Photoshop CS RAW support for EOS Rebel XT??

M1
Posted By
mercurius_1
May 31, 2005
Views
516
Replies
14
Status
Closed
I am so annoyed with Adobe right now that I could just scream:

A quick review of their site shows that their new camera RAW plug-in (version 3.1 from May of 2005), which provides support for my new Canon Digital Rebel XT, is only available for Photoshop "CS2"! Does anyone know whether or when they plan to release a similar plug-in for us poor saps still using good old Photoshop "CS" or am I forcibly screwed into upgrading just to get the stupid software to open RAW files from my camera??

Thank you.
-M

MacBook Pro 16” Mockups 🔥

– in 4 materials (clay versions included)

– 12 scenes

– 48 MacBook Pro 16″ mockups

– 6000 x 4500 px

BP
Barry Pearson
May 31, 2005
wrote:
I am so annoyed with Adobe right now that I could just scream:
A quick review of their site shows that their new camera RAW plug-in (version 3.1 from May of 2005), which provides support for my new Canon Digital Rebel XT, is only available for Photoshop "CS2"! Does anyone know whether or when they plan to release a similar plug-in for us poor saps still using good old Photoshop "CS" or am I forcibly screwed into upgrading just to get the stupid software to open RAW files from my camera??

This has just been covered at length in another thread:
"RAW images", May 13th.

No, you don’t have to upgrade to CS2.
No, Adobe won’t upgrade the plug-in for CS.

Instead: Download the free DNG Converter, version 3.1.
Convert your Raw files to DNG.
CS, with ACR 2.3 or 2.4, will then accept these DNGs.

I’ve confirmed that this works. If you want to know why, read the earlier thread.


Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
http://www.birdsandanimals.info/
BH
Bill Hilton
May 31, 2005
… or am I forcibly screwed into upgrading just to get the stupid software to open RAW files from my camera??

If you don’t want to go the DNG route (I wouldn’t) you can try either the Capture One 3.7 LE software for $99 (45 days free trials with LE and Pro to see if you like it) or the Pixmantic RawShooter Essentials, which is currently free. Personally I think both are better than ACR, after extensive testing …

Bill
H
Hecate
May 31, 2005
On 31 May 2005 15:07:14 -0700, "Barry Pearson" wrote:

wrote:
I am so annoyed with Adobe right now that I could just scream:
A quick review of their site shows that their new camera RAW plug-in (version 3.1 from May of 2005), which provides support for my new Canon Digital Rebel XT, is only available for Photoshop "CS2"! Does anyone know whether or when they plan to release a similar plug-in for us poor saps still using good old Photoshop "CS" or am I forcibly screwed into upgrading just to get the stupid software to open RAW files from my camera??

This has just been covered at length in another thread:
"RAW images", May 13th.

No, you don’t have to upgrade to CS2.
No, Adobe won’t upgrade the plug-in for CS.

Instead: Download the free DNG Converter, version 3.1.
Convert your Raw files to DNG.
CS, with ACR 2.3 or 2.4, will then accept these DNGs.

I’ve confirmed that this works. If you want to know why, read the earlier thread.

Or user the very good Digital Photo Professional which comes with the camera and is the same software they provide for use with the 1Ds II.



Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…
BH
Bill Hilton
May 31, 2005
Hecate writes …

Or user the very good Digital Photo Professional which comes with the camera and is the same software they provide for use with the 1Ds II.

What do you find "very good" about DPP? I’ve had a copy for over a year (1D M II) and don’t use it at all, the workflow and results are inferior to the custom converters, I’ve found.

Bill
BP
Barry Pearson
Jun 1, 2005
Bill Hilton wrote:
[snip]
If you don’t want to go the DNG route (I wouldn’t)
[snip]

Any particular reasons?


Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
http://www.birdsandanimals.info/
BH
Bill Hilton
Jun 1, 2005
If you don’t want to go the DNG route (I wouldn’t)

Barry Pearson asks …

Any particular reasons?

1) Of the four RAW converters on my computer only one reads DNG files so far and that one (ACR) is only the third best converter program I use.

2) An extra step in the flow to do the conversion.

3) Extra storage space since I’d definitely want to keep the originals as well as the converted files.

DNG sounds like a good idea, especially if your file format isn’t supported any longer, and maybe in 5-10 years I’ll convert my RAW files when/if it becomes more universal, but right now I have no problems finding excellent software that works fine on the current RAW formats I shoot.

Bill
BP
Barry Pearson
Jun 1, 2005
Bill Hilton wrote:
If you don’t want to go the DNG route (I wouldn’t)

Barry Pearson asks …

Any particular reasons?

1) Of the four RAW converters on my computer only one reads DNG files so far and that one (ACR) is only the third best converter program I use.

2) An extra step in the flow to do the conversion.

3) Extra storage space since I’d definitely want to keep the originals as well as the converted files.

Good reasons, for you and probably many others.

I have said "I would advise everyone to investigate DNG, and make up their own mind about whether it suits them". A problem is that it is quite tricky to do this evaluation.

There are several things that may influence the result, and someone who hasn’t tried DNG may not even know what to take into account. It is a bit like the classic questions "should I use film or digital", or "should I use Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro", or "should I use Raw or JPEG". The answer is "it depends ….".

Here are some of things that are likely to influence the answer, which I wrote before I saw your response:

– What camera do you use? One type or more? One make or more? – What Raw processor do you use?
– What version of Photoshop do you use?
– What is your workflow?
– What and who are your photographs for?
– What is your back-up/archive strategy?

You appear to have worked to a similar list!

My answers to each of those those questions is different from yours, and I’ve come to a different conclusion. (I use ACR, converting to DNG isn’t an extra step for me, and I don’t feel the need to save the originals).

But this does indicate the sort of factors that people need to consider, at the moment. We are at an intermediate state of evolution of DNG, where some people can get a lot from it, and others little or nothing.

DNG sounds like a good idea, especially if your file format isn’t supported any longer, and maybe in 5-10 years I’ll convert my RAW files when/if it becomes more universal, but right now I have no problems finding excellent software that works fine on the current RAW formats I shoot.

At the moment, it may be better to find reasons to choose to use DNG, else leave alone.

1. Someone who uses a Raw processor that won’t accept DNG will get little or no benefit from DNG. They may decide to archive a DNG version of their Raw files to increase the chance that they will be able to read the files years later. But they will have to work with the original Raw file. Users of the cameras’ own software (currently) come into this category.

2. Users of ACR 2.x under CS may get significant, or little, or no, benefit from DNG, depending on their workflow. I benefited, and someone with a camera only supported by ACR 3.1 / 3.1 DNG Converter can benefit a lot, as shown in this thread. But others may not benefit, or only a little.

3. Users of ACR 3.1 under CS2 are likely to get significant benefit from DNG. This is the release where its benefits have become much more obvious. Since upgrading, I have started to convert to DNG straight from the card without an embedded version of the original file. (Against the advice of Adobe). Being able to hold ACR 3.1 settings and adjustments within the DNG file in a non-destructive way makes file management easier. Obviously I get the benefits of the smaller file size.

I expect that, in 5 years time, it will be much easier to identify who shouldn’t use it rather than who should.


Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
http://www.birdsandanimals.info/
H
Hannah
Jun 2, 2005
"Hecate" wrote in message

Or user the very good Digital Photo Professional which comes with the camera and is the same software they provide for use with the 1Ds II.
I never detected anything particularly good about it!
Far better is the priced-to-sell RawShooter.
H.
BH
Bill Hilton
Jun 2, 2005
Hannah writes …

Far better is the priced-to-sell RawShooter.

Hannah, once an image is in the ‘marked for removal’ folder do you know how to move it back to the active folder instead of deleting it?
BH
Bill Hilton
Jun 3, 2005
Hannah, once an image is in the ‘marked for removal’ folder do you know how to move it back to the active folder instead of deleting it?

Never mind, I figured it out …
BV
Bart van der Wolf
Jun 3, 2005
"Bill Hilton" wrote in message
Hannah, once an image is in the ‘marked for removal’ folder do you know how to move it back to the active folder instead of deleting it?

Never mind, I figured it out …

Yes, it’s quite intuitive, you just "un"mark it in the ""Marked for removal" tab. Besides, it won’t be removed until you specifically hit the "Permanently rmove the marked for removal…" icon.

Bart
H
Hecate
Jun 3, 2005
On 31 May 2005 16:16:41 -0700, "Bill Hilton"
wrote:

Hecate writes …

Or user the very good Digital Photo Professional which comes with the camera and is the same software they provide for use with the 1Ds II.

What do you find "very good" about DPP? I’ve had a copy for over a year (1D M II) and don’t use it at all, the workflow and results are inferior to the custom converters, I’ve found.
A lot, at least in the time I’ve been using it. YMMV. Doesn’t mean I’m not investigating other apps as well, but I’m not bothering with ACR anymore if Adobe can’t be bothered to keep it up to date without purchasing the latest version of PS. I quite like RawShooter as well and that’s free, at least for now.

You say you don’t use DPP at all and then say it’s inferior. How do you know if you don’t use it?



Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…
BH
Bill Hilton
Jun 3, 2005
Hecate – The Real One – writes …

You say you don’t use DPP at all and then say it’s inferior. How do you know if you don’t use it?

When I got the 1Ds about 18 months ago I evaluated three different RAW converters (Canon, ACR, C1) for four issues – speed in sorting large numbers of files, ease in getting optimal colors, best demosaicing (smoothness) in out of focus areas and best sharpness in areas with lots of fine details. I tested at both the default settings and also by spending as much time as I wanted to optimize the file before conversion and then did blind comparisons of maybe 8-10 images converted with different converters and decided from that. To me the Canon software was clearly not as good as ACR or C1.

DPP came out with the 1D MII, which I got a year ago, and was supposed to be greatly improved … I tested 4 images on it and wasn’t impressed, I’d still rate it behind ACR and C1. Now that RSE is out (and free) it’s an even easier choice.

The only time I use the Canon software is to occasionally check where the AF points are (they show on a grid and the other converters don’t show this). Also, the Canon converters and ACR give accurate exposures for expanded ISO 50 on my bodies while C1 and RSE overexpose by a one stop (ie, they don’t recognize iso 50), so when I (rarely) shoot at iso 50 I use ACR, but that’s about it.

Just because I don’t (or rarely) use them doesn’t mean I haven’t checked them out throughly and found them lacking 🙂

Bill
H
Hecate
Jun 4, 2005
On 3 Jun 2005 13:35:41 -0700, "Bill Hilton"
wrote:

Hecate – The Real One – writes …

You say you don’t use DPP at all and then say it’s inferior. How do you know if you don’t use it?

When I got the 1Ds about 18 months ago I evaluated three different RAW converters (Canon, ACR, C1) for four issues – speed in sorting large numbers of files, ease in getting optimal colors, best demosaicing (smoothness) in out of focus areas and best sharpness in areas with lots of fine details. I tested at both the default settings and also by spending as much time as I wanted to optimize the file before conversion and then did blind comparisons of maybe 8-10 images converted with different converters and decided from that. To me the Canon software was clearly not as good as ACR or C1.

Fair enough.

DPP came out with the 1D MII, which I got a year ago, and was supposed to be greatly improved … I tested 4 images on it and wasn’t impressed, I’d still rate it behind ACR and C1. Now that RSE is out (and free) it’s an even easier choice.

It’s at version 1.6.6 now and I’ve used it for more than 8-10 images and I was happy with it, although I’m sure there are most likely better apps around. I certainly didn’t find it inferior to ACR. I’ve got Rawshooter on my system now and intend giving that a month or so to see whether it’s better/I like it (not necessarily the same thing <g>)

Just because I don’t (or rarely) use them doesn’t mean I haven’t checked them out throughly and found them lacking 🙂
<g>



Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Must-have mockup pack for every graphic designer 🔥🔥🔥

Easy-to-use drag-n-drop Photoshop scene creator with more than 2800 items.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections