Adobe Camera Raw 3.6 in PS CS (not CS2)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by drew.avis@gmail.com, Nov 15, 2006.

  1. Guest

    Does anyone know if the newest Adobe Camera Raw 3.6 plugin will work in
    Photoshop CS (not CS2)?

    Thanks,
    Drew
    , Nov 15, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Charlie Choc Guest

    On 15 Nov 2006 07:26:54 -0800, wrote:

    >Does anyone know if the newest Adobe Camera Raw 3.6 plugin will work in
    >Photoshop CS (not CS2)?
    >

    From the Adobe site: "The Camera Raw 3.6 plug-in is not compatible with versions
    of Adobe Photoshop software earlier than Photoshop CS2, versions of Photoshop
    Elements software earlier than Photoshop Elements 3.0, or versions of Adobe
    Premiere Elements software earlier than Adobe Premiere Elements 3.0."
    --
    Charlie...
    http://www.chocphoto.com
    Charlie Choc, Nov 15, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. John Bean Guest

    On 15 Nov 2006 07:26:54 -0800, wrote:

    >Does anyone know if the newest Adobe Camera Raw 3.6 plugin will work in
    >Photoshop CS (not CS2)?


    No, it won't. The latest version for CS is 2.4.

    If you have a camera not supported by ACR2.4 (but is by 3.6)
    there is a way around it. Use the stand-alone DNG Converter
    program that's bundled with ACR 3.6 to convert your raw file
    to DNG. The resulting file will open with ACR2.4 in CS.

    --
    John Bean
    John Bean, Nov 15, 2006
    #3
  4. Guest

    John Bean wrote:

    > If you have a camera not supported by ACR2.4 (but is by 3.6)
    > there is a way around it. Use the stand-alone DNG Converter
    > program that's bundled with ACR 3.6 to convert your raw file
    > to DNG. The resulting file will open with ACR2.4 in CS.


    Excellent, thanks! That's exactly what I was looking for, a way to
    convert D80 raw files, without having to upgrade to CS2.

    Cheers!
    Drew
    , Nov 15, 2006
    #4
  5. John Bean <> wrote:
    >
    > No, it won't. The latest version for CS is 2.4.
    >
    > If you have a camera not supported by ACR2.4 (but is by 3.6)
    > there is a way around it. Use the stand-alone DNG Converter
    > program that's bundled with ACR 3.6 to convert your raw file
    > to DNG. The resulting file will open with ACR2.4 in CS.
    >


    Which might be considered a good workflow reguardless.

    --
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Nov 15, 2006
    #5
  6. Tom Hise Guest

    On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:56:54 +0000, John Bean <> wrote:

    >If you have a camera not supported by ACR2.4 (but is by 3.6)
    >there is a way around it. Use the stand-alone DNG Converter
    >program that's bundled with ACR 3.6 to convert your raw file
    >to DNG. The resulting file will open with ACR2.4 in CS.


    Thank you so much John. I've been looking for a way to do this too.

    --
    Tom Hise
    Tom Hise, Nov 15, 2006
    #6
  7. John Bean Guest

    On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 18:04:05 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
    <> wrote:

    >John Bean <> wrote:
    >>
    >> No, it won't. The latest version for CS is 2.4.
    >>
    >> If you have a camera not supported by ACR2.4 (but is by 3.6)
    >> there is a way around it. Use the stand-alone DNG Converter
    >> program that's bundled with ACR 3.6 to convert your raw file
    >> to DNG. The resulting file will open with ACR2.4 in CS.
    >>

    >
    >Which might be considered a good workflow reguardless.


    It's certainly my preferred choice (despite having
    CS2/ACR3.6) but I've witnessed enough anti-Adobe feeling at
    the very mention of DNG and had no desire to start another
    DNG "holy war" by suggesting it was A Good Idea rather than
    just a work around.

    --
    John Bean
    John Bean, Nov 15, 2006
    #7
  8. John Bean Guest

    On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 12:07:05 -0600, Tom Hise
    <> wrote:

    >On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:56:54 +0000, John Bean <> wrote:
    >
    >>If you have a camera not supported by ACR2.4 (but is by 3.6)
    >>there is a way around it. Use the stand-alone DNG Converter
    >>program that's bundled with ACR 3.6 to convert your raw file
    >>to DNG. The resulting file will open with ACR2.4 in CS.

    >
    >Thank you so much John. I've been looking for a way to do this too.


    You're welcome. Just to clarify: download the ACR+DNG
    converter package from Adobe - they are not dependant on one
    another but the converter isn't available as a seperate
    download. Delete the ACR plugin - it's no use for CS and can
    cause endless confusion if CS "sees" it.

    The DNG Converter is a true stand-alone program which needs
    no installation. Just copy it somewhere convenient and run
    it.

    Select a *folder* containing raw files and optionally set a
    destination folder for the resulting DNGs then hit the
    button. Your origials are untouched, the new DNG versions
    are the files that will open in CS/ACR2.4.

    Hope that helps.

    --
    John Bean
    John Bean, Nov 15, 2006
    #8
  9. Guest

    John Bean wrote:

    > The DNG Converter is a true stand-alone program which needs
    > no installation. Just copy it somewhere convenient and run
    > it.


    Just tried it out, and it seems to work well. Great solution!

    On a related note, has anyone compared ACR vs dcraw? I've been using
    dcraw for a bit, and it seems to produce pretty good results, though
    you get a giant tiff to work with (must get a bigger hard drive).
    However, you can set curves during conversion with ACR, but have to do
    so afterwards with dcraw, and I wonder if this is a problem? I will do
    a comparison myself, was just wondering if anyone else had already done
    so.

    Drew
    , Nov 15, 2006
    #9
  10. John Bean Guest

    On 15 Nov 2006 12:07:04 -0800, wrote:

    >John Bean wrote:
    >
    >> The DNG Converter is a true stand-alone program which needs
    >> no installation. Just copy it somewhere convenient and run
    >> it.

    >
    >Just tried it out, and it seems to work well. Great solution!


    I'm glad to hear it :)

    >On a related note, has anyone compared ACR vs dcraw? I've been using
    >dcraw for a bit, and it seems to produce pretty good results, though
    >you get a giant tiff to work with (must get a bigger hard drive).


    It's at least as good as ACR as a pure converter, but I like
    my creature comforts when it comes to adjustments.

    >However, you can set curves during conversion with ACR, but have to do
    >so afterwards with dcraw, and I wonder if this is a problem?


    I hardly ever use curves in ACR but I do use calibration, CA
    correction, and one-click WB adlustments with the eye
    dropper. I also want to see all the EXIF retained in the
    image, and ACR does a much better job of highlight recovery
    than dcraw.

    Dcraw is great value of course... ;-)

    To be honest I don't use ACR that much there days, I tried
    Silkypix a few months back and became an overnight convert.
    Silkypix rocks!

    --
    John Bean
    John Bean, Nov 15, 2006
    #10
  11. Paul Mitchum Guest

    dcraw vs. ACR (was: Adobe Camera Raw 3.6 in PS CS (not CS2))

    <> wrote:

    > John Bean wrote:
    >
    > > The DNG Converter is a true stand-alone program which needs
    > > no installation. Just copy it somewhere convenient and run
    > > it.

    >
    > Just tried it out, and it seems to work well. Great solution!
    >
    > On a related note, has anyone compared ACR vs dcraw? I've been using
    > dcraw for a bit, and it seems to produce pretty good results, though you
    > get a giant tiff to work with (must get a bigger hard drive). However, you
    > can set curves during conversion with ACR, but have to do so afterwards
    > with dcraw, and I wonder if this is a problem? I will do a comparison
    > myself, was just wondering if anyone else had already done so.


    I use both (caveat: I'm using ACR 2.4 with CS). I use dcraw piped into
    imagemagick for quick proofs, mostly. Dcraw doesn't do sharpening or
    saturation or any of the other tweaks you can do in ACR, but it can do
    auto-levels and auto-white point. Which makes it good for
    batch-converting proofs. :)

    Note that there's a drop-in replacement for imagemagick called
    graphicsmagick. It can call dcraw and do the whole conversion in one
    step on the command line. It's also supposed to be faster and yield
    higher quality output. I have yet to get it to compile completely on my
    Mac, so I'm still using imagemagick.
    Paul Mitchum, Nov 15, 2006
    #11
  12. Hebee Jeebes Guest

    It won't work. Adobe uses ACR as a way to force you to upgrade. So every
    time you buy a new camera with RAW you may have to buy new software as well.

    R


    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Does anyone know if the newest Adobe Camera Raw 3.6 plugin will work in
    > Photoshop CS (not CS2)?
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Drew
    >
    Hebee Jeebes, Nov 16, 2006
    #12
  13. Re: dcraw vs. ACR

    0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
    >I use both (caveat: I'm using ACR 2.4 with CS). I use dcraw piped into
    >imagemagick for quick proofs, mostly. Dcraw doesn't do sharpening or
    >saturation or any of the other tweaks you can do in ACR, but it can do
    >auto-levels and auto-white point. Which makes it good for
    >batch-converting proofs. :)


    When you pipe /dcraw/ to "imagemagick", you can of course also
    do sharpening/saturation/usm/cropping or whatever in a batch
    process. In this instance, "imagemagick" is /convert/.

    I use GIMP to manipulate individual images and /convert/ for
    anything that is a "batch" (where the same operations are done
    on more than one image).

    One exception is that I use /convert/ on individual images to
    construct a Postscript file for actual printing, in order to
    apply borders, set page margins, add a copyright notice or
    title, etc. etc. I find all of that much easier and accurate,
    and far more flexible, to do from a command line rather than
    with any sort of GUI interface.

    >Note that there's a drop-in replacement for imagemagick called
    >graphicsmagick. It can call dcraw and do the whole conversion in one
    >step on the command line. It's also supposed to be faster and yield
    >higher quality output. I have yet to get it to compile completely on my
    >Mac, so I'm still using imagemagick.


    I've never looked at Graphicsmagick. Is there any specific
    advantage over Imagemagick?

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
    Floyd L. Davidson, Nov 16, 2006
    #13
  14. John Bean <> wrote:
    > On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 18:04:05 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>John Bean <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> No, it won't. The latest version for CS is 2.4.
    >>>
    >>> If you have a camera not supported by ACR2.4 (but is by 3.6)
    >>> there is a way around it. Use the stand-alone DNG Converter
    >>> program that's bundled with ACR 3.6 to convert your raw file
    >>> to DNG. The resulting file will open with ACR2.4 in CS.
    >>>

    >>
    >>Which might be considered a good workflow reguardless.

    >
    > It's certainly my preferred choice (despite having
    > CS2/ACR3.6) but I've witnessed enough anti-Adobe feeling at
    > the very mention of DNG and had no desire to start another
    > DNG "holy war" by suggesting it was A Good Idea rather than
    > just a work around.
    >


    Since DNG is a completely open specification, I really fail to see why
    anti-Adobe sentiment should have anything to do with it. Several DSLRs now
    use DNG as their native RAW format. DNG is simply an extension of the TIFF
    format in any event.

    --
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Nov 16, 2006
    #14
  15. wrote:
    >
    > On a related note, has anyone compared ACR vs dcraw? I've been using
    > dcraw for a bit, and it seems to produce pretty good results, though
    > you get a giant tiff to work with (must get a bigger hard drive).
    > However, you can set curves during conversion with ACR, but have to do
    > so afterwards with dcraw, and I wonder if this is a problem? I will do
    > a comparison myself, was just wondering if anyone else had already done
    > so.


    You want to be making all exposure related changes in Camera Raw during
    conversion and not after conversion, due to the linear nature of the data.
    White balance, brightness, highlights, and shadows should all be adjusted
    during RAW conversion [if necessary].

    --
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Nov 16, 2006
    #15
  16. Guest

    John Bean wrote:
    > Dcraw is great value of course... ;-)


    Yes, after spending a lot of $ on equipment, it's nice to use some free
    software. :)

    > To be honest I don't use ACR that much there days, I tried
    > Silkypix a few months back and became an overnight convert.
    > Silkypix rocks!


    I just looked at the web site for silkypix, and it looks very nice. I
    couldn't find any description of the features that are disabled in
    their free version... is it usable?

    Drew
    , Nov 16, 2006
    #16
  17. John Bean Guest

    On 16 Nov 2006 10:05:19 -0800, wrote:

    >John Bean wrote:
    >> To be honest I don't use ACR that much there days, I tried
    >> Silkypix a few months back and became an overnight convert.
    >> Silkypix rocks!

    >
    >I just looked at the web site for silkypix, and it looks very nice. I
    >couldn't find any description of the features that are disabled in
    >their free version... is it usable?


    Yes, all the essential WB/exposure/gamma/contrast/etc work
    in both versions with some of the options defaulted. Most
    other more esoteric controls for lens correction etc are
    disabled in the free version.

    If you want to try it you can install the time-limited trial
    of the full version (to see what you'll be missing!) and it
    will automatically downgrade itself to the free version when
    the trial expires and continue indefinitely in free mode.

    --
    John Bean
    John Bean, Nov 16, 2006
    #17
  18. Guest

    John Bean wrote:
    > It's certainly my preferred choice (despite having
    > CS2/ACR3.6) but I've witnessed enough anti-Adobe feeling at
    > the very mention of DNG and had no desire to start another
    > DNG "holy war" by suggesting it was A Good Idea rather than
    > just a work around.


    I've just noticed something using this method: the DNG files are
    smaller by 1.3 - 1.5 megs than their NEF counterparts. This seems like
    a substantial difference. These are "semi-compressed" NEFs from a
    Nikon D80. Is there information being lost in conversion, or does the
    DNG format employ some sort of compression? Is this a problem?

    Drew
    , Nov 17, 2006
    #18
  19. John Bean Guest

    On 17 Nov 2006 07:20:48 -0800, wrote:

    >John Bean wrote:
    >> It's certainly my preferred choice (despite having
    >> CS2/ACR3.6) but I've witnessed enough anti-Adobe feeling at
    >> the very mention of DNG and had no desire to start another
    >> DNG "holy war" by suggesting it was A Good Idea rather than
    >> just a work around.

    >
    >I've just noticed something using this method: the DNG files are
    >smaller by 1.3 - 1.5 megs than their NEF counterparts. This seems like
    >a substantial difference. These are "semi-compressed" NEFs from a
    >Nikon D80. Is there information being lost in conversion, or does the
    >DNG format employ some sort of compression? Is this a problem?


    The converter uses lossless JPEG compression by default.
    Don't confuse this with the lossy compression used by ".jpg"
    files, the methods are unrelated other than they are both
    standard compression methods overseen by the same
    organisation.

    There is no loss of image data whatsoever, you'll have to
    check if all the metadata you use is intact too. I don't use
    Nikon but I have no loss of anything in the raw formats I
    use.

    --
    John Bean
    John Bean, Nov 17, 2006
    #19
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Vlad Gunko

    Adobe PS RAW convertor vs Nikon RAW convertor

    Vlad Gunko, Jan 25, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    472
    Brian C. Baird
    Jan 25, 2005
  2. sid derra

    Adobe releases Camera Raw 3.2 for Photoshop CS2

    sid derra, Sep 27, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    399
    Gene Palmiter
    Oct 2, 2005
  3. Mardon

    Batch CR2 RAW to DNG? Adobe Bridge - CS2 How?

    Mardon, Jan 10, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,032
    Mardon
    Jan 11, 2006
  4. Don Stauffer in Minnesota

    Camera RAW update installation (CS2)

    Don Stauffer in Minnesota, Oct 24, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    347
    just bob
    Oct 25, 2007
  5. sobriquet

    canon ps sx1 raw -> adobe camera raw

    sobriquet, Apr 25, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    2,201
    jimbok
    May 10, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page