Canon Raw files and Photoshop 8.0

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Jonathan Renouf, Jun 30, 2007.

  1. Hi there,
    I've got Photoshop 8.0 and I've just got a Canon EOS5D. However,
    Photoshop doesn't seem to recognise the CR2 raw files that the Canon
    produces. I get an error message: "Could not complete your request
    because this version of Photoshop does not supply the services
    required by this plug in module". Surely it must be possible to use
    CR2 on Photoshop 8.0?
    Thanks
    J
     
    Jonathan Renouf, Jun 30, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Jonathan Renouf

    William4 Guest

    "Jonathan Renouf" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi there,
    > I've got Photoshop 8.0 and I've just got a Canon EOS5D. However,
    > Photoshop doesn't seem to recognise the CR2 raw files that the Canon
    > produces. I get an error message: "Could not complete your request
    > because this version of Photoshop does not supply the services
    > required by this plug in module". Surely it must be possible to use
    > CR2 on Photoshop 8.0?
    > Thanks
    > J
    >

    CS? Nope, the plug-in isn't compatible. You'd need CS2/3. Back to canon
    software...

    I did try CS3 (beta) for a while and thought the plug in very good, but my
    trial expired so I'm back to my CS.
     
    William4, Jun 30, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Jonathan Renouf

    Ray Paseur Guest

    Jonathan Renouf <> wrote in
    news::

    > Hi there,
    > I've got Photoshop 8.0 and I've just got a Canon EOS5D. However,
    > Photoshop doesn't seem to recognise the CR2 raw files that the Canon
    > produces. I get an error message: "Could not complete your request
    > because this version of Photoshop does not supply the services
    > required by this plug in module". Surely it must be possible to use
    > CR2 on Photoshop 8.0?
    > Thanks
    > J
    >
    >

    Adobe does not support the 5D raw conversion until CS2 (#9). You might
    upgrade to CS2, or look for a DNG converter. I've got a 5D and have CS1 on
    a home system, and the Canon DPP software works quite well. It goes RAW to
    TIF, then I open the TIF in Photoshop.
    More on Canon DPP Software:
    > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0510/05101301canon_dpp203.asp
     
    Ray Paseur, Jun 30, 2007
    #3
  4. Jonathan Renouf

    Ron Recer Guest

    "Ray Paseur" <> wrote in message
    news:MGqhi.706205$...
    > Jonathan Renouf <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    >> Hi there,
    >> I've got Photoshop 8.0 and I've just got a Canon EOS5D. However,
    >> Photoshop doesn't seem to recognise the CR2 raw files that the Canon
    >> produces. I get an error message: "Could not complete your request
    >> because this version of Photoshop does not supply the services
    >> required by this plug in module". Surely it must be possible to use
    >> CR2 on Photoshop 8.0?
    >> Thanks
    >> J
    >>
    >>

    > Adobe does not support the 5D raw conversion until CS2 (#9). You might
    > upgrade to CS2, or look for a DNG converter. I've got a 5D and have CS1
    > on
    > a home system, and the Canon DPP software works quite well. It goes RAW
    > to
    > TIF, then I open the TIF in Photoshop.
    > More on Canon DPP Software:
    >> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0510/05101301canon_dpp203.asp

    >

    You might check out Breeze Browser, I use an older version of it to convert
    my 10D raw images to tiff.

    http://www.breezesys.com/

    Ron
     
    Ron Recer, Jun 30, 2007
    #4
  5. Ray Paseur wrote:
    > Jonathan Renouf <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    >> Hi there,
    >> I've got Photoshop 8.0 and I've just got a Canon EOS5D. However,
    >> Photoshop doesn't seem to recognise the CR2 raw files that the Canon
    >> produces. I get an error message: "Could not complete your request
    >> because this version of Photoshop does not supply the services
    >> required by this plug in module". Surely it must be possible to use
    >> CR2 on Photoshop 8.0?
    >>

    > Adobe does not support the 5D raw conversion until CS2 (#9). You might
    > upgrade to CS2, or look for a DNG converter. I've got a 5D and have CS1 on
    > a home system, and the Canon DPP software works quite well. It goes RAW to
    > TIF, then I open the TIF in Photoshop.


    Couple of alternatives: Lightroom, 30 day trial. CS3, 30 day trial.
    Convert to .dng format with free Adobe dng converter.

    --
    john mcwilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Jun 30, 2007
    #5
  6. Jonathan Renouf

    ray Guest

    On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 03:41:50 -0700, Jonathan Renouf wrote:

    > Hi there,
    > I've got Photoshop 8.0 and I've just got a Canon EOS5D. However,
    > Photoshop doesn't seem to recognise the CR2 raw files that the Canon
    > produces. I get an error message: "Could not complete your request
    > because this version of Photoshop does not supply the services
    > required by this plug in module". Surely it must be possible to use
    > CR2 on Photoshop 8.0?
    > Thanks
    > J


    Try ufraw or dcraw - it remains more up to date.
     
    ray, Jun 30, 2007
    #6
  7. Jonathan Renouf

    Ray Macey Guest

    On Jul 1, 12:37 am, John McWilliams <> wrote:

    > Convert to .dng format with free Adobe dng converter.


    That doesn't always help. When I convert my 400d RAW files to DNG,
    CS2 has a cow when I try and do some post processing and save it as a
    jpeg.

    Ray
     
    Ray Macey, Jul 1, 2007
    #7
  8. On Jul 1, 6:11 am, Ray Macey <> wrote:
    > On Jul 1, 12:37 am, John McWilliams <> wrote:
    >
    > > Convert to .dng format with free Adobe dng converter.

    >
    > That doesn't always help. When I convert my 400d RAW files to DNG,
    > CS2 has a cow when I try and do some post processing and save it as a
    > jpeg.


    That works for others. What are the symptoms?

    --
    Barry Pearson
    http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/
     
    Barry Pearson, Jul 1, 2007
    #8
  9. Jonathan Renouf

    Ray Macey Guest

    On Jul 1, 5:39 pm, Barry Pearson <>
    wrote:
    >
    > That works for others. What are the symptoms?


    "Could not complete your request because of a program error" when I
    get try to save the final jpg using save as. I can save it as a psd,
    tiff or whatever, but not a JPEG.

    Ray
     
    Ray Macey, Jul 1, 2007
    #9
  10. Ray Macey wrote:
    > On Jul 1, 5:39 pm, Barry Pearson <>
    > wrote:
    >> That works for others. What are the symptoms?

    >
    > "Could not complete your request because of a program error" when I
    > get try to save the final jpg using save as. I can save it as a psd,
    > tiff or whatever, but not a JPEG.
    >


    When you go to save, is it in 8 bits?

    --
    john mcwilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Jul 1, 2007
    #10
  11. Jonathan Renouf

    jpc Guest

    On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 09:13:07 -0600, ray <> wrote:

    >On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 03:41:50 -0700, Jonathan Renouf wrote:
    >
    >> Hi there,
    >> I've got Photoshop 8.0 and I've just got a Canon EOS5D. However,
    >> Photoshop doesn't seem to recognise the CR2 raw files that the Canon
    >> produces. I get an error message: "Could not complete your request
    >> because this version of Photoshop does not supply the services
    >> required by this plug in module". Surely it must be possible to use
    >> CR2 on Photoshop 8.0?
    >> Thanks
    >> J

    >
    >Try ufraw or dcraw - it remains more up to date.


    I second the suggestion. In addition ufraw with its plain vanilla
    bilinear interpolation (you have 4 interpolations to pick from)
    usually gives a cleaner raw image than CS2 when you are working with
    noisy images. That's my main use for RAW, dragging the best picture
    out of underexposed low light images.

    jpc
     
    jpc, Jul 1, 2007
    #11
  12. Jonathan Renouf

    Ray Macey Guest

    On Jul 2, 12:32 am, John McWilliams <> wrote:

    > When you go to save, is it in 8 bits?


    Yes, trust me, I've covered all the basics. It's in 8 bits, it's RGB,
    it's been flattened. It also works just fine with DNG files made from
    my Olympus E-300 using exactly the same process. It doesn't even
    happen with all of my 400d files, but it does with others, and I have
    no way of knowing in advance which ones it will work on and which ones
    it won't

    Ray
     
    Ray Macey, Jul 2, 2007
    #12
  13. Jonathan Renouf

    Pat Guest

    On Jun 30, 6:41 am, Jonathan Renouf <>
    wrote:
    > Hi there,
    > I've got Photoshop 8.0 and I've just got a Canon EOS5D. However,
    > Photoshop doesn't seem to recognise the CR2 raw files that the Canon
    > produces. I get an error message: "Could not complete your request
    > because this version of Photoshop does not supply the services
    > required by this plug in module". Surely it must be possible to use
    > CR2 on Photoshop 8.0?
    > Thanks
    > J


    For all of you "I LOVE RAW", "I ONLY SHOOT RAW", "RAW RULES", AND "RAW
    DOESN'T INCREASE YOUR WORKFLOW" people out there, here you go with an
    example. The solution is "spend more money on new software" or "get a
    converter and add a step or two". Raw on !!!!!
     
    Pat, Jul 2, 2007
    #13
  14. On Jul 2, 2:35 pm, Pat <> wrote:
    [snip]
    > For all of you "I LOVE RAW", "I ONLY SHOOT RAW", "RAW RULES", AND "RAW
    > DOESN'T INCREASE YOUR WORKFLOW" people out there, here you go with an
    > example. The solution is "spend more money on new software" or "get a
    > converter and add a step or two". Raw on !!!!!


    What are you talking about? I bought Photoshop long before I started
    to use a digital camera. (I guess many others did so too). The
    software preceded shooting raw.

    I use Lightroom because it is a tool designed to handle 100s of images
    at a time. Whether they are raw or JPEG (or TIFFs from a scanner).

    The major tools that some of use are not dictated by whether we shoot
    raw. They are based on the nature of modern, in particular digital
    photography, especially the ease of taking LOTS of images, and trying
    out lots of things. But, once we have the tools, they make shooting
    raw EASIER than shooting JPEG.

    For people with the tools that take advantage of the nature of digital
    photography, (whether raw or JPEG), the question is "why shoot JPEG?"

    --
    Barry Pearson
    http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/
     
    Barry Pearson, Jul 2, 2007
    #14
  15. Jonathan Renouf

    Pat Guest

    On Jul 2, 2:37 pm, Barry Pearson <>
    wrote:
    > On Jul 2, 2:35 pm, Pat <> wrote:
    > [snip]
    >
    > > For all of you "I LOVE RAW", "I ONLY SHOOT RAW", "RAW RULES", AND "RAW
    > > DOESN'T INCREASE YOUR WORKFLOW" people out there, here you go with an
    > > example. The solution is "spend more money on new software" or "get a
    > > converter and add a step or two". Raw on !!!!!

    >
    > What are you talking about? I bought Photoshop long before I started
    > to use a digital camera. (I guess many others did so too). The
    > software preceded shooting raw.
    >
    > I use Lightroom because it is a tool designed to handle 100s of images
    > at a time. Whether they are raw or JPEG (or TIFFs from a scanner).
    >
    > The major tools that some of use are not dictated by whether we shoot
    > raw. They are based on the nature of modern, in particular digital
    > photography, especially the ease of taking LOTS of images, and trying
    > out lots of things. But, once we have the tools, they make shooting
    > raw EASIER than shooting JPEG.
    >
    > For people with the tools that take advantage of the nature of digital
    > photography, (whether raw or JPEG), the question is "why shoot JPEG?"


    Sorry. There are plenty of good questions out there, but that is not
    one of them.

    >
    > --
    > Barry Pearsonhttp://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/
     
    Pat, Jul 2, 2007
    #15
  16. Pat wrote:
    > On Jul 2, 2:37 pm, Barry Pearson <>
    > wrote:
    >> On Jul 2, 2:35 pm, Pat <> wrote
    >>
    >> I use Lightroom because it is a tool designed to handle 100s of images
    >> at a time. Whether they are raw or JPEG (or TIFFs from a scanner).
    >>
    >> The major tools that some of use are not dictated by whether we shoot
    >> raw. They are based on the nature of modern, in particular digital
    >> photography, especially the ease of taking LOTS of images, and trying
    >> out lots of things. But, once we have the tools, they make shooting
    >> raw EASIER than shooting JPEG.
    >>
    >> For people with the tools that take advantage of the nature of digital
    >> photography, (whether raw or JPEG), the question is "why shoot JPEG?"

    >
    > Sorry. There are plenty of good questions out there, but that is not
    > one of them.


    Other than the expense of it all, Pat, what axe do you have to grind vs.
    the RAW format?

    --
    john mcwilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Jul 2, 2007
    #16
  17. Jonathan Renouf

    Pat Guest

    On Jul 2, 3:45 pm, John McWilliams <> wrote:
    > Pat wrote:
    > > On Jul 2, 2:37 pm, Barry Pearson <>
    > > wrote:
    > >> On Jul 2, 2:35 pm, Pat <> wrote

    >
    > >> I use Lightroom because it is a tool designed to handle 100s of images
    > >> at a time. Whether they are raw or JPEG (or TIFFs from a scanner).

    >
    > >> The major tools that some of use are not dictated by whether we shoot
    > >> raw. They are based on the nature of modern, in particular digital
    > >> photography, especially the ease of taking LOTS of images, and trying
    > >> out lots of things. But, once we have the tools, they make shooting
    > >> raw EASIER than shooting JPEG.

    >
    > >> For people with the tools that take advantage of the nature of digital
    > >> photography, (whether raw or JPEG), the question is "why shoot JPEG?"

    >
    > > Sorry. There are plenty of good questions out there, but that is not
    > > one of them.

    >
    > Other than the expense of it all, Pat, what axe do you have to grind vs.
    > the RAW format?
    >
    > --
    > john mcwilliams


    I have no ax to grind. I think it's a useful format for some things
    and not very useful for others. It is a tool. Just like no lens is
    perfect for all circumstances, neither RAW nor JPEG are right under
    all circumstances. There are very few times in photography when
    "always" or "never" are the right answer. There are too many
    misinformed zealots in both (RAW and JPEGP) camps.

    I do find it funny, though, when people discuss shooting RAW through a
    P&S. Whatever floats your boat, but that's sort of like putting a
    racecar motor on a skateboard. Hey, but if it works for you....

    Archivally, I have some reservations about the proprietary RAW
    formats. Just due to volume, JPG is here to stay. But some of the
    RAW formats will go the way of the PIC format and such. Eventually,
    there will probaby be a standard RAW format so that issue will go away
    in time.

    As for the person who asked "why shoot jpg". Well if they can't
    figure it out, they should go and do so. RAW is not the answer to all
    questions all of the time -- and neither is JPG.
     
    Pat, Jul 2, 2007
    #17
  18. Pat wrote:
    > On Jul 2, 3:45 pm, John McWilliams <> wrote:


    >> Other than the expense of it all, Pat, what axe do you have to grind vs.
    >> the RAW format>>


    > I have no ax to grind. I think it's a useful format for some things
    > and not very useful for others. It is a tool. Just like no lens is
    > perfect for all circumstances, neither RAW nor JPEG are right under
    > all circumstances. There are very few times in photography when
    > "always" or "never" are the right answer. There are too many
    > misinformed zealots in both (RAW and JPEGP) camps.
    >
    > I do find it funny, though, when people discuss shooting RAW through a
    > P&S. Whatever floats your boat, but that's sort of like putting a
    > racecar motor on a skateboard. Hey, but if it works for you....
    >
    > Archivally, I have some reservations about the proprietary RAW
    > formats. Just due to volume, JPG is here to stay. But some of the
    > RAW formats will go the way of the PIC format and such. Eventually,
    > there will probaby be a standard RAW format so that issue will go away
    > in time.
    >
    > As for the person who asked "why shoot jpg". Well if they can't
    > figure it out, they should go and do so. RAW is not the answer to all
    > questions all of the time -- and neither is JPG.


    Thanks. I agree with what you say, with the exception of ridiculing
    shooting RAW in a (good) non-DSLR.

    --
    john mcwilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Jul 3, 2007
    #18
  19. Jonathan Renouf

    Ray Macey Guest

    On Jul 3, 4:37 am, Barry Pearson <>
    wrote:
    >
    > For people with the tools that take advantage of the nature of digital
    > photography, (whether raw or JPEG), the question is "why shoot JPEG?"


    Well one reason is that said tools will not always be able to handle
    RAW formats from newer cameras. CS2 will not deal with my 400d RAW
    files nor with many DNG conversions of said 400d RAW files. I'm
    running a trial of CS3 at the moment, but when that runs out, many of
    my RAW files will be out of reach until such time as I upgrade to CS3
    (not happening any time soon).

    Of course, you could argue that this means I don't have the tools
    outlined in your rhetorical question, but the tools become a moving
    target if you upgrade your camera body even semi regularly.

    I'm not trying to start this whole stupid debate again, but I've
    discovered from first hand experience in the last week or so that RAW
    is not always smooth sailing, so hopefully that answers your question
    of at least why why I shoot JPEG :)

    Ray
     
    Ray Macey, Jul 3, 2007
    #19
  20. On Jul 3, 4:01 am, Ray Macey <> wrote:
    > On Jul 3, 4:37 am, Barry Pearson <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > > For people with the tools that take advantage of the nature of digital
    > > photography, (whether raw or JPEG), the question is "why shoot JPEG?"

    >
    > Well one reason is that said tools will not always be able to handle
    > RAW formats from newer cameras. CS2 will not deal with my 400d RAW
    > files nor with many DNG conversions of said 400d RAW files. I'm
    > running a trial of CS3 at the moment, but when that runs out, many of
    > my RAW files will be out of reach until such time as I upgrade to CS3
    > (not happening any time soon).


    I've used DNG for years without problems, so have others. Even if I
    didn't use CS3 and Lightroom, that would not be a problem for me. I
    don't know why you are having problems.

    > Of course, you could argue that this means I don't have the tools
    > outlined in your rhetorical question, but the tools become a moving
    > target if you upgrade your camera body even semi regularly.


    See above. It wasn't a rhetorical question - I believe that too often
    the question "why shoot raw?" is posed, when "why shoot JPEG?" is
    often a better question.

    The perception has grown that shooting raw is hard, or needs special
    tools, or is perhaps only useful for special occasions, etc. But with
    modern workflow tools, like Aperture and Lightroom and probably
    others, the difference between shooting raw and shooting JPEG becomes
    minimal - except for the easier taking of raw photographs, and for
    post-processing the extra flexibility, and often quality, available
    with raw.

    I believe this trend towards making raw at least as easy as JPEG will
    continue.

    > I'm not trying to start this whole stupid debate again, but I've
    > discovered from first hand experience in the last week or so that RAW
    > is not always smooth sailing, so hopefully that answers your question
    > of at least why why I shoot JPEG :)


    I shot 115 JPEGs in February. I had strict time constraints and they
    had to be used out of the camera for immediate projection. That is the
    first time I've found a positive answer, for me, to my question. I
    don't say there is never a reason - but I do believe that for many
    people raw makes a better default.

    --
    Barry Pearson
    http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/
     
    Barry Pearson, Jul 3, 2007
    #20
    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. adm
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    590
  2. larrylook

    nikon d70, raw files, and photoshop elements

    larrylook, Jul 9, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    963
    Roger Halstead
    Jul 12, 2004
  3. nk

    Photoshop and RAW Files

    nk, Oct 29, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    705
    Bill Hilton
    Oct 29, 2004
  4. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    576
    Steve
    Jan 22, 2006
  5. Al Dykes

    Canon G9 RAW, same as Canon 300d RAW?

    Al Dykes, Nov 11, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    524
    John Bean
    Nov 12, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page