This content has been marked as final. Show 33 replies
Very, very unlikely at this point. The timing just isn't going to work out.
When does PS CS4 for Windows hit the shelves? Will it have G10 support day one?
double drat! this is bad news - because the Canon G10 is such a great little camera - but it's causing a major log jam in my work flow. I use Bridge to ingest and manage my post production of images.
Having to learn a different GUI is not something I want to do. If anyone has clout with the powers that nbe at Adobe - beg them to please PLEASE help with a new update to include my Canon G10 RAW files!
As a stopgap measure, you can use the sw with the G10, "Digital Photo Professional", to batch convert your images to 16 bit tiff, and then process in Bridge/CR/PS. Not an exciting program but seems to do the raw convert ok. And it's a simple interface.
I shot 2 gigs using the raw plus jpeg setting. I downloaded them and although I have not installed the software with the camera (do not have a CD reader where I am for the next 5 weeks) and tried to open them with CS3. Got the message "not the right kind of document". One image I shot in jpeg and it opens. These are all images of the first week of my twin grandbabies. Any way to access these images??? I understand the raw is not supported, but where are the jpegs? Thanks.
If you tried downloading directly from the G10 you probably were not able to get the jpeg's. It's apparently a bug, the best way is to take the SDHC card out of the camera and download the images from a card reader. You should then see the jpegs and be able to load them into CS3.
FYI, I ordered the new Canon Eos 50d the day it became available to order in the US. The ACR upgrade was available one week to the day later.
Why can't there be a way to access RAW files from the new cameras in CS3? I don't particularly like the DNG workaround because it adds yet another step in the processing and I especially don't like being forced to upgrade to the new software with $200 I don't have just to process images. CS3 is a fine piece of software and works great for me. I simply can't justify the cost of the upgrade.
If there is no technical restriction on such an upgrade to CS3 or ACR then why are we users of CS3 being punished?
Some it is definately that Adobe wants to make you upgrade, they need the
money like all businesses need the money. Anyone that thinks otherwise is
deluding themselves. However, the other part of it too is that with each new
version of Photoshop they add many new features to ACR, not just camera
support but new features. To upgrade the old version of ACR the last one for
CS3 for example they would need to maintain two seperate code bases and that
is a lot of work, that is going to increase the possibility of bugs and
other problems. It is far easier for Adobe to do it once and that is it.
This is why Lightroom and ACR are by and large updated together and why they
share the same code base, they only have invent the wheel once.
Now I am sure there is little reason why Adobe couldn't just make 5.1 work
with CS3. But, that goes back to the whole money thing. I guess you could
say ACR is a privilage and not a right. You earn the privilage to use the
lastest ACR by keeping your updates current.
This time around however, I have to say that Adobe did something that I
approve of very much and that is they release ACR 4.6 for CS3 AFTER CS4
shipped adding support for newer cameras. I would like to see Adobe do this
all of the time. That is do one final ACR update for the previous version of
Photoshop after the new version has shipped. I see this as a sort of thank
Oh, I don't doubt that they use such a rationale for forcing upgrades but that assumes that customers have an obligation to do what is best for the business, rather than a business treating its customers well and understanding their needs. However good businesses understand their entire customer base and that not everyone will move to the latest iteration of a product at the same time, or can afford to. But cutting off a part of the customer base just to force them to pay more money to the company is a form of extortion and these days companies would do well to remember that loyalty, maintained for a small investment by the company, pays bigger dividends down the road than extorted product sales.
I upgraded from CS2 to CS2 because CS3 had functionality I wanted. Not so with CS4, I have yet to see any additional functionality that makes it worth $200, and an ACR upgrade is not worth $200 in any reasonable sense.
I don't see this as a thank you at all, I see it as a screw you from Adobe.
Understand, I'm not saying "now, now!" for this update of the ACR plugin but I see no reason for Adobe to shoot themselves in the foot like this just to make a point. The amount of programming needed to hook ACR into CS3 is minimal, it's not like they are rewriting the entire ACR module.
> Why can't there be a way to access RAW files from the new cameras in CS3? I don't particularly like the DNG workaround because it adds yet another step in the processing and I especially don't like being forced to upgrade to the new software with $200 I don't have just to process images. CS3 is a fine piece of software and works great for me. I simply can't justify the cost of the upgrade.
Do your own math. If that extra DNG-conversion step is so onerous to your
workflow, then cough up the $200 for the upgrade. If it's not worth $200, then
this must not be as serious a problem as you make it out to be.
No one's forcing you to upgrade. If the DNG conversion wasn't available, I'd be
somewhat sympathetic. But it is and I'm not.
I'm upgrading to CS4 largely on the strength of ACR 5.x, even though my cameras are already supported in CS3/ACR 4.x.
Bridge is also substantially improved. Whatever gains there are in Photoshop 11 are just the frosting on the cake.
If you don't want to spend the $197 (including shipping, no tax outside Nevada, from Amazon.com), Adobe has more than graciously accommodated you by providing you with a free DNG Converter.
Your stance is not reasonable.
Well, Tom you have to remember before that free upgrade for CS3 after CS4
came out people got nothing more for the previous version of Photoshop. So
while this may not be the ideal it is a nice jesture. Expecting Adobe to
keep developing for old products just isn't going to happen. I think
providing one file upgrade for the previous version after the new version
has shipped is quite nice of them.
I would also like to point out that the update policy is pretty standard
across the board with software companies. Very few provide updates for prior
There is of course Rawtherepee which is a free raw converter, there are at
least a dozen other raw conversion programs available. The down side to that
is that you don't get updates to prior versions once the new ships with them
either (except for the rawtherepee which is free) and they don't update
their camera support any where near as often as Adobe does. But, if you
don't like the way Adobe works then use someone elses product.
Also, as far as the upgrade policy being extortion not even close. You have
a choice, Adobe isn't going to send people out to break your legs or snuff
you out if you don't upgrade. Adobe isn't holding a gun to your head. The
choice is yours. You are the one that choice to buy the latest camera, not
Adobe. Think of camera support updates as virus definition subscriptions for
anti-virus software. If you want the latest coverage you pay for it buy
buying the latest program. Otherwise you can continue to use what you have
already paid for.
Koolaid drinkers, ya gotta love 'em.
All your arguments are quite valid for Photoshop 7 but not for CS3. It's like me telling you that you ought to expect to have to buy a new car every two years if you want to be able to use the new safer tires from the tire companies even if your car is perfectly usable and you have no other need for a new one.
CS3 has huge market penetration and not everyone upgrades all their equipment at the same time nor should need to. PS ought to be designed to be scalable to new equipment for more than 24 months or one iteration of the software.
Koolaid drinkers your ancestors and my foot.
Just pay for your damned software like everybody else and shut up already.
>you want to be able to use the new safer tires from the tire companies even if your car is perfectly usable and you have no other need for a new one.
and you want the freaking new, safer tires for free?
Wow, they serve pretty strong koolaid to you underage drinkers.
I've read through some of the threads on here Ramon and I've noticed you seem to be the resident rude and insulting juvenile ******* of the forums. You seem to get quite a kick out pushing people around and I went through this little exercise to smoke you out.
You're pretty predictable Ramon but you need to work on your social skills. I'm just amazed that they let you continue to post on a commercial forum like this because you drive away people with your juvenile tone and rudeness who might want help but are unsure of what they are doing. (that's not me btw)
You are a sorry representative of Adobe if they let you infest their forums. I'll find information elsewhere from now on, as I imagine a lot of people have in the past when they've been attacked by you for asking a simple question.
You're a black eye for Adobe and no help to anyone here but I guess you're just feeding your ego and as long as they let you continue you'll go right on abusing people for kicks.
Who the hell told you I am, was or have ever been a "representative of Adobe"? You must be drinking something a hell of a lot nastier than Kool Aid.
Glad to know you perceive me as juvenile; I'm an old geezer.
You were the one who flamed first by calling me a " Kool Aid drinker" first.
By the way,
> I'll find information elsewhere
You're going to have to spend money all the same, whether upgrading your Adobe software or buying new one from a different developer.
With OS X, Apple charges $19.95 for additional QuickTime converters through their online store.
Perhaps Adobe could adopt a similar policy to appease customers with dated ACR versions...
The thing is, ACR 5 requires CS4 to work. Are you suggesting Adobe spend programming power retrofitting a dead version of Photoshop so that newer ACR plug-ins can be hosted by it?
I would much prefer to have Adobe working on future versions than in obsolete, dead-end ones.
I'm not quite sure what you are referencing when you type Apple charges $19.95 for additional QuickTime converters, but I suspect those utilities do not require rewriting the code for an older version of the OS. Along those lines, Adobe does give out the Dng Converter for free.
In any event, thank you for a civilized suggestion, without insulting folks who are sick and tired of these whiners. Presuming to tell people who disagree with a given stance that they are "Kool Aid drinkers" is bound to provoke a reaction.
Elliot even admits he instigated "this exercise" his words, to provoke a reaction.
CLICK HERE for a former host's Guidelines for Effective Posting. Argumentative rants inevitable invite retribution.
I was thinking more in line of
camera support for outdated ACR versions for PS. This wouldnt necessarily
all the new features of the software, per se.
The QuickTime converters Im referencing (MPEG 2, etc) are paid upgrades for playback/editing in OS X.
>I was thinking more in line of new camera support for outdated ACR versions for PS. This wouldnt necessarily include all the new features of the software, per se.
That's exactly what the DNG Converter provides, for free!
This thread either gets back on topic or I close it down.
> That's exactly what the DNG Converter provides, for free!
Apparently not, for
b some users!
thing I do with new RAW files is running them through the DNG Converter during import. ;)
I feel it considerably tidier than dealing with the sidecar nonsense... But thats me! YMMV.
>Apparently not, for some users!
Everyone has their own opinion about using DNG. But I think the argument that using DNG adds another step to the workflow is a pretty lame argument. You have to transfer your images to your hard drive anyway. Converting to DNG just means that you use a different program to do that transfer. It really is not that big of a deal.
While it is entertaining to read some of these juvenile rants, I'm only interested in trying to discern when Adobe might be releasing an ACR update that supports my new G10.
In the meantime, I'll grit my teeth and use the DPP that Canon shipped with it. I'll just forego DNG and use TIFF in LR2 and PhotoShop CS4.
I only wish Adobe offered an email list on which I could sign up for being notified when the next ACR release is available. Then I wouldn't need to frequent forums which degenerate. Wheeee! And, happy shooting!
In the mean time, just check the downloads section every three to four months. That's the usual frequency of ACR updates.
John, CR 5.2 now has support for the G10. Enjoy.