This content has been marked as final. Show 12 replies
>CS-2 over CS had enough to make me upgrade, CS-3 over CS-2 didn't.
Even allowing for subjective, individual workflows, that is the most absurd opinion I've ever read on these forums. CS3 is simply the most spectacular release ever and ACR 4.x is worlds apart from ACR 3.x.
Anyway, if you have installed ACR 3.7 properly in CS2, you should be able to read any properly generated DNG file.
You can download the stand-alone Adobe DNG Converter 4.3.1 to convert your raw files to DNGs you can open in ACR 3.7 hosted by Photoshop CS2.
or is my analysis above correct? CS-2 over CS had enough to make me upgrade, CS-3 over CS-2 didn't.
Uh, I guess you don't know about the MAJOR advances Camera Raw has made with version 4...perhaps you should do some research before passing judgement on the value of CS3.
As for your other analysis, Adobe has a long stated policy of providing updates to Camera Raw _ONLY_ for the current shipping version. Camera Raw 4 is now at 4.3.1. Camera Raw 3.7 (and that was 7 updates for CS2) was the last for CS2. However, you can download version 3.7 (you failed to state WHAT version you are currently using in CS2) and download the DNG Converter 4.3.1 and convert your files to DNG that way.
To put the above in another light ... CS2 is not obsolete -- au contraire, you have 100% of the functionality, even with cameras as new as the Oly E-3 (which I cannot wait to have myself). That is, all you need to do is convert the Oly ORFs to DNG, and everything with ACR3 and CS2 works as it should.
I am not going to get in to the end of ACR support for the previous version
of Photoshop. However, in this day and age with corporation greed and
everything the way it is. This problem is at least partly your fault. Before
buying a new camera with RAW capabilities one should have done ones research
to make sure that the camera is going to be supported by the software one
wishes to use. You apparently didn't do this. You either didn't think of it
or you assumed something that you shouldn't have. You need to check these
things because they DO influence the cost of purchasing a new camera. In
this case it was the cost of the camera and any other accessories or lenses
you bought plus the cost of to upgrade your software so that it could handle
As for the whole back support thing. Very few companies once they release a
new version of a product go back and continue to update the previous
version. This is nothing new and it has been this way from the beginning so
I don't know why your complaining now.
I think there is too much finger-pointing going on here. First of all, an individual purchasing a new camera is probably not fully aware of all the little idiosyncrasies involved with working with raw files. The reason a lot of us who frequent this forum can go off on a "you should have" tirade is because we see this question asked often.
The fact is, Adobe is providing you with support for your camera via the DNG converter. Adobe has moved on to new technology, new versions, and they are not going to provide updates for older versions. That is their policy; that is the way it has been for a number of years; you aren't going to change that policy. However, Adobe provides the DNG converter. This is a free program that you can download that will create Digital negative copies of the raw files from your camera. All of the image data is still the raw data. And you can achieve the same results from the Digital negative file as you can get from the original raw file. If you download and use the latest version of the DNG converter you will have support for every camera that Adobe Camera Raw supports.
Yes, using the DNG converter adds an additional step to your workflow. But if you routinely convert your images to DNG files as you download them from your camera that minimizes any extra work that you have to do. Then, archive your original raw images so that if you get software in the future that supports them, or if you need additional copies, you will have them.
I have to say I'm surprised by the venomous post by Robert. I have used the E-300s with my CS2 for 2 years now with no problems with my ORFs. Now, I have an E3 and the CS2 isn't reading the ORFs...same format...what's the difference???
Lightroom has no such problem. So, what - I either have to upgrade to CS3 or download yet another piece of software?
I didn't do any homework because I never expected there to be a difference from one ORF to the next. Not sure what that says about me...
>I didn't do any homework because I never expected there to be a difference from one ORF to the next. Not sure what that says about me...
Well, it means your just a regular person who doesn't have a lot of knowledge regarding raw files. Not all the unusual really. But just how would you expect that software written BEFORE a camera was ever designed and made could be made to be compatible? Lightroom is using the Camera Raw 4.x pipeline, so that's current and will be updated for new cameras. Photoshop CS3 ships with Camera Raw 4 and Camera Raw 4 will be updated for new cameras...up till the point that Adobe ships Photoshop CS4 and Camera Raw 5. What is surprising is that so many people fully expect Adobe to continue updating software they no longer sell. Since Photoshop shipped, Adobe has a long standing policy to update ay current software for compatibility issues and bugs. Once they no longer sell a version, it's no longer updated.
For digital photographers, the DNG route is the only way to continue using old software with new cameras. DNG Converter is free and _WILL_ be continuously updated which means that even people running Photoshop CS with Camera Raw 2.4 (and that's pretty old in terms of software years) can open and process today's and future digital cameras.
Course, you won't get the advantage of the new features and functions of Camera Raw 4which most people would agree is worth the cost of the Photoshop upgrade...
Absurdity is relative. For example, I have a fairly capable PC (AMD Barton 2500+, 2.5GB DDR ram, ATI Radeon 9500 Pro graphics card. It was overwhelmed by the CS3 Beta. Therefore, I will have to replace my PC just to upgrade to CS3. That will cost at least $2000 in addition to what I have to pay Adobe for CS3. Having just spent more than that on the camera and lenses, I am not currently in a position to make that upgrade. To me, your statement is so judgmental and lacking in forethought as to be deemed absurd.
I have worked in the mainframe computer software arena for so long, since 1963, that I have become somewhat jaded in my outlook. IBM continues to make updates available for back releases of its operating systems so long as they are still supported, and they are usually supported for a couple of years after the next release becomes available to the customers. Yes, there are exceptions, but only because of the amount of effort needed to retrofit a particular feature would be a major project. Given that, I would like for Adobe to have offered the upgrade to Camera Raw to CS2 users. However, it is unlikely that I (or anyone else) can sway Adobe to do so. Given that, I will have to live with the DNG converter until such time as I can make the upgrade. In the meantime, I will try not to judge people too harshly.
> IBM continues to make updates available for back releases of its operating systems so long as they are still supported
This is not a fair comparison, as IBM customers are paying regular maintenance fees in order to receive upgrades and corrections.
On the other hand, Adobe offer former customers the new versions for reduced price (called "upgrade").
The problem is rather technical, namely the architecture is faulty if it requires a major version upgrade in order to support a new camera.
>I have worked in the mainframe computer software arena for so long, since 1963,
I was working with IBM and Siemens behemoths at that exact same point in time myself. Glad to see another old timer here. :D
As for the reference to "absurdity", I had to go back half a year in time to see what you were talking about. I found my Dec 16, 2007 post and I stand by it.
For ACR 4.x to work in CS2, CS2 would have to be re-written, which is precisely what Adobe did when they released CS3. :D
The upgrade to CS3 is an absolute no-brainer.
Nobody likes the fact that to get the latest raw support for the latest
camera (without hoop jumping) you have to upgrade Photoshop. Most of don't
think it is fair. However, there are some things to keep in mind.
1. Each new major release of Photoshop brings massive updates to ACR. These
updates would not be an easy or really cost effective thing to do for older
versions of ACR.
2. It is very likely that updates to ACR are not solely in ACR itself. I
would imagine that some changes have to be made to Photoshop to. This means
they couldn't update ACR to work with CS2 because CS2 is lacking things that
would be needed. Things that are only in CS3.
3. Even if Adobe charged $19.95 for the ACR upgrade for Photoshop CS2 if
they couldn't bring it inline with CS3's ACR but only could add support for
new cameras people would still complain.
4. There is a work around, download the latest DNG converter program, it is
free and convert your raw images to DNG. This is in my book a good thing
anyways. Just as soon as DNG becomes and ISO standard it will be the safest
raw format available. In other words it will be the most future proof raw
format we will have. Once your files are converted to DNG you can then load
them in to the ACR that comes with CS2.
Myself, I think the mistake Adobe made was not making the camera support a
plug-in for ACR. By doing this they could have simply updated ACR as they
wished giving you the new version with each new version of Photoshop, but
allowed people with the old versions to use new cameras because you would
only have to download new profile plug-ins for new cameras. I don't see new
cameras as being a major reason to upgrade ACR. I see the new features and
improvements made to each new version of ACR more of an upgrade draw than
new camera support. I think Adobe would have lost very little income by
designing ACR to support new cameras by doing plug-ins. I would still have
upgraded from CS2 to CS3.
Of course there is also the new upgrade policy. Photoshop 7 is the oldest
version you can now use to upgrade to Photoshop CS3. If you have a version
older than 7 you have to buy the full Photoshop package, you can't upgrade.
When Photoshop CS4 comes out then CS1 will be the oldest version you can use
to upgrade. So sooner rather than later unless you like to buy full packages
instead of upgrades one is going to have to upgrade anyways.
Myself I would use the DNG converter now and then upgrade Photoshop when CS4
comes out. I figure CS4 is less than a year away.
>3. Even if Adobe charged $19.95 for the ACR upgrade for Photoshop CS2
Thay would have to charge a lot more, perhaps more than the upgrade to CS3 costs. :/