Luminous Landscape Forum

Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Camera Raw Q&A => Topic started by: ChristopherFrick on September 23, 2008, 11:46:15 PM

Title: ACR 5
Post by: ChristopherFrick on September 23, 2008, 11:46:15 PM
Hello all,

I just saw a demo for PS CS4 using the gradient tool in ACR 5. Just great as far as I'm concerned as I've use Nik's Colo(u)r Efex which unfortunately are not editable in the layers once set up.

My question is if ACR 5 plug-in will be available as an upgrade for CS3 or do I have to find some pennies to buy CS4?

PS. I bought Lee ND grad filters a while ago which are fine but a pain to set up, so I fell back on using software grad tricks to fix things. Yes, lazy I know as filters would be the best way to go and save post processing time.

Thanks,
Chris.
Title: ACR 5
Post by: BernardLanguillier on September 24, 2008, 12:21:42 AM
Quote
My question is if ACR 5 plug-in will be available as an upgrade for CS3 or do I have to find some pennies to buy CS4?
Chris.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223810\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If I recall, it was needed to upgrade to CS3 in order to benefit from the value of ACR4.

Not a problem functionwise, it makes sense to have to upgrade to benefit from new functions, but a big problem in terms of new cameras support since they stopped adding support for new cameras on ACR3 at the time.

I would be interested to find out whether Adobe has improved on that or not.

Regards,
Bernard
Title: ACR 5
Post by: madmanchan on September 24, 2008, 08:22:53 AM
You will need CS4 to run Camera Raw 5.

CS3 (with CR 4.x) and CS2 (with CR 3.x) will continue to support new cameras via the free DNG Converter.
Title: ACR 5
Post by: JeffKohn on September 24, 2008, 01:55:41 PM
I'm glad to see ACR 5 is adding some of the new goodies from LR.

Given that Adobe is in the process of releasing ACR 4.6 with support for many new cameras just weeks before CS4 is coming out, I don't think users have too much to complain about. It's not realistic to expect them to keep adding functionality to old versions of products that have been superceded by upgrades.

Adobe has been pretty straightforward about it. ACR is regularly updated for the current version of PS/CS, and once a new upgrade comes up the users can still get support for new cameras via the DNG Convertor.
Title: ACR 5
Post by: madmanchan on September 24, 2008, 02:58:01 PM
Exactly, Jeff. Thanks for putting it so clearly.
Title: ACR 5
Post by: macgyver on September 24, 2008, 04:27:33 PM
I like Mike Johnson's phrasing for it: "Paying the Photoshop Tax".
Title: ACR 5
Post by: Chris Crevasse on September 25, 2008, 03:27:41 PM
Eric, is it correct that ACR 5 will have ALL of Lightroom 2's raw processing features, not just some of them?  If that is not correct, can you describe the features that will be missing from ACR 5?  Thanks.
Title: ACR 5
Post by: Schewe on September 25, 2008, 04:54:03 PM
Quote
Eric, is it correct that ACR 5 will have ALL of Lightroom 2's raw processing features, not just some of them?  If that is not correct, can you describe the features that will be missing from ACR 5?  Thanks.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224340\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


CR 5 will have all the same processing controls...yes. The usability will be a bit different. 5.0 won't have brush presets and there's no A/B brush settings (the erase bruce can be set different than the add brush though). But the control channels are the same in Lightroom 2.x and Camera Raw 5.x. Plus, Camera Raw has a point curve editor :~)
Title: ACR 5
Post by: madmanchan on September 25, 2008, 06:59:40 PM
Thanks Jeff.

In general, the thing to keep in mind is that an image edited in LR 2 will look the same when opened up in CR 5, and vice versa.
Title: ACR 5
Post by: Mark D Segal on September 25, 2008, 07:18:23 PM
Quote
I like Mike Johnson's phrasing for it: "Paying the Photoshop Tax".
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224069\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't. I think it's cynical. How does he expect the program to be maintained and up-graded? Does he give away his photos and services for free? As well, Adobe is honouring its commitments as far as I can tell.
Title: ACR 5
Post by: Mark D Segal on September 25, 2008, 07:21:00 PM
Quote
CR 5 will have all the same processing controls...yes. The usability will be a bit different. 5.0 won't have brush presets and there's no A/B brush settings (the erase bruce can be set different than the add brush though). But the control channels are the same in Lightroom 2.x and Camera Raw 5.x. Plus, Camera Raw has a point curve editor :~)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224370\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Indeed - I think a point curve UI can be very helpful in some situations where one would like to detach and move the end points, and set other points elsewhere on the curve quite accurately. I would like to see it added to LR.
Title: ACR 5
Post by: rdonson on September 25, 2008, 08:15:11 PM
Quote
I don't. I think it's cynical. How does he expect the program to be maintained and up-graded? Does he give away his photos and services for free? As well, Adobe is honouring its commitments as far as I can tell.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224403\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Enterprise software is sold/licensed and there is generally a 20% per year maintenance fee.  With its Creative Suite Adobe achieves the same thing with an 18 month cycle of 30% upgrades.  They even allow you to skip an upgrade so its really not a bad deal.  

Its neither good nor bad, just the way software products are sold and maintained.

Adobe is neither the villain or the hero just another corporate entity with the need to satisfy Wall Streets demand for increased profits each and every quarter.  

While keeping Wall Street and shareholders happy we enjoy the fruits of their labors.
Title: ACR 5
Post by: ChristopherFrick on September 26, 2008, 08:39:03 AM
Quote
You will need CS4 to run Camera Raw 5.

CS3 (with CR 4.x) and CS2 (with CR 3.x) will continue to support new cameras via the free DNG Converter.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223907\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks Eric. I'll leave the pros and cons of capitalism to the others  

(Why isn't there a Marx or Engels smilie?)

Chris.
Title: ACR 5
Post by: KSH on September 26, 2008, 10:21:33 AM
Quote
I don't. I think it's cynical. How does he expect the program to be maintained and up-graded? Does he give away his photos and services for free? As well, Adobe is honouring its commitments as far as I can tell.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=224403\")

May I suggest you read the quote in context before bashing him: [a href=\"http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2008/09/your-virtual-ph.html]Mike's post[/url]?

Karsten
Title: ACR 5
Post by: Mark D Segal on September 26, 2008, 12:00:18 PM
Fine - he said he shouldn't be flippant and I agree with that.  
Title: ACR 5
Post by: Schewe on September 26, 2008, 01:13:51 PM
Quote
May I suggest you read the quote in context before bashing him: Mike's post (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2008/09/your-virtual-ph.html)?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224616\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The word TAX has a lot of implications...and I disagree with the concept. I think it much more a cost of doing business and should be viewed in light of what sort of return you will get from your investment.

Nobody is holding a gun to your head making you (or anybody else) upgrade to Adobe's latest release of Photoshop. When CS4 comes out, it doesn't magically make your version of CS3 quit working. The only thing that really happens is that when the "next version" comes out, free updates and bug fixes cease for the old version. To a certain degree, that may lower the value a bit of the older version–depending on the way you look at it.

But some people have some pretty perverted ways of viewing situations. Photographers have this tendency to view intellectual property as somehow less valuable than tangible property–even though the profession of photography is dedicated to creating intellectual property. Photographers don't seem to have the same level of irritation when Apple or Dell announce brand new super charged computers or Nikon and Canon come out with new bigger MP cameras. Oh, there's grumbling, to be sure. But not in the same vein as the bitching about Adobe coming out with a new version of Photoshop and complaints about the "Photoshop Tax".

It seems that many people wish the software would be frozen in time and offered with a life time license and perpetual free upgrades. That same level of expectation isn't there for hardware. Compare that attitude with a photographer's client when they think that they should "OWN" all the rights to a photograph that they "BUY".

And that's an irony that I don't enjoy (since I engage in both the creation of software and the creation of licensed images).
Title: ACR 5
Post by: martinog on September 26, 2008, 04:09:57 PM
Thanks Jeff, I agree.
Title: ACR 5
Post by: DarkPenguin on September 26, 2008, 04:36:20 PM
You're right.  Tax is inappropriate.  I prefer "Adobe Shakedown."
Title: ACR 5
Post by: Mark D Segal on September 26, 2008, 04:52:52 PM
Quote
You're right.  Tax is inappropriate.  I prefer "Adobe Shakedown."
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224724\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

And why is it a "shakedown" - how much are they supposed to charge you to conceptualise, develop, write, market and service all this code? At what point does a legitimate price become a "shakedown" and how do you know where to draw the line?
Title: ACR 5
Post by: DarkPenguin on September 26, 2008, 05:01:00 PM
Only two lines, Mark?  I'm hoping Schewe is more entertaining.
Title: ACR 5
Post by: Schewe on September 26, 2008, 05:01:50 PM
Quote
You're right.  Tax is inappropriate.  I prefer "Adobe Shakedown."
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224724\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I guess you just don't have the self discipline to NOT do things you don't want to, huh? Again, you are under no obligation (other than the pressure you place on yourself) to ever upgrade Photoshop again unless the industry moves forward to the extent that you can't use the current version of Photoshop that you have on new computers and OS's that come out in the future. But that's the price you pay for not upgrading.

Adobe goes out of its way to come up with interesting and compelling new features and functionality in order to induce users to upgrade. If you are not induced, it's pretty silly to upgrade huh? I don't think "shakedown" is in the least bit accurate...
Title: ACR 5
Post by: Mark D Segal on September 26, 2008, 05:07:06 PM
Quote
Only two lines, Mark?  I'm hoping Schewe is more entertaining.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224728\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, I could have written more, but that would have burdened you with even more not-entertaining lines, so not to put too fine a point on it...............
Title: ACR 5
Post by: DarkPenguin on September 26, 2008, 05:44:18 PM
Quote
Well, I could have written more, but that would have burdened you with even more not-entertaining lines, so not to put too fine a point on it...............
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224731\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It is just a really funny thing, Mark.  Who cares what they call it so long as they actually pay for it?

I'd happily trade the "this product that does 1/10th what yours does is free so why should we pay for yours?" crowd for the frowny faced check writers.
Title: ACR 5
Post by: Mark D Segal on September 26, 2008, 07:09:39 PM
Quote
It is just a really funny thing, Mark.  Who cares what they call it so long as they actually pay for it?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224742\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The reason to care is that language can be used to disparage an enterprise which most likely doesn't deserve it.
Title: ACR 5
Post by: DarkPenguin on September 26, 2008, 07:49:53 PM
Yes.  But their actions tell the true tale.
Title: ACR 5
Post by: Mark D Segal on September 26, 2008, 07:53:43 PM
Getting way off topic, but what actions?
Title: ACR 5
Post by: DarkPenguin on September 26, 2008, 07:58:21 PM
Buying it.  People grumble about the cost but they still pay it.  In my book that's a huge compliment.

But then I am a cynic.

(What was the topic anyway?)
Title: ACR 5
Post by: Pete JF on September 26, 2008, 08:46:47 PM
IT'S the ACR camera update thing that forces many of those grumblers to buy it.

I'm one of them..i dont need CS4 right now. My pictures will not look any different in it. However, I would like to use ACR when i need it without having to screw around with doing the DNG thing- watusi.

Adobe knows that the ACR camera (lack of) update thing forces a large group of people to purchase newer versions of PS. Jeff knows it too and is wrong when he says that nobody is obligated to buy newer versions of PS. Not having camera support is a huge "inducement" for quite a few users. Read the forums..this ACR camera update subject shows up quite a bit and many times people say bad words about it. Many people also say that they dont want to do the DNG conversion for one reason or another

Still, Adobe should be nice and do a massive update of ACR cameras back to, say..Cs2 or plain old CS. I have CS2, perfectly adequate for making stunning photos that will rake in millions of dollars.

It would just be NICE if they did it and it really wouldn't cost them shit in the long run. They're a big healthy company and would still have the world gripped in their photopaw after the big, nice ACR camera update.

Hard to believe that a few got pickled about Mike Johnston's little joke about a "photoshop tax". LoL-ski, that is a trip.
Title: ACR 5
Post by: Schewe on September 26, 2008, 11:09:11 PM
Quote
It would just be NICE if they did it and it really wouldn't cost them shit in the long run.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224779\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Are you a software developers? Do you know what the implications of split-code support? You branch off code for a new version, you cease writing to the old code in order to move the current code forward. As a direct result, adding support for backwards compatibility would indeed cost dev time for a product team whose product is not sold. And remember, there are only three main engineers working on Camera Raw and one of them is a forum regular here in the LL.

Adobe, since mid-1990's has had a very consistent policy, support for older versions ceases when new version are released. The fact the some people feel bent over a barrel because they buy new cameras that weren't even in the design phase when a current version of Photoshop was released is pretty much proof that they inherently place hardware on a higher value than software. And, for photographers to so treat intellectual property is pretty ironic.
Title: ACR 5
Post by: Mark D Segal on September 26, 2008, 11:37:36 PM
Quote
IT'S the ACR camera update thing that forces many of those grumblers to buy it.

I'm one of them..i dont need CS4 right now. My pictures will not look any different in it. However, I would like to use ACR when i need it without having to screw around with doing the DNG thing- watusi.

Adobe knows that the ACR camera (lack of) update thing forces a large group of people to purchase newer versions of PS. Jeff knows it too and is wrong when he says that nobody is obligated to buy newer versions of PS. Not having camera support is a huge "inducement" for quite a few users. Read the forums..this ACR camera update subject shows up quite a bit and many times people say bad words about it. Many people also say that they dont want to do the DNG conversion for one reason or another

Still, Adobe should be nice and do a massive update of ACR cameras back to, say..Cs2 or plain old CS. I have CS2, perfectly adequate for making stunning photos that will rake in millions of dollars.

It would just be NICE if they did it and it really wouldn't cost them shit in the long run. They're a big healthy company and would still have the world gripped in their photopaw after the big, nice ACR camera update.

Hard to believe that a few got pickled about Mike Johnston's little joke about a "photoshop tax". LoL-ski, that is a trip.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224779\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Choices need to be made about how peoples' time will be compensated. Adobe perhaps could have maintained Camera Raw as a separate piece of software which we purchase apart from Photoshop. If they did that, it would be regularly up-graded and new versions would be sold probably at an up-grade price to existing customers and at the new price to new customers. Instead they bundled it with Photoshop, so we buy the package in a combined up-grade. The wisdom of integrating them allows them to be used interactively and allows the development of the one to be accommodated by the development of the other. When we pay an up-grade price we're getting the synergy of the pair.

Furthermore, for those who don't want to up-grade, there really is nothing wrong or complex working the DNG route. And finally, there's Lightroom - we can now go from camera to print in LR2 and use CS3 for residuals instead of an up-grade to CS4 if we so desired, so those who don't want to up-grade Photoshop can buy LR or up-grade an existing LR. There are enough options here that should satisfy most peoples' needs and budgets, while assuring that Adobe gets paid for the work they do. I still haven't seen any convincing evidence of a rip-off or "shakedown"  in any of this.
Title: ACR 5
Post by: Pete JF on September 26, 2008, 11:43:34 PM
Jeff said: "Are you a software developers?"


Nope, I'm not a software developers. I'm Mr. T.

I figure it would cost them about 200 grand to do this, probably less. A drop in the bucket against Adobe's almost 200 million in earnings third quarter.

After Adobe's sales peak out on their latest and greatest..they could just write it and give it as a gift, to me and my friends who grumble when they scratch out another check to the Adobe taxman. And, they could put your face on the box so I could give you a big fat kiss every time I made a great photo

While they're at it, they could fix the buggy Bridge. The bridge to nowhere..lol.

Sincerely,

Mr. T
Title: ACR 5
Post by: Anthony.Ralph on September 27, 2008, 04:12:53 AM
Quote
IT'S the ACR camera update thing that forces many of those grumblers to buy it.

[..]


Apart from the DNG route which Adobe offer, there is always the camera manufacturers own software for converting RAW files so there are alternatives thus ensuring we are not locked into having to upgrade Photoshop if we don't want to.

On the other hand, Adobe are quite clever in offering enough new/improved features in any PS upgrade, which when added to ACR make the upgrade route a compelling one.

Anthony.
Title: ACR 5
Post by: Mark D Segal on September 27, 2008, 07:29:33 AM
Quote
Jeff said: "Are you a software developers?"
Nope, I'm not a software developers. I'm Mr. T.

I figure it would cost them about 200 grand to do this, probably less. A drop in the bucket against Adobe's almost 200 million in earnings third quarter.

After Adobe's sales peak out on their latest and greatest..they could just write it and give it as a gift, to me and my friends who grumble when they scratch out another check to the Adobe taxman. And, they could put your face on the box so I could give you a big fat kiss every time I made a great photo

While they're at it, they could fix the buggy Bridge. The bridge to nowhere..lol.

Sincerely,

Mr. T
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224824\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You say you "figure" a cost of 200K. Could you please tell us how you "figure" that? I'd like to see - and perhaps others readers would too - some real meat behind such numbers, drawn on your knowledge of software development requirements and costs.

Adobe's earnings are spread accross a very large number of products and R&D work, of which Photoshop is only one, so picking a number such as Q3 earnings in isolation of context is completely meaningless. You'll get a better idea of their financial performance if you were to download their financials and their 10-K (on their website), analyze them, then come back and tell us whether they're making too much money - but even that wouldn't entirely cut it, because what they make largely depends on customers' willingness-to-pay and no-one is putting a gun to anyones' head to buy this stuff, nor have competitive alternatives started to creep in, which often happens when super-normal profits attract new market entrants, regardless of incumbent advantage.

And Bridge CS3 on my computer is definitely not buggy. Works just fine, but I've switched to using LR2 because it's even better. The only thing the LR2 Library module doesn't allow which Bridge does allow is the capability of reaching directly back into your folder and file structure on your hard drive to permit selecting thumbnails in Bridge and re-arranging their location on disk. Apart from that, for the day to day library functions I need, Bridge works fine and LR2 is superb.
Title: ACR 5
Post by: Pete JF on September 27, 2008, 11:37:18 AM
200k ought to cover hiring a couple of hackers. that includes the amphetamines and a case of Mountain Dew™.

I can provide a couple of rascals to break into the Nikon and Canon offices, steal their secret potions and some extra paper..during break time the hackers are guaranteed to start launching paper airplanes out the window, it's what they do..They'll empty out the copy machines in no time, mischevious little creeps.

Mark, I never suggested that Adobe was making too much money. My motto: mO mOneY, right on!

If Adobe's running short on the cash to do this then they should tap into the easter basket fund or the corporate shaving kit fund, go department to department in Adobe headquarters with a hat and a big stick..put Schewe in a souped up wheelchair and let him hold the stick...that could be some effective fundraising imagery.

Hell, I'll meet Madmanchan in the lobby and kick a roll of singles across the floor at him. I don't want to get too close because he's a madman and his dad probably taught him some ancient moves. I don't mess around with madmen who are a good at computers appear to be gentle and calm.  

I could drop about 40 dollars in his lap and that would certainly help. $200,040.00 is big money. Chan is a very generous fellow, always upping the info and glad to do it with no sign of demons, chaos or insecurity in his demeanour. I like him very much and sense that he'd be up for Adobe's -big gift- to those with the holes in our knees.

I'm glad to hear that Bridge is running well for you. Do this..google - Adobe Bridge Buggy...

Mine's been running smooth lately but I'm expecting it to go down hard pretty soon. It always does. I go through the usual routine of trashing a bunch of crap, rubbing it's temples, feeding it skittles...it's freaking tempermental and flaky.

It's a beautiful day, I'm going skateboarding..When I get back I'm gonna solicit Adobe for some band-aids and monkey's blood (mecuricrome)...the gold chains make me top heavy, even on the big board..
Title: ACR 5
Post by: Mark D Segal on September 27, 2008, 11:42:33 AM
Enjoy.
Title: ACR 5
Post by: BernardLanguillier on September 28, 2008, 10:58:44 AM
Quote
I guess you just don't have the self discipline to NOT do things you don't want to, huh? Again, you are under no obligation (other than the pressure you place on yourself) to ever upgrade Photoshop again unless the industry moves forward to the extent that you can't use the current version of Photoshop that you have on new computers and OS's that come out in the future. But that's the price you pay for not upgrading.

Adobe goes out of its way to come up with interesting and compelling new features and functionality in order to induce users to upgrade. If you are not induced, it's pretty silly to upgrade huh? I don't think "shakedown" is in the least bit accurate...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224729\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jeff,

Where is gets annoying is that most other RAW converters don't ask you 349 US$ uprade fee to support a new camera type... most of them actually do it for free for a long period of time. Raw Developper comes to my mind.

So my personnal conclusion is not to use ACR because I know that one day, I'll be in a situation where I'll have to upgrade to a newer version of PS just to be able to use the right version of ACR that will be supporting my new camera. I am aware that converting to DNG is a by-pass, but I don't find this to be practical.

Frankly speaking, I have some other issues with ACR that currently prevent me from using it extensively, although I used to a few years back, but even if the demoisaicing of ACR were best in class, I still would have the issue described above.

This really isn't Abode bashing at all, it is a real world problem with the way ACR releases and PS releases are currently coupled.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: ACR 5
Post by: madmanchan on September 28, 2008, 11:06:12 AM
On the flip side, occasionally you get new features in CR without having to pay a dime. For example, with CR 4.1 new capture sharpening tools were introduced. As another example, with CR 4.5 the new color engine was introduced, along with a full set of new profiles (including long-requested ones that emulate the camera maker's color), and a tool (DNG Profile Editor) for rolling your own custom color profiles. No charge for existing CR 4.x users.
Title: ACR 5
Post by: Mark D Segal on September 28, 2008, 11:06:49 AM
Quote
Jeff,

Where is gets annoying is that most other RAW converters don't ask you 349 US$ uprade fee to support a new camera type... most of them actually do it for free for a long period of time. Raw Developper comes to my mind.

So my personnal conclusion is not to use ACR because I know that one day, I'll be in a situation where I'll have to upgrade to a newer version of PS just to be able to use the right version of ACR that will be supporting my new camera. I am aware that converting to DNG is a by-pass, but I don't find this to be practical.

Frankly speaking, I have some other issues with ACR that currently prevent me from using it extensively, although I used to a few years back, but even if the demoisaicing of ACR were best in class, I still would have the issue described above.

This really isn't Abode bashing at all, it is a real world problem with the way ACR releases and PS releases are currently coupled.

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=225194\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bernard,

I think where there may be some mis-appreciation of the context here, is that you aren't paying $349 just to up-grade for new camera types. You are paying for a whole package of substantial improvements and innovations to the whole package of Bridge-ACR-PSCSx with each new release. If you want all these things, hard to say in the abstract that it isn't worth it. If you don't want these things, then indeed you may be better-off choosing a raw converter that gives you the camera up-dates free. So I'm not sure what the real-world problem is.

As for DNG, what's wrong with it in your opinion?

Cheers,

Mark
Title: ACR 5
Post by: Schewe on September 28, 2008, 01:13:47 PM
Quote
Where is gets annoying is that most other RAW converters don't ask you 349 US$ uprade fee to support a new camera type... most of them actually do it for free for a long period of time.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=225194\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The major upgrade to Photoshop happens on average, every 18 months. During the time that the current version is well, current, the updates are free. For Camera Raw 3 in Photoshop CS2, that was 7 times (3.7 was the last update), for Camera Ra 4 it will have been 6 updates (CR 4.6 will be the last update for CS3-which has been released as an RC but will be released as a final GM even AFTER Photoshop CS4 has been announced).

But the point where you loose me here in your logic is that you are equating a Camera Raw upgrade along with a Photoshop and Bridge upgrade for whatever the upgrade cost is to a very limited functionality raw converter by some other company. What other raw converter comes with the functionality of Photoshop? By your logic, you are paying for Camera Raw and getting the Photoshop and Bridge update for free...you see the problem with that logic?

I also question your 349 US$ uprade fee...that's for Photoshop Extended...which has a lot of interesting stuff for mostly non-photographers. So, comparing the standard upgrade for the regular version (which in the US is $199, not $349) it makes the comparison of Camera Raw/Photoshop/Bridge to any other raw processor only software even more, uh, ludicrous. If you average out $199 for 18 months, that's just about $11/month. Heck, I spend more than that on wines by the glass sometimes...sure, for some people who don't do this for a living, that might be considered a high ticket luxury, but then there's always Photoshop Elements (which really fulfills the needs of many people who seem to convince themselves they really need Photoshop).

Now, I won't get into the whole US VS the Rest Of The World pricing...I think Adobe is wrong and that's way above my pay grade anyway...

But really, for people to complain so loudly and claim that Adobe is "forcing" them to upgrade their version of Photoshop just to get new camera support is pretty darn dismissive of the value of Photoshop.

I was around for the first version of Camera Raw (version 1.0 that would work in Photoshop 7) that Adobe sold for $99. Should Adobe have continued to sell Camera Raw as a separate product? That way the development would be un-linked to a version of Photoshop. But I'll tell ya that the nature of Camera Raw would have been considerably different than it is now if that had come to pass. Users really are a lot better off the way it is now than the way it would have been if Camera Raw was a separate product for sale.

Again, I'll point out the dichotomy that seems to encourage photographers to value software less than hardware. You really shouldn't. I can think of no time in the history of photography where one's "originals" have continued to improve so much AFTER they were shot as with raw digital photography. And to be quibbling over a couple hundred bucks every year and a half or two just seems pretty to me.
Title: ACR 5
Post by: Mark D Segal on September 28, 2008, 03:46:09 PM
Quote
And to be quibbling over a couple hundred bucks every year and a half or two just seems pretty to me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=225232\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not pretty - perhaps petty, or was it pretty petty?

(Sorry Jeff, couldn't resist!)  
Title: ACR 5
Post by: Schewe on September 28, 2008, 04:01:25 PM
Yeah, I meant PETTY....

As in petty cash (in terms of the cost of Photoshop upgrades relative to the value to somebody who uses it)
Title: ACR 5
Post by: Mark D Segal on September 28, 2008, 04:44:54 PM
Quote
Yeah, I meant PETTY....

As in petty cash (in terms of the cost of Photoshop upgrades relative to the value to somebody who uses it)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=225275\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The acid test of whether or not it is value for money is to ask yourself after using an up-grade for a week or so whether you regretted the purchase or wanted to turn the clock back. It hasn't happened to me over the eight years I've been using this stuff.
Title: ACR 5
Post by: BernardLanguillier on September 28, 2008, 07:25:16 PM
Quote
But the point where you loose me here in your logic is that you are equating a Camera Raw upgrade along with a Photoshop and Bridge upgrade for whatever the upgrade cost is to a very limited functionality raw converter by some other company. What other raw converter comes with the functionality of Photoshop? By your logic, you are paying for Camera Raw and getting the Photoshop and Bridge update for free...you see the problem with that logic?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=225232\")

Jeff,

Thanks for your answer.

I agree that many people are not affected by this since new cameras released within the lifecycle of a given release are supported for free.

The thing is that I was hit before with the D2x, and that did the facto result in me starting to use a different converter back then... and I have never looked back since then. So I did clearly stop using ACR because of this problem in the past. I ended up upgrading to CS3 later, but the harm was done.

I just came accross this post by chance in DPreview, it seems that I am not alone. [a href=\"http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1039&message=29510377]http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=29510377[/url]

I do also of course agree that there is in general a lot more value in a a PS release that ACR alone, but my issue is with the impossibility to dissociate the 2.

PS CS3 is a great piece of software with a mature content. Frankly speaking, we have been through this before, but I don't see much in CS4 that would significantly improve the way I work. I am sure that some features here and there would help, but nothing earthshaking for me.

So in this context, and as a PS CS3 extended user, I could really be again in a situation - if I were an ACR user - where the only reason triggering a 349 US$ update would be the need to have new cameras supported quickly after its release.

As far as going through DNG, it does add a step to the workflow. I guess that it could be automated somehow, but it would still take time and double the storage space needed on my disks.

So all in all, assuming that Adobe believes that ACR is a value added application that is supposed to be one more reason for people to stay in the Adobe world, my view is that the current policy is actually deterring some people from using ACR... and therefore playing the very opposite role, meaning taking some people away from PS.

Just my 2 cent.

Regards,
Bernard
Title: ACR 5
Post by: Pete JF on October 01, 2008, 10:22:12 AM
Bernard,

Those sorts of postings are all over the place.

Maybe Bob and Doug McKenzie have a plan for squeezing some joy out of this..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsgVspgy184 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsgVspgy184)
Title: ACR 5
Post by: NikosR on October 11, 2008, 01:54:13 AM
I do think that Adobe use ACR and new camera support as an efficient way to push people to upgrade PS. Do I think this is fair practice from a customer relationship point of view? No. Do I believe that Schewe's excuse of multiple release support problems with regards to ACR is lame? Yes I do. But, do I believe this is standard industry practice? Yes, I most certainly do. Adobe will be doing the same with LR and most every raw converter manufacturer is doing this. Even Nikon themselves force you to upgrade Capture NX if you want your new camera to be supported (which is even worse practice since it's coming from a hardware manufacturer).

At least Adobe provide some backwards compatibility (through their free DNG converter) although I don't believe that the drive to do that is mainly the interest of their customers. It mainly serves their own interest indirectly pushing DNG adoption.

That's business. Adobe are not our friends nor are our enemies.

With regards to what Bernard is saying I do agree to a point. That has been the main reason I have stopped using ACR since I had no other real need to upgrade PS since CS1. Adobe would have really lost me from being a customer had they not come up with LR. They were clever to put out LR so I'm still a customer of theirs. So I'm paying their LR 'tax' but not the Photoshop one
Title: ACR 5
Post by: Czornyj on October 11, 2008, 08:04:12 AM
Quote from: NikosR
Adobe are not our friends nor are our enemies.

Allies?
Title: ACR 5
Post by: Schewe on October 11, 2008, 01:39:18 PM
Quote from: NikosR
Do I believe that Schewe's excuse of multiple release support problems with regards to ACR is lame? Yes I do. But, do I believe this is standard industry practice? Yes, I most certainly do.

Are you a software developer? Do you have first hand experience on developing new versions of software for new system APIs and new SDKs and the difficulties that builds for backwards compatibilities? If you don't then I would suggest you are simply believing what fits your view, not the facts. The very fact you characterize the reasons I stated as an "excuse" basically indicates your prejudice...you've already made up your mind that the whole reason Adobe fails to provide backwards compatibility is ONLY an underhanded method of trying to force upgrades. So, with you it's not a true debate...you've already made up your mind. Pretty pointless to try to argue with that. You're wrong but you won't entertain that possibility, right?
Title: ACR 5
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on October 11, 2008, 03:54:24 PM
Quote from: MarkDS
The only thing the LR2 Library module doesn't allow which Bridge does allow is the capability of reaching directly back into your folder and file structure on your hard drive to permit selecting thumbnails in Bridge and re-arranging their location on disk.
If I understand you correctly (the second reference to Bridge is puzzling me), you've missed something. LR2 can move files around on disk: in grid view, just drag a thumbnail (or some thumbnails) to a folder in the list on the left. LR2 will move the files to the new folder.

Not strictly relevant to this fascinating discussion (FWIW, I agree wholeheartedly with you and Jeff: you get infinite backwards compatibility with DNG converter - what more can you expect?), but I hope helpful.

Jeremy
Title: ACR 5
Post by: NikosR on October 11, 2008, 04:35:45 PM
Quote from: Schewe
Are you a software developer? Do you have first hand experience on developing new versions of software for new system APIs and new SDKs and the difficulties that builds for backwards compatibilities? If you don't then I would suggest you are simply believing what fits your view, not the facts. The very fact you characterize the reasons I stated as an "excuse" basically indicates your prejudice...you've already made up your mind that the whole reason Adobe fails to provide backwards compatibility is ONLY an underhanded method of trying to force upgrades. So, with you it's not a true debate...you've already made up your mind. Pretty pointless to try to argue with that. You're wrong but you won't entertain that possibility, right?

Wrong.

I've been in IT for 25 years. At the moment I'm leading a spec team for a substantial piece of sw, FWIW.

We're not really talking about maintaining versions of sw here, Mr. Schewe. I would not expect Adobe to make an older version of ACR compatible with a new version of an OS, for example. But, we're just talking about supporting new cameras in older versions (at least 1 or a couple of versions back). I think it would be, mostly and for most cameras, a comparatively trivial issue (especially if one thinks about the open source support in the public domain for that). I'm pretty sure it would be trivial for Adobe to do if they choose to do it. I'm ready to be convinced that this is not the case, but you'll have to provide some more convincing arguments.

And, since you've brought the subject up, do you EVER entertain the possibility of being wrong yourself?  It has not been obvious from your posting history in these forums.
Title: ACR 5
Post by: Schewe on October 11, 2008, 05:18:06 PM
Quote from: NikosR
But, we're just talking about supporting new cameras in older versions. I think it is, mostly and for most cameras, a comparatively trivial issue.


So, you want to Adobe to go back to versions of Camera Raw, re-open the code project (which has been retired) and add the code required to access new cameras...is that what you are expecting? For FREE?

Since it's not a current product, Adobe's support for those versions has ended. The newer versions of Camera Raw code has branched, so it's not like they could just take the new version code and migrate the code backwards...so, it would require additional work to update the current version and then go back to the previous version and update that code thus keeping THAT branch of the code live as well. And, you want this for free? How many versions of Photoshop should Adobe go back to update Camera Raw...1? 2?

Or, are you saying that Adobe should write the current version of Camera Raw so it could be used in ANY version of Photoshop? There are technical reasons relating to the Photoshop SDK that each version uses that would make that problematic...I'm not saying that would be totally impossible...but it would require that backwards compatibility becomes a major engineering factor which I guarantee would have a major impact on the development of NEW features and functionality and progress. As a user of the CURRENT version of Photoshop (well, actually I'm using CS4) that would make me angry that the Camera Raw engineers were forced to triage new functionality because they had to spend any time and effort making sure of backwards compatibility. No, I don't see that as a win/win for users of the current version of Photoshop, not at all. And you might say what would be the problem with the backwards compatibility? As a software developer myself and having dealt with backwards compatibility for plug-ins, I can tell you that it takes time and work and if you are talking about both backwards compatibility AND cross-platform compatibility then you are talking about a substantial amount of time and testing...

So, Adobe's policy is to ONLY offer free updates for the currently shipping product (with the recent release of Camera Raw 4.6, that make SIX free updates for Photoshop CS3 over an 18 month time period). Once a new version ships, the old version is retired and the new version's code is then updated, for free.

If you think that the ONLY reason Adobe does this is to force users to upgrade, then you are wrong...plain and simple. Adobe DOES offer a free DNG Converter (to help advance DNG and to benefit the industry while helping themselves) which they are no obligation to do...other than they said they would. This allows users of cameras that weren't even built when they bought their version of Photoshop to be able to access the DNG even as far back as Photoshop CS and Camera Raw 2.4.


Title: ACR 5
Post by: Schewe on October 11, 2008, 05:24:00 PM
Quote from: NikosR
And, since you've mentioned it, do you EVER entertain the possibility of being wrong yourself?  It has not been obvious from your posting history in these forums.


Well, considering I've talked to the engineers on Camera Raw, the product managers on Camera Raw and the policy makers at Adobe who set policy, and they all point out that Adobe decided not to go back and update previous versions of Camera Raw for both policy and technical reasons and concentrate on supporting CURRENT customers, I'm pretty darn sure I ain't wrong, ya know? Since I've also developed plug-ins for Photoshop and have struggled with backwards compatibility, I'm pretty darn sure there ARE technical hurdles...

BTW, I noticed you went back into your other post to modify it while i was composing my response...otherwise I would have responded in my previous post.
Title: ACR 5
Post by: NikosR on October 11, 2008, 05:26:33 PM
Quote from: Schewe
Well, considering I've talked to the engineers on Camera Raw, the product managers on Camera Raw and the policy makers at Adobe who set policy, and they all point out that Adobe decided not to go back and update previous versions of Camera Raw for both policy and technical reasons and concentrate on supporting CURRENT customers, I'm pretty darn sure I ain't wrong, ya know? Since I've also developed plug-ins for Photoshop and have struggled with backwards compatibility, I'm pretty darn sure there ARE technical hurdles...

BTW, I noticed you went back into your other post to modify it while i was composing my response...otherwise I would have responded in my previous post.

Added, not modified. If your id were visible when you were reading this thread, I wouldn't have done that. But, for some reason, it isn't.
Title: ACR 5
Post by: Schewe on October 11, 2008, 05:26:58 PM
Quote from: NikosR
I've been in IT for 25 years. At the moment I'm leading a spec team for a substantial piece of sw, FWIW.

BTW, being in IT doesn't mean anything with regards to your knowledge and experience in coding–particularly writing Photoshop plug-in, cross platform...and being on a spec team for software ain't the same as writing the code. Why don't you ask one of your software engineers about the difficulties in supporting backwards compatibility and how much time and resources it would take and get back to me.
Title: ACR 5
Post by: NikosR on October 11, 2008, 05:34:50 PM
Quote from: Schewe
BTW, being in IT doesn't mean anything with regards to your knowledge and experience in coding–particularly writing Photoshop plug-in, cross platform...and being on a spec team for software ain't the same as writing the code. Why don't you ask one of your software engineers about the difficulties in supporting backwards compatibility and how much time and resources it would take and get back to me.

You like naming this issue 'backward compatibility'. Sounds impressive and a tough thing to do. And you're right in general. But backward compatibility is too wide a term for what we are discussing here. I think this should be obvious to anyone. If a piece of sw is structured well then I think that going back and add camera support would be trivial (especially if, as is usually the case, differences are minimal between camera models). Not zero effort but trivial and well within the potential of a company like Adobe. Yes, it would involve some logistical issues, but nothing like what would be required for real backward compatibility.

I still believe that between 'policy' and 'technical reasons' policy is the one to blame here.
Title: ACR 5
Post by: Schewe on October 11, 2008, 05:49:37 PM
Quote from: NikosR
If a piece of sw is structured well then I think that going back and add camera support would be trivial (especially if, as it usually is the case, differences are minimal between camera models).


No, it would not be trivial because then the engineering and QE teams would have to be writing to and testing 2X the number of code versions the have to now. Understand, they keep a code branch alive and active while the version is current. They build a NEW BRANCH when they create a new version. This new code branch is live but private for testing up till the point the new version is released. Once it's released, then the old code branch is retired and no longer worked on and the only work being done is on the NEW BRANCH of code.

So, to add a new camera, Adobe has to do color testing and file format decoding. That code is put into the new branch, the current branch. That's work that the engineers HAVE to do. But they really seriously DON'T want to go back to a previous branch of code and also have to update and test that code. That's not efficient and would steal R&D from any current work on behalf of current customers for customers who are no longer current? And you think this is a good idea? You think it's trivial?

Again, you haven't answered the question of how long should they be expected to do this...Camera Raw 4? Camera Raw 3? Camera Raw 2? How LONG would you expect them to provide free updates? 1 year? 2 years? Forever? At what point do you allow Adobe to say, NO MAS?

Camera Raw is always moving forward...Camera Raw 5 is pretty interesting with the new local controls. The engineers are seriously trying to push image quality and functionality...I can tell you that I would be pissed if they had to spend ANY time on backwards compatibility (which is what it's called bud), at the expense of forward progress.
Title: ACR 5
Post by: NikosR on October 11, 2008, 05:54:06 PM
Quote from: Schewe
Again, you haven't answered the question of how long should they be expected to do this...Camera Raw 4? Camera Raw 3? Camera Raw 2? How LONG would you expect them to provide free updates? 1 year? 2 years? Forever? At what point do you allow Adobe to say, NO MAS?

I think I mentioned a couple of posts back that it would be nice if they would update ACR with new camera support for a couple of versions back. Even one would be nice and maybe sufficient given the rate new versions are coming up.

Edit: BTW, Maybe I'm wrong here and maybe it's OT but isn't colour profiling provided externally to the code by the camera profiles?
Title: ACR 5
Post by: Schewe on October 11, 2008, 05:59:48 PM
Quote from: NikosR
I think I mentioned a couple of posts back that it would be nice if they would update ACR with new camera support for a couple of versions back.


Ah, so instead of 2X the work updating for cameras, you want them to spend 3x the time reving 3 separate code branches?

Ya know, this ain't an open source project...Adobe is a publicly traded company that is in the biz of writing software for a fee. So, what you are proposing simply doesn't make any economic sense what so ever. I'm actually glad that Adobe's policy is to only offer free support and updates for currently shipping versions of software. I really do want them to actually stay in business.
Title: ACR 5
Post by: NikosR on October 11, 2008, 06:10:16 PM
Quote from: Schewe
I really do want them to actually stay in business.

Gee, I didn't think that Adobe were in such a precarious financial position. Good to know, though  
Title: ACR 5
Post by: madmanchan on October 11, 2008, 09:00:22 PM
Effectively we do already support cameras going back not just one version, but several versions. You may be surprised to hear that you can even use ACR 2.4 to read, say, Nikon D90 images, or Canon EOS 50D images. This is possible via the DNG workflow (i.e., convert the file to DNG and then open it in any DNG reader, such as ACR 2.4, ACR 3.3, ACR 4.6, Silkypix, etc.).

I honestly believe that going back and modifying the old code from earlier versions to directly support new cameras would end up hurting customers more than helping them. It sounds good at first, but there's a tradeoff to everything. Ultimately I believe it means that it would

(1) take us much longer to add new camera support in general, so instead of waiting anywhere from zero days to a few weeks for new camera support (the current situation, typically, unless we get tossed a brand new raw file format ...) you might be waiting from weeks to months,

(2) take us much longer to add new features (things like local corrections, the new color profiles, and a few big things we've got planned that photographers have been asking us for a lot), or

(3) increase the cost of the product,

or some combination of all three.

In my view, the fundamental issue is that going back to add direct camera code support (i.e., non-DNG workflow) to the previous versions doesn't actually improve your images at all. There's no quality difference in CR between converting, say, a Canon CR2 file and its converted DNG. Yes, I understand there's a convenience/workflow difference, and some folks frown upon DNG. But ultimately it's the image result that counts, and there's no visual or quality benefit from investing the enormous resources required to do so. In contrast, there IS a big quality/workflow benefit from improving existing features and developing new features, things that will actually make your images appear better. I hope we can all agree that the CR team's time & resources are better spent on that.

(And since I've already written on this, I might as well say that we smile every time we see a new camera released that supports in-camera DNG, such as the new Casio EX-FH20, because that means we don't have to spend time writing code to support that camera, so instead we use that saved time to work on new features.)
Title: ACR 5
Post by: jjj on October 11, 2008, 09:03:56 PM
Quote from: BernardLanguillier
PS CS3 is a great piece of software with a mature content. Frankly speaking, we have been through this before, but I don't see much in CS4 that would significantly improve the way I work. I am sure that some features here and there would help, but nothing earthshaking for me.
Often it's the little tweaks that make the biggest differences. PS CS4 is a big jump in usability over CS3, simply by virtue of the UI changes/consolidations, never mind the whizz bang features.
Bridge CS4 is so much nicer than CS3, I use LR a lot less these days as a result and with very little apparent UI change to Bridge, but the little changes present make big differences.
The test of the new version of anything, is how sucky the perfectly good previous version suddenly feels after using the latest iteration.  
Title: ACR 5
Post by: ChristopherFrick on October 11, 2008, 09:05:23 PM
Good grief, all I asked at the beginning if ACR5 would go with PS3, which was answered. I didn't expect this bun war (nor the Spanish Inquisition either    )

Can we move on or can I somehow close this thread as the originator?

Regards,
Chris.
Title: ACR 5
Post by: jjj on October 11, 2008, 09:20:52 PM
Quote from: Pete JF
IT'S the ACR camera update thing that forces many of those grumblers to buy it.

I'm one of them..i dont need CS4 right now. My pictures will not look any different in it. However, I would like to use ACR when i need it without having to screw around with doing the DNG thing- watusi.

Still, Adobe should be nice and do a massive update of ACR cameras back to, say..Cs2 or plain old CS. I have CS2, perfectly adequate for making stunning photos that will rake in millions of dollars.
So if you can earn that much, not paying a couple of hundred dollars for a better version of ACR with PS + Bridge thrown in for free, shows that you are really cheap.
 
If you need a newer version of ACR, it's only because you bought a new camera not supported by an older version of ACR, which probably cost a lot more than a PS upgrade, so why not complain to the camera manufacturer that ACR needs to be updated as it's the camera companies that keep changing the RAW file format, even though there's a standard and free option to be used.
I just bought a new compact as my old one died, only been out a few weeks yet worked fine with ACR as it produced DNG files.
Yep, you certainly are a grumbler, albeit one who complains about the wrong thing and to the wrong people.
And all the other whingers who also complain that Adobe doesn't rewrite all their code to match their new cameras, why not complain to the the manufacturers who keep changing RAW files unnecessarily. They are the problem, not Adobe.
Title: ACR 5
Post by: jjj on October 11, 2008, 09:22:28 PM
Quote from: Pete JF
While they're at it, they could fix the buggy Bridge. The bridge to nowhere..lol.
They have. It's a very good programme and CS3 was only buggy on some machines.
Title: ACR 5
Post by: jjj on October 11, 2008, 09:28:56 PM
Quote from: MarkDS
The only thing the LR2 Library module doesn't allow which Bridge does allow is the capability of reaching directly back into your folder and file structure on your hard drive to permit selecting thumbnails in Bridge and re-arranging their location on disk. Apart from that, for the day to day library functions I need, Bridge works fine and LR2 is superb.
Moving files/folders in LR certainly does move them on your computer too. But Bridge is certainly quite different in other ways, being a file browser, not a database.
Title: ACR 5
Post by: Mort54 on October 12, 2008, 04:13:35 PM
Well, as a software developer, I will only say that supporting older code is a nightmare. Adobe's approach is not unique, it's the norm. There are a few exceptions, of course, but these tend to be small bit players who are trying to differentiate their product.
Title: ACR 5
Post by: Schewe on October 12, 2008, 05:21:55 PM
Quote from: Mort54
Well, as a software developer, I will only say that supporting older code is a nightmare.


Mort...thanks for confirming what I've tried to explain to people. Software engineering is so much more complicated than most people presume. It may appear that something should be "trivial" and in reality is anything but...again, the reason that Adobe chooses to NOT to offer updates for non-shipping products and chooses not to make new versions of Camera Raw work in previous versions is indeed both a choice based on policy AND technical reasons...and those technical reasons are real and substantial not simply "made up" to facilitate forcing upgrades...now, can move past this?

Photoshop CS4 and Camera Raw 5 will be shipping VERY SOON...perhaps there's some REAL questions people will have that would be useful to talk about?
Title: ACR 5
Post by: francois on October 13, 2008, 11:05:26 AM
Quote from: Mort54
Well, as a software developer, I will only say that supporting older code is a nightmare. Adobe's approach is not unique, it's the norm. There are a few exceptions, of course, but these tend to be small bit players who are trying to differentiate their product.
You're spot-on, I'm all with you. I refused many lucrative jobs,  most involved either support for old, deprecated code, ancient operating systems or end-of-life hardware. Software development tools also evolve and supporting old software/hardware often means using old OS, old tools and even if one has the financial resources of Apple or Adobe, this kind of development is not very motivating for the coders.

Title: ACR 5
Post by: barryfitzgerald on October 13, 2008, 08:46:02 PM
I have a "real question", why are adobe still applying base level NR to raw?

Not that I want to knock adobe, they have some good stuff, and LR was the program that hit the spot for me. However, for high ISO work, ACR isn't what it could be.
Title: ACR 5
Post by: jrgoldman9 on October 31, 2008, 05:19:52 PM
Quote from: madmanchan
You will need CS4 to run Camera Raw 5.

CS3 (with CR 4.x) and CS2 (with CR 3.x) will continue to support new cameras via the free DNG Converter.

WHEN I TRIED TO INSTALL THE DNG CONVERTER IN CS3, IT SAIDTHAT IT DID NOT RECOGNIZE THAT TYPE OF FILE???
Title: ACR 5
Post by: John.Murray on October 31, 2008, 07:22:28 PM
The DNG convertor is *not* a plug-in, it is a stand alone application.  Run it's installer (and maybe see about that stuck cap lock key . . . .

hth - John
Title: ACR 5
Post by: jeremyrh on November 02, 2008, 03:28:28 AM
Quote from: Schewe
Are you a software developer? Do you have first hand experience on developing new versions of software for new system APIs and new SDKs and the difficulties that builds for backwards compatibilities? If you don't then I would suggest you are simply believing what fits your view, not the facts. The very fact you characterize the reasons I stated as an "excuse" basically indicates your prejudice...you've already made up your mind that the whole reason Adobe fails to provide backwards compatibility is ONLY an underhanded method of trying to force upgrades. So, with you it's not a true debate...you've already made up your mind. Pretty pointless to try to argue with that. You're wrong but you won't entertain that possibility, right?
Seems like the "problem" from the users point of view is that ACR is not a standalone module, but is intimately linked with PS, and hence updates to ACR for old versions of PS are not easy for Adobe. That's a decision that Adobe made, and it may be smart from a business point of view, even if dumb from a software development point of view - if the objective of developing software is to aid the user, and not to make money. No problems with Adobe using whatever means they have to make money, get users to upgrade to software that they don't really need (except for RAW support) - that's the name of the game. But it strikes me as a little ingenuous to suggest that they have no choice, or that the user should be happy to pay for the upgrade.
Title: ACR 5
Post by: madmanchan on November 02, 2008, 08:02:01 AM
Again, the user doesn't have to pay for any upgrade. The user can stick with whatever current version of Photoshop he/she has, as long as it's at least CS (which supports Camera Raw 2.4, released a long, long time ago) and can still process raw files from the latest and greatest cameras. The free DNG Converter makes this possible. We can debate the pros and cons of this approach, but what's not debatable are the facts that (a) the user can get the latest raw support in the older software, with identical image quality, and ( that it's free.
Title: ACR 5
Post by: Mark D Segal on November 02, 2008, 09:39:58 AM
Quote from: jeremyrh
Seems like the "problem" from the users point of view is that ACR is not a standalone module, but is intimately linked with PS, and hence updates to ACR for old versions of PS are not easy for Adobe. That's a decision that Adobe made, and it may be smart from a business point of view, even if dumb from a software development point of view - if the objective of developing software is to aid the user, and not to make money. No problems with Adobe using whatever means they have to make money, get users to upgrade to software that they don't really need (except for RAW support) - that's the name of the game. But it strikes me as a little ingenuous to suggest that they have no choice, or that the user should be happy to pay for the upgrade.

Maybe it hasn't occurred to you yet, but Adobe is a commercial enterprise with shareholders who expect profits and dividends - it isn't a charity. If there was nothing in it for them there would be nohing for us.

Apart from what Eric just said above, one doesn't only up-grade this software for ACR alone. Every release has a myriad of enhancements and improvements which make each up-grade a better application than its predecessor. That's an objective reality. Whether it matters to you personally or not is what decides whether you should up-grade, pay what it costs and feel good about it.
Title: ACR 5
Post by: jeremyrh on November 02, 2008, 11:46:44 AM
Quote from: MarkDS
Maybe it hasn't occurred to you yet, but Adobe is a commercial enterprise with shareholders who expect profits and dividends - it isn't a charity.
Yes, I spotted that, thanks. That's why I said "That's a decision that Adobe made, and it may be smart from a business point of view"

Quote from: MarkDS
Apart from what Eric just said above, one doesn't only up-grade this software for ACR alone.
The point is exactly that - that if one wants ACR support, other than via DNG, then one HAS to upgrade, regardless of the value to you of the other "enhancements". Jeff Schewe claims that this is inevitable; my take is that it is only made inevitable by Adobe's choice of software structure.



Title: ACR 5
Post by: madmanchan on November 02, 2008, 12:53:44 PM
In my view there are really 3 basic options here for Adobe to offer users:

1. Users must pay money to upgrade to the latest CR to get the latest camera support. No options available for older versions of CR to process raw files from new cameras (except for those models that shoot DNG, like the recent Pentax models, the Leica cameras, or the Casio EX-FH20).

2. Users can either (a) pay money to upgrade to the latest CR to get the latest CR features (e.g., adjustment brush) and non-DNG raw file support for latest cameras, or ( keep their existing version of CR and get DNG raw file support for the latest cameras, at no extra cost.

3. Adobe provides non-DNG raw file support for the latest cameras to all previous versions of CR (or at least some # of versions back).

There are tradeoffs with all 3 of these. (No, it's not a perfect world.)

The obvious problem with #1 is that photographers with older versions of CR really have no options (and I literally mean ZERO options) other than to upgrade if they get a new camera which has a new non-DNG raw file format. Adobe could very well have taken this approach but chose not to. It's good for Adobe's dev team but uncool for photographers.

Approach #2 -- the approach Adobe has taken -- makes sense in that you only have to pay money if you want new features: specifically, things that actually improve image quality, workflow, or both (e.g., new tools, like the Adjustment Brush or Gradient Tool, or the new ____ and ____ tools in the next dot update of Camera Raw). If you have no need for these new features, then keep your money. You can still process raw files from the latest cameras by using the DNG route. The downside is the extra step in the workflow of creating these DNG files first. But it's free. This is a reasonable tradeoff IMHO.

Approach #3 sounds nice to users but has several problems. First, it's not technically possible to retrofit latest camera support into Camera Raw 1.0. So even if we added non-DNG raw file support to some earlier version of CR, where does one draw the line? 3.x? 4.x? Wherever you place a cutoff, folks who just missed the cutoff get upset. Second, the (very small) CR core engineering and quality engineering (QE) teams would be spending the majority of time retrofitting new camera support into older versions of CR, instead of pushing the product forward. Remember, adding camera support isn't just a matter of copying profiles or merging code. It also requires a lot of time to test to make sure everything is solid (i.e., all the interactions work out).

But for the sake of argument, let's say we (at Adobe) just put our heads down and did the work anyways. The real problem with going through the effort of putting support into older versions is that it produces zero improvement in image quality and zero improvement to workflow. Let's be very clear on this, with an example: if we added Canon PowerShot G10 CR2 support in CR 4.x, there would be no difference in quality compared to using CR 4.x to process a DNG created from that CR2. So, #3 really amounts to Adobe spending a lot of time doing work that provides no improvement to quality or workflow. Consequently, users would then have to wait longer and/or pay more to actually get those features that folks have been asking us for (Barry F. started a recent thread on this). Ultimately not a good position for either Adobe or photographers IMHO.
Title: ACR 5
Post by: jeremyrh on November 02, 2008, 02:15:50 PM
Quote from: madmanchan
Approach #3 sounds nice to users but has several problems. First, it's not technically possible to retrofit latest camera support into Camera Raw 1.0.
Hi Eric - I guess my problem is that it's not obvious to me WHY that HAS to be the case. OK - right now, maybe it is the case, but it's not clear to me that you couldn't design CR such that it uses some sort of "RAW definition file" that can be updated as new models are released. I know someone will reply "oh, you don't know what you're taling about, you've no experience with coding PS etc.", but it really seems to me that it would be possible to design CR like that IF ADOBE WANTED TO. They may not want to, and that's fine, but, as others have said, there's a difference between doing (or not doing) something for technical reasons and doing it for policy reasons.
Title: ACR 5
Post by: Schewe on November 02, 2008, 02:40:35 PM
Quote from: jeremyrh
Jeff Schewe claims that this is inevitable; my take is that it is only made inevitable by Adobe's choice of software structure.


I guess you really don't understand software do ya?

See, if you did, you would realize that Camera Raw is an ideal software structure. It's a file import plug-in module. As such, it allows separate updates from the main 4 million line+ code base of Photoshop. So, rather than being forced into updating all of Photoshop, you only need to update a single plug-in–as hard as that is for some people can you imagine if Adobe DIDN'T use the plug-in structure?

So, given that the plug-in structure is indeed a good technical solution, the fact remains that the host application, Photoshop, does change from version to version. So also does the base operating system that Photoshop runs in. So, you have Photoshop moving forward, sometime to advance itself and sometimes for new OS compatibility. Do you really expect that the APIs and SDKs don't change? They do, and they impact what a plug-in can and can't do under the OS/host app. What you are failing to understand is the "backwards compatibility" is prolly the single biggest challenge to software developers...it's hard work to just to bring code development FORWARD for new apps and OSs...it's even more difficult to write CURRENT software to work inside older software that doesn't contain the same SDK and APIs.

As Eric states, if Adobe WERE to take the approach that new versions of Camera Raw HAD to also have backwards compatibility to previous versions of Photoshop, you would have Eric and the rest of the team spending time and effort dealing with THAT problem rather than working on NEW features, improved image quality and workflow. Which would of course, have a negative impact on Camera Raw's progress and offer less functionality for the CURENT users. Which as a current user, would be very disappointing.

The current solution to new camera support in older versions of Camera Raw is DNG...which Adobe has done for the benefit of the industry to try to advance the industry and provide standardized raw file formats–which if the camera makers adopted DNG would help resolve a LOT of this new camera not supported issue. You seem to place all the blame and responsibility on Adobe to address the issue with THIER software but seem to completely fail to complain about the CAUSE of this issue which is the friggin' camera maker's refusal to adopt a raw file format standard that would allow pretty much automatic software compatibility. You are so fixated on Adobe being the cause of the problem you fail to see the root cause.

And all this discussion about Adobe's policies and Adobe's decisions and Adobe's choices is pretty much moot anyway. This is the situation we find ourselves in. Adobe provides FREE updates to Camera Raw for the period of time Camera Raw is current. When a new version comes out, support is ceased and the support moves to the new version. Adobe provides a FREE DNG Converter (as in it doesn't cost you ANYTHING other than the bandwidth to download it) in the event you don't want to update to the current version of Photoshop.

Adobe sees this as the best solution to all the issues and I very seriously doubt they will change their minds (and very much hope they don't). I like the advances in image quality and workflow that Camera Raw 5 provides and would hate to see Camera Raw's progress retarded in any way.
Title: ACR 5
Post by: jeremyrh on November 02, 2008, 02:58:02 PM
Quote from: Schewe
I guess you really don't understand software do ya?

[... blaah blaah blaah...]
What you wrote may have made sense, or it may not. I stopped reading after the schoolyard ad hominem.
Title: ACR 5
Post by: Schewe on November 02, 2008, 03:15:03 PM
Quote from: jeremyrh
What you wrote may have made sense, or it may not. I stopped reading after the schoolyard ad hominem.


Too bad cause that means you didn't discover who's really at fault in this situation, the camera makers who refuse to adopt a raw file format that meets a standard that would allow for software to read new cameras automatically...and I was being honest when I said you don't understand software because if you did, you would understand the limits and issues and not blame it all on Adobe trying to rip people off.
Title: ACR 5
Post by: DarkPenguin on November 02, 2008, 03:36:07 PM
Quote from: jeremyrh
What you wrote may have made sense, or it may not. I stopped reading after the schoolyard ad hominem.
Thanks for playing.
Title: ACR 5
Post by: madmanchan on November 02, 2008, 08:18:55 PM
Jeremy, the short answer to your question is that, sometimes, making progress requires taking steps that breaks compatibility with older versions, or at least makes integrations into older versions very difficult and/or very expensive. I confess this is difficult to appreciate unless you are familiar with the process of building large and complex software systems.

I maintain that Adobe's current approach is the preferred choice as it keeps the developers focused on advancing the craft of photography (i.e., technical image quality and workflow), instead of focused on performing tasks that have zero potential to advance the craft.
Title: ACR 5
Post by: NikoJorj on November 04, 2008, 01:04:40 PM
Quote from: madmanchan
In my view, the fundamental issue is that going back to add direct camera code support (i.e., non-DNG workflow) to the previous versions doesn't actually improve your images at all. There's no quality difference in CR [2.4 or 3.x] between converting, say, a Canon CR2 file and its converted DNG.

Thanks for this clarification!
So many people are complaining about this non-problem, it may be worth to repeat this rather elegant solution (NB The DNG conversion can, in many workflows, be seamlessly added to the "card download" task).