This content has been marked as final. Show 83 replies
Ditto what Andrew said. Thanks for bringing it up.
Yes, DNG to the rescue of another obsolete format!
I would really like a tool that would convert PhotoCD format to something with a long-term future.
What's wrong with using Photoshop precisely for that purpose?
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 23:16:37 -0700, Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com
>What's wrong with using Photoshop precisely for that purpose?
With CS3 the PhotoCD-DLL is well hidden, and from what I've read here,
there's nothing provided for the Mac version of PSCS3.
Another problem is high numbers of PCD-files; I have only 300 but even
converting them will take quite a time.
Writing and Imaging
I can't speak for the Mac end, but no matter what you use it will take time
convert the files. Just setup a batch and come the next day.
>there's nothing provided for the Mac version of PSCS3.
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 15:42:45 -0700, Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com
You know, I do not have an Apple computer [and save me from ever
getting one near my office], so I have to count on the knowledgeable
here. Some time back, for instance, Jeff Schewe wrote Photo CD isn't
supported in CS3 at all; luckily I could give an all-clear for the
The DLL is on the second disc of the Design Premium installation:
x:\Goodies\Adobe Photoshop CS3 Extended\Optional Plug-Ins\Kodak
PhotoCD; where 'x' stands for the DVD drive. Other CS3 installations
will follow the same directory pattern.
Any helpful information for poor Mac-users?
Writing and Imaging
The facts are, CS3 does support PCD using the Acquire module supplied but NOT on Intel Mac's unless you boot Photoshop under Rosetta. The issue is the plug-in isn't nor will it be updated for MacIntel. So, you can slow down Photoshop by launching it under Rosetta (get info, check the Launch in Rosetta option). This will greatly slow down PS but at least you can get to the Image packs.... For now.....
All of the above begs the ongoing proplem of propriatary image formats. Oh for the days of FILM!!!! for the archive storage medium.
I mean if we had to pay royalties every time we made a print in a wet darkroom, photography would really be expensive and we see this cost with the present technology of haveing to buy more and more software to see images that WE make. It is hard enough to convince a client that image prices based on usage, size, distribution, is the fair way to charge clients.
Don't get me wrong, the new technology sure does solve a lot of "problems" what would have cost a small fortune to do the "wet" way.
I could go on, but I don't think this is the forum.
Have fun, and make pictures,
Actually one doesn't have to keep buying more and more software to view,
edit and use the images we make. Once just needs to choose open standard
formats. TIFF, JPG, DNG, etc. TIFF and JPG are easy just about every program
that uses an image for whatever purpose will use them. DNG even if your
camera doesn't shoot in DNG the DNG Converter from Adobe is free and is
updated with every new release of ACR. So converting the propritary formats
that camera companies like to use is not an issue and doesn't cost any
money. Once that is done using DNG file is just as easy and nearly as an
available option as TIFF and JPG.
The problem the OP has is that he/she decided to trust Kodak and once again
Kodak has shown their true colors and have proven that one can not only not
trust them, but can't trust their product and formats. Stick to open formats
and all is well.
PhotoCD is dead and has been for at least 5 years. I see no reason of any
kind for Adobe to waste valuable time and money or supporting a format that
is dead. Instead the OP needs to stop complaining and convert his PhotoCD
images to a format like TIF before he losses the ability to do so.
Its only dead if you don't have any of them archived.
Don't worry, Adobe isn't going to update the acquire module, nor should they. You can blame Kodak but they don't have a pot to piss in.
Converting them to TIFF isn't a solution, we're dealing with an image pack. This is very much the Raw file of the 1990s. Ideally it could be converted as such into DNG. Converting to TIFF kills the capabilities of the format. It is a solution for some who would be happy finding out they can't render their Raws and can only work with a single JPEG. Its not the worst thing in the world, I still have the film but the scans are actually more useful and for me valuable. It would also do a heck of a lot of good in promoting the DNG movement.
BTW, it would cost Adobe almost nothing. There's one guy who writes this stuff, I just need to corner him and see if he'd do it.
No dead as in Kodak doesn't use it any more. Dead as in Kodak ended support
for it. Dead as in it was dead from the start because while being a good
format was kept closed and available in a very limited number of ways
(user's couldn't save their own files to PhotoCD format, etc.). Dead as in
Adobe doesn't support it. Dead as in more and more programs won't support
it. Dead as in the next couple of years you won't be able to open them to
convert them to TIFF or something else because the software that lets you do
that won't work on modern computers and OSes and the plug-ins needed won't
be supported (no updates) in the newer versions of software. Dead as in
keeping a computer around just to deal with them is stupid. Convert to TIFF
and move on.
Actually users could. At one point, you could hook up a PIW to a Mac. I had such a beast.
I agree, its dead but I'd like to see DNG support if possible., it also illustrates the dangers of proprietary formats when our data is concerned. I'd be far more upset if this were Raw original captures, not scans.
When you had a unit that could scan a 3K file in three seconds, and do that fully automated, you found a way to archive a LOT of originals. At one point, ADI in Colorado had 12 PIW's running 24/7.
Do you have any clue as to who the OP is, the person you've been exchanging messages with?
Maybe you confuse him with Rodney Dangerfield?
I honestly don't really care who the OP is. It has no bearing on the
discussion. It could be Uncle Jed or Granny and the death of PhotoCD would
still be the same. As Jethro would say, its viddles!
Fortunately, Andrew Rodney definitely has Adobe's ear. I'm pretty sure Robert Barnett does not.
Just in case it's not clear by now, I second Andrew's request as may be allowed by copyrights considerations.
<Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com> wrote in message <br />news:email@example.comNXanI...<br />> Just in case it's not clear by now, I second Andrew's request as may be <br />> allowed by copyrights considerations.<br /><br /><br /><br />Oooo, wells there two!<br /><br />Robert
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:37:18 -0700, Robert_Barnett@adobeforums.com
>Oooo, wells there two!
Writing and Imaging
It would be great to have such support, I don't have many PhotoCDs but the ones I have have some portfolio grade shots on. It is a mighty pain to get them off using the plugins
[commercial link deleted]
Would someone be kind enough to post the instructions on Mac to get the PhotoCD plug-ins to work? Copy PhotoCD.plugin to 'Plug-Ins/File Formats', check. Run in Rosetta mode, check. But I am missing the step of where to put the 'PhotoCD Color Profiles' folder. The technote at
describes everything else and then refers to "the Kodak PhotoCD Read Me.txt" which I don't seem to have.
Many thanks, Jim
Do you have the profiles? They can go anywhere any other ICC profiles live. I'd probably put them in Recommended (the folder where Adobe stores its other ICC profiles).
stdpyccl is one profile I have that is accessible for PCD.
Thanks Andrew. That was enough info to go on.
I copied the 'PhotoCD Color Profiles' folder to
and all is fine.
Add my voice to the vote for a new PCD acquire, specially in LightRoom. Using rosetta I batch processed a PCD, but since upgrading to 10.4.10 the flow now crashes after 2 images. PCD seemed like a good idea at the time. Apart from a new acquire module does any one know of a converter which will allow 16 bit conversion. It's a pity to throw away the extra data in those files.
Gets my vote too.
The Photo CD format is NOT dead as long as people still have Photo CD images that they want to recover. I don't how how many such people there are, but I'm one of them.
A simple-minded conversion to TIFF with Photoshop is possible, but it doesn't preserve all the information in the PCD file. In particular, highlights are normally washed out. I would pay money for a good conversion tool that would preserve all the information in the PCD file, and do it automatically in batch mode without manual intervention. As far as I can tell, such a tool doesn't currently exist.
Photo CD was once an excellent solution for ordinary people to get cheap and decent scanned images. I don't think I or anyone else was stupid to use it at that time. Sure, since then technology has moved on, and I can get better scans now using my Nikon CoolScan (though I have to invest much more time in doing it!).
Stupid is a harsh word and one I won't use here. However, people that used
Photo CD were clueless. The fact that Kodak kept it highly proprietary,
never released a way for consumers to turn their own images in to PCD images
and other signs were a very clear indicator like the Kodak Disc Camera and
other things that it wasn't long for this world. The phase out of PCD
support didn't happen over night, it has taken at least 5 years the fact
that you didn't keep abreast of the situation and did the conversion to
another format sooner is not anyone's fault but your own.
You may want to check your Photoshop CDs. there used to be a conversion
filter and it maybe included still I don't know. Otherwise you need to be
happy with whatever you have that can get the PCD files to another format
that you can use. And do use this as a learning lesson. Stay away from
proprietary all you can and if you can't keep up on what's happening with it
so that you can move your data long to other and better formats before the
chance to do so is not available or costs you (in this case image quality).
Robert, if you know of any better way of scanning film that was available in the mid-1990s at a similar price to that of Photo CD, I wish you would mention it. If you don't know of any better method, you're not entitled to call anyone clueless for using what was available.
Were you scanning film in the mid-1990s? If so, what method did you use, and what did it cost?
As for not having converted my Photo CD images earlier, what advantage would I have gained by doing it earlier? As far as I know, the conversion methods available now -- imperfect though they are -- are at least as good as any that were available earlier.
It seems to me that you know very little about this subject, and you're wasting your own time and ours by posting ignorant and patronizing comments here.
The big deal about Photo YCC is the big deal about Raw (well its not equivalent but close) and that is both are not output referred but scene referred data.
Thanks, Andrew. It would be nice if we could just convert the PCD files to some non-obsolete format in a way that preserves all the original information in the file. DNG conversion would seem suitable for this. Unfortunately, the software modules released by Kodak (and used by Adobe and other companies) have never seemed to do the job properly.
It seems possible to me that Kodak expected other companies to configure its software intelligently (by setting up lookup tables or something) and this they never bothered to do. But this is just speculation.
Incidentally, it hasn't just occurred to me in 2008 to start converting my Photo CD images to other formats: I started doing it years ago. In the past, I normally did it using Paint Shop Pro, which gave passable results.
I've realized only relatively recently that neither Paint Shop Pro nor Photoshop does a really good job of PCD conversion, and that we're still waiting for the definitive conversion tool.
In the meantime, it's arguable that Paint Shop Pro does a better job of PCD conversion than Photoshop. Certainly it shows more detail in the highlights.
A historical note from the Wikipedia page about Photo CD:
"The system failed to gain mass usage among consumers partly due to its proprietary nature, the rapid decline in the costs of scanners, and the lack of CD-ROM drives in most home personal computers of the day. The Photo CD system gained a fair level of acceptance among professional photographers due to the low cost of the high quality film scans. Prior to Photo CD, professionals who wished to digitize their film images were forced to pay much higher fees to obtain drum scans of their film negatives and transparencies."
My own interpretation: when Photo CD appeared, it was a breakthrough in bringing film scanning to the masses. Nothing else was available of equivalent cost and quality. The main reason it wasn't a huge success was that many people didn't have CD drives at the time. I bought an add-on CD drive in 1993 specifically in order to read Photo CDs. As an amateur photographer, I'd never previously considered film scanning because it was an expensive business for professionals only.
Jonathan it really doesn't matter. PhotoCD is dead. You either stop using it
and move your images to another format or you risk the very real out of of
not being able to access your images at all. You may like the format and
think it is all perfect and smiles, but Kodak killed it. It is dead, time to
Well Jonathan, keep waiting because we all know that Kodak, Adobe, Corel and
everyone else is just sitting and waiting for the a dead format to become
deader before they release the best software ever to support it.
Lots of things over the decades have been breakthroughs. Betamax was one of
them. That doesn't change the fact that Kodak killed it by not have the
balls to do it right from the start. And, it doesn't change the fact that
the format is dead. Either convert your images now getting the best possible
results you can now, you will find in a few years you won't be able to touch
Yes, you can keep older software that does support the format. However, as
operating systems change older software quickly gets to the point that it
won't run. If you think that some company like Adobe or Kodak or Corel is
going to waste money coming up with a top of the line conversion program or
plug-in for a format that has been dead at least 5 years your out of your
You have exactly one choice. Convert while you can or write off the images.
>Jonathan it really doesn't matter. PhotoCD is dead.
How so? How any more than a drum scan I made on a ScanMate 5000 at the same time period? IF I can render the PhotoYCC image pack, its not dead, its an archived scan. Just like the TIFF from the Scanmate. And I can render the image, the plug-in's still work, albeit slowly under Rosetta on my machines.
Its dead in you can't to my knowledge get a scan today in that format (so what?).
There was a desktop PIW I ran on a Mac for about a year, probably around 1997. At the time it was a mere $60K.
Robert, if you're not interested in Photo CD I don't know why you keep coming here.
You keep telling me to convert my PCD files before it's too late. Well, of course. But there's no great hurry, and I'm currently trying to determine what is the best way of converting them. Given the imperfections of the various conversion tools available, there seems to be no single obvious choice.
It's quite possible that no better tool will ever be produced. But it does no harm to ask.