This content has been marked as final. Show 18 replies
You'll need an update to ACR to support these files. Updates come out 3-4 times a year so this one should be fairly soon. Don't ask for more details -- the forum police will jump all over you. :-)
> Don't ask for more details -- the forum police will jump all over you. :-)
Not that anyone would "jump all over you" ... it just seems like come this time of year, and again in February when the new cameras are released, that this forum is inundated withsimlar questions (e.g., the recent request for the Canon 40D).
It may prove helpful to ask Canon and Nikon to pre-release their new raw files to Adobe -- but we all know exactly how C&N will respond!
Bibble has already announced compatibility with the 40D. As I sarcastically said in some other forum, Bibble is probably larger and has more resources than Adobe... I also have a 40D on the way. My workflow is Adobe oriented so I join the ranks of people waiting for compatibility.
>Bibble is probably larger and has more resources than Adobe...
It is precisely because Bibble is insignificantly small that they can afford to crack proprietary formats without fear of a lawsuit from the camera manufacturers. Adobe, on the other hand, has the deep pockets and wisely refrains from acts that can keep their legal departments litigating the issue for years. Suing Bibble would be futile; the entire company is not worth what Nikon and Canon attorneys would charge for the preliminary briefs.
It pays to think a little before putting your foot in your mouth. :/
heh...thanks for the chuckle ! With a little more thinking you might have realized I was being facetious. And to save you a bit of time....
1. not meant to be taken seriously or literally: a facetious remark.
2. amusing; humorous.
3. lacking serious intent; concerned with something nonessential, amusing, or frivolous: a facetious person.
I'm not, in fact too worried because RAW support for the 40D is very close at this point. If it pays to think a little and you find yourself broke, just let me know. Happy to help out.
Keep a grin going
>I was being facetious.
Like hell you were! You say that now, but in your post you specifically used the adverb sarcastically to make your intention unmistakable.
At least I do get a kick out of how sure you are of yourself. Wrong sometimes, but that comes with the territory. Good on you.
Really??? Noooo! ???
(What an asinine remark! Who isn't?)
Unofficial Support is included for the Canon G9 camera model in ACR 4.2, which was released tonight.
"Unofficial" just means that the Adobe engineering and quality engineering team has yet to certify the quality of the support but Lightroom and Camera Raw will read the files.
Hi Neal, Please download and install ACR 4.2, which unofficially supports G9 files. Thanks!
I have problems with the BETA profile for the G9. all raw images are VERY blue/magenta. to get the same colors like the G9 jpgs i have to add 2000 - 3000 Kelvin WB and reduce the tint a little bit.
I hope the profile will be more precise in ACR 4.3
The G9 support is unofficial, that's true.
However ACR is not designed to emulate the results from the Canon in-camera conversion at all, and the defaults are nothing but a starting point.
This has been covered ad nauseam here. Please do a forum search.
Camera manufacturers, Canon and Nikon in particular, perform in-camera RAW to JPEG conversions designed to generate the over-saturated, over-contrasty and over-sharpened images that appeal to most amateurs.
Their stand-alone RAW conversion software also performs the same conversion to your RAW images.
Noise is also hidden by compressing the shadows so you don't see much of the noise inherent in the image.
Adobe Camera Raw, ACR, on the other hand, comes with default settings designed to give you the most detail possible (even if this sometimes means revealing some of the noise hidden by the camera manufacturers in their RAW conversion software), as well as the most natural images.
That being said, you can calibrate your camera to ACR and come up with your own settings to produce exactly what you want, including the JPEG-look of the camera manufacturer, and save that as your profile.
The key is to learn how to use ACR properly and to calibrate your camera to ACR.
CLICK HERE for some essential reading. A new edition revised by Jeff Schewe for CS3 and ACR 4.x will be out in October.
The ACR defaults are nothing more than a suggested starting point.
The color temperature won't necessarily match either.
I am a professional photographer working with acr for years. I have compared the the G9 results with the results i usualy get from my dslrs in acr.
my problem is that the 'starting point' wb in most (all) G9 raw pictures is wrong by several thousand kelvin.
the kelvin values in ACR look good but the colors do not. to get natural colors (outdoor, sunshine) i have to enter values between 8000 - 12000 Kelvin (5000 - 8000 would be normal).
there is definitely a problem with builtin 'BETA' color profile for the G9 in ACR 4.2 yet. and i want adobe to check this again before it becomes final
This is a user to user forum and the easiest way to let Adobe now is to contact Thomas Knoll directly: email address removed by forum host.
You can send him one of the files and your opinion about the Kelvin issue.
The G9 support is unofficial. I'm fully aware of the problems with the support (e.g. "as shot" white balance is not supported), but provided it in its current state because I thought it would be better than nothing. Maybe that was a mistake...
Please do not post my email again, or suggest that people email me. I get far too much junk mail already. If I ever need information, I will ask.
> "The G9 support is unofficial. I'm fully aware of the problems with the support (e.g. "as shot" white balance is not supported), but provided it in its current state because I thought it would be better than nothing. Maybe that was a mistake..."
My observation from various forums is that providing unofficial support for cameras is rarely if ever a mistake. As long as the limitations are clear to potential users.
Some people hit problems, eg. with colour balance or highlight recovery casts, etc. Others appear to be able to use the unnofficial support successfully. The latter would presumably be in favour of unofficial support.
What is important is that people understand the risks, for example that they may need to re-do DNG conversion later. Then it is for people to make their own informed decision.
If the concern is that it might be a mistake because of the flak that Adobe will get from some people - well, you're damned either way! You can't win that, anymore than Adobe can win "should we ship 1.0 now for the people who need it, or wait 3 months to get some extra features in".
I am very happy that the G9 is supported at all right from the beginning. These small digital cameras have such a limited dynamic range, that raw processing is maybe even more important than with dslrs.
apologies and understood