Help with 5DIII raw files

[7enderbender]

Hello Everyone,

I think I have an issue here. I have a 5DII and tested a 5DIII from CPS for a job last night. I also still use LR3 and have no intention to upgrade. Reason being that I'm happy with the raw engine as it is and would not want anything happen to the files that are already there.

I also have no reason to upgrade to the 5DIII at this point. In fact, after testing it last night I'm more leaning towards picking up a second 5DII body at some point.

In any case, what can I do now with the raw files from the 5DIII to get them into LR3? I understand that I probably need to convert them in another program. Any recommendations? I have DPP from my 5DII. Not sure if I'd need a different version or if I have access to it. Anything else I could use?

My fault as I should have thought about this before.


update:

Noticed that I can open the files in CS5. Any chance I can use Bridge/CS5 to batch convert the 5DIII raw files to DNG? Or should I get the latest (free) adobe DNG converter? http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/phscs2ip_digitalwf.pdf

 

[Marsu42]

Or should I get the latest (free) adobe DNG converter?

You can't cheat Adobe ... c'mon, they need to pay their rent (or buy luxury villas), too, so they have to keep selling software, you know ...

... but here's the solution. This won't work: you can convert the cr2 into dng, but they'll be a newer dng version than your lr3 supports. This will work: convert the 5d3 raw files into tiff - you can just get a Lightroom 5 trial, it runs for 30 days to do it, it installs along your lr3.

 

[wayno]

I know this goes against what you're saying but seriously I can see no downsides to just upgrading to LR5. The processing engine is a lot better than version 3. Just my opinion.

 

[Marsu42]

The processing engine is a lot better than version 3.

Not if you want to continue using the "old" 2010 process (it does have some advantages over pv2012) - pv2010 the same thing in lr5. And unlike lr4, lr3's speed is ok, so I concur that upgrading is not essential as long as you don't need the new camera support and enhanced tools.

 

[privatebydesign]

You can use any process version you want in newer software. Upgrading from a LR3 catalog to a LR5 catalog will not change the process version of the images you already have. You can choose to, and if you do you will get probably a stop more usable shadow detail (if that isn't worth less than $100 I don't know what is!), but you don't have to.

In the Develop module just go to Camera Calibration-Process: and click the little arrows next to 2003/2010/2012 and just like all Lightroom edits, it is non destructive, you can change to any version any time you want to.

 

[7enderbender]

Or should I get the latest (free) adobe DNG converter?

You can't cheat Adobe ... c'mon, they need to pay their rent (or buy luxury villas), too, so they have to keep selling software, you know ...

... but here's the solution. This won't work: you can convert the cr2 into dng, but they'll be a newer dng version than your lr3 supports. This will work: convert the 5d3 raw files into tiff - you can just get a Lightroom 5 trial, it runs for 30 days to do it, it installs along your lr3.

Actually, it worked flawlessly. The Adobe DNG converter lets you choose which version DNG file you want. So I selected the latest that is compatible with LR3. Was able to import as usual and the develop module in LR3 handled the DNG files just like I'm used to on my 5DII's raw files.

Lessons learned:

1. I'll stick to my primes and don't want the 70-200

2. No need to upgrade to the 5DIII. The results look indistinguishable and - call me crazy- I much prefered the handling of the AF on my 5DII over the rented Mark 3. The 3 is faster but setting the AF points drove me nuts. And all 61 points are centered around the middle so I see no advantage.

3. I more and more dislike Adobe. I really need to find a replacement. Their upgrade politics are ridiculous. Add to that the latest credit card and password snafu (which can happen to anyone, but it's a question how you handle it...) and I feel done. Not spending one more penny on them.

 

[Marsu42]

Actually, it worked flawlessly. The Adobe DNG converter lets you choose which version DNG file you want. So I selected the latest that is compatible with LR3.

Thanks for the information, I'm happy to stand corrected and have learned something new. Is this backporting method possible in all cases, or do newer cameras insist on using a newer dng version?

 

[privatebydesign]

3. I more and more dislike Adobe. I really need to find a replacement. Their upgrade politics are ridiculous. Add to that the latest credit card and password snafu (which can happen to anyone, but it's a question how you handle it...) and I feel done. Not spending one more penny on them.

This always makes me laugh. Name me one other software company in existence that makes and distributes a free program that they fully support, again at no cost, that gives you the functionality to buy a $3,000 camera and not need to update a $100 piece of software?

As for you not spending another penny on them, well the last thing you did was buy LR3 that came out in 2009, I doubt if they will miss your $100 every four years.

 

[7enderbender]

3. I more and more dislike Adobe. I really need to find a replacement. Their upgrade politics are ridiculous. Add to that the latest credit card and password snafu (which can happen to anyone, but it's a question how you handle it...) and I feel done. Not spending one more penny on them.

This always makes me laugh. Name me one other software company in existence that makes and distributes a free program that they fully support, again at no cost, that gives you the functionality to buy a $3,000 camera and not need to update a $100 piece of software?

As for you not spending another penny on them, well the last thing you did was buy LR3 that came out in 2009, I doubt if they will miss your $100 every four years.

I have a full version of CS5 as well. And if enough unimportant people like me jump ship they may miss something I suspect. My biggest beef is not even the necessity to buy a new version every now and so often but the move to the subscription model. I don't want it and I'll never have that. If I can't buy it and outright own that one specific version I'm not going to do it.

And no, there is not much of an alternative yet. Most certainly not for people who want/have to use Macs and Windows machines.

 

[privatebydesign]

3. I more and more dislike Adobe. I really need to find a replacement. Their upgrade politics are ridiculous. Add to that the latest credit card and password snafu (which can happen to anyone, but it's a question how you handle it...) and I feel done. Not spending one more penny on them.

This always makes me laugh. Name me one other software company in existence that makes and distributes a free program that they fully support, again at no cost, that gives you the functionality to buy a $3,000 camera and not need to update a $100 piece of software?

As for you not spending another penny on them, well the last thing you did was buy LR3 that came out in 2009, I doubt if they will miss your $100 every four years.

I have a full version of CS5 as well. And if enough unimportant people like me jump ship they may miss something I suspect. My biggest beef is not even the necessity to buy a new version every now and so often but the move to the subscription model. I don't want it and I'll never have that. If I can't buy it and outright own that one specific version I'm not going to do it.

And no, there is not much of an alternative yet. Most certainly not for people who want/have to use Macs and Windows machines.

And with the free software that Adobe fully support and you have now used, Adobe have enabled you to not need to update their software, or give them another penny/cent, until your computer won't run an OS that can run PS5 and LR3, and that date has nothing to do with Adobe.

As I said, name me one other software company that does that.

I can well understand people not being convinced with the subscription model, I am not interested in enrolling yet myself, and their security breach is regrettable (my account was one of the ones compromised and I have had emails from Adobe changing my password). But I don't understand the vehement backlash Adobe have gotten when they really have gone above and beyond in their efforts to NOT inconvenience people and not force them to upgrade.

As for enough unimportant people like you, and me, well if you look at their projections for the move to a subscription model, you will see they fully expected a drop in revenue for the first three years of its implementation. So far the stock price has reflected investor satisfaction at those projections and enrollment rate.

The people we should be complaining about, and the ones who never get criticism for any off this, is the camera manufacturers. Why do they insist on changing the RAW file format of every single camera that comes to market? Considering there is precious little IQ improvement in sensor tech and those improvements are easily enclosed in a broad and accessible format, why don't the manufacturers adopt TIFF, or the open and entirely free DNG to create a standard for RAW files? So much development time is wasted reverse engineering the stupid changes to the RAW files for each new camera, that the manufacturers are not interested in developing software for anyway, it is a farce.

 

[Jim O]

The people we should be complaining about, and the ones who never get criticism for any off this, is the camera manufacturers. Why do they insist on changing the RAW file format of every single camera that comes to market? Considering there is precious little IQ improvement in sensor tech and those improvements are easily enclosed in a broad and accessible format, why don't the manufacturers adopt TIFF, or the open and entirely free DNG to create a standard for RAW files? So much development time is wasted reverse engineering the stupid changes to the RAW files for each new camera, that the manufacturers are not interested in developing software for anyway, it is a farce.

DING! DING! DING! We have a winner!

Or at least make their formats open so they can be easily manipulated without reverse engineering?

 

[Jim O]

And no, there is not much of an alternative yet. Most certainly not for people who want/have to use Macs and Windows machines.

Is there an alternative for those of us who do (when possible) use FOSS OS's that are not available on Mac and/or Windows?

Add to that the latest credit card and password snafu (which can happen to anyone, but it's a question how you handle it...)

What was wrong with how they handled it? They reset passwords on the affected accounts (mine was also included) and promptly send out an email informing us. They also notified financial institutions. If they make an unauthorized charge on my credit card, I'm not liable.

In fact, have any unauthorized uses even been reported?

 

[7enderbender]

[...]

The people we should be complaining about, and the ones who never get criticism for any off this, is the camera manufacturers. Why do they insist on changing the RAW file format of every single camera that comes to market? Considering there is precious little IQ improvement in sensor tech and those improvements are easily enclosed in a broad and accessible format, why don't the manufacturers adopt TIFF, or the open and entirely free DNG to create a standard for RAW files? So much development time is wasted reverse engineering the stupid changes to the RAW files for each new camera, that the manufacturers are not interested in developing software for anyway, it is a farce.

Excellent point. Why they're not sticking to file format is beyond me also. I'm sure somebody will cite a technical reason but that brings me back to my original point. There is not enough difference to justify any upgrades at this point unless anything breaks. That's true for my software and my camera gear. I'm perfectly happy as is.

And I get your point now about the free software tool. I agree, we need to chalk that off as a plus.

The reason I'm even concerned is that I want to update my computers at home soon, going from Win XP to (most likely) Mac. I'm not even complaining (well maybe a little) that my existing CS5 can't be transferred to a Mac any longer (unlike my LR3, which is good) but that there is no more boxed version now to achieve the same that I have right now. Look, I'm here willing to spend money but they want to sell me something else instead that I don't want. I'd rather be able to buy a boxed CS5 or CS6 for Mac than even getting the online version for free. I don't need anything else that is constantly changing and updating to heavens knows what. I already have that happening with my stupid iPhone that I have a strong impulse to throw out of the window after the iOS7 update.

Yes, I know, I'm weird. I'm not great about changing workflows and screen designs constantly. Once things work I like to keep them around for a while.

 

[Marsu42]

Why do they insist on changing the RAW file format of every single camera that comes to market? Considering there is precious little IQ improvement in sensor tech and those improvements are easily enclosed in a broad and accessible format, why don't the manufacturers adopt TIFF, or the open and entirely free DNG to create a standard for RAW files?

I was also wondering about that, and this is what I think the reasons are:

* DNG is free (as in free to use), but is steered by Adobe. Too much of the IT industry had very bad experiences with Microsoft's "embrace, extend and extinguish" strategy to fall for that one again.

* DNG has a bad reputation among pro photogs who as businessmen tend to "never touch a running system". Adobe is also to blame since they are very bad at communicating why they to what they do with dng and what they're going to do next.

It's a pitty though, lossy DNG is terrific vs. fine jpeg and I'd really like to see it straight out of camera. TIFF is no alternative by the way since it has been extended to death, that's also why ILM did OpenEXR.

So much development time is wasted reverse engineering

Ask the Magic Lantern devs about that, they spend their days reverse engineering camera props and memory locations when Canon could just discreetly email them a spec file - it's not like there would be any ip in these updates that the competition could use.

 

[privatebydesign]

You can buy CS6, or its components, from Adobe. They don't come in a box, but it is not the subscription method, it is a perpetual license, and you can burn the download file to DVD so you have a copy for ever.

http://www.adobe.com/products/catalog/cs6._sl_id-contentfilter_sl_catalog_sl_software_sl_creativesuite6.html

You can still get boxed versions from Amazon, but only their resellers, their link is for download, but again, it is a perpetual license.

http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-65158237-Photoshop-CS6/dp/B007R0RKV8

You can still get a myriad of boxed CS6 combinations from B&H.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?ipp=100&atclk=Brand_Adobe&sts=ma&N=0&Ntt=CS6

 

[JPAZ]

Last time I upgraded my computer (groan, I think I will be doing this again soon), I downloaded PS, "deactivated" the software on the old box, and activated the software on the new one. I think I also call tech support to make sure all was OK. Whether you change OS for Win to Mac or just get a new whatever you have now, the software will all need to be moved and re-registered. And, it is best to have it running on both the old and new machines so you can go through all the settings and preferences one by one to insure the new box does just what the old did.

Which raises a totally non-camera / non-canon rhetorical question: Why is this always such a pain in the you-know? If I sell you my car and get another, the registration changes are easy (usually just a couple of signatures) but with PS or any software of significance, it is very time-consuming at best.

Rant over.

 

[privatebydesign]

Last time I upgraded my computer (groan, I think I will be doing this again soon), I downloaded PS, "deactivated" the software on the old box, and activated the software on the new one. I think I also call tech support to make sure all was OK. Whether you change OS for Win to Mac or just get a new whatever you have now, the software will all need to be moved and re-registered. And, it is best to have it running on both the old and new machines so you can go through all the settings and preferences one by one to insure the new box does just what the old did.

Which raises a totally non-camera / non-canon rhetorical question: Why is this always such a pain in the you-know? If I sell you my car and get another, the registration changes are easy (usually just a couple of signatures) but with PS or any software of significance, it is very time-consuming at best.

Rant over.

I clone drives, this negates de/reactivation. When I upgrade computer or drive I just clone, no deactivating or re-registering, no lost paperwork, passwords or serial numbers. Works a charm.

P.S. Don't tell anybody but you can subsequently run on more than two computers too, but they must be the same make.

 

[bratkinson]

Why do raw files change with every new camera model? Because there are more fields to be recorded, larger data fields (think Y2K yymmdd to yyyymmdd dates) and simply more data to be recorded. Why did DOS and Windows have to be continually upgraded? To support larger RAM sizes, large drive sizes, etc.

Why does Adobe LR3 not support the 5D3? Bring in the money! Why does Adobe LR3 not run in Windows 7? Bring in the money! Why does Microsoft Word 2010 not support Microsoft Works document format? Bring in the money! Why can't a 427 Dodge hemi not 'bolt into' a '57 Chevy? Bring in the money!

It would be nice to decide our computers will last forever, and every new whiz-bang feature and software product will run on our rapidly becoming outdated computer. But unlike the 'dreamers' out there, software, hardware, and even camera companies are OUT TO MAKE MONEY! That's their job! That's their business! Same reason you can't bolt newer model year car parts to your 15 year old car! They have to make money, too!

 

[Jim O]

Why do raw files change with every new camera model? Because there are more fields to be recorded, larger data fields (think Y2K yymmdd to yyyymmdd dates) and simply more data to be recorded. Why did DOS and Windows have to be continually upgraded? To support larger RAM sizes, large drive sizes, etc.

Why does Adobe LR3 not support the 5D3? Bring in the money! Why does Adobe LR3 not run in Windows 7? Bring in the money! Why does Microsoft Word 2010 not support Microsoft Works document format? Bring in the money! Why can't a 427 Dodge hemi not 'bolt into' a '57 Chevy? Bring in the money!

It would be nice to decide our computers will last forever, and every new whiz-bang feature and software product will run on our rapidly becoming outdated computer. But unlike the 'dreamers' out there, software, hardware, and even camera companies are OUT TO MAKE MONEY! That's their job! That's their business! Same reason you can't bolt newer model year car parts to your 15 year old car! They have to make money, too!

Did you consider that it COSTS MONEY to make everything backward compatible forever? After a certain point the returns diminish such that it's simply not worth the investment. Buying a piece of software to use NOW does not guarantee it will be supported FOREVER. Nor should it. Not that you're wrong about them wanting to maximize profits. That's their raison d'être and the reason you use their products. Without the profit motive why would they bother to produce software anyone would buy? Complaining that a version of a $100 piece of software that came out in 2009 and which has seen two major version upgrades since is no longer receiving updates is... well, it's silly. You complain that it doesn't support the 5D3. So let me get this straight. You're willing to spend $3500 on a camera in 2012-2013 but think your $100 outdated software from 2009 shouldn't need to be upgraded? Really?

I am webmaster for a series of sites. Looking at Google Analytics I still see occasional users who come to the site using Internet Explorer version 6. I no longer support IE6. Why? Wouldn't I like those folks to see my ads and make me some money? Yes, of course I would. However, the cost of designing and of maintaining a site that renders properly on the abomination that was IE6 is simply no longer worth it. And yes, I mean "worth it" in dollars and cents. People who want to use my sites and the free services that they offer can upgrade to a modern browser or they can go elsewhere.

 

[JPAZ]

.......... I clone drives, this negates de/reactivation. When I upgrade computer or drive I just clone, no deactivating or re-registering, no lost paperwork, passwords or serial numbers. Works a charm.

Sorry if I was not clear. By upgrade, I meant new motherboard or new computer, not new drive. Lot's of ways to clone old drive to new and the software "does not notice" that change.