This content has been marked as final. Show 27 replies
> "The RAW 4.0 update adds only the Panasonic DMC-FZ8, a camera that I recently purchased. But, if I want to view RAW files from this camera I have to upgrade to Photoshop CS3 or buy Lightroom 1.0, and that is exactly what Adobe is hoping"
You can use the DNG route. That "unethical" Adobe you talk about has provided you with a means of supporting all recent cameras even in Photoshop CS (not just CS2), and presumably Elements 3.0 too.
Use ACR 3.7 in CS2, and the 4.0 DNG Converter to convert the raw files to DNGs to be opened in ACR 3.7.
ACR 4.0 isn't intended for CS2. Unfortunately, Adobe have screwed up the ACR page, and it says "Camera Raw 3.0 and greater is not compatible with Photoshop CS2"! Read "Camera Raw 4.0 ...."
I assume that you have or have had a job to earn money somewhere. Why don't you work for free? I think not working for free "reflects poorly on your business ethics." At least it does according to the logic of your rant.
Camera Raw 4.0 is one of the major features of Photoshop CS3. Adobe spends a lot of money (i.e. salaries of actual human beings who develop and test it, including mine). I'm sorry that you consider it evil to not to give away a major feature of a new version to users of older versions for free.
Camera Raw 4.0 is not compatible with Photoshop CS2. Adobe has not disabled anything for existing CS2 users. Camera Raw 3.7 has not stopped working. You can still download it an fix the CS2 installation that you broke by incorrectly installing Camera Raw 4.0.
After you have fixed your copy of Photoshop CS2, try using the free DNG Converter 4.0 to convert your Panasonic DMC-FZ8 files to DNG format. They will open fine in Camera Raw 3.7.
I have to agree with everything that you said.
HOWEVER I must admit that Adobe's lack of long term support for their
products very below the industry standard. I sell and produce software, I do
not provide it for free, I make use of lots of software from other companies
and after people have invested a good sum of money we try to keep them
running with the latest and greatest that we can provide. We often provide
FREE upgrade to make sure that our software runs with the latest that
Microsoft have thrown out.
I think Adobe could do with some serious competition, maybe then they will
realise that their police needs to be revised.
Adobe makes great products but their customer relations department needs a
"HOWEVER I must admit that Adobe's lack of long term support for their products very below the industry standard."
Well, Photoshop CS2 came out April 2005 and by my count, Camera Raw was rev'ed SEVEN times to keep the product updated and usable (3.0 - 3.7), and all those were free upgrades...and, even if you are using Camera Raw 2.4 in Photoshop CS, you can download the most recent free DNG Convertor, convert raw files that were released AFTER CS came out and continue using Photoshop CS and Camera Raw 2.4 (even the OP's newly purchased Panasonic DMC-FZ8)
The OP also kinda missed the boat in that each major rev of the main product (Photoshop), the full SDK is reved (and in this case, the plug-in SDK) to the extent it would be difficult (and perhaps impossible) to actually write an optimum plug-in for the current version that would also work as expected in previous versions. So, would you want today's software hobbled by backwards compatibility issues?
Thomas doesn't have a time machine (yet), he can't go back in time and change/re-release old software for the future. Stuff just don't happen like that. The facts actually speak for themselves...Adobe has and continues to bend over backwards to provide backwards compatibility for products they have ceased to sell.
So, that pretty much blows your statement out of the water, don't ya think?
Because when Adobe releases a new version of Photoshop all versions of ACR
that come with it and after do not work on the older Photoshop programs. In
this case ACR 4 and any thing newer will not nor will it ever work on
Photoshop CS2 or older. Adobe has always done this. They know its a great
way to force upgrades.
" They know its a great way to force upgrades."
Well, perhaps...it's also a great way to do more modern, progessive code that isn't hobbled by the limitations of previous SDK's...forcing backwards compatibility would reduce progess in new code and lenthen the engineering time and Q&E testing so that new stuff would take longer and offer less...and that is a fact.
Adobe's choice to stop adding camera raw updates to CS2 effectively forces
any existing user to upgrade to CS3 if they go out and buy a new camera. We
can argue all we like about what makes good design sense. Sure it makes good
I'm talking about keeping the public, your users with you. If Adobe had any
decent competition they would quickly change their support policies and
improve their customer relations.
Just different opinions on what are good ethical business relations ....
Dogbert has made a very good point. Photoshop Camera Raw 4 is very different from CR3. There are some laws that limit the addition of features at a later date (remember the pay-for update from Apple to have a faster wireless transfer speed with some macbooks?)
And Jeff outlined the architectural differences.
YET, there is the "free" DNG route, that some members seem decided to ignore.
"Adobe's choice to stop adding camera raw updates to CS2 effectively forces any existing user to upgrade to CS3 if they go out and buy a new camera. "
Or use DNG for CS2/Camera Raw 3.x and even back to CS/Camera Raw 2.4...hardly a "force" unless you know a different definition to the word FORCE than I do. So, that's spin bud...not fact.
"If Adobe had any decent competition they would quickly change their support policies and improve their customer relations."
Speculation (on your part)...there's plenty of 3rd party software developers like Phase One, Bibble even Aperture on Mac, that compete with Camera Raw/Lightroom. There's even the camera company's own software...so I guess your statement is meant to say they all suck? It that Adobe's fault?
"Just different opinions on what are good ethical business relations .... "
You are welcome to your opinion, no matter how misguided it may be...in my opinion, Adobe is one of the most ethical software developers out there...and I've dealt with all of them except Oracle (thank goodness I don't have to deal with them!)
Jeff, I am not say yah or nay to how Adobe handles ACR upgrades. Honestly I
don't really care as I always upgrade Photoshop. However, I do suspect that
to a good number of people it isn't looked upon as a good thing when you
have to buy the new Photoshop in order to get support for the $1000 plus or
$1000 or less camera you just bought.
Personally, I think ACR 4 is one of the most compelling upgrades to ACR
since they released it and it is well worth the cost of upgrading Photoshop.
I also think that Photoshop CS3 is well worth the upgrade. The this being
the first upgrade in sometime I have felt this way about. Yes, I always
upgrade but that doesn't mean I feel I got my months worth... Fine... I am
addicted to Photoshop now stop trying to beat it out of me! :)
But, Michael Adobe has competition they have had competition for sometime.
The problem is that they just can't seem to be effective competition. Corel
Paint Shop Pro, Corel Painter and now Ulead PhotoImpact have all been
competition to Adobe Photoshop. But, lets face it all of the Corel programs
are lacking is some very important areas. One area that I feel is very
critical espeically if you really want to learn a program is third party
support. Photoshop just blows them out of the water. And, this is just one
part of it.
Dreamweaver has alway blown GoLive out of the water, mostly because it
had/has massive amounts of third party support, Books, training, extensions,
free tutorials and extensions, etc. I am beginning to think that at least
half of the success of any program is in the third party support. Look at
the Apple iPod compared to others, they have tons of third party options for
add-ons. A few of the others have some add-ons but don't even come close to
what the iPod has.
It is this third party support that makes a program or device so hot and
popular because it can be expanded and made to do many other things.
I think a nice comprimise to the ACR things is to design the next full
version of upgrade of ACR (in this case 4.0) so that it will work with the
last version of Adobe Photoshop (in this case CS2). However, future dot
releases will require you to upgrade Photoshop to CS3. This at least will
give people that already have their camera supported a little extra benefit,
something that might smooth the edges.
Or, another idea to handle the ACR thing is for Adobe to sell seperatly a
CS2 upgrade. This would allow those that for now want to stay with CS2 to
upgrade ACR to version 4 for say $19.95. This and my last suggestion does
assume that CS2 is even capable of running ACR 4.0 with only minor
adjustments. I suspect that this is not the case.
Well I definately don't see anything uneitheical about how Adobe handles ACR
updates. Sure we all like getting something of value for nothing. However,
to expect that in this day and age is well... dullsional.
"I think a nice compromise to the ACR things is to design the next full version of upgrade of ACR (in this case 4.0) so that it will work with the last version of Adobe Photoshop (in this case CS2)."
Yeah, ok, here's the problem with that...Mac CS2 required 10.3.9 or above...Win CS2 required Win 2K or XP/SP2...Photoshop CS3 (and Camera Raw 4.0) requires Mac 10.4.8 and Win, XP/SP2 or Vista.
So, you code to the latest APIs of the system (10.4.x, XP/SP2 or Vista) and you are supposed to magically make a plug-in work on older APIs of the previous version of Photoshop? Even though, to progress and advance (and hopefully optimize) you commit to using the new APIs. So, how ya gonna make Camera Raw 4.0 work in Photoshop CS2-disable it for 10.3.9 and Win 2K? Forget about using new API's and suffer through the old ones?
So, you say, well, just keep updating Camera Raw 3.x...ok, for how long? Forever? For 1 quarter? For a year?
So, you got the Camera Raw engineering team (3 guys) taking time away from Camera Raw 4 to re-write code for Camera Raw 3 for cameras that weren't even sold when Camera Raw 3.x shipped...you ok with that? You realize that it will drain resources from new products with new features, but that's ok. . .you want Adobe to support old products even though they no longer sell them.
I suppose in a perfect world, that would be ok. But as a user of the current Photoshop CS3 and Camera Raw 4, I would want the engineers to be concentrating their time and energy working on what they ARE selling right now. Adding new cameras to Camera Raw 4. Adding new functionality to Camera Raw 4.
People have a pretty skewed view of software, IMHO. They drop down bucks for HARDWARE and expect the software to be upgraded forever, for free. There's just as much value in intangible personal property (software) as there is in tangible personal property (hardware). And...it ain't like these shiny new cameras don't come with the camera maker's software...and Adobe STILL provides support for new cameras in old versions via DNG...which, BTW is free...
Big ol' bad Adobe, out there trying to screw their customers...I don't think so. They bend over backwards to do the right things, but of course, to some people, even that's not enough.
>Camera Raw 4.0 unusable in Photoshop CS2
Well, of course, you twit!
Hmm, I think a lot of users would go for this...
Did ya read what I wrote about API's? What part of that didn't you understand? CR 4 simply can not be made to work in Photoshop CS2. Different API's, different system requirements, different compilers (in the case of CS3 for Mac, you have to use Xcode not CodeWarrior and write Mach-O plug-ins, not CFM plug-ins). The only way for CR 4 to run in Photoshop CS2 is to not update the plug-in and use new API's.
The only alternative is to steal engineering time away from current products to support old products that are no longer being sold.
Now don't be hostile Jeff. I see your point and I kind of suspected that.
There have been a good amount of negative comments already from people with
OSes older the XP that are miffed because programs like CS and LR need XP or
I used to help design a major software product; a mainframe operating system. We didn't sell upgrades, we sold an annual licence. So we didn't get money by forcing people to upgrade.
But we DID force people to upgrade! We only supported the 2 latest releases.
We simply couldn't afford the cost of maintaining old releases, trying to make them work with newer hardware, trying to clear bugs in old versions that were already fixed in the latest version, etc. The combinations escalated beyond all reason.
With Photoshop, you DON'T have to upgrade because of new cameras, only because of new features or new operating systems / computers. That sounds like a reasonable compromise. Since I bought Photoshop 6 six years ago, I've upgraded twice, and will upgrade again within days. That is an average of 2 years per upgrade. Others upgrade less.
Thank you everyone for your assistance with this issue. I have restored ACR 3.7 and I can continue to access RAW files from my older cameras in Photoshop CS2.
For my new Panasonic DMC-FZ8, I appears I need to use the DNG converter first, then open the DNG file in Photoshop CS2. It is one extra (somewhat annoying) step considering I am dealing with thousands of images in my work flow, but maybe that is the cost of getting the free upgrade.
Also, I noticed that the 11MB RAW file right out of the camera becomes a 6MB to 7MB file when converted to DNG. This concerns me. I am thinking, what photo information has been lost in the conversion? Is there some sort of compression going on here? I shoot RAW for the sole purpose of retaining all the information the camera sensor picks up. If I am losing something with the DNG conversion step, then I may have to reconsider this approach.
> "Also, I noticed that the 11MB RAW file right out of the camera becomes a 6MB to 7MB file when converted to DNG. This concerns me"
DNG uses a lossless compression that can reduce file sizes to less than a half of their original size. If Panasonic don't compress their raw files, that is reasonably consistent.
If you want to double-check - run those DNGs through the DNG Converter with compression switched off, and see what the file size is.
I ' d like to thank you all for this info
I too just bought a Lumix FZ8 and use CS2. In my naivety, I thought that 'raw' for one camera was 'raw' for them all (like jpeg is) and didn't realize that the 'camera' wasn't supported by CS2
When I checked the Adobe website and discovered that the camera had been added to the Camera Raw and DNG converter 4.0 I was pleased, until I read that I could only use them with CS3.
I thought that CR and DNG-C were both plug ins!
I thought I was out of luck until someone here posted that DNG could be used independently, so I downloaded the updates, and put the CR 3.7 plugin into CS2, and used the DNG converter on my raw photos and voila! Success!
Now I just have to figure out what to do with the raw images ... so many options to use now!
thank you agin
If you have the storage space use DNG Converter and embed your original RAW
images in to the new DNG files. This way you will always have them. If you
don't have the storage space, then I wouldn't worry about the original RAW
files. BTW you can save same space by using the compression option in the
DNG Converter. It is lossless and can usually save your a good amount of
space especially as your collection of images grow.
Thank you for the advice, but I just want to confirm this:
Does that mean that I don't need the actual RAW file once it's been converted to .dng? that the dng is the actual negative that I'll now use for all my image manipulation? ( I do know that dng stands for 'digital negative' but I'm leery of trashing something that I might in fact need later, so I just want to be sure ... raw is new for me)
DNG is just like the RAW file from your camera except that it is a much more
open format with a much brighter future. My K10D (Pentax) shoots PEF and DNG
I shoot DNG. A lot of people convert their proprietary RAW files to DNG and
don't seem to have any problems.
If your concerned then embed the original RAW file in to the DNG, you can
pull it out anytime you want. The files will be bigger, but that is a fair
trade off if you want to ensure no future problems. Myself I wouldn't worry
about the original files RAW is RAW be it DNG or some other RAW format.
> "I do know that dng stands for 'digital negative' but I'm leery of trashing something that I might in fact need later, so I just want to be sure ... raw is new for me".
The single significant problem with only keeping the DNGs is that some products don't (yet) support DNG. Most (not all) products from camera manufacturers don't; Capture One (yet) and Bibble don't. (Another issue is that for some cameras some of the metadata may not be copied across - unfortunately, it is hard to track down which those cameras are. There are stories that some of the metadata was lost in ORFs because Olympus did some strange things to Makernotes, but I don't know what that metadata was - one idea was that it was a preview).
There is an unfortunate analogy between a raw file and a negative. That may have been useful once, but I think it has passed its use-by date. Even if "digital negative" is used (and I don't like that either) it is the raw image data within the file that corresponds. The file structure itself is more like the envelope the negatives are held in, or the slide mount that the image is mounted in.
Think what you might do with 35mm slides: you may remount them; crop them non-destructively; rotate them (spotting the corner); add metadata (write on the mount); remove dust; etc. And the out-of-the-camera image remains.
Using DNG is a bit like a combination of a standard slide mount that can be used in lots of projectors, and a unique image within the mount. But if you want to use a projector/viewer that doesn't accept the "standard" (well ... common) mount, you are stuffed.
Hm! I hope I don't start another misleading analogy! (Unlike a negative in an envelope or a slide in a mount, a raw image isn't developed - it is more like a latent negative or latent slide).