digitaldog

5 minutes ago, hjoseph7 said:

MODERATOR PLEASE CLOSE THIS THREAD, THANK YOU  

Ridiculous and unnecessary.

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

1 hour ago, hjoseph7 said:

That's not Adobe's fault ? GIVE ME A BREAK. I use to worked as a computer-programmer for 35 years now I'm retired. 

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:

4 minutes ago, AlanKlein said:

So was I staying on topic. I was showing that the entire computer industry and related fields including cameras work to obsolete software and hardware to force the public to buy new equipment and upgrade software so they can increase their profits.  

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. 
 

1 minute ago, hjoseph7 said:

digitalDog  since your Ferrarri is the first one out of the gate,  why don't you help us old geezers in our beat-up chevy's instead of pointing fingers at us. It does not solve anything.. Thank you

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

3 minutes ago, AlanKlein said:

I wasn't just referring to camera manufacturers, necessarily.  I was referring to the computer industry in general. 

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. 

1 hour ago, AlanKlein said:

Manufacturers love when software is updated by other manufacturers. It forces their customers to update their equipment and software as well and they can plead not guilty while receiving the benefits of the change..  

"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.

15 hours ago, glen_h said:

In either case, you should use the appropriate color temperature light source, and color balance filters if needed.

Black and white films are designed to give the right gray scale.

As noted, according to at least one author, Panatomic-X gives the best gray scale.

Because of the requirements on sensitizing dyes, color films won't give the most accurate black and white balance.

You can correct some of that, but not all of it, later.

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? 

15 minutes ago, paddler4 said:

If he finds an old converter that antedates the raw format he wants to convert, it won't solve his problem.

It's entirely a self-inflicted problem.  😉

Elements has a rudimentary version of Adobe Camera Raw.

8 minutes ago, paddler4 said:

Which just suggests that Adobe has pulled off it's servers the old versions it no longer supports--unless someone kept one and is putting it on their own server. The only solution is to use a newer operating system.

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. 

20 minutes ago, hjoseph7 said:

Believe me I tried downloading Windows 7 Converters more than a few times, but they all magically changed to the Windows 10 version....

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

1. Select the folder of images you'd like to convert to DNG.

5 minutes ago, hjoseph7 said:

Could be because  I'm still using Windows 7,  but the application stopped me short form using CR2 files from my Canon 6D  with PS CS5. 

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.

12 minutes ago, hjoseph7 said:

"If I'm not mistaken, that combination has been the only way to buy either LR Classic or Photoshop for a number of years."

Nope, I purchased photoshop CS5 in 2010, then I purchased Lightroom 3 in 2012..

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.  😉 

2 minutes ago, hjoseph7 said:

"One certainly can if they convert using the free DNG converter. Adobe never forces anyone with a new camera to upgrade Photoshop (actually Adobe Camera Raw). 

Nope, the DNG converter that i tried would not go back to files created in 2014 and below. 

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?

1 hour ago, hjoseph7 said:

The main reason is that while new cameras are steadily comming out, Photoshop has to keep up with those changes. The older versions of Photoshop cannot handle the newer files so then you are stuck. 

One certainly can if they convert using the free DNG converter. Adobe never forces anyone with a new camera to upgrade Photoshop (actually Adobe Camera Raw). That's all the fault of the camera manufacturers that refuse to produce an openly documented raw. 
Yes, you still miss out on new features, but you can render your new raws with older Adobe raw converter(s). 

Basic guideline :

https://files.support.epson.com/htmldocs/l210__/l210__ug/source/cleaning_transportation/tasks/transporting_l210_l355.html#:~:text=Place the transportation covers that,equivalent cushioning around the product.

ACR renders the raw data.

1 hour ago, rconey said:

No Dog in the fight (pun intended), but I can delete all my layers and get back to my original image

Yes, and when there are no edits, those non-edits are not destructive. And that exercise is pointless. 

Getting back to an original image is easy. You can also edit to your heart's content and do a 'Save As', and the original is untouched. And the saved data underwent a destructive edit. 

11 minutes ago, rconey said:

So in Photoshop, making adjustments on layers rather than on the actual image, makes it parametric? 

It does not. Parametric edits are instructions; text on how to render (apply edits to primarily raw data). 

Layers are only partially non-destructive. As long as they exist, and they only exist in Photoshop. If you print, you apply the layers (edits) to the underlying data. If you flatten to save off the image, the same. On high-bit data*, it's kind of moot but nonetheless, it is destructive. 

Parametric edits on raw data produce new, virgin pixels. 

* http://digitaldog.net/files/TheHighBitdepthDebate.pdf