CS5 to CC- worth it?

Discussion in 'Digital Darkroom' started by david_simonds|1, Jan 24, 2017.

  1. It is time to get a new box, and that means a new Photoshop install. My trusty Dell is about 6 years old and has been showing signs of dementia - blue screens, freezing and random powering off. I am fine with getting a replacement as my file size for processing has grown with medium and large format files that exceed 400mb. I also want to reconfigure the computer using a dedicated SSD for the OS, Photoshop and LR, and out of box access/storage.
    I have worked with Photoshop since PS5 and currently have used CS5 for many years. I would be happy to transfer that program to my new box, but that is not possible because the CS5 I have installed was the result of various upgrades from PS5 over several years. And I understand that the program can not be transferred in whole cloth to my new processor. It appears I can get a new copy of CS5 (legit) for about $150. The subscription based service is about $120 per year. The math only works if there are significant advantages of CC over CS5, and whatever else Adobe offers for incentives. I also use LR for my preliminary processing and have access to a new version of that as a premium for a new camera I purchased. Consequently, are whatever improvements over CS5 that CC offers at present truly worth a decisive increase in cost over time with the subscription-based CC. Thanks for your thoughts.
     
  2. I would be happy to transfer that program to my new box, but that is not possible because the CS5 I have installed was the result of various upgrades from PS5 over several years.​
    Are you certain you can't transfer? A license is a license - though you may be required to enter the serial number from the version that you upgraded from (all that should be available from your adobe account). I had to install CS6 on a new build; there was no problem whatsoever even though the license for CS6 was from an upgrade path starting with CS4 on a different computer.
    Now, for the longest time, I have resisted the move to the subscription model but recently bit the bullet. I still don't like the model one bit; the thought to eternally pay for the use of a piece of software grates on me to no end. But, RAW files from our latest cameras can no longer be processed in CS6 and it was either giving up on adobe altogether (which I would have done if I were the sole decision maker) or cave in. Their DNG converter really isn't a solution (or they could just build the damn thing into their ACR and LR RAW converter).
    Now, there are quite a few additions to CS5 made already in CS6, and even more came with the various upgrades to CC. Whether or not any of them are important enough for you to upgrade is something only you can decide. You mention that you have a newer version of LR (I assume its LR6); if that works for you then there might not be a good enough reason to move to photoshop CC.
     
  3. Thanks, mate. I am with you on the the subscription model which is akin to digital hostage-taking. I have a law office program that I purchased several years ago, and kept up with a yearly service contract. The company decided to withdraw support and required a transition to a subscription based service which costs three times the yearly service contract. Brilliant for them. Not so much for the customer. As for moving the PS program from the old box to the new one, my understanding is that with the upgraded versions, the program must detect, on the new box, an earlier version as an upgrade path just as it did with the initial install. It is likely moot as I can not locate the CS5 disc anyway. Agree with you that the combination of the new LR and CS5 is likely to give me what I want. Actually, this evening I found a sealed extended version on Ebay for $164 - about the same as a year and a half of the subscripted service.
    Cheers
     
  4. The cost of a CC subscription to PS and LR is less than the cost of updating stand-alone copies. If you are still using CS5, that may not be an high priority for you. With CC, you get frequent updates at no additional charge, and new versions when they come out.
    I keep the full CC package on two computers, and recently purchased a separate subscription to PS/LR for two laptops, a Lenovo and a MacBookPro. CC programs will continue to work for about 2 months if you drop your subscription or work without access to the internet. Personally, I think PS and LR are worth the equivalent of five rolls of film with processing.
    You don't need your original disc with CS products, just the original serial number. You can download the new version and activate it. I think updates are complete programs, not stubs, but I could be wrong. You can have Adobe products installed on up to two computers. If you have a third computer, one of the others must be deactivated online. Adobe has been very helpful when problems arise, including authorizing activations if the old computer is lost for some reason.
    If you don't have a secure log of your serial numbers and passwords, make one! I use "Datavault Password Manager,", which synchronizes across all my computers and iOS devices via iCloud.
     
  5. my understanding is that with the upgraded versions, the program must detect, on the new box, an earlier version as an upgrade path just as it did with the initial install.​
    This has not been my experience; during the install, one just needs to provide the serial number of the upgrade and the serial number of the version that is eligible for the upgrade.
    Adobe has been very helpful when problems arise, including authorizing activations if the old computer is lost for some reason.​
    Took me 2 hours on the phone and via live chat to resolve the issue that CS4 did not allow to enter the serial number of an eligible product to authorize the upgrade and finish the install. Since adobe was clearly at fault in that instant, "helpful" is not a word I'd pick to describe them. I could barely avoid having a "case number" assigned and the issue transferred back to the US, which surely would have added more delays into the process.
     
  6. I have called on Adobe several time for administrative support with excellent results. On the other hand, their response on technical issues has been less than satisfactory. For example, Adobe Media Encoder freezes at random intervals when compiling video under Apple Sierra. It's a three-way firing squad between Apple, InVidia (graphics card) and Adobe.
    Products prior to Adobe CS required you to have an original, full copy disc to reinstall the product. You could then install the latest update, skipping any intermediate updates. With CS all you need is the original serial number. With CC, all you need is an active account to load current and legacy products.
    The more you know about computers, the harder it is to get answers ;)
     
  7. Thanks, gents, for your insights.
     
  8. I reluctantly made the same jump for much the same reason, but it was an old iMac to new one. I still don't like the subscription model, but am living with it. It has taken a while, but I am working with the CC versions of LR and PS and it is fine. However, it is possible that the plugins you used in CS5 may not work with or be available for CC. That part was a bit frustrating, but like any change -- you learn to move on. I still with I had my 1052 MGTD.
     
  9. As an alternative to Photoshop, if you do not like subscription and yet want a piece of software that's still officially supported, have a look at Affinity Photo (available for Mac and Windows). It's a bit different in operation, a lot cheaper, perpertual license and very competent.
     
  10. There are many alternatives to Photoshop, and one of these is Gimp, which is entirely free. However much they are "like" Photoshop, they are far less capable. The depth and scope of Photoshop are obvious advantages. Not so obvious is the fact that Adobe products communicate amongst themselves, exchanging files and settings. The most important advantage is the huge number of users, from whom you can seek help and exchange projects. I work with a number of graphic designers with which exchange is an important activity.
    Creative Cloud has opened ownership of Photoshop and other Adobe products to a lot more users. When I bought my first stand-alone copy, over 20 years ago, the cost was substantial - nearly $500. That increased over the years to nearly $800, and I was spending nearly $200 every 1-1/2 years for updates. You don't have to be made of money to use the very best photo software available.
    I sound like an Adobe salesman, but my motives are innocent. I have no fiduciary association with Adobe. I have used many "like" or "as good as" products over the years, only to find it difficult or impossible to do some things. There are often problems with backward (or sideways) compatibility. The user base is minuscule (by comparison). On several occasions, the product has simply faded away, leaving me with a rapidly aging "solution." Perhaps the adage, "Buy cheap, buy twice" applies to software too.
     
  11. Affinity may be something of a game changer here, though. Their applications are well thought out, obviously taking cues from PS but not afraid to do things differently. They also interoperate well and are designed as components of a suite. Some things are faster and easier than they are on PS. There aren't any significant missing features for my needs, though of course your mileage may vary - e.g., raw processing isn't competitive with ACR and there's not yet anything to replace Lightroom (though a DAM application is on the roadmap).
    I can see the CC rental model suits a lot of people, though for us it amounts to a big price hike - we'd need a full subscription to replace the old CS Design Standard suite, and the annual charge under the terms of our (academic) site licence costs about the same as the old CS DS perpetual licence (which we might not have upgraded for the ~5 year lifespan of a PC). Affinity is going to be pretty popular around here.
     
  12. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    If you need to convert to dng in order to open raws with CS5, then yes I would upgrade to CC in order to cut that dng conversion step out of your workflow
     
  13. Their DNG converter really isn't a solution (or they could just build the damn thing into their ACR and LR RAW converter).​
    It IS built int Lightroom and has been pretty much from day one. ACR can save a DNG too.
    Now, if you have an OLDER version of either, and a NEWER camera that it doesn't support, because those bad camera manufacturers are always slightly changing their raw formats with every new camera, for no reason, then you would need the DNG converter which too, would have to be updated to understand this new raw file.
     
  14. CC is the way to go and has many improved tools over CS5 though much of it is still the same some things just are easier and faster, especially the selection tools. Do I need to say IMHO?
     
  15. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    You can say it, Barry
     
  16. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    It IS built int Lightroom and has been pretty much from day one. ACR can save a DNG too.​
    You misunderstood what Dieter said.
     
  17. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    Their DNG converter really isn't a solution (or they could just build the damn thing into their ACR and LR RAW converter).​
    No kidding. And furthermore, if it was built in and people didn't have to download it separately, dng might actually gain traction instead of waning.
    Now, for the longest time, I have resisted the move to the subscription model but recently bit the bullet. I still don't like the model one bit; the thought to eternally pay for the use of a piece of software grates on me to no end.​
    I love it, actually. It's much easier to install and jump to different computers with it. Best though is that before the subscription CC model, Adobe stock was $35. Now it's $112! I'd buy more ABDE as Adobe just announced that they will be releasing their mobile apps on the Google Chromebooks and for free! This is kind of a big deal. Do I need to say IMHO?
     
  18. You misunderstood what Dieter said.​
    As is often the case, you misunderstood what I said and the facts behind what each product can do with respect to DNG; they (Adobe) could and did build the damn thing into ACR and LR.
     
  19. You misunderstood what Dieter said.​
    I wasn't very clear, apparently. I wasn't talking about saving as DNG but opening/converting a RAW file (even one that isn't supported by ACR/LR). I get a new camera and my older version of ACR/LR can't deal with it. Yet, a DNG converter is made available to convert the RAW file to DNG and then I can open that DNG file in my old ACR/LR version. Just adds a step to the workflow. So why can't I get a that same new DNG converter as part of ACR/LR and could do an update and save that additional step? All I want is to eliminate that extra step.I had to deal with this once before when using a Sony NEX cameras; it was a royal pain in the neck to deal with.
    because those bad camera manufacturers are always slightly changing their raw formats with every new camera, for no reason​
    Hmmh, so adobe can get me a DNG converter that reads that file without issue but not ACR?
    I found it quite petty from adobe to update LR6's RAW converter but leave CS6 ACR behind; they could at least have been kept in sync. After all, I paid a lot more for CS6 than for LR6. Problem is, I don't like LR at all; I hate to have to wait for the import that adds no functionality for me and I very much prefer the look and feel of ACR over that of the LR develop module.
    I love it, actually.​
    What I don't like is the following: before subscription, I paid $600 for CS4, then updated to CS5 and CS6 at $199 a pop (mostly because of the confusing information adobe released regarding eligibility for upgrades). Once I paid for the license, the program is mine to use as long as I want (with the caveat that I don't get updates and can't easily deal with new cameras). Now, with the subscription model, I can pay for 10 or 20 years and once I stop paying, after some grace period, I have NOTHING! Can't process a single image with a program I paid thousands of dollars for over the years. I might then revert back to CS6, and if I faithfully saved my images as TIFF (and not as PSD), I might even be able to open them again.
     
  20. I wasn't talking about saving as DNG but opening/converting a RAW file (even one that isn't supported by ACR/LR). I get a new camera and my older version of ACR/LR can't deal with it. Yet, a DNG converter is made available to convert the RAW file to DNG and then I can open that DNG file in my old ACR/LR version. Just adds a step to the workflow.​
    Here's how it works. A new camera is introduced and it's raw file has been changed since the last, only a bit. This format has to be hacked by all manufacturers so they can access that data. Adobe had to get a copy of that new raw file and decide the tiny differences and update BOTH the DNG converter and every product they support (LR and ACR). This is true for all raw converter companies.
    When Adobe updates ACR or LR they also update the FREE DNG converter. This is to allow people like David to convert and then use the DNG in older copies of ACR like he has in CS5. He is not forced to upgrade his copy of Photoshop and ACR to access this data. But the facts are, both the free DNG converter OR any newer copy of ACR or LR also have to be updated too. IF you subscribe to the Adobe plan, your updated copy will support the newer proprietary raw file. So all this is a lot of work for Adobe and every raw converter software company and it's rather pointless (you'll note, the second a new camera comes to market, it's JEPG can be read but not it's proprietary raw; until everyone hacks the new format so this is rather pointless).
    FACT: ACR and LR can convert a proprietary raw it supports, to DNG. This IS built into both ACR and LR. Just like the DNG converter. However, IF you had all three today, and tomorrow, Canon or Nikon released a new camera, NONE would support that raw file. Nor would any other companies converters. The day ACR or LR updates support for this new camera, it can open the proprietary raw and of course, convert it to DNG because this is built into the products. And the DNG converter would also ship so people like Dave can convert and use that raw file in an older version of ACR or LR.
    The fact is simply this: converting to DNG, either to support a newer camera in an older product OR to use the advantages to the format, and there are many, is built into all Adobe raw converters. Specific support for a raw from a specific camera only takes place after Adobe gets their hands on a raw to figure out what (and again why) the file changed so they can update all three products.
    So why can't I get a that same new DNG converter as part of ACR/LR and could do an update and save that additional step?​
    There is no 'additional' step in LR other than asking it to convert upon import.
    Now the question photographers who care about this silliness should be be asking is this:
    WHY does the manufacturers change their raws for every new camera and not provide at least a beta sample to the manufacturers so we don't have to wait for them to support all their converters?
    WHY isn't there a switch on the cameras that has a 3rd option:DNG? Like we have for JPEG. If that were the case, no conversions to a file format some of us prefer over a proprietary raw.
    But for those who do not want to use DNG but want access to the proprietary raws, as David would need using ACR in CS5 in say a new Canon, he has to convert to DNG. And that is completely due to the camera manufacturers. And again, the facts are, the ability to convert to DNG is built into both ACR and LR.
    Hmmh, so adobe can get me a DNG converter that reads that file without issue but not ACR?​
    Yes, because Adobe isn't going to update ACR from Photoshop 7 because hundreds of newer camera have been released since that all have different proprietary raws for no reason. And the reason there are perhaps hundreds of new and different raws since Photoshop 7 is due to the camera manufacturers. Do you know how much JPEG has changed since Photoshop 7? Not a lick.
    I found it quite petty from adobe to update LR6's RAW converter but leave CS6 ACR behind; they could at least have been kept in sync.​
    The same versions will be on parity for support of raws but not necessarily on the same day or even week (two teams developing two products). IOW, LR6 gets updates for new cameras as does ACR and both will support the same cameras. Perpetual license holders will not get new features but will get bug fixes and cameras support for a time after which a new version will ship (say version 6.5 or 7), then the line is drawn in the sand, just like it was with Photoshop 7, then CS, the CS2 etc. For those people, Adobe does NOT force them to upgrade to use new cameras. The provide the FREE DNG converter.
    Bottom line: IF Adobe releases a version of the free DNG converter to support a new camera, they will update ACR and LR to do the same but it may not happen simultaneously. It often does and you can see this at the DNG converter download page.
     
  21. if it was built in and people didn't have to download it separately, dng might actually gain traction instead of waning.​
    And yet, on this planet, it IS built-in. On Planet Eric, within the unreality bubble of alternative facts, maybe not. ON this planet, both ACR and LR can convert a proprietary raw to DNG just like the free DNG Converter IF and only IF it has been updated to support the newer proprietary raw which the manufacturers love to alter for every new release. IF neither ACR nor LR nor the free DNG converter yet support the new camera, what's built in is moot; they do not understand this new raw file (yet). And there's little reason why manufacturers need to produce this condition for a few week/months not only for Adobe but EVERY 3rd party raw converter.

    IF ACR and LR SUPPORT that newer camera, it will open the proprietary raw.
    IF ACR and LR SUPPORT that newer camera, it will CONVERT the proprietary raw to DNG if one desires.
    The ability to convert to DNG IS built into both LR and ACR on Planet Earth.
    I don’t know if you are purposely trying not to understand this, or if you are really struggling with it. But that's a consistent behavior from Planet Eric.
     
  22. Getting back to facts from this planet, for Dave, some of the more useful new features IMHO for photographers from CS 5 are:
    Content Aware Tools: https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/content-aware-patch-move.html
    ACR as a filter (on individual layers too): https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/how-to/camera-raw-filter.html
    ACR itself has undergone lots of new functionally. PV2012 alone is worth the upgrade!
     
  23. I doubt supporting a new raw format is a particularly onerous task for a company with the resources of Adobe. Making a new Camera Matching profile probably takes them longer, and for me a camera is not fully supported until this is available. Raw changes are often trivial, sometimes no more than a different string in the Model tag, especially for incremental updates of cameras from the same manufacturer that share the same sensor. Dave Coffin has been updating dcraw singlehandedly for well over a decade, and his code supports every significant raw format in 10k lines of C.
     
  24. I doubt supporting a new raw format is a particularly onerous task for a company with the resources of Adobe.​
    Yes and no. It's time consuming for Adobe and all other companies, big and small, who make raw converters. They still have to hack the format which is pretty trivial (I've spoken to the engineers about this). Then they have to build cross platform installers. Then they have to seed this to both outside beta testers (I am one) and internal Q&E to test. They have to update the web pages. They have to inform their users about all this. This takes unnecessary time and resources!
    So yes, while it's not 'big engineering' it's still pointless! It delays you and I and others who may have a new camera, from using the raw converter they desire. But not a JPEG we don't use. It's a pointless waste of time; Nikon, Canon and others are not hiding anything, the new proprietary raws are eventually decoded and supported so what's the point?

    Why not either send a pre released raw to anyone who creates a raw converter and signs an NDA and let them get access to the new proprietary raw before release, so they can have support the day the camera ships? Or just create an openly documented raw format? Or have a switch to optionally create a DNG?

    The current behavior from camera manufacturers doesn't serve customers well; the raw is OUR data. They have no problem with a JPEG, why go through this silly dance every time a new camera comes out?

    Worse, photographers who should be upset by this silliness, don't make a stink and the manufacturers don't care if this affects Adobe or anyone else who writes a raw converter. So we photographers can get on the bus and complain and complain or, do the opposite, dismiss DNG or the idea of an openly documented raw. Now what good does that do us?
     
  25. Why not either send a pre released raw to anyone who creates a raw converter and signs an NDA and let them get access to the new proprietary raw before release, so they can have support the day the camera ships?​
    Oddly enough, the last two cameras I bought, the Nikon D800 and the Fuji X100T, were both supported by ACR either before or at the time they were available in the shops, at least where I live:
    http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2012/03/adobe-camera-raw-6-7-and-dng-converter-6-7-available-on-adobe-labs.html
    http://www.theverge.com/2012/1/26/2749019/nikon-d800
    http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2014/11/camera-raw-8-7-and-dng-converter-8-7-now-available.html
    http://www.fujixseries.com/forums/topic/7798-uk-release-date/
    This suggests Adobe is getting relatively early access to raw files, at least from some major manufacturers.
     
  26. I am quite certain I am not the only one who wishes that Nikon would stop their efforts on creating their own processing software and instead reveal their "secret sauce" to those who offer RAW converters "for a living".
     
  27. This suggests Adobe is getting relatively early access to raw files, at least from some major manufacturers.​
    Consider yourself lucky!
    https://photofocus.com/2014/06/10/why-cant-i-open-raw-files-in-my-photoshop-or-lightroom/
    The average turnaround time for a new camera is 90 days. Meaning that a new camera typically takes 90 days to be added to the supported list. Sometimes this is faster if the manufacturer provides a testing camera to Adobe early (or if the camera is just a minor update). However I have seen it take more and less time than this. Adobe’s testing process is very thorough. If you want to request a specific camera you can do that here on the Adobe Feedback Site.
     
  28. The average turnaround time for a new camera is 90 days. Meaning that a new camera typically takes 90 days to be added to the supported list.
    I don't think that 90 day delay can mean 90 days from when the cameras appear in the shops, at least for major brands like Nikon and Canon. For example, ACR 9.5 supported 5 new dSLRs from Canon and Nikon, none of which you could actually get hold of at the time of its release (in some cases not for another month or two). I'm guessing that Adobe sees the cameras or their files around the time they are 'announced', which is often months before they are available in quantity to mere mortals. Of course, things may have been worse in the past, e.g. when Nikon was still competing as a raw converter vendor (it still supplies raw conversion software, but no longer charges for it), and I don't know what the situation is for the smaller brands.
    I am quite certain I am not the only one who wishes that Nikon would stop their efforts on creating their own processing software and instead reveal their "secret sauce" to those who offer RAW converters "for a living".​
    I'm not really sure Adobe etc. would be interested. The raw files hold few secrets for them. Some of the Nikon Makernote metadata tags were (and I think still are) encrypted, a silly move by Nikon that they haven't extended since, but the decryption code is freely available in dcraw, and Adobe uses code provided by Nikon itself for legal reasons. The rest of the NEF structure is standard stuff. If there's a 'secret sauce', it's in the camera profiling and raw conversion algorithms, which are buried in Nikon's conversion software rather than their raw files. Adobe of course does its own profiling and has its own algorithms.
     
  29. Richard, is 9 days even acceptable considering there's NO reason for ANY delay?
    A photographer buys a camera and drops a few grand. He wishes to utilize the raw data he owns and can't in a software product he wishes to use. He is forced to use a JPEG (begging the question, why is that file format OK) OR a software product, the manufacturers supply, he doesn't wish to use.
    Do you think the time to decide update software products for the new raw is free? Would you do the work for no compensation? So there is a cost in time and money and the net result for the camera manufactures is the same; they delay every 3rd party raw converter from acceding the data, then they don't.
    How can this be justified?
    I'm guessing that Adobe sees the cameras or their files around the time they are 'announced', which is often months before they are available in quantity to mere mortals​
    Indeed, you're guessing. I can state that as I've been privy to HOW specific Adobe engineers get some raw files for this task. But again, why should this even be an issue in the first place? The raw data will eventually find it's way to Adobe and other companies and there will be a delay for some. How do you justify this when the net result is, after the first 9 or 90 days of delay, the data is accessible to everyone else who needs to support that raw data. In what way is this acceptable or necessary?
    This has nothing to do with technology and everything to do with politics, bad politics. It doesn't serve the customer base and just adds costs to the software products we wish to use.
    I'm not really sure Adobe etc. would be interested. The raw files hold few secrets for them.​
    Agreed, plus, proprietary metadata, proprietary anything IS proprietary. Adobe isn't going to hand over the code for how they create Layer Blends to Nikon nor should they nor would Nikon be interested.
     
  30. Nikon software provides an easy way to convert their raw images to DNG format, which can be edited by nearly every photo program, including Photoshop and Lightroom, until ACR caught up. That's how I had to handle Hasselblad digital images, in lieu of Phocus, which was and remains a kludge to use. Leica had the uncommonly good sense to make DNG their intrinsic format.
     
  31. How can this be justified?
    I'm afraid I find it terribly difficult to get worked up about this, especially when it seems to be a complete non-issue for all recent Nikon and Canon dSLRs. With ACR 9.5 you couldn't, as far as I can tell, find the 5 newly supported Canon and Nikon dSLRs in the shops until after Adobe had released its software. ACR 9.6 didn't support any new SLRs. Immediate adopters of the 2 new dSLRs supported in ACR 9.7 might have had to wait a week (or even two weeks!) for Adobe to crank out the release, but I suspect the world didn't end for them. No camera makers have any particular obligation to help third party software developers do business, and Adobe has no special status here. The only thing that would really concern me would be (e.g.) a fully encrypted raw file that could not be trivially reverse-engineered.
    Indeed, you're guessing. I can state that as I've been privy to HOW specific Adobe engineers get some raw files for this task.​
    Late night Ninja raids? Kompromat operations in shady Russian hotel rooms? Or did they just ask nicely when the cameras were announced, approximately 90 days before they hit the shops?
    It doesn't serve the customer base and just adds costs to the software products we wish to use.​
    Pretty much my experience of the CC rental model :)
    Nikon software provides an easy way to convert their raw images to DNG format, which can be edited by nearly every photo program, including Photoshop and Lightroom, until ACR caught up.​
    Do you mean Adobe software? - I don't think Nikon has ever supported DNG in its own software, unless this has changed recently.
     
  32. I'm afraid I find it terribly difficult to get worked up about this, especially when it seems to be a complete non-issue for all recent Nikon and Canon dSLRs.​
    I am afraid to state, that's simply not the case and there was a MAJOR shitstorm just recently over the release of the Canon 5DM IV over this lack of support for the raw file, ongoing for a couple weeks. Perhaps you missed it or it didn't affect you personally. It didn't affect me personally either but none the less, there were a rather large and vocal number of posts about this in a number of forums directed at photographers and software users, just in case you don't venture out of the PhotoNet forums.
    Late night Ninja raids? Kompromat operations in shady Russian hotel rooms? Or did they just ask nicely when the cameras were announced, approximately 90 days before they hit the shops?​
    Well I have experience in the past, where beta testers of both an unnamed camera company and Adobe went rouge and supplied a raw file so Adobe could begin decoding the raw in a more timely fashion. There's simply no need for this! And no, you haven't justified the behavior, only text that states, this isn't getting you worked up. That's fine. It isn't true for others. And I'm suggesting, it shouldn’t.
    IF software companies that build raw processors had access to the raws, in advance, we'd see them supporting those cameras the day that camera ships. Which software products did so?
    Pretty much my experience of the CC rental model :)
    This behavior affects all 3rd party software companies that produce a raw converter. So if you don't care how it affects Adobe, fine. It also affects the one man band software developer (case in point Iridient Developer) on up. Why should it, that's the $64K question I've asked but haven't heard an answer.

    Look at the history of photographers getting pushed around because they don't band together, by and large, be it how big stock agencies treat them, how copyrights are enforced, or how a few big camera companies force their practices on our raw data; lemmings. You're either on the bus supporting the rights of photographers and/or even just consumers of cameras, or you're not. As such, that's one reason why I do find it terribly important to get worked up! You don't have to; that's fine. Some of us are working in our industry to affect a change. Be it by memberships in organizations like the APA or ASMP or by just being vocal on-line to other's about this issue. Dismissing that this is an issue isn't helpful towards that goal. Being unable to justify this condition is even more disheartening.
     
  33. ted_marcus|1

    ted_marcus|1 Ted R. Marcus

    Their DNG converter really isn't a solution​
    Why not? When I got a new camera that CS5 did not support, I considered the various options of buying Lightroom, renting CC, or using some other third-party converter. Then I tried the Adobe DNG converter, and found it a reasonable and cost-effective solution.
    Copying the files from the memory card to my computer's hard disk has always been the first step in my workflow. Now I use the DNG converter for this task. The DNG converter can traverse all the directories on the card and move the files to a single directory in one step. That's actually more convenient than manually copying the files from each directory. While the copying process does take longer when each file has to be converted to DNG, I don't find it a significant inconvenience. The converted DNG files are also about 10% smaller than the native Canon CR2 files, which does make a difference when archived to Blu-Ray disks.
    While I have not become a zealous evangelist for DNG, I do consider the converter a reasonable alternative for anyone who finds a "legacy" version of Photoshop adequate and doesn't want to rent the latest version. It also provides the possibility (though no guarantee) of future-proofing the converted raw files for archiving.
     
  34. Why not?​
    Why not indeed Ted! We've got two kinds of discussions here with respect to DNG (which is a tad OT but was asked about). The first is factual and based on technology, software, and engineering. The facts about converting DNGs, how and where this can happen were provided. Despite one poster telling me (us) I misunderstood the question. The facts among others is this: ACR and LR do have a built in DNG converter.

    The 2nd kind of discussion about DNG involves politics. I don't find it useful to discuss politics or religion, especially on a forum about digital imaging. At least one person here will attempt to dive into the politics of DNG and it's a massive waste of time coming from a Planet that's a vortex of confusion. Ignore it!
    Then I tried the Adobe DNG converter, and found it a reasonable and cost-effective solution.​
    IF you do not wish to upgrade your copy of ACR/LR to use a newer camera, the facts are yes, it is cost effective as it cost ($$) nothing and the time it takes to process the data, after setup is moot; move along at another task while this happens. Kind of like backing up your computer. You can sit there and watch, or you can let it happen when you're sleeping. Some, those who wish to ignore facts and aim at politics, will tell you how long it takes to convert those raws and it is probably because they are the kind of user who would sit there and watch, and then bitch about it. Ignore them.
     
  35. The 2nd kind of discussion about DNG involves politics. I don't find it useful to discuss politics or religion, especially on a forum about digital imaging.​
    And, any day now, I'll be told some of my text above was in reference to the politics of DNG; guilty as I'll be charged. So I'll update my text:
    The 2nd kind of discussion about DNG involves politics. I don't find it useful to argue politics or religion, especially on a forum about digital imaging.
    As to the why we have to wait for camera support, DNG or otherwise, the facts have been provided.
     
  36. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    Their DNG converter really isn't a solution (or they could just build the damn thing into their ACR and LR RAW converter). - Dieter
    It IS built int Lightroom and has been pretty much from day one. ACR can save a DNG too.
    Now, if you have an OLDER version of either, and a NEWER camera that it doesn't support, because those bad camera manufacturers are always slightly changing their raw formats with every new camera, for no reason, then you would need the DNG converter which too, would have to be updated to understand this new raw file. - Andrew
    I wasn't very clear, apparently. I wasn't talking about saving as DNG but opening/converting a RAW file (even one that isn't supported by ACR/LR). I get a new camera and my older version of ACR/LR can't deal with it. Yet, a DNG converter is made available to convert the RAW file to DNG and then I can open that DNG file in my old ACR/LR version. Just adds a step to the workflow. - Dieter​

    Dieter, you were very clear to everyone. Your writing is great. Andrew on the other hand often misses key words in peoples questions and posts. Another tendency for him, perhaps a greater one, is to argue with people (It IS built int Lightroom) and then complete his statement by saying the same thing (you would need the DNG converter which too) you originally stated. That "camera profiles" thread was classic.

    Fun place, argue.net
     
  37. Dieter, you were very clear to everyone.​
    Eric has a bad habit of speaking for others (including Dieter) and so poorly for himself.
    Another tendency for him, perhaps a greater one, is to argue with people (It IS built int Lightroom) and then complete his statement by saying the same thing (you would need the DNG converter which too) you originally stated.​
    Eric has a bad habit of not understanding simple text. The DNG converter is built into LR. The version? It may be an older one which wouldn't support a newer camera. Eric is unable to understand simple and factual sentences such as:
    IF ACR and LR SUPPORT that newer camera, it will open the proprietary raw.
    IF ACR and LR SUPPORT that newer camera, it will CONVERT the proprietary raw to DNG if one desires.
    IF a copy of LR, which of course has the ability to convert proprietary raws to DNG is older than the standalone free copy of the DNG converter AND one needs to convert a newer camera, indeed, they will need the newer DNG converter. Case in point (just to connect the dots for Eric who's not the sharpest knife in the drawer): You have LR4 and you buy a new Canon 5D Mark IV. That converter which IS built into LR will not be new enough to convert the data into a DNG (LR 6 could Eric). But you don't wish to upgrade to LR6 because it's new features would confuse you. So you MUST download the newer free DNG converter to to convert that Canon proprietary raw so you could work with that data in LR4.
    That "camera profiles" thread was classic.​
    It was indeed! It had fact based text from me, dismissing your silly ideas that these profiles were not called "DNG Camera Profiles". It provided actual text, from Adobe using that exact terminology! It did, as usual, make your writings look foolish. I could state that it made the text appear foolish to everyone but you. I however, unlike you, can't speak for others. But no one came to your defense because I suspect, most readers who desire facts, not alternative facts from the unreality bubble you post from, don't take you seriously.
    Fun place, argue.net​
    More like foolish text.net from Planet Eric. Net or whatever site you are so proud to post from:
    “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” -Søren Kierkegaard
     
  38. ted_marcus|1

    ted_marcus|1 Ted R. Marcus

    The 2nd kind of discussion about DNG involves politics.​
    I suppose, although I'd call it "business" rather than "politics." Adobe essentially gives users a choice of ways they can contribute to Adobe's mission of maximizing shareholder value.
    The preferred way is to directly contribute to Adobe's revenue stream by paying monthly or annual rent for the use of their industry-standard software. Many users are very happy to do that, often because their livelihood depends on that software. They find the rental model a cost-effective way to ensure that they always have the latest updates, including support for the latest camera raw files (as soon as Adobe can reverse-engineer them).
    Other users, mainly those whose livelihood does not depend on Adobe software, find the rental model unacceptable. But Adobe gives those users another option. They can continue to use their obsolete legacy software with new cameras by converting the unsupported raw files to DNG, using software Adobe provides free of charge.
    How does that benefit Adobe? DNG is Adobe's solution to the problem of proliferating raw file formats. Adobe would surely prefer that camera manufacturers recognize the benefits of that standard, and voluntarily abandon their proprietary formats in favor of DNG. It would make things so much easier for Adobe, and probably benefit users as well (although I'll admit the benefit to camera manufacturers is much less clear, particularly those like Nikon that sell raw converters as an extra-cost accessory). But until that happens, promoting a growing base of DNG users is another way to increase the viability of that standard and encourage camera manufactures to see the light.
    There is no free lunch. But at least for now, Adobe is willing to let users of legacy software obtain support for newer cameras free of charge, in exchange for helping Adobe advance the DNG standard and adding a trifling extra step to their workflow. If you're not willing to rent the current version of Photoshop, and you're satisfied with CS5 (or whatever legacy version you have), I consider the free DNG converter a very good alternative. I don't understand why anyone would object to that.
     
  39. I suppose, although I'd call it "business" rather than "politics." Adobe essentially gives users a choice of ways they can contribute to Adobe's mission of maximizing shareholder value.​
    Not sure how providing a free product, that allows customer to refrain from having to upgrade their raw processors maximizes shareholder value. I'm not an expert on such matters nor play one on TV.
    But at least for now, Adobe is willing to let users of legacy software obtain support for newer cameras free of charge, in exchange for helping Adobe advance the DNG standard and adding a trifling extra step to their workflow.​
    I guess it depends if their customers feel that the DNG container (which is based on TIFF and which Adobe also owns) is such a better mousetrap that said customers will purchase their products. And of course, Adobe isn't the only company who's raw converters support the DNG format (or TIFF). I've got several raw converter 'back up's' that support DNG just in case I need to make an Adobe exit plan workout.
    I consider the free DNG converter a very good alternative. I don't understand why anyone would object to that.​
    I don't understand either but there you go, if Adobe provided a cure for cancer and gave it away, some would object. Some like to object out of their own ignorance and that's been illustrated here on a regular basis. A Virus perhaps? ;-)
     
  40. I am afraid to state, that's simply not the case and there was a MAJOR shitstorm just recently over the release of the Canon 5DM IV over this lack of support for the raw file, ongoing for a couple weeks. Perhaps you missed it or it didn't affect you personally. It didn't affect me personally either but none the less, there were a rather large and vocal number of posts about this in a number of forums directed at photographers and software users, just in case you don't venture out of the PhotoNet forums.​
    Storm in a tea cup is more like it. The 5D IV was released in Japan on September 8th. It had started to become more generally available in international markets by mid-September. ACR 9.7 was released on 20 September (and at least one Open Source converter had announced support by the end of August, without any fuss). I can see some posts about this on Adobe forums and elsewhere in the days in between, mostly quite calm (except for 'thedigitaldog', who seems a little upset about all this in an oddly familiar style :) ).
    Do I think it would be better for all raw formats to be fully documented by the manufacturers? Yes, of course! On this at least I think we agree. But that isn't the same thing as expecting it to happen any time soon, or feeling that the camera companies should be obliged to provide advance access to all third party software developers (though that would be a nice gesture). As I'm often told about certain software companies - if I'm not a fan of how they operate, I'm free to shop elsewhere (DNG-native cameras are available, so if you feel strongly about this, the best way to send a message to the manufacturers is to buy them).
    Meanwhile, Adobe and others are doing a good job of supporting mainstream dSLRs around the time of release (within a few days of, or often before, the shipping date, for all recent Canon and Nikon models I've checked). It's hard for me to see a delay of a week or two at most as anything other than a minor inconvenience, and I'm sure I'd see it the same way if it affected me directly. I'd draw the line at (e.g.) fully encrypted raw files, though - there's a big difference between not going out of your way to help third party developers with your latest minor tweaks to a well understood raw format, and actively blocking others from accessing the data. The Nikon white balance metadata thing was bad enough, and worth making a fuss about.
     
  41. The nerve of some customers; they drop $3500 on a camera body and bitch having to wait 12 days to access their raw data, in the raw processor they wish to use.
     
  42. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    Their DNG converter really isn't a solution (or they could just build the damn thing into their ACR and LR RAW converter). - Dieter
    It IS built int Lightroom and has been pretty much from day one. ACR can save a DNG too.
    Now, if you have an OLDER version of either, and a NEWER camera that it doesn't support, because those bad camera manufacturers are always slightly changing their raw formats with every new camera, for no reason, then you would need the DNG converter which too, would have to be updated to understand this new raw file. - Andrew
    I wasn't very clear, apparently. I wasn't talking about saving as DNG but opening/converting a RAW file (even one that isn't supported by ACR/LR). I get a new camera and my older version of ACR/LR can't deal with it. Yet, a DNG converter is made available to convert the RAW file to DNG and then I can open that DNG file in my old ACR/LR version. Just adds a step to the workflow. - Dieter​
    Clear and comprehensible to almost everyone. Perhaps spell it out to Andrew the next time with "Their DNG converter really isn't a solution (or they could just build the damn thing into their ACR and LR RAW converter) instead of making us download it separately."
     
  43. Clear and comprehensible to almost everyone​
    Speaking for others again. Sad.
    Their DNG converter really isn't a solution (or they could just build the damn thing into their ACR and LR RAW converter) instead of making us download it separately."​
    Fact on this planet: It absolutely IS a solution for people like Dave, who want to use an older version of ACR/LR with a newer camera that older software doesn't support natively but does with a converted DNG. Only a damn fool would suggest otherwise. And one has. Often.
    Most fools think they are only ignorant. -Benjamin Franklin
    On Planet Eric, it's both.
     
  44. This flat earth/planet Eric idea that "Their DNG converter really isn't a solution (or they could just build the damn thing into their ACR and LR RAW converter) instead of making us download it separately." is as ridiculous as asking how come ACR as a filter, or all the current Content Aware technology isn't built into Photoshop CS3 instant of being built into CS6 which requires a separate download AND purchase. Or why Dehaze isn't built into LR 4.
     

Share This Page