New camera forcing software upgrade??

[callyolson]

<p>Ok so here is the question, I just upgraded my camera to a full frame Nikon. Super Excited until... I plugged in the sd card to my mac and found that both Lightroom and Photoshop said files could not be recognized! AHHHH so frustrated. So after research I found that Lightroom 3 and Photoshop CS5 are not compatible with the new Nikon format. SO if I JUST upgrade my lightroom to LR5 will I solve the problem? my workflow is... import to lightroom all edits across all pictures in the batch and then edit in photoshop for any that need major work. If I upgrade my lightroom but not my photoshop when I go to "edit in" will it work or no?<br>

Anyone try this? What do you suggest I do? If I was a full time photographer I would jump to the CC for $10 a month but I could go 3 or so months between edits. Thanks for all, any feedback.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>You will solve easily solve the problem by upgrading to LR 5 and rendering the raw files there and dropping them into PS CS5 if you want to do PS work. You will also get the benefits of all the improvements that occurred between LR3 and LR5.6. The alternative is to use the free DNG converter and convert all your raw files to DNG and then use them in either application.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

As Jeff wrote: you only need to update Lightroom to Lightroom 5.# (current v5.6)

 

The one caveat (and it I s a temporary one) is that Lightroom 5.6 doesn't yet have a publicly available codec for the Nikon

D750. What I am doing in the meantime is :download the D750 NEFs to a designated folder on my ""Hot Projects" drive"

and the use the free Adobe DNG converter to convert them to the raw DNG format, and then I import those into

Lightroom.

 

My workflow is to do most of the heavy global corrections in Lightroom and to use Photoshop for first global and then

localized work that is best done using layers.

[mac_hordam]

<p><em>"If I upgrade my lightroom but not my photoshop when I go to "edit in" will it work or no?"</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em><br /></em>No it won't. Or rather yes it will but you won't retain the alterations done in LR5 if you're using PV2012 the latest process version engine. That's because the camera raw for CS5 isn't on parity with LR5 and will revert to PV2010. So to work around this you need to Export (not Edit In) your files to photoshop. And all will be well.<br>

<br>

I refer you to this quote from Andrew Rodney where he explains it in another thread )I've emphasised the most relevant bit in bold).<br>

<em>"IF LR and Photoshop are on version parity you can do this. ACR and LR have identical processing engines when on parity. So in theory, you could apply some metadata edits in LR, then open the DNG in ACR (in Photoshop), do more work, go back to LR. I'm not sure why you'd do this other than maybe to use a Smart Object in Photoshop that is a raw. But it is doable. IF the two are not on version parity, not a good idea. <strong>For example, if you use LR's new PV2012, the sliders are different than PV2010 in ACR 6 (Photoshop CS5). In such a case, if you're ready to edit pixels in Photoshop, all you do is export from within LR (a TIFF, JPEG, PSD) to a size and color space you wish, then just open in Photoshop like any other TIFF/JPEG/PSD."</strong></em><br /></p>

[john_wheeler6]

<p>Hi Mac - I don't know that whole context of the posting by Andrew yet I think he was referring to a slightly different request/issue.<br>

First, as Ellis indicated you have to have a camera that is supported by LR5.6: <a href="http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/407/kb407111.html">Camera Raw plug-in | Supported cameras</a><br>

As long as that is covered, when there is a mismatch between the ACR engines of LR and PS (as would be the case for the OP) you are given the option to render in LR (as opposed to the ACR unit in PS) and the rendered bits go directly into Photoshop bypassing ACR in PS. Works great with no rendering issues for any feature in LR 5.6 and for any PV being used. That is my understanding in any case.<br>

<br />In the case of using LR5.6 with PS CS5, there would </p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Mac Hordan's response is wrong. you can always use Edit In, even when another file needs to be created. See any good manual and look for the section about mismatch between LR and PS versions. John Wheeler's response is correct.</p>

[JosvanEekelen]

<p>IMHO the upgrade from LR3 to LR is worth the extra money but if you like your present workflow Ellis' suggestion is a good one; convert your files to DNG with Adobe's (free) DNG converter and use these files in LR/PS. I currently do this with my girlfriend's EOS 70D files. Because she still runs a Windows Vista laptop she can't upgrade to LR5. The DNG route adds one extra step, which I use to backup her files - just to be sure no files get lost.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Jeff and John Wheeler are correct. Once in LR you can edit in CS5. If your file is a raw file in LR and you are using CS5, when you go to edit in CS5 from LR it will tell you there Adobe Raw will not render, would you like to Render from LR. Click yes and it loads into CS5 and when you close the file in PS and if you select save when closing, all the edits will appear back in LR. If you save keeping the layers, LR will not see the layers, but if you send the file back to PS it will. Read the manual as suggested.</p>

[lenny_eiger]

<p>Anyone who watched the rollout of Apple's new Yosemite OS, or their Apple Watch announcement, will note that one of the first things mentioned was how many of their users had upgraded to their new OS. Never mind that they pester the hell out of you to do so. Even so, if they are pointing to this as a benefit of their way of life, the other OS is going to rise (or lower themselves) to the occasion and force everyone to upgrade with increasing regularly. </p>

<p>You may like this, you may not. However, I would suggest that this is the world we live in. Everyone is being forced to upgrade with increased regularity, to protect themselves from internet threats, if nothing else. I can appreciate that software developers would want everyone to be using their best code at all times, so that it can be said to be working interactively with everything else.</p>

<p>I have gotten away with a standalone CS6 for over a year now. I don't think it will be possible much longer... I am surely missing out on something...</p>

<p>A computer is not a refrigerator. You are all expected to upgrade the hardware about every 3 years. You might get away with it for a little while, but soon, the men in the white coats will come to your house if you don't. You're logged in to the cloud - and what I call fartbook - and they know everything about what you are doing and where you are. It's coming....</p>

[lenny_eiger]

<p>Anyone who watched the rollout of Apple's new Yosemite OS, or their Apple Watch announcement, will note that one of the first things mentioned was how many of their users had upgraded to their new OS. Never mind that they pester the hell out of you to do so. Even so, if they are pointing to this as a benefit of their way of life, the other OS is going to rise (or lower themselves) to the occasion and force everyone to upgrade with increasing regularly. </p>

<p>You may like this, you may not. However, I would suggest that this is the world we live in. Everyone is being forced to upgrade with increased regularity, to protect themselves from internet threats, if nothing else. I can appreciate that software developers would want everyone to be using their best code at all times, so that it can be said to be working interactively with everything else.</p>

<p>I have gotten away with a standalone CS6 for over a year now. I don't think it will be possible much longer... I am surely missing out on something...</p>

<p>A computer is not a refrigerator. You are all expected to upgrade the hardware about every 3 years. You might get away with it for a little while, but soon, the men in the white coats will come to your house if you don't. You're logged in to the cloud - and what I call fartbook - and they know everything about what you are doing and where you are. It's coming....</p>

[steve_bingham]

<p>LR uses a converter identical to Photoshop PROVIDING you are using an equal version as the sliders, etc are slightly different as you update. But ACR and LR, as used, are simply converters. Once it is converted to a tiff or jpg it can be manipulated to your hearts content in your version of Photoshop. If you have PS CS6 there is a "temporary" version of ACR available that handles your camera. (ACR 8.7)</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Everyone is being forced to upgrade with increased regularity</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

For the topic at hand, it's because people buy new cameras, not because software is being updated. In fact, it's somewhat of the reverse process.</p>

[paula_goldman]

<p>I love DNG! It's an excellent program, and it's free. You can take your time deciding how and when to upgrade your workflow. I also love the idea of anything that contributes to having an industry standard.</p>

[ted_marcus1]

<p>I have a similar problem, although my new camera is a Canon SL1. I opted for the DNG converter route. It works fine with CS5, and adds relatively little hassle to the workflow. The converter can read directly from a memory card, and even combine files in different folders into a single directory. And DNG files are about 18% smaller than CR2, which is helpful for archiving.</p>

<p>Another option is described in the Deals and Discounts forum: http://www.photo.net/deals-and-discounts-forum/00cukg Version 8.5 of DxO Optics Pro is available for free download until 31 January 2015. Since it uses plug-in "modules" for individual cameras and lenses, it can read raw files from new cameras. It's rather slow, and its native working color space is Adobe RGB, which means you're out of luck if your pictures have colors that would require ProPhoto in ACR. But it's another alternative at an irresistible price. I still prefer ACR, even if it requires the extra step of DNG conversion. But it's always good to have alternatives, as you're bound to run across images that work better with DxO (or some other raw converter) than with ACR. </p>