PSCS 8.0 will not open RAW

[CalKidd]

I have a Rebel 350D and I have shot a few RAW photos. However, I am getting an error message. I have attached the screen shot. What can I do to fix this? I have the most current RAW patch installed.

[Andy]

I have a Rebel 350D and I have shot a few RAW photos. However, I am getting an error message. I have attached the screen shot. What can I do to fix this? I have the most current RAW patch installed.

Go to www.adobe.com and download the latest ACR version for your PS CS.

:D

[DoctorIt]

You're screwed.


No, just kidding. The most up-to-date ACR plugin for CS (v8) will not, I repeat NOT, work with 350D files. Only the latest ACR plugin can read those files, BUT that plugin only works with CS2 (v9).

The way around this, is you have to use the DNG converter (free, works with all PS versions that support any RAW at all) to convert all your RAW files to DNG, then they are in a format the CS is happy working with.

I had to do this while I had my 350D. :nod

Some would say this is a better idea anyway, as DNG is a better more universal format than Canon's ever changing RAW format. My workflow was: copy all files into a directory, Run DNG converter in that directory, erase all CR2 files, keep DNG files, work with them.

Then I just solved that problem by selling the Canon and buying a D2H. Strange enough, I don't need to do that extra step now. Or you could buy CS2. Your call.
:D

[DoctorIt]

Go to www.adobe.com (http://www.adobe.com) and download the latest ACR version for your PS CS.

:Dfor once, I must say with some confidence, you are wrong here chief. Adobe stopped updating ACR for CS in 1/2005 - says so right on their website. ACR 2.4 is the last ACR update and it does not support 350D files. that's why the ACR 2.4 download is bundled with the DNG converter. Check it out:

http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?product=39&platform=Macintosh

(same for win/mac, btw)

[Andy]

for once, I must say with some confidence, you are wrong here chief. Adobe stopped updating ACR for CS in 1/2005 - says so right on their website. ACR 2.4 is the last ACR update and it does not support 350D files. that's why the ACR 2.4 download is bundled with the DNG converter. Check it out:

http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?product=39&platform=Macintosh

(same for win/mac, btw)

So noted - I liked your recommendation of upgrading to CS2 :deal

[DoctorIt]

So noted - I liked your recommendation of upgrading to CS2 :dealyeah, me too... i just haven't gotten around to it yet, I keep buying glass instead. :dunno

[CalKidd]

Thanks for the help guys.

As far as upgrading to CS2, I don't think that will happen anytime soon. I don't have the $$$$ nor to I shot enough or good enough to warrant this upgrade.

[CalKidd]

Arrrrrrrgh:bash..........Tried to convert to .DNG from RAW and the program gives me the error "The source folder does not contain any supported camera raw files".

I am no dummy when it comes to operating a computer and I have the correct files selected. What am I doing wrong?

[bwg]

yeah, me too... i just haven't gotten around to it yet, I keep buying glass instead. :dunno

dont waste your money on cs2 at this point if you've already got cs.

there wont be a universal version of photoshop until cs3, so if you're ever gonna upgrade your mac doc, that's what you'll want.

[DoctorIt]

Arrrrrrrgh:bash..........Tried to convert to .DNG from RAW and the program gives me the error "The source folder does not contain any supported camera raw files".

I am no dummy when it comes to operating a computer and I have the correct files selected. What am I doing wrong?Hmm, now I'm stumped. I know the folder selection window is actually pretty lame, so several times I selected the wrong one...

what version of DNG converter do you have? maybe for some silly reason, you need the later one?
:scratch

refresh my memory, 350D raw files are .CR2, right? (I want to try it here for you, just to see if there's a little detail i'm missing, but I don't think I have any .CR2's left anywhere, they're all DNG.)

[CalKidd]

Well I downloaded the newest DNG converter via the PSCS2 area and it works. I didn't do this because the PSCS2 file also had the updated RAW plug in. So I only used the DNG file and deleted the plug in.

[DoctorIt]

Well I downloaded the newest DNG converter via the PSCS2 area and it works. I didn't do this because the PSCS2 file also had the updated RAW plug in. So I only used the DNG file and deleted the plug in.bingo! I had a hunch that was the case. so all is well now?

DNG really is a great file format, so you're not hurting yourself by doing this, just fyi.

[lekke]

bingo! I had a hunch that was the case. so all is well now?

DNG really is a great file format, so you're not hurting yourself by doing this, just fyi.

Uh, I just replied in the other thread with a completely opposite opinion. I too was once satisfied and optimistic about DNG, but now I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole - I have no need for a format which is not supported by the best CR2 converters out there. And by best I mean the ones that produce the optimal image quality (ACR certainly does not).

Without further ado, I'd recommend Capture One and/or DPP for image quality. However, NO sharpening should be performed in those apps - that should be done Photoshop.

These are all my own experiences within the last 1.5 years, based on processing RAW files from Olympus E-1, Canon EOS 10D, Canon EOS 350D and Canon EOS 5D. However I am very open minded and will keep an eye on where Adobe goes with ACR in the future...(cause I *really* like Lightroom as a workflow app)

Best regards,

[wxwax]

Uh, I just replied in the other thread with a completely opposite opinion. I too was once satisfied and optimistic about DNG, but now I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole - I have no need for a format which is not supported by the best CR2 converters out there. And by best I mean the ones that produce the optimal image quality (ACR certainly does not).

Without further ado, I'd recommend Capture One and/or DPP for image quality. However, NO sharpening should be performed in those apps - that should be done Photoshop.

These are all my own experiences within the last 1.5 years, based on processing RAW files from Olympus E-1, Canon EOS 10D, Canon EOS 350D and Canon EOS 5D. However I am very open minded and will keep an eye on where Adobe goes with ACR in the future...(cause I *really* like Lightroom as a workflow app)

Best regards,


I use DPP almost daily. But I find it more limited than ACR when opening RAW files. For example, where's my grey card eye dropper to set white balance? In ACR I can adjust both saturation and hue for R,G and B. In DPP I have to use a curve. (Tho I wouldn't mind curves in ACR, I wish it had them.) The CA reduction feature in ACR is also handy.

I note that DPP consistently shows me a warmer interpretation of a RAW file than does ACR. I have no idea why, but the difference is pronounced.

[lekke]

I use DPP almost daily. But I find it more limited than ACR when opening RAW files. For example, where's my grey card eye dropper to set white balance? In ACR I can adjust both saturation and hue for R,G and B. In DPP I have to use a curve. (Tho I wouldn't mind curves in ACR, I wish it had them.) The CA reduction feature in ACR is also handy.

I note that DPP consistently shows me a warmer interpretation of a RAW file than does ACR. I have no idea why, but the difference is pronounced.

Well, what you do with the settings is entirely individual, but if you get the photos to look the same and examine the output tiff's side-by-side, you'll see the difference

[wxwax]

Well, what you do with the settings is entirely individual, but if you get the photos to look the same and examine the output tiff's side-by-side, you'll see the difference
:scratch If they look the same, what difference will I see?

My point was, I find the ACR controls to be more user friendly. That matters.

[lekke]

:scratch If they look the same, what difference will I see?

My point was, I find the ACR controls to be more user friendly. That matters.

Yes, I get your point, I was talking about image quality - get them to look the same on preview and then compare the output TIFFs... on 100% view

However, most people won't be that pesky over this... the photos will look almost the same in print