrew_rodney

1.6K Messages

•

20.4K 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"

9 years ago

steve_sprengel

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.

9 years ago

andrew_rodney

1.6K Messages

•

20.4K 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"

9 years ago

steve_sprengel

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.

9 years ago

andrew_rodney

1.6K Messages

•

20.4K 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"

9 years ago

steve_sprengel

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.

9 years ago

conny_de_vugt

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.

9 years ago

kim_letkeman

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.

9 years ago

andrew_rodney

1.6K Messages

•

20.4K 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"

9 years ago

1.6K Messages

•

20.4K 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"

9 years ago

kim_letkeman

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.

9 years ago

pierre_courtejoie

Champion

•

882 Messages

•

19.2K Points

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

9 years ago

andrew_rodney

1.6K Messages

•

20.4K 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"

9 years ago

kim_letkeman

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 :-)

9 years ago

kim_letkeman

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.

9 years ago

andrew_rodney

1.6K Messages

1.6K Messages

•

20.4K 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"

9 years ago

kim_letkeman

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 ...

9 years ago

chris_cox_2148894

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.

9 years ago

steve_sprengel

Champion

•

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?

9 years ago

kim_letkeman

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.

9 years ago

kim_letkeman

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.

9 years ago

chris_cox_2148894

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.

9 years ago

steve_sprengel

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.

9 years ago

kim_letkeman

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.

9 years ago

andrew_rodney

1.6K Messages

•

20.4K 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"

9 years ago

kim_letkeman

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.

9 years ago

steve_sprengel

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.

9 years ago

andrew_rodney

1.6K Messages

•

20.4K 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"

9 years ago

andrew_rodney

1.6K Messages

•

20.4K 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"

9 years ago

lee_jay_fingersh

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.

9 years ago

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 ...

9 years ago

andrew_rodney

1.6K Messages

•

20.4K 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"

9 years ago

kim_letkeman

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.

9 years ago

lee_jay_fingersh

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."...

9 years ago

kim_letkeman

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.

9 years ago

pierre_courtejoie

Champion

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.

9 years ago

andrew_rodney

1.6K Messages

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..

JeffreyTranberry

Adobe Administrator

•

15.1K Messages

•

288K 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

9 years ago

ed_chejlava

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

9 years ago

andrew_rodney

1.6K Messages

9 years ago

dennis_wister

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.

geoff_walker_2225610

Champion

•

219 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...

9 years ago

chad_jaeckel

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..

damianbudnik

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, ...".

JeffreyTranberry

Adobe Administrator

•

15.1K Messages

•

288K Points

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

Sr. Product Manager, Adobe Digital Imaging

9 years ago