Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: ACR 5  (Read 37771 times)
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5500


WWW
« Reply #40 on: September 28, 2008, 03:01:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Yeah, I meant PETTY....

As in petty cash (in terms of the cost of Photoshop upgrades relative to the value to somebody who uses it)
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6975


WWW
« Reply #41 on: September 28, 2008, 03:44:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Yeah, I meant PETTY....

As in petty cash (in terms of the cost of Photoshop upgrades relative to the value to somebody who uses it)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=225275\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The acid test of whether or not it is value for money is to ask yourself after using an up-grade for a week or so whether you regretted the purchase or wanted to turn the clock back. It hasn't happened to me over the eight years I've been using this stuff.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8201



WWW
« Reply #42 on: September 28, 2008, 06:25:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
But the point where you loose me here in your logic is that you are equating a Camera Raw upgrade along with a Photoshop and Bridge upgrade for whatever the upgrade cost is to a very limited functionality raw converter by some other company. What other raw converter comes with the functionality of Photoshop? By your logic, you are paying for Camera Raw and getting the Photoshop and Bridge update for free...you see the problem with that logic?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jeff,

Thanks for your answer.

I agree that many people are not affected by this since new cameras released within the lifecycle of a given release are supported for free.

The thing is that I was hit before with the D2x, and that did the facto result in me starting to use a different converter back then... and I have never looked back since then. So I did clearly stop using ACR because of this problem in the past. I ended up upgrading to CS3 later, but the harm was done.

I just came accross this post by chance in DPreview, it seems that I am not alone. [a href=\"http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1039&message=29510377]http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=29510377[/url]

I do also of course agree that there is in general a lot more value in a a PS release that ACR alone, but my issue is with the impossibility to dissociate the 2.

PS CS3 is a great piece of software with a mature content. Frankly speaking, we have been through this before, but I don't see much in CS4 that would significantly improve the way I work. I am sure that some features here and there would help, but nothing earthshaking for me.

So in this context, and as a PS CS3 extended user, I could really be again in a situation - if I were an ACR user - where the only reason triggering a 349 US$ update would be the need to have new cameras supported quickly after its release.

As far as going through DNG, it does add a step to the workflow. I guess that it could be automated somehow, but it would still take time and double the storage space needed on my disks.

So all in all, assuming that Adobe believes that ACR is a value added application that is supposed to be one more reason for people to stay in the Adobe world, my view is that the current policy is actually deterring some people from using ACR... and therefore playing the very opposite role, meaning taking some people away from PS.

Just my 2 cent.

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Pete JF
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 200


« Reply #43 on: October 01, 2008, 09:22:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Bernard,

Those sorts of postings are all over the place.

Maybe Bob and Doug McKenzie have a plan for squeezing some joy out of this..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsgVspgy184
Logged
NikosR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #44 on: October 11, 2008, 12:54:13 AM »
ReplyReply

I do think that Adobe use ACR and new camera support as an efficient way to push people to upgrade PS. Do I think this is fair practice from a customer relationship point of view? No. Do I believe that Schewe's excuse of multiple release support problems with regards to ACR is lame? Yes I do. But, do I believe this is standard industry practice? Yes, I most certainly do. Adobe will be doing the same with LR and most every raw converter manufacturer is doing this. Even Nikon themselves force you to upgrade Capture NX if you want your new camera to be supported (which is even worse practice since it's coming from a hardware manufacturer).

At least Adobe provide some backwards compatibility (through their free DNG converter) although I don't believe that the drive to do that is mainly the interest of their customers. It mainly serves their own interest indirectly pushing DNG adoption.

That's business. Adobe are not our friends nor are our enemies.

With regards to what Bernard is saying I do agree to a point. That has been the main reason I have stopped using ACR since I had no other real need to upgrade PS since CS1. Adobe would have really lost me from being a customer had they not come up with LR. They were clever to put out LR so I'm still a customer of theirs. So I'm paying their LR 'tax' but not the Photoshop one
« Last Edit: October 11, 2008, 01:11:00 AM by NikosR » Logged

Nikos
Czornyj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1422



WWW
« Reply #45 on: October 11, 2008, 07:04:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: NikosR
Adobe are not our friends nor are our enemies.

Allies?
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5500


WWW
« Reply #46 on: October 11, 2008, 12:39:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: NikosR
Do I believe that Schewe's excuse of multiple release support problems with regards to ACR is lame? Yes I do. But, do I believe this is standard industry practice? Yes, I most certainly do.

Are you a software developer? Do you have first hand experience on developing new versions of software for new system APIs and new SDKs and the difficulties that builds for backwards compatibilities? If you don't then I would suggest you are simply believing what fits your view, not the facts. The very fact you characterize the reasons I stated as an "excuse" basically indicates your prejudice...you've already made up your mind that the whole reason Adobe fails to provide backwards compatibility is ONLY an underhanded method of trying to force upgrades. So, with you it's not a true debate...you've already made up your mind. Pretty pointless to try to argue with that. You're wrong but you won't entertain that possibility, right?
Logged
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4056



« Reply #47 on: October 11, 2008, 02:54:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: MarkDS
The only thing the LR2 Library module doesn't allow which Bridge does allow is the capability of reaching directly back into your folder and file structure on your hard drive to permit selecting thumbnails in Bridge and re-arranging their location on disk.
If I understand you correctly (the second reference to Bridge is puzzling me), you've missed something. LR2 can move files around on disk: in grid view, just drag a thumbnail (or some thumbnails) to a folder in the list on the left. LR2 will move the files to the new folder.

Not strictly relevant to this fascinating discussion (FWIW, I agree wholeheartedly with you and Jeff: you get infinite backwards compatibility with DNG converter - what more can you expect?), but I hope helpful.

Jeremy
Logged
NikosR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #48 on: October 11, 2008, 03:35:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Schewe
Are you a software developer? Do you have first hand experience on developing new versions of software for new system APIs and new SDKs and the difficulties that builds for backwards compatibilities? If you don't then I would suggest you are simply believing what fits your view, not the facts. The very fact you characterize the reasons I stated as an "excuse" basically indicates your prejudice...you've already made up your mind that the whole reason Adobe fails to provide backwards compatibility is ONLY an underhanded method of trying to force upgrades. So, with you it's not a true debate...you've already made up your mind. Pretty pointless to try to argue with that. You're wrong but you won't entertain that possibility, right?

Wrong.

I've been in IT for 25 years. At the moment I'm leading a spec team for a substantial piece of sw, FWIW.

We're not really talking about maintaining versions of sw here, Mr. Schewe. I would not expect Adobe to make an older version of ACR compatible with a new version of an OS, for example. But, we're just talking about supporting new cameras in older versions (at least 1 or a couple of versions back). I think it would be, mostly and for most cameras, a comparatively trivial issue (especially if one thinks about the open source support in the public domain for that). I'm pretty sure it would be trivial for Adobe to do if they choose to do it. I'm ready to be convinced that this is not the case, but you'll have to provide some more convincing arguments.

And, since you've brought the subject up, do you EVER entertain the possibility of being wrong yourself?  It has not been obvious from your posting history in these forums.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2008, 04:20:16 PM by NikosR » Logged

Nikos
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5500


WWW
« Reply #49 on: October 11, 2008, 04:18:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: NikosR
But, we're just talking about supporting new cameras in older versions. I think it is, mostly and for most cameras, a comparatively trivial issue.


So, you want to Adobe to go back to versions of Camera Raw, re-open the code project (which has been retired) and add the code required to access new cameras...is that what you are expecting? For FREE?

Since it's not a current product, Adobe's support for those versions has ended. The newer versions of Camera Raw code has branched, so it's not like they could just take the new version code and migrate the code backwards...so, it would require additional work to update the current version and then go back to the previous version and update that code thus keeping THAT branch of the code live as well. And, you want this for free? How many versions of Photoshop should Adobe go back to update Camera Raw...1? 2?

Or, are you saying that Adobe should write the current version of Camera Raw so it could be used in ANY version of Photoshop? There are technical reasons relating to the Photoshop SDK that each version uses that would make that problematic...I'm not saying that would be totally impossible...but it would require that backwards compatibility becomes a major engineering factor which I guarantee would have a major impact on the development of NEW features and functionality and progress. As a user of the CURRENT version of Photoshop (well, actually I'm using CS4) that would make me angry that the Camera Raw engineers were forced to triage new functionality because they had to spend any time and effort making sure of backwards compatibility. No, I don't see that as a win/win for users of the current version of Photoshop, not at all. And you might say what would be the problem with the backwards compatibility? As a software developer myself and having dealt with backwards compatibility for plug-ins, I can tell you that it takes time and work and if you are talking about both backwards compatibility AND cross-platform compatibility then you are talking about a substantial amount of time and testing...

So, Adobe's policy is to ONLY offer free updates for the currently shipping product (with the recent release of Camera Raw 4.6, that make SIX free updates for Photoshop CS3 over an 18 month time period). Once a new version ships, the old version is retired and the new version's code is then updated, for free.

If you think that the ONLY reason Adobe does this is to force users to upgrade, then you are wrong...plain and simple. Adobe DOES offer a free DNG Converter (to help advance DNG and to benefit the industry while helping themselves) which they are no obligation to do...other than they said they would. This allows users of cameras that weren't even built when they bought their version of Photoshop to be able to access the DNG even as far back as Photoshop CS and Camera Raw 2.4.


Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5500


WWW
« Reply #50 on: October 11, 2008, 04:24:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: NikosR
And, since you've mentioned it, do you EVER entertain the possibility of being wrong yourself?  It has not been obvious from your posting history in these forums.


Well, considering I've talked to the engineers on Camera Raw, the product managers on Camera Raw and the policy makers at Adobe who set policy, and they all point out that Adobe decided not to go back and update previous versions of Camera Raw for both policy and technical reasons and concentrate on supporting CURRENT customers, I'm pretty darn sure I ain't wrong, ya know? Since I've also developed plug-ins for Photoshop and have struggled with backwards compatibility, I'm pretty darn sure there ARE technical hurdles...

BTW, I noticed you went back into your other post to modify it while i was composing my response...otherwise I would have responded in my previous post.
Logged
NikosR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #51 on: October 11, 2008, 04:26:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Schewe
Well, considering I've talked to the engineers on Camera Raw, the product managers on Camera Raw and the policy makers at Adobe who set policy, and they all point out that Adobe decided not to go back and update previous versions of Camera Raw for both policy and technical reasons and concentrate on supporting CURRENT customers, I'm pretty darn sure I ain't wrong, ya know? Since I've also developed plug-ins for Photoshop and have struggled with backwards compatibility, I'm pretty darn sure there ARE technical hurdles...

BTW, I noticed you went back into your other post to modify it while i was composing my response...otherwise I would have responded in my previous post.

Added, not modified. If your id were visible when you were reading this thread, I wouldn't have done that. But, for some reason, it isn't.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2008, 04:27:58 PM by NikosR » Logged

Nikos
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5500


WWW
« Reply #52 on: October 11, 2008, 04:26:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: NikosR
I've been in IT for 25 years. At the moment I'm leading a spec team for a substantial piece of sw, FWIW.

BTW, being in IT doesn't mean anything with regards to your knowledge and experience in coding–particularly writing Photoshop plug-in, cross platform...and being on a spec team for software ain't the same as writing the code. Why don't you ask one of your software engineers about the difficulties in supporting backwards compatibility and how much time and resources it would take and get back to me.
Logged
NikosR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #53 on: October 11, 2008, 04:34:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Schewe
BTW, being in IT doesn't mean anything with regards to your knowledge and experience in coding–particularly writing Photoshop plug-in, cross platform...and being on a spec team for software ain't the same as writing the code. Why don't you ask one of your software engineers about the difficulties in supporting backwards compatibility and how much time and resources it would take and get back to me.

You like naming this issue 'backward compatibility'. Sounds impressive and a tough thing to do. And you're right in general. But backward compatibility is too wide a term for what we are discussing here. I think this should be obvious to anyone. If a piece of sw is structured well then I think that going back and add camera support would be trivial (especially if, as is usually the case, differences are minimal between camera models). Not zero effort but trivial and well within the potential of a company like Adobe. Yes, it would involve some logistical issues, but nothing like what would be required for real backward compatibility.

I still believe that between 'policy' and 'technical reasons' policy is the one to blame here.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2008, 04:44:25 PM by NikosR » Logged

Nikos
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5500


WWW
« Reply #54 on: October 11, 2008, 04:49:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: NikosR
If a piece of sw is structured well then I think that going back and add camera support would be trivial (especially if, as it usually is the case, differences are minimal between camera models).


No, it would not be trivial because then the engineering and QE teams would have to be writing to and testing 2X the number of code versions the have to now. Understand, they keep a code branch alive and active while the version is current. They build a NEW BRANCH when they create a new version. This new code branch is live but private for testing up till the point the new version is released. Once it's released, then the old code branch is retired and no longer worked on and the only work being done is on the NEW BRANCH of code.

So, to add a new camera, Adobe has to do color testing and file format decoding. That code is put into the new branch, the current branch. That's work that the engineers HAVE to do. But they really seriously DON'T want to go back to a previous branch of code and also have to update and test that code. That's not efficient and would steal R&D from any current work on behalf of current customers for customers who are no longer current? And you think this is a good idea? You think it's trivial?

Again, you haven't answered the question of how long should they be expected to do this...Camera Raw 4? Camera Raw 3? Camera Raw 2? How LONG would you expect them to provide free updates? 1 year? 2 years? Forever? At what point do you allow Adobe to say, NO MAS?

Camera Raw is always moving forward...Camera Raw 5 is pretty interesting with the new local controls. The engineers are seriously trying to push image quality and functionality...I can tell you that I would be pissed if they had to spend ANY time on backwards compatibility (which is what it's called bud), at the expense of forward progress.
Logged
NikosR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #55 on: October 11, 2008, 04:54:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Schewe
Again, you haven't answered the question of how long should they be expected to do this...Camera Raw 4? Camera Raw 3? Camera Raw 2? How LONG would you expect them to provide free updates? 1 year? 2 years? Forever? At what point do you allow Adobe to say, NO MAS?

I think I mentioned a couple of posts back that it would be nice if they would update ACR with new camera support for a couple of versions back. Even one would be nice and maybe sufficient given the rate new versions are coming up.

Edit: BTW, Maybe I'm wrong here and maybe it's OT but isn't colour profiling provided externally to the code by the camera profiles?
« Last Edit: October 11, 2008, 05:00:32 PM by NikosR » Logged

Nikos
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5500


WWW
« Reply #56 on: October 11, 2008, 04:59:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: NikosR
I think I mentioned a couple of posts back that it would be nice if they would update ACR with new camera support for a couple of versions back.


Ah, so instead of 2X the work updating for cameras, you want them to spend 3x the time reving 3 separate code branches?

Ya know, this ain't an open source project...Adobe is a publicly traded company that is in the biz of writing software for a fee. So, what you are proposing simply doesn't make any economic sense what so ever. I'm actually glad that Adobe's policy is to only offer free support and updates for currently shipping versions of software. I really do want them to actually stay in business.
Logged
NikosR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #57 on: October 11, 2008, 05:10:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Schewe
I really do want them to actually stay in business.

Gee, I didn't think that Adobe were in such a precarious financial position. Good to know, though  
Logged

Nikos
madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2110


« Reply #58 on: October 11, 2008, 08:00:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Effectively we do already support cameras going back not just one version, but several versions. You may be surprised to hear that you can even use ACR 2.4 to read, say, Nikon D90 images, or Canon EOS 50D images. This is possible via the DNG workflow (i.e., convert the file to DNG and then open it in any DNG reader, such as ACR 2.4, ACR 3.3, ACR 4.6, Silkypix, etc.).

I honestly believe that going back and modifying the old code from earlier versions to directly support new cameras would end up hurting customers more than helping them. It sounds good at first, but there's a tradeoff to everything. Ultimately I believe it means that it would

(1) take us much longer to add new camera support in general, so instead of waiting anywhere from zero days to a few weeks for new camera support (the current situation, typically, unless we get tossed a brand new raw file format ...) you might be waiting from weeks to months,

(2) take us much longer to add new features (things like local corrections, the new color profiles, and a few big things we've got planned that photographers have been asking us for a lot), or

(3) increase the cost of the product,

or some combination of all three.

In my view, the fundamental issue is that going back to add direct camera code support (i.e., non-DNG workflow) to the previous versions doesn't actually improve your images at all. There's no quality difference in CR between converting, say, a Canon CR2 file and its converted DNG. Yes, I understand there's a convenience/workflow difference, and some folks frown upon DNG. But ultimately it's the image result that counts, and there's no visual or quality benefit from investing the enormous resources required to do so. In contrast, there IS a big quality/workflow benefit from improving existing features and developing new features, things that will actually make your images appear better. I hope we can all agree that the CR team's time & resources are better spent on that.

(And since I've already written on this, I might as well say that we smile every time we see a new camera released that supports in-camera DNG, such as the new Casio EX-FH20, because that means we don't have to spend time writing code to support that camera, so instead we use that saved time to work on new features.)
Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3535



WWW
« Reply #59 on: October 11, 2008, 08:03:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
PS CS3 is a great piece of software with a mature content. Frankly speaking, we have been through this before, but I don't see much in CS4 that would significantly improve the way I work. I am sure that some features here and there would help, but nothing earthshaking for me.
Often it's the little tweaks that make the biggest differences. PS CS4 is a big jump in usability over CS3, simply by virtue of the UI changes/consolidations, never mind the whizz bang features.
Bridge CS4 is so much nicer than CS3, I use LR a lot less these days as a result and with very little apparent UI change to Bridge, but the little changes present make big differences.
The test of the new version of anything, is how sucky the perfectly good previous version suddenly feels after using the latest iteration.  
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad