Adobe Compatibility Issues with newest Canon RAW Files

<p>Hi Everyone,</p>

<p>I have a Canon 6D on the way (upgrading from a Rebel Xsi) and I understand that as <a href="/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00bFRM">this post</a> discusses, anything older than CS6 or LR4 will not recognize the 6D's RAW files due to Canon changing something in the "guts" of the RAW file. </p>

<p>Of course as my luck would have it, I have CS5 and LR3, purchased shortly before their successors came out. Bummer! I really don't want to spend the money to upgrade to to CS6 at the moment, but I could be OK upgrading to LR4 as the $75 won't kill me (but it will make me whine and complain like a small child). I have a plan of attack with my RAW file handling and wanted to run it by you all before getting LR4 to see what you think.</p>

<p>I prefer using LR for most of my basic RAW editing, so my thought was to upgrade to LR4, do all my RAW editing in LR and if I think the file needs additional work click the "Edit In Photoshop" option within LR which would create a PSD file for editing in PS that includes the edits I made in LR. This would give me the ability to edit RAW files without having to pay for CS6, and ultimately be able to apply any finishing touches in PS.</p>

<p>My primary question is does anyone see any problems with this workflow? When you click the "Edit in Photoshop" button on an image in LR and bring it into PS as a PSD file, I'm not entirely sure what goes on in the conversion from RAW to PSD and was concerned maybe I was losing some image quality or that the image was being degraded in some way.</p>

<p>Thanks for any input you can give. BTW I'm brand new to the forum and seems like there's a great community here!</p>

<p>just download the latest (free) DNG converter from Adobe. Once the image is in .dng format, CS5/LR3 will open it.</p>

<p>Just convert to DNG and you should be all set with the newer 6D. But the upgrade to LR4 is worth every penny thanks to PV2012, the new rendering controls. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>When you click the "Edit in Photoshop" button on an image in LR and bring it into PS as a PSD file, I'm not entirely sure what goes on in the conversion from RAW to PSD and was concerned maybe I was losing some image quality or that the image was being degraded in some way.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>Edit in Photoshop</em> calls that version of ACR to render the image, then open it. Adobe doesn't force you to upgrade Photoshop AND LR. You can use the newer LR engine and the older version of Photoshop. Rather than using Edit in Photoshop, you just let LR export the image and then open it in Photoshop.<br>

The only real issue would be IF you use Smart Objects and embed the actual raw. If so, ACR now takes over and in this example, you'll have a mismatch between a newer LR process and the older ACR process. If that isn't the case, do all the raw processing in LR, export that instead of the Edit in Photoshop command and you're all set. </p>

 

<p>Thanks Howard and Andrew! I've never worked with DNG files before and didn't realize until some research after your posts that they are lossless and seem to retain all of the metadata and other benefits of using RAW files.</p>

<p>In general when you have a RAW or DNG image with some adjustments you have applied in LR and want to bring it into Photoshop, is exporting it to PSD and loading the PSD file in to Photoshop the best way to go? I have always assumed it would be better to load the actual RAW or DNG file into Photoshop but I haven't figured out a way to take a RAW file with LR edits and load the file into Photoshop while retaining the edits made in LR. I have a feeling I'm missing something very basic...</p>

<p>Just get the LR4 upgrade - it is well worth it over LR3. That way you can process your RAWs in LR4 and if you need to do more editing in PS, just send them over. DNG is an option but it is not for everyone (I want to work on the original CR2 files).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I've never worked with DNG files before and didn't realize until some research after your posts that they are lossless and seem to retain all of the metadata and other benefits of using RAW files.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> Aside from some proprietary metadata that only the manufacturer's raw converter can use, converting (properly) to DNG gives you all the raw data you need. If you're sure you'll never use Canon's raw converter, you will lose nothing although you may want to archive the original raws (your call). This may provide more info about DNG:<br /> http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200709_adobedng.pdf<br /> <br /> Since that piece, even more functionality has been provided into the DNG spec. The Fast Load preview option is great in LR.'s Develop module:<br /> http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-57371809-264/adobe-offering-new-reasons-to-get-dng-religion/</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In general when you have a RAW or DNG image with some adjustments you have applied in LR and want to bring it into Photoshop, is exporting it to PSD and loading the PSD file in to Photoshop the best way to go?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>IF LR and Photoshop are on version parity you can do this. ACR and LR have identical processing engines when on parity. So in theory, you could apply some metadata edits in LR, then open the DNG in ACR (in Photoshop), do more work, go back to LR. I'm not sure why you'd do this other than maybe to use a Smart Object in Photoshop that is a raw. But it is doable. IF the two are not on version parity, not a good idea. For example, if you use LR's new PV2012, the sliders are different than PV2010 in ACR 6 (Photoshop CS5). In such a case, if you're ready to edit pixels in Photoshop, all you do is export from within LR (a TIFF, JPEG, PSD) to a size and color space you wish, then just open in Photoshop like any other TIFF/JPEG/PSD. </p>

<p>As big a fan as I am of Adobe software, this problem reoccurs nearly every time a new camera comes out. I wish Adobe would do upgrades for the older software instead of requiring the intermediate step of going to dng or "forcing" buying a new version of the image-editing software.<br /> Still, you can use the Canon software that came with the camera to transfer the files to the dng format, as said.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As big a fan as I am of Adobe software, this problem reoccurs nearly every time a new camera comes out.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How is it Adobe's fault that every new camera must save a proprietary raw format they (Adobe) and everyone else has to decode (hack)? This is never the case if someone buys a new camera and instead sets it to capture a JPEG (an open file format). Believe me, if Nikon, Canon and the rest would settle on a open, non proprietary raw format, like JPEG, every time a new camera was released, this would not be an issue and Adobe (and all other raw converter vendors) would be very happy.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I wish Adobe would do upgrades for the older software instead of requiring the intermediate step of going to dng or "forcing" buying a new version of the image-editing software.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No force. Convert to DNG and you're set. Again, that wouldn't be necessary if the new cameras would either spit out a DNG or an open raw format that behaves just like a JPEG or TIFF etc.</p>

<p>Andrew, which side of the bed did you get up on this AM?<br /> The situation may not be created by Adobe, but you are naive if you think they are innocent of taking advantage of it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>instead of requiring the intermediate step of going to dng or "forcing" buying a new version of the image-editing software.<br>

Still, you can use the Canon software that came with the camera to transfer the files to the dng format, as said.= <em>more of my statement...</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Isn't that what you said too? What is the alternative to not buying new version of the software? It's using the awkward additional step, isn't it?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The situation may not be created by Adobe, but you are naive if you think they are innocent of taking advantage of it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have to agree with JDM. It's great that I can convert to DNG or upgrade Lightroom which is only $75 or so as a workaround but if I pay $600 for a piece of software, I expect the company that made it to do everything in their power to give it a shelf life of more than 6 months or so. I don't have the exact timeline of when when the 6D came out versus when CS6 came out but the point is someone could have easily paid a hefty sum of money for CS5 only to have it made basically obsolete by new camera technology in a very short time.</p>

<p>So no, this is definitely not Adobe's fault however if Adobe is going to accept my $600 for Photoshop with a smile on their face, I expect a little more support, at least going one version back.</p>

<p>I just wanted to thank everyone for all your input! I got my 6D last night and used the Adobe DNG converter which worked like a charm. Within the week I'll probably get LR4.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The situation may not be created by Adobe, but you are naive if you think they are innocent of taking advantage of it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Taking advantage how? </p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's using the awkward additional step, isn't it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's not awkward for me and if that's a hassle for you:<br>

1. Don't buy a new camera system or just use their JPEG (which always works)<br>

2. Upgrade your raw converter (short of the manufacturer's EVERY manufacture has the same issue with a new file format). <br>

I fail to see how Adobe and everyone else who has to update their software for a new proprietary file format is the bad guy instead of the camera makers who insist in making a new format for each camera. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>instead of the camera makers who insist in making a new format for each camera.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yep, this - and if ever there was a compelling argument for the big names in camera production to adopt in-camera DNG, this is it...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I fail to see how Adobe and everyone else who has to update their software for a new proprietary file format is the bad guy instead of the camera makers who insist in making a new format for each camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Here's my take on this. I pay Canon to give me a camera. I pay Adobe to give me image manipulation software. If I pay Adobe to give me image manipulation software I do think the onus is on them to keep their software current which includes staying up to date on the various camera manufacturer's raw file formats. If you agree with my premise then it also follows that Adobe should provide at least some support to prior versions of the CS, at least one version back when it comes to file format support.</p>

<p>The bottom line is if I am paying Adobe, I expect the product i pay <em>them</em> for to have a decent shelf life, regardless of what the camera manufacturers do or change.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you agree with my premise then it also follows that Adobe should provide at least some support to prior versions of the CS, at least one version back when it comes to file format support.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But they do. You have to convert to DNG. Even if you're running Photoshop 7, you can convert to DNG and use the new camera file with a copy of PS that was released years and years earlier. The idea that Adobe who sold you a version of their software, even 6 years ago should continuously update for free, the means to decipher a format they can't control seems a bit too much. The same software you purchased (say Photoshop 7, even Photoshop 1) can open the JPEG your Canon wrote to disk. Why? Because it's an open format. <br /> <br /> Imagine if the JPEG committee changed the spec every 6 months, and worse, didn't document it. EVERY software that used to open a JPEG could no longer do so, and every company would have to spend time and money updating their products. Worse, customers expect them to do this for free when the code change is totally due to the people writing the original camera file. Now this fortunately not the case with JPEG. And there's <strong>no reason it couldn't be the case with raw. </strong><br /> <br /> Yes you paid Canon, like me to have a camera. And you can use their raw software (which you also paid for) to open the new camera files the day that camera ships. But some don't want to use that software. So now it's Adobe's fault that the current version doesn't support this proprietary file? Plus every other raw converter? It cost them money to update the new file format too. So it cost you money. Yet in this scenario, Canon (and Nikon among others) are blameless? I just don't see it.<br /> <br /> The current time span of Photoshop releases is <em>about</em> 18 months. That means that if you buy say CS5, and within that time span, a new camera comes out, Adobe <strong>does</strong> update the ACR plug-in (or Lightroom) and gives you <strong>a free update</strong>. OK, you buy a new camera today, the file format isn't supported in your 19 month old copy of Photoshop. Adobe therefore should give you a free update to it's older product? How far should they go back? I'm sure that would be possible assuming the next time you wish to update your copy of Photoshop, it ends up costing 1.5X what it does today. After all, you can pay them now or you can pay them later. Engineering is expensive. I know, I pay one.</p>

<p>I know it's fashionable to knock a big company like Adobe. But please explain to me how the copy of Photoshop I purchased back in May of 1990 can open the JPEG of a camera that shipped last week, yet it's Adobe's fault that the people who released that new camera can't provide a raw format that could do the same? If they spit out a DNG, this entire issue would be moot. The big camera manufacturers refuse to do this. Why? If they don't trust Adobe to make the format, they should build their own. They refuse to do this. And who suffers? We do. Pretty clear to me who the bad guy is here and who's responsible for continuing to create new, proprietary raw formats.</p>

<p>I completely agree with you that the camera makers bear much of the responsibility for this problem, but to me that's beside the point. I pay the camera makers to make cameras and adobe to make image manipulation software so ultimately the responsibility is Adobe’s to make their product work <strong>properly</strong>.</p>

<p>Yes I can convert to DNG but this is another step I don’t want to have to take. I can’t see the images before I convert them so I have to convert everything and go from there which isn’t the end of the world but it is an extra step. You are right that this is a doable workaround but my point is more on the principle that if I pay $600 for software, I want it to work. I don’t want to have to use workarounds and I don’t think I should have to.</p>

<p>I'm not suggesting Adobe provide this support for all of their legacy products, simply 1 version older than whatever is current. Your point about the 18month photoshop life-cycle assumes that someone actually buys the newest version of Photoshop as soon as it comes out which is frequently not the case. My point is I could buy the most current version of photoshop 12 months into the 18 month cycle. 6 months later a new version of photoshop comes out and I buy a new camera. Suddenly my 6 month old version of photoshop isn’t working as intended and I either need to buy the new version or work with DNG files which I may not want to do. What if it was even worse and I bought a new version of photoshop 16 months into the 18 month cycle and then 3 months later I get a new camera and a new version of photoshop comes out? I have photoshop for 3 months until it can’t operate properly?</p>

<p>You also make a point about it costing Adobe money to reverse engineer the new proprietary raw file formats. What about this as a solution? If I have an old version of photoshop and a new proprietary raw file type comes out, Adobe can <strong>sell</strong> me an update that allows me to use the new raw files. I would happily pay for something like that; it's not that I don't see value in Adobe's engineering it's that I don't want to buy a whole new version of photoshop just for this reason.<br /> The fact that Adobe doesn't offer a solution like this, as JDM pointed out earlier, makes it look like they are intentionally taking advantage of their customers who happen to be in this situation.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Yes I can convert to DNG but this is another step I don’t want to have to take. I can’t see the images before I convert them so I have to convert everything and go from there which isn’t the end of the world but it is an extra step.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Piece of cake when importing into Lightroom. Does it take longer? A bit. I don't sit there and wait any more than if I was importing the original raw. Yet the DNGs files are smaller, and I get much faster performance in Develop module among the other advantages of DNG. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not suggesting Adobe provide this support for all of their legacy products, simply 1 version older than whatever is current.<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's not unreasonable but you have to admit that others will want 2 versions, or 3. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>My point is I could buy the most current version of photoshop 12 months into the 18 month cycle. 6 months later a new version of photoshop comes out and I buy a new camera. Suddenly my 6 month old version of photoshop isn’t working as intended and I either need to buy the new version or work with DNG files which I may not want to do.<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>But not with JPEG right? And not an issue if you forced yourself to use the camera software. As I mentioned above, you could do that, upgrade or convert. Why then is the option of using the new file format problematic? We are forced into this by the camera manufacturer. There's no reason for this. Zero. It's totally political. The data the camera makes is mine. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>You also make a point about it costing Adobe money to reverse engineer the new proprietary raw file formats. What about this as a solution?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Takes time, cost money. The solution is simple. The same solution as the JPEG the identical camera you just purchased works with a copy of Photoshop I purchased over 20 years ago. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would happily pay for something like that...<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>You shouldn't have to</strong>, that's my point. You shouldn't have to wait either for new support of the file format just as you don't with JPEG. You wouldn't if you didn't care about raw and just set the camera on JPEG. You and I and other's are being penalized because we want raw data, data that keeps changing every time a new camera is released. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The fact that Adobe doesn't offer a solution like this, as JDM pointed out earlier, makes it look like they are intentionally taking advantage of their customers who happen to be in this situation.<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm trying to see how this is the case, really I am. There is a free alternative that actually has significant advantages over the native raw format. It's not like you convert and you get nothing else advantages for the process. Adobe is continuing to evolve and strengthen the format. And it's super easy to do in LR which really IS the product anyone working with more than a few captures a day should be using. It was built for photographers working with lots of images and the conversion process is super easy. You pick one option versus the other (import and convert to DNG). Or you can just use the manufacturer's software (which I think many would agree with, sucks). <strong>No one at Adobe is putting a gun to anyone's head to upgrade just for new camera support.</strong> IF and when you upgrade, you get more functionality. Better processing etc. As I said, I can convert your 6D images to DNG and process them in Photoshop 7 using ACR version 1! Compared to the new processing algorithm's in LR/ACR (which are providing newer, better functionality), You would have to put a gun to my head to use ACR 1. I'm not sure I'd ever use LR 3 or CS5, the new engine is so much better. And worth the upgrade price. And supports newer cameras. </p>

<p>Can you or JDM point out specifically <strong>how</strong> Adobe is therefor taking advantage of their customers? Or C1 or Raw Developer? Their upgrade policies are not much different from Adobe. I just paid to upgrade Raw Developer, not because it supports vastly more cameras then the last version (my 5DMII has been supported in most raw converters for years), but because it's better. But if I didn't want to spend the money and had and had a new cameras, I could convert to DNG and use the older version of RD. Because like Adobe, this company is screwed, like their customers, every time a new raw format is developed. </p>

<p>Note too, the differences in these newer formats are usually small. IOW, they could build a 6D raw that was readable by any raw converter that can read a 5D. They don't and someone has to figure out these small differences to read the new data. Who's the bad guy in this scenario? </p>

<p>Andrew, if you don't think having to buy a new expensive suite of software to just get one thing-- compatibility with a new camera RAW format-- is taking advantage, nothing will convince you.</p>

<p>Are you married to Adobe or something? You seem to take this so personally, even while you simply repeated what was already in my original post to begin with.</p>

 

<p>The software industry has solved this problem many, many years ago.</p>

<p>How is that a PC with Windows XP from 2001, that's <strong>twelve years</strong> old now, can use the latest USB gismos or graphics adapters or what ever else that will physically fit? Because <strong>Microsoft have updated Windows XP for free</strong> for all their users since 2001. And if the operating system doesn't support something the manufacturer of the device will provide a <strong>driver</strong> that works with the XP. Microsoft made XP to be extendable. Other operating systems works the same way.</p>

<p>Adobe could have implemented extendable software so<strong> they could support not yet released hardware</strong> as well. But <strong>why should they?</strong> Now that <strong>they can sell you an upgrade each time</strong> new cameras needs to be supported even if you are not interested in any new features whatsoever.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Are you married to Adobe or something?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, never. I've had a very long time relationship with their imaging software dating back to Photoshop 1.0.7 in 1990. I've been using Photoshop since. But not married as up through that period I used lots of other products. I was a very early adopter of Live Picture when it cost $4K to get a copy. I used xrez and did alpha and beta for the Krugers. I was working with the Collage people a version before Photoshop had layers. <br>

My front end workflow starts every image going into LR as my DAM. So DNG conversion is just a simple option and only positively affects my work going forward (<strong>or I wouldn’t use it</strong>). I still do most of my raw processing in LR but I'm not married to it either. I sometimes use Raw Developer which I also find a very good raw converter. <br>

And lastly IF I admitted I didn't have an open mind about software, instead of the reality of trying many products throughout the short history of digital imaging, how would that in any way change the facts about the DNG format? Or the hassle the fellow who purchased a new 6D had? <br>

What I <em>could</em> be taking personally (but I'm not) is someone who is making comments about market size and use, making claims that have no foundation in facts (as yet) and using language which is unclear and a tad inflaming. (I'm not pointing any fingers, read the text).</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>if you don't think having to buy a new expensive suite of software to just get one thing-- compatibility with a new camera RAW format-- is taking advantage, nothing will convince you.</p>

 

<p>Now that <strong>they can sell you an upgrade each time</strong> new cameras needs to be supported even if you are not interested in any new features whatsoever.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>IF major updates <strong>only</strong> provided new camera support, I'd have the pitchforks and axes ready to go as well. But that isn't the case. You upgrade from say LR3 to LR4 you get a slew of new functionality like soft proofing and PV2012. <br /> Adobe doesn't force you. You do it because you want new features otherwise you can convert to DNG or you stay with the software you have from the camera manufacturer. No gun to anyone's head. Like DNG, if you don't want to upgrade, don't upgrade. <br /> I suppose Adobe could provide a lifetime free update to all versions of ACR dating back to Photoshop 7. The question is, would you and other's who are going to upgrade anyway willing to pay more because that freebie has to be made up somewhere else. Instead of $195 for an PS upgrade, everyone would be happy with $229 so everyone going back in time gets a free ACR?</p>