[morlandroger]

Just a quick one. I have CS2 but have seen Adobe Camera Raw in elements 6. Seems to be more comprehensive. Cannot justify paying for Lightroom or CS3 but if Elements 4/5/6 has the ACR plug in then will look fo a cheap version on ebay to complement my CS2. Is this the right way to go? Advice please.
Roger

[silkstone]

Sorry Roger - I'm not an Adobe user or fan but I believe that the latest version of ACR will not work with CS2. Older versions of ACR will, but they don't read RAW files from the more recent cameras.

When I berated Adobe for this in another thread I was flamed (or at least gently barbecued) by those who didn't see why Adobe should continue to support a discontinued version of Photoshop. They thought it was perfectly reasonable to pay Adobe another £150 (or whatever) so you could read RAW files from your new camera.

I'm just glad that other software companies have a different attitude towards long-term support.

[AQ]

Just a quick though. Can you get an updated version of the Canon RAW program. I have never used the one that come with my camera so I have no idea if it is any good or not though.

While I agree with Silky about Adobe - in the real world they only exist to make money for their shareholders and they do that mainly by selling the "same" program over and over again to their existing customer base so they need to differentiate each version.

[morlandroger]

Originally Posted by Anthraquinone

Just a quick though. Can you get an updated version of the Canon RAW program. I have never used the one that come with my camera so I have no idea if it is any good or not though.

While I agree with Silky about Adobe - in the real world they only exist to make money for their shareholders and they do that mainly by selling the "same" program over and over again to their existing customer base so they need to differentiate each version.

I have the latest version of Canon DPP. Good programme but not the functionality of Adobe CR. I am with Silky on this one. They have produced a plug in to work with Elements but not the full blown CS2

[Dave Canon]

Adobe have introduced a major change to ACR and it is not just a few more cameras added or a tweak to the features. I understand that this new version required some basic changes to the supporting software. Lightroom supports the new ACR as does PS CS3 and it is even supported by Elements 5 and 6. However, it is not supported by CS2.

While Elements 5/6 support the new ACR, only the basic features are available. Having said that, the basic features are good. However, if you want to use all the features of the new ACR, you will have to have CS3 or Lightroom.

I cannot guess which is the best course for you to follow. I do not upgrade each time Adobe do but upgraded from CS to CS3 which was a huge step and well worth the £150. Clearly you will not gain as much benefit from upgrading from CS2 but it is still a useful improvement. You might wait until CS4 but that could be some time and, having made a major change with CS3, I suspect that CS4 will only be a minor upgrade. Moving sideways to buy Elements seems to me to be a backward step unless you do not use many of the CS2 features. Also you will still be missing all but the basic features of ACR. A tough decision if the budget is tight but go for CS3 if the funds are available.

[BWEP]

Originally Posted by morlandroger

Just a quick one. I have CS2 but have seen Adobe Camera Raw in elements 6. Seems to be more comprehensive. Cannot justify paying for Lightroom or CS3 but if Elements 4/5/6 has the ACR plug in then will look fo a cheap version on ebay to complement my CS2. Is this the right way to go? Advice please.
Roger

I have CS2 ( cannot handle Canon 40D CR2 files) but switched to Elements 6 as the facilities for Raw editing are excellent.
Not being a professional but a enthusiastic amateur Elements 6 more than meets my needs
Bwep

[Dave Canon]

BWEP, if you download the free Adobe DNG converter, you can convert all your RAW files to DNG and then process them in CS2 or Elements. However, unless you upgrade to CS3, you will not have all of the new Raw facilities but the basic Raw facilities in Elements now are good.

I would certainly agree that Elements is more than enough for most keen photographers. However, I have been digital imaging for over ten years so I really do like have the full facilities in CS3.

Dave

[Rob Barron]

I am not seeking to defend or attack Adobe so please don't read this as a pro or con on that argument. I would say though that ACR is by no means a mere add-on, it is a highly complex program in itself and the programming then integrates with the programming of Photoshop CS3 in order to provide full (and superb) functionality.

Saying that Adobe should make this fit CS2 so that we 40D users can use an older version might hold water if it was a minor tweak required at their end but that is clearly not the case. Adobe would have to invest serious man-hours into making ACR work with CS2 for 40D and other newer models of dSLR when they gain nothing from it at all.

I believe Photoshop is very over-priced despite being the best photography editing program out there but as a PS user since PS5, I accept that when I buy a program I get the latest stuff available but when the program is significantly updated, I don't expect the makers to add the new functionality to older versions of their software. After all, why stop at the RAW processing? Would CS2 owners be considered reasonable if they also insisted on some of the other new features in CS3 being made available as a free upgrade? I doubt it.

Adobe are stonkingly expensive for their professional level programs but in fairness, they do make a cheaper version available that meets most non-professionals' needs and sell it for about 1/8th of the price of the full PS.

I am certain that if the inclusion of Canon 40D drivers or whatever is needed (I am no software developer so Orangepeel and others will know far more about this sort of thing than me) was a simple tweak that could be downloaded into CS2 to make to work, it would be done but I can't see Adobe investing a lot of time and money into doing so when it gives them n reward at all.

BTW, I can't fly my Concorde add-on very well in Flight Sim 2004 either, had to get Flight Sim X for that

Oh well, my 0.2p worth anyway!

Cheers,
Rob

[silkstone]

I don't want to start an Adobe war either but there was an interesting article in The Guardian last week on 'Freeconomics' and how it related to everything from Ryanair to the music industry. If the theory propounded there is correct, and it made sense to me, companies like Adobe, which currently charge way in excess of the marginal cost for their products, will have to turn their business model on its head if they want to survive.

Stuart Jeffries on the rise of freecomomics | Money | The Guardian

[VinnyP]

I'll have a stab at defending Adobe. As it happens Adobe are now in the process of offering free software. Their OEM elements software is already almost free to hardware manufacturers.

There is nothing to touch Photoshop at the moment in terms of performance. It costs a lot compared to the competition but then all the other editing software will not have anywhere near their overhead because they effectively just reverse engineer the Photoshop features. Photoshop do this in Elements which has little development cost since it uses the existing ideas from the full version.

Adobe employ just under 4000 staff and will make net profits of about 450 million this year which as you say is an incredible margin. But the profits are up 50% this year in a global slowdown so they must have the pricing and product about right?

After the initial steep hit it's less than £10 a month to keep up to date even if you take every release. Clearly the people who buy it make more than that out of it since they are mostly commercial customers. Curiously by staying at the top of the market Adobe benefit from Chris Anderson's more well regarded theory of "The Long Tail".

[silkstone]

Originally Posted by VinnyP

There is nothing to touch Photoshop at the moment in terms of performance.

As I said, I don't want to start a war , but I'll have to argue. I don't think that Adobe-centricity does us any favours at all, and I'll do my best to persuade newcomers to photography that they don't need to spend £650 on an image editor to achieve results equal to (or even better than) CS3/ACR. Many people claim to get better results from other software (DxO, Bibble, Silkypix, LightZone, Capture NX, etc) than from ACR, and have posted comparative images (on other forums) to back this up.

Photoshop CS3 is a very competent, comprehensive and expensive application, but I wonder how many of its users have looked at the alternatives recently - it's very easy to get locked into Photoshop, which suits Adobe just fine. However, there really are other products which come very close to touching CS3 and cost a fraction as much. Elements is always going to be hamstrung as it can't take revenue away from CS3, and Lightroom is still a long way from being the all-in-one package that it set out to be.

From a personal perspective, I've not used Photoshop since version 3 and have never felt deprived - just a little richer.

[VinnyP]

Originally Posted by silkstone

From a personal perspective, I've not used Photoshop since version 3 and have never felt deprived - just a little richer.

Each to their own and I wholeheartedly agree that for many users there are products out there that will do a better job for them for less money. For me I am fairly confident I am a good bit richer BECAUSE I use Photoshop. I actually have Bibble pro on my Linux Box and it's really good for what it is but it's not in the same league as Photoshop. I have Capture NX and I can get very good results very quickly with it (on an uber spec machine) but if I take longer then I get better results from PS. I also use DxO and love it for some shots but I use it alongside PS.

Why would 2 images processed by the same person who claims one product is superior be in any way objective. Surely a better test would be to send the same raw file to a number of experts to process in their chosen software. Professional Image Maker magazine did this with a wedding shoot and then blind tested it; the photoshop images were streets ahead. It's not like they don't have software shootouts and reviews frequently in the magazines, all the ones I have seen never seem to doubt PS is the best in terms of quality.

Adobe needs competition I agree. I'd love to have a better product for less. But equally the imaging sector like all businesses needs a heavy hitter. For example if it were not for Adobe then you'd be stuck with the Camera Mfrs own Raw conversion software as both Canon and Nikon tried to keep this in house. It was only because Adobe used their clout that they reluctantly agreed to make some of the specs available to third parties.

[Dave Canon]

Whether or not PhotoShop is the "best" imaging product or not, it is the market leader and has almost a monopology in the professional world. Although an Adobe user, I would be very happy if a real rival emerged as there is nothing like competition to keep the price down. However, companies like Adobe, Corel etc. seem to keep an eye on this and tend to buy up other companies as soon as they are a slight threat.

Dave