Where do I stand on this issue!!
First thanks for everyone for the ideas and discussion.
From this group, I will NOW have two ways (albeit somewhat cumbersome) to manage my files. I am not a ‘pro’ and ‘time’ is not as important of an issue for me.
Workflow prior to my new camera was transfer to a file, populate the files in ARC and Photoshop, and view. Alternative was to look at images after transfer to the computer in Windows RAW viewer.
I liked the way ARC allowed the adjustment of the exposure, shadows, temperature, and white balance and then transfer to Photoshop for addition processing (if necessary) and then some image display (web or printer).
NOW, Workflow is to transfer the computer file. I can process (FIRST OPTION) the file USING Canon’s DPP but there is little guidance in the manual and on line other then a set of tutorials by Eddie Tapp. The images seem to load quicker but I am still not comfortable with some of the adjustments. If I like it, I can then transfer to ‘editing’ program i.e. Photoshop and do additional post processing.
Second option: Convert my Canon RAW files to DNG which adds processing time and doubles each particular files size (I convert to another folder called DNG under that day or subject shooting). Then I can process in the workflow I have become comfortable with.
I think the parts about this experience that is irritating are the following:
1. ADOBE does not support at least one level back in their version cycle. (Camera RAW and new cameras)
2. IMO the difference in improvement between CS and CS2 was not worth the upgrade even most people seem to like the BRIDGE that was the MAJOR improvement based on my shooting style.
3. All this debate could have been solved if I upgraded but THAT is the
PROFIT motive of Adobe.
4. Canon’s DPP and other software, spread over the number of cameras sold, is ‘free’ compared to Nikon.
I am convinced that NEITHER CANON nor NIKON want their captured images to be processed in Photoshop. (sounds like a profit motive to me) { I am not opposed to profits but am more into brand loyalty and quality of product}.
5. My main concern is to take a picture, reflect my interaction with the subject, present it to others, and have a good time. The techie information IS important but less of a priority for me.
THANKS again for all for the INFORMATION that helped me and a generally positive sets of interaction.
"Barry Pearson" wrote in message
: wraped in canvas wrote:
: [snip]
: > The original discussion was not about ACR but Photoshop: : > "Apparently my version of CS does not support this camera RAW" :
: Read it again. It said: "I have been using the Adobe RAW converter when : I was using my 20D and basically liked the workflow when I shot in RAW. : The Adobe website doesn’t seem to have this model listed for CS". :
: That is about ACR!
:
: [snip]
: > Already the industry has been divided by Adobe seeking to have "THEIR" : > standard adopted when for all we know, Nikon or Olympus or Panasonic or : > Canon or some yet to be developed system may be better suited to : > standardisation than Adobe’s.
:
: None of those support the range of sensor configurations that DNG : supports. (DNG can currently handle more than 100 cameras from about 17 : camera manufacturers). None of the camera manufacturers has shown any : indication of wanting their format to become the industry standard, : (except by wiping out their competitors!), so whether they COULD : theoretically be developed over a number of years to be a better format : than DNG is irrelevant. They won’t be.
:
: A requirement is that any format to be used as an industry standard has : to be openly documented. So far, I believe that only Sigma has done : this, apart from DNG of course.
:
: [snip]
: > I take it you have always used computer manipulation of your photographs?
:
: When I started printing my photographs, about 45 years ago, I didn’t : possess a computer! In fact, I didn’t start doing computer manipulation : until about 5 years ago, when I realised at an exhibition that digital : printing was an acceptable alternative for my purposes to the : Cibachrome / Ilfochrome prints I had done. Within weeks, I gave my : darkroom equipment away, and bought into a "digital darkroom". :
: I do whatever I need to to get a desirable end result. The cameras, : lenses, films, software, computers, printers, scanners, etc, are simply : components of a system, and I use them as required.
:
: [snip]
: > Even today, I cannot see why photographs absolutely MUST be Photoshoped : > before they are usable.
: [snip]
:
: See above – for 40 years, I didn’t use Photoshop in order to make my : photographs usable. Now I use it for all my photographs, because it is : the best tool for a particular role in my chosen workflow. I use it as : much or as little as needed – sometimes it is little more than a way of : invoking the printer driver, sometimes I have many layers with layers : masks built up over many hours. Whatever it takes.
:
: —
: Barry Pearson
:
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/ :
http://www.birdsandanimals.info/ :
