Hello all,

I just saw a demo for PS CS4 using the gradient tool in ACR 5. Just great as far as I'm concerned as I've use Nik's Colo(u)r Efex which unfortunately are not editable in the layers once set up.

My question is if ACR 5 plug-in will be available as an upgrade for CS3 or do I have to find some pennies to buy CS4?

PS. I bought Lee ND grad filters a while ago which are fine but a pain to set up, so I fell back on using software grad tricks to fix things. Yes, lazy I know as filters would be the best way to go and save post processing time.

Thanks,
Chris.

If I recall, it was needed to upgrade to CS3 in order to benefit from the value of ACR4.

Not a problem functionwise, it makes sense to have to upgrade to benefit from new functions, but a big problem in terms of new cameras support since they stopped adding support for new cameras on ACR3 at the time.

I would be interested to find out whether Adobe has improved on that or not.

Regards,
Bernard

You will need CS4 to run Camera Raw 5.

CS3 (with CR 4.x) and CS2 (with CR 3.x) will continue to support new cameras via the free DNG Converter.

I'm glad to see ACR 5 is adding some of the new goodies from LR.

Given that Adobe is in the process of releasing ACR 4.6 with support for many new cameras just weeks before CS4 is coming out, I don't think users have too much to complain about. It's not realistic to expect them to keep adding functionality to old versions of products that have been superceded by upgrades.

Adobe has been pretty straightforward about it. ACR is regularly updated for the current version of PS/CS, and once a new upgrade comes up the users can still get support for new cameras via the DNG Convertor.

Exactly, Jeff. Thanks for putting it so clearly.

I like Mike Johnson's phrasing for it: "Paying the Photoshop Tax".

Eric, is it correct that ACR 5 will have ALL of Lightroom 2's raw processing features, not just some of them? If that is not correct, can you describe the features that will be missing from ACR 5? Thanks.

CR 5 will have all the same processing controls...yes. The usability will be a bit different. 5.0 won't have brush presets and there's no A/B brush settings (the erase bruce can be set different than the add brush though). But the control channels are the same in Lightroom 2.x and Camera Raw 5.x. Plus, Camera Raw has a point curve editor :~)

Thanks Jeff.

In general, the thing to keep in mind is that an image edited in LR 2 will look the same when opened up in CR 5, and vice versa.

I don't. I think it's cynical. How does he expect the program to be maintained and up-graded? Does he give away his photos and services for free? As well, Adobe is honouring its commitments as far as I can tell.

Indeed - I think a point curve UI can be very helpful in some situations where one would like to detach and move the end points, and set other points elsewhere on the curve quite accurately. I would like to see it added to LR.

Enterprise software is sold/licensed and there is generally a 20% per year maintenance fee. With its Creative Suite Adobe achieves the same thing with an 18 month cycle of 30% upgrades. They even allow you to skip an upgrade so its really not a bad deal.

Its neither good nor bad, just the way software products are sold and maintained.

Adobe is neither the villain or the hero just another corporate entity with the need to satisfy Wall Streets demand for increased profits each and every quarter.

While keeping Wall Street and shareholders happy we enjoy the fruits of their labors.

Thanks Eric. I'll leave the pros and cons of capitalism to the others

(Why isn't there a Marx or Engels smilie?)

Chris.

May I suggest you read the quote in context before bashing him: Mike's post?

Karsten

Fine - he said he shouldn't be flippant and I agree with that.

The word TAX has a lot of implications...and I disagree with the concept. I think it much more a cost of doing business and should be viewed in light of what sort of return you will get from your investment.

Nobody is holding a gun to your head making you (or anybody else) upgrade to Adobe's latest release of Photoshop. When CS4 comes out, it doesn't magically make your version of CS3 quit working. The only thing that really happens is that when the "next version" comes out, free updates and bug fixes cease for the old version. To a certain degree, that may lower the value a bit of the older version–depending on the way you look at it.

But some people have some pretty perverted ways of viewing situations. Photographers have this tendency to view intellectual property as somehow less valuable than tangible property–even though the profession of photography is dedicated to creating intellectual property. Photographers don't seem to have the same level of irritation when Apple or Dell announce brand new super charged computers or Nikon and Canon come out with new bigger MP cameras. Oh, there's grumbling, to be sure. But not in the same vein as the bitching about Adobe coming out with a new version of Photoshop and complaints about the "Photoshop Tax".

It seems that many people wish the software would be frozen in time and offered with a life time license and perpetual free upgrades. That same level of expectation isn't there for hardware. Compare that attitude with a photographer's client when they think that they should "OWN" all the rights to a photograph that they "BUY".

And that's an irony that I don't enjoy (since I engage in both the creation of software and the creation of licensed images).

Thanks Jeff, I agree.

You're right. Tax is inappropriate. I prefer "Adobe Shakedown."

And why is it a "shakedown" - how much are they supposed to charge you to conceptualise, develop, write, market and service all this code? At what point does a legitimate price become a "shakedown" and how do you know where to draw the line?

Only two lines, Mark? I'm hoping Schewe is more entertaining.

I guess you just don't have the self discipline to NOT do things you don't want to, huh? Again, you are under no obligation (other than the pressure you place on yourself) to ever upgrade Photoshop again unless the industry moves forward to the extent that you can't use the current version of Photoshop that you have on new computers and OS's that come out in the future. But that's the price you pay for not upgrading.

Adobe goes out of its way to come up with interesting and compelling new features and functionality in order to induce users to upgrade. If you are not induced, it's pretty silly to upgrade huh? I don't think "shakedown" is in the least bit accurate...

Well, I could have written more, but that would have burdened you with even more not-entertaining lines, so not to put too fine a point on it...............

It is just a really funny thing, Mark. Who cares what they call it so long as they actually pay for it?

I'd happily trade the "this product that does 1/10th what yours does is free so why should we pay for yours?" crowd for the frowny faced check writers.

The reason to care is that language can be used to disparage an enterprise which most likely doesn't deserve it.

Yes. But their actions tell the true tale.

Getting way off topic, but what actions?

Buying it. People grumble about the cost but they still pay it. In my book that's a huge compliment.

But then I am a cynic.

(What was the topic anyway?)

IT'S the ACR camera update thing that forces many of those grumblers to buy it.

I'm one of them..i dont need CS4 right now. My pictures will not look any different in it. However, I would like to use ACR when i need it without having to screw around with doing the DNG thing- watusi.

Adobe knows that the ACR camera (lack of) update thing forces a large group of people to purchase newer versions of PS. Jeff knows it too and is wrong when he says that nobody is obligated to buy newer versions of PS. Not having camera support is a huge "inducement" for quite a few users. Read the forums..this ACR camera update subject shows up quite a bit and many times people say bad words about it. Many people also say that they dont want to do the DNG conversion for one reason or another

Still, Adobe should be nice and do a massive update of ACR cameras back to, say..Cs2 or plain old CS. I have CS2, perfectly adequate for making stunning photos that will rake in millions of dollars.

It would just be NICE if they did it and it really wouldn't cost them shit in the long run. They're a big healthy company and would still have the world gripped in their photopaw after the big, nice ACR camera update.

Hard to believe that a few got pickled about Mike Johnston's little joke about a "photoshop tax". LoL-ski, that is a trip.

Are you a software developers? Do you know what the implications of split-code support? You branch off code for a new version, you cease writing to the old code in order to move the current code forward. As a direct result, adding support for backwards compatibility would indeed cost dev time for a product team whose product is not sold. And remember, there are only three main engineers working on Camera Raw and one of them is a forum regular here in the LL.

Adobe, since mid-1990's has had a very consistent policy, support for older versions ceases when new version are released. The fact the some people feel bent over a barrel because they buy new cameras that weren't even in the design phase when a current version of Photoshop was released is pretty much proof that they inherently place hardware on a higher value than software. And, for photographers to so treat intellectual property is pretty ironic.

Choices need to be made about how peoples' time will be compensated. Adobe perhaps could have maintained Camera Raw as a separate piece of software which we purchase apart from Photoshop. If they did that, it would be regularly up-graded and new versions would be sold probably at an up-grade price to existing customers and at the new price to new customers. Instead they bundled it with Photoshop, so we buy the package in a combined up-grade. The wisdom of integrating them allows them to be used interactively and allows the development of the one to be accommodated by the development of the other. When we pay an up-grade price we're getting the synergy of the pair.

Furthermore, for those who don't want to up-grade, there really is nothing wrong or complex working the DNG route. And finally, there's Lightroom - we can now go from camera to print in LR2 and use CS3 for residuals instead of an up-grade to CS4 if we so desired, so those who don't want to up-grade Photoshop can buy LR or up-grade an existing LR. There are enough options here that should satisfy most peoples' needs and budgets, while assuring that Adobe gets paid for the work they do. I still haven't seen any convincing evidence of a rip-off or "shakedown" in any of this.

Jeff said: "Are you a software developers?"


Nope, I'm not a software developers. I'm Mr. T.

I figure it would cost them about 200 grand to do this, probably less. A drop in the bucket against Adobe's almost 200 million in earnings third quarter.

After Adobe's sales peak out on their latest and greatest..they could just write it and give it as a gift, to me and my friends who grumble when they scratch out another check to the Adobe taxman. And, they could put your face on the box so I could give you a big fat kiss every time I made a great photo

While they're at it, they could fix the buggy Bridge. The bridge to nowhere..lol.

Sincerely,

Mr. T

[..]


Apart from the DNG route which Adobe offer, there is always the camera manufacturers own software for converting RAW files so there are alternatives thus ensuring we are not locked into having to upgrade Photoshop if we don't want to.

On the other hand, Adobe are quite clever in offering enough new/improved features in any PS upgrade, which when added to ACR make the upgrade route a compelling one.

Anthony.

You say you "figure" a cost of 200K. Could you please tell us how you "figure" that? I'd like to see - and perhaps others readers would too - some real meat behind such numbers, drawn on your knowledge of software development requirements and costs.

Adobe's earnings are spread accross a very large number of products and R&D work, of which Photoshop is only one, so picking a number such as Q3 earnings in isolation of context is completely meaningless. You'll get a better idea of their financial performance if you were to download their financials and their 10-K (on their website), analyze them, then come back and tell us whether they're making too much money - but even that wouldn't entirely cut it, because what they make largely depends on customers' willingness-to-pay and no-one is putting a gun to anyones' head to buy this stuff, nor have competitive alternatives started to creep in, which often happens when super-normal profits attract new market entrants, regardless of incumbent advantage.

And Bridge CS3 on my computer is definitely not buggy. Works just fine, but I've switched to using LR2 because it's even better. The only thing the LR2 Library module doesn't allow which Bridge does allow is the capability of reaching directly back into your folder and file structure on your hard drive to permit selecting thumbnails in Bridge and re-arranging their location on disk. Apart from that, for the day to day library functions I need, Bridge works fine and LR2 is superb.

200k ought to cover hiring a couple of hackers. that includes the amphetamines and a case of Mountain Dew™.

I can provide a couple of rascals to break into the Nikon and Canon offices, steal their secret potions and some extra paper..during break time the hackers are guaranteed to start launching paper airplanes out the window, it's what they do..They'll empty out the copy machines in no time, mischevious little creeps.

Mark, I never suggested that Adobe was making too much money. My motto: mO mOneY, right on!

If Adobe's running short on the cash to do this then they should tap into the easter basket fund or the corporate shaving kit fund, go department to department in Adobe headquarters with a hat and a big stick..put Schewe in a souped up wheelchair and let him hold the stick...that could be some effective fundraising imagery.

Hell, I'll meet Madmanchan in the lobby and kick a roll of singles across the floor at him. I don't want to get too close because he's a madman and his dad probably taught him some ancient moves. I don't mess around with madmen who are a good at computers appear to be gentle and calm.

I could drop about 40 dollars in his lap and that would certainly help. $200,040.00 is big money. Chan is a very generous fellow, always upping the info and glad to do it with no sign of demons, chaos or insecurity in his demeanour. I like him very much and sense that he'd be up for Adobe's -big gift- to those with the holes in our knees.

I'm glad to hear that Bridge is running well for you. Do this..google - Adobe Bridge Buggy...

Mine's been running smooth lately but I'm expecting it to go down hard pretty soon. It always does. I go through the usual routine of trashing a bunch of crap, rubbing it's temples, feeding it skittles...it's freaking tempermental and flaky.

It's a beautiful day, I'm going skateboarding..When I get back I'm gonna solicit Adobe for some band-aids and monkey's blood (mecuricrome)...the gold chains make me top heavy, even on the big board..

Enjoy.

Jeff,

Where is gets annoying is that most other RAW converters don't ask you 349 US$ uprade fee to support a new camera type... most of them actually do it for free for a long period of time. Raw Developper comes to my mind.

So my personnal conclusion is not to use ACR because I know that one day, I'll be in a situation where I'll have to upgrade to a newer version of PS just to be able to use the right version of ACR that will be supporting my new camera. I am aware that converting to DNG is a by-pass, but I don't find this to be practical.

Frankly speaking, I have some other issues with ACR that currently prevent me from using it extensively, although I used to a few years back, but even if the demoisaicing of ACR were best in class, I still would have the issue described above.

This really isn't Abode bashing at all, it is a real world problem with the way ACR releases and PS releases are currently coupled.

Cheers,
Bernard

On the flip side, occasionally you get new features in CR without having to pay a dime. For example, with CR 4.1 new capture sharpening tools were introduced. As another example, with CR 4.5 the new color engine was introduced, along with a full set of new profiles (including long-requested ones that emulate the camera maker's color), and a tool (DNG Profile Editor) for rolling your own custom color profiles. No charge for existing CR 4.x users.

Bernard,

I think where there may be some mis-appreciation of the context here, is that you aren't paying $349 just to up-grade for new camera types. You are paying for a whole package of substantial improvements and innovations to the whole package of Bridge-ACR-PSCSx with each new release. If you want all these things, hard to say in the abstract that it isn't worth it. If you don't want these things, then indeed you may be better-off choosing a raw converter that gives you the camera up-dates free. So I'm not sure what the real-world problem is.

As for DNG, what's wrong with it in your opinion?

Cheers,

Mark

The major upgrade to Photoshop happens on average, every 18 months. During the time that the current version is well, current, the updates are free. For Camera Raw 3 in Photoshop CS2, that was 7 times (3.7 was the last update), for Camera Ra 4 it will have been 6 updates (CR 4.6 will be the last update for CS3-which has been released as an RC but will be released as a final GM even AFTER Photoshop CS4 has been announced).

But the point where you loose me here in your logic is that you are equating a Camera Raw upgrade along with a Photoshop and Bridge upgrade for whatever the upgrade cost is to a very limited functionality raw converter by some other company. What other raw converter comes with the functionality of Photoshop? By your logic, you are paying for Camera Raw and getting the Photoshop and Bridge update for free...you see the problem with that logic?

I also question your 349 US$ uprade fee...that's for Photoshop Extended...which has a lot of interesting stuff for mostly non-photographers. So, comparing the standard upgrade for the regular version (which in the US is $199, not $349) it makes the comparison of Camera Raw/Photoshop/Bridge to any other raw processor only software even more, uh, ludicrous. If you average out $199 for 18 months, that's just about $11/month. Heck, I spend more than that on wines by the glass sometimes...sure, for some people who don't do this for a living, that might be considered a high ticket luxury, but then there's always Photoshop Elements (which really fulfills the needs of many people who seem to convince themselves they really need Photoshop).

Now, I won't get into the whole US VS the Rest Of The World pricing...I think Adobe is wrong and that's way above my pay grade anyway...

But really, for people to complain so loudly and claim that Adobe is "forcing" them to upgrade their version of Photoshop just to get new camera support is pretty darn dismissive of the value of Photoshop.

I was around for the first version of Camera Raw (version 1.0 that would work in Photoshop 7) that Adobe sold for $99. Should Adobe have continued to sell Camera Raw as a separate product? That way the development would be un-linked to a version of Photoshop. But I'll tell ya that the nature of Camera Raw would have been considerably different than it is now if that had come to pass. Users really are a lot better off the way it is now than the way it would have been if Camera Raw was a separate product for sale.

Again, I'll point out the dichotomy that seems to encourage photographers to value software less than hardware. You really shouldn't. I can think of no time in the history of photography where one's "originals" have continued to improve so much AFTER they were shot as with raw digital photography. And to be quibbling over a couple hundred bucks every year and a half or two just seems pretty to me.

Not pretty - perhaps petty, or was it pretty petty?

(Sorry Jeff, couldn't resist!)

Yeah, I meant PETTY....

As in petty cash (in terms of the cost of Photoshop upgrades relative to the value to somebody who uses it)

The acid test of whether or not it is value for money is to ask yourself after using an up-grade for a week or so whether you regretted the purchase or wanted to turn the clock back. It hasn't happened to me over the eight years I've been using this stuff.

Jeff,

Thanks for your answer.

I agree that many people are not affected by this since new cameras released within the lifecycle of a given release are supported for free.

The thing is that I was hit before with the D2x, and that did the facto result in me starting to use a different converter back then... and I have never looked back since then. So I did clearly stop using ACR because of this problem in the past. I ended up upgrading to CS3 later, but the harm was done.

I just came accross this post by chance in DPreview, it seems that I am not alone. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=29510377

I do also of course agree that there is in general a lot more value in a a PS release that ACR alone, but my issue is with the impossibility to dissociate the 2.

PS CS3 is a great piece of software with a mature content. Frankly speaking, we have been through this before, but I don't see much in CS4 that would significantly improve the way I work. I am sure that some features here and there would help, but nothing earthshaking for me.

So in this context, and as a PS CS3 extended user, I could really be again in a situation - if I were an ACR user - where the only reason triggering a 349 US$ update would be the need to have new cameras supported quickly after its release.

As far as going through DNG, it does add a step to the workflow. I guess that it could be automated somehow, but it would still take time and double the storage space needed on my disks.

So all in all, assuming that Adobe believes that ACR is a value added application that is supposed to be one more reason for people to stay in the Adobe world, my view is that the current policy is actually deterring some people from using ACR... and therefore playing the very opposite role, meaning taking some people away from PS.

Just my 2 cent.

Regards,
Bernard

Bernard,

Those sorts of postings are all over the place.

Maybe Bob and Doug McKenzie have a plan for squeezing some joy out of this..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsgVspgy184

I do think that Adobe use ACR and new camera support as an efficient way to push people to upgrade PS. Do I think this is fair practice from a customer relationship point of view? No. Do I believe that Schewe's excuse of multiple release support problems with regards to ACR is lame? Yes I do. But, do I believe this is standard industry practice? Yes, I most certainly do. Adobe will be doing the same with LR and most every raw converter manufacturer is doing this. Even Nikon themselves force you to upgrade Capture NX if you want your new camera to be supported (which is even worse practice since it's coming from a hardware manufacturer).

At least Adobe provide some backwards compatibility (through their free DNG converter) although I don't believe that the drive to do that is mainly the interest of their customers. It mainly serves their own interest indirectly pushing DNG adoption.

That's business. Adobe are not our friends nor are our enemies.

With regards to what Bernard is saying I do agree to a point. That has been the main reason I have stopped using ACR since I had no other real need to upgrade PS since CS1. Adobe would have really lost me from being a customer had they not come up with LR. They were clever to put out LR so I'm still a customer of theirs. So I'm paying their LR 'tax' but not the Photoshop one

Allies?

Are you a software developer? Do you have first hand experience on developing new versions of software for new system APIs and new SDKs and the difficulties that builds for backwards compatibilities? If you don't then I would suggest you are simply believing what fits your view, not the facts. The very fact you characterize the reasons I stated as an "excuse" basically indicates your prejudice...you've already made up your mind that the whole reason Adobe fails to provide backwards compatibility is ONLY an underhanded method of trying to force upgrades. So, with you it's not a true debate...you've already made up your mind. Pretty pointless to try to argue with that. You're wrong but you won't entertain that possibility, right?

If I understand you correctly (the second reference to Bridge is puzzling me), you've missed something. LR2 can move files around on disk: in grid view, just drag a thumbnail (or some thumbnails) to a folder in the list on the left. LR2 will move the files to the new folder.

Not strictly relevant to this fascinating discussion (FWIW, I agree wholeheartedly with you and Jeff: you get infinite backwards compatibility with DNG converter - what more can you expect?), but I hope helpful.

Jeremy

Wrong.

I've been in IT for 25 years. At the moment I'm leading a spec team for a substantial piece of sw, FWIW.

We're not really talking about maintaining versions of sw here, Mr. Schewe. I would not expect Adobe to make an older version of ACR compatible with a new version of an OS, for example. But, we're just talking about supporting new cameras in older versions (at least 1 or a couple of versions back). I think it would be, mostly and for most cameras, a comparatively trivial issue (especially if one thinks about the open source support in the public domain for that). I'm pretty sure it would be trivial for Adobe to do if they choose to do it. I'm ready to be convinced that this is not the case, but you'll have to provide some more convincing arguments.

And, since you've brought the subject up, do you EVER entertain the possibility of being wrong yourself? It has not been obvious from your posting history in these forums.

So, you want to Adobe to go back to versions of Camera Raw, re-open the code project (which has been retired) and add the code required to access new cameras...is that what you are expecting? For FREE?

Since it's not a current product, Adobe's support for those versions has ended. The newer versions of Camera Raw code has branched, so it's not like they could just take the new version code and migrate the code backwards...so, it would require additional work to update the current version and then go back to the previous version and update that code thus keeping THAT branch of the code live as well. And, you want this for free? How many versions of Photoshop should Adobe go back to update Camera Raw...1? 2?

Or, are you saying that Adobe should write the current version of Camera Raw so it could be used in ANY version of Photoshop? There are technical reasons relating to the Photoshop SDK that each version uses that would make that problematic...I'm not saying that would be totally impossible...but it would require that backwards compatibility becomes a major engineering factor which I guarantee would have a major impact on the development of NEW features and functionality and progress. As a user of the CURRENT version of Photoshop (well, actually I'm using CS4) that would make me angry that the Camera Raw engineers were forced to triage new functionality because they had to spend any time and effort making sure of backwards compatibility. No, I don't see that as a win/win for users of the current version of Photoshop, not at all. And you might say what would be the problem with the backwards compatibility? As a software developer myself and having dealt with backwards compatibility for plug-ins, I can tell you that it takes time and work and if you are talking about both backwards compatibility AND cross-platform compatibility then you are talking about a substantial amount of time and testing...

So, Adobe's policy is to ONLY offer free updates for the currently shipping product (with the recent release of Camera Raw 4.6, that make SIX free updates for Photoshop CS3 over an 18 month time period). Once a new version ships, the old version is retired and the new version's code is then updated, for free.

If you think that the ONLY reason Adobe does this is to force users to upgrade, then you are wrong...plain and simple. Adobe DOES offer a free DNG Converter (to help advance DNG and to benefit the industry while helping themselves) which they are no obligation to do...other than they said they would. This allows users of cameras that weren't even built when they bought their version of Photoshop to be able to access the DNG even as far back as Photoshop CS and Camera Raw 2.4.