Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

EM-5 Support:  Adobe, this time you are late !!

Apr 23, 2012 11:43 AM

Tags: #olympus #omd #em-5

Ok, LR 4.1 Is not ready, but a RC is out. It added only 5DMKIII support.

 

Now, AfterShotPro and CaptureOne Pro support the EM-5. Previously, Lightroom was the first (or very closed to that) to support newly released cameras, sometimes even before they were available on the market. That was one of the strengths of Lightroom.

 

The EM-5 is now available in good quantities, so let's not fall back in old times.

 

Perhaps LR 4 bug fixing is not quite finished. But Adobe could and should release at least a second release candidate with support for the new cameras, that should not be a big problem, if the code is managed properly.

 

The competition is ahead now, that should not last much longer.

 
Replies 1 2 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 23, 2012 12:25 PM   in reply to tgutgu

    I'm sure Adobe are well aware of what the 'competition' might have / have not done. So, telling them what they 'could' and 'should' do isn't going to make a jot of difference to what they will do or the timeframe in which it is done.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 23, 2012 1:56 PM   in reply to tgutgu

    I'm sure support is close too. BTW CS6 is not available yet, just a beta!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 23, 2012 2:20 PM   in reply to tgutgu

    how about complaining that camera manufacturers use proprietary formats and adobe has to reverse engineer?

    imo that would make as much if not more sense.

     

    i mean adobe sure tries do do it as fast as possible.

    but looking at DXO, C1... i don´t t see they doing it faster.

    DXO still has no full 5D MK3 support for example.

     

    proper support needs some testing.

     

    and there is no ACR7 yet.... only a beta.

    CS6 was just announced today.

    so maybe there will be support for the EM-5 in the final...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 23, 2012 2:27 PM   in reply to -Agfaclack-

    -Agfaclack- wrote:

     

    how about complaining that camera manufacturers use proprietary formats and adobe has to reverse engineer?

    imo that would make as much if not more sense.

     

     

    Much more sense, in fact.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 23, 2012 2:28 PM   in reply to tgutgu

    tgutgu wrote:

     

    That kind of answer was expected. However, camera users can expect that with the release of a new camera raw version (7) , also camera support would be updated. So, the expectation that with the release of Photoshop CS6 we would also get a new Lightroom release with new camera support is legitimate. Unfortunately, Adobe failed to do so.


    Funny, I thought LR 4 came out BEFORE CS6 and ACR7.  Where must I have been.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 23, 2012 3:24 PM   in reply to tgutgu

    Adobe still have to wait for the cameras to be released to the public so they can get files to test and create profiles before they release an updated software package.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 23, 2012 3:33 PM   in reply to DdeGannes

    DdeGannes wrote:

     

    Adobe still have to wait for the cameras to be released to the public so they can get files to test and create profiles before they release an updated software package.

     

    Actually, that's not the case. What Adobe has to do is wait until the camera makers supply them with cameras for testing. In the past this has happened enough times for new cameras that some people forget it's the camera compnay's responcibility to work with Adobe. Check out this recent post from Eric Chan in the ACR forum.

     

     

    MadManChan2000 wrote:

     

    Hi Alan,

     

    You raise a very good point: it is a very good idea to let vendors know directly how important Adobe raw support is to you.

     

    We have had a few recent examples (with other vendors) where customers repeatedly and directly let camera vendors know how important Camera Raw and Lightroom support is to them. This resulted in a very positive outcome for the vendors, Adobe, and the end users (a rare win-win-win situation!): namely, high-quality raw support available in both ACR and Lightroom from the very first day the vendors' new camera models were released to the public.

     

    As a customer of a new camera model waiting for support from ACR and Lightroom, this is perhaps the single most important step you can take.

     

    Eric

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 23, 2012 3:51 PM   in reply to tgutgu

    So DPReview has had ACR support for the OM-D EM-5 for over a month now.  I believe they do some sort of alpha or beta testing with Adobe.  So hopefully we'll see support in the 4.1 final release.  Of course only Adobe knows what they will include (and it is quite possible they don't know exactly what that is yet) and choose to be tight lipped about it (which is up to them of course).

     

    Ken

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 23, 2012 4:03 PM   in reply to tgutgu

    tgutgu wrote:

     

    Oh well, we have benn through this already. Since about 10 years digital is mainstream. Since 10 years raw processor vendors know that they would not change the world. There will be always proprietary file formats. So they have to adapt their software to cope with that. They also have to adapt that camera releases will appear all year long. After 10 years, it should not be that difficult to realize that.

     

     

    well you should be realizing then that you have to wait until adobe, dxo or C1 and co. are ready to release.... that will not change either as long as camera manufacturers will not change.

    and the release dates of update will, as it was in the past, not always be on time.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 23, 2012 4:03 PM   in reply to Jeff Schewe

    Thanks for the clarification Jeff.

     

    Good to hear that the support from the camera manufacturers is improving.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 24, 2012 2:32 AM   in reply to tgutgu

    if problem is from Olympus to not delivery RAW codecs to Adobe,

    how is possible other soft aded support to this RAWs?

    Same SILKYPIX, capture One.......

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 24, 2012 2:49 AM   in reply to Cocuted

    Cocuted wrote:

     

    if problem is from Olympus to not delivery RAW codecs to Adobe,

    how is possible other soft aded support to this RAWs?

    Same SILKYPIX, capture One.......

     

    silkypix is the software that comes with olympus cameras not? ..... at least with my two olympus cameras i got silkypix.

     

    C1 was just a bit faster on this camera then (if it has support.. i don´t know).. but it´s often enough slower in supporting new cameras.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 24, 2012 3:03 AM   in reply to tgutgu

    tgutgu wrote:

     

    Yes, in general you are right. But if possible camera support should be separated from bug fix or feature enhancing code changes, so that functional and error correcting releases can be independent from new camera support.

     

    im not sure if that is possible with LR as it is.

    that would need a modular approach i guess.

    maybe an adobe employee can say something about it?

     

    but yes it would be nice if the camera RAW support would just "plug in" like lens profiles.

     

     

    tgutgu wrote:

     

    Also, I don't think it is solely the responsibility of camara vendors to supply Adobe with cameras for profiling. Also, Adobe has interest that popular cameras are supported on time and therefore has to actively ensure that they get hold on new camera models. Both, Adobe and the camera vendors have responsibility here. And I don't think that camera buyers still have to convince camera manufacturers that Lightroom, the most popular raw processor, is important to them.

     

    So, vendors and Adobe have to work together that their camera is supported, when they reach the shops. That is the request I have, it should be possible to achieve that goal in 2012! Companies, please learn that and act accordingly.

     

    well if that would be the case i think adobe would not have to reverse engineer the RAW´s to begin with?!

    but again i don´t know how supportive the camera manufacturers are these days.

     

    it would be very interesting to hear about it from adobe.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 24, 2012 3:11 AM   in reply to -Agfaclack-

    -Agfaclack- wrote:

     

    Cocuted wrote:

     

    if problem is from Olympus to not delivery RAW codecs to Adobe,

    how is possible other soft aded support to this RAWs?

    Same SILKYPIX, capture One.......

     

    SILKYPIX es el software que viene con las cámaras Olympus no? ..... por lo menos con mis dos cámaras Olympus tengo SILKYPIX.

     

    C1 era sólo un poco más rápido en esta cámara a continuación (si se cuenta con el apoyo .. no sé) .. pero es a menudo bastante más lenta en el apoyo a las nuevas cámaras.

    not, with Olympus cameras includes OLYMPUS Viewer 2,

    SILKYPIX is possible includes in Panasonic cameras.

    This is all cameras support in lastest version (includes E-M5):

    http://www2.isl.co.jp/SILKYPIX/english/download/release_dsp5win.html

     

    If Adobe not support is need searching alternatives.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 24, 2012 3:40 AM   in reply to Cocuted

    Cocuted wrote:

     

    not, with Olympus cameras includes OLYMPUS Viewer 2,SILKYPIX is possible includes in Panasonic cameras.

     

    then it must have come with my lumix.

    i guess i have to much cameras...

     

     

    Cocuted wrote:

     

    If Adobe not support is need searching alternatives.

     

    yeah sure and next time the alternative software is slower supporting a new model you buy a alternative to the alternative.... that makes sense. 

     

    i use the software that comes with the camera for as long as LR does not support a new camera.

    patience is a virtue.... i know.

     

    that´s why i love my leicas native DNG support.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 24, 2012 9:21 AM   in reply to -Agfaclack-

    Corel also support E-M5 RAW:

    http://www.corel.com/corel/product/index.jsp?pid=prod4670071#tab4

     

    Adobe lastest in support

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 24, 2012 10:05 AM   in reply to Cocuted

    Cocuted wrote:

     

    Corel also support E-M5 RAW:

    http://www.corel.com/corel/product/index.jsp?pid=prod4670071#tab4

     

    Adobe lastest in support

    So what? And Corel does NOT support Canon G1X, while Lightroom does.

    Use software that you personally like and which suites your needs.

    What this topic is all about?

    When will Adobe add support for Olympus EM-5?

    Noone here really knows, and you can't enforce or speed it up.

    It will be supported when it will be...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 24, 2012 11:58 AM   in reply to tgutgu

    tgutgu wrote:

     

    So what? Timely (i.e. when a camera is available) camera support is critical for any serious raw processor. Failing to do so shows that there is something wrong with the process to introduce new camera support, which is the point of this thread.

     

    What's wrong is that the companies that make the cameras don't care if you have timely third-party support.  If they did, they'd produce DNG files and/or provide cameras to the third-party software companies before they are provided to the public.

     

    Easy solution - don't buy any camera that isn't already fully supported by the raw processor you use.  This denies the manufacturers the early buyers that pay elevated prices and provide a quick return on investment.  Maybe that would get the message to them.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 24, 2012 12:19 PM   in reply to tgutgu

    tgutgu wrote:

     

    If Adobe states that it won't support a certain brandor camera model, I might consider not to purchase that camera. If Adobe drives this policy too extensively, I might drop the Adobe product.

     

     

    that is of course nonsense and we are entering the realm of fantasy and fiction.

     

    anyway you are free to use whatever fits your needs.

    you think adobe is too slow.. good luck with C1, silkypix or whatever.

     

    but don´t be suprised if they are the slow ones next time.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 24, 2012 12:39 PM   in reply to tgutgu

    tgutgu wrote:

     

     

    Honestly, I guess that bug fixing issues are what prevents Adobe releasing LR 4.1 final. The EM-5 profile is probably ready since some time. For me and many others, it would be fine - as I suggested before - just to release another RC with only new camera support and follow with bug fixing the schedule the development team needs to address the important LR 4 issues (performance problems some users have, for example).

     

    and adobe will start releasing RC´s every few days... nightbuilds maybe.

    honest.... don´t hold you breath that will not happen.

     

    it´s a good idea to have RAW support the same way as lens profile support. i thought about that since i use LR.

    so you don´t need to download the whole package and adobe has not to compile a new build each time.

     

    i am very curious to hear why they don´t do it that way. it seems as it would have positive affects for adobe too.

    but i guess it´s not possible with the current LR engine. maybe an idea for future versions.

     

    other RAW converters have their own issues with support.
    i start to worry when LR is always way behind in supporting new cameras.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 24, 2012 12:38 PM   in reply to tgutgu

    I just bought a Hydrogen car and can you believe it? My local gas-station doesn't supply H yet!!! It has only been around since the birth of the Universe

     

     

    (Sorry, I couldn't resist)

     

    This thread would have a point if it were an official conduit to Adobe.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 24, 2012 12:51 PM   in reply to Rikk Flohr

    Not only that, if they only understood how tiring their whining is.  This happens every time a new camera comes out that a few people seem to think is being discriminated against.  These whiners will begin to understand when their camera is finally supported and they try to explain the problem to someone who purchases the next new wonder camera of the contract.  We get it!  You bought a new camera, and you demand support RIGHT NOW, just like every other person who has purchased a brand new model.  The answer will always be the same and the frustration will always be there as long as there isn't a common raw file format.  I wonder how many hundreds of comments will be made before the camera is finally supported.  It's been answered.  You're just going to have to be patient.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 24, 2012 1:41 PM   in reply to JimHess

    Right enough Jim - it's unbelievably tedious to see this same kind of thread every single time a given converter doesn't instantly come up with support for somebody's beloved Camera X, despite the number of times the same sort of thing has been posted... and the process explained... and the issues spelled out... 

     

    The Phase One board has the right idea: questions about when Capture One will support this camera or that is a banned topic, and threads on the subject locked by the administrators.

     

    Mind you, even though the rules say such discussion is a no-go, people still ask.

     

    What cracks me up about such threads though, is the usual, predictable assertion that if the software doesn't catch up with their camera (usually some comparatively niche product like this Olympus) pronto, this "failure" will surely mean the end of the software, the company behind it, civilisation as we know it.

     

    Guys, if you want to be confident of "timely" support for your cameras, buy Canon or Nikon: otherwise, take your chance, take responsibility for your buying decisions, and deal with it. Your yammering is boring, and it won't change a single thing.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 24, 2012 2:26 PM   in reply to tgutgu

    It is the usual answer because it IS the answer.  Believe me, a year from now when the buyers of new cameras are whining like you are, you are going to be just as irritated with them as we are with you right now.  When you're sort of on the outside looking in like you are, you seem to think that continual complaining is going to make a difference, but it really isn't.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 24, 2012 2:28 PM   in reply to tgutgu

    Well let's see you carry out your pledge.

    Really there has been a protocal set for Lightroom/ACR camera updates and sometimes camera releases don't make a release....... that is the reality.

    "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,

    Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Shakespeare.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 24, 2012 2:40 PM   in reply to tgutgu

    tgutgu wrote:

     

     

    My pledge is that imaging industry firms should cooperate better so that things go smoother when new cameras are released. Too much to ask for?

     

    The second pledge is, that if 4.1 needs much more time to get ready functionally, Adobe should consider a second release candidate to support the new cameras. A very legitimate request, in my opinion.

     

    Unless a camera manufacturer refuses to provide a camera body early enough, there should be no reason to delay the new camera support until the rest of the software is ready for release.

     

     

    the discussion is a never ending cirlce and i am out....

     

    it´s all said...  bother your camera manufacturer about using DNG.

    or else we all will be using leica!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 24, 2012 2:45 PM   in reply to -Agfaclack-

    -Agfaclack- wrote:

     

    it´s a good idea to have RAW support the same way as lens profile support. i thought about that since i use LR.

    so you don´t need to download the whole package and adobe has not to compile a new build each time.

     

    i am very curious to hear why they don´t do it that way. it seems as it would have positive affects for adobe too.

    but i guess it´s not possible with the current LR engine. maybe an idea for future versions.

     

     

    One reason not to do it that way is because many new cameras (but not all) require new code to handle new features.  That could mean things like active D-lighting, HDR modes from Fuji, Sigma's non-Bayer sensors, Canon's S-raw and M-raw, new aspect ratio options like Panasonic likes to use, even new video features such as the current stills-taken-during-video-capture problem with the D800.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 24, 2012 2:49 PM   in reply to tgutgu

    tgutgu wrote:

     

    My pledge is that imaging industry firms should cooperate better so that things go smoother when new cameras are released. Too much to ask for?

     

    That would be nice.  I'm sure Adobe is agreeable so try contacting your manufacturer.

     

    The second pledge is, that if 4.1 needs much more time to get ready functionally, Adobe should consider a second release candidate to support the new cameras. A very legitimate request, in my opinion.

     

    Adobe's policy is to release updates four times a year.  When you look at a timeline you realize that trying to keep up with cameras as they are released would be suicidal.  If they did that, we'd be on our 18th release since January 1st.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 24, 2012 3:08 PM   in reply to Lee Jay

    Lee Jay wrote:

     

    One reason not to do it that way is because many new cameras (but not all) require new code to handle new features.  That could mean things like active D-lighting, HDR modes from Fuji, Sigma's non-Bayer sensors, Canon's S-raw and M-raw, new aspect ratio options like Panasonic likes to use, even new video features such as the current stills-taken-during-video-capture problem with the D800.

     

    the idea is to put all that stuff in a "modul" that can be loaded by the LR engine.

    so for each camera model you have modul the can be loaded. of course it has to be flexible so new features (hdr modes, d-lighting etc.) can be implemente into the RAW modul (not LR itself).

     

    i don´t mean a modul like WEB or DEVELOP. it is not visible to the user.

    it is just the part of the program code that is camera dependend, an can be loaded. like a plugin.

     

    that way RAW support would be more independent from other LR features.

     

    that is not an unsolvable problem. but sure not something you build into a point update.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 25, 2012 4:16 PM   in reply to Lee Jay

    Lee Jay wrote:

     

    Adobe's policy is to release updates four times a year.

    lastest vesion Adobe Camera RAW 6.6 FINAL is from 12/12/2011

    been more than 4 months and not disponible new version Adobe Camera Raw 6.7 FINAL

     

    If adobe launches four updates a year, this year is not going to allow time

     
    |
    Mark as:
1 2 Previous Next

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)