Adobe No longer supports CS4?

[mjferron]

<p>" There are plenty of alternative tools available for photographers."</p>

<p> Sure there are Rob. I've been using PS since Version 3. It's what I know. Did Nikon stop repairing and supporting D200's when the d300 came out?</p>

[garrison_k.]

<p><em>Sorry Garrison, by instinct (of doing the prudent thing) I seem to be one ahead of you...</em></p>

<p>Not with IBM G5's you're not :)</p>

<p><em>As to my newly converted to <strong>DNG's</strong>, they are copies (in a new folder). The originals can still be opened in DPP and subsequently made into TIFFs.</em></p>

<p>Well aware, thanks. It's a nightmare I've lived and refuse to do dng again. Good luck, Wolf.</p>

 

[w_t1]

<blockquote>

<p>If you don't like Adobe's business model then don't support it. There are plenty of alternative tools available for photographers. It's quite wonderful to have such choice.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>+1</p>

<p>And I wish I had $1 for every time I've seen "use the free DNG converter provided by Adobe", I thought everyone knew that. Do people really do a search on pnet before posting?</p>

 

[eric merrill]

<p>Garrison:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Well aware, thanks. It's a nightmare I've lived and refuse to do dng again. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>What problems did you encounter with DNG? I ask because I've done so in the past, and I will probably do so again in the future. I prefer not having to use an intermediate step, but I've found it to be acceptable as a temporary solution. I'm wondering what pitfalls I'm overlooking before I do so again. Thanks!</p>

<p>Eric</p>

[garrison_k.]

<p>Hi Eric,<br /><br />Even back in the day with 120 gig hdd's and 1 gig of ram and cd burners, it was time consuming and a pain to organize dng's. Before getting to work, I'd burn my raws to cd for safety, then convert them to dng, then point Bridge to them and get to work with editing and tweaks. Once completed a project, they'd get burned as "Finals". But this time, burned twice as I have one for the office and one off-site for disaster recovery. Then external hard drives and enclosures came on the market and I took the sage advice of making duplicates there as well. Can you see where this going? NEF's and DNG's, on cd and hdd. So much time backing up so many duplicates of an image, yet only two copies (office cd and office hdd) had the edits and were finals and any good to me.<br /><br />When NX2 came out, my dng's wouldn't load. DxO came out and my dng's wouldn't load there, either. I understand that although this has changed with DxO, it still doesn't read the best part that Dx0 offers, the lens values and its corrections. But while not being able to load my edited dng's into other software, I was spending too much time backing up data. I started asking myself why and all around me, none of the manufactures were taking to it like we hoped they would.<br /><br />I'm also in favour of .xmp files outside of the raw. I'm on Windows and I know Mac users see them and are inclined to get annoyed at them. But with Windows, they are hidden as a known file type and I never see them unless I wish too. And I often do, now. Once my original raw's are backed up and archived, these little handy .xmp files are all that i need to worry about now. They are easy to email, easy to send to the cloud, and makes it quick for software that is doing incremental back ups and only looking for files that have changed. I'd rather back up a 5K xmp file over and over than a 12mb dng.<br /><br />For me, that's more or less it. Dng is a time consuming process straight across. Conversion and import time and then backing up 8 copies of a single image...that are not verbatim. I cut it in half now just keep nefs. I also feel we're in the infancy of digital and massive companies like Adobe with expensive software wont be around once we mature and hit the plateau in the next decade. Like never before am I seeing so many cameras in so many hands. All my family and little ones are shooting and they don't own Adobe products. What's their incentive to go retrieve the dng converter and convert to dng? None. Until that changes, Adobe will have a struggle with the world and getting dng mainstream. I don't see it happening so in the meantime, it's cheaper on my time and wallet to just keep Adobe CSx updated and use my original raws. Hope that helps :)</p>

[eric merrill]

<p>Garrison:</p>

<p>Thanks! I agree...I like having the .xmp files outside of raw for ease of backup. </p>

<p>I don't use photo software other than that made by Adobe, so I haven't experienced the problem of other software not opening DNG files.</p>

<p>Makes perfect sense.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

[garrison_k.]

<p>My pleasure, Eric. I mostly use Adobe as well. And it seems that everything that is launched today now also includes dng but it didn't used to be the case.</p>

[bill_tuthill]

Garrison, thanks for posting your DNG saga. Email, backup, cloud, it starts to makes sense. The question below is not really answered by anything I can find with Google search. There's also IPTC for additional redundant redundancy.

 

Why would I want XMP when I already have EXIF?

[patricklavoie]

<p>because you also want to have handy all the color correction / setting that you have apply to your image when you back them up.. without the xmp you wont have this information..</p>

[digitaldog]

<p>This is a very simple proposition! As others have said, there are two options:<br>

1. Free: Convert to DNG and process in an older version of a raw converter. <br>

2. Pay for an upgrade to CS5 or get LR3. Get a better raw processing app in the deal. <br>

Converting is “too much work”? But its free and easy and fixes the issue. It be the same if you were using a non Adobe raw converter too (you’d upgrade or if it hopefully supports DNG, you have a 2nd free option). No sagas necessary! </p>

[garrison_k.]

<p>You're welcome, Bill. Not so much a saga, just a learning curve from being painted into a corner. Life is easier with Nikon's and Canon's files rather than converting to dng, (another non-standard proprietary format?), and being shut out of options. If at a later date, dng does become the global standard we hope it does, like sprocket holes in 35mm film, then I'll continue converting to dng.</p>

<p><em>Converting is “too much work”? But its free and easy and fixes the issue.</em></p>

<p>If you did photography for a living and under the gun for delivery, you'd perhaps understand the importance that work = time, that time = money, and nothing is for "free". The slight cost of keeping my software current so I can use nef is so inexpensive compared to the drag on my time and all the troubles that the dng conversion brings.</p>

<p>It's 2011. Like a lemming, I converted to dng from 2004 to 2007. I've never regretted nef files but I've certainly regretted having dng's.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>If you did photography for a living and under the gun for delivery, you'd perhaps understand the importance that work = time, that time = money, and nothing is for "free". </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sounds like a reason you might like to shoot JPEGs. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The slight cost of keeping my software current so I can use nef is so inexpensive compared to the drag on my time and all the troubles that the dng conversion brings.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Upgrading your software is certainly a viable solution as I and others pointed out. Certainly not free and certainly not without a time hit either. </p>

[garrison_k.]

<p><em>Upgrading your software is certainly a viable solution as I and others pointed out.</em></p>

<p>You pointed out? Lol, what a joke. You've offered nothing new. The thread had its solutions a week ago by everyone but you. Once again, you've just showed up late to a stale thread and parroted everyone else for an opportunity to cite my words in another attempt to bicker and banter with me.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>You pointed out? Lol, what a joke.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>>2. Pay for an upgrade to CS5 or get LR3. Get a better raw processing app in the deal. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Once again, you've just showed up late to a stale thread and parroted everyone else for an opportunity to cite my words in another attempt to bicker and banter with me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually the sentence wasn’t directed to you but its interesting that you would think it was. </p>

[garrison_k.]

<p><em>Converting is “too much work”? But its free and easy and fixes the issue. It be the same if you were using a non Adobe raw converter too (you’d upgrade or if it hopefully supports DNG, you have a 2nd free option). No sagas necessary!</em></p>

<p>Yeah, nice try. I'm sure everyone feels it was directed to someone else, too.<em><br /></em></p>

[digitaldog]

<p> I’m sure you do (you have a habit of speaking for others). Its all about Garrision K. (whoever that is). <br>

So how’s CS5 running for you on that Pentium 3? </p>

[garrison_k.]

<p>did Josh's warning to you have a time limit?</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>i think by now the OP have a good answer.. possible to offer solution vs personal attack?..</p>

[garrison_k.]

<p>yep, i agree.</p>

[paulie_smith1]

<p>"the improvements are worth the upgrade"?<br>

Not really. Not when you find that you have to go back to an older version to open your Kodak Photo CD photos, or download a third party fix to open them and that third party fix conflicts somehow and your new computer ends up in the shop as a result<br>

17,000 images on photo CD that now have to be converted on an older computer before they can be used and re-posted using the newer CS5.<br>

Is it really that hard for them to keep with what has been working while 'improving' the product? My 54 GMC pickup and my 2008 F150 both run on the same fuel even with all the 'improvements' on the newer vehicle.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<blockquote>

<p>My 54 GMC pickup and my 2008 F150 both run on the same fuel even with all the 'improvements' on the newer vehicle.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is a bad analogy and I bet your '54 GMC, would run better on leaded gas unless you have dropped a new engine and transmission in it. </p>

[garrison_k.]

<p><em>Not really.</em></p>

<p>CS5 ACR is greatly improved in function and conversion of raw files over CS4. I love content aware, hdr, photomerge, puppet warp, nd much more...I couldn't go back to CS4.</p>

<p> </p>

[digitaldog]

<p>Content aware (and ACR 6) is pretty much worth the price of admission. While not perfect, Content Aware is a <strong>huge</strong> time saver. For Mac users, 64-bit was also worth the upgrade fees. </p>