This content has been marked as final. Show 12 replies
You don't need to upgrade anything to use the most recent verson of the DNG Converter (except sometimes the OS version).
> I cant think of a reason to upgrade either the DNG converter or Camera RAW...
Thomas is far too modest to mention the excellent work he and the team have put into ACR 4.1.
After reading about the fantastic new features here: http://photoshopnews.com/2007/05/31/about-camera-raw-41/ you'll be reaching for your cheque book. :-)
OK. I found that when I open the zipped file download I can use just the DNG program without having to use the newer version of CR.
Let me ask you this- Does the DNG 4.1 have anything over 3.3 other than maybe support for more flavors of RAW from more and/or newer cameras?
Chris answered you question pretty well. If you don't get the idea from that article, which covers the 4.1 update, look at this features page and click camera raw to see what else you're missing.
> "Does the DNG 4.1 have anything over 3.3 other than maybe support for more flavors of RAW from more and/or newer cameras?"
If you had read the excellent article link provided to you by Chris in post #2, you wouldn't be asking such a preposterous, absurd question.
Here's that link again:
>you wouldn't be asking such a preposterous, absurd question
There is nothing absurd, even less preposterous on that question.
New features may or may not be important for a particular person respectively kind of post processing. I don't buy every version of Photoshop, and even though I purchased CS3, I am not using ACR, because the old RSE offers me certain advantages, which make even the bad colors it produces and other problems look a bit "better" (I don't even have RSP, because just when I wanted to buy it, Adobe erased the company).
For example I never sharpen an image in the raw processing, so the much-touted sharpening ability is irrelevant in my workflow. I don't shoot noisy images, so the noise removal is irrelevant for me.
The full moon seems to be bringing out the looneys again
Sharpening and noise reduction functions are not even half of the equation, let alone the whole thing.
Ive been hanging around the forums for a couple years now and have learned quite a bit from the others. Perhaps Ive helped others in the meantime. Im thinking thats the intent of the forum. Ive seen people blasted for not being as knowledgeable as some of the others and Ive always thought it's a shame. However, it appears Ive accidentally irritated folk by asking an opinion of something.
I mentioned in the OP that I'll not be upgrading to CS3 or any other version of PS. So by default, and a point not picked up by some- the question is really in regard to the newer version of DNG and NOT Camera RAW.
When I looked at the download page it appeared that the new version of DNG might somehow be connected to RAW. After all, they are in the same .ZIP file. Mr. Knoll was kind enough to point out that the newest version of DNG didnt require a PS upgrade. I should have figured that out myself as its a stand alone program, but by the way it was packaged Anyway, I downloaded the file, and unzipped it. Then ran DNG.
It works fine. Just as the previous version. But what I was asking, and what some people took issue with, was if there were features that had been faulty with previous version, or perhaps previous versions did work with RAW formats from certain cameras. Things like that.
I was thinking Mr. Knoll or another knowledgeable person might respond with Sure, Thomas, the newer version of DNG processes batch files much faster due to an improved bit-handling algorithm or Naw, the newer version of DNG is just compatible with more camera formats, so if the version you have works, no need to upgrade, or maybe even The newer version fixes a few minor issues with converting files over 9 MB in size.
Instead, I was told that I wouldn't be asking such a preposterous, absurd question. if I had read the linked article. Well, prior to my second post, I did read it read it. Its a nicely written article with some great shots of the interface. It touts the new RAW as the best there is, and according to the author, Jeff Schewe, its well worth the price. But I also noticed it said nothing of the new version of DNG. Maybe thats because the article is titled About Camera RAW 4.1.
Thank you, Mr. Knoll and G Sch.
I might be wrong, but I think some people didn't read the whole thread, and didn't realize that your question was specifically about the DNG converter. A lot of times some of the changes to these programs are undocumented because they are things that would be unnoticed by the user. But my opinion is that it is a good idea to use the latest version of the DNG converter because that is the one that Adobe is "supporting" and is concerned about. It's always a good idea to keep a previous version that you are comfortable with just in case there is a glitch that causes a problem. But I routinely upgrade whenever one is available.
I am sorry if you took offense from my response. None was intended. I did miss the out of the question comment about CS3 and was just trying to have you get info about what an upgrade would afford you.
No Problem, Stephen. You're not the one that said I was "asking such a preposterous, absurd question" so you certainly didn't offend me in anyway at all. besides my skin is a lot thicker than that. :)
I usually read the forums and post early in the mornings as that's when I get the chance. Perhaps I didn't make it clear enough.
I was actually asking if the workflow seemed to make sense to others. I'm always open to suggestions and polite criticism, and will make changes if it makes sense to do so.
In the process I became curious as to what new or improved features the new version of DNG contained. I also discovered that although DNG was packaged with the new version of RAW, I could use just the new DNG (and I am), so I did learn someting.
Thanks to all for polite responses.