Adobe Lightroom update for Nikon D-850,When?

[Flafrog]

Been waiting for the Adobe folks to update my CC lightroom  so I can start using my Nikon D-850, (yes I know they have a work around.and I'm not interested)
any body have a clue?

[degrub]

wrong forum

[digitaldog]

Been waiting for the Adobe folks to update my CC lightroom  so I can start using my Nikon D-850, (yes I know they have a work around.and I'm not interested)
any body have a clue?

Thank Nikon (and other's) for producing yet another tiny change from raw file to raw file, forcing ALL 3rd party raw converter manufacturers to spend time and money updating their converters while you have to wait. And now we'll hear from others that there's no need for a universal raw file format (something somewhat like DNG). Their software works with the older cameras so your issues are not on their radar.

[32BT]

Thank Nikon (and other's) for producing yet another tiny change from raw file to raw file, forcing ALL 3rd party raw converter manufacturers to spend time and money updating their converters while you have to wait. And now we'll hear from others that there's no need for a universal raw file format (something somewhat like DNG). Their software works with the older cameras so your issues are not on their radar.

Or thank the rawconverter manufacturers for not making an open plugin structure so third parties, including Nikon, can simply provide an update of their inputplugin with the camera. Oh wait, that would indeed obviate the need for a universal raw format...

[digitaldog]

Or thank the rawconverter manufacturers for not making an open plugin structure so third parties, including Nikon, can simply provide an update of their inputplugin with the camera. Oh wait, that would indeed obviate the need for a universal raw format...

Whatever, the current behavior is awful.
And do tell us how the raw converter manufacturers make an open plug-in with data they always first have to decode because it's proprietary and not openly documented for them!
Note we have no such issues with the camera JPEG and need no such open plug-in because the data isn't proprietary, is open and understood.

[Rory]

Thank Nikon (and other's) for producing yet another tiny change from raw file to raw file, forcing ALL 3rd party raw converter manufacturers to spend time and money updating their converters while you have to wait. And now we'll hear from others that there's no need for a universal raw file format (something somewhat like DNG). Their software works with the older cameras so your issues are not on their radar.

I hear you Andrew but that's a dead horse.  Anyway, ACR and the DNG converter already work, so that's not the reason for the LR delay.  For me, the DNG converter is working fine and I appreciate that adobe provides it for free.

[RSL]

Here's a "User Critique": This thread belongs in "Trump II," formerly known as "The Coffee Corner."

[digitaldog]

I hear you Andrew but that's a dead horse.  Anyway, ACR and the DNG converter already work, so that's not the reason for the LR delay.

The reason is, it's not ready yet. And yes, I know this for a fact.
Should Adobe release all the products that support the camera on the same day? Be nice. But again, this behavior of having to hack every new raw file, update each software product, test and upload is a massive waste of time and money and ultimately serves no one, not even Nikon.

[digitaldog]

And do tell us how the raw converter manufacturers make an open plug-in with data they always first have to decode because it's proprietary and not openly documented for them!

Perhaps that's impossible.

[BobDavid]

Here's a "User Critique": This thread belongs in "Trump II," formerly known as "The Coffee Corner."

So true.

[32BT]

Perhaps that's impossible.

Don't be daft. I'm talking about an open plugin structure a la photoshop input plugins. It be very simple to make, a well designed raw converter likely uses plugins already to support different raw formats. If you must, make a plugin structure that requires plugins to supply dng on the output side. Make it open, and the open-source community will have support for most any camera before they are good and well released.

Somebody now move this thread or close it. Thx.

[digitaldog]

Don't be daft. I'm talking about an open plugin structure a la photoshop input plugins.

Like ACR. Doesn't answer how such a plug-in is in any way a solution to the problem (of understanding a new proprietary raw document until hacked) you have yet to tell us can be fixed WITH a plug-in. And I'm being daft....

Somebody now move this thread or close it. Thx.

All threads where your text is questioned as being sound and you can't explain it as sound should result in the thread being moved or closed? You're mistaking this forum for DP-Review's forums. I'm wondering if the OP wouldn't go for that idea here. 

[32BT]

Like ACR. Doesn't answer how such a plug-in is in any way a solution to the problem (of understanding a new proprietary raw document until hacked) you have yet to tell us can be fixed WITH a plug-in. And I'm being daft....

Because Nikon can supply a plugin with their camera. So the rc manufacturer doesn't have to bother with any reverse engineering or providing an entirely new update to the entire software.

All threads where your text is questioned as being sound and you can't explain it as sound should result in the thread being moved or closed? You're mistaking this forum for DP-Review's forums. I'm wondering if the OP wouldn't go for that idea here. 

This thread doesn't belong in User Critique, that's all.
I'm not generally known around these premisses for weaseling my way out of a discussion.

[digitaldog]

Because Nikon can supply a plugin with their camera. So the rc manufacturer doesn't have to bother with any reverse engineering or providing an entirely new update to the entire software.


This thread doesn't belong in User Critique, that's all.
I'm not generally known around these premisses for weaseling my way out of a discussion.

That’s ridiculous. Nikon already provides a free standalone product. Users want the Adobe processing. Not the same processing they can get a Nikon standalone product. Your suggestion is more waste of time for everyone involved.

[32BT]

That’s ridiculous. Nikon already provides a free standalone product. Users want the Adobe processing. Not the same processing they can get a Nikon standalone product. Your suggestion is more waste of time for everyone involved.

The plugin shouldn't do processing, it merely needs to provide the raw data in a format that Adobe understands. Think of it as an on-the-fly dng converter. It's cheaper to make for the camera manufacturers than baking it in the chip.

[digitaldog]

The plugin shouldn't do processing, it merely needs to provide the raw data in a format that Adobe understands. Think of it as an on-the-fly dng converter. It's cheaper to make for the camera manufacturers than baking it in the chip.

First. Tell us your experience creating Photoshop plug-ins. I’ll tell you mine. Second. All Nikon has to simply provide the raw file to Adobe and others, before release. They don’t have to waste any time Producing such a plug in. Further, you’re assuming that Nikon and Adobe are going to work together providing proprietary information about their own plug-ins.Your idea is a solution in search of a problem.

[32BT]

First. Tell us your experience creating Photoshop plug-ins. I’ll tell you mine. Second. All Nikon has to simply provide the raw file to Adobe and others, before release. They don’t have to waste any time Producing such a plug in. Further, you’re assuming that Nikon and Adobe are going to work together providing proprietary information about their own plug-ins.Your idea is a solution in search of a problem.

I can't quite judge all of this, perhaps you're right. But an open input plugin structure would allow third parties and the open-source community to contribute what apparently can't be provided by either Adobe or Nikon. It can't be all that hard for a camera manufacturer to provide a plugin that converts their proprietary format into dng. Once they have build such a plugin, then supporting new cameras or upgrades to the format becomes a breath.

On the Adobe side, they no longer have to worry about upgrading each time an important camera is released, and small/new camera manufacturers will be able to provide Adobe support with relative ease as well, because i doubt if cameramanufacturer noname comes to Adobe, that any updates by Adobe will be released in timely matter, if at all.

[digitaldog]

I can't quite judge all of this, perhaps you're right.

Perhaps. Let's look at the reality here. A camera manufacture creates a new raw file (tiny from the last but different). No one else can understand the data until they get a file, hack it if you will, then update their products. We in agreement thus far?

There are two options here:
1. Manufacture provides raw under NDA days/weeks/months prior to release. All 3rd party raw software manufactures hack the format, test, update the software. The facts are, there is a tiny window of time when only the camera manufacture understands the file, then anyone can once they get the file.
2. Manufacturer provides a plug-in to convert the data 'on the fly ala DNG'. After camera is released, option #1 above takes place, this plug-in is worthless.

Which scenario above do you suspect is the most cost effective? I'd say door #1.

Now none of this is an issue with the new cameras JPEG and we both know why. Both options above are necessary because of a silly practice of changing the data structure but the burden is on the customer who buys before the 3rd party company's raw converter HE PREFERS before either take place. Option 1 at least fixes that issue. It doesn't fix the issue of everyone having to hack the new format and update their software unlike the JPEG.

The raw is always eventually understood. So do tell us why on Earth the camera manufacturers continue to avoid either a standard raw format, a switch to produce a DNG if selected, or just a practice of providing the raw to anyone who signs an NDA prior to release so they can update their software when the camera ships.

On the Adobe side, they no longer have to worry about upgrading each time an important camera is released, and small/new camera manufacturers will be able to provide Adobe support with relative ease as well, because i doubt if cameramanufacturer noname comes to Adobe, that any updates by Adobe will be released in timely matter, if at all.

Yes they do have to worry! Yes they do have to upgrade their products. Or you've been told by the Adobe engineering teams for ACR/LR that isn't the case and Adobe just likes to sit ideal and let it's customers wait on the new camera file support. They had the file for months, decided to let the customers wait while they watch a golf game at the Presidents club?

ANY camera manufacturer can provide Adobe and other's support. Early on, so they can have the support done when the camera ships (again, this is all a silly exercise anyway). So you know they are doing this and most if not all 3rd party manufactures just take their time updating their products OR perhaps, maybe, they don't get the new camera raw file until the camera ships; which sounds more reasonable?


You're a smart fellow I think; do I really have to point out this is all political and not a technological issue? We can get a camera that produces a JPEG and access that data the day it ships but we can't with the raw because of a technological issue? No!

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Perhaps. Let's look at the reality here. A camera manufacture creates a new raw file (tiny from the last but different). No one else can understand the data until they get a file, hack it if you will, then update their products. We in agreement thus far?

No Andrew, we're not, and we've been over this before.

Camera manufacturers change the Raw format Metadata, to reflect new features that were introduced in the new model, they drop references that are obsolete for the new models going forward, and the hardware may use a different CFA formulation, to name a few obvious changes.

Companies like Adobe, and especially Capture One, take time to reprofile the camera if it has a different CFA formulation, and determine default settings for the various ISO settings, noise reduction, and perhaps recalculate or redefine distortion correction parameters, etc.

There are two options here:
1. Manufacture provides raw under NDA days/weeks/months prior to release. All 3rd party raw software manufactures hack the format, test, update the software. The facts are, there is a tiny window of time when only the camera manufacture understands the file, then anyone can once they get the file.

When they work together, there is no hacking of EXIFs required, but the specific processing based on whatever parameters they take from the EXIF or test themselves, and profiling, still has to be performed. It's their secret sauce, and the camera manufacturers are not going to do it for them.

2. Manufacturer provides a plug-in to convert the data 'on the fly ala DNG'. After camera is released, option #1 above takes place, this plug-in is worthless.

Won't work, things like profiling still has to be done, which takes time.

Which scenario above do you suspect is the most cost effective? I'd say door #1.

Cost-effective for whom? Adobe, or the Camera manufacturers? Why should the manufacturers spill their beans on new (hardware-)features and take away a competitive advantage?

Cheers,
Bart

[digitaldog]

Camera manufacturers change the Raw format Metadata, to reflect new features that were introduced in the new model, they drop references that are obsolete for the new models going forward, and the hardware may use a different CFA formulation, to name a few obvious changes.

So that's an excuse for no providing the changes early and you seem rather certain that this has to be done in such a way it's always proprietary. Not buying that concept.

Companies like Adobe, and especially Capture One, take time to reprofile the camera if it has a different CFA formulation, and determine default settings for the various ISO settings, noise reduction, and perhaps recalculate or redefine distortion correction parameters, etc.

Yes they do, and this has nothing to do with amount of time any customer has to wait for this to happen. It can be taken care of well before the camera ships so 3rd party software is ready to go on day one.

Cost-effective for whom? Adobe, or the Camera manufacturers?

In the case of the two sceneries, BOTH. One is a heck of a lot less work and money; just provide the pre-release raw to those who request and sign an NDA.