digitaldog

The same applies to you actually.

😜 "Advice is what we ask for when we already know the answer but wish we didn't. "- Erica Jong

The facts, corrections, and the final outcome that were explained: And the actual topic (the question):

Still here, sigh...🤫

Adios amigo. 😋

Ridiculous and unnecessary. You are entitled to have an opinion. I am just letting you know that it is silly.

No it isn't their fault. Mostly it is the camera manufacturers who produce proprietary raws with each new camera (explained, falling on someone's deaf ears). Then it is your fault for buying a new camera and refusing to use software to support the raw. Shoot JPEG then. Openly documented file format your old software will support. No one forced you to get a newer camera and then stubbornly work with prehistoric software that was never created to support that raw data. All your own doing. One would hope someone that admits they are in the software business would understand this, but alas, it boils down to this and your complaint about Adobe's DNG software: “The only thing complaining does is convince others that you are not in control.” Anonymous

I read the entire thread, including your misinformation about Adobe's support for newer cameras in the older software they provide. In fact, I'm the first person in this thread to reply to the OP on the actual topic! Before it went off topic with a statement that had to be corrected and was. And:

You didn't show it, it's not true either. You are entitled to believe the broad generation you made again, but that's on you.

My old (and grand) Leaf scanner can’t run on anything without a SCSI interface. I can’t run that Leaf on my 2022 Mac. Or anything close to that vintage; the last Mac that could was released in 1998! And for a mere $135, today I could get a Mac to run that scanner and move its TIFFs (including TIFFs I made back in 1990) to the 2022 Mac and load them into the latest version of Photoshop.

I have! I corrected you about the issues using older (within reason) Adobe products to access much newer cameras at no cost by using the DNG converter. By your own doing, you can't. I provided the fact that at some point, no one can go back to such old OSs that any software can support a newer piece of hardware (and vise versa). I then provided an inexpensive means to use prehistoric software on prehistoric hardware still while using new hardware with new software. If you can't subscribe to any solution, you're stuck with your own created issue (new camera, really old software). "I'm not about talking and finger-pointing and complaining. I'm about getting things done." - Christine Quinn

And I was staying on topic (LR/ACR/PS the incorrect comments about updating them to use new cameras). The issue with a bank app and your old cell phone isn't OT.

"All generalizations are false, including this one." -Mark Twain In this case the fault is totally with the camera manufacturers and this has been going on for decades. This affects all software companies that you would want to process your raw data! It is completely unnecessary. Every time a new camera is produced, the camera manufacturers produce a new, differing proprietary raw file. It may only be different by a small degree but the current raw processor cannot process it. So the raw has to be reverse engineered to start. Now with Adobe, the process is a bit more complex. Adobe needs both the raw and a camera because they must also shoot targets to build both lens and camera profiles, sometimes camera matching profiles. That takes time. They then must build a new version to test internally. After that, testing outside the company takes place, sometimes staggered (alpha then beta testing). In order to even do so, they have to build installers, instructions, upload for testers, and so forth. This takes time too. Now it is common for the outside testing to take a few months, especially if (and when we have some very good testers), find bugs. The bugs must be fixed, the newer installers have to be built, the testers have to test again. Rinse and repeat. This takes time. Some have every right to be upset that they can't fully use their new camera and again, the blame falls on the camera manufacturer. You can see that the JPEG, an openly documented file format that has been openly documented for decades is no issue. Yet your proprietary raws are. It is your data and you are being forced to wait because of the camera manufacturer. All this costs you and Adobe and all other software companies time and money. But by and large, photographers don't blame the right parties, they would rather assume, dismiss the open raw format Adobe proposed and blame anyone but the right party; the camera manufacturers. Those that assume can't tell us why this is a good idea for anyone (let alone the camera manufacturers) but this endless loop happens year after year. To the same result: money and time wasted, the newer proprietary raws always getting supported. Why? When will it stop?

It is simple. I have software that originally cost thousands of dollars that only runs on hardware and software decades old. I do and can run them on old hardware (dirt cheap too) off eBay. A few times a year I might go there. I also have a very modern camera that cost even more being handled by modern hardware and software. This isn't a mutually exclusive choice! You own a modern camera and want to process the raw, you can. Even on an older OS by converting to DNG, up to a point. If you can't, it's by your own doing.

No color balance isn't color temperature (CCT), but we can go there if you wish to understand what CCT and daylight is. The series of D-illuminants (series of daylight, not CCT), adopted by the CIE in 1971, is based on 622 measurements from the early 1960s taken worldwide; the data were combined/averaged.

CCT (color temp) is a massive range of possible colors. So what are you proposing? Accurate black and white balance is what and measured colorimetrically how?

It's entirely a self-inflicted problem. 😉

Elements has a rudimentary version of Adobe Camera Raw.

Really old Adobe software can be found here: ftp://ftp.adobe.com//pub/adobe Log in as a guest and go to the folder of the software you're trying to find. But we can't help hjoseph7 if he insists on using an old version of the DNG converter that can run on the really old OS that wasn't ever intended to convert a newer camera (as such undefined by him) when it was released.

This is really simple, and I'm unsure why you're struggling. There may be many years of cameras that need DNG support. The URL provided shows all the cameras and the versions required. The DNG converter like Adobe Camera Raw and Lightroom Classic is updated regularly with new camera support. As all three are released, they have minimum system requirements that change over time. You've yet to tell us what camera you're trying to convert. You did state (incorrectly): "Photoshop has to keep up with those changes. The older versions of Photoshop cannot handle the newer files so then you are stuck". Old versions of Photoshop CAN support newer versions of a camera's raw document IF they are converted to DNG, and to do so, you need a version of the DNG converter that has that ability, AND it has to run on whatever OS is required for that version. It is that simple. If you insist on using ancient software with newer cameras that were never built when that old software was made, you have only yourself to blame. Adobe has a back door to do so, but you have to use a converter supported by your old software (OS). Considering what a new camera might cost, and considering you might actually want to shoot raw and process that data, you might consider actually updating your old software to do so. But one thing isn't true: Adobe isn't forcing you to do so and Adobe has a 'back door' if you at least attempt to use their free converter to do so.

We've been over this. Your OS is too old.

And you ARE running with the minimum system requirements??? https://helpx.adobe.com/camera-raw/using/adobe-dng-converter.html Select the folder of images you'd like to convert to DNG.

Yes! Just like (FWIW), I can't run Photoshop 5 on OSX or Photoshop CC 2023 on OS9. "Nope, the DNG converter that i tried would not go back to files created in 2014 and below. " That's not Adobe's fault, and yes, camera raw files created in 2014, all those listed in the URL I provided can be used after conversion to DNG.

Which is way before Creative Cloud & the subscription model: many, many number of years ago. And you purchased a license to use the product just as I purchased a license for Photoshop 1.0.7 in 1990. 😉

All these cameras are supported: https://helpx.adobe.com/camera-raw/kb/camera-raw-plug-supported-cameras.html You tried what version with what camera?