Cannon Eos 5D Mark ii with Photoshop CS3

[eplanetsystems]

Greetings Everyone and Thanks in advance for your help,

Unable to open the images with CS3 with 5D Mark II camera,  I installed Camera Raw 5.3, 5.2. 4.6 in an effort to get to read the 5D Mark II format, but CS3 doesn't seem to support, I ran across somewhere about converting to DNG and something of that sort, Has anybody done anything like this before.

We would like to stay with CS3, and still be able to use our new camera. Again thanks a lot for your help.

Best Regards

PG

[jaszewicz]

I have Leopard two years & I am supported. More difficult is to suport tiger, XP or office 2003 but they do it. I know Jim that you wan't win discusion at any price, so ok you win .

[jaszewicz]

*you want  (sorry)

[jaszewicz]

You said "I know, it's expensive, it's frustrating, it's reality".

Yes I've noticed that you can't help me & other CS3 users. But we are in a larger community. So I have a request to Adobe, not to forum master-blaster, Perhaps they'll think about it, hm? Let's hope. Maybe we can wait for a solution and stop looking for third party converters or waiting for hipothethic Apple "Aperture PRO" Maybe Adobe will realize that we can't use CS4 until new plugins are ready?

I will tell you more, I would buy full PS CS4 IF  i can open pictures from Bridge CS 4 to Photoshop CS3.

[Jeff Schewe]

jaszewicz wrote:

I've bought (18 month ago) industry standard software solution to manage & edit them, I've bought kilos of plugins wich are very efficient & helpful in my work. What I want is paid (reasonably priced) support for that, consider that even if my plugins will work with CS 4 (remember that many of them not) I will have to pay for all plugin upgrades. If you add it (if I can make little extrapolation) it will be about 1100 Euros for a Camera RAW update.

Uh huh. . .is this a hobby for you? If you are working professionally, the $199 upgrade for CS4 (depending on where you live) is a drop in the bucket of the cost of doing business these days. I find it utterly ironic that photographers who live and die by licensing intellectual property–their copyrighted images–have so little regard for the IP of other people...

You "bought" CS3 18 months ago...so just how long should Adobe support your product considering they no longer sell it?

You and other who complain that new cameras aren't supported are really engaged in the ultimate disrespect for intellectual property–software...you are completely willing to buy new cameras/hardware because hey, it's new and better, right? But when you find out that software that hasn't even been sold for almost 8 months is no longer supported, they get bent out of shape that they may have to actually "buy" an upgrade to get complete compatibility.

Don't you see the utter irony here? People are perfect happy spending money on physical, tangible property but Pi$$&Moan™ at the prospect of having to pay for an upgrade of intellectual property...

Personally as a current customer using Photoshop CS4, I'm perfectly happy that Adobe has the policy of only supporting the current shipping software. That means that new versions of Camera Raw will be updated and in the case of 5.0>5.2 have substantial improvements included...the thought of engineers wasting time having to update old code for compatibility of old products for new cameras does not interest me in the least. I would much rather that the engineers spend time and resources doing new updates and upgrades and future versions.

I would have to say that somebody using Camera Raw 4.6 is leaving image quality on the table compared to Camera raw 5.3. If you choose _NOT_ to upgrade for any reason, that's your choice. Just understand you are cutting yourself short, professionally.

The other thing I would point out is that if you've bought plug-ins that worked in CS3 that aren't supported yet in CS4, I would suggest you go jump down the plug-in developers' throats...and if you have to pay for the CS3 to CS4 update, I would question your judgement on the plug-ins you've bought.

[jaszewicz]

> find it utterly ironic that photographers who live and die by licensing intellectual property–their copyrighted images–have so little regard for the IP of other people...

1. You try to tell me that have no respect to intelectual property asking Adobe for paid upgrades for Camera Raw ??????

> You "bought" CS3

2. You try to tell me that I have no licence for CS3???????  That's extremely funny.

> You and other who complain that new cameras aren't supported

3. You try to tell me that asking for paid support is "disrespect for intellectual property–software" (Oh, please, I'm editor, try reading, maybe answer will be more adequate )

Don't you see the utter irony here that you have to accuse me to (not) answer simple question? Try understand that upgrading will not solve my problem until plugins are working with CS 4, Thats the point. Ofcourse that I ask Adobe, they are big company, and ofcourse I wait for updates from small plugins makers and thay make it at last, I am sure. But I have few month of grief.

> Personally as a current customer using Photoshop CS4 ...

I'm happy for you, & God bless you! I'am sure that I will be happy consumer when my problem will be solved & I am realy sorry to bother you with my little drawbeck. But I've bought every Photoshop from 3, Few Ilustrators from 9, first iDesign (oh my God!!!) and Creative Colection & two Suits (cs 2 & 3) & some other software and always say good word about Adobe but I never felt like today without window of opportunity to solve simple trouble for few month.

OK, I'am sorry makinkg this wind, the fact is that the only way is to wait with some Yoda sentences sticked to monitor.

[Jeff Schewe]

jaszewicz, while English doesn't seem to be your native tongue, I'm sure you are far better at English that I would be in YOUR native language...so hats off to you for trying...

The bottom line is that it is Adobe's policy since Camera Raw was released as a part of Photoshop (Photoshop CS released October 2003) that active support and updates are ONLY supplied for the current shipping version which at the moment is Photoshop CS4. There are legitimate technical and of course real business reasons for this policy but this is no new thing...it was this way when you bought CS3. So, while it may relieve you to vent, complaining here in a user to user forum ain't gonna get you much.

You would do better to concentrate your venting to the plug-in developers who have been slow to update their offerings for CS4 compatibility...

[jaszewicz]

Thank you for help Jeff.

Can I say that as user tu "user" ?

[Tom Hogarty]

Jaszewicz,

Can you list the plug-ins that that you utilize that are not currently available for Photoshop CS4?

Regards,

Tom Hogarty

Lightroom, Camera Raw Product Manager.

[jaszewicz]

Dziękuję Tom za darmową lekcję angielskiego, Jeffowi też dziękuję. Uświadomiliście mi, że (skoro znalazłem dobre rozwiązanie zastępcze), dalsza rozmowa, w której bez wątpienia wykorzystasz oczywistą podłość mojej angielszczyzny, ma dla was sens jedynie marketingowy. Obiecując, że wezmę lekcje angielskiego, nadmienię jedynie, że w naszej cywilizacji, ludzi ośmieszających oponenta niemerytorycznym przytykiem do rodzimości lub (nie)rodzimości języka, którym oponent się z musu posługuje, nie jest uznawane za cnotę.

Merytorycznie tymczasem wspomnę o dobrych narzędziach napisanych do Waszego oprogramowania przez pewnego holendra, i kilku innych, znakomitych plug-inach napisanych przez Rosjan, Polaków, Niemców i jednego genialnego Czecha. Niestety niektóre z nich w ogóle nie będą aktualizowane do najnowszej wersji Waszego produktu. Skoro mój angielski nie jest wystarczająco dobry, by uznać komunikację za zadowalającą Tym razem ja będę złośliwy i nie podam ich otwartym tekstem, abyś musiał poprosić tłumacza jeśli jesteś naprawdę zainteresowany.

Pozdrowienia

[Ramón_G_Castañeda]

Jaszewicz,

In all fairness, I don't see where Tom Hogarty set out to give you or anybody else "an English lesson".  He never even mentioned anything about a language barrier.  Jeff did, but I don't see where he tried to lecture you or anyone else in the use of the English language, either.  As a matter of fact, he praised you and congratulated you.  "Hats off" means he symbolically takes his hat off to you as a sign of respect.  Chapeau!

As I have no direct working knowledge of the Polish language, I have to rely on a combination of the incomplete Google translation of your text and what precious little similarity there may be in the words and phrases left untranslated by Google and some Russian words in my active vocabulary.

In any event, I gather you do not wish to give Tom further details about plug-ins written by Dutch, Russian, Polish and German software developers, "and one by a brilliant Czech", as they will never be updated for the latest version of Tom's product.  In addition, you're miffed enough about a reference to your English skills to the point of not being willing to provide a translation of your thoughts.

Trust me on this, though:  communicating with you in English is a whole lot easier. 

Pozdrowienia — Regards to you too.

[jaszewicz]

I'm pretty sure now that communicaton in English (even if mine is rather poor than pure) is a whole lot easier, because google translated only about 30% of my answer .

You've made me feel obliged to explain myself, so I'll start with that. I think I understand what "Hats off" means, but to me it sounded rather sarcastic & I'm sure - to you as well  . Maybe when the point of our discusion changed to my English skills,  I read Tom's repetition of "that"as a joke of my that "overusing" (as I understood my misuderstanding of the quotes used by Jeff, - Thank you Jeff, I will try not to overuse Present Perfect). This I called "English lessons". Of course I'm not sure, so I try to rely on your English feeling for rhythm of this exquisite language, I hope I'm not making wrong move.

So lets go to the piont:

First of all there are very good plug-ins & actions made by FM software (fredmiranda.com), they still works on CS4 compatybility. For windows CS 3 there are fine tools from redfieldplugins, Cybia & Van der Lee & I like them.  (Yes, I'm using (at home & at work) both Windows & OS X versions of CS 3.)

(Of course that is not all. Some of my friends (this brillant Czech for example, and my Polish & German friends)  made for me & my friends some plug-ins & actions. This software is not so user friendly so they did not decide to start sell it on open market. They even don't know when thay start work with compatibility problem.)

But even if they do that it will be problem when ADOBE will make CS 5, I'am sure. So the point is: do ADOBE want our money for longer support of erlier versions, or not. In spite of continuous development digtal RAW standards mabe ADOBE will change their policy, for our and their profit (not our or their)?

Regards

[jaszewicz]

And ones more - forgive me talking about past problems, connected only with lenght of support  - when my employer bought last CS3 licence (for next worker) thare was CS4 on the market. He decided to make this because there was not info when Silver Efex would work with CS4. Of course we can say: "I know it's frustrating, but it's reality", - but this kind of thinking I call "arrogance". Please, forgive if my feedback is to heavy for acceptance.

[jaszewicz]

Of course not "in spite of" but "in circumstances" sorry, & sorry for other, less or more annoying mistakes.

[Thomas Knoll]

All plug-ins that need to run under the 64-bit version of Photoshop CS4 for Windows needed to be updated to be compatible with 64-bit.  However, you can still run the 32-bit version of Photoshop CS4 for Windows, and nearly all CS3 compatible plug-ins are still compatible, and don't need to be updated.   You get both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Photoshop CS4 for Windows on the install disk, and both can be installed on the same machine.

So, have you actually verified that your plug-ins are not compatible with 32-bit Photoshop CS4?  There are free trail versions available for download.

[Jeff Schewe]

jaszewicz wrote:

You've made me feel obliged to explain myself, so I'll start with that. I think I understand what "Hats off" means, but to me it sounded rather sarcastic & I'm sure - to you as well  . Maybe when the point of our discusion changed to my English skills,  I read Tom's repetition of "that"as a joke of my that "overusing" (as I understood my misuderstanding of the quotes used by Jeff, - Thank you Jeff, I will try not to overuse Present Perfect). This I called "English lessons". Of course I'm not sure, so I try to rely on your English feeling for rhythm of this exquisite language, I hope I'm not making wrong move.

What we have here, is a failure to communicate...

As an American, I'm rather embarrassed that the only foreign language I ever took in school was Latin. And unless you spend time at the Vatican or are a Catholic priest, there's not much call for Latin as a speaking language. So, if you think I was making fun of or otherwise disparaging your use of the written English language you are mistaken.

As for the quotes thing, when I wrote about you buying CS3 I put the word "bought" in quotes without explaining why I did that. I was actually talking about the issue of licensing and had intended to draw a comparison between a client licensing images and a Photoshop user licensing Photoshop. But for one reason or another that part didn't make it into the post so that left the word "bought" hanging out there. Sorry, I had no intention of implying anything with the quotes.

As for the rest with the plug-ins, as Thomas indicates, plug-ins that ran under CS3 as 32 binaries should run under CS4 when Photoshop is run as a 32 bit app. And even if you are booted under a 64 bit OS, you still have the choice of launching Photoshop as a 32 or 64 bit app. If you are running CS3 under a 64 bit OS, you're already running Photoshop as a 32 bit app. If you updated to CS4 you would have the choice of running as 32 or 64 bit but would get the benefits of addressing more ram when running CS4 as a 64 bit app for those time when you really need the memory allocation.

[jaszewicz]

(Thank you for your explanation Jeff, I'm sorry too. This misunderstanding should have never happened, we both speak Latin , Oh my God!)

Thank you both for help, it works in case of 79 of my 85 plug-ins in windows station, but that's something. Unfortunately I didn't find anything helpful for OSX stations.

This OSX problem is bigger in my work. Is there anything helpful for OSX users?

Regards

PS

Adobe products since CS version have not only been picture/book/newspaper edition software, It is a real operating system for artists designers, editors & Adobe knows it, Adobe made it so good & versatile. Thousands more or less sophisticated programmes, plug-ins or actions work in this system and users are dependent on all of these tools. If we (users) have a problem with converting, and the upgrade didn't give us the same workplace we try to find third party converter, even if it is more expensive than upgrade. So please think paid support for camera RAW converter over again, even if it is done with CS 5.

[Thomas Knoll]

I don't understand your question about a solution of OS/X.  Most plug-ins that run under Photoshop CS3 Macintosh should run fine under Photoshop CS4 Macintosh.  There is not 64-bit version of Photoshop for Macintosh yet, and Photoshop CS3 was already Intel native, so the plug-in compatibility should have been very good.

[trogir13]

This is one version back from CS4 and ADOBE isn't interested in making this issue go away.

Why should I have to fork out $$$ for CS4 when my 3 works perfectly fine until now...

Never again will I buy and Adobe product after my conversations I just had with Adobe Philippines (ALL their customer service and tech support location) and Adobe corporate (who could care less) in California.

Seems like the only American company with any dignity at all is Apple - I hope that lasts as there is nothing left in this country - sad.

[ssprengel]

The camera is new, what makes you think you wouldn't need to upgrade software to deal with it?

--

The profit Adobe would lose on your not buying their software is much less than it would cost them to pay people for the extra effort to update all older versions of software for new cameras, and they need to keep getting money from the upgrades to continue to pay people.

--

As far as Apple, they aren't supporting non-Intel Macs, either.

[trogir13]

Why would you assume that I don't buy 100 copies of CS

OH - and unlike most people out there using Adobe - I USED to pay for all the licences - for all 25 photographer in my group - but not anymore.

Non-intell macs are years ago - not one years ago like CS3's decision not to support a current camera

Adobe - just another ruthless corporation

[ssprengel]

This support-for-current-cameras-in-current-version-only policy has been around since ACR came out and is not new with CS3, so predates Apples non-Intel decision.

If your 25 photographers aren't providing enough revenue for a $200 upgrade price per head then you probably shouldn't be in business at all.

Do you buy them their cameras or just their software? You can require them to pay for their own software upgrade, or convert everything to DNG so no one has to upgrade. There are ways around the situation, but Adobe is unlikely to make an unprofitable decision just to make you unhappy.

I was just as upset when I found out I had to upgrade my PS when I upgraded my camera, but the more I thought about it, the more it made sense.

[trogir13]

Your an idiot - please create a forum for yourself and gush over

adobe all you want.... have fun! Leave me alone now - thanks

[brokenbricks]

I agree with you trogir13. ssprengel is being completely condescending and is clearly a hopless adobe fanboy.

Nobody is arguing that adobe doesn't have the right to not support their legacy software, of course they do. But as their customers we don't have to like it and it is appropriate for us to complain. When you buy software, you expect that it will be supported for a certain amount of time or a certian number of versions (you may not know how many, but you don't expect it to be zero). I work for a company that sells software and hardware and we support both for at least 2 version and 4 years respectivley (we don't wear a cape blowing in the wind when we do, it's just how you stand behind your product).

The fact that adobe has had this policy for a long time doesn't make it OK. Yes, an upgrade is relatively inexpensive, but it is still an expense and a hassle. And what if I upgrade tp CS4 and then a week later CS5 comes out? All of a sudden I am on an "unsupported" platform.

Does adobe want to the kind of company that stands behind their product or do they want to play gotcha with their customers?

That's the kind of thing a customer keeps in mind when selecting their photo editing software. But let's face it, there is no "selecting" there is just photoshop.

[Guest]

brokenbricks wrote:

But let's face it, there is no "selecting" there is just photoshop.

Wrong! There are plenty of alternatives but, if you choose Adobe, you choose their upgrade policy too.

Like it or lump it!

If you gave it some thought, you would see that, while technically possible, the resources required to make it so that a few disgruntled users can save what amounts to a couple of hours pay, makes it a non-starter from a practical point of view.

[Yammer]

I've just done a talk on raw processing for my photography club. Several of the audience asked questions about Photoshop and Elements and being unable to open their raw files, and so I jumped through the hoops of explaining the Updates system, which versions of CR run on which versions of PS, and which version of DNG Converter to use, etc. It's a minefield to the unitiated, and it's not surprising this is the most commonly asked question.

I fully understand Adobe's position, as well as customers' frustration. I don't think anyone is in the wrong. But it occurred to me: surely there must be a better way to tackle this old chestnut.

I've been using CR since version 3/4, and in that time there have been lots of great new features, refinements, and new cameras supported. Couldn't Camera Raw be modularised? Couldn't the raw file translator be separated from the rest of the plug-in, like DNG Converter? That way, new features and refinements in the Camera Raw plug-in are separate to the raw format translator, protecting Adobe's revenue.

The converter would be a "bridge" between the raw format and the plug-in, and only that program would need to be regularly updated. New versions of Camera Raw can continue to support the latest Photoshop, but the underlying file translator can be changed like a tyre.

They've already done half the job. DNG Converter works a treat. Is it a massive job to get Camera Raw to use it as a translator instead?

Of course, this doesn't help owners of existing "legacy" versions. But it would make new versions future-proof. And isn't Adobe all for this principle, as proponents of DNG?