This content has been marked as final. Show 6 replies
> Will Photoshop CS2 ever support newer Nikon cameras (D700, D40X, D50, D90)?
Not directly ... but you can convert the NEFs to DNG and use CS2 to your heart's content.
It's a small amount of $$ to ugrade to CS3 and ACR4 (relative to the cost of the cameras you mention) or, for the same $$, you can consider Lightroom ... both of which offer considerably more control over development than ACR3 or, for that matter, NX.
Frankly,it's not a matter of money upgrading to CS3
I use, and will continue to use Windows 2000Pro - for a variety of reasons (money isn't one of them).
Why can't adobe support the ******** products they sell by upgrading them? They cost enough in the first place.
I have a D700, with no raw converter available from adobe, and apparently none forthcoming. I can't upgrade to CS3 no matter how cheap it is, and I can't use Lightroom either.
Do they have any idea how many businesses are still using these older OS?
I'm annoyed enough never to buy another adobe product or upgrade. Trying to find the correct support page to contact them is driving me nuts - it is one of the most difficult sites to navigate.
I currently own 6 adobe products but I'm just about ready to throw in the towel.
(sorry for the rant, but you've no idea how frustrating this is)
"Why can't adobe support the ******** products they sell by upgrading them?"
They do. About 4 times per year they upgrade all Photoshop RAW capable products, both the CS* and Elements ranges.
See Michael's answer:-
"Not directly ... but you can convert the NEFs to DNG and use CS2 to your heart's content. "
Using the stand alone DNG converter for older products or the Later ACRs for newer products. In my case it means I can use the latest cameras on my Photoshop Cs (Stand alone converter), Elements 3 (Stand alone converter), 5 (Latest ACR), and 6 (Latest ACR).
>Why can't adobe support the ******** products they sell by upgrading them? They cost enough in the first place.
Application must live in an operating system environment...there are OS dependancies that application must (and want to) take advantage...writing an application for OLD system APIs and services simply doesn't make sense when there are newer and more modern and efficient APIs and services.
Some of those APIs and system services that applications take advantage of simply don't exist in earlier OS's. To rewrite the application for backwards compatibilities to older OS's would deprive current OS users with a lot of newer functionality because of the engineering resources that would have to be diverted.
So, as a user of a "current" OS, I'm glad that Adobe doesn't waste those resources engineering for OS's that are no longer even sold (and barely supported if at all). You don't see the OS developers doing much for backwards compatibilities for those OS's do you? So why should Adobe?
>I'm annoyed enough never to buy another adobe product or upgrade.
Nobody is holding a gun to your head FORCING you to do anything...the older versions of the software still runs, right? It's not like Adobe has done anything to turn them off...oh, wait, you DID buy a new camerathat wasn't even designed when you bought your OS and applicationand no find that your unwillingness to upgrade you SOFTWARE is biting you in the behind...well, you should have stuck with the same camera you were using when you bought Win2K and then everything would be just fine, right?
You see the irony here?
I use Microsoft Money 2004; some months ago, I got a warning message when I started the program saying that, merely due to the passage of three years since the program was released, the program would no longer connect to the web. That is the most blatant attempt at forced obsolescence I have encountered, but it seems to me that Adobe is not too far behind.
Whereas I understand that old software products have to dropped at some point, my suspicion (and I defer to those who know more if they have proof to the contrary) is that there is a bit of forced obsolescence going on here with the Adobe RAW situation as well. (1) Since they are already upgrading Raw 4.xx to incorporate new cameras, would it really have been very difficult to also update Raw 3.xx? (2) Photoshop CS2 is only one version behind CS3. Is there any real technical reason why Raw 4.xx can't run on CS2? I have not read any hard reason why at least one of those things cannot be accomplished, but would love to know if there is such a reason.
So what you are asking for is for Adobe to continue to be in business and provide support for products they no longer sell. And you expect them to continue to provide you with updates at no cost. I wonder how long they would stay in business with that kind of a plan. How long would you be able to continue going to work if your employer asked you to work for free?