RAW and 5D

chrismoore

Hi, I think I must be missing something obvious. switched from 5d to 5d II and shooting RAW. Photoshop (CS3 Mac) will not open the RAW files- it says it is a format photoshop doesn't recognize. They are .CR2 same as before. Anyone know what I'm missing?
Thanks

Richard

chrismoore wrote:

Hi, I think I must be missing something obvious. switched from 5d to 5d II and shooting RAW. Photoshop (CS3 Mac) will not open the RAW files- it says it is a format photoshop doesn't recognize. They are .CR2 same as before. Anyone know what I'm missing?
Thanks

You need to be on ACR 5.x to open .CR2 files from a 5DII. Unfortunately, Adobe does not offer it for older versions of CS. Basically, you have two choices: upgrade to CS4 (or Lightroom 2.x) or start using DNG format. Adobe offers a free conversion program that will take the 5DII files and convert them to DNG, which CS3 can read. There are some advantages to using DNG over RAW--smaller files, no XMPs to worry about--but there are disadvantages as well--it introduces an extra step in your workflow, some non-Adobe products do not recognize the format, and despite Adobe's hopes, its long-term viability remains uncertain.

HTH.

Scott_Quier

chrismoore wrote:

Hi, I think I must be missing something obvious. switched from 5d to 5d II and shooting RAW. Photoshop (CS3 Mac) will not open the RAW files- it says it is a format photoshop doesn't recognize. They are .CR2 same as before. Anyone know what I'm missing?
Thanks

Just because the extension is the same does not ensure the file is the same format. And, in the case of jumping from the 5D (Classic) to the 5DII, it stands to reason that the larger 5DII CR2 file will be a different format.

The latest version of Adobe Camera RAW (ACR) supported by CS3 is version 4.6. ACR version 4.6 does not read the CR2 files created by the 5DII.

I believe your options are limited to upgrading your CS3 to CS4, use LR2 to convert your RAW files, or convert your RAW files to DNG and work the DNG files in either LR or CS3.

Edit: Umm ..... Richard beat me to the punch by >< that much <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/bowdown.gif&quot; border="0" alt="" >

Richard

Scott_Quier wrote:

Edit: Umm ..... Richard beat me to the punch by >< that much <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/bowdown.gif&quot; border="0" alt="" >

At least we're giving the same answer <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/lol3.gif&quot; border="0" alt="" >

<img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/thumb.gif&quot; border="0" alt="" >

chrismoore

Great, thanks guys for the quick replies.

Scott_Quier

There's one other option that just occurred to me - you can use DPP to convert the RAW file to TIF and then use CS3 to edit the TIF file.

Richard

Scott_Quier wrote:

There's one other option that just occurred to me - you can use DPP to convert the RAW file to TIF and then use CS3 to edit the TIF file.

Hmmm...I hadn't thought of that, but you're right that it could work. What I'm less clear about is how the workflow would look. If you are suggesting using DPP as the RAW processor, I wouldn't be very enthusiastic--I find ACR much more powerful, or at least, more convenient. If you do a SOC conversion in DPP, do you have the same latitude of control if you open the TIFF in ACR? Something tells me there's some gotcha about linear gamma or something else that I don't quite understand that makes this less desirable.

Hey Andrew, care to explain?

arodney

Richard wrote:

Hmmm...I hadn't thought of that, but you're right that it could work. What I'm less clear about is how the workflow would look. If you are suggesting using DPP as the RAW processor, I wouldn't be very enthusiastic--I find ACR much more powerful, or at least, more convenient. If you do a SOC conversion in DPP, do you have the same latitude of control if you open the TIFF in ACR? Something tells me there's some gotcha about linear gamma or something else that I don't quite understand that makes this less desirable.

Hey Andrew, care to explain?

Me?

Yes, he's suggesting using a non Adobe converter (Canons) that supports the new Raw format. Personally (as a 5D and now 5DMII user), I'd convert to DNG as suggested or upgrade to Lightroom. Another problem with proprietary Raw data files. If Canon or any other manufacturer would simply allow users to select DNG or proprietary Raw out of the camera, that older Adobe or any 3rd party converter would work from the get go.

pwp

My 2 bits...I just went for the upgrade to CS4. I was not willing to add yet another step to my wedding workflow. I think it was worth the $100 (or whatever minimal amount I paid) for the upgrade, if it saves me 30-60 seconds per photo, multiplied by a few thousand images a week. Definitely paid for itself in the time saved the first week. I've never tried to batch convert to DNGs, don't know if it's possible, but I imagine that is extremely time consuming, as well.

Scott_Quier

pwp wrote:

My 2 bits...I just went for the upgrade to CS4. I was not willing to add yet another step to my wedding workflow. I think it was worth the $100 (or whatever minimal amount I paid) for the upgrade, if it saves me 30-60 seconds per photo, multiplied by a few thousand images a week. Definitely paid for itself in the time saved the first week. I've never tried to batch convert to DNGs, don't know if it's possible, but I imagine that is extremely time consuming, as well.

The Adobe DNG converter is pretty much a drag and drop application (OK, it's a little more involved than that, but not much). You point it to the files to be converted, tell it where to put the results, twist it's tail, and go get yourself a coffee or something. Depending on your machine and the number to be converted, you come back in 10 minutes (or an hour) and start working on the DNGs. No muss, no fuss.

pwp

Scott_Quier wrote:

The Adobe DNG converter is pretty much a drag and drop application (OK, it's a little more involved than that, but not much). You point it to the files to be converted, tell it where to put the results, twist it's tail, and go get yourself a coffee or something. Depending on your machine and the number to be converted, you come back in 10 minutes (or an hour) and start working on the DNGs. No muss, no fuss.

That's not too bad, Scott. I had no experience with the DNG converter, so I was looking for the easiest solution at the time. Good to know! Maybe someone else will benefit from that tidbit!

aktse

A good read on DNG, RAW and JPG

chrismoore

aktse wrote:

A good read on DNG, RAW and JPG

I subscribe to that blog, too; timely advice. I downloaded the adobe dng converter and there's an option to embed the original RAW within the new DNG file. What tool is necessary to extract the RAW file from the dng later on?

arodney

chrismoore wrote:

I subscribe to that blog, too; timely advice. I downloaded the adobe dng converter and there's an option to embed the original RAW within the new DNG file. What tool is necessary to extract the RAW file from the dng later on?

That tool (DNG converter) will extract the original Raw. But I'd advise you not to embed the original Raw but rather save it to another archive. Every time you update the DNG, even with a tiny metadata edit, should you back up this DNG (and you should!) it will take a lot longer to do so as the size is now nearly double thanks to the original Raw. And if like me, you have multiple cloned backups of your photo archives, all will be much larger in size since you've got a huge DNG thanks to that Raw original. Spin off one copy on a drive and leave the DNG smaller.

Nikolai

arodney wrote:

That tool (DNG converter) will extract the original Raw. But I'd advise you not to embed the original Raw but rather save it to another archive. Every time you update the DNG, even with a tiny metadata edit, should you back up this DNG (and you should!) it will take a lot longer to do so as the size is now nearly double thanks to the original Raw. And if like me, you have multiple cloned backups of your photo archives, all will be much larger in size since you've got a huge DNG thanks to that Raw original. Spin off one copy on a drive and leave the DNG smaller.

This is exactly the reason why I don't like DNG. By the virtue of saving the changes right into the file it breaks the most important rule in my book: keep the original intact. I sincerely applaud Adobe's concept of saving all the changes in the sidecar XMP file. As a programmer I know all too well that if you open a file with "write" access, at some point in time you are going to overwrite it despite your best intentions. Better not do it to begin with.
And with the most recent ACR saving "generations" (snapshots) of raw modifications in the same XMP file becomes a non-issue.
All in all, separation of the data (RAW) and the processing (XMP) is an extremly important thing for me, which DNG fails to provide right off the bat.

arodney

Nikolai wrote:

This is exactly the reason why I don't like DNG. By the virtue of saving the changes right into the file it breaks the most important rule in my book: keep the original intact.

True. But you've got that original Raw archived, all you need is to save out the XMP and you're back to where you were prior to the DNG corruption (which I've never seen since using it from Day one). That's also why I have at least 3 cloned drives with my DNGs, LR libraries and presets. Poop happens. Having multiple copies is the only safe way to work.

Richard

I'm a little confused. Let me get this clear:

1. I convert a .CR2 to .DNG
2. I process the .DNG in ACR or LR and save the changes.
3. Some super new utility comes out that understands .CR2 but not .DNG
4. I use the Adobe utility to recover the .CR2 from the .DNG

Are you saying that the RAW data in the .CR2 will not be what came out of the camera, but rather reflect the edits I did on the .DNG?

arodney

Richard wrote:

I'm a little confused. Let me get this clear:

1. I convert a .CR2 to .DNG
2. I process the .DNG in ACR or LR and save the changes.
3. Some super new utility comes out that understands .CR2 but not .DNG
4. I use the Adobe utility to recover the .CR2 from the .DNG

Are you saying that the RAW data in the .CR2 will not be what came out of the camera, but rather reflect the edits I did on the .DNG?

The Raw you pull out of the DNG (or one you archive) could be used with new Super utility assuming it supports that older .CR2. All you're doing is embedding the original Raw into the DNG. The edits are converter specific. New super utility will not have a clue what they mean (unless new converter is the same manufacturer as old and new product supports the same processing instructions.

Richard

arodney wrote:

The Raw you pull out of the DNG (or one you archive) could be used with new Super utility assuming it supports that older .CR2. All you're doing is embedding the original Raw into the DNG. The edits are converter specific. New super utility will not have a clue what they mean (unless new converter is the same manufacturer as old and new product supports the same processing instructions.

OK, but what if I want to save space by not embedding the original RAW in the .DNG?

arodney

Richard wrote:

OK, but what if I want to save space by not embedding the original RAW in the .DNG?

That's what I'm recommending, you save the original Raw elsewhere. Or don't save it at all, but then if this super duper Raw converter comes out that doesn't support DNG, you can't use it.

Richard

arodney wrote:

That's what I'm recommending, you save the original Raw elsewhere. Or don't save it at all, but then if this super duper Raw converter comes out that doesn't support DNG, you can't use it.

So thinking long term, you will only save space with .DNG if it proves to have a longer, more popular life than .CR2. Otherwise, you will end up using more disk space because to be safe, you also saved the .CR2. Hmmm...

arodney

Richard wrote:

So thinking long term, you will only save space with .DNG if it proves to have a longer, more popular life than .CR2. Otherwise, you will end up using more disk space because to be safe, you also saved the .CR2. Hmmm...

Personally, space isn't an issue considering the cost of drives.

The bigger issue is, will you have access to proprietary data or data in an open, fully documented format in the future. DNG is openly documented, anyone who wishes to decode it can at no cost.

I've got piles of old Kodak DCS files I can't access because Kodak, while still in business abandoned the format. Oh sure, I could try to find an old OS8 Mac that might run their software, but the point is, proprietary formats have and I suspect will continue to be a riskier way to archive our image data. That's why I never save PSD files and only save TIFF. TIFF supports everything necessary that PSD does (the minor exception and a non issue for me is Duotones). PSD is a proprietary format. TIFF is an open format. Given the options and with the relatively short history of digital imaging, I'll bet on an open format any day.

The safest thing you can do is save the proprietary Raw and the DNG.

Long term, there's absolutely no guarantees. What you want to do is limit the liability as much as you can.

Richard

arodney wrote:

Long term, there's absolutely no guarantees.

I certainly agree with that.

OK, but there's still something nagging at me here. What does Adobe do with the .DNG encoded RAW data in ACR (without the embedded RAW). Is it actually changing the pixels so that you can't get back to the SOC baseline? I had assumed that the original sensor data was never changed and that the ACR parameters were simply stored in the .DNG file itself rather than in a sidecar. The Adobe converter would then have no problem recreating the original .CR2. But from what I have read here, it sounds like this is not the case. Which really surprises me.

arodney

Adobe doesn't do squat with the original Raw, it simply embeds it inside the DNG container. Proprietary Raws are basically handled as read only. That's what DNG is, an openly documented format for storing all kinds of data.

Richard

arodney wrote:

Adobe doesn't do squat with the original Raw, it simply embeds it inside the DNG container. Proprietary Raws are basically handled as read only. That's what DNG is, an openly documented format for storing all kinds of data.

That's what I always thought. So is there any reason to save a .CR2 and a .DNG rather than, say, two copies of the .DNG on separate media? I'm still unclear whether the original .CR2 can be restored from the smaller sized .DNG.

arodney

Richard wrote:

That's what I always thought. So is there any reason to save a .CR2 and a .DNG rather than, say, two copies of the .DNG on separate media? I'm still unclear whether the original .CR2 can be restored from the smaller sized .DNG.

As I said, embedding the Raw in the DNG will slow down any back ups of these DNGs. So I see little point in embedding the Raw in the DNG versus just saving off a single archive of the original Raw, if you feel you'll need it down the line.

Once I import the DNG into Lightroom, I save multiple copies of that DNG and all the associated LR files on multiple drives. I can't afford to lose any of that data. One is a working copy. One's in a fire proof safe. One set is used for location work. Then I simply sync them all using a software utility so that anything newer on say Drive #1 gets updated to Drive #2 and Drive #3. IF I had the Raw and DNG as one unit, those operations would take longer because every DNG would be nearly twice as big.

Richard

arodney wrote:

As I said, embedding the Raw in the DNG will slow down any back ups of these DNGs. So I see little point in embedding the Raw in the DNG versus just saving off a single archive of the original Raw, if you feel you'll need it down the line.

Once I import the DNG into Lightroom, I save multiple copies of that DNG and all the associated LR files on multiple drives. I can't afford to lose any of that data. One is a working copy. One's in a fire proof safe. One set is used for location work. Then I simply sync them all using a software utility so that anything newer on say Drive #1 gets updated to Drive #2 and Drive #3. IF I had the Raw and DNG as one unit, those operations would take longer because every DNG would be nearly twice as big.

I'm still unclear whether the original .CR2 can be restored from the smaller sized .DNG.

arodney

Richard wrote:

I'm still unclear whether the original .CR2 can be restored from the smaller sized .DNG.

Its not smaller IF you embed the Raw in the DNG.

Raw: Larger than just DNG.
DNG: Smaller than Raw.
DNG+Raw: Larger than just DNG (duh).


So no, the "smaller" DNG has no embedded Raw and naturally you can't restore what's not there.

Richard

arodney wrote:

So no, the "smaller" DNG has no embedded Raw and naturally you can't restore what's not there.

OK. But you can reset the smaller DNG to the SOC pixels in ACR after you have saved adjustments, right?

arodney

Richard wrote:

OK. But you can reset the smaller DNG to the SOC pixels in ACR after you have saved adjustments, right?

SOC pixels?

Richard

arodney wrote:

SOC pixels?

WB and exposure as shot, no other adjustments applied in ACR. What I'm after here is Nik's assertion that using .DNG alters the original. I don't much care if it adds (or changes) metadata as long as it doesn't screw up, but I always want the option to just start over with what came out of the camera when I screw up (or learn something new).