1 Correct answer
No one can say (except for some Adobe employees, who are not allowed to say). You should check the list here each time Adobe updates the Lighroom Classic software.
838
Replies
Yep Capture One 22 reads them and can convert them
Curious that they don't mention that camera in their list of supported cameras.
Didn't say Adobe is to blame. I don't know whose fault this is. Just saying the mere fact that it is like this is not consumer-friendly.
By @Jan M. B.
The fault is totally with the camera manufacturers and as others have correctly stated, this has been going on for decades. This affects all software companies that you would want to process your raw data! It is completely unnecessary.
Every time a new camera is produced, the camera manufacturers produce a new, differing proprietary raw file. It may only be different by a small degree but the current raw processor cannot process it. So the raw has to be reverse engineered to start.
Now with Adobe, the process is a bit more complex. Rather than one who assumes, I'll try to describe how it works without endangering any NDAs.
Adobe needs both the raw and a camera because they must also shoot targets to build both lens and camera profiles, sometimes camera matching profiles. That takes time. They then must build a new version to test internally. After that, testing outside the company takes place, sometimes staggered (alpha then beta testing). In order to even do so, they have to build installers, instructions, upload for testers, and so forth. This takes time too. Now it is common for the outside testing to take a few months, especially if (and when; we have some very good testers), find bugs. The bugs must be fixed, the newer installers have to be built, the testers have to test again. Rinse and repeat. This takes time.
Lastly, Adobe has schedules for releases that are not based solely on when some company might release a new camera. Let's say your new camera was released on January 1st. Let's say Adobe had a scheduled release for newer features, bug fixes, and previous camera support for February 15th. Well, it is very unlikely your Jan 1 camera will get support until the next release. As others have correctly stated, this takes place roughly on a 2-3 month schedule. Also, be aware that Adobe has no less than three products that must support all of the above work. Someone here assumes how this takes place. Ignore assumptions.
You have every right to be upset that you can't fully use your new camera and again, the blame falls on the camera manufacturer. You can see that the JPEG, an openly documented file format that has been openly documented for decades is no issue. Yet your proprietary raws are. It is your data and you are being forced to wait because of the camera manufacturer. All this costs you and Adobe and all other software companies time and money. But by and large, photographers don't blame the right parties, they would rather assume, dismiss the open raw format Adobe proposed and blame anyone but the right party; the camera manufacturers.
Those that assume can't tell us why this is a good idea for anyone (let alone the camera manufacturers) but this endless loop happens year after year. To the same result: money and time wasted, the newer proprietary raws always getting supported. Why? When will it stop?
Manufacturers obviously have a good reason to stay with their RAW formats.
By @jrsforums
They do have a good reason, solely to benefit themselves and not their customers. There are zero benefits to customers. Meanwhile, Adobe and every other raw software manufacturer have to spend time reverse engineering this over and over again, testing, documenting, and releasing new versions, unlike the camera JPEG. How is this a good move for anyone other than the manufacturers for a limited amount of time?
I strongly suspect that camera manufacturers provide Adobe with early versions of new camera raw, but understand that Adobe only really want to work with final firmware versions.
By @jrsforums
This is based on what data? IOW, which manufacturers do this based on actual data from Adobe?
I strongly suspect that camera manufacturers provide Adobe with early versions of new camera raw, but understand that Adobe only really want to work with final firmware versions.
Knowing your style, if my guess was wrong you would have slapped it down as wrong, based on your inside knowledge, rather than your deflecting "based on what data".
By @jrsforums
As I detected, your comment is an assumption (an admitted guess).
"The problem with assumptions is that we believe they are the truth." -Miguel Angel Ruiz
Your inability to answer a simple question (How is this a good move for anyone other than the manufacturers for a limited amount of time?) speaks volumes.
My NDA with Adobe and thus inside knowledge doesn't allow me to provide details to properly slap you down as wrong. Yours?
it really doesn't matter how Adobe gets it, but they get it early.
How early is that? 🤔
AdChoices
