Is 5d mark II raw (CR2) file different from CR2 file from 5d? Adobe Camera Raw error on mk II not 5d

Question

I use Photoshop Camera Raw plugin (Adobe) to preprocess color, then finish image preparation in Photoshop.  Never a problem opening CR2 files, usually from my own 5d camera.  But a customer sent a few CR2 files that won't open (error says it is wrong kind of document).  So far no explanation or fixes from Photoshop users... thought I would ask the Canon experts.  Why would CR2 file from 5d mk II fail but CR2 files from 5d all open ok?
Still using Photoshop CS2, and the Camera Raw plugin is v 3.7.  I really want to continue this workflow (works for me), prefer not to experiment with dpp or other possibilities.  Not ready to upgrade yet to Photoshop CS6.
Solved!
Go to Solution.

Answer 1

I have a photographer friend who has used Photoshop for years and basically never used anything else.  He bought his 5D III from a store which was offering a free copy of Lightroom with the purchase.  He didn't buy because of the incentive... he bought his camera and a copy of Lightroom came with it.  He put it on the shelf to collect dust.
One day we're out shooting and somehow get onto the topic of how he's processing his images and I mention Lightroom to him (I use Aperture, but that's for Mac users only -- he's on a PC).  He tells me has it... it's on the shelf... he never installed it.
I gave him my "are you crazy" look and then proceeded to tell him why he needs to learn to use Lightroom.  He now pretty much just uses Lightroom and is much happier for it.
I'll sum up (again... I'm an Aperture user but Lightroom was designed to fend off Apple from taking over in photography.)
Photoshop is NOT made for photographers.  It's made for people working in graphics arts and publishing, etc.  
Apple, recognizing that the tool was awkward for photography made a tool targeted specifically at professional photographers...and Aperture was born.  Adobe, seeing this as the very real threat that it is, realized they'd better get busy.  Adobe produced Lightroom.  Both are targeted to photographers and NOT to those in graphics arts or publishing.
I think of Aperture and LIghtroom as being outstanding at image management for large collections of photos and also outstanding when you come back to your office with cards loaded with images that now all need to be processed.  
This is a painful long and tedius task of opening things image by image in Photoshop.... but a breeze to do in Aperture or Lightroom.  You don't actually open images... you import the entire contents of the card into your library and now you can breeze through them apply adjustments as needed.  Some types of global adjustments such as "white balance" can be applied to every image in the shoot as long as it was taken in the same lighting.  No need to do that image by image... you adjust one, then select all the other images shot in the same light and tell it to apply the same adjustments.  Don't try that in Photoshop... you'll injure yourself.  
Lastly... Photoshop is a "destructive" editior.  You can take precautions to try to make sure you don't actually edit any original data, but the tool WILL let you change original data if you aren't careful.  Aperture and Lightroom are non-destructive by their very nature.
I find that with Aperture or Lightroom that I still do need to open an image in Photoshop.  Aperture and Lightroom can't do everything.  They do not, for example, allow you to create composit images by combining elements of multiple other images.  But I will say it's not often that I need to open something in Photoshop anymore.  
If you are a photographer and you've been using Photoshop because that's what you know... you _really_ need to evaluate one of the tools which were actually intended for use by photographers.
Tim Campbell
5D II, 5D III, 60Da