Canon 7D problem with RAW format

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by nimart, Nov 20, 2009.

  1. Hi
    Recently I have upgraded from Canon 350D to 7D.
    First of all I have to say its an amazing camera , but I have a problem with RAW format files.
    I took some RAW shots and when I upload them into my computer and wanted to open them in photoshop CS3, the answer was " could not complete your requestbeacuase it is not the right kind of document."
    Can anyone inform me what is the problem please? is it for the photoshop CS3 or what?
    Thanks in advance
  2. I know they will open in CS4.. What version of camera raw are you using?
  3. The Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) plug-in to Photoshop CS3 is not directly compatible with 7D raw files. The version of ACR that comes with CS4, if updated to the latest version, will handle these files. Also Canon's own DPP software will process the files. Another option is to use Adobe's free DNG converter to turn your 7D raws into the universal DNG raw format; your version of ACR will handle these DNGs without problem.
    You can download the DNG converter here:
    (see links on right hand side of page)
  4. Thank you Peter and thank you Ed
    I have now the photoshop Cs3 , and i think I should purchase the CS4
    and yes the Canon's own DPP software process them , but not the CS3
    thank you and best regards
  5. Why don't you just download the DNG converter from Adobe - it's free and will convert your CR2 files into DNGs, which you can open and edit with your CS3 program - no need to spend money on CS4 - might as well wait until CS5 comes out!
  6. at present the Canon's DPP software works best on the 7D, I have CS4 and use the Canon software, Adobe should be coming up with an upgrade, use DPP do the adjustments and then go to tools in DPP open in photoshop, will work just like bridge
  7. Adobe have just released updates (beta) for Camera RAW and Lightroom which support the 7D. Check the Adobe website.
  8. The new Adobe Camera Raw Release Candidate 5.6 has the new updated conversion for 7D files. You don't want to use 5.5. Also the equivalent release candidate for the DNG converter and Lightroom should be available as well. There is quite a difference between 5.5 and 5.6 when it comes to 7D raw conversion.
    I would advise using the latest DNG release candidate converter with CS3, and not updating to CS4 right now. CS5 should be out soon enough. DNG Converter is free, and I know that upgrading to CS4 now for its marginal gains for a few months would not be worthwhile for me.
  9. Download links and more info on CS4's ACR 5.6 release candidate, and the updated raw converter here:
  10. I agree with the suggestion to wait to upgrade Photoshop until CS5. Until then do as Ed and others say.
    I have found over the years that every other upgrade is usually all you need to do in the Creative Suite/Photoshop programs unless there is some mission critical new feature for what you are doing.
  11. Thank you all of you for your answers and consideration, and YES, you are right, and I have downloaded the DNG convertor and it did work well , thank you .
    best regards to all
  12. If you use ACR you will need to set the preference for the previous DNG version.
  13. I hope I'm not side-tracking this thread, but does anyone know if photoshop CS2 can open images from a 7D? I'm thinking of upgrading to a 7D but don't want the added expense of upgrading my photoshop. (Upgrading photoshop will probably entail buying a new computer as this one can barely limp along with CS2 loaded.)
    Thanks in advance.
  14. Pamela, CS2 will not open 7D files, as the version of ACR that opens them (5.5 or above) will not work with CS2. But converting the 7D's CR2 files to Adobe DNG files is a simple and free process that will work fine on your computer. Besides, DNG has some advantages when working with Adobe's software. More info on their website.
  15. Just joined and this is my second try to respond... I too just bought a 7d and can not download into my Elements 7.0. I've complained to Adobe and they just send me to a blog site. No offense, but They should have the answer! I have downloaded both files from Adobe being suggested here and neither have helped yet. I'm afraid I'll just have to wait for an update from Adobe... UNLESS anyone else has a different suggestion. thanks Jeff
  16. Jeffrey, I see nothing on that Adobe Labs page for ACR 5.6 release candidate that says it will work with Elements 7, so perhaps it won't. But the DNG converter (dngconverter5-6_r1_win_111809.exe) will convert CR2 files that should work with Elements 7. You downloaded the DNG converter from Use that to convert your CR2 files to DNG files first, and these files should work with Elements 7.
    Are you saying that you did all this and these DNG files still won't work with Elements 7? Interesting, if so.
  17. The proper download link for the DNG conversion software is:
  18. Yeah, but until Adobe releases the final version 5.6, that link will get you version 5.5. It's known to be crap for 7D files. There is a link to 5.6 at:
  19. Jim,
    Thanks for the clarification, I was trying to correct your link to Macromedia in the 01:46AM post. Seems like I've failed as well.
  20. Is there any reason to save the original CR2 along with the converted .dng?
  21. I don't save CR2 files that I have converted to DNG, but I know others do. Not sure why.
  22. Thx. I can't figure out any reason to save them either.
  23. My update from my Dec. 2nd response is that I have received another email from Adobe with the announcement that they have put out a new 5.6 Raw plug-in that supports Canon 7d. It indeed shows up on their supported list now. I followed instructions exactly and unfortunately it still does not allow me to directly import .CR2 images into Elements 7.0. In fact now I can't even open older .CR2 files that I had previously imported from 20d and 5d cameras. I have just complained again and will let you know what they say to do.
  24. Thx., Jeffrey. Let us know what happens. I use CS3 and wanted to wait to upgrade to 4. The DNG converter seems painfully slow so would be good if this plug-in works.
  25. Gerry, the latest raw plugins will never work for CS3 or older version of Potoshop. That's not the way Adobe does things. Their work around is the DNG converter. I don't know what version of PS Elements they cut off for ACR 5.0 and above, but for Photoshop you have to have CS4.
  26. Ahhh...Thx. Jim. Back to the same 'ole.
  27. I have found that when I use elements 6 that I can import cr2 files from the 7d they show up in the organiser and also they open in acr they wont do this in cs3 unless i convert to dng and also converting to dng does not solve the pink cast in highlights, pink cast also present in elements. I think I wil have to upgrade to cs4 or 5 have been told that if you upgrade to cs4 before the 12th of april you get an auto upgrade to 5(dont know for sure if this is correct and dont know if applies to student or acadademic pricing)
  28. Nima, try Ivan Image Converter software to convert your canon 7d raw files to jpg, bmp, gif, etc. Also in batch mode. See an example of RAW 7d file conversion to jpeg with this utility:
    Canon 7d cr2 file convert to jpeg with ivan image converter ---> Canon 7d jpeg file
  29. Hi
    I just upgraded from 350D to the 7D and took a few sample shoots with my old camera and my new one, using both with the same settings and in RAW and I must say I am a bit disappointed with the outcome.
    Looking at the quility, I am thinking of sending the 7D back!
    Using a 17-55mm lens.
    I also found that the smaller Raw file was much better than the a larger file.
    Did you do the same, what did you think.
    I use CS4 and don't have any problems.
  30. 100% views of images from a 8MP camera and an 18MP camera are always going to look different, Peter.
  31. Pinched from my colleague at Colin Southern:
    "if you examine pixels from a relatively low pixel camera with ones from a much higher pixel camera - both at 100% - then you're not comparing apples with apples; you'd need to compare them so that the images (or portions thereof) were the same size which may mean that the lower resolution camera gets inspected at 100%, but the higher resolution camera at only 50% (or there abouts) - and at 50% the noise will appear less.You'll never eliminate noise; the goal is to get it to a level where it's not noticeable or detectable, and correct exposure has a LOT to do with that. Sensors on modern cameras can capture around 12 stops of dynamic range, but we generally only need around 6 or them - which is good because the top 6 are pretty clean (well above the noise floor) but if you under-expose by - say - 3 stops then you're essentailly use stops 9 down to 3 of the sensors dynamic range ... and at 3 stops up from the noise floor there'll be quite a bit of noise creeping in ... and the more you under-expose, the worse it gets. If you under-exposed by 6 stops then the remaining 6 stops that you had remaining would be marginal quality at the "highlight" end, and pure noise at the other. So the first rule is to get as far away from the noise floor as possible.

    But wait, there's more ...

    When I said that we typically only need 6 or the potentially 12 stops available I lied! (sort of) - that's pretty much the case with a normal reflective scene taken during the day (even with a little backlighting) - but at night things change; the black areas aren't light reflecting off a black object (which normally reflects quite a bit of light) ... it's pure shadow (due to the fact that this thing called the earth is between your subject and the sun) - but - you have some comparitively very bright highlights in the form of lights (eg street lights) (highlights) - and then you have areas inbetween where the light level is somewhere inbetween. All of this is typically too much for the sensor to handle - but - the camera is programed to give a fair amount of weight to protecting highlights ) - not all of them, but it'll usually set the exposure such that the highlights aren't blown too badly ... but at the expense of totally under-exposed midtones. In post-processing you decide "uh - looks too dark overall (you'll be primarily looking at wide-range midtones) so you'll do whatever it takes to raise their levels and thus raise both the under-exposed midtones and a fair amount of noise that's also lurking around those areas.

    So the best way to handle night time exposures (in my opinion anyway) is to simply use manual mode and simply increase the exposure so that the MIDTONES look to be an acceptable exposure on your review screen. Yes, you'll have small areas of blown highlights from the like of street lighting, but that's just the way it is ... small areas of blown highlight from lighting looks a whole lot better than large noise areas from under-exposed midtone. Bracketing your exposures is also a good idea until you get the hang of it (and even then it's often still a good idea).

    Many cameras are only capable of taking a 30 second shot (maximum) in manual, Tv, or Av modes ... so often you'll need to put the camera in bulb mode (and preferably use a timer, unless you're a glutton for punishment). With a timer you can set something like a 16 minute exposure and then go sit in a warm car while the camera does it's thing - however - if waiting isn't your thing you can shorten the exposure by using higher ISOs - but - they also reduce dynamic range (but long exposures can also increase noise) - so often you have to find a tradeoff ... usually if I'm standing in freezing water then high ISO / less dynamic range wins!

    Having just said all that ... another technique for reducing noise is to combine multiple images of the same scene / exposure to reduce noise (it gets averaged out). It works best with high ISO (eg for 1600 ISO take 16 shots) but can also be used on low ISO shots to further improve things (so long as any movement in the capture is desireable (eg clouds) -- this is where expensive tripods win over toy tripods!"
  32. Sorry...that's spelled coloUr the Yank way!

Share This Page