650d - can't get RAW to open in PE6

bloodhound31 · #1 06-03-2014, 09:55 PM

I downloaded what I thought was the RAW plugin for the 650D so I could open images in Elements 6, but all they seem to have is a DNG converter 7.2

I downloaded that and I still can't open RAW in PE6. Do I need to put it somewhere?

Baz.

pw (Peter) · #2 06-03-2014, 10:08 PM

You run the DNG converter and convert all your cr2 (or whatever Canon raw files are called) files to DNG files.
Then PE will be able to open and work with the DNG files.
Otherwise you may need to update your version of PE to one that can work with the latest camera raw version which supports the 650D.

Regulus (Trevor) · #3 06-03-2014, 10:20 PM

There appears to be a move afoot to make DNG the new RAW. So why doesn't the camera save in DNG instead of proprietary RAW format? Perhaps Adobe isn't prepared to pay the camera makes enough to convince them. Meanwhile it's a pain in a 'place'.

pw (Peter) · #4 06-03-2014, 10:34 PM

Some camera makers have used DNG as their raw format, Pentax and Ricoh for example.
But the bigger established brands like Canon and Nikon continue with their proprietary raw formats and won't disclose the full specifications, thus making life hard for software developers and end users.

2stroke (Jay) · #5 09-03-2014, 11:29 PM

It should be on the cannon website, worked with my 1100d's and cs5. Get the Canon RAW Codec 1.11.0 and install it.m
also checkout http://www.adobe.com/support/downloa...jsp?ftpID=4626
Adobe will always do whatever they can to support and expand there supported formats, its how they make there bank. It the same as for Canon/Nikon and any other camera to make there format supported vai every peice of software they can its a 2 way street. Hence cannons raw codec pack and adobes updates to support. All it takes is some simple reading or asking and cannon and nikon both do there best giving out sdk / fast updates / codec and work closely with software developers. Of course there not going to give out source code ect, does microsoft or the the guys behind osx ect, its not friggin gpl for the love of god its a company making money which wishes to continue to do the so.

You guys should be kissing cannons feet for there sdk because without it you wouldn't have Backyard EOS , ohh wait Pentex don't offer a SDK and ohh ricoh don't either.

Facepalm........................... ..................

raymo · #6 14-03-2014, 01:05 AM

Hi Jay, I read your post carefully, and went to the link you provided,
and perused that carefully, and also looked up the history of the
various versions of PS. After all that I came to the conclusion that
my PS7 is too old to accept a raw plug-in.
raymo

pw (Peter) · #7 14-03-2014, 07:16 AM

Raymo,
that is likely correct. What you should do is use the Adobe DNG Converter,
it is provided free and updated regularly as new camera models appear.
Convert your Canon raw files to DNG, then open the DNG files with your version of Photoshop.
Alternately, use the Canon Photo Pro or whatever it's called to do your raw conversion and output to tif.
Then you can open the tif files in PS and work on them.

chappo (John) · #8 14-03-2014, 08:03 AM

To avoid the hassle of plugins, I use DPP (Digital Photo Professional).
A very capable converter for RAW files, which is included on the CD that came with your Canon DSLR.

mithrandir (Andrew) · #9 14-03-2014, 10:16 AM

There is always ufraw. Regularly updated to add new cameras.

Octane (Humayun) · #10 14-03-2014, 10:55 AM

Nothing comes close to the software that your camera came with.

H

pw (Peter) · #11 14-03-2014, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Octane

Nothing comes close to the software that your camera came with.

H

Really?
Have you used Lightroom?
It gets demonstrably better results than the software supplied with Nikon and Canon cameras.

Octane (Humayun) · #12 14-03-2014, 11:41 AM

Lightroom is reverse engineered. Adobe does not have Canon's RAW specification. Canon provides developers an SDK to go and make software to their heart's content, but, third party converters do not deliver precisely what was captured in the camera at the time the image was made. It is an approximation.

Have I used Lightroom? I was using it when it first came out. I stopped using it at version 1.2.

Have you ever noticed when you import a library into Lightroom, that at first the images look great, and, then, a moment later, the images change? That's the tone curve being applied to the image. What you saw initially was the embedded JPG thumbnail in the image.

I have spent many thousands of dollars on my gear, and, I simply can't have third party software ape the data that my camera captured.

DPP gives precise, accurate colour (particularly when it comes to skin tones -- I shoot weddings and got fed up of what Lightroom (ACR) was doing to skin, which is what made me change back to DPP). And, now with the DLO module, it now corrects for virtually every known (visible) aberration that can degrade an image for a vast range of Canon lenses and teleconverters. The software models the path a photon of light travels through the entire lens and delivers an optimised image. The corners on even the softest of lenses are now sharp. It is truly remarkable.

There's no denying that Lightroom gives vastly more options when it comes to image processing. However, for me, when more work needs to be done to an image, I use the Transfer to Photoshop option, which then exports the image as a 16-bit TIFF. I prefer knowing that the baseline image that I started to work on, was a true representation of what was captured (and, not what Adobe thinks I captured), regardless of how far I take the image in processing afterwards. In essence, I see on my computer screen, exactly what I saw on the back of the camera, give or take brightness differences between the camera's LCD and my LCD display that I work on.

It comes down to how anal you are. I'm a stickler for quality and true colour. Digital Photo Professional wins every time.

H

raymo · #13 14-03-2014, 01:17 PM

It's not my thread, but I must thank you all for the wealth
of information which will be of great use to me.
raymo

pw (Peter) · #14 14-03-2014, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Octane

Have I used Lightroom? I was using it when it first came out. I stopped using it at version 1.2.

H

They've had at least one major update to the processing engine since then and it significantly improved the output.
In the case of Canon, they're are already manipulating the raw file in camera as far as I'm aware.
If DPP is working for you and giving the results you need I guess it's the right choice for you.

I'm a Nikon user and I know I can get better results in LR than the Nikon software.

For you doing weddings I'm sure consistency is of high importance and if you're getting that with DPP and don't need all the other functionality of LR than you have made the correct choice.

Octane (Humayun) · #15 14-03-2014, 04:30 PM

I have tried Lightroom CC as I have the bundle.

The same change occurs to images regardless.

The other reason why I use DPP is because Canon makes their own sensors, unlike other manufacturers who use third party sensors (Nikon with their D600/D610/D800/D800E that Sony makes, for example), their software designers can get the most out of the hardware.

I will stop replying here for now as I am sure to be berated by the OP for posting off-topic information.

H

pw (Peter) · #16 14-03-2014, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Octane

The same change occurs to images regardless.

I will stop replying here for now as I am sure to be berated by the OP for posting off-topic information.

H

You know those are just LR's thumbnails right? They replace the jpg preview in the raw as the thumbnail (meta change only). The change is not applied to the raw file.

I guess I too should stop replying.