ACR and Canon DPP

Another question about ACR from the same greenhorn:
Is there a way to get ACR to recognize changes made to a CR2 file in Canon's Digital Photo Professional? I have a bunch of CR2s with retouching and color/etc. corrections made in DPP that I would like to convert to DNGs, but I really don't want to redo all my edits in ACR.
Thanks again,
Andrew Slayman
P.S. I am using ACR 4.4.1 with PS CS3 on Windows XP.

No.

Similar Messages

Big differences between LR 2.2 and Canon DPP 3.5

LightRoom 2.2 with ACR 5.2 and Camera Profile Standard (that of Canon )
DPP 3.5.1 with same Picture Style (standard)
Opening of the same raw (shot with 5D II) without touching nothing
http://www.rizzetto.com/temp/lightroom1.jpg
why those huge differences ? it seems LR set 1000 kelvin less (both WB
setting "as shot")
btw. DPP is more close to the reality... temperature was very "orangish"
thanks
Sandro

<René[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected].. > LR will start off by displaying the camera generated built in jpg of the > Raw. This should closely resemble DPP. Then the LR defaults get applied to > the actual raw data. > > What are your LR default settings? what do you mean ? I guess I have the standard settings (all 0); how can I control ? >Are you sure you haven't set some other parameters (which will not be read >by LR, but will be used as starting point by DPP) different in camera? Say >a >color tone correction? no.. camera use Picture Style Standard (+3 Sharpness and 0 contrast/saturation/color tone) > Also, in order for DPP to display correctly, you have to set the right > display profile in preferences. (In OSX, in windows there's a setting "Use > OS default" or some such) > > AFAIK the default setting for DPP is "sRGB" for display profile, which is > obviously wrong. I did some test (OS default, or I browse to choose the Dell2407 icm file) but also restarting the program, the colors remain the same...

Acr and canon 70d

Hi,
i have just purchased a canon 70D camera and use lightroom 4 and elements 11 and neither of these support the camera for my raw files.
I much prefer to use ACR for my post editing and wondered if there will be an update in the very near future.I am not currently planning on upgrading to
lightroom 5 at this time.
Regards Adrian

Adobe needs to profile each camera’s raw sensor to convert raw to an image with the proper colors, and Adobe only updates their current version of software for new cameras.
If your camera-model is newer than your software version, then you’ll need to upgrade or update your software to a version that was released after the camera became available and Adobe added support, which includes the possibility of updating to the latest DNG Converter 8.2 once it is released (at the same time that ACR 8.2 and probably PSE12 are released), and converting your native-format raw files to DNG-format raw files that can be processed with older ACR and LR versions.
The issue, at the moment, is that the pre-released versions of ACR 8.2 RC and DNGC 8.2 RC from Adobe Labs pretend that the 70D raw files have camera profiles from the 6D so only the final versions of DNGC 8.2 and ACR 8.2 will have the new 70D camera profiles and the look of the images might change, slightly.
I prefer not to use DNG format for anything so I always update my LR and ACR to the latest version.

LR/ACR and Canon Highlight Tone Priority

Hey All,
I recently acquired a Canon 1D Mk III which, among other things, offers the Highlight Tone Priority function.
I've read different things about how this "works" and how it may affect Canon RAW files. Since I shoot only RAW, it's meaningful to me to understand what's going on with this function and if I as a RAW shooter gain a real benefit from its use.
From what I've read, I gather that with HTP enabled, and the ISO set to, say, 200 (the lowest ISO for HTP use) the camera actually reads the analog data for ISO 100 from the A/D Converter/amplifier, then applies a curve in digital processing to boost the exposure for the dark and midtones, while curving down the boost into the highlights. I don't have an expert analysis of this but more opinions of those who've run tests and analyzed the results.
One of these testers believes that for RAW, a flag is set in Exif that directs RAW converters to apply this flag -- in other words the actual RAW data is in this example the (underexposed) ISO 100 data and the converter, in our case Lightroom, knows to apply some kind of curve on initially rendering the data. In other words, in this opinion, the RAW data is the unchanged ISO 100, a stop underexposed relative to the desired ISO 200.
So, I'm hoping that those "in the know" in the Adobe world can give me a definitive answer so that I and other Canon RAW shooters can make an educated decision as to whether we want to use this tool or not!
I'd really like to hear from someone on the Adobe team about this, or one of you all who works with the team!
Thanks,
Tony

I don't mean to cause a problem with this statement...but here it goes any way:
For all those who have a cam with HTP, test this for yourself. You will see a noticeable difference between shooting in RAW with HTP on and off. (YMMV)
If we can see the difference, and it is a good one (in our favor of better image quality) than why do we need info from Adobe about this? We should just be happy it Does work and continue to confidently take our photos.
I have never used DPP to see if there is a difference between RAW w/HTP and the same image from LR.
edit:
I suspect the reason that it does work with LR is that HTP possibly works in the image pipeline in the camera. Meaning it does it's magic before it writes the raw file. So any luminance/tone-curve/iso trickery is done before the actual raw phase. The raw data has already been shifted (similar to RAW shot at ISO 3200, which we already know is 1600 underexposed 1 stop than pushed in camera before writing the file)

PSE7, PS CS4, Organizer, Bridge, Camera Raw, Canon DPP

I'm trying to develop a process for using the various tools available to easily browser through a shoot's photos, zoom as needed, choose favorites, make any changes, etc.
I have PSE7/Organizer, Bridge/PS CS4, Camera Raw for both PSE7 and PS CS4, and Canon DPP. I owned PSE7 first, and I like it's backup features as well as the keyword/album and browsing interface, but I'm finding it may not be good for fast processing of a shoot's photos when they are RAW.
I'm shooting in RAW and I'm finding that zooming RAW images in Organizer is not possible beyond whatever preview image is present. Instead, I must open the image, which causes Camera Raw to open. Once in Camera Raw, I can zoom with greater control.
But what I notice is that using Bridge may be better to use for browsing RAW images, especially if I desire to open them in Camera Raw for greater zoom control, touch ups or whatever. The reason is that it seems to take longer for PSE7's Organizer to open a photo in PSE7 and Camera Raw than it takes for Bridge to open the same in PS CS4 and Camera Raw.
Here are my findings:
First time open of RAW or DNG:
Organizer opening to PSE7/Camera Raw: 15 seconds.
Bridge opening to PS CS4/Camera Raw: 10 seconds.
Second time open of RAW or DNG:
Organizer opening to PSE7/Camera Raw: less than 10 seconds.
Bridge opening to PS CS4/Camera Raw: less than 5 seconds
"Second time open" means that I keep the relevant application open when I return to the organizer. For example, after PSE7 opens, I do not close it when returning to Organizer, and likewise, when returning to Bridge, I do not close PS CS4 when returning to Bridge. The above figures show Bridge can open a RAW or DNG photo into PS CS4 and Camera Raw faster in both the case of PS CS4 not already open, and when an instance of PS CS4 is already open.
In exploring all of this, I tried using DPP as my "Organizer" and it, of course, was the fastest at opening photos to its editor which has a few preset zoom positions. It does have a "Transfer to Photoshop" option but that takes 30 seconds and converts to a TIFF in a temp directory. So DPP seems like something to avoid unless there are RAW editing features which do not exist elsewhere.
Given the above, it seems the best process for me is to use PSE7's Organizer for the features I like (i.e., backup, keywords, albums), but use Bridge/PS CS4 when processing a shoot's photos for keepers. Then use Canon DPP only if it has something which I must use, or just like better.
Do my choices here make sense, where I'm not missing something? If there's a good link that discusses high-level process for dealing with a shoot's photos to find keepers, that would be great to know about.
I realize what's best for anyone really depends on each person's preferences/needs, so the questions I ask are seeking general answers given the limited information I've explained about what's important for me (i.e., going through photos quickly, having good zoom control for review, and being able to go to either PSE7 or PS relatively fast... my findings say that Bridge/PS CS4 seems best for this unless DPP has something I must utilize).
Thanks,
Tom

Barbara and George M, You both had answers, but only one can be selected as "Correct" ... I wish the forum allowed splitting that. I gave Barbara's answer the "correct" mark since it was first. George M, I clicked "Helpful Answer" on your response, but your info was much more than just "Helpful"... great tips on the import/download file/dir naming. I'll look into that.
I played around with Bridge/PS quite a bit more, and I'm sold on its way of doing things. I get it now. It stores all keywords with the files, so this removes the need for any organizer-proprietary/custom format databases for retaining such information. This is actually the way I prefer to work, with as much control and as close to the files as possible, or at least with enough info about the files so I can do the right backups, ensure I'm saving the information I add, and so forth. PSE7 has the benefit of allowing keywords without affecting the files, but that's not a big deal for me so long as the metadata-writing software in the products I use isn't buggy, destroying the file (I know, I know, have a backup!).
I really liked PSE7 because I was thinking in terms of an organizer maintaining non-photo data (i.e., keywords) as does PSE7, but since Bridge embeds the info as metadata in the photo file itself, it removes the need for that type of organizer. With that known, the issue of backups no longer needs to be organizer-centric. With Bridge, I know the files and folders themselves is effectively The database. That means I can use whatever I use for my normal backups, and things are actually much more manageable and understandable down that route. So the Bridge/PS route is not only more powerful and faster (in my experience on my laptop), but the Bridge-way of embedding the keywords in the file keeps me loosely coupled, actually completely decoupled from being reliant on an organizer-specific database and all that jazz.
Thanks for helping/clarifying with your feedback on this.
Tom

*Shocked* by the performance of Canon DPP, and DDP workflow with Aperture

I love Aperture. My brother mercilessly hounded me for two years, and when Aperture 2 came out, I gave it a shot. Aperture 3, despite my nightmare conversion story, has been a dream come true . . . until I discovered sharpening.
In my quest to get sharper photos, I've toyed with image stabilization, tripods, higher shutter speeds, steadying the camera, and depth of field, and even bought several professional lenses. My photos STILL did not look as sharp as those I saw in galleries and online. But wait . . . my JPEG files from my sporting events did . . .
I read that RAW files are not sharp, and sharpening is applied to JPEGs on the camera. But why is Aperture and my MBP not able to sharpen photos well using any one of the three sharpening sliders or the sharpening tool? I was then led to DPP, kicking and screaming. What I discovered was truly amazing.
Forget about the personal opinions with warmth and contrast between Aperture, ACR, and DPP. DPP is the unquestioned leader in producing sharp photos from RAW images. You drag the slider . . . it's sharp. It's even sharper than the photos I've spent 20 minutes sharpening in CS5 with sharpening masks, sharpening tool, etc. The DPP tool JUST WORKS. Even noise with high ISO is MUCH improved. High noise still can use an expensive tool to correct, but still MUCH better than Aperture.
Until Canon reveals their secrets to Apple and Adobe for RAW processing, I need to figure out a way to use DPP for RAW processing.
For those that use DPP for RAW processing, how to you work it into your workflow? I want Aperture to be a one-stop shop, but I don't want to store the original RAW, the DPP-edited RAW, and potentially a TIFF for additional editing and noise reduction?
Do you sort in Aperture first? Do you convert in DPP first? How do you maintain file integrity, and at the same time, minimize disk space usage?
If you no longer use DDP, please tell me why, and how you've worked around it?

All I can say is, either I've been in the weeds all this time, or your skills with sharpening are better than most.
A couple of questions:
1-What do you use under Sharpening for and Edges under "RAW fine tuning" you thankfully shared your settings for Edge Sharpen (^s)
2-What camera and RAW format are you using (this may help me fine-tune my preferences). I've got a 7D and primarily shoot MRAW. (Not the best for a couple reasons, but I don't need or want the large file sizes.)
To be sure, default sharpening in Aperture is pretty bad. And I have played with sharpening going on 40 hours now over several months. I could not get a good result.
Your documenting the exact settings and sharpening tool is what helped me get past whatever I was doing before. Maybe I was thrown by the higher default contrast in DPP. I'm now able to produce a better result in Aperture than DPP, or even my laboriously-sharpened photos on Photoshop. There are some tradeoffs in each, but I didn't want to use DDP as part of my workflow. Now that I've used it more, I'm convinced I don't!
And the definition setting is very useful. It's the only mainstream adjustment I've never really used.

More Usable Image Detail - Adobe Camera Raw Beats Canon DPP

Let me start with a question:
When you do your raw conversions, do you convert to an image that's got the same number of pixels as your camera's imager has photosites?
If so, why? I ask because I'm convinced that - with modern software - to get the most usable detail out of a raw image one should convert directly to an upsampled size. You might think that in trying to get "more megapixels from the same camera" I'm just fooling myself, but again and again when I look at the problem of maximizing the output from existing equipment (which, face it, is everyone's goal, no matter how good the equipment) I keep seeing that there is an advantage to selecting from the upsampled resolutions in Camera Raw. Of course, the computer must be up to handling the additional data.
In actual terms, my Canon 40D has 3888 x 2592 photosites (plus some guard pixels around the edges) making 10 megapixels, yet I find converting to 6144 x 4096 (25 megapixels) to be advantageous - ESPECIALLY when I use my sharpest lenses.
I happened to be doing a head to head comparison between Canon 50mm f/1.8 and Canon 50mm f/1.4 lenses, and the difference between the two appeared pretty subtle - UNTIL I converted to the aforementioned upsampled resolution, and then the more expensive f/1.4 lens clearly stepped ahead. There was simply extra detail I hadn't been seeing clearly at the native pixel size of the camera's imager, but which stood out clearly at the larger size.
This reaffirmed my previous observations that conversion directly to upsampled resolutions in Camera Raw brings out additional detail.
This screen grab shows part of the converted image, as produced by DPP and Camera Raw, both at 6144 x 4096 pixels as produced by the converters and displayed at 100% zoom. Note that the detail (e.g., in the terrain) is finer and more real looking in the Camera Raw conversion, while the DPP image seems to have more sharpening artifacts.
If you're interested in experimenting to see how much detail you can lift out of this same image, the raw file is here:
http://Noel.ProDigitalSoftware.com/temp/IMG_5400.zip
I don't have a copy of any other converters, for example Capture 1, to see how they'd do.
-Noel

Noel Carboni wrote:
Hudechrome wrote:
I hope that Noel will offer results that compare the Canon RAW in ACR with both resolutions as well.
Not sure I follow you completely... Just to be clear, can you lay out what "both resolutions" means? I'll be more than happy to go through different processes and present comparison images - I just want to be sure I understand just what you're asking for.
Oh, and you're right - some subjectivity necessarily will appear here. I might just like the "look" of one process while you prefer the "look" of another.
Lastly, one of my workflows involves sharpening images with my own fractal sharpening actions, and I am testing to see which converter process output produces the best result from that as well.
-Noel
I had to read that twice to make sure I knew what it meant!
What I am trying to say is to show the results of both converters in the native resolution and the 25M upsampled.resolution.
On another note, I have been playing around with the details of noise and sharpening in DXO and ACR, looking at 300%. It's both good and bad. If you are willing to mess with the ACR settings at 300%, then ACR has the edge, even comparing to manual tweaks in DXO. They do correctly optimize, however, except that point isn't as good as ACR. The depressing point is all the tweaking to do on an individual basis. Can you imagine tweaking 100 or more images that way? Then you get to move over to other corrections.
We are splitting tiny hairs here, and the bottom line is if you are going to make 30x40 prints from a given file, you may want to use ACR all the way and bite the bullet. If the Auto corrections for the lens employed in ACR is well done, as it seems for my Nikon 18 to 105, the workload is relaxed.
Finally, the ACR corrected image will need final sharpening at higher values than the DXO, and at that point, they come together a bit more...sharpening anomalys and all that.
The final fuss levels takes me back to my 8x10 days, where these kinds of determinations (max quality level) takes place under the focusing cloth, and deliberate selection of POV is carefully considered. Today, it's in front of the monitor. But instead of a few sheets of film to process, we have 100's to do.
I thoroughly enjoy working with the files on the computer, but not so much having to deal with less than optimum technical details right out of the camera. Barrel distortion? Hasselblad was not satisfied with the "normal" corrections in it's general optics, which were damn good, so came out with the 100mm Planar that was awesome! All they gave up was max aperture, and picked the FL at a value that provided for the best corrections. So I recall anyway.
Why should we be required to do these kinds of post corrections? Digital editing involves throwing away information, and ther appears to be enough so that correcting these deficiencies still gives a wonderful image. Just imagine what it would be like if all you need to do is to open the file and adjust values to taste, with all that information density available exclusively for that part. You don't even need to use a focusing magnifier!
Gotta run!
Lawrence

Colour cast in ACR from Canon G11

Hi all,
I recently posted this question on the Lightroom Forum where I did recieved some useful answers, but unfortunaly the solution is not really workable in the long term. As the issue I am having is almost certainly related to ACR, I thought I'd post the question here too.
I bought Lightroom 3 a month or so ago, mainly to work with the RAW output from my Canon G11. The majority of the shots want to process are taken underwater around the UK coast. When imported into LR3 the shots take on a very strong green colour cast, even though I set the manual white balance at regular intervals. By comparison, Canon DPP imports the RAW files correctly (what I consider correct), and I get the same correct results with Raw Therapee, GIMP and Capture 1. I do, however, get the same colour cast problem importing in to Photoshop Elements 8, which convinces me ACR is at the root of the problem. I am using ACR 6.1 for both LR and PSE8. I would expect Canon DPP to be correct as it is processing it's own RAW files, but as the other RAW converters match the Canon output, this too points at an issue in ACR.
I've scanned both the Adobe LR and ACR forums, but can not see any posts where people are having similar issues to me. I did find several post's saying that ACR's support of the Canon G11 was now finished, maybe it has just been tuned for land based shots, not underwater. I tried to install the Release Candidate of ACR 6.2 at the weekend, but got a message on the lines of 'Not for this product' (I forget the exact words), so gave up on that.
A short while ago I did a test import with a RAW file taken in similar conditions to my shots, but using a Canon 5D MkII. This imported correctly, which implies the issue is related to the G11. I was not able to do a test import my shots as the person helping has an older version of ACR which does not include the G11 support.
I have tried using Adobe DNG Converter, to no avail, and I have also tried all the white balance pre-sets within LR3. The custom white balance picker does not give sensible results, it just changes the shots to a slightly different shade of green. Being aggressive with LR3 setting can make improvements (Camera Calibration RGB hue's plus the tint and temperature for the white balance for example), but it's a slow, shot by shot process, and still does not produce a usable finished product, or even a reasonable starting point for fine tuning.
As a work around I can open the RAW files in Canon DPP and output to TIF, which LR3 then opens correctly. I believe, however, that as I'm not working directly with the RAW file, I'm not going to get the best out of LR3's features.
I have tried raising a call directly with Adobe to ask about this issue. Unfortunatly is not practical as they need direct access to the PC running LR3, which is my home desktop, and I am at work when their call lines are open.
I've attached example output from LR3 and DPP. Both use white balance of 'As Shot', and neither have had any processing done on them. The LR3 shot looks less green that it does at home, I assume thats because I've saved it as a low res JPG.
Thanks for any advise people can give.
ACR/LR3 output
Canon DPP output (Same result for Raw Therapee, GIMP and Capture 1)

Can you please provide the raw file corresponding to the image shown in the original post? You can use YouSendIt.com with a target email address of [email protected] Thanks.

Canon DPP Can't Read CR2 Files

I'm considering getting CS3 but before that, wanted to try out using Canon DPP for my raw files taken with G9. I downloaded the latest DPP but it just won't display the CR2 files. Jpeg & Tif show up fine though.
Is DPP only for EOS only? I thought it should be able to read any CR2 file.
Any advice most appreciated.
Thanks.
Avivion

What Jim said. The Canon PowerShot G9 is supported by ACR 4.4.1, but I have no idea about ACR 3.7, which is the last version that can run in CS2, and no clue about Canon software.

How do I get canon dpp to see files which are sitting in iPhoto?

I have imported files from Canon 5dmkii into iphoto and there are 150 of them in two folders, raw files, loaded Canon DPP raw editor and it does not see the files in iphoto. Is there something I am neglecting to do, I just bought this rMBP two days ago and it's my first mac so I am real noob, any help would be real appreciated.

_Jock wrote:
Thanks Bill.
I can call DPP from iPhoto, but I was hoping to access the iPhoto library from DPP so I can batch process some images.
I've only recently begun to use DPP and have been using iPhoto for years, so it's a process of familiarisation with DPP I guess.
It's easy to locate the actual folder where any iPhoto image is stored, select the image in iPhoto, then select File/Reveal in Finder. You can then point DPP to that folder.
However, using other programs to modify with files tracked by iPhoto can really screw up iPhoto, so it might be better to follow LowLuster's advice and dump iPhoto, move the Canon raw photos somewhere else, and use a professional raw editor instead. In your case you can let DPP work with everything, then when you are happy with edits export JPEG copies and let iPhoto manage those if you want to use iPhoto for prints, albums, online sharing, etc.
The other reason to use something other than iPhoto is iPhoto is not a powerful raw editor. If you want to take full advantage of the quality of the raw files from your Canon, use DPP, Aperture, Lightroom, Photoshop, Capture One...

Is there a profile for Canon lenses 8-15 mm and Canon 800mm ?

Can we upload a profile for Canon 8-15 and Canon 800mm lenses?
If so where is it?

Ask in the PS/ ACR/ LR forums.
Mylenium

Phtoshop CS and Canon CR2 (400D)

I have CS on Windows.
I have read this in the FAQ:
====
Q: I have Photoshop 7, with Adobe Camera Raw 1; will there be an update to support the new cameras? What about Photoshop CS and Camera Raw 2.4?
A: Only the current version of Photoshop will receive ACR updates. However, when a new DNG converter is released, Camera Raw 2.4 in Photoshop CS and all versions of Camera Raw 3 in Photoshop CS2 will be able to open files supported by the new version of DNG converter. Photoshop 7 and ACR 1.0 do not support DNG, therefore you will need to upgrade to the latest version of Photoshop.
====
And I don't understand it - though I suspect it may offer me a (partial?) answer to my problem. Adobe's efforts at explaining are useless.
Go to Camera Raw latest plug-in and it says it is not compatible with CS.
Go to Camera Raw 2.x which is compatible with CS but it does not support Canon 400D CR2.
Go to Camera Raw 3.x which DOES support 400D CR2 but is not compatible with CS.
Nowhere (that I can find - and I've spent hours looking and half that time getting "this page not available for scheduled mantenance") does Adobe deign to explain what to do other than tell me I need to upgrade to CS3 (as do customer services).
The answer above seems to imply that some technical combination of Camera Raw 2.4 and a "new" DNG Converter will somehow allow a back level version of Camera Raw (2.4 - which will work with CS I gather) open new/later camera raw files (e.g. 400D CR2).
Can someone confirm that this is the case and provide idiot-proof advice on which "new" DNG converter I need to perform this simple magic? Thanks so much.
(Gee - it's not like CS, CS2, CS3 are all THAT different, are they? Why can't they just make Camera Raw back-compatible? Seems to me like a deliberate blackmail strategy to "encourage" expensive upgrades. But I'm just a p'd off cynic.)
Hey-ho
Thanks,
George

G Sch - thanks for your further clarification - very helpful.
Jim - thank you, indeed, for your patience. Though it is perhaps not quite as saintly as some of your friends imply given the obvious validity of John Joslin's comments that "there are plenty of examples outside the rarefied air of the Adobe world where such backward and forward compatibility is achieved." Shame on me for not being sufficiently au fait with this rarified world that your friends thought I was testing your patience unreasonably, and thanks again.
Thank you, John J, for recognising there is a real world out here beyond the dubious business ethics of Canon and Adobe, where such compatibility is not just expected but taken for granted and EASILY achieved. (As I implied - I want to be a customer, not a well to be dipped into at every turn until I'm dry.)
As for Ramon - well I don't normally respond to such sneers but - well, how does it feel to be on that hook Ramon? They've certainly got you, haven't they! So every time you buy a new camera, you fully expect a) to be moved for no reason whatsoever, other than they can do it to you, to a new and different and incompatible raw file format, and b) have to allow for the expense of being forced to upgrade your PS software or else stop using it and throw away your investment in it. Hope it feels good. Me? I don't see anything unreasonable in my expectation - but then I haven't fallen for an apparent Adobe (and Canon) con trick - until now ;-) - and I won't again (unlike some, it seems).
Funnily enough I (and probably you too, Ramon) have bought many new bits of hardware (called PCs) over the years and have run many different operating systems and all of them, even my Win 3.1 and Win98 ones (and I can still run Win98 on my latest PC, by the way) still run apps that can open and generate files (e.g. .doc) that I can use on all of these PCs. That may not be the best analogy - but yes I did acquire a camera that was not available when CS was - but who'd have expected Canon to have different raw formats for 300D, 350D and 400D? Shame on me for not doing my research. And seeing as CS, CS2 and CS3 are not completely DIFFERENT applications but evolutionary, who'd have thought they'd make an ARC for CS3 that was deliberately not compatible with CS, just to extort an upgrade fee from me. Oh - sorry - you'd have thought it, Ramon, that's who.
One does wonder how it is that buying a new camera effectively has an "Adobe tax" tied to it, and who benefits from the tax. (If Canon had any sense they'd stop their end of this so there was no opportunity for Adobe to levy the tax - but where is the 'tax revenue' spent, I wonder?)
Perhaps my expectations are unjustified, and someone can/will produce excellent and justified technical reasons why the Canon raw formats changed and why CS3 is so utterly different from primitive old CS that there are good reasons why backward compatibility would ruin the company (after all I said I'd pay a few bucks for it when I needed an ARC update). But Adobe aren't showing any signs of explaining this, and nor is anyone else - so until then I'll continue to treat them with the contempt they appear to treat their "customers" with. I made an investment in CS and they have not just utterly failed to respect that and seek to protect my investment, they have gone out of their way to render that investment worth less. I'll be using the native Canon tools and other photo apps from now on, rather more than PS, even given the DNG route.
Well that's 5 minutes more of getting it off my chest. :-)
I have the information I sought - thanks, Jim and others - so if I don't come back I'm sure you'll forgive me if I leave you all to it.
(Probably best to just let it all lie, now, eh?)

Elements 11 and Canon CR2 Compatability

Will Elements 11 open Canon CR2 files or Will I still need to convert to DNG?

Each camera is supported specifically, so it depends on the model of the camera, how new it is, compared to the version of the camera-raw plug-in that PSE11 is using. If the camera is newer than the plug-in then it won’t be supported because Adobe didn’t have a chance to profile ti before the plug-in was created.
You can update your PSE11 to the latest compatible version with Help / Updates in the Editor module.
If your camera is a 70D then it will be supported with ACR 8.2 plug-in version (use help/about plugsin/camera raw to determine the version) but because PSE12 comes out in a few days/weeks, as does ACR 8.2, then perhaps PSE11 will not be updated to ACR 8.2 and you’d need to buy PSE12.
What camera model are the CR2 files from and what version of the ACR plug-in are you using?
Here is a web-page at Adobe that lists the version of ACR (and other programs) for each model of camera they support raw files from:
http://helpx.adobe.com/creative-suite/kb/camera-raw-plug-supported-cameras.html

RAW vs JPEG in LR3+PS ACR and PS Filter

I have a custom made lens profile (Canon 17-35 2.8 on EOS 5D) made with RAW files.
It works fine for CR2 (RAW) files in LR3+Photoshop ACR and Photoshop filter,
but
- fails (doesn't appear in list) for JPEG files (same body/obj combo) in LR3+PS ACR
- is OK with PS filter.
Something I can do ?

No. By default, PS prefers non-raw profiles if both matching raw and non-raw exists for the lens (the matching raw profile does not show). There is a flyout menu to revert such preferences. That said, in the case that matching raw profiles existing but not non-raw profiles, PS takes the route of pragmatism to still give user a choice of applying the raw profiles (In general, the geometric and vignette correction would still be good even if it is raw), but the user would need to know this is not the best choice.

Tone curve - please bring back sliders, Canon DPP software just as clumsy!

Please bring back sliders for the tone curve beta 4 in this respect is now just as awkward and clumsy to operate in this respect as Canon DPP!

You can change from parametric to point curve mode yourself with the lower-right icon in the tone curve.

ACR and Canon DPP

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for