ACR 5

[ChristopherFrick]

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.

[jjj]

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.

[jjj]

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.

[jjj]

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.

[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.

[Schewe]

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?

[francois]

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.

[barryfitzgerald]

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.

[jrgoldman9]

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???

[John.Murray]

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

[jeremyrh]

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.

[madmanchan]

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.

[Mark D Segal]

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.

[jeremyrh]

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"

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.

[madmanchan]

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.

[jeremyrh]

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.

[Schewe]

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.

[jeremyrh]

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.

[Schewe]

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.

[DarkPenguin]

What you wrote may have made sense, or it may not. I stopped reading after the schoolyard ad hominem.

Thanks for playing.