Canon T1i

[stevendom57]

Canon is releasing a new camera next month. It is the Canon Rebel T1i. What version of Camera Raw is required to read raw files produced by this camera?

Stevendm

[genebromberg]

Ramón G Castañeda wrote:

There are three to four orderly releases of ACR and the DNG Converter per year.  The last one was in February.

There are no guarantees as to whether a given camera will make the next release or not.

Lightroom releases appear to have a release program of their own, usually very soon after ACR.  The LR release you linked to was not the latest one, by the way.

Are you any better off knowing this? 

Indubitably.

[Brooklinn28]

I had this same problem (unfortunately, didn't research prior to my purchase).  I ended up converting the files to jpeg through my camera software. Then you can open the saved jpeg images in Adobe Bridge and do a CTR R on Open and you at least get the RAW editor.  Not the same as having them in RAW but a much faster way to edit using Photoshop until a fix is done.

[landlex-GQayQe]

I have stumbled on to a work-around until Camera RAW is updated by Adobe.

1.  Open the image in Canon's Digitial Photo Pro.

2   In DPP, go to the edit screen.

3.  Under "Tools", choose "transfer to Photoshop".

4.  In CS4, Photoshop opens the image as a .tif file.

You could edit in DPP and then transfer, or do all your editing in Photoshop.

Good luck!

[Eggbox]

Just to throw in my 2c again....

The camera has been in the hands of reviewers for months, I'd be amazed if Canon didn't let Adobe have a model at the same time so that they could work on the Camera Raw update. It's not much of an excuse to say that the update hasn't been created because the camera has only just been released...Does an Adobe staff member have to physically buy every camera when it's released and not a moment earlier?

Back on topic...

I'm archiving the photo's as 16bit Tiffs which offers the same bit-depth as the RAW files, allowing exposure tweaking further down the line in Photoshop if required. If I had something really precious I'd just save the RAW file but, so far, I haven't needed to do much tweaking...the camera takes great photos.

[PECourtejoie]

There is another solution: Adobe (by the work of Thomas Knoll and the ACR team) have created the DNG format, and have an SDK ready.

Canon could use that format alongside their CR2 format, like Pentax is doing. Had they chosen this way, Lightroom, Camera Raw, and other raw converters could have opened the files on the very first day of the release of the camera!

[MadManChan2000]

The camera has been in the hands of reviewers for months, I'd be amazed if

Canon didn't let Adobe have a model at the same time so that they could work

on the Camera Raw update. It's not much of an excuse to say that the update

hasn't been created because the camera has only just been released...Does an

Adobe staff member have to physically buy every camera when it's released and

not a moment earlier?

Well Eggbox, I guess it's time for you to be amazed.

In general, yes, Adobe does get early camera samples from camera makers.

This helps us to add camera support in a more timely fashion, so updates get

out to our users sooner. Unfortunately, in the case of the 500D/T1i, Adobe

has not yet received any loaner/preproduction/review sample from Canon.

(Adobe != reviewer.) Frankly, there is nothing Adobe can do about that.

One workaround is for us to buy a unit when it ships. But that introduces a

significant delay, and the cameras don't ship in all countries at the same

time. (I believe the 500D/T1i only recently started shipping in the USA, for

example.)

We really do want to add support for new cameras and get the release out to

you as soon as we can, but sometimes there really are things beyond our

control.

Eric

[genebromberg]

Wow, that's just nuts. The only semi-rational explanation I can come up with for Canon not zipping you one of the first cameras off the assembly line is that they want people using THEIR software instead of Photoshop/Lightroom, so they don't want to help what they see as their competitor. With all due respect to the fine people at Canon, if that's their attitude they're flat-out loco. It's just jaw-dropping that if Adobe wants to modify their software so Canon shooters can import RAW files from their new camera, someone first has to order the camera from Amazon or drive down to Best Buy.

[JimHess-8IPblY]

genebromberg wrote:

Wow, that's just nuts. The only semi-rational explanation I can come up with for Canon not zipping you one of the first cameras off the assembly line is that they want people using THEIR software instead of Photoshop/Lightroom, so they don't want to help what they see as their competitor. With all due respect to the fine people at Canon, if that's their attitude they're flat-out loco. It's just jaw-dropping that if Adobe wants to modify their software so Canon shooters can import RAW files from their new camera, someone first has to order the camera from Amazon or drive down to Best Buy.

Congratulations!  You are beginning to understand the dilemma facing raw photographers.  Each camera manufacturer has their own proprietary raw format with raw software designed to enable you to edit that image.  They are not concerned with Photoshop or camera raw or Lightroom or any other "third party" raw converter.  That's why they have proprietary fields in their exif data.  Lightroom, ACR and other raw converters cannot read that information, and it's that way by design.  These companies cannot stop Adobe from supporting the camera, and creating profiles to emulate those proprietary settings, but they can prevent Adobe and others from reading that data directly.  It's not in the best interests of the photographer.  It's in the best interest of the company.  And therein lies the issue surrounding raw support.

[genebromberg]

I knew every company had it's own RAW format, just not that they were THAT opposed to others duplicating that format to provide ease of use. I thought it was more a technical issue than a proprietary one. I'm sure this is a point that's been raised before, but this doesn't seem to make much sense from Canon's point of view. They want to sell cameras, but if you're thinking of upgrading and know that for months you won't be able to use your preferred software to read the RAW files you might put off that purchase. Or look at a competing camera that already has that support. Seems a bit short-sighted, as that course of action prevents your customer from fully enjoying your product's abilities, keeps those customers from developing an even deeper attachment to your brand, perhaps spurs your customers to write frustrated, whiny posts on another company's forums, etc.

[JimHess-8IPblY]

From the photographer/customer point of view, everything you say makes perfect sense.  It has been suggested by others on this forum that one should check before they purchase a camera to make sure it is supported.  And the argument against that is that that should never have to be a consideration.  Unfortunately it is.  This "turf" attitude is one of the main things that motivated the Adobe to develop the DNG (Digital negative) format in an attempt to "standardize" the raw format.  But even to do that, Adobe has to be able to create a profile for each specific camera.  Pentax, as far as I know, is the only camera manufacturer that has adopted the DNG format that as an alternative raw format.  With their digital SLRs it is possible to choose between the native raw format and the DNG format.  New users can choose the DNG format and have immediate support for their raw images, newest models.  Other manufacturers apparently haven't shown any interest in doing this.  The problem doesn't bother me anymore.  I have one of those old-fashioned Nikon D40 cameras that has been supported for quite some time.  But we read the frustration from people, just like you, whenever a new camera is introduced and they want immediate support.  One good thing going for you, Canon (as I understand it) provides you with their software free when you purchase a camera.  Nikon, on the other hand, charges nearly $200 for their premier software for working with the raw images.  They do provide a very basic raw convertor package, but it's painfully slow and noticeably lacking in features.

[MadManChan2000]

FYI, many cameras that support DNG will also embed camera color profiles in

the DNG itself (e.g., recent Casio, Ricoh, and Pentax cameras). Adobe does

not need to create color profiles for such cameras. The profile simply

"comes with the DNG" so to speak.

Eric

But even to do that, Adobe has to be able to

create a profile for each specific camera. 

[Jeff Schewe]

genebromberg wrote:

I knew every company had it's own RAW format, just not that they were THAT opposed to others duplicating that format to provide ease of use.

Actually, every camera model is in effect its own raw file format which must be individually decoded by 3rd parties–and even the camera companies' own software updated to handle new cameras...which indeed is stooopid.

The fact is that the camera companies still delude themselves that the raw file format somehow has some sort of proprietary value. It doesn't...but they just don't believe that. They think their own raw file format, since they have to spend so much of their own resources developing them, must be worth keeping secret. But, the only real secret with regards to raw file formats is that there really aren't any secrets. Anything they can encode in a raw file format can be decoded by others–legally. It's not like Canon has a patent on their CR2 or Nikon on their NEF...both of who are derived from the ISO standard TIFF-EP (Electronic Photography) which is based on TIFF 6 which is owned by Adobe...and DNG is a further specified TIFF-EP spec.

The camera companies would be better served spending their time and money more wisely rather than wasting their resources making their own raw file formats...and with the downturn in the global economy it might make sense for them to re-evaluate DNG. Adobe has already submitted DNG to the ISO for the next update of TIFF-EP. So, if that happens, it'll remove one barrier the camera companies have been using against DNG...the fact that the spec is owned by Adobe.

And, the thing of it is, if they DID adopt DNG, it would eliminate this crap about waiting for software updates and make their own software support easier to implement.

[ssprengel]

My brother had his hands on a retail copy of a T1i in Toronto over a week

ago, already.

[Jeff Schewe]

ssprengel wrote:

My brother had his hands on a retail copy of a T1i in Toronto over a week

ago, already.

Uh huh...and you expect Adobe to turn the update around how fast?

Give me a break...we're talking quarters here, not days or weeks...

You want Adobe to be able to support camera when they come out? Talk to Nikon and Canon...

Jeeesh...aren't you paying attention?

[ssprengel]

In defense of why Adobe had not released support, yet, someone said Adobe

didn't have one, yet. I merely said they are available, now. I agree

Canon should have given you one long ago, but now that they're out, Adobe

still not having one seems wrong if that was the insider information being

communicated.

"Quarters" (plural) suggests more than one 3-month period, with the minimum

being 2 quarters, or a 6-month turn around time. I guess I wouldn't have

thought it takes that long to profile a new sensor, compute the NR

coefficients for various ISOs, and beta test those things, especially with a

new camera model every 12 months or so, nowadays. Canon, themselves, has

chopped 6 months off their release cycle to keep up with the competition's

features, so a camera was probably not available for them to give 6 months

ago.

How long does it actually take Adobe from receipt to being ready to release

support for a new model? I would expect that sometimes the main delay would

be syncing up with the next ACR or LR release that could have additional

features that would take quite a few months to code and test and re-test,

but adding a new camera model can't be that hard unless it is a completely

new sort of decoding algorithm or the manufacturer is requiring

lens-distortion or custom NR built-in.

People shouldn't be whining about not having support, immediately, if Adobe

had no access to the hardware, as if it's Adobe's fault, but expecting a

camera quarters in advance seems too demanding. I suppose Canon may have

been trying to help out the noise in the ISO128000 end of things right up

until the end so they may not have been able to give out anything for Adobe

until literally weeks ago when the camera was almost out, anyway.

Hopefully there isn't some war of words between Adobe/DNG and others/RAW

where each tries to bad-mouth the other than drag their feet to make things

bad for the other.

Personally, I am waiting for the 60D in the fall which Adobe would hopefully

support by a couple months afterwards.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda]

What you seem to be missing is a grasp of the concept that Adobe releases three to four versions of ACR per year in an orderly fashion.  Don't expect a new release just because a new camera is released to the market.  That will just not happen.

[Okapy]

I don't beleve that Adobe dodn't have one, yet.

Even some review bloggers have it for about two months. (gizmodo for example have a hands-on review published on March 25)

I did not do any preorder, I got email from the store that its become in stock on April 30th, place an order and got it on the next day.

I am really dissapointed that I still can't use lightroom for the pictures.

[Guest]

Did you read the previous posts on this subject properly?

You obviously don't understand all the factors invoved in updating ACR!

[Okapy]

Yes, I don't understand all factors, simply because I don't care.

I bought Lightroom because its a best application to work with RAW files and now I cannot use it. If some bloggers could get the camera 2 months before the release, then Adobe can do it to. And they have to work 24/7 if needed to release support before it hits the shelfs. Otherwise next people will start looking for another software.

[PECourtejoie]

What about...

You bought Lightroom because its a best application to work with RAW files and now you cannot use it. If the camera manufacturer can send some bloggers the camera 2 months before the release, then Adobe, DXO, Capture One and others could have been sent one too. And they have to work 24/7 if needed to make sure raw converter editors can provide support before the camera hits the shelfs. Otherwise next people will start looking for another camera.

Adobe cannot force manufacturers to send them the camera, I'm use that they invite them to do so. Some manufacturers send the camera on a regular basis. Also, there might be conflicts of schedule...

[PECourtejoie]

Good thing that you are not using Aperture or iPhoto, as the Canon EOS 50D ; Epson R-D1x ; Nikon D3X ; Nikon Coolpix P6000 ; Nikon D90 and Sony DSLR-A900. have just been supported thanks to yesterday's 10.5.7 Mac OS X update.

Some of these cameras have been supported by Adobe applications since Camera Raw 4.6, released October 10, 2008... So one could say that Adobe is very reactive in the support of newly released cameras. Of course, if one used the DNG converter, and if Apple has properly coded DNG support, Adobe has provided free early support for those cameras using that software.

[Eggbox]

Well MadManChan2000 I'm amazed

I don't see it as a purposely awkward move by Canon against Adobe, like they're trying to prevent people using Photoshop, because it's not in their interests as a camera manufacturer and I also doubt that they would include a 'send to Photoshop' function in their software. It is, however, pretty rediculous and I'm amazed that nobody has pointed this out to Canon...or perhaps they have?

Thanks for your input MadManChan2000...interesting stuff

[MadManChan2000]

Significant effort goes into even "minor" dot releases for Camera Raw. Camera support is added, bugs are fixed, and sometimes features are added & improved. Not only does the engineering need to be completed, but it also needs to be tested -- not just on the platform you happen to use at home or in your studio, but on ALL platforms that we support officially and all their variants (e.g., Mac, Windows, XP, Vista, Tiger, Leopard, 32-bit, 64-bit, PowerPC, Intel, etc.) ... and when there are UI changes/additions, not just the language you happen to read, but ALL the languages supported. If we made a dot release every time a new camera shipped, then we'd have dozens of releases every year ... with the unfortunate consequence that we'd have to ignore all of your feature requests since we'd have no time to implement them.

As such, the camera makers have their own release schedule, and Adobe has its own release schedule. These schedules operate largely independent of each other; sometimes releases line up nicely, sometimes they don't. For example, Camera Raw 5.2 (a fairly big update) happened to come out at the end of November 2008. At the time, Adobe had no idea that the Nikon D3X would be announced at the beginning of December. (Yeah there were rumors but then again there have been rumors of a Canon EOS 3D and an Epson 3900 for as long as I can remember ...) So when the D3X shipped in mid December, Adobe had just completed a release cycle and was not in the position of turning around another release immediately. The unfortunate result was that eager early adopters of the D3X had to wait for support from Camera Raw & LR (5.3 and 2.3, respectively).

One way around this scheduling problem (a solution that has proven quite effective in this regard) is for the camera maker to write in-camera DNG files. For example, the Casio EX-FH20 writes DNG files. The day the camera shipped, the EX-FH20 raw files were immediately readable in Camera Raw (going back to version 2.4 with Photoshop CS). Happily, Adobe and Casio did not need to coordinate their schedules to make this happen, and customers of the EX-FH20 did not have to wait a single day to get raw processing support in Camera Raw.

I've said it before, and I know it's not popular, but my practical recommendation is that if you want to use new camera X with third-party software Y immediately after buying camera X, you should check before purchasing the camera that the two will work together from the get-go. If Y happens to be Camera Raw / Lightroom, you are welcome to ask here in the forums. If you don't ask, you should be prepared to wait.

Eric

[JimHess-8IPblY]

Eggbox,

You seem to be suggesting that this is a problem unique to your new camera from Canon.  Your camera is not the only new model that has been released recently.  There is ONE Camera Raw plug-in, and there are new offerings from Canon, Nikon, and who knows how many other camera makers.  Adobe has the responsibility of trying to make all of these people happy at once.  They aren't going to release an update for just one single model.  This is a monumental task, trying to support raw files from all manufacturers.  You're probably going to have that camera for at least a couple of years.  Support will be provided as quickly as possible.  No one is singling out your model and ignoring it just to spite you.

[Eggbox]

Honestly Jim, I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. I'm just surprised that there isn't more co-operation between the manufacturer's and Adobe. It's a little inconvenient to be restricted by Canon's software but it's not the end of the world. Hopefully, in a few months, I won't have to worry about it.

I will admit that I wasn't fully aware of how the RAW format works but I'm fully aware of how much work is involved with software development and how many camera's are released throughout the year...Adobe have their work cut out which I suspect is why they ensure that new versions of the plugin only work with the latest versions of Photoshop to ensure that people upgrade.