5D Mark iv error messages w/Apple & Adobe

[kkubitz]

I don't know if anyone is having the same problem I am. When I download raw files to my Macbook pro and open them with Preview or PS CC I receive two error messages: "Preview currently does not support this raw file format." and "If you are attempting to open a raw file from a digital camera, make sure you have the latest camera raw updates installed." All of my software is completely up to date.

Any thoughts?

Thanks,

Kurt

[Davoud]

---

@kvbarkley wrote:

Do you work for Adobe?

No.

Do you have inside knowledge?

Yes. From a Canon software engineer.

While the .cr2 file specs are well known, each camera must be profiled since they all have slightly different colors and profiles.

Exactly so. And that is the type of information that camera manufacturers provide to Adobe.

---

[ebiggs1]

"Camera manufacturers provide file specs to Adobe ..."

Dream on!  Sure they do.

[alanrclarke]

Of course they supply data to Adobe - it's in everyone's interest that two such major players do so - new lenses and new features such as revised RAW formats need to be supported reasonably quickly by major players such as Adobe. It's win:win.

Sure there are delays, particularly with new lenses, and often things don't happen quite as quickly as we would all like; Adobe, like all software developers, set priorities and have finite development resources, and if you have a camera brand that is not such a huge seller, then you're probably always going to near the bottom of Adobe's queue.

Back to my original point - given that Canon's software development effort is de facto finite, my personal preference would be for them to concentrate their efforts on the software that goes into the camera itself, and on helping (specifically) Adobe support major departures such as dual-pixel in Lightroom and Photoshop quickly, rather than wasting vast effort on producing software which tries to emulate those two giant best-selling products and (apart from a few exception) falling far behind them.

Adobe and Canon cooperating much more closely, each doing what they are best at, would be SO much more beneficial to the photographic community, professional and otherwise, than Canon futilely wasting effort on trying to produce a pale immitation.

It's called the division of labo(u)r - Adam Smith wrote about it eruditely centuries ago 🙂

[RobertTheFat]

---

@alanrclarke wrote:

Of course they supply data to Adobe - it's in everyone's interest that two such major players do so - new lenses and new features such as revised RAW formats need to be supported reasonably quickly by major players such as Adobe. It's win:win.

Sure there are delays, particularly with new lenses, and often things don't happen quite as quickly as we would all like; Adobe, like all software developers, set priorities and have finite development resources, and if you have a camera brand that is not such a huge seller, then you're probably always going to near the bottom of Adobe's queue.

Back to my original point - given that Canon's software development effort is de facto finite, my personal preference would be for them to concentrate their efforts on the software that goes into the camera itself, and on helping (specifically) Adobe support major departures such as dual-pixel in Lightroom and Photoshop quickly, rather than wasting vast effort on producing software which tries to emulate those two giant best-selling products and (apart from a few exception) falling far behind them.

Adobe and Canon cooperating much more closely, each doing what they are best at, would be SO much more beneficial to the photographic community, professional and otherwise, than Canon futilely wasting effort on trying to produce a pale immitation.

It's called the division of labo(u)r - Adam Smith wrote about it eruditely centuries ago 🙂

---

I'll bet Adam Smith wrote about the advantages of competition as well. Most credible economists have. Would you really like to see Adobe have the degree of built-in advantage that you propose? I don't expect your suggestion to get much traction, and I think it will be a fortunate thing if it doesn't.

[ebiggs1]

B from B,

" I don't expect your suggestion to get much traction, and I think it will be a fortunate thing if it doesn't."

This we agree. 

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

B from B,

"Canon's new cameras before any Adobe software does."

Gee, do ya think?  I would certainly hope so. If that's the best you can say for DPP, it really is telling.  Remember, Adobe has to do this on there own

---

I would have thought that by now you'd understand that I'm not looking for things to say for DPP. Indeed, I've been a vocal critic of its inadequacies.

And while I don't claim to be one of those pros whom you're so fond of identifying as virtually unanimous devotees of Adobe's software, I'm not a newbie either. For the past ten years, until I retired a few weeks ago, photography was part of my job. My employer had several Creative Cloud licenses, so I could easily have used LR and PS if I had wanted to do so. I chose to use DPP instead because I thought it was a better fit for my workflow, not because I was blind to its faults.

[Davoud]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

B from B,

"Canon's new cameras before any Adobe software does."

Gee, do ya think?  I would certainly hope so. If that's the best you can say for DPP, it really is telling.  Remember, Adobe has to do this on there own

---

I would have thought that by now you'd understand that I'm not looking for things to say for DPP. Indeed, I've been a vocal critic of its inadequacies.

And while I don't claim to be one of those pros whom you're so fond of identifying as virtually unanimous devotees of Adobe's software, I'm not a newbie either. For the past ten years, until I retired a few weeks ago, photography was part of my job. My employer had several Creative Cloud licenses, so I could easily have used LR and PS if I had wanted to do so. I chose to use DPP instead because I thought it was a better fit for my workflow, not because I was blind to its faults.

---

I will say this for DPP and EOS Utility: for the special purpose of making a series of automated astrophotos it is very easy to use. After making the exposures I convert the files to the FITS format and process them in an astro-imaging package. My preferred software for general use is Adobe CC: Lightroom for cataloging and pre-processing and Photoshop for post.

[ebiggs1]

B from Boston,

"I would have thought that by now you'd understand that I'm not looking for things to say for DPP. Indeed,..."

Yeah, I would have missed that one. A person that uses any software not just DPP must 'like' it.  Why else woud you use it. I simply point out, I haven't or at least can't remember ever seeing any professional 'business' photographers use it.  They all use PS and/or LR. That's just the facts, not meant to be a promotion.

I have one friend that is/was a part time pro.  He did use DPP but along with PS. He worked with me in the Graphic Arts Tooling Department.  He is kinda like you.  He finds some good there! My point to him is and always has been, you have to eventually go to PS so why not just start there?

For myself, B from B, I am an Adobe abandonee. I am not a fan of Adobe in any way until they stop the ridiculous rental system they forced on us.  I have several friends that feel the same.  Adobe has lost us. I don't mind they rent PS but they need a pathway to ownership at some point. DPP wins that feature.

Further, I would bet 50% of the people that buy a Canon camera never even load DPP on to their computers.  In my experience with my DSLR 101 class, I don't remember running across a single person that did.  Some try and some use, Easy Photo something and Image Garden something, or whatever they are called.

BTW, it isn't just Canon, brand-N's, ViewNX 2, Capture ND-X, their version of DPP isn't any or much better either. 

Each of the third party vendors process the CR2 or NEF their own way.  That is what is not shared.

[kvbarkley]

It always takes some time for the third parties to support new cameras. Adobe is likely to be quicker than Apple,

[kkubitz]

kvbarkley, that was my guess. hopefully they will get a move on. Thanks