RAW files in CS2

[mike21]

I can open RAW files in the  Digital Photo Professional program bundled with my 700D camera but cannot open them in my copy of Photoshop CS2 - is there an easy way of converting these RAW files into a form compatible with CS2 .

[ebiggs1]

The Adobe DNG Converter enables you to easily convert camera-specific raw files from supported cameras to a more universal DNG raw file. Another great benefit of using the DNG Converter is backward compatibility.

[TCampbell]

When you use Adobe software they only use their own RAW converters.  They wont use the Canon provided converter and even many OS vendors (Apple & Microsoft) provide RAW converters, but Adobe doesn't use those either.   You must get the RAW converter from Adobe.

But Adobe only provides RAW updates for current versions of software.  I went from CS3, to CS4, to CS5 (I now use the cloud version - Photoshop CC).  In each case, once they released a newer version, it wasn't too long before RAW updates stopped being made available for the prior version.  

As CS2 is very very old... and the 70D is relatively new... CS2 doesn't have RAW support for the 70D, nor would Adobe make an update for it.  

But as Ernie points out above... you can use Adobe's DNG converter (that's a separate program - not built into CS2) and it does get RAW updates.  This means you can use their DNG converter to convert the 70D's .CR2 into an Adobe .DNG and CS2 should be able to open that file.  Adobe gives away their DNG converter (it's free - you have to go to their website to download it.)

The downside is that now it's a DNG file and generally nothing else supports DNG other than Adobe (Adobe published it as a standard that I think others can use roytaly-free... but it never caught on.  So if you want to do anything with those files using any other program, that 3rd party program probably can't open your .DNG files.)  

The other alternative is to use DPP to convert the RAW files into TIFF - which is stil a lossless format.  But since TIFF is a debayered file, each photosite in a RAW (which would have only included single-channel 14-bit data) will be converted into a full color "pixel" contiaining 16-bit three channel color data.  In other words your file sizes will more than triple when you convert them.

The other option is to upgrade to Adobe's latest release.  But Adobe no longer licenses Photoshop as a stand-alone perpetual use software (which is basically what your CS2 license is... buy once, use forever).  Today they "rent" the software and it requires a minimum 1 year subscription.  But the upside is that the "photography" package includes both Photoshop and Lightroom CC for $10/month ($120/year).    Just occasionally B&H Photo will have it on sale ... and I think it's for "new subscribers" only.  But it occurs to me that they've offered the first year for $70 (instead of $120) when it's on sale.  But after that first year, it's $120/year again.

[mike21]

Thank you for the very useful replies - I have copied them to a file for future use. I think probably the best option initially will be to make all the adjustment I can in DPP - white balance etc., and then convert to TIFF, which I can load into CS2 or Elements 11 to complete any other adjustments, finally coverting to jpeg after archiving the finished TIFF file. I can explore using the DNG converter later if neccessary.

[ebiggs1]

"But Adobe no longer licenses Photoshop as a stand-alone perpetual use software (which is basically what your CS2 license is... buy once, use forever)."

However Adobe Lightroom is still a perpetual buy.  You can still purchase it. It does get all the ACR updates (so far, that is).  It may go rental only anytime.  It can render your files so CS2 will read them. Although LR isn't free like DPP, it is far better. Worth the investment, IMHO.

[TCampbell]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"But Adobe no longer licenses Photoshop as a stand-alone perpetual use software (which is basically what your CS2 license is... buy once, use forever)."

However Adobe Lightroom is still a perpetual buy.  You can still purchase it. It does get all the ACR updates (so far, that is).  It may go rental only anytime.  It can render your files so CS2 will read them. Although LR isn't free like DPP, it is far better. Worth the investment, IMHO.

---

Agree... LR not only allows you to make adjustments, but overall it provides much more control over the end-to-end workflow of the process.  It also provides a lot of very powerful controls.  For example I can apply a gradient tint (the software version of using a Grad ND filter) to an image.  I'm not sure that's possible in DPP.  And then, of course, there are lots of 3rd party plug-ins available.

Within each module there's a mostly "top to bottom" workflow.  Adobe lists the types of controls you are mostly like to use with the ones that you should generally be used first shown above modules that should be used later.   The control layout makes sense.  

It takes a modular approach with modules ordered left-to-right (typically in the order you would use them) for things like LIbray management, the Develop module (where you make all the adjustments to images), then other modules for things like making books, slideshows, tagging (or reviewing) geo location, and the modules for helping to manage the printing process as well as web publishing.  The Library module also has support for synchronizing collections to the web (e.g. there's a Facebook uploader, a Flickr uploader/publisher, a 500px uploader/publisher, and the list goes on and on). 

It allows you to keyword & tag images, store them in collections (or even "smart" collections.    For example, I could build a "smart collection" of all the images taken with a certain lens... or a certain f-stop.  The ability to manage and search for images is rather nice.

Lastly, the overall performance of LR is pretty good.  As you make adjustments you tend to see the impact of the change happen mostly in real time... which makes it easier to make fine adjustments because you don't have to pause a second or two to make sure it's finished doing the adjustment.

What I like about Lightroom over Photoshop is that Lightroom "speaks my language".  The learning curve is much easier because they use terminology that a tradiional photographer would understand.  In Photoshop there are things you can do if only you knew what they called it and where they hide it.  You bascially have to learn Photoshop's language.  Example... try to find "white balance" in Photoshop.  It's much less straight-forward than it is in Lightroom.  It's very powerful... but it has a heavy learning curve.

[ebiggs1]

"The learning curve is much easier because they use terminology that a tradiional photographer would understand."

Absolutely.  The purpose is different for either.  LR can do and does, even more that it originalyy did, what most photographers want.  PS is the heavy lifter.

[Waddizzle]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"The learning curve is much easier because they use terminology that a tradiional photographer would understand."

Absolutely.  The purpose is different for either.  LR can do and does, even more that it originalyy did, what most photographers want.  PS is the heavy lifter.

---

If you use third party lenses, then you definitely want to use LR, instead of DPP.  DPP only corrects Canon lenses.