Computer Graphics with Photoshop - PS, CS and Canon 5D RAW files

Author

PS, CS and Canon 5D RAW files

From Douglas

2005-11-19, 10:14 pm

HI all.
I use Photoshop CS. I tried Adobe's 30 day trial of CS2 version for 2
days a few months ago and had problems with my plugins and a couple of
issues I decided weren't worth the time I'd need to spend getting it all
working if I upgraded.

Last week I bought a Canon 5D DSLR camera and CS doesn't want to read
it's RAW files. I downloaded the Camera RAW 3.3 BETA from Adobe and this
is where the it all stops.

The instructions provided seem to refer to (Windows) folders not used or
created by CS so I just put it in the plugins/file formats folder and
get the message it won't read the file type. I'm back now to version 2.?
of ACR and it works OK with all but the 5D files. I can find more to do
right now than upgrade just for this, I have other tools to develop the
files with, they just are not as convenient as ACR.

I suspect I've got the wrong ACR but it's the only one which I saw
saying it supports 5D cameras. Can I get some advise here please?

--
Douglas...
Specifications are good to read but
When it comes to judging Digital Cameras...
I'm in the "how do the pictures look" category.

Bill Hilton

2005-11-20, 3:15 am

> Douglas writes ...
>
>I use Photoshop CS ... Last week I bought a Canon 5D DSLR camera
>and CS doesn't want to read it's RAW files ... The instructions provided
>seem to refer to (Windows) folders not used or created by CS so I just
>put it in the plugins/file formats folder and get the message it won't read
>the file type. ...
>
>I suspect I've got the wrong ACR but it's the only one which I saw
>saying it supports 5D cameras. Can I get some advise here please?

Pretty sure you'll need CS2 to run the RAW plugin update for the 5D ...
Adobe's way of keeping you on the upgrade treadmill whether you need
the other new features or not ...

Try RawShooter Essentials or Premium, or Capture One for RAW
conversions and you'll likely not miss Adobe's RAW converter, plus the
upgrades for new cameras are less expensive.

Bill

From Douglas

2005-11-20, 3:15 am

Bill Hilton wrote:
>
>
> Pretty sure you'll need CS2 to run the RAW plugin update for the 5D ...
> Adobe's way of keeping you on the upgrade treadmill whether you need
> the other new features or not ...
>
> Try RawShooter Essentials or Premium, or Capture One for RAW
> conversions and you'll likely not miss Adobe's RAW converter, plus the
> upgrades for new cameras are less expensive.
>
> Bill
>

Thanks Bill,
I downloaded the latest DNG program and by converting the CRW files to
digital negatives, I can use Adobe's RAW converter as if it were on the
file itself. But you are right about Rawshooter. I already have the
Premier version but it isn't quite what I want from Canon files. It's OK
with E300 and Nikon but it renders oddly with 5D files.

--
Douglas...

Barry Pearson

2005-11-20, 6:17 pm

Bill Hilton wrote:
[snip]
> Pretty sure you'll need CS2 to run the RAW plugin update for the 5D ...
> Adobe's way of keeping you on the upgrade treadmill whether you need
> the other new features or not ...
[snip]

So far, CS / ACR 2.4 supports DNGs derived from about 25 - 30 cameras
and digital backs that were launched after ACR 2.4 was released. 3
cameras and 4 digital backs using DNG as their native raw format, the
rest converted by the latest DNG Converter.

Whatever Adobe's business model is, it doesn't include forcing people
to upgrade just because of new camera models.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
http://www.birdsandanimals.info/

From Douglas

2005-11-20, 6:17 pm

Barry Pearson wrote:
> Bill Hilton wrote:
> [snip]
>
>
> [snip]
>
> So far, CS / ACR 2.4 supports DNGs derived from about 25 - 30 cameras
> and digital backs that were launched after ACR 2.4 was released. 3
> cameras and 4 digital backs using DNG as their native raw format, the
> rest converted by the latest DNG Converter.
>
> Whatever Adobe's business model is, it doesn't include forcing people
> to upgrade just because of new camera models.
>
> --
> Barry Pearson
> http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
> http://www.birdsandanimals.info/

>
I get the idea subliminal pressure to upgrade is OK then, Barry?
The extra step of forcing you to convert to DNG in order to use
Photoshop CS with Canon 5D image files is a joke.

How hard would it be to patch ACR? Sorry to tell you this Barry but
Adobe makes it's money from selling software, not from providing free
updates. I never had any issues with version 7 of Photoshop. It did all
I wanted yet to obtain the RAW camera reader which they stopped selling
when CS was introduced, I had to upgrade.

If your suggestion is to have any merit at all, then Adobe would still
be selling the version 7 ACR add on. Companies like Adobe and Microsoft
didn't get to be the size they are for any other reason than they
profiteer from exclusive products and force their customers to spend
more because those products are either unreliable or inadequate. It's
the American business model, not Adobe's alone.

--
Douglas...
Specifications are good to read but
When it comes to judging Digital Cameras...
I'm in the "how do the pictures look" category.

Barry Pearson

2005-11-20, 6:17 pm

>From Douglas wrote:
> Barry Pearson wrote:
[snip]
[snip][color=darkred]
> I get the idea subliminal pressure to upgrade is OK then, Barry?
> The extra step of forcing you to convert to DNG in order to use
> Photoshop CS with Canon 5D image files is a joke.

Why does it have to be an extra step? I use DNG totally, without an
extra step. I use the DNG Converter as an "obtain images from memory
card" utility, in place of (say) Windows Explorer. There are now other
tools that you can use to download your raws as DNGs from the card,
into folders based on EXIF data such as dates and times, etc.

> How hard would it be to patch ACR? Sorry to tell you this Barry but
> Adobe makes it's money from selling software, not from providing free
> updates. I never had any issues with version 7 of Photoshop. It did all
> I wanted yet to obtain the RAW camera reader which they stopped selling
> when CS was introduced, I had to upgrade.

DNG didn't exist then. DNG began with CS / ACR 2.3. Things have now
changed forever.

> If your suggestion is to have any merit at all, then Adobe would still
> be selling the version 7 ACR add on. Companies like Adobe and Microsoft
> didn't get to be the size they are for any other reason than they
> profiteer from exclusive products and force their customers to spend
> more because those products are either unreliable or inadequate. It's
> the American business model, not Adobe's alone.

Adobe would be utterly stupid to keep upgrading old versions. They
would screw up many of their customers as well as themselves. (I'm
speaking as someone who spent decades helping to design complex
multi-vendor computer systems).

If you were happy with PS 7 when you bought it, why not continue with
it? If you have extra requirements since you bought it, why expect free
upgrades to it to satisfy your requirements? Spot Healing Brush?
Vanishing Point? 16-bit adjustment layers? Red-eye tool? Smart Sharpen?

If you were happy with ACR 1.x when you bought it, why not continue
with it? If you have extra requirements since you bought it, why expect
free upgrades to it to satisfy your requirements? Lots more camera
models? Curves? Crop? Align? Saving metadata within the raw file
itself, (when using DNG)? Tuned Bayer demosaicing?

Where do you suggest the line should be drawn, between what you get for
free, and what you have to pay for?

Adobe is trying to ensure that people stop having to buy upgrades to
any software just because of new camera models. Isn't that useful?

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
http://www.birdsandanimals.info/

Johan W. Elzenga

2005-11-20, 6:18 pm

Barry Pearson <news@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:

> If you were happy with ACR 1.x when you bought it, why not continue
> with it? If you have extra requirements since you bought it, why expect
> free upgrades to it to satisfy your requirements?

Who's talking about FREE upgrades? Adobe could offer a paid ACR 2.4
upgrade that only includes newer cameras, but not new functionality.
That can't be so hard. However, they don't. I wonder why...

--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

Barry Pearson

2005-11-20, 10:15 pm

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:
> Barry Pearson <news@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Who's talking about FREE upgrades? Adobe could offer a paid ACR 2.4
> upgrade that only includes newer cameras, but not new functionality.
> That can't be so hard. However, they don't. I wonder why...

Because it would be a waste of resources, and risk destabilising mature
products. They have provided a FREE route instead!

Let's remember which company caused this problem. Canon!

They released a new camera that they knew would be incompatible with
the workflow and tools of many of their customers. Perhaps they didn't
really care about those customers, as long as they could get money off
them. Perhaps they cynically knew that 3rd party software companies
would upgrade 50 or 100 products to support that new camera. And that
it would be the software companies that would get any blame for it!

Canon have known the solution to this problem for about 2 years. It
would be easy for them to have an option to output DNG. Some cameras
output DNG, and their raws are immediately supported by ACR 2.4. The
major camera manufacturers are part of this problem. Adobe is part of
the solution.

This problem, of new cameras being launched that need software
upgrades, resulting in delays and disruptions, will continue until the
companies REALLY at fault change their ways. That may need users to
recognise who is REALLY at fault, so that pressure can be brought to
bear. But blaming the 3rd party software companies won't solve this
problem.

I guess that Nikon will do the same with the D200. And people will
blame Adobe and the others, instead of Nikon!

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
http://www.birdsandanimals.info/

From Douglas

2005-11-21, 6:14 am

Barry Pearson wrote:

>
> This problem, of new cameras being launched that need software
> upgrades, resulting in delays and disruptions, will continue until the
> companies REALLY at fault change their ways. That may need users to
> recognise who is REALLY at fault, so that pressure can be brought to
> bear. But blaming the 3rd party software companies won't solve this
> problem.
>
> I guess that Nikon will do the same with the D200. And people will
> blame Adobe and the others, instead of Nikon!
>
> --
> Barry Pearson
> http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
> http://www.birdsandanimals.info/
>
Quite a bit off the mark here Barry.
Canon did release a new camera for sure but they kept the file type a
CRW. Adobe are the culprit, the file type is essentially the same, just
larger and it is the extra size ACR barks at, not a different file type.

--
Douglas...
Specifications are good to read but
When it comes to judging Digital Cameras...
I'm in the "how do the pictures look" category.

Barry Pearson

2005-11-21, 6:14 am

>From Douglas wrote:
> Barry Pearson wrote:
[snip][color=darkred]
> Quite a bit off the mark here Barry.
> Canon did release a new camera for sure but they kept the file type a
> CRW. Adobe are the culprit, the file type is essentially the same, just
> larger and it is the extra size ACR barks at, not a different file type.

Not true. There are various problems with a new camera, and the format
of the file is just one of them. (Having a common extension such as
"CR2" doesn't guarantee that the file format is the same, of course.
Think about "NEF"! And I believe that "CRW" and "CR2" are considerably
different. One is CIFF-based, the other is TIFF-based).

In fact, the main problem tends to be the need for camera calibration
data. If you check the Adobe forums, you will see that one of the
problems that Thomas Knoll faces is trying to get hold of new cameras
so that the calibration tables needed to make sense of the sensor data
can be built into the next version of ACR and the DNG Converter. Even
if cameras appear to have similar raw formats, there is no guarantee
that they have the same CFA responses.

Indeed, sometimes the specific camera used by Adobe to build the
calibration data turns out not to be representative of the model. So
later testing with different cameras of the same model sometimes causes
Adobe to change the calibration for that model, in which case both
versions will be available in future versions of ACR.

This problem with camera calibration data is similar for all the raw
converters, (except perhaps those provided by the canera manufacturer).
It is responsible for much of the delay of each of them when a new
camera model comes out.

This is stupid on the part of the camera manufacturer. If they output
DNG, either as their native raw format or as an option, they would have
control of their own camera calibration, because the data is built into
each DNG file. Indeed, they could provide both calibration data for the
model, plus fine-tuning for any individual camera of that model, if
they wanted to.

What do you mean by "the file type is essentially the same, just larger
and it is the extra size ACR barks at"? ACR 2.4 can handle the sensor
data from the 5D, of course. ACR 2.4 didn't have to be changed, and can
support raws from cameras and digital backs with far more pixels. What
happened is that the latest DNG Converter left the sensor data the same
as in the CR2, but added the calibration data. It was the latter that
was the main problem.

It is a sign of the immaturity of the digital imaging industry that
shoddy engineering techniques like routine reverse-engineering and
calibration based on random instances is accepted without much outrage!
It is silly that 3rd party product developers have to waste resources
on such low-value activities, and that photographers have to upgrade
software that they have been using successfully up to then.

The only contender for a solution to these problems is DNG.
Fortunately, it is gaining increasing acceptance.
http://www.barry.pearson.name/artic...products_y1.htm

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
http://www.birdsandanimals.info/

From Douglas

2005-11-21, 10:14 pm

Barry Pearson wrote:

>
> [snip]
>
>
>
> Not true. There are various problems with a new camera, and the format
> of the file is just one of them. (Having a common extension such as
> "CR2" doesn't guarantee that the file format is the same, of course.
> Think about "NEF"! And I believe that "CRW" and "CR2" are considerably
> different. One is CIFF-based, the other is TIFF-based).
>
> In fact, the main problem tends to be the need for camera calibration
> data. If you check the Adobe forums, you will see that one of the
> problems that Thomas Knoll faces is trying to get hold of new cameras
> so that the calibration tables needed to make sense of the sensor data
> can be built into the next version of ACR and the DNG Converter. Even
> if cameras appear to have similar raw formats, there is no guarantee
> that they have the same CFA responses.
>
SNipped...

Your arguments all *seem* to make sense Barry. Were it not for other,
less established developers of RAW data converters already being able to
read 5D files withing days of the camera's release, I might go along
with your line of thought. I never had a problem with buying the Camera
RAW plugin from Adobe to make my version 7 read camera files. I think
their price was outrageous but none the less, was willing to pay for the
convenience.

My solution now is to abandon Adobe altogether for RAW data development
and use a specialty program called "RawShooter Premium" which runs in
harmony with Photoshop, if not integrated into it. I get greater
potential for error correction and it doesn't lock up my PC for minutes
at a time as it searched for TIFF files to display thumbs for. It
doesn't slow down my PC either, while it's open. Quite a bonus, really
because many of the functions I use Photoshop for are part of RawShooter.

Altogether this $100 program is half the price of the original ACR Adobe
withdrew from sale the day they released an upgraded version of
Photoshop and surprise, surprise... Supports just about every current
camera standard with a promise of updates within days of new cameras
being released.

Now if a single disgruntled developer, starting up on his own can get it
right so fast and so completely, wouldn't you have thought Adobe could?
After all, the "file types" ability is a plugin, not rocket science.
Having or removing it does not materially effect the functionality of
Photoshop, as you earlier suggested.

--
Douglas...
Specifications are good to read but
When it comes to judging Digital Cameras...
I'm in the "how do the pictures look" category.

Barry Pearson

2005-11-21, 10:14 pm

>From Douglas wrote:
> Barry Pearson wrote:
[snip]
> SNipped...
>
> Your arguments all *seem* to make sense Barry. Were it not for other,
> less established developers of RAW data converters already being able to
> read 5D files withing days of the camera's release, I might go along
> with your line of thought.
[snip]

What I said is correct. Nothing you said contradicts it.

(I don't know how long ACR took to support the 5D from when the camera
was shipped. It was unofficially supported by ACR 3.2, released late
September, which I believe was before Rawshooter Premium itself was
released. So ACR 2.4 supported the 5D via the DNG route late
September).

You might ponder the fact that Rawshooter (either version) supports DNG
only for cameras it also supports via their native raw formats. Why? If
the file format was all that mattered, it could support any camera via
its DNG. But it uses the same camera calibration in both cases, and
that has to be developed. ALL raw converters either build their own
camera calibration data from a trial (or manufacturer's knowledge) of
the camera concerned, or read it from the DNG. Rawshooter can't read it
from the DNG. ACR does.

That is why ACR 2.4 can now support over 40 cameras and digital backs
that were launched after ACR 2.4 was shipped, via the DNG route. (Well
over 100 cameras in total). But Rawshooter can't do the same, and needs
an upgrade for new cameras. That is an indication of the power of DNG,
when fully supported, to get off this treadmill of new cameras followed
by new code and data in lots of software products.

I hope that eventually Rawshooter supports DNG fully, so that it will
support a larger range of cameras. Perhaps you remember the delay of
Rawshooter Essentials' support for the Leica DMR digital back, even
though its native raw format was DNG? Although RSE supported the DNG
file format, RSE didn't have calibration tables for the DMR back for a
considerable time. (Does RSE support it yet? I know RSP does).

As I said, it is a sign of the immaturity of the digital imaging
industry that shoddy engineering techniques like routine
reverse-engineering and calibration based on random instances is
accepted without much outrage! It is silly that 3rd party product
developers have to waste resources on such low-value activities, and
that photographers have to upgrade software that they have been using
successfully up to then.

The only contender for a solution to these problems is DNG.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
http://www.birdsandanimals.info/