A Plea to the developers

[photo570]

Just a note I am posting this here, as I couldn't get the AdobeLabs forum to work properly, it keeps timing out. If you feel it in not relevant Michael please feel free to tell me and remove this post at your discretion.

       "Please, please, please realize that professional photographers use more than one camera, and that they keep there "old" ones.
       It is great that, for example, my Leaf Valeo22 is supported, but what about my two Leaf CantareXY's that aren't. Yes it is an older model (six years and going strong) , but we use the Valeo22 for fashion, and the Cantare's for catalogue and product daily. Throw in a couple of Canons' and you generally get a very messy workflow. What Pro's really want is a workflow equivalent of DNG. A one size fits all, but it has to include the all to be effective. There are thousands of studios out there that continue to use so called "obsolete" cameras, because the are still perfectly good for what we use them for, as the end product, a pack shot in a catalogue, has not and will not change for the foreseeable future. More megapixels are not always the answer, sometimes the older cameras are actually more suited to the task at hand.
         As a note Lightroom can actually read Cantare files but just not that well. Please take this on board if you are reading this and work for Adobe. I con not stress strongly enough the need for "Legacy" camera support for pros, cameras don't wear out they just get reassigned.

PLEASE, please take head, you have a fantastic opportunity to unify our workflow here and carry us all forward.

Kind regards."


Am I the only one who feels this way?

 

[Mark D Segal]

Just a note I am posting this here, as I couldn't get the AdobeLabs forum to work properly, it keeps timing out.
 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88910\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Adobe's website is problemmatic in a number of respects. I have lodged complaints about poor information architecture and poor responsiveness at a high level in Adobe and a senior customer service representative contacted me to discuss this matter, as well as other problems with their customer service functions both over the phone and by email support. My experience has been that none of it really works satisfactorily of late and it has been quite frustrating. This company has grown very quickly and it seems that at least in these respects stress cracks are appearing - perhaps there is a combination of being overwhelmed by their own success and still chewing on the recent spate of takeovers and product launches they are trying to digest. Let us hope with time and enough complaints they will give early attention to repairing these important functions.

[photo570]

Adobe's website is problemmatic in a number of respects. I have lodged complaints about poor information architecture and poor responsiveness at a high level in Adobe and a senior customer service representative contacted me to discuss this matter, as well as other problems with their customer service functions both over the phone and by email support. My experience has been that none of it really works satisfactorily of late and it has been quite frustrating. This company has grown very quickly and it seems that at least in these respects stress cracks are appearing - perhaps there is a combination of being overwhelmed by their own success and still chewing on the recent spate of takeovers and product launches they are trying to digest. Let us hope with time and enough complaints they will give early attention to repairing these important functions.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88919\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I guess I was really posting with the hope of seeing if anyone from Adobe would see my comment and pick up on it. The point being that like idea behind DNG, there are already cameras that are starting to fall off the back-end of software support, but that are work-horse cameras in professional studios. Yes it is great to have the latest and greatest, but we still keep our old backs that are working fine, and will probably still be fine another 10yrs. What I want is Lightroom to be able to open any pro format so that I can have "one" workflow, not one for Canon, one for Valeo22, one for CantareXY, and so on. If Adobe are serious about the pro market they must realise that big studios keep their old backs when they buy new ones, I have two, and the studio down the road has five (Cantare/Volare era cameras) as well as "new" generation cameras. And the problem is only going to get messier with time. It should not be too hard as Lightroom can actually open Cantare files, just not that well. I know it is extra work for the developers, but I feel it would be a wise investment in the long run.
What does everyone else think. Am I weird? Am I right? Who knows?

Kind Regards

[nicolaasdb]

you are not wierd....I am updating all my equipment constantly..so don't have your problem.....but it shouldn't be a problem working on older files....it was never a problem printing from an old negative!

[photo570]

you are not wierd....I am updating all my equipment constantly..so don't have your problem.....but it shouldn't be a problem working on older files....it was never a problem printing from an old negative!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89780\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I also update my gear regularly, but just because I get a new camera, the old one is not suddenly useless. I do a lot of retail work, and a 6mp file is just about right (just under A4 @ 300dpi) for my clients. I do not want to use a 22mp camera for pack shots. Also these cameras were expensive when new, and I know they have payed for themselves, and depreciated in book value, but they are still perfectly good at what they do. My point was that even the manufacturer has dropped support in Leaf Capture 10, you have to use 8.3.4. In the ideal world I would be able to open any file from any (PRO) camera in Lightroom, for one workflow, otherwise it is still an ad-hoc solution. As much for the database aspect of it more than anything else. I want to stop all the double handling and having to keep track of things with different raw developers and file management systems.

Sorry I don't mean to sound grouchy.

Cheers

[feppe]

There really isn't an excuse to drop support for previously popular cameras. MS Word still reads Wordperfect files from early 90s and PS still reads targa files. I don't know how much camera manufacturers charge Adobe for their RAW spec but it shouldn't be an issue. And it certainly shouldn't be an issue from computing and processing POV as it's all just bytes from a 12-bit or so source.

I don't know how well-designed the DNG spec is - is it future-proof like TIFF is? - but it sounds like a potential temporary solution to the work-flow problem, and a slim but potential long-term solution if more manufacturers start using it.