Canon 6D RAW images unreadable in Photoshop with Firmware Version 1.1.2

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by jtmm, Jan 17, 2013.

  1. Having recently taken delivery of a Canon 6D, its RAW images are unreadable in Photoshop.
    I gather that there is a firmware update available but I have not been able to track it down, so far.
    Anyone who has already gone through sorting this out, and who can point me in the right direction - their help would be gratefully accepted.
    cwj
     
  2. Apple added 6D RAW support to Aperture 3.4 and iPhoto last month so Adobe is can't be very far behind. Normally it takes Abobe a couple months to figure out the new RAW format. Meanwhile you can use the latest DPP.
     
  3. Which Photoshop, CS6 or an earlier version, Elements? Adobe only updates recent versions to support new cameras.
     
  4. Jos, thanks for your input.

    I am using PS CS4. I have installed the free DNG Converter from Adobe, which is a temporary workaround, and CS4 seems to cope with the resulting DNG images.
     
  5. I am using PS CS4. I have installed the free DNG Converter from Adobe, which is a temporary workaround, and CS4 seems to cope with the resulting DNG images.​
    Yep, it will do that.
    But - and I can say this with absolute confidence - CS4 will never, ever, ever natively convert 6D CR2s. (Camera) firmware updates won't help, and the updated version of ACR that will support the 6D will not work with CS4 - only CS6.
    You might wish to consider Lightroom 4.x though: it has - in essence - exactly the same code as ACR, but embedded rather than delivered as a plug-in. It's a much cheaper way to get Adobe 6D Raw support than to upgrade to CS6.
    They're your only two permanent Adobe-based solutions, I'm afraid - unless you warm to DNG sufficiently that it becomes an established part of your workflow.
     
  6. Keith
    Thanks for that useful feedback.
     
  7. Unfortunately Adobe support for their legacy products sort of sucks. No one expects them to update software forever, but to cease basic ACR updates for a premium flagship product (CS4) that has only been discontinued for 2-1/2 years is inexcusable IMO. Fortunately there are workarounds.
     
  8. Canon knows that 6D users have Photoshop. There's probably some reason that Canon cameras still don't have an option to create DNG files, but I can't figure out what it is. Until then, you can use DPP to convert to a (quite large) 16-bit tiff, and then process it "as raw" in CS4, or whatever.
     
  9. Michael - I agree - I have sent Canon UK a stinker - it made me feel better at any rate - when they tried to pass the buck onto Adobe.
    Peter - the Canon helpline seemed to think it was fine to tell me just to use their DPP software, at which stage I figured I needed to escalate the complaint!
     
  10. John - the "stinker" should go to Adobe, not Canon. It's Adobe that can't be bothered to issue ACR updates that support newly released cameras (Nikon, Canon, et. al.) and are compatible with *both* their current and (very recent) legacy software suites. We're talking about premium priced products after all, not some $24.95 utility program.
    In 3 years time anyone who has just forked over $600 for Photoshop CS6 is probably going to be in the very same pickle if they buy a newly released DSLR. Pay for an expensive upgrade to CSx, or be satisfied with workaround solutions for processing RAW files. For pros it's probably just another necessary but distasteful business expense, as they want to stay current. For amateurs that just want their perfectly satisfactory, recently purchased editing software suite to work with files from their new camera, it's basically an "up yours" from Adobe.
    Imagine the uproar if Microsoft stopped issuing patches and updates for Windows 7 in 2014?
     
  11. It's Adobe that can't be bothered to issue ACR updates that support newly released cameras​
    That's a bit silly, Michael. What you're looking at here is simply business. Capitalism in action, if you like.
    If Adobe (or any other third party converter provider - they all do much the same thing) continues ad infinitum to add new camera support to old versions of their software, nobody would buy new versions of the software - bye-bye Adobe/DxO/Phase One et al.

    Don't forget that CS4 was released way back in October 2008 - that's a long time ago in camera/computer/software terms. Many people replace their cameras before they're anywhere near that old. Even CS5 is almost three years old.

    Both Lightroom (which I'll repeat my recommendation of) and PS Elements provide a low-cost Raw conversion upgrade path for those that need it, and - aside from converting new camera Raw files - CS4 still has a hell of a lot of clout, so John doesn't need to buy CS6.
     
  12. "If Adobe (or any other third party converter provider - they all do much the same thing) continues ad infinitum to add new camera support..."​
    Of course no one reasonably expects Adobe to provide updates ad infinitum, and I said as much above. But there is a big difference between ad infinitum and what many would consider as reasonable legacy support for a $500+ software package. CS5 was a current product a little more than 20 months ago (replaced by CS5.5 in Apr/2011) and yet I understand from reading elsewhere (here) that the latest ACR updates are not even compatible with a software suite that was being sold by Adobe less than 2 years ago.
    I understand Adobe's reasons for dropping support so quickly (the upgrade gravy train). Doesn't mean I have to agree with it.
     
  13. "John - the "stinker" should go to Adobe, not Canon. It's Adobe that can't be bothered to issue ACR updates that support newly released cameras (Nikon, Canon, et. al.) and are compatible with *both* their current and (very recent) legacy software suites. We're talking about premium priced products after all, not some $24.95 utility program." Adobe has a free solution: it's the DNG converter.
     
  14. So much for Adobe Customer Service helpline UK: having gone through all the correct button pressing to be connected to the "Buy/Upgrade/Questions about our products" section, the line simply disconnects - not just once -- four times in a row. Great customer support Adobe - I don'tr think so...
     
  15. Yes, Adobe are in it for the money. They will not sell a CS6 upgrade to CS4 owners anymore (after 31 dec 2012) so if you need it you'll have to pay the full price. And their online Photoshop version is not cheap either.
    But apart from that, do we really need Photoshop CSx? The combination of Lightroom and Elements can do a lot as well, and they are sometimes offered as a package at a very reasonable price. For earlier CSx versions the workarounds through Adobe's DNG converter and Canon's DPP are easy to use. So there are quite a few affordable options.
     
  16. Jos, I finally got through to Adobe now. As you say, no upgrade available, and CS6 is around £600 I believe. She tried to sell me a subscription service for around £17 p.m. which for someone using it professionally is probably an affordable expense, buty not something I want to pay when I have a perfectly good version of CS4 already, and the DNG workaround.
    Goodbye to new versions of Adobe! I will work just fine converting to DNG when I need to.
    In fact the Canon 6D's internal conversion to jpgs seems to do a pretty good job for the vast majority of images, in any case.
     
  17. and CS6 is around £600​
    Heh! That is a shockingly hefty pile of cash, isn't it?
     
  18. I'd rather use DPP over a plain DNG converter. At least you can use lens correction and open images at the correct style and parameter defaults. Plus, DPP as a RAW converter is a lot better than CS4 or CS5. CS6 ACR is a big improvement over prior versions but too pricy. I'm happy with Aperture, DPP and CS5.1. My ancient 7D/5D2 RAW convert fine in CS5.1 but I rarely use the RAW converter since control is so limited compared to Aperture 3.4 or DPP.
     
  19. I'd rather use DPP over a plain DNG converter.​
    DPP's sorely lacking in the noise reduction, sharpening and highlight recovery departments though (coincidentally, the three most important parameters to me) - it's really pretty thoroughly overfaced by "challenging" files, and that includes comparison with the ACR in CS5.
    ...open images at the correct style and parameter defaults​
    "Correct"? By what definition? Speaking for myself, I've yet to convert a file in DPP that I didn't then "fix" the colours of, to my requirements - Canon's Picture Styles have no relevance to my end results, so they're surely not "correct" in any objective terms.
    The only clear advantage that DPP has over most of the available Third Party converters is price, as far as I can see.
     
  20. Keith you really hate DPP!
    Actually I rarely use DPP as I do 97% of my conversions and basic tweaks (e.g., color & contrast control) in Aperture, but never sharpening. I prefer to optimize sharpening in layer masks in PS according to target file size, so applying sharpening is one of my last steps. Why? The type and amount of sharpening a web gallery image needs is very different from a print. And prints need different sharpening depending on size, subject matter, etc. Also, I tend to use selective sharpening, e.g., on an important compositional point rather than sky or dark shadows.
    As for "correct" colors, those are merely the colors you intended or imagined for your image. I like using the landscape picture style because I oft shoot late afternoon landscapes and the colors on the camera LCD more closely match what I'm shooting. The bummer about older versions of ACR is they often open sunsets with strange colors, yet they are perfect in DPP. I've rigged up profiles in Aperture to closely approximate my fav camera parameters and it saves me a lot of clicks (or a trip to DPP).
    Keith, I'm guessing it's been a long time since you seriously used DPP. I downloaded the newest version (3.12x) and gave it a go recently and while it was no Aperture or Lightroom, it was greatly improved over a couple years ago and fast and easy to use. Sure, it is not as good as CS6 ACR but the highlight, shadows, digital EC, lens correction, very tweakable NR, crop, straighten, etc., are better than Adobe's DGN converter and render an fairly polished 16-bit TIFF ready for finishing adjustments in PS. I think it's a fine temporary app for a shooter with a new camera saving up for a serious software a few months down the road. Would I want to be stuck with it forever? Hell no. But it ain't the bow-wow it once was and it's free and works well.
     
  21. Naaah, I don't hate it, I just don't rate it - and I just don't see a case for actually choosing to use it over any of the superior Raw converters out there that process DNGs.
    I'd use it if there was literally nothing else, but there is, and I'd happily take the workflow hit of converting to DNG in order to use a better converter.
    I regularly revisit DPP, incidentally - I've always got the latest version on my machine (v. 3.12.52.0 here at the moment), and - for me - it continues to come up somewhat short, particularly in its handling of highlights.
    You can't do this (from this) in DPP, but you can in Lightroom...
     
  22. The Open Source software for this is not subject to the systemic fault of the proprietary software.
    http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/
    dcraw and ufraw will convert it and the gimp will edit it, using them.
     
  23. I had exactly the same problem, but for different a different reason. I used Bridge CS4 to label and keyword all my images, and DPP for RAW conversions. Now I can't use Bridge CS4 any more, and have to buy CS6. Since CS4 is more than adequate for my PS needs, I didn't want to do that.
    Lightroom seems to be the best way around (until Canon put a decent DAM module into DPP - :) ). I haven't used LR to develop images yet, but, judging from Keith's example, I should enjoy it!
     

Share This Page