This content has been marked as final. Show 15 replies
This question has been answered so many times that it is painful to have to do it again. I'm sorry, but that is the fact in this matter. Having said that, here we go again.
Adobe only updates camera raw for the current version. There has to be a separate profile for each camera that is supported by Camera Raw. So if you have a new camera and an older version of Photoshop, you will not have support for the raw files from that camera.
I think it is partly a marketing strategy, but in order to use the latest version of Camera Raw you have to have the most recent version of Photoshop. As far as I am aware, that policy is never going to change, ever. So don't complain about Adobe and their policies because it won't do you any good. That's just the way it is.
Beginning with Photoshop CS and Camera Raw 2.4, it is possible to work with DNG files. The DNG file format is one that has been developed by Adobe. Its primary purpose is to create a common file container for the raw image data from any camera. To support that DNG format, Adobe has provided a DNG converter. This is a freestanding program that you can download from the Adobe website. The DNG converter will take the files from any camera supported by Camera Raw and create a DNG copy that can be opened and edited in any version of camera raw from 2.4 onward.
If you are using Photoshop 7 and Camera Raw version 1, forget about it. It only supported a very few cameras. It is no longer available. There will not be any further support for Photoshop 7 and Camera Raw version 1. If you have any of the CS versions of Photoshop you can download the appropriate most recent or final version of Camera Raw for that version of Photoshop. Then you can use the most recent version of the DNG converter to create Digital negative copies that can then be edited in the version of Camera Raw that works with your version of Photoshop.
Just be aware that if you are not using the most recent version of Photoshop/ACR then there will be minimal support on this forum and virtually no support from Adobe. If it doesn't work right with your camera that is your problem because as far as Adobe is concerned that version is obsolete.
I didn't mention PS v7 but no matter. I knew about the release "strategy" - I just didn't 'get' the DNG thing - so thanks for covering that.
As to "partly a marketing strategy" I cannot see any part that is something other than marketing (e.g. technical) so I would go for "wholly a marketing strategy" until shown otherwise, personally.
So I recognise the fact of "minimal support from Adobe" but everywhere else I go I find user forums to be highly supportive even of back level issues. Sorry to hear that doesn't apply here. My problem is precisely with the Adobe attitude of "if you are not using the latest version as far as Adobe is concerned it is obsolete". I would happily pay a few dollars to get an updated ARC for newer cameras on older PS. I will not pay a three figure sum to upgrade to something whose function I otherwise do not need (and being in the UK will pay twice what I would if I were in the US). And they wonder why there are so many pirate versions out there? I am not aware of any deep technical platform differences from CS to CS2 to CS3 that make it so hard to keep a common ARC for new cameras. Of course I also blame Canon for having entirely unnecessary, different raw formats from camera to camera - e.g. from 300D to 350D to 400D. Result? Buy a newer camera and you have to buy a newer PS because they changed the file format and only the newer PS supports it. Sure smells like a cartel or collusion or something to me - I wonder who pays who to reap these benefits? Mmm, wonder if there is a case for the OFT here (UK Office of Fair Trading)?
And seeing as it is a marketing strategy how bad are they at it - no attempt at all to "sell" - i.e. persuade - me re the benefits of upgrading and why it is not reasonable to expect back level ARC to be updated and show me all the technical and other reasons why my 400D CR2 files will be so much better managed on a later version. Now THAT would be what I would call marketing. But the emperor has no clothes so to speak and Adobe just resorts to extortion.
Anyway, now I got that off my chest, thanks for taking the trouble to reply. Sorry it was a "yet again" for you but the search function on these forums is not designed to actually find things in any fine tuned way.
PS No need for any "facts of life" / reality replies, thanks. I am not a paranoid conspiracy nut, but just someone who is tired of being screwed by companies who think I am a target market or a revenue stream instead of a customer.
George buys a camera that did not even exist when his ancient Photoshop CS was released, nor when it ceased to be supported by Adobe.
I don't see any need to read his posts.
You have the patience of a biblical saint, Jim. :/
Jim implied it, perhaps it's good to write it explicitely: the DNG converter is available only in the package "ACR and DNG converter". Download the latest package, install the DNG converter and throw away ACR, for that won't work with the older CS. Then you can convert the CR2 files in DNG and process them with CS1. Note, that the DNG converter is a stand alone program, it does not require any Photoshop.
I know there are technical reasons for the facts about ACR compatibility that people get tired of repeating, but that does not make camera owners, who don't realise that older versions of Photoshop can't keep up with every new camera, idiots or dreamers.
We "insiders" all know about it but there are plenty of examples outside the rarefied air of the Adobe world where such backward and forward compatibility is achieved. People who don't realise that Adobe is a special case shouldn't be stigmatised in this fashion.
I too admire Jim's patience!
(Maybe this should be made clearer at the top of the FAQs or in a note at the top of the page.)
Just to clarify even more. Anyone who has any of the CS versions of Photoshop has Camera Raw support for any camera as soon as it has been added to the ACR Arsenal. If you have an older version of Photoshop, then it's necessary to convert your images to Digital negative files (DNG) using the latest DNG converter. The image data in the DNG file is virtually unchanged, it is still the raw image data. You have every bit of raw support that was provided in your version of Photoshop/ACR.
As Photoshop continues to evolve, so does ACR. Because of the added capabilities that are added to both Photoshop and ACR, it is necessary to modify code in both in order to maintain compatibility. I don't know of very many software companies that continue to upgrade and improve one version when they have released a new one. That is absurd. If you see a new automobile that has features you consider to be important, you have to purchase the automobile. Those features will not be, nor can they be, added to an old version without a lot of custom modifications from hobbyists or specialists. Adobe is constantly striving to improve Photoshop and ACR. As the code evolves I think it is unreasonable to expect Adobe to keep ACR backward-compatible. But by providing the DNG converter, Adobe has at least provided a means by which you can still continue to use your older version, and they aren't doing that for free. You just don't get all the new features. It costs money to develop those new features. If you need them, you have to pay for them.
Even third party developers who create special scripts or actions for Photoshop often find that when a new version is released it is necessary to modify their products. And you don't very often find them giving the new version away for free either.
G Sch - thanks for your further clarification - very helpful.
Jim - thank you, indeed, for your patience. Though it is perhaps not quite as saintly as some of your friends imply given the obvious validity of John Joslin's comments that "there are plenty of examples outside the rarefied air of the Adobe world where such backward and forward compatibility is achieved." Shame on me for not being sufficiently au fait with this rarified world that your friends thought I was testing your patience unreasonably, and thanks again.
Thank you, John J, for recognising there is a real world out here beyond the dubious business ethics of Canon and Adobe, where such compatibility is not just expected but taken for granted and EASILY achieved. (As I implied - I want to be a customer, not a well to be dipped into at every turn until I'm dry.)
As for Ramon - well I don't normally respond to such sneers but - well, how does it feel to be on that hook Ramon? They've certainly got you, haven't they! So every time you buy a new camera, you fully expect a) to be moved for no reason whatsoever, other than they can do it to you, to a new and different and incompatible raw file format, and b) have to allow for the expense of being forced to upgrade your PS software or else stop using it and throw away your investment in it. Hope it feels good. Me? I don't see anything unreasonable in my expectation - but then I haven't fallen for an apparent Adobe (and Canon) con trick - until now ;-) - and I won't again (unlike some, it seems).
Funnily enough I (and probably you too, Ramon) have bought many new bits of hardware (called PCs) over the years and have run many different operating systems and all of them, even my Win 3.1 and Win98 ones (and I can still run Win98 on my latest PC, by the way) still run apps that can open and generate files (e.g. .doc) that I can use on all of these PCs. That may not be the best analogy - but yes I did acquire a camera that was not available when CS was - but who'd have expected Canon to have different raw formats for 300D, 350D and 400D? Shame on me for not doing my research. And seeing as CS, CS2 and CS3 are not completely DIFFERENT applications but evolutionary, who'd have thought they'd make an ARC for CS3 that was deliberately not compatible with CS, just to extort an upgrade fee from me. Oh - sorry - you'd have thought it, Ramon, that's who.
One does wonder how it is that buying a new camera effectively has an "Adobe tax" tied to it, and who benefits from the tax. (If Canon had any sense they'd stop their end of this so there was no opportunity for Adobe to levy the tax - but where is the 'tax revenue' spent, I wonder?)
Perhaps my expectations are unjustified, and someone can/will produce excellent and justified technical reasons why the Canon raw formats changed and why CS3 is so utterly different from primitive old CS that there are good reasons why backward compatibility would ruin the company (after all I said I'd pay a few bucks for it when I needed an ARC update). But Adobe aren't showing any signs of explaining this, and nor is anyone else - so until then I'll continue to treat them with the contempt they appear to treat their "customers" with. I made an investment in CS and they have not just utterly failed to respect that and seek to protect my investment, they have gone out of their way to render that investment worth less. I'll be using the native Canon tools and other photo apps from now on, rather more than PS, even given the DNG route.
Well that's 5 minutes more of getting it off my chest. :-)
I have the information I sought - thanks, Jim and others - so if I don't come back I'm sure you'll forgive me if I leave you all to it.
(Probably best to just let it all lie, now, eh?)
G A L,
You can enjoy your contemptuous attitude for as long as you like. It's unfortunate that you don't fully understand what is going on. And since what has already been said doesn't seem to have registered, I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain it to you. Rant on, my friend. It ain't going to change anything.
G A L,
I don't see any points of discussing product policies here, among us, who are not making them. However, there is one area, where your understanding needs some expansion. Please note, that the following is not a *defence* of Canon, nor of Adobe (I am rather a critic of both of them), this is rather a clarification.
The concept of "raw format" is not as clear as outsiders would imagine it (that's the reason there is such thing as DNG). The "format" of all Canon raw files past the 10D are common *on the global level*. This means, that a program could read and interpret more or less, but not perfectly, any CR2 type file.
However, there are two areas causing problems:
1. The "fine print" is changing. As new cameras come out with new features, for example Highlight Tone Protection or Dust Delete Data or Picture Styles, the former format needs to be changed. You want to have new features, you have to accept the incompatibility.
2. Even though a program could ignore everything not "generic" in the numerous Canon raw file subformats, there is one issue, which *has to* be addressed, namely the color reproduction. The reaction of the sensor of a camera model to different light rays (the "spectral response") under the four different color filters is virually always different from all other sensors.
You may have read about patches for Raw Shooter (a favourite raw converter of many, bought out by Adobe and not updated any more). People found out, that if they change in the program file the character string "20D" to "30D" or whatever (the example may be wrong), the old software suddenly accepts the raw file of a new camera.
Well, those people have not understood, that the result will suck (to their exoneration: Raw Shooter *always* sucked in the color section). There is more information required to process the raw file than available in said file. In other words: the software has to be prepared for the particular color reproduction characteristics of the camera.
Therefor you can not expect, that a new camera be supported by the old software.
It is a different subject, why supporting a new camera requires a new version of ACR; that will not be our subject here.
If you thing I'm an Adobe fanboy you are a complete an utter moron.
And your lack of insight into how far advanced ACR 4.4.1 is from your ancient version makes you a deliberate, willing ignoramus.
What had already actually been said at that point had fully registered, trust me. It may indeed be "unfortunate" that I don't fully understand what is going on - but the only person here who has tried (successfully) to remedy that is G Sch. Lack of understanding is not a sin. And perception is reality. I perceive that Adobe is wilfully ripping me off and thanks to G Sch I can even begin to let Canon off the hook now - but as he says, why supporting a new camera requires a new version of ACR is a different subject - one for Adobe.
Perhaps there is a good explanation for that too and my perception would then change a bit more. Having experienced one of the most inept web site content experiences in even finding back-level ACRs and explanations I doubt it will change much. (On the ACR page it says "does not work with back-level versions of PS" - paraphrased - but provides NO links or info re how to get back level versions of ACR that DO work with back level versions of PS. Which is deliberately contemptuous of customers, in my book. The only place I found a link to the back-level ACRs was in this forum - not on the "official" Adobe parts of the website. This speaks volumes.) Maybe I will try the DNG route and my perception will change a bit more.
Meantime what it WILL change (has changed) is my attitude to Adobe and the amount of money I spend with them so you are wrong, Jim, in saying it changes nothing - however trivial the change may be. As an aside I see many people annoyed with many of Adobe's business practices (not least charging twice as much to UK users as US ones - just because they can - and I am now more in the critical camp than the fanboy camp. (Sorry Ramon - not playing any more - it is clear to me who has anything of any value to contribute to this discussion, and you don't qualify.)
G Sch - genuine thanks again for your succinct explanations - your time and effort is much appreciated.
G A L,
You still don't get it. The reason there has to be a separate profile for each camera is because in the raw metadata is embedded the make/model of the camera, and that is what needs to be identified in order to apply the appropriate settings. Supporting raw is a pain. Until/if a common raw format is agreed upon by all the camera makers, it is the customers (you and me) who will have to take the brunt of this war of formats.
Everybody thinks that shooting in raw is the only way to go, and that it has to be used for virtually every picture taken. It is as if JPEG no longer exists. If you don't like all this hassle, shoot JPEG images. I mean, really, I have a son in law who has a Nikon D70. He never bothers to shoot in raw. And the images he produces are really very nice. Excellent quality.
I know I'm not going to convince you of anything. I'm sorry if I offended you. It wasn't intended. I'm tired of this thread and will not comment here again.
Don't feed the troll.
With idiocy even the gods struggle in vain.
"I am not aware of any deep technical platform differences from CS to CS2 to CS3"
On the Mac side, there had been several major architectural changes: going from Classic to Native Mac OS X/from PEF to Mach-O, Power PC to Universal Binary, QuickDraw to Quartz (and Core Image in the future)... The coding software, Codewarrior was replaced by XCode (*).
There are many invible changes that are made version from version, even though the UI might remain the same.
In the future, we'll see a migration from C++ to Objective C and Carbon to Cocoa. And a 64 bits version.
(* All this info from http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2008/04/photoshop_lr_64.html
http://photoshopnews.com/2008/04/08/adobes-64-bit-roadmap-no-64-bit-version-of-photoshop-c s4-for-mac/ )
I do not have web sources about specific changes for Windows, but there are code changes. (If it was so simple, we'd have seen many smart coders hacking the latest versions of ACR to work on older Photoshop code bases.)