80D DNG Raw files

[Lonestar_North]

OK I get it Adobe won't recognize the 80D raw files.  I convert to DNG as advised but DNG does not carry over all the EXIF data. I have to shoot raw and JPG so the computer will even read the card.  It won't read just ther raw files.  So then I import all using Bridge and have to transfer raw to dng and lose much of the exif data.  Keywords ISO camera model etc. 

Any alternatives?

[Lonestar_North · Accepted solution]

Thnaks to all for the comments.  I have found a work around.  First let me just say that I like Adobe Bridge.  I have use it for years.  I like the keywording, searching, collections, meta data display, filters, previews etc.  It is a great program.  I am used to it and don't want to change.  Unfortunately the CS6 version of Bridge and PS won't read my new 80D Raw files.  

I updated to Bridge CC which I discovered is a free download.  Yes, free!!!  Now Bridge CC reads and imports the Raw files (via get photos from camera - which is important because I have set up various meta data templates) but CS6 Photoshop is being stubborn will not read them. 

Doing some digging I found a kuel little program called Meta Raw that will allow CS6 and Bridge to read the raw files.  I am running the two week free trial and so far everything seems to be working fine.  They want $50 for the program but that's still cheaper than CC at $10 month.

From their website - MetaRaw extends the functionality of the Adobe Camera Raw plugin in Photoshop and Photoshop Elements. It lets you open camera raw files with Adobe Camera Raw, which are normally not supported by it, and allows applying Adobe Camera Raw to image layers. https://thepluginsite.com/products/metaraw/screenshots.htm

[ebiggs1]

Interesting.  Let me know how it works out.

You still can't get Windoze to show thumbs?

[Lonestar_North]

Correct Windoze 7 does not show thumbs but for me that is not an issue

[Ray-uk]

---

@ebiggs1wrote:

"For the vast majority of pictures you don't even need Photoshop."

That is your opinion not a fact.  If you are pleased with DPP all the best to you.  Glad it works well for you but the entire photographic world uses LR and/or PS.  Not DPP.  I grant you DPP4 is a great amateur program particularly if you are a completely Canon user.

Don't get me wrong I am not an Adobe fan club member.  Far from it after they went to there idiotic rental mode. But the facts are as they are. There is Photoshop and then there is everything else.

---

The entire photographic world does NOT use LR and/or PS. It is probably the most widely used software by professional photographers and graphic artists, partly because it isn't tied to one camera brand.

Because of that most amateur photographers get caught up in the hype that if they don't use it then they will not get proper results when they can in fact get equally good results from a variety of other software packages which are a lot less bloated, easier to use and far far cheaper.

You can't call a piece of software amateur or professional, this label can only be applied to the user.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1wrote:

"For the vast majority of pictures you don't even need Photoshop."

That is your opinion not a fact.  If you are pleased with DPP all the best to you.  Glad it works well for you but the entire photographic world uses LR and/or PS.  Not DPP.  I grant you DPP4 is a great amateur program particularly if you are a completely Canon user.

Don't get me wrong I am not an Adobe fan club member.  Far from it after they went to there idiotic rental mode. But the facts are as they are. There is Photoshop and then there is everything else.

---

It's my opinion too. Yes, Photoshop is quite probably the most comprehensive editor available. But the difference between PS and lesser editors rarely matters,

Let's be frank: PS's most important claim is that it can often bail out a photographer who screwed up an important shoot. Most of the rest of the time, it simply isn't necessary.