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.
Yammer P wrote:
Couldn't the raw file translator be separated from the rest of the plug-in, like DNG Converter?
Dude, the raw file conversion engine is the plug-in. You cannot separate it from itself.
Once the raw data has been converted—or "translated" in your usage— it is no longer raw. At that point you can't add any adjustments to metadata, rather the image has to be immediately handed over to Photoshop for further processing.
You may not realize it, but what you are talking about and proposing is precisely what the slightly-ill-named DNG Converter does. It does not really convert the raw data but only the wrapper in which it is presented.
What you seem to be suggesting is that the DNG Converter be called upon by Camera Raw to work its magic on the fly.
Wo Tai Lao Le
DNG Converter extracts the raw image data and saves it in DNG format. It doesn't PROCESS the image in any way.
Camera Raw also does this as the first stage of loading the image (except it doesn't save the DNG file to disk). Camera Raw ALSO processes the raw image data according to develop settings.
What I'm suggesting is that Camera Raw could use a separate module (like DNG Converter) to do this first stage of extracting raw image data, rather than do it itself (i.e. it becomes a processing-only plug-in). Then the only thing which needs to be updated for new cameras is this format conversion module.
What's the point? Well, if Camera Raw is designed to use any future version of this raw format decoder (or whatever you want to call it), there wouldn't be any need to upgrade the plug-in, unless you wanted any new features in the later versions.
I'm not saying it would definitely work, because I don't know how this software is written, but if it did it could stop this problem in a few years' time.
Again: What you seem to be suggesting is that the DNG Converter be called upon by Camera Raw to work its magic on the fly. (NOTE: I edited my previous post and you may not see the edits if you are using email to read posts in this forum.)
Another thing you are missing is that virtually ALL succeeding versions of Camera Raw contain unannounced, unheralded, unpublicized improvements, enhancements and bug fixes—separate and apart from support for newer cameras.
That's why you should always be using the latest version of ACR that is compatible with your version of Photoshop.
(Not that I agree with the rest of your post, but other aspects of it need not be addressed in this context.)
Wo Tai Lao Le
I'm not missing it at all. I've already tried to clarify once; I'm not sure how I can be any clearer.
You use the expression "on the fly" like it's a bad thing. Software is written to use "libraries" or "APIs" all the time. The API performs a particular function, and the host program calls the API for that particular job. In this case, the API would extract the raw data from the camera file, nothing more, nothing less.
As long as future versions of Camera Raw are designed to use the API (and subsequent versions) to extract the raw data, you can stay with your old version, or upgrade to a newer version if you want the newer features. The important thing is that ANY (future) version of Camera Raw could use ANY version of the extraction API.
This is my last attempt to explain my random musing. I'm only trying to be helpful by throwing in a suggestion which might solve a recurring problem.
Yammer P wrote:
…a suggestion which might solve a recurring problem.
The "problem" is already neatly solved by the DNG Converter. You're just asking that Camera Raw call the DNG Converter automatically and transparently, that's all.
Wo Tai Lao Le
ADOBE = CORPORATE GREED
Thats my only point. And they wonder why people illegally downlaod their software.
The Adobe DNG Converter is free.
There is a new version of Photoshop that will be introduced in about 10 days. And, just like all the other releases, these kinds of complaints about greed are going to surface again. Some might even think they are accomplishing something by complaining.
Didn't mean to insult the wealthy fanboys
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.
…the more likely it is that adobe will allocate a developer for an afternoon to port the latest version of camera raw to cs3.
Adobe is not selling CS3 any longer, and it will stop selling CS4 in a matter of weeks. What possible incentive would there be in spending as much as ten minutes on such an endeavor?
If you are using CS3, you are a past Adobe customer, not a current one.
There are many legitimate reasons to criticize Adobe, and I have plenty of those myself. But the backwards compatibility of ACR is not one of them.
Wo Tai Lao Le
What possible incentive would there be in spending as much as ten minutes on such an endeavor?
because it will increase the likelyhood of me (and hopefully others like me) to be future adobe customers.
when cs5 comes out i wonder what the rate of returning cusomers to new customers will be who buy it. at my company it's about 85% returning to 15% new. takeing care of current users is a great way to ensure future business, not only are they your future customers, they cost way less to sell to.
obviously i am not going to presume to give an intro to business course to adobe, i am sure they have made all these calculations. but if they don't know when their user base is frustrated, they can't respond.
ACR has always only been updated for the current version of PS, so Adobe knows what the return rate is for customers based on past experience.
I don't doubt that they do. Is it inappropriate for me to complain and ask that the policy be changed? perhaps adobe is unaware of how much their users want this feature. If I just shut up and sit down as you seem to want me to, they never will.
…Is it inappropriate for me to complain and ask that the policy be changed?…
No, not inappropriate at all; but utterly futile, alas!
…perhaps adobe is unaware of how much their users want this feature…
Guess you don't want it bad enough that you would want to pay for the upgrade.
On the other hand, the majority of us did want it badly enough to buy the upgrade.
Either way, your complaint won't get you anywhere. That's all I'm trying to say.
Wo Tai Lao Le