ted_marcus1

<p>I've been using Aspen Creek Photo. They have a fully color-managed workflow, and can correctly print files (with embedded profiles) in any color space. I use Adobe RGB or ProPhoto, depending on the gamut of the image. I've only used the "wet" prints (on Fuji Crystal Archive paper), but I think they also offer ink-jet prints. The only limitation is that they accept only JPEG files. I was originally concerned about converting ProPhoto images (16-bit TIFF) to 8-bit JPEG, but an e-mail inquiry said it would be no problem. And it has been no problem. I've been very satisfied with their work.</p> <p>The company also has a pro-oriented service under the name West Coast Imaging. I haven't tried it, as I've found that Aspen Creek meets my needs well.</p>

<p>I create all my finished "master" images as 16-bit TIFF files in the Adobe RGB or ProPhoto color space. Everything I've read suggests that the TIFF format provides the best archival characteristics. I deliver licensed image files as "12"-quality sRGB JPEG files, as an e-mail attachment or a download. Nobody has requested TIFF files or other formats.</p> <p>I recently had some prints made by Aspen Creek, the "amateur" division of West Coast Imaging. They accept only JPEG files, but their workflow is fully color-managed and accepts any standard color space. I was concerned about using ProPhoto with 8-bit JPEG, as well as with the degradation in image quality from JPEG compression. When I called them, they said that ProPhoto would be no problem, and that any loss of image data in a "12"-quality JPEG file should be invisible in a print. I was very happy with the prints.</p>

<p>I stopped shooting film in 2005, when I got my first digital camera. I don't miss film at all.</p> <p>I have recently been scanning film from a trip I took to France in 2000. I'm taking advantage of significant improvements in my digital processing knowledge and techniques since I originally scanned and processed those images. This project is continually reminding me why I don't miss film. I'm spending most of the time squinting at "actual pixels," to painstakingly remove the little dust particles and scratches that inevitably fly under the radar of infrared cleaning. And then I'm painstakingly making the selections and masks I need to reduce film grain that varies with exposure. Only when I'm done with that painstaking preparation can I work on the actual image. Digital images don't need anything like that effort.</p> <p>Having said that, it seems that the general-purpose ISO 400 professional negative film, like the Supra 400 that I used in 2000, no longer exists. Kodak Portra and Fuji 400H are "portrait" films, which aren't the same thing. I'd guess it's easy enough to increase the saturation and contrast in Photoshop, but I'm not sure whether that actually replaces a more saturated and contrasty film. The current versions of Kodak MAX or Fuji Superia 400 might be suitable, but I haven't tried them.</p> <p>I suppose if I were using film today I'd try Ektar 100. Image-stabilized lenses would probably compensate for the reduced speed, or else I could go back to lugging a tripod as I did when I used Fujichrome slide film. It would clearly be less convenient than digital, but it's not clear to me why it would be better.</p> <p>I should also mention that my Supra 400 negatives were originally printed as slides by Dale Laboratories. That process was the best and most cost-effective route for me, as it provided the advantages of both negatives and slides. It cost less and took up less room than paper prints; and the slides could be projected and were consistent enough to serve as a reference point for digital processing. That process no longer exists.</p> <p>I actually do miss projecting slides on a 50x50-inch screen. A digital projector is an inferior substitute. But I don't think it's worth the effort of mail-ordering the rather expensive Fuji slide film and mailing it out for processing. </p>

<p>I have 32- and 64-bit versions of CS5. When I installed CS5, I mainly used the 32-bit version because of several plug-ins. Since then, I've replaced all those plug-ins with 64-bit versions, and now use only 64-bit Photoshop. Is there any way to uninstall or remove only the 32-bit version, other than uninstalling everything and doing a fresh install of Photoshop?</p>

<p>I like Terabyte Image for Linux. You don't have to be a Linux user, as its Windows installer creates a full-up Linux GUI installation on a thumb drive or CD. It can make a compressed backup copy of an entire disk or a specified partition, and write it onto a (different) hard drive or CD/DVD/Blu-Ray. Terabyte also provides two Windows utilities that can extract individual files or directories from a backup file, a feature that can be very useful. TBIView is an "explorer" view of a backup file, from which you can drag files or directories to Windows Explorer. TBIMount mounts a backup file as a read-only drive.</p> <p>I have no financial or other connections with Terabyte, but I've been using their products for many years.</p>

<blockquote> <p>As mentioned previously, I use Adobe products extensively, especially Ps for photography as a hobby and at work as a graphic artist as part of the creative suite I do most of my initial work in Ps and then transfer seamlessly to other Adobe applications. The fact that no one else has developed a product that suits my needs is the reason I do not have any other options, not because Adobe has monopolized the market! 120$/year for the best application on the market is a very good option in my view...</p> </blockquote> <p>You prove the point I made earlier. You are a professional user of Adobe's "industry-standard" products. As such, you are key to Adobe's profitability. Adobe thus offers you a subscription plan that is a good deal, which you eagerly (and appropriately) defend against those of us who complain about it.</p> <p>It doesn't really matter to you whether there are other options, since Photoshop and Lightroom are the best products for you, at a price you consider a good deal. But those of us who complain do so because Adobe's executives have decided we are not key to their company's profitability. The rental scheme is not a good deal for us, and there are no other options. We have essentially been abandoned by Adobe, for reasons that make entirely good business sense for them and for their investors. Arguably, that's a problem because we're selfish and narrow-minded, and we place our petty interests ahead of what's best for Adobe's shareholders.</p> <p>Whether or not Adobe attained its market dominance because it sells the best products, the fact is that Adobe is a monopoly. There are no alternatives to many if not most of its "industry-standard" products; and that same market dominance is an insurmountable disincentive for any competitor to even attempt to challenge Adobe. Adobe is a business after all, and its executives' first priority is maximizing their shareholders' return. So taking full advantage of their monopoly position by locking customers into a rental model that provides shareholders with a continuous revenue stream is exactly the right thing for Adobe to do, from a business perspective. They wisely recognized that it's no longer possible to add enough real, compelling value to new releases of Photoshop to make users <em>want</em> to buy every upgrade.</p> <p>If that business decision angers amateurs and enthusiasts, who don't see a benefit from paying for the software up-front and getting continuous incremental improvements, that's not a problem. They aren't the customers Adobe wants anyway. Adobe offers them Elements, with the traditional perpetual license. Adobe can't get away with forcing users to rent Elements because they don't have a monopoly in that market segment. Those who hate Adobe can use Paint Shop Pro or one its other competitors. And for most amateurs, Elements or Paint Shop Pro really are a better choices than Photoshop anyway. Lightroom is similarly available with a perpetual license because it has competition from Apple's Aperture. But now that Apple is apparently abandoning Aperture, I expect that Adobe will soon have the monopoly power to force Lightroom users to "subscribe." If they don't use that monopoly power, they'll be breaching their obligation to the shareholders.</p> <p>That said, it's possible that Adobe's new business model will finally provide incentive for someone to create a genuine competitor to Photoshop. I've even suggested that users who are upset about Adobe's decision, and who happen to have the appropriate coding skills, should channel their outrage productively into improving GIMP rather than pointless complaints.</p> <p>I don't necessarily believe that GIMP is the solution. But I suspect that the competitor to Photoshop will come from the Open Source community rather than from a corporation. That's because Microsoft Office dominates its market in the same way as Adobe's Creative Suite, which makes commercial competition infeasible. (Novell nearly destroyed itself trying to make WordPerfect and a collection of defunct Borland office software compete with Microsoft. Corel acquired the detritus of that fiasco, and now holds onto a marginal niche in the "office suite" market.) Microsoft faces serious competition from the free open-source LibreOffice. If the competitor to Photoshop isn't a revamped GIMP, it will probably be a new effort similar to LibreOffice.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Yet. But I must say it seems a bit odd to me for you on the one hand have a problem with the way Adobe is heading with subscriptions, yet on the other hand further entrenching yourself into their ecosystem with dng?</p> </blockquote> <p>That's the strange bargain I had to make with an evil monopolist. I can either pay to rent their current software, or I can use my legacy software with my new camera in exchange for helping Adobe achieve their vision of dominating the world's standard raw file format. Either way, Adobe benefits. There is no free lunch, but I chose what seemed the least distasteful route. And while I don't drink deeply of the DNG Kool-Aid, there indeed seems to be little to lose with DNG, even if ends up not offering all the advantages Adobe claims for it.</p> <p>An alternative to the evil monopolist would be preferable, but it does not exist (vainly attempting to bring the thread back on topic). I actually started with Paint Shop Pro when I got my first film scanner in 1999. I was unwilling to either pay $600 for Photoshop or accept the pirated version that someone at work offered me. PSP seemed to have everything I needed, and it seemed to improve significantly with each new version....</p> <p>.... Until Corel took it over in 2005. They came out with PSP 10 ("X"), which claimed to have advanced color management and a useful raw converter. It was only after I bought it that I discovered I had paid to be a volunteer beta tester of what even Corel admitted was an unfinished product. I decided that Corel had farkled what had been shaping up to become a viable alternative to Photoshop. So it was time to bite the bullet and plunk down my $600 for Photoshop CS2. Yes, it was Corel that sold me Photoshop. </p> <p>Much as I'd like to see PSP become true competition for Photoshop, my experience completely destroyed any confidence I had in Corel. For all I know, Corel now has their act together and has made PSP a polished product that at least competes with Elements. But I don't trust Corel at all. </p>

<p>I just added a SSD to my four-year-old Windows 7 computer (Intel i7-860). I migrated the C: partition from my hard disk, which includes the operating system, applications, and application data. (I've always kept my data, including images, on a different partition for ease of backup). I had previously dedicated a partition on a second hard drive for Photoshop scratch. I reset Photoshop to use the SSD for scratch.</p> <p>The SSD indeed provides a major improvement to the startup time for Photoshop. It also noticeably improves the loading of fonts, plug-ins, and features like "Save for Web and Devices." Bridge is also more responsive, most likely because it's now caching images on the SSD. I haven't noticed an improvement from using the SSD for the scratch file, mainly because I'm working with 18-megapixel digital images and film scans with only a two or three layers at a time, and efficiency is usually at or near 100% with 8GB of RAM.</p> <p>The SSD has sped up a lot of things. But Photoshop processing is not one of them.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Then it wouldn't be a subscription which is what Adobe wants. Not going to happen even if it's popular with customers.</p> </blockquote> <p>That's exactly what makes Adobe's rental scheme so unpalatable, at least to some people. A normal business prospers by doing what's popular with customers and serving their needs. But Adobe, by virtue of its "industry standard" monopoly products, no longer needs to care about what its customers want. Adobe's customers now serve Adobe's need to maximize the wealth of its executives and investors. Adobe has attained a position that MBA students dream about, but almost never get to see.</p> <p>That said, a $10 monthly subscription to Photoshop and Lightroom, which includes periodic incremental enhancements, is probably a very good deal for a successful professional photographer who relies on those products for his or her livelihood, and who would faithfully buy each new version under the legacy business model. Those are the sort of customers who best serve Adobe's needs. They're likely to defend Adobe against those who whine and moan about "rental." </p> <p>It's the amateurs and enthusiasts who are, to put it bluntly, getting screwed with the new model. They're the ones who are complaining about "imposition." Many of those users have been less than faithful in meeting their obligation to give Adobe $200 every year and a half, so they resent having that obligation forced on them with the rental model. Although Adobe is certainly happy to rent Photoshop to non-professionals who want to rent it, those users aren't the people Adobe wants as Photoshop customers. Adobe would say to the whining amateurs, "It's too bad you don't like the subscription model, but Photoshop really isn't for you anyway. Elements is what you really want, and we sell it under the traditional perpetual license. And if you really think you need something more advanced than Elements, you can also perpetually license Lightroom."</p> <p>For what it's worth, I have Photoshop CS5. I upgraded to it from CS3 because it had some compelling new features, but before that I didn't see any reason to get CS4. When CS6 came out, I looked carefully at it and concluded there was no compelling reason to upgrade. When Adobe finally recognized that they had made a serious mistake with their initial subscription plan by excluding photographers who didn't need the entire Creative Suite, I looked carefully at Photoshop CC. I saw nothing that made me say "I <em>must</em> rent this for $10 a month!" </p> <p>So I will stick to CS5 for as long as I have a computer that can run it. I recently bought a new camera, which forced me to again consider my options. Spending $200 for the obsolete CS6 just to read my camera's raw files didn't make sense. Nor did committing to rent Photoshop. I may consider Lightroom in the future, but I'm not yet ready to ascend the learning curve of its asset management database workflow.</p> <p>For now, DNG conversion is my best option. I'm finding the conversion step minimally inconvenient at most. The Adobe converter actually adds convenience if I'm uploading files from a multi-day trip, as it can traverse the directory structure on a memory card and put the DNG files in a single directory. I'd otherwise have to do that manually. After conversion, ACR 6 and CS5 work as they always have, and the DNG files are 18% smaller than the native CR2 files. If Adobe's claims are to be believed, I'm also guaranteeing that I will always be able to read my raw files. So there seems to be nothing to lose by going with DNG.</p> <p>As always, YMMV.</p> <p> </p>

<p>The new rental package with Photoshop and Lightroom for $10/month is probably a very good deal for professional photographers who rely on both programs for their livelihood and had previously purchased every upgrade. But it's not a good deal for amateur or enthusiast photographers who bought upgrades only when they added something truly useful. Adobe's answer to those people's complaints is "You aren't the customers we want for Photoshop, so it doesn't matter whether you subscribe or not. Besides, you really should be using Elements or maybe Lightroom, which have everything you need and are available with a perpetual license."</p> <p>Adobe can get away with forcing users of Photoshop and the rest of the Creative Suite products because they have no competition, at least for professional users who rely on them. And the rental pricing is probably advantageous to those captive users anyway. Adobe can't get away with forcing users of Elements or Lightroom to rent those products because there <em>is</em> competition in that market. For example Paint Shop Pro is a very good alternative to Elements for Windows. And Aperture is a good alternative to Lightroom for Mac-- or at least it was, as Apple is abandoning it. The loss of that competition may empower Adobe to make future versions of Lightroom rental-only. When you have a monopoly on "industry-standard" products, it absolutely makes business sense to leverage that monopoly to its fullest for the benefit of the shareholders. </p> <p>And, of course, if you don't want to rent Photoshop and Lightroom, you have the option of using Adobe's free DNG converter if you get a new camera. Then you can keep using your legacy version of Photoshop for as long as you want. Adobe is trying to promote DNG as the universal raw file format, and everyone who chooses to use DNG conversion rather than renting the current software is helping Adobe by becoming a stakeholder in the future of DNG. It's up to you to decide whether that's a fair tradeoff.</p> <p>For what it's worth, I went the DNG route when I got a new camera last month. The extra step of DNG conversion is a minimal inconvenience. Photoshop CS5 can read the converted files just fine, and they're also 18% smaller than the original files, on average.</p>

<p>I'm in a similar situation, using DNG to let me process raw files from a Canon SL1 with Photoshop CS5. DNG files from the converter average 18% smaller than the original CR2 files, which helps with archiving the files to DVD with the finished images (I archive the original CR2 files separately). The conversion step is reasonably quick and painless. The converter even includes an option to read the subdirectories of an SD card and output all the DNG files to a single directory, which I otherwise would have to do manually.</p> <p>For me, using DNG is a cost-effective choice, at least for now. I see no compelling reason to upgrade CS5, and I particularly don't see the supposed benefits of renting software over a "traditional" perpetual license. (Actually, I understand how the new model benefits professionals whose livelihood depends on having the latest versions of multiple Adobe tools, and also how it benefits Adobe's shareholders. I just don't see how it benefits me.) I may go to Lightroom in the future, but I'm not yet willing to spend the money for it, or to change to the database-centric workflow it demands. I'm not entirely convinced that DNG is the future, or that it it is any more "archival" than the native formats of popular cameras, so I can't say that I'm an enthusiastic evangelist for DNG. But it's the best option I have at the moment, and it seems to be working well for me.</p> <p>I suspect the OP's problem of large file size is related to making the files compatible with CS3. It might need to load camera profiles (or some other data) that the CS3 Camera Raw doesn't provide natively. If that's the case, there might not be any way around the large files.</p>

<p>The choice may also depend on what you want to do with your images. Until I got my first film scanner in 1999, I filled Carousel trays with slides (most recently using negative film printed as slides by Dale Labs) seen only by family and close friends. When I got the scanner, I realized I could start a Web site and greatly expand the number of people who see my pictures. <br /><br />I then switched to a "hybrid workflow," in which everything was in the digital domain after scanning the negatives. No more optical prints or slide shows. I would often have a local minilab process, cut, and sleeve the negatives, which I'd batch scan to make low-resolution digital proofs. That saved a lot of money. My uses of finished digital images were putting reduced-size digital versions on the Web site, making prints with an Epson printer, and occasionally selling digital image licenses and prints. <br /><br />In 2005, the price of switching to digital had fallen enough to overcome my natural frugality. I bought a Canon Digital Rebel XT (350D), and haven't shot any film since then. I haven't had any reason to shoot it. With a digital camera, I could spend my post-processing time making the image look the way I wanted it. With film, I was spending the majority of my post-processing time cleaning and preparing the scanned "raw" image. Squinting at the "actual pixels" to find and clean the tiny dust particles and scratches that infrared cleaning inevitably missed, and then carefully making masks for multiple trips through noise reduction plug-ins to reduce film grain that varied with exposure. <br /><br />I have recently been scanning lots of old negatives, redoing scans I made in 2000 with a higher-resolution scanner and much-improved technique. This project continually reminds me why I don't miss film. That said, I can imagine that film might be preferable if you shoot landscapes with a view camera or specialized studio work with medium-format, areas where film has advantages over available digital technology. You might enjoy the mechanical tactility of using a film camera, the hands-on experience of making prints in a wet darkroom, or the anticipation of waiting for processed film to arrive in the mail. Or you might enjoy the sheer impact of projecting slides on a screen, something digital projectors can't match. <br /><br />Since none of those considerations apply to me, I don't see any reason to go back to film. Especially since the "professional" ISO 400 negative films that I used before I switched to digital (Supra 400 and its "UC" successors) no longer exist. I could probably increase the saturation and contrast of the remaining ISO 400 "portrait" films in post-processing, or else shlep a tripod and use Ektar 100, but I don't see the point of those hassles, or the increasing expense of film and inconvenience of dwindling processing options. As always, your mileage may vary.</p>

<p>It should work just fine. The image stabilization hardware is entirely contained in the lens.</p>

<p>It works both ways. I just replaced my antique 350D with an SL1/100D. I have never liked DPP, but I keep it around for those very few images that ACR can't handle satisfactorily. As I have no interest in renting an upgraded Photoshop that can read my new camera's raw files, I have become a passionate evangelist for Adobe's DNG! With the simple addition of a minimally-intrusive conversion step to my workflow (generously provided free of charge by Adobe), I can continue using CS5's ACR with my new camera. Not only that, the converted raw files are 18% smaller, and the standard format backed by Adobe's mighty marketing muscle will ensure that the files remain readable forever, even if Canon stops supporting "legacy" models.<br> <br />If Canon's marketeers have decided that it's in their shareholders' best interest to leave users of their less-expensive APS cameras with an antiquated and inferior official raw converter, then Canon's marketeers can go to h-e-double-toothpicks. I need only click the mouse a few times to future-proof my raw files as DNG, and I can continue to use much better software without spending anything extra.</p> <p>DNG Now and Forever!</p>

<p>Well, Andrew, I ended up getting the DNG Religion sooner than I expected. I ordered a Canon SL1 to replace my antique 350D. It will arrive next week. (Canon is running a $150 instant rebate on that model, making the price very attractive. I can't tell whether that's because it's not selling well, or perhaps they're about to introduce the SL2.) Since I have no intention of renting Photoshop CC, and I'm not ready to change my workflow to fit Lightroom, DNG with my current Photoshop CS5 seems the best option.<br /><br />I downloaded the DNG converter and some SL1 raw files from dpreview to confirm that ACR 6.7 can indeed read and process the converted files. That checked out.<br /><br />Then I did some experiments. I used the DNG converter to convert 360 raw files from a recent shoot with my 350D. Reading directly from the CF card into a directory took 10 minutes. It also read all the subdirectories on the card into a single directory on my hard drive, which would otherwise require me to manually move the files separately from each of the subdirectories. That in itself is a convenience. The total size of the DNG files was 8% smaller than the CR2 files. I tried the experiment again using the directory on my hard drive containing the CR2 files. That conversion took 4 minutes. The conversion will probably take a bit more than twice as long with the SL1's larger files, but it's still reasonable. <br /><br />I don't expect the extra step of DNG conversion will change my workflow much. I currently archive all my raw files, which I can still do with the original CR2 files. When I select and process the images I actually use (typically around 10% of what I shoot), I archive the CR2 and XMP files for those images along with the TIFF masters and any other intermediate work products. So those would now be DNG files.<br /><br />The only thing I haven't figured out is how to manage the raw files that I view and adjust in ACR, but don't pursue any further. I've been archiving the XMP sidecar files along with the raw files, but DNG stores the adjustments internally without sidecar files. As I don't see any way to create sidecar files from DNG, I'd presumably have to archive the DNG files that I've adjusted. Adobe giveth and Adobe taketh away, I suppose. </p>

<p>I've been archiving my image files to optical media since I started scanning film in 1999. I started with CD-R (a costly 4x SCSI burner, since I was using OS/2 which didn't support ATAPI at the time), migrated to DVD+R, and now use Blu-Ray. (Blu-Ray <em>may</em> be more archival than CD or DVD, as it's based on copper and silicon rather than the organic dyes of the earlier formats. The blue laser creates an alloy of those inorganic materials. I eventually plan to consolidate my CDs and DVDs onto Blu-Ray, for that reason and to save space. But there are now Blu-Ray disks that use organic dyes, which let manufacturers save money by using the machines that make CDs and DVDs. Shop carefully.)</p> <p>I do a file-level verify of each archival disk after burning it, store disks in plastic jewel cases, and have never had a problem. I make two copies of each disk, and store one of them at a friend's house as a "disaster backup." More recently, I copied all the disks to a hard drive, which provides easier access as well as an additional media copy. I've never had problems reading my disks, even the original CDs from 1999.</p>

<p>I'm actually not knocking DNG. It really does seem like the best available way to deal with the problem of (otherwise) having to buy the latest raw conversion software along with a new camera. I'll have to take Adobe's word for it (and they're impeccably trustworthy) that converting a proprietary file to DNG is a perfectly transparent process that loses absolutely nothing in terms of the image itself, and offers only benefits without downside to the user.</p> <p>But it seems to me that if DNG does become the future-proof archival format that Adobe envisions, it won't be because its advantages are so clear that everyone is wildly enthusiastic about using it. Rather, it will be a useful second choice, widely supported simply because it's the first available format out of the gate that isn't tied to one camera manufacturer. DNG may not inspire enthusiasm, but it has enough advantages to be useful, particularly as an alternative to buying new software.</p> <p>That's surely why Adobe offers a continually-updated DNG converter for free. Adobe wants you to rent Photoshop and give their shareholders a continuous income stream. But if you instead choose to keep your legacy version of Photoshop and convert the files from your new camera to DNG, Adobe benefits by having one more DNG user (even one who is resigned to using it as an affordable second choice rather than an enthusiastic DNG supporter). Either way, Adobe clearly wins.</p> <p>It's less clear whether users win, since DNG is essentially just another proprietary raw format that belongs to Adobe rather than to a camera manufacturer. Unless Adobe can convince camera manufacturers to "do the right thing" and abandon their proprietary raw formats in favor of Adobe's proprietary raw format, DNG will remain many users' second choice rather than fulfilling Adobe's vision of owning the universal standard.</p>

<p>I've stuck with CS5, as it continues to work well. When CS6 came out, and Adobe were starting to tighten their upgrade eligibility in preparation for converting to a rental model, I thought about buying CS6. But I decided that it offered nothing compelling enough to merit giving Adobe $200. (The existence of people like me, who failed to satisfy their solemn obligation to Adobe's shareholders by not reflexively buying every new version of Photoshop, is surely the reason Adobe felt it necessary to switch to a rental model. But that's beside the point.)</p> <p>The problem is that my cameras are a paleolithic Canon Rebel XT/350D and an obsolete Canon S100. (As with CS5, they both continue to serve me well despite their obsolescence, so I see no need to replace them.) As I exclusively shoot raw files, replacing either of them will mean that the version of ACR I now have will no longer work. When that time inevitably arrives, I will have several choices (listed in order of desirability and/or practicality):</p> <ul> <li>Download the DNG converter that Adobe so magnanimously provides, and happily continue using CS5 exactly as before. Aside from the nearly unnoticeable time and effort involved in converting all my CR2 files to DNG, I will lose nothing by converting to Adobe's standard format; but I will gain raw files that are archival and future-proof forever! (Insert appropriate hosannah and hallelujah to Adobe for giving us DNG.)</li> <li>Buy Lightroom, and change the way I work to the (presumably) superior approach that Lightroom enforces.</li> <li>Buy some other raw converter.</li> <li>Rent Photoshop CC.</li> <li>Use Canon's DPP. As anyone who has used it can tell you, it's worth every penny it costs.</li> <li>Shoot JPEG.</li> </ul> <p>As you can see, there are numerous options. It's merely a matter of examining the tradeoffs and deciding what changes are acceptable.</p> <p> </p>