Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Camera Raw Q&A => Topic started by: Piboy on January 27, 2011, 09:07:26 pm
-
I am a photo enthusiast who likes to buy an occasional new camera. My last 3 were 5DII, Lumix LX3, and am eagerly awaiting the arrival of my GH2. I am about to relive a recurring nightmare. When I bought the 5DII and LX3 I had CS3. Of course it would not support either RAW format and after using the extra step of DNG conversion for a while I upgraded to CS4. Now as I await my GH2 I am faced with the same situation. Work around for a few months and then likely upgrade again as the extra step of DNG conversion fatigues me again. I know what you may think, anyone who can buy these cameras should stop whining and pony up the $200 every 2 years for an upgrade. That is true but it is the whole tower of babel situation in photography that is irritating. >:(
I see the individual solution options as follows:
1. In the future do a better job of synchronizing my software upgrades with my camera purchases (Now I like to upgrade about every other version)
2. Limit future camera purchases to those capable of in camera DNG output (Hmmmm $27k Leica or Hassie vs $200 upgrade seems foolish)
3. Shoot JPEG…….
4. Get enthused about the incredible video capabilities of the GH2 and by the time my feeble mind gets some semblance of competency with video it will be time to upgrade anyway or god forbid the industry as a whole comes up with a solution… Which leads to:
Industry solution:
1. $200 rebate from any manufacturer who releases a RAW format that CS or LR Current Number – 1 or 2 doesn’t recognize
2. Much like medicine 20 years ago did adopt a universal and updatable image format recognized by all.
I know this rant isn’t unique nor am I oblivious to fact that universal RAW format has been discussed ad nauseum. Thanks for letting me ventilate. Maybe next week as I download my first pics and have to take the extra step of conversion I’ll feel better.
;D
Sam Ward
samwardphoto.com
-
same thing happened to me but only once.
You see I sold my crappy P7000 and bought a Canon S95. W'ell I had CS4. Guess what. It didn't support S95. So , another $200 to get CS5 to support my new S95. In the future, I will definitely think about the software investment that I have on my computer - even thought it is not as tangible as a new camera !
-
That is true but it is the whole tower of babel situation in photography that is irritating. >:(
And exactly who do you blame for this?
#1- Do you blame Adobe for developing software for the currently available camera hardware and then requires a DNG Converter conversion or upgrade to the current version of ACR/LR because the raw file formats didn't exisist when the software was released?
#2- Or do you blame the camera makers for failing to come up with and adhere to some sort of basic raw file format standards...
If you select #1, I don't have any sympathy for you because you clearly don't understand the current situation, if #2, then you need to be blaming the perpetrators of this situation; that's camera companies...
Yes, it's a pain in the arse...but who caused it?
-
Learn & use the raw processing software that comes with your camera. Then you can use any version of Photoshop you have.
-
Learn & use the raw processing software that comes with your camera. Then you can use any version of Photoshop you have.
Ahh yes i could have used canon's raw processor , but it's worse than Nikons :)
-
yes i could have used canon's raw processor , but it's worse than Nikons
But it's included in the price of the camera. One could even consider it "free". ::)
-
#2- Or do you blame the camera makers for failing to come up with and adhere to some sort of basic raw file format standards...
Yes, it's a pain in the arse...but who caused it?
Of course the answer is #2. As I alluded to previously medicine got it right with DICOM. Numerous competing imaging systems able to have a standard format for archiving and interpreting enormous and complex imagery. Certainly the situation isn't as dire if CR2 and CW2 can't be viewed on each others viewing software or Adobe. Adobe can't be expected to keep up with an industry that has no interest in correcting its "tower of babel"
Learn & use the raw processing software that comes with your camera. Then you can use any version of Photoshop you have.
I am aware of many possible work arounds and please see that my post was mostly tongue in cheek. Just was using my current and recurrent situation to revisit an ongoing and irritating industry -not Adobe- problem.
-
Adobe can't be expected to keep up with an industry that has no interest in correcting its "tower of babel"
I'm glad YOU understand this but...the understanding is not universal as most people complain that Adobe doesn't retroactively update Camera Raw/Lightroom for file formats that didn't exist when the software was released. Adobe provides free updates for currently shipping software which at this point means ACR 6.x in Photoshop CS5 and Lightroom 3.x.
Beyond that you need the free DNG Converter to convert new raw file formats for backwards compatibility.
-
Just was using my current and recurrent situation to revisit an ongoing and irritating industry -not Adobe- problem.
Yeah, been there, done that, too. It's quite the treadmill, ain't it? :-\
-
2. Limit future camera purchases to those capable of in camera DNG output (Hmmmm $27k Leica or Hassie vs $200 upgrade seems foolish)
so buy Pentax or Ricoh or Samsung... you will get native in camera .DNG
-
I'm glad YOU understand this but...the understanding is not universal as most people complain that Adobe doesn't retroactively update Camera Raw/Lightroom for file formats that didn't exist when the software was released. Adobe provides free updates for currently shipping software which at this point means ACR 6.x in Photoshop CS5 and Lightroom 3.x.
Beyond that you need the free DNG Converter to convert new raw file formats for backwards compatibility.
Fully agree, using the DNG converter (which is free) there's always backward compatibility to older versions of Photoshop / Lightroom.
Only time it didn't fully work (but not fatally flawed) is when Adobe went to Process 2010. To be able to use that improved raw processing you needed to get the latest Adobe version. On the other hand that was such a major improvement that Adobe can rightfully claim that we pay for that.
Cheapest option to be able to use process 2010 is get Photoshop Elements 9 and use the ACR 6.X raw converter in that (80$ after mail in rebate for a full/new version at the moment), Upgrading to Lightroom 3 or CS5 are the other (but more expensive) options. I personally went the Lightroom upgrade route (have been on Lightroom since Beta 1 so probably not objective) and the 99$ for the upgrade to V3 was worth it, for process 2010 and a lot of other small enhancements that sometimes take a little effort to get used to (all change is hard) but once you get the hang of it are real improvements.
-
Another option is some cameras have tiff, not ideal I'll grant you, but better than a jpeg.
-
thanks all for your replies. Not having to search for mirror lock up while shooting with the GH2 should afford me the extra time needed to add DNG conversion to my workflow :D
Of course the individual solution for me will be to upgrade to CS5 or take the LR plunge.
-
Another option is some cameras have tiff, not ideal I'll grant you, but better than a jpeg.
There is only one very minor way in which an in-camera TIFF is better than a JPEG, and that's the lack of lossy compression. In every other way, the TIFF is just as bad as the JPEG -- it's "fully baked" in camera, with all the white balance, white and black point settings, sharpening, etc. fixed in place -- and in one way it is significantly worse than the JPEG because the file size is so much larger, larger even than a raw file.
I remember having this same discussion with some of my Nikon-shooting colleagues back at the dawn of the digital era, when they thought the in-camera TIFF was the best way to shoot. It's not.
To the OP: Making the switch to CS5 or LR3 has another major advantage, in addition to being able to process your raw files directly. You get the new Process 2010, which has made a significant difference in the image quality from my cameras, especially the GF1. Do it, you won't be sorry.
-
There is only one very minor way in which an in-camera TIFF is better than a JPEG, and that's the lack of lossy compression. In every other way, the TIFF is just as bad as the JPEG -- it's "fully baked" in camera, with all the white balance, white and black point settings, sharpening, etc. fixed in place -- and in one way it is significantly worse than the JPEG because the file size is so much larger, larger even than a raw file.
I remember having this same discussion with some of my Nikon-shooting colleagues back at the dawn of the digital era, when they thought the in-camera TIFF was the best way to shoot. It's not.
To the OP: Making the switch to CS5 or LR3 has another major advantage, in addition to being able to process your raw files directly. You get the new Process 2010, which has made a significant difference in the image quality from my cameras, especially the GF1. Do it, you won't be sorry.
Then it's still better, memory is cheaper than it's ever been.
-
Then it's still better, memory is cheaper than it's ever been.
True, but the time it takes to download the files is 3x greater than raw and 10x or 20x greater than jpeg files. The lossy compression of JPEG is not a real issue as long as one chooses the highest jpeg quality setting. If I had to choose between in-camera TIFF and in-cameta JPEGH, I would choose the latter.
But raw files are still better for most purposes.
-
True, but the time it takes to download the files is 3x greater than raw and 10x or 20x greater than jpeg files. The lossy compression of JPEG is not a real issue as long as one chooses the highest jpeg quality setting. If I had to choose between in-camera TIFF and in-cameta JPEGH, I would choose the latter.
But raw files are still better for most purposes.
I argree totally.
-
I'm glad YOU understand this but...the understanding is not universal as most people complain that Adobe doesn't retroactively update Camera Raw/Lightroom for file formats that didn't exist when the software was released. Adobe provides free updates for currently shipping software which at this point means ACR 6.x in Photoshop CS5 and Lightroom 3.x.
Beyond that you need the free DNG Converter to convert new raw file formats for backwards compatibility.
I'd be happy to pay the full price for every new Photoshop version,
if installation could be limited to an exchange of the ACR plugin.
Seriously.
From time to time a basic update of the Photoshop & Bridge matrix is certainly needed,
but for reasons of all the restrictions of time and priorities in life, I would address this less often than with a basic ACR version update.
Peter
--
-
I see the individual solution options as follows:
1. In the future do a better job of synchronizing my software upgrades with my camera purchases (Now I like to upgrade about every other version)
2. Limit future camera purchases to those capable of in camera DNG output (Hmmmm $27k Leica or Hassie vs $200 upgrade seems foolish)
3. Shoot JPEG…….
4. Get enthused about the incredible video capabilities of the GH2 and by the time my feeble mind gets some semblance of competency with video it will be time to upgrade anyway or god forbid the industry as a whole comes up with a solution…
5. Shoot film. ;D
-
I thought photographers got shot of it decades ago? :)
-
I know what you may think, anyone who can buy these cameras should stop whining and pony up the $200 every 2 years for an upgrade.
It's good to get a rant off your chest every now and then Sam. However, life is short and tilting windmills is hard work ;) So, just reward adobe for their good work. At the rate you buy cameras it is only about $50 per camera :) Oh, and go buy lightroom, then it will only cost you $100 every 2 years...
Rory
-
. . . and tilting windmills is hard work . . .
:D :D
And how would you know this tidbit of knowledge?
-
DNG converter downloaded, ACR 6.3 and CS5 upgrade shortly thereafter, maybe LR3 soon although old workflow habits die hard. Windmills tilted. Thanks for talking me off the ledge everyone. ::)
-
Another possible avenue is to purchase Lightroom. The bi-annual upgrade for it is cheaper than Photoshop.
I too am an enthusiast and was sick of paying bi-annual upgrade fees for Photoshop that equalled about one third of the program's initial cost. I felt the incremental improvements did not warrant such a steep upgrade fee. Sorry Jeff - ust my opinion. In the long run I think LR's cheaper upgrade costs will save me money. I only lost the ability to use smart objects - but the easier use of presets in LR seems to trump that loss.
-
I'm glad YOU understand this but...the understanding is not universal as most people complain that Adobe doesn't retroactively update Camera Raw/Lightroom for file formats that didn't exist when the software was released. Adobe provides free updates for currently shipping software which at this point means ACR 6.x in Photoshop CS5 and Lightroom 3.x.
Beyond that you need the free DNG Converter to convert new raw file formats for backwards compatibility.
Adobe could of course provide retroactive update Camera Raw/Lightroom for file formats that didn't exist when the software was released. However, why should they spend time and money doing this? It's better business practise to encourage people to buy the latest version of PS. Adobe are not the good guys or the bad guys, they're in business, like any other well run company, to make a profit not a loss.
-
Enchanter,
You opine, "Adobe are not the good guys or the bad guys, they're in business, like any other well run company, to make a profit not a loss".
So true; nevertheless one may still take the customer point of view and make suggestions about what we'd prefer them to sell us rather than what they make us have.
Personally I'm happy to pay for upgrades which have required Adobe to make investment & effort, especially one as good as the upgrade to ACR 6. What makes me unhappy is Adobe's naughty packaging of photo-editing products. I cannot buy the photo-related subset of Adobe functions that I want without either getting a package that lacks several features (Elements) or that contains graphics-related bloat I do not want (Photoshop CS). Even Lightroom has a better workflow/file handling aspect (than Bridge) but lacks a number of Photoshop's photo-related tools.
When Lightroom first appeared I did hope it was going to be "The Photographers Subset of Photoshop". But the Adobe marketing rascals prefer us to buy both so leave those teasing lacks in one product that can only be satisfied by buying t'other!
Of course, like others, I do vote positively with my wallet and so have CS5. It still seems good value for what it does (but it could be even better value).
I notice with annoyance that CS5-Extended contains a single tool I would like to have but haven't got in "basic" CS5 - the facility to eliminate noise by stacking identical multiple images. To obtain that one desirable tool Adobe want me to pay £300 to upgrade CS5 to CS5-Extended. It might be worth £300 to those who can use the other few hundred bells & whistles of CS5-Extended but for me 99% of that extension would just be more Adobe bloat on my disk.
Lataxe, not that tame a customer.
-
You can stack images with the standard version as well.
http://www.rocketroberts.com/astro/calibration.htm
A slightly faster, but probably less accurate (in terms of obtaining real averages) method goes as follows
etc...
superior layer 3 opacity 25% (4th image)
superior layer 2 opacity 33% (third image)
superior layer 1 opacity 50% (second image)
base layer (first image)
You can easily create a macro that will do everything, with the blending options you prefer, especially if the images are properly registered/aligned in the first place which is probably the case if you are shooting on a tripod. And a slight pixel misalignment can actually provide bonuses in terms of aliasing and smoothness (dithering)
Last but not least, you could use the DeepSkyStacker astronomy dedicated freeware
http://deepskystacker.free.fr/english/index.html
without using its "astro" features.
-
Pierre,
So much useful information in a single post! I have fetched out the tripod in anticipation of some high ISO image stacking and an hour or three of happy Photoshop play.
Thank you very much for those pointers.
Lataxe, getting very comfy in this forum.
-
You might also want to take a look at PhotoAcute Studio. It has this function.
(In addition, it has a 2x resolution function, which I use all the time. It lets these old bones carry a crop DSLR up into the mountains and yet come home with nearly MF resolution.)
--Milt--
-
The default Camera Profile in ACR 6.x (CS5) of 'Adobe Standard' has a considerable magenta shift. I didn't notice this with the defaults in ACR 5.x (CS4).
Now that I am aware of this change, I have used the 'Camera Standard' with very good results. I have also created a Custom Camera Profile for my camera, Duplicate File Cleaner (http://www.ashisoft.com) and flash using DNG Profile Editor with excellent results. My Custom Profile and the Camera Standard Profile are quite close - although both are vastly superior to the Adobe Standard - which is just plain inaccurate.
After seeing the noticable problem with the Adobe Standard Profile, I am now wondering how this somehow became the ACR 6.x default. I am also having a hard time finding any information on this issue from Adobe or anywhere else.
Anyone having info on this issue would be helpful. Thanks in advance.
-
Are you sure that you have ALL of your sliders set at neutral when you try the two settings? I looked at ACR and selected the eyedropper tool and used it on an image. When I changed between Adobe Standard and Camera standard then there was a change in the eyedropper settings but the three channels changed in sync with each other. There was little change overall between them and no magenta shift. There is a tint slider. Is it set at 0. Are you sure that you aren't doing something wrong? :-\