Newer RAW files won't open in older Photoshop: Intentional or technically not possible?

[mrdale]

I don't use Photoshop (or Apple) products so its immaterial for me. I have no desire to pay monthly for SW. I seem to get by fine with my current workflow.

 

[Jon555]

Just use the free Adobe DNG converter to convert the Raw file to a DNG file and import that...

 

[tbcass]

It appears there’s no technical reason. It has to do with updated camera profiles which are useful but not necessary.

They are necessary. Without those profiles there is no way that the raw processor can get the information on how to decode the data in the raw file, which is entirely specific to the camera type. Sometimes camera types are close enough that an existing one can be used for a new camera and other times they are not.

Being the suspicious type I am I think it has more to do with corporate greed.

I'm not entirely sure that 'suspicious' is the right word there.

Nope. The profiles are there to use as a starting point for the RAW file and are optimized for each specific camera. Opening a RAW file without the camera profile would be the same as setting everything to zero, no processing or enhancements. What that would mean is a lot more work, trial and error, to get the results you want. I have never found a RAW file on the internet that cannot be opened by FastStone. The problem is FastStone isn't a powerful enough editor to be used on it's own but you can save the file in other formats that can be edited such as TIFF, PNG etc.

 

[tbcass]

It appears there’s no technical reason. It has to do with updated camera profiles which are useful but not necessary. Being the suspicious type I am I think it has more to do with corporate greed.

Indeed,Adobe even have the brass neck to provide a free DNG converter for those who choose not to upgrade their software.

I didn't know that so maybe I was being a bit too harsh. I don't like Adobe and refuse to buy their products but that's my problem.

 

[bobn2]

It appears there’s no technical reason. It has to do with updated camera profiles which are useful but not necessary.

They are necessary. Without those profiles there is no way that the raw processor can get the information on how to decode the data in the raw file, which is entirely specific to the camera type. Sometimes camera types are close enough that an existing one can be used for a new camera and other times they are not.

Being the suspicious type I am I think it has more to do with corporate greed.

I'm not entirely sure that 'suspicious' is the right word there.

Nope. The profiles are there to use as a starting point for the RAW file and are optimized for each specific camera. Opening a RAW file without the camera profile would be the same as setting everything to zero, no processing or enhancements.

The processor needs some basic information. like the raw format, CFA arrangements and so on. Often these are contained in the metatdata of the raw file, but not always.

What that would mean is a lot more work, trial and error, to get the results you want. I have never found a RAW file on the internet that cannot be opened by FastStone.

Which doesn't mean that there isn't one.

 

[tbcass]

Which doesn't mean that there isn't one.

Bad argument. I'll tell you what. Download FastStone and see if you can find a RAW file that won't open. Until then I'll stick with my story.

 

[Iliah Borg]

I have never found a RAW file on the internet that cannot be opened by FastStone. The problem is FastStone isn't a powerful enough editor to be used on it's own but you can save the file in other formats that can be edited such as TIFF, PNG etc.

When FastStone can't render a raw it displays the embedded JPEG without explicitly telling you so.

 

[bobn2]

Which doesn't mean that there isn't one.

Bad argument.

Very good argument.

I'll tell you what. Download FastStone and see if you can find a RAW file that won't open. Until then I'll stick with my story.

OK, if I can bill you for the wasted time (even here under lock-down I have useful things to do).

 

[Iliah Borg]

Which doesn't mean that there isn't one.

Bad argument.

Very good argument.

I'll tell you what. Download FastStone and see if you can find a RAW file that won't open. Until then I'll stick with my story.

OK, if I can bill you for the wasted time (even here under lock-down I have useful things to do).

All tbcass needs is to e-mail the developer with a direct question.

 

[tbcass]

I have never found a RAW file on the internet that cannot be opened by FastStone. The problem is FastStone isn't a powerful enough editor to be used on it's own but you can save the file in other formats that can be edited such as TIFF, PNG etc.

When FastStone can't render a raw it displays the embedded JPEG without explicitly telling you so.

Embedded JPEGs are not full size, something like 1mp or less. Every RAW file I've downloaded and opened with FastStone is the full sized file. When I want to examine RAW files from the net Faststone is my go to. It also allows some basic editing that have allowed me to get passable results. Here's a Canon Raw file I downloaded from Imaging Resource taken by a Canon 5DR and edited with FastStone.



View attachment 5462b1009c66476dad70336f8644783f.jpg



--
Tom

 

[tbcass]

OK, if I can bill you for the wasted time (even here under lock-down I have useful things to do).

Making a claim without actually trying to do it is 100% useless. You have no proof at all that Faststone can't open and edit most any RAW file while I have actually done it. Here's a RAW file from a Canon 5DR I just downloaded from Imagine Resource edited with FastStone.



View attachment e6ee432e4db240e694d57776722964ef.jpg





--
Tom

 

[bobn2]

OK, if I can bill you for the wasted time (even here under lock-down I have useful things to do).

Making a claim without actually trying to do it is 100% useless. You have no proof at all that Faststone can't open and edit most any RAW file while I have actually done it. Here's a RAW file from a Canon 5DR I just downloaded from Imagine Resource edited with FastStone.

View attachment e6ee432e4db240e694d57776722964ef.jpg

I don't think you have any idea of what constitutes 'proof' at at all. The claim is yours, that Faststone can open and 'edit' (which I very much doubt, you really don't want to be editing your raw files) any raw file. It's up to you to prove it, and you haven't yet, I don't need any 'proof'. I just need to point out that you haven't proven it, which you haven't.

In any case, I understand that 'FastStone' is a Windows tool, which means that I have even less interest in going anywhere near it.

--
Things became much easier since I stopped confusing profundity and profanity.

 

[Iliah Borg]

I have never found a RAW file on the internet that cannot be opened by FastStone. The problem is FastStone isn't a powerful enough editor to be used on it's own but you can save the file in other formats that can be edited such as TIFF, PNG etc.

When FastStone can't render a raw it displays the embedded JPEG without explicitly telling you so.

Embedded JPEGs are not full size, something like 1mp or less.

Depends on the camera. For Canon EOS-1D X Mark III - I have files with 5472 by 3648 pixels.

Every RAW file I've downloaded and opened with FastStone is the full sized file.

Means the raw format is supported to dcraw (read the Credits file). Not all raw formats are, CR3 is definitely not one of those supported.

 

[Dareshooter]

I have never found a RAW file on the internet that cannot be opened by FastStone. The problem is FastStone isn't a powerful enough editor to be used on it's own but you can save the file in other formats that can be edited such as TIFF, PNG etc.

When FastStone can't render a raw it displays the embedded JPEG without explicitly telling you so.

Embedded JPEGs are not full size, something like 1mp or less.

Depends on the camera. For Canon EOS-1D X Mark III - I have files with 5472 by 3648 pixels.

Every RAW file I've downloaded and opened with FastStone is the full sized file.

Means the raw format is supported to dcraw (read the Credits file). Not all raw formats are, CR3 is definitely not one of those supported.

Really so how come I can use CR3 in Faststone ?

 

[tbcass]

All tbcass needs is to e-mail the developer with a direct question.

Both of you are just guessing without any experience or proof. I've proved it to myself so I have no reason to email a developer. You're the ones who doubt me so email yourself or use some other method to prove I'm wrong. I did one from a Canon 5DR now here's one from the 645Z. I could do this all day long. I have to ask. Why are you so skeptical of my claim if you haven't even tried it?



View attachment 881f63595c714ba181ed0f5e2ba69d35.jpg



--
Tom

 

[tbcass]

OK, if I can bill you for the wasted time (even here under lock-down I have useful things to do).

Making a claim without actually trying to do it is 100% useless. You have no proof at all that Faststone can't open and edit most any RAW file while I have actually done it. Here's a RAW file from a Canon 5DR I just downloaded from Imagine Resource edited with FastStone.

View attachment e6ee432e4db240e694d57776722964ef.jpg

I don't think you have any idea of what constitutes 'proof' at at all. The claim is yours, that Faststone can open and 'edit' (which I very much doubt, you really don't want to be editing your raw files) any raw file. It's up to you to prove it, and you haven't yet, I don't need any 'proof'. I just need to point out that you haven't proven it, which you haven't.

In any case, I understand that 'FastStone' is a Windows tool, which means that I have even less interest in going anywhere near it.

It is proof. I downloaded the file. I opened it in Faststone. I edited it and saved it as a JPEG. Please tell me. Why don't you believe me when you haven't even used the software and tried it for yourself. Do you think I'm some kind of liar? I just don't get it. Believe me what I'm saying is the truth!!!!

--
Tom

 

[Iliah Borg]

I have never found a RAW file on the internet that cannot be opened by FastStone. The problem is FastStone isn't a powerful enough editor to be used on it's own but you can save the file in other formats that can be edited such as TIFF, PNG etc.

When FastStone can't render a raw it displays the embedded JPEG without explicitly telling you so.

Embedded JPEGs are not full size, something like 1mp or less.

Depends on the camera. For Canon EOS-1D X Mark III - I have files with 5472 by 3648 pixels.

Every RAW file I've downloaded and opened with FastStone is the full sized file.

Means the raw format is supported to dcraw (read the Credits file). Not all raw formats are, CR3 is definitely not one of those supported.

Really so how come I can use CR3 in Faststone ?

As I said, e-mail the developer and ask a direct question. What I see subtracting Faststone export from embedded JPEG is black field.

 

[Boomanbb]

I think the horse has been beat dead at this point. Might I suggest that neither of you will change the others perspective.

 

[Iliah Borg]

All tbcass needs is to e-mail the developer with a direct question.

Both of you are just guessing without any experience or proof

I subtracted embedded JPEG from FastStone export of a CR3 and got a black field. Also, the colour is exactly Canon's which is practically impossible with any third-party raw converter not based on Canon's SDK. There are no traces of Canon SDK in FastStone, plus SDK for CR3 v.2 has not been even released yet. Same, there are no traces of any colour- and tone-matching software to take colour and characteristic curves from a JPEG and apply it while rendering raw.

Again, the credit is given only to dcraw, no mention of Canon, libraw, or any other modules that support CR3. dcraw doesn't support CR3. Are you suggesting the developer of FastStone implemented a converter for CR3 v.2 all by himself, and profiled it exactly like Canon? Or used Adobe DNG converter (with is bulkier than FastStone) behind the scenes? That's a near impossibility, but to know for sure e-mail the developer.

--
http://www.libraw.org/

 

[Iliah Borg]

I think the horse has been beat dead at this point. Might I suggest that neither of you will change the others perspective.

There is no perspective here, it's about facts. If I see 240 mph limit on a speedometer it doesn't mean the car will be able to reach this speed on any road.