DNG conversion and the Adobe tax.

OK, so we all have to keep upgrading our Adobe software to cope with newer cameras...

Or do we? Why can't we just use the DNG converter?

RAWs to DNG and then open in Adobe CS[archaic]?

Am I missing something?
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

This is what I have been doing for some years now. I just can not justify buying new versions (or upgrading) PS twice a year.

I hope this situation remains in the future so I can upgrade only when I feel the new PS offers genuine advances...

Louis_Dobson said:

OK, so we all have to keep upgrading our Adobe software to cope with newer cameras...

Or do we? Why can't we just use the DNG converter?

RAWs to DNG and then open in Adobe CS[archaic]?

Am I missing something?
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

Click to expand...

But if people just do this what are they going to use as an excuse to justify buying the newer versions that they don't otherwise need?

Older versions of ACR and LR do not take advantage of all the new fields and features defined and supported in current DNG format.

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

Louis_Dobson said:

OK, so we all have to keep upgrading our Adobe software to cope with newer cameras...

Or do we? Why can't we just use the DNG converter?

RAWs to DNG and then open in Adobe CS[archaic]?

Click to expand...

why do you want to miss the new features in the new versions of ACR/LR ? certainly there are people who do not like Adobe's converters in principle because of certain design decisions that Adobe's developers made (like the poster above), but for those who still use 'em anyways - not to use the recent versions of Adobe raw converters makes no sense... they do make things better... that is actually the main reason to upgrade, not just to get the support for a new cameras.

When I upgraded from my dinosaur Canon 300D to the now ancient Canon 450D I also had a version of Photoshop (and ACR) that was too old. So I used the DNG converter and found that at ISO 800 and 1600 the images would have lots of mysterious single-pixel white dots. Obviously something was not understood quite correctly by the older ACR.

I upgraded Photoshop (luckily I work at a university with a good deal on this) and the white dots disappeared.

So when ACR is updated it is really augmented with knowledge of the new cameras that involves some processing that is not done when just converting raw to dng.

Louis_Dobson said:

OK, so we all have to keep upgrading our Adobe software to cope with newer cameras...

Or do we? Why can't we just use the DNG converter?

RAWs to DNG and then open in Adobe CS[archaic]?

Am I missing something?
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

Click to expand...

--
Slowly learning to use the 450D, the Canon G6 and the Fuji F200.
Public pictures at http://debra.zenfolio.com/ .

Yes - I agree with Paul's comments, I've tried a few times to use DNG which was an older/earlier version..but it does not always work that way. DNG itself does seem without a doubt to get some degree of updating and any version only seems usable for a certain period of time or with certain older cameras maybe

But the best answer I can recommend right now is NOT a full costly update of CS.. get Aftershot Pro.. it really is an excellent program.. nominal coist compared to such as CS...it is said (and this is true to some extent) to be one that works rather like LR..actually I find it a lot better than LR..and the latest current version is so update that it has for a little while now (since latest version was available) works with even the EM5 RAW files.. and that damned camera is hardly available here in UK as yet.. THAT is update in programming !! and you can keep your existing CS as it is fine to use in finishing off if needed, any pics first put through AFS.
If an unbeliever..try it..it's available on a Trial...

--
eric
Staffordshire, UK

Louis ,

I see from the meta-data of your excellent "Little Castle" image posted on the internet that (at least on Nov 14, 2011), you had Photoshop CS2 only ...

So, it seems that you are looking at these thoroughly disgusting Adobe Options :

(1) Fork over a huge amount of money for PS CS6, with all of Adobe's insulting new policies that (as I understand it) may well force you to pay ongoing license fees to Big Brother for continued functionality and specific features; or

(2) Fork over a huge amount of money for an all new computer (or, at least an all new Windows OS, asuming that the BIOS updates on your present computer's system-board has actually been updated for Win7 compatibility, which is probably rather unlikely), and likely (also) have to re-purchase a pile of new software that will run on Win7, and likely face the fact that perhaps a fair number of your favorite resident software applications are now obsolete, and would be lost to you forever ... just so that you can purchase and run Lightroom 4.x. The $150 purchase price would represent a tiny fraction of the additional hardware/software costs that would also be involved ...

I myself am in a similar "boat". My system is WinXP Pro SP3, and my roughly 3 year old system board BIOS never has not (and never will) be updated to support Win7. The last OS I would want to have to switch to is Vistsa (ugh), which might have a chance with the existing BIOS updates - but I would myself probably have to purchase (at least) a whole new system-board (if not a whole new entire tower, to avoid the musty grief of dealing with such upgrading rats-nests ... not to mention the poop-pile of software applications that I would (also) lose by losing my WinXP system.

Not only is DNG a dubious way to go in the first place (as oposed to the original out of camera RAWs), but it is also true that something as dated as PS CS2 likely falls short of what the the DNG Converter (compatible only back to Camera RAW 2.4) can viably do for you. A "sticky wicket" ...

To escape this enslaving regimen, perhaps alternate RAW processing pathways might be more interesting and ultimately viable ? Who wants to be Adobe's B-I-T-C-H, anyway ? Give 'em hell !

You're missing the improvements in the latest versions of Photoshop and Lightroom.

LR may well do everything you need - it can increase or decrease apparent exposure (including in just parts of the tonal range), noise, sharpening and saturation for the entire image or any part. You could process the image from LR4 in CS2 if you wanted.

You can get trial versions these products, as well as most any other major image processing program. As you know, you'll need a 64 bit processor and OS.
--
http://fruminousbandersnatch.blogspot.com/

Louis_Dobson said:

Am I missing something?

Click to expand...

Yes you are. Frankly, DNG just does not work very well. It's ok for the Cheap Charlies who moan at every little expense, but if you want the latest and greatest, you MUST upgrade your software.

--

The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselves into thinking they have done 'the right thing.'

• Rayna Butler

You could probably buy a new computer and the latest version of LR for less than the cost of the latest version of PS.

If your current computer is too old to run Win7, you should experience a massive increase in performance from a new machine. You should not lose the ability to run older software, unless you no longer have the installation disks (it's sometimes possible to get around this).
--
http://fruminousbandersnatch.blogspot.com/

Yup. Photoshop CS4 waiiting to go on, but LR4 is a pest. I really do NOT want to convert the photo machine to Win7. The hardware cost is no issue (£59 to upgrade my high spec ram from 4 to 8GB) and the software should be no problem (although I have let my TechNet subscription lapse), but the basic configuration has been there for about fourteen years since I put on W2K beta 2, and I've long since lost the licence keys / disks etc (including, shamefully, for stuff I wrote myself, mostly in Delphi, which I've also long since lost). I've never upgraded to W7 because there is no smooth path from XP SP3.

I can get round this with virtual machines and various other ways, but a DNG converter and using what I have (LR3.6 and CS4) would be a lot easier!

Detail Man said:

Louis ,

I see from the meta-data of your excellent "Little Castle" image posted on the internet that (at least on Nov 14, 2011), you had Photoshop CS2 only ...

So, it seems that you are looking at these thoroughly disgusting Adobe Options :

(1) Fork over a huge amount of money for PS CS6, with all of Adobe's insulting new policies that (as I understand it) may well force you to pay ongoing license fees to Big Brother for continued functionality and specific features; or

(2) Fork over a huge amount of money for an all new computer (or, at least an all new Windows OS, asuming that the BIOS updates on your present computer's system-board has actually been updated for Win7 compatibility, which is probably rather unlikely), and likely (also) have to re-purchase a pile of new software that will run on Win7, and likely face the fact that perhaps a fair number of your favorite resident software applications are now obsolete, and would be lost to you forever ... just so that you can purchase and run Lightroom 4.x. The $150 purchase price would represent a tiny fraction of the additional hardware/software costs that would also be involved ...

I myself am in a similar "boat". My system is WinXP Pro SP3, and my roughly 3 year old system board BIOS never has not (and never will) be updated to support Win7. The last OS I would want to have to switch to is Vistsa (ugh), which might have a chance with the existing BIOS updates - but I would myself probably have to purchase (at least) a whole new system-board (if not a whole new entire tower, to avoid the musty grief of dealing with such upgrading rats-nests ... not to mention the poop-pile of software applications that I would (also) lose by losing my WinXP system.

Not only is DNG a dubious way to go in the first place (as oposed to the original out of camera RAWs), but it is also true that something as dated as PS CS2 likely falls short of what the the DNG Converter (compatible only back to Camera RAW 2.4) can viably do for you. A "sticky wicket" ...

To escape this enslaving regimen, perhaps alternate RAW processing pathways might be more interesting and ultimately viable ? Who wants to be Adobe's B-I-T-C-H, anyway ? Give 'em hell !

Click to expand...

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

What we need is an IQ test between AfterShot Pro and LR4.

I tried The Gimp yesterday and got terribly excited when I discovered it does the quickmasking and layering I want. Then I was heartbroken to realise it is still 8 bit :-(

Shame. I had a vision of Aftershot Pro and The Gimp running on Linux.

Anything around that handles layers and quick masks that is 16 bit? For Linux, obviously.

ericN2 said:

Yes - I agree with Paul's comments, I've tried a few times to use DNG which was an older/earlier version..but it does not always work that way. DNG itself does seem without a doubt to get some degree of updating and any version only seems usable for a certain period of time or with certain older cameras maybe

But the best answer I can recommend right now is NOT a full costly update of CS.. get Aftershot Pro.. it really is an excellent program.. nominal coist compared to such as CS...it is said (and this is true to some extent) to be one that works rather like LR..actually I find it a lot better than LR..and the latest current version is so update that it has for a little while now (since latest version was available) works with even the EM5 RAW files.. and that damned camera is hardly available here in UK as yet.. THAT is update in programming !! and you can keep your existing CS as it is fine to use in finishing off if needed, any pics first put through AFS.
If an unbeliever..try it..it's available on a Trial...

--
eric
Staffordshire, UK

Click to expand...

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

LR's editing tools are fairly useless on their own. I do maybe 60% of my stuff in LR3.6, but 40% means exporting to CS2.

CS2 is fine though. I've just scrounged CS4, but for me there's no actual advantage, not is there in CS5 or CS6.

I'm unkeen on LR4. Although every other machine in this house (I'm a computer consultant) is W7 or some flavour of Linux, the photo machine is XP SP3, works fine, and is full of odd bits of software for which I've long since the lost the keys or wrote myself long ago and would have trouble getting to work on a new machine. I can't say it is any slower than the others either, despite only 4GB of RAM.

In simple terms getting a machine ready to run LR4 will cosy me several man days of work and I'll be tripping over the consequences for months.

richarddd said:

You could probably buy a new computer and the latest version of LR for less than the cost of the latest version of PS.

If your current computer is too old to run Win7, you should experience a massive increase in performance from a new machine. You should not lose the ability to run older software, unless you no longer have the installation disks (it's sometimes possible to get around this).
--
http://fruminousbandersnatch.blogspot.com/

Click to expand...

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

What editing are you able to do in CS2 that you can't do with LR's editing tools?

Have you tried LR4? Obviously you can install a trial version on a W7 machine, even if it's not a dedicated photo machine, and play with a few photos.

BTW, the post on the speed of a new machine was in response to DM's post.

Louis_Dobson said:

LR's editing tools are fairly useless on their own. I do maybe 60% of my stuff in LR3.6, but 40% means exporting to CS2.

CS2 is fine though. I've just scrounged CS4, but for me there's no actual advantage, not is there in CS5 or CS6.

I'm unkeen on LR4. Although every other machine in this house (I'm a computer consultant) is W7 or some flavour of Linux, the photo machine is XP SP3, works fine, and is full of odd bits of software for which I've long since the lost the keys or wrote myself long ago and would have trouble getting to work on a new machine. I can't say it is any slower than the others either, despite only 4GB of RAM.

In simple terms getting a machine ready to run LR4 will cosy me several man days of work and I'll be tripping over the consequences for months.

Click to expand...

--
http://fruminousbandersnatch.blogspot.com/

richarddd said:

What editing are you able to do in CS2 that you can't do with LR's editing tools?

Have you tried LR4? Obviously you can install a trial version on a W7 machine, even if it's not a dedicated photo machine, and play with a few photos.

Click to expand...

90% of what I do is growing and shrinking and feathering selections, controlling selections by colour, adding and subtracting selections, magic wand, Quick Mask and layers, and as far as I know LR4 does not do that yes. The selection tools in LR3.6 are pathetic.

I have deliberately NOT tried LR4 because I'm waiting to use up my month trial when I have an OM-D and LR supports it

richarddd said:

BTW, the post on the speed of a new machine was in response to DM's post.

Click to expand...

Yes, I know. I was just intercepting that! What I have works fine, but a) apparently LR4 has better IQ (how can it? Surely it just has easier to use sliders?) and b) it will (eventually) support the OM-D and LR3.6 won't.

So if needs be I'll build a W7 box and put LR4 and CS4 on it. But if I can find something with the IQ of LR4 that supports the OM-D and runs on XP, that would be much better! I don't care about LR's fancy features, I'm quite prepared to export to CS and do it there. All I need is curves and saturation.

richarddd said:

Louis_Dobson said:

LR's editing tools are fairly useless on their own. I do maybe 60% of my stuff in LR3.6, but 40% means exporting to CS2.

CS2 is fine though. I've just scrounged CS4, but for me there's no actual advantage, not is there in CS5 or CS6.

I'm unkeen on LR4. Although every other machine in this house (I'm a computer consultant) is W7 or some flavour of Linux, the photo machine is XP SP3, works fine, and is full of odd bits of software for which I've long since the lost the keys or wrote myself long ago and would have trouble getting to work on a new machine. I can't say it is any slower than the others either, despite only 4GB of RAM.

In simple terms getting a machine ready to run LR4 will cosy me several man days of work and I'll be tripping over the consequences for months.

Click to expand...

--
http://fruminousbandersnatch.blogspot.com/

Click to expand...

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

Louis_Dobson said:

Yup. Photoshop CS4 waiiting to go on, but LR4 is a pest. I really do NOT want to convert the photo machine to Win7. The hardware cost is no issue (£59 to upgrade my high spec ram from 4 to 8GB) and the software should be no problem (although I have let my TechNet subscription lapse), but the basic configuration has been there for about fourteen years since I put on W2K beta 2, and I've long since lost the licence keys / disks etc (including, shamefully, for stuff I wrote myself, mostly in Delphi, which I've also long since lost). I've never upgraded to W7 because there is no smooth path from XP SP3.

Click to expand...

Louis_Dobson said:

... the photo machine is XP SP3, works fine, and is full of odd bits of software for which I've long since the lost the keys or wrote myself long ago and would have trouble getting to work on a new machine. I can't say it is any slower than the others either, despite only 4GB of RAM.

Click to expand...

I recently bought some more RAM to add to my 2 GB, and discovered that WinXP 32-bit can only address (and actually access and use) 4 GB minus the address-locations dmeanded by your video card, PCI stuff, etc. Bottom-line is that one is lucky to have 3 GB of an installed 4 GB of RAM for use. So I just picked up a 2 GB card and combined it with one of my old 1 GB cards in a slick configuration that is a tad better than the usual. Your 2 x 2 GB cards (right?) work fine - but 3 GB is about all that you actually have available to Windows XP. And it is no better in Vista (or even in the lame Vista 64-bit). Only Win7 can actually utilize more than 3 GB RAM in any not entirely goofy configuration ...

... BUT, the (RAM utilization) limitations have to do with your CPU's supporting chip-set (not the OS), so it's likely that your older system-board would not allow you to utilize that extra RAM anyway. I hate computers. Less is indeed more where it comes to the grief of dealing with all of these nefarious fatcs designed to force regular hardware and system upgrades along with the new OSs and software applications. I have a full WinXP Pro SP3 license in store for when my (OEM, on one system-board only) WinXP expires along with the system-board - and (despite WinXP SP3 support ending in 2014), I would buy a used tower with a BIOS that (unlike the new ones) has not already forgotten about bothering to support WinXP. I rightly despise what they call "progress"

Louis_Dobson said:

I can get round this with virtual machines and various other ways, but a DNG converter and using what I have (LR3.6 and CS4) would be a lot easier!

Click to expand...

So, you and I both have Lightroom 3.6. Man, (I really think) that it's sharpening (as with LR4, too, it appears) truly sucks. Note that Topaz's (reasonably priced) InFocus plugin for LR 3.x with (probably much better implemented) deconvolution-deblurring sharpening is on sale for 35% off through today only (which is not far off with you being 9 or 10 hours ahead of me in Portugal). See this post for the info on that:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=41288571

With LR 3.6's sharpening replaced by Topaz InFocus, the Color NR in LR 3.6 is indeed quite good, and it is only the (admitedly impressive looking) LR 4.x Highlight Recovery that you would miss out on. But it sounds like you already have some methods using layers/masking, etc. with which to approach that functionality. And, as I have said, DxO Optics Pro 7.x supports (or will soon support) quite a few of your reportedly owned lenses on the GH2, and it's "Lens Softness" corrections (which integrate deconvolution-deblurring in a very sophisticated and effective manner) is IMO unparalleled in the quality that it can provide where it comes to doing a good job of "sharpening".

See: http://www.dxo.com/us/photo/dxo_optics_pro/features/optics_geometry_corrections/lens_softness

DxO Optics Pro 7.x Standard Edition is $169 USD (but goes on sale periodically for only $99 USD), can cover all of the optical corrections (including "Lens Softness") automatically for any supported lens, and provide a 16-bit TIF for export to LR-3.6/PS-CS4 (which does have somewhat better Color NR (though DxO's NR is quite adequate for base ISO work, and it's Luminance NR at low settings preserves image-detail quite nicely). But, I am a well known (admitted) DxO fanboy ...

Louis_Dobson said:

... if I can find something with the IQ of LR4 that supports the OM-D and runs on XP, that would be much better! I don't care about LR's fancy features, I'm quite prepared to export to CS and do it there. All I need is curves and saturation.

Click to expand...

Have you looked at RAW Therapee 4.x? It is free, stable, is just getting better and better with new releases every month or so, and will support the E-M5 as soon as Dave Coffin's DCraw core supports it (probably not far off in time). Outstanding user-interface (better than LR or DxO ina lot of ways). Tons of controls. CIE-Lab adjustment abilities that are quite nice. A nice Vibrance color-saturation. As good of a tone-curve tool as Lightroom 3.6 has. The on-board NR is weak (behind LR and DxO). The on-board Richardson-Lucy deconvolution-deblurring sharpening is (IMO) a bit ahead of LR 3.6 sharoening, but likely behind Topaz InFocus; way behind DxO's "Lens Softness".

Louis_Dobson said:

Anything around that handles layers and quick masks that is 16 bit? For Linux, obviously.

Click to expand...

Gimp 2.8 (RC) may already offer full 16 bit per channel pipelines (GEGL). And Cinepaint (fork off gimp for the film industry) can already do it for years.

Louis_Dobson said:

90% of what I do is growing and shrinking and feathering selections, controlling selections by colour, adding and subtracting selections, magic wand, Quick Mask and layers, and as far as I know LR4 does not do that yes.

Click to expand...

LR4 has the paintbrush and automask features from LR3.6. I don't see any differences.

If that isn't precise enough control for you, then PS is the way to go. CS5's quick select and refine edge functions are a major improvement over CS4 (magic wand is not in the same league), if you need that level of precision.

Louis_Dobson said:

Yes, I know. I was just intercepting that! What I have works fine, but a) apparently LR4 has better IQ (how can it? Surely it just has easier to use sliders?) and b) it will (eventually) support the OM-D and LR3.6 won't.

Click to expand...

LR4 has significantly improved technology for processing highlights, shadows and clarity. It presumably does this with better algorithms.

It will also let you brush in noise reduction, which is an improvement over LR3.6, if memory serves.

--
http://fruminousbandersnatch.blogspot.com/

Seems that I got confused by the strange version numbering.

Timur Born said:

GIMP 2.10’s core will be 100% ported to GEGL, and all of the legacy pixel fiddling API for plug-ins is going to be deprecated. Once the core is completely ported, it will be a minor effort to simply “switch on” high bit depths and whatever color models we’d like to see. Oh, and already now, instead of removing indexed mode (as originally planned), we accidentally promoted indexed images to first class citizens that can be painted on, and even color corrected, just like any other image. The code doing so doesn’t even notice because GEGL and Babl transparently handle the pixel conversion magic.

Click to expand...

Timur Born said:

The port lives in the goat-invasion branch in GIT. That branch will become master once GIMP 2.8 is relased, so the first GIMP 2.9 developer release will already contain the port in progress.

Click to expand...

PS: 2.8 and 2.9 are development branches, 2.1 seems to be the next release that comes after those branches. No idea. Maybe it's a typo and they mean 3.1?