Camera Raw converter for CS2 & EOS 40D : Totally Confused

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by frans_van_wyk, Sep 26, 2007.

  1. I have bought a 40D but cannot open my raw files in CS2. I have down loaded and
    tried, without success, the camera raw.8bi ver 4.2 from the Adobe web site.
    Apparently it is for CS3 users and not compatible with CS2. Can anyone please
    help? What version of camera Raw do I need in CS2 for the 40D?
    Before posting this question I scouted through previous questions and
    saw a lot of suggestions/debate without resolving my problem. The following
    extracts highlights my problem the best:
    DN Sep 21,2007;08:20p.m.
    Am I reading that right? I cannot update Camera Raw to read 40D images in CS2;I
    have to upgrade to CS3?
    Colin Southern Sept 21 2007;08:26
    Simply convert the file to *.DNG format first-you can download the free
    converter from www.adobe.com
    Joshua Uziel Sep21,2007?08:26p.m.
    That seems to be the case.
    Camera Raw 4.0 and greater is not compatible with Photoshop CS2.

    Now I am totally confused as I don't have any idea what *.DNG is and which
    file must be converted. Also is it possible to read 4oD files in CS2?
     
  2. DNG is a digital negative format and effectively it is meant to be a universal RAW which should be used by all companies to avoid the problem that no-one can open files for new cameras.
    That is the idea at least.
    Adobe is pushing for it but many other software packages don't fully support it yet and most camera companies still use their own format.

    Anyway, on Adobe's homepage search for DNG converter you will be able to download the software for free which you can use to convert you 40D RAW files into DNG. Those can then be opened in Photoshop. You won't lose any quality during the process by the way.
     
  3. You can't open 40D CR2 files with Photoshop CS2. Adobe wants you to buy CS3 to do this directly.

    The way around this, as has been mentioned, is to use the free Adobe DNG converter to convert the CS2 files to DNG files which can be opened by CS2.

    A DNG file, which you can google, is an attempt by Adobe to make a more "universal" RAW file format. Converting your CR2 files to DNG is simple and easy and does nothing to the data, except make it readable by CS2.
     
  4. That is a workable path.

    You can also convert RAW to *.TIFF using the canon software. . but that is space intensivie.

    Bear in mind that *.DNG has its advocates and detractors. I suspect that Adobe is tired of putting out a new RAW converter every time someone puts out a new dSLR.

    But the bottom line is that CS2 and 40D's won't play together any other way.
     
  5. I don't see why it'd be a huge programming effort on Adobe's part to make new camera RAW converters more "modular" so that it's not necessary to upgrade one's copy of PS every time they buy a new camera.

    We don't have to buy a new copy of Word or Excel when we buy a new printer.

    The DNG suggestion is a good one - as is using Canon's supplied RAW converter to make a tif, which your PS CS2 can read with no problems. Good luck!
     
  6. Thanks Guys,
    That answers my question and I am no longer confused
     
  7. I think that considering the original cost of CS2 it was pretty mean of Adobe not to continue to update the product, making it pretty much obsolete for all the people with new cameras.
     
  8. My solution was to buy Lightroom. If you qualify for student/educational pricing, it's only $100.
     
  9. I was not able to convert my 40D RAW files in an older version of DNG Convertor. I downloaded the latest convertor that comes with the ACR 4.xx update, and now my converted RAW files can be read by CS2.
     
  10. The DNG files have an advantage over RAW files, in that Lightroom doesn't have to create side car files or store the adjustment info only in it's database. It adds the adjustment data directly to the DNG file. *If* you are sticking with Adobe software products, or *if* other software companies start using DNG, there seems to be no downside to DNG conversion other than a little time. Those are big IFs though.
     
  11. Those are VERY big "ifs". I think half the plan is to help ensure users STAY with adobe products.

    "I don't see why it'd be a huge programming effort on Adobe's part to make new camera RAW converters more "modular" so that it's not necessary to upgrade one's copy of PS every time they buy a new camera. "

    It is probably harder to make the converter NOT work with every product. But. . .how else do you sell new copies of software? No. . this incompatibility is by *design*.

    Personally, I absolutely DO NOT want software mucking with original files. In fact, I find the "sidecar file" concept to be very much to my liking; and I resent that lightroom embeds the sidecar info into JPEG files. In fact, I create duplicates of all my original JPEGS so lightroom can play with them. . .and I "protect" all the original JPEGS.
     
  12. Some reading for anyone who would like to know about DNG format:

    http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/
     
  13. "I don't see why it'd be a huge programming effort on Adobe's part to make new camera RAW converters more "modular" so that it's not necessary to upgrade one's copy of PS every time they buy a new camera."

    I'm sure it wouldn't be a big job to upgrade the converter part of the software - but I guess that they'd rather (rightly or wrongly) focus on theit new products without having to continue development with the old.

    More to the point though - why can't the likes of Canon just write the files in a DNG format to start with? Some of the big names (like hasslebland) have already started doing this. Seems too easy to me.
     
  14. or alternatively why can't the camera manufacturer bundle a simple Photoshop Plugin to convert the new RAW files with the purchase of a new camera.
     
  15. Ahh, but Sitthivet, that would require cooperation between manufacturers and software companies. Where's the financial reward in that?

    I tend to agree with Jim Larson -- the incompatibility is by design -- or perhaps by neglect. You've got to follow the money, and if there ain't any, successful corporations don't go there.
     
  16. les

    les

    Beau:

    "I don't see why it'd be a huge programming effort on Adobe's part to make new camera RAW converters more "modular" so that it's not necessary to upgrade one's copy of PS every time they buy a new camera."

    Precisely. It is in their interest to make you buy a new version of PS. From their perspective it makes most sense that you do.

    "We don't have to buy a new copy of Word or Excel when we buy a new printer."

    Well, all I can say here is: please, do not give them ideas...they may just consider it a quite appealing business approach.
     
  17. While we are on this general subject ...

    Curiously, compatibility with upgraded raw converters seems to be better with Photoshop Elements than with Photoshop itself. What I don't know is whether you can then move an imported and converted image seamlessly from PSE to PS as a .psd file, and I believe that, despite the converter module being common to PSE and PS, not all features are accesible from PSE. I agree with all that's been said about the compatibility issue. We're not even talking about a fundamentally new file type here (except perhaps for sRAW), maybe even nothing more than some new size parameters and a different camera name in the .CR2 file, and as someone who has written software since before it was called that, I am pretty confident that the incompatibility is designed in deliberately.

    Which brings me to PSE6. Unless I'm missing something from the announcement, this is pure bloatware. It apparently makes no attempt to add the sort of capabilities that would really enhance it for users who are not interested in manipulating photographs in the way that designers use them as raw material, just making a few simple adjustments and then printing, and who accordingly don't need Photoshop itself. The flagship novelty appears to be the ability to manipulate a number of similar group photographs to pick out and merge sections from each. That would have made it a killer app in the old Soviet Union.
     

Share This Page