Adobe announces Camera Raw 8.7 and DNG Converter 8.7 release candidates

Just a Photographer:

And the paid for PhotoShop CS5 will remain amazing (like world's best) photo editing software for years to come. It just isn't real useful for extracting raws from cameras released after late 2012.

Sorry but I'm not going to give Adobe $1 dollar a month to keep my programs active. This is why people are looking at other raw extraction software--no not ACR 8, running within LightRoom 5.

Adobe has made the same mistake Microsoft made when MS released the unstable Windows Vista:

Unlike 20 years ago, people who have been using computers for 30 years are now in positions to say: "We'll buy something else or make do with old hardware." Or still from the OS point of view: "Get a Mac or use Linux".

And people who have been regularly using programs of any complexity for the last ten years just say, "Well, let's see what competing programs are out there to download as trialware--they should be easy enough to learn if you can use a computer at all."

Oct 4, 2014permalink

p51d007

I'm the same with CS6...I don't want to pay a monthly subscription, plus, there are times, I don't have "cloud" access...just make it a downloadable installed program, and I'll buy it.

Oct 5, 2014permalink

Photoshop CC is a a program that is nearly entirely on one's computer. (And whatever cloud features there are far from important.)

The "cloud" thing is just marketing; it's not really cloud computing in the normal sense of actually running most of the software on a server somewhere else while connected to that server over a network from your home terminal.

It's that CC dies if it's not validated over the interwebs. That's the subscription only part, and that's what is most objectionable.

Oct 5, 2014permalink

M Jesper

You only need cloud access once in many months to keep the thing active, just the idea is annoying, but not a big problem.

But yea, rather 'own' the stuff of course. Feels (and is) like getting a loan and that's never a good thing.

Oct 6, 2014permalink

M Jesper:

Not if you're on the month to month rental plan.

Oct 6, 2014permalink

otterman

The subscription and validation parts are bad, but what really gets me is when you can't or don't want to keep paying. No more software.

Oct 10, 2014permalink

otterman:

Not to belabor this, look up: "subscription". It's the subscription part that kills the software if you/one doesn't pay.

Oct 10, 2014permalink

Summit_pg

Hopefully Adobe can make something that can do a better job with Fuji X-Trans files. Currently it's "ok", but far from being good. If one guy can code a program that can properly convert Fuji Raw files (Iridient), why can't a super-huge mega corporation like Adobe do it?

Oct 4, 2014permalink

While I like the color out of Adobe, the X Trans detail is still smeared...especially in low contrast transitions.

Oct 4, 2014permalink

Al_10D

Panasonic DMC-GM1S? How about Panasonic DMC-LX100?

Oct 4, 2014permalink

So no Samsung NX1, or Panasonic LX100, or Canon G7X--all kind of interesting cameras--and IR has already posted some raws from the Canon.

Also Leica uses DNG, so unless the newest Leicas only use a very very new version of DNG, older versions of ACR should work with say the S2(type 700), so this Leica V-Lus seems odd.

Oct 3, 2014permalink

You have to make your complaints to Samsung and Panasonic for not providing their RAW profiles in time to Adobe.

It is not for Adobe to go after new camera's but if the manufacturer wants support within Photoshop or Lightroom its up to them to supply the necessary information to Adobe.

So it doesn't make sense to blame Adobe for poor and lazy support of the camera manufacturers you mention.

Oct 4, 2014*permalink

Just a Photo:

Not sure about that. And if Adobe wants to remain the serious raw extraction software, then indeed Adobe does need to seek out the necessary profiles.

I'd guess that most of those cameras will indeed be included in the final ACR 8.7.

And the Leica thing remains puzzling.

Oct 4, 2014permalink

Of course not, its not their job to go after new camera's.

In fact I wouldn't actually not be surprised at all if the manufacturers need to pay Adobe for support in their software. Its Adobe afterall....

Oct 5, 2014permalink

Just a Photo:

I disagree, it's Adobe's job.

But I get the payment to Adobe "joke".

Oct 5, 2014permalink

graybalanced

if you know the history of raw developing, you know that the issue of who is responsible was obvious long ago. All software companies, Apple, Adobe, etc. have to take the time to reverse-engineer the raw files because most camera companies are unwilling to share the formats even when asked. The software companies would be more than willing to provide immediate support if only the camera companies were not so restrictive and proprietary.

There are some enlightened companies like Pentax and Hasselblad who have cameras that can output DNG. Their formats do not need raw updates from Apple or Adobe.

Oct 6, 2014permalink

graybalanced:

That's not what I understand. It's not like Samsung and Panasonic say "we'll only share our profiles with Silkypix". And Samsung used Silkypix for years, not anymore; Panasonic still does.

Silkypix is garbage raw extraction software.

Samsung saw the light and stated including Lightroom with the higher end NX bodies.

Oct 6, 2014permalink

David Rosser

Greybalanced is correct. In the past Nikon, for instance, would not release proprietry information to Adobe. The Sillypix (sorry Silkypix - I will keep making that mistake...) situation is that they are Japanese and seem to be willing to work with Japanese camera manufacturers to make bespoke manufacturer specific versions of their software. The Fuji version of Silkypix will only open Fuji files, the Nikon version (NX-D) only work with Nikon files.

Oct 22, 2014permalink

David Rosser:

Unless you can document it, I suspect that was a distant past, more than 5 years ago.

You also forgot that Samsung (South Korean) also used Suckypix as the included raw extraction software for years.

NX-D only looks like the not great Silkypix interface, the extracted tiffs resemble the Capture NX-2 results though. (And ViewNX looks nothing like Silkypix.)

Oct 22, 2014permalink

Robert F. Tobler

Still no Sigma Merrill support. I am disappointed.

Oct 3, 2014permalink

If you have a Mac you can use Iridient.

Oct 3, 2014permalink

Robert F. Tobler

Tried Irident. Didn't like it. Sigma Photo Pro is better for me. But I'd really like Adobe Camera Raw support, for an integrated workflow with Photoshop. Just as it was possible with the pre-Merrill Sigma DP1/DP2.

Oct 3, 2014permalink

I'm all for Adobe getting support for later Sigmas--including the Quattros.

Oct 3, 2014permalink

Does Raw Therapee work for Sigma? I find it superb for Fuji X Trans files.

Oct 4, 2014permalink

No, Dave.

Also bove base ISOs it's also hard to call RawTherapee "superb".

Oct 4, 2014permalink

3200 from fuji files are superb

Oct 4, 2014permalink

Dave, I doubt it, but I'll look at Fuji X body files with RawTherapee to see.

I checked Fuji X T1 raws, and running Rawtherapee 4.11 on a Win7 64 bit machine, RawTherapee crashes as soon as you try to open an X RAF file. So that's one very significant Fuji X camera ruled out.

Oct 4, 2014*permalink

I'v got clean, detailed iso 3200 12x18 prints from a reception that are every bit as good as Adobe for noise. Run the NR and you'll get great results.

Oct 4, 2014permalink

RT also crashes with RAFs from the XPro1.

So a very recent RawTherapee has all sorts of problems with X RAF files.

Are you using a Mac? Or some variety of Linux? (Unclear how many varieties of Linux run RT.)

What version of RT are you using?

As I said, I doubt that the results are good at ISO 3200, but if I can get it to not crash with my X RAF files, I'm happy to try it.

Oct 4, 2014permalink

TylerQ

How about D750 support for Lightroom Adobe?

Oct 3, 2014permalink

Then that would be Lightroom 5.7beta, if it existed. Do you want your entire LR to be a beta?

Oct 3, 2014permalink

TylerQ

No, I want Adobe to release 5.7 which includes support for the D750.

Oct 3, 2014permalink

TylerQ,

Adobe very likely will, just not as a beta looks to be the case.

Oct 3, 2014permalink

-- Sorry, this has no text --

Oct 4, 2014*permalink

hotdog321

Despite extremely negative feelings about Adobe's CC, I appreciate that they are still supplying RAW updates that work on my CS6 standalone. Adobe supports new Canon lenses (16-35 f/4L IS, for instance) months before Canon updates their DPP software!

Thanks for the link, DPReview!

Oct 3, 2014permalink

mclaren777

Adobe CC is really quite fantastic. I can't remember hearing anything negative from people who use it.

Oct 4, 2014permalink

mclaren777:

"CC is really quite fantastic"

Renting the software: that's not fantastic if you know you'll want the software for more than a month or two.

Adobe needs to drop the rental only thing and offer the purchase of perpetual licenses. If Adobe wants to also offer the option of rental in addition to purchase that works too.

But paying every month, or quarter year, to use software on my computer is not fantastic.

Oct 4, 2014permalink

Kapiolani

Software rental is a bad strategy imo, but we can change it. As for me, please don't count on me in Adobe.

Oct 4, 2014*permalink

Eventually, sooner than later, the competition will teach Adobe how wrong they where to turn towards a CC-only firm. As a professional PS-user for many years I have little love left for this company. And I certainly will never turn towards their corrupted CC, and I advice anyone who even considers doing so to stay away from it as far as possible, unless you can buy an old copy like CS3/5/6. Any of these versions will serve you for years to come without Adobe's hand in your wallet.

Oct 4, 2014*permalink

Danny:

It's fine to plan to use say PhotoShop CS5 for years, but newer versions of ACR aren't supported in CS5, and, as I'm sure you realize, it's kind of insulting to then have to buy the latest Lightroom to be able to use the latest Adobe Camera Raw without using the subscription version in CC.

So of course people are really angry at Adobe, and looking for other raw extraction options, like CaptureOne or PhotoNinja, or say the new AftershotPro2.

Coupled with recent raw extraction software: A ten year old digital camera can produce excellent photos as can a 4 year old camera, but in the past 4 years higher ISO capacities have become available in midpriced cameras, so if you want to shoot indoors, and quietly, there's motivation to replace a 4 year old camera.

I'm sure you know all of my above points.

Oct 4, 2014permalink

@HowaboutRAW

There are good alternatives, some might called it even better. Even if there where not any alternatives, no RAW converters, no PS replacements, then still supporting CC is supporting a scary future in where everybody-and-his-brother will be behind payed services. If such a future will exist is entirely up to it's users, no system will survive if people turn their back against it, and as long as they are not holding a gun against your head, look elsewhere. It is lazy to hand over wallet to these clowns who take the Mickey with us.

Oct 4, 2014*permalink

@Danny There is nothing that beats Adobe Photoshop when it comes down to its capabilities.

None other program has the ability to use channels and make calculations of selections to create a better layer masks.

Even though I am not happy about the renting model that Adobe embraces. I am more then happy to pay $10 a month for being able to use the worlds best photo editing software.

Thats $10 dollars a month is also much less then what I have to monthly pay to be able to make use of my smartphone....

Oct 4, 2014*permalink

@Just a Photographer
Indeed, there is no such thing as PS YET, but that is no excuse. Like I wrote before the competition is getting there, and they will get there, believe me. And I will be suporting the competition (Pixelmator) because they deserve our support. I have supported Adobe since 1996 and they turned their back to me, flipper their index finger and said, gimme money each month or the hell with you. That's what I got for beign a loyal custommer. The competition is getting there, with my money. Say NO(!) to CC, you know why..

Oct 4, 2014permalink

Just a Photographer:

And the paid for PhotoShop CS5 will remain amazing (like world's best) photo editing software for years to come. It just isn't real useful for extracting raws from cameras released after late 2012.

Sorry but I'm not going to give Adobe $1 dollar a month to keep my programs active. This is why people are looking at other raw extraction software--no not ACR 8, running within LightRoom 5.

Adobe has made the same mistake Microsoft made when MS released the unstable Windows Vista:

Oct 4, 2014permalink

Exactly, you don't need the latest version to survive. My biggest complain with Adobe was that every new PS upgrade contained small improvements, little adjustments, a thing here-and-there and then ask a lot of money for it. I honestly always needed to search what was different, so anyone with a copy of CS3 or higher can do anything they want. PS was finished years ago and Adobe became lazy. Now that they have invented their CC they don't need to worry about the fact PS is a finished product, they can continue been lazy and still get money for it. Get an old PS copy and your RAW converter somewhere else. You'll be fine for the upcoming 5/7 years, most likely even longer.

Oct 5, 2014permalink

Although I do feel your sentiment, I'd rather have a perceptual license too. But I think you are overreacting.

I respect your fight against the Adobe capitalism, but in the end you are not going to win. Nobody in the industry will care if you as an individual will stop using Photoshop or Lightroom as long as it remains the industry standard.

Adobe has already over 5 million CC users. They still seem to win over 250.000 to 300.000 users every month. So in a years time they'll have over 8 million monthly subscribers.

I'll doubt you will win your fights against Adobe.
But good luck fighting them.

Oct 5, 2014permalink

I am not fighting against anyone. :) I just don't buy their CC products. I'm fine with CS5, and invest in the competition.
BTW, I believe that 5 million CC user-number was debunked, but don't have the facts at hand.

Oct 5, 2014permalink

Danny,

Sure I can use a different raw converter, say Capture One, but what urinates me off (couldn't use the normal term) is that Adobe Bridge CS6 is really good organization software--that just doesn't have the headaches of the Lightroom or C1 libraries system.

Oct 5, 2014permalink

mclaren777

CC is well worth the money. Someday, some of you will realize this and look back on your early comments with regret.

Oct 11, 2014permalink

mclaren777:

No, Adobe CC is not worth the perpetual payments.

Simply asserting something is so is not an argument.

Adobe PhotoShop CC barely has any more features than PhotoShop CS6.

Now, you'd have a point, if you knew you were only going to ever use CC for a limited period of time, say 90 days.

The fact remains that PhotoShop CS6 will remain extraordinary photo editing software for at least 5 years, and as a long as my hardware works, CS6 won't turn itself off in that time, if I don't pay Adobe a fee.

Adobe has behaved obnoxiously by making PhotoShop CC subscription only. And defenders of Adobe really need to come up with better lines than it's "CC is really quite fantastic".

Oct 11, 2014permalink

It won't be for long before Adobe will stop support for CameraRAW and CS6. I already can hear your complaints about how lousy that would be....

Oct 11, 2014*permalink

PHil459

I had CC, but recent changes in my finances made me cancel it. and yes the $10.69 a month it costs did make a difference. Not only that, how can I ask my family to cut corners if I don't? I would much rather have used the money to at least buy a perp. lic. to Lightroom which I should have done. Lesson learned.

Oct 14, 2014permalink