Camera Craniums

Software, Editing and Printing => Adobe Photoshop => Topic started by: nickt on November 18, 2009, 12:23:36 AM

Title: tiffs
Post by: nickt on November 18, 2009, 12:23:36 AM
Can any one help me? I'm running CS2 and for some reason I can no longer save my files as tiffs. It says there's a problem with the tiiff format, yet I can open tiffs and work on them. I now have to save the files as PSDs. Not that this is a problem, but if I would like to have the option.

Thanks Nick
Title: Re: tiffs
Post by: Oldboy on November 18, 2009, 01:10:16 AM
My guess is it's a jpeg file which is 8 bit. Need to open in Bridge select the picture and click on File and from the dropdown list select Camera Raw. Use the Save Image, at bottom of this Window and from the File Extension select Tif.  ;D
Title: Re: tiffs
Post by: Hinfrance on November 18, 2009, 07:17:34 AM
Tiffs can be 8 or 16 bit. Are you sure it is not just an option at the end of the file type list that you need to scroll down to?

I stopped using tiffs a while back - too big. I use .wdp or .hdp (HD Photo) format courtesy of M$ - more compact and lossless if you want. To have it available you'll need to download the file type from M$ and install it on all your editing software.

Hope you sort it.
Title: Re: tiffs
Post by: nickt on November 18, 2009, 01:17:31 PM
The file is already a tiff as I've converted it using Nikon View NX. Once I've done some work on it and try to save it as a tiff again, I get....'could not save because of a problem with the file-format module interface" It used to be o.k. but not now. I've uninstalled cs2 completely and re-installed but all to no avail.
Nick
Title: Re: tiffs
Post by: Jonathan on November 18, 2009, 03:30:37 PM
I've a funny feeling that Nikon's "software" writes tiffs that aren't quite right.  IIRC they follow standards but not in the way anybody else does.

I'd start by rummaging around in the preferences of NX to see if there's a "do things properly" setting.
Title: Re: tiffs
Post by: Oldboy on November 18, 2009, 06:48:49 PM
The file is already a tiff as I've converted it using Nikon View NX. Once I've done some work on it and try to save it as a tiff again, I get....'could not save because of a problem with the file-format module interface" It used to be o.k. but not now. I've uninstalled cs2 completely and re-installed but all to no avail.
Nick

Ah! Well as Jonathan said it could be down to NX. Most Raw file are just Tiffs which are different for each camera maker. Try changing the file extension to NEF and see it that works.  :o
Title: Re: tiffs
Post by: nickt on November 18, 2009, 09:46:21 PM
I think it is down to ViewNX as I can save an old tiff file (from 18months ago) as a new tiff file with no problems. It's funny that it's just started now though, its been fine for months. I'm only using viewnx as I've got a d300 and I can't use the current Camera Raw with cs2. I've tried converting the NEF files to DNGs, but cs2 says they're not compatible with my Camera Raw even though I downloaded the correct one at the time, version 5 I think it was. Still I think I'll proceed with psds.

Thanks

Nick
Title: Re: tiffs
Post by: Forseti on November 19, 2009, 07:24:49 AM
Sorry, not a clue how to post the actual image here. Anyway, here's the link (or the image - whichever works LOL )


http://cameracraniums.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-4277

In the last box (box 4) of the DNG converter there is a Preference option. I would guess that you are leaving this set to v5.4 which of course isn't readable by CS2. I would suggest you set v2.4 in the Preferences as this will be readable by CS2

This is a screen grab from version 5.5 of the DNG converter (the latest)  by the way and if this isn't your current version then it can be downloaded from here; http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=4576
Title: Re: tiffs
Post by: nickt on November 19, 2009, 04:58:42 PM
Thanks for that forsetti, but do you know if that version will work with the raw files from a d300? I'll give it a try tonight when I get in.
Thanks again.
Nick
Just checked, I can only use v 3.7 with CS2 and this doesn't recognise the raw files from the d300.
Title: Re: tiffs
Post by: Forseti on November 19, 2009, 09:56:05 PM
Strange - when I open the 'Change Preferences' in the stand alone DNG Converter 5.5, under the 'Compatability' box it gives the options of:

Camera Raw 2.4 and later
Camera Raw 4.1 and later
Camera Raw 4.6 and later
Camera Raw 5.4 and later

I would have thought that Camera Raw 3.7 (the one you say you need) would have fallen within the first option i.e. Camera Raw 2.4 and later.

Failing that - I've just had a look at the Adobe web site and have noticed that support for the D300 was introduced in Camera Raw 4.3.1 and the DNG Converter 4.3.1. Furthermore, this version of the DNG Converter will work with CS2. Further info and download from here: http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=3820 .........although I'm still baffled as to why version 5.5 doesn't appear to work when it clearly states the compatability options which I've listed above.  

I'm also not entirely sure where you get the idea that you needed 3.7 as Adobe state that support for the D300 was first introduced in version 4.3 (see info in the link given).
Title: Re: tiffs
Post by: nickt on November 20, 2009, 12:13:38 AM
Hi Forseti, Converting the files with the  DNG converter v 4.3 is not a problem. The problem arises when I try to open the file in cs2. It tells me that Camera Raw is not compatible with this file. That's because it's version 3.7. Any version of Camera Raw above this will not work with CS2. It states this at the bottom of the page. To use a higher version of Camera Raw I 've got to buy CS3 or CS4! Also when I open the preferences box in dng converter, there are only references to jpegs, nothing about compatability. This was why I started to use View NX as at least I could convert the file to tiff and use it in CS2. But that's all gone to pot! Thanks for your help and patience.
Nick
Title: Re: tiffs
Post by: anglefire on November 20, 2009, 07:55:36 AM
Convert to DNG rather than Tiff, that should work ok in CS2.
Title: Re: tiffs
Post by: Forseti on November 20, 2009, 08:50:33 AM
Also when I open the preferences box in dng converter, there are only references to jpegs, nothing about compatability.



Nick - have you downloaded and installed version 5.5 of the DNG converter? As you will see from the following screenshot, when clicking on the Change Preferences button Here (http://cameracraniums.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=237&pos=3)  another menu pops up and at the top of this menu appears the Compatability options.Here (http://cameracraniums.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=lastup&cat=10258&pos=0)  

This is where the 4 options appear and in my screenshot I have set it to 2.4 and above.

Camera Raw 2.4 and later
Camera Raw 4.1 and later
Camera Raw 4.6 and later
Camera Raw 5.4 and later

Another thought that just struck me is are you jusing the standalone version of the DNG Converter? If so, it installs in C:\\Program Files\Adobe . I myself located this file, right-clicked on it and created a shortcut on the desktop. Once on the desktop double-click to open it and then click on 'About' (bottom left hand side) - it should read version 5.5
Title: Re: tiffs
Post by: nickt on November 20, 2009, 05:44:40 PM
Hi Forseti, Downloaded DNG version 5.5, sussed out that I had the wrong version of Camera Raw. Downloaded version 3.7. I can now open the converted DNG files and then save them as tiffs if I want ;D . All is well in the world tonight!. Thanks very much for your help and patience.

A very happy Nick
Title: Re: tiffs
Post by: Forseti on November 20, 2009, 05:59:08 PM
Thank heavens for that then.  :-*
Title: Re: tiffs
Post by: oRGie on November 22, 2009, 03:49:37 PM
Glad your sorted Nick, Nice work Forseti  :beer:

Its no wonder that cracked versions of cs4 are so readily available, adobe's policy on this stuff stinks imho, they could at least offer a camera raw standalone instal at a fair price as a ps plugin so we only have to upgrade camera raw due to new cameras rather than the whole shebang. If someone wants the latest PS fair enough, but I bet a lot of users just upgrade for the latest camera raw support.

4 years ago i got cs2 upgraded from ps7 for 400d, 2 years ago I had to get cs3 for the 40D and now I need cs4 for the 7D  errmm,, I dont think so ... 

At least there is the legal dng route as an alternative I guess..
Title: Re: tiffs
Post by: anglefire on November 22, 2009, 05:26:59 PM
Actually, I am one of the few that went from CS3 to CS4 as an upgrade. (My CS3 was an upgrade from CS2 - but I never installed CS2 as it was a deal at the time. Have all the disks though, so  quite legal  :tup:)

CS4 is actually a lot better than CS3 - but like everything, it depends what you do! Content aware scaling is very handy at times, as is the ability to rotate the canvas when using the Watcom pen. I also like the smart filters etc, though don't use them as much as I should probably!
Title: Re: tiffs
Post by: nickt on November 22, 2009, 05:43:55 PM
Yes, it does seem a bit of a liberty that just because you've bought a new camera and the raw files are different all of a sudden your camera raw is no longer compatible with your camera or version of photoshop. I think it would be better to be able to upgrade just the camera raw software.

Nick
Title: Re: tiffs
Post by: Jonathan on November 22, 2009, 05:52:54 PM
Yes, it does seem a bit of a liberty that just because you've bought a new camera and the raw files are different all of a sudden your camera raw is no longer compatible with your camera or version of photoshop. I think it would be better to be able to upgrade just the camera raw software.

Nick

I think it would be better if the camera manufacturers didn't change the file format every time they released a new camera.  I suspect Adobe would agree.

There's absolutely no reason for it - if you discount incompetence and greed.

I does seem illogical to be angry with Adobe for not spending their resources (which of course we all pay for) maintaining older versions of software when you chose to buy a new camera and the manufacturer chose to change the file format.

There is of course always the option of using the DNG converter to convert your files to a version that you s/w understands.  Adobe develop and provide this for free.
Title: Re: tiffs
Post by: Hinfrance on November 22, 2009, 06:25:58 PM
Yes, it does seem a bit of a liberty that just because you've bought a new camera and the raw files are different all of a sudden your camera raw is no longer compatible with your camera or version of photoshop. I think it would be better to be able to upgrade just the camera raw software.

Nick

I think it would be better if the camera manufacturers didn't change the file format every time they released a new camera.  I suspect Adobe would agree.

There's absolutely no reason for it - if you discount incompetence and greed.

I does seem illogical to be angry with Adobe for not spending their resources (which of course we all pay for) maintaining older versions of software when you chose to buy a new camera and the manufacturer chose to change the file format.

There is of course always the option of using the DNG converter to convert your files to a version that you s/w understands.  Adobe develop and provide this for free.

On the contrary Adobe would be horrified if they couldn't keep on gouging the punters on every new product cycle to 'allow' purchasers of the latest kit to use their products.

Unlike many software companies (and I accept it is their choice) they neither support their legacy software nor sell it at a discount to provide a possible entry route to later upgrades and give people who, apart from owning a modern camera, don't actually want or need all the bells and whistles of the latest release.

FWIW I think Adobe are one of the most immoral companies out there.

And LR is a bloatware stinker  ;)
Title: Re: tiffs
Post by: oRGie on November 22, 2009, 08:50:14 PM
I does seem illogical to be angry with Adobe for not spending their resources (which of course we all pay for) maintaining older versions of software when you chose to buy a new camera and the manufacturer chose to change the file format.

Personelly I have no problem with them working on new versions, I like PS so I dont begrudge them a living, but they could seperate camera raw quite easily no doubt and let the user choose if they want the latest PS or just want the latest camera raw, we would still be paying for their develpoment costs, though only for the bit we want or need :)

I think they are losing potential customers now, there must be a lot of people following the dslr's upgrades and so needing to upgrade PS, but after once or twice I bet a lot of customers either just use dng to convert (and hats off to adobe for providing that and trying to lead the industry towards a standard of some kind) or look at software like gimp or as a lot will, a cracked version ;)

And LR is a bloatware stinker  ;)

So there  :D

Title: Re: tiffs
Post by: Forseti on November 22, 2009, 09:13:58 PM
Yes, it does seem a bit of a liberty that just because you've bought a new camera and the raw files are different all of a sudden your camera raw is no longer compatible with your camera or version of photoshop. I think it would be better to be able to upgrade just the camera raw software.

Nick

I think it would be better if the camera manufacturers didn't change the file format every time they released a new camera.  I suspect Adobe would agree.There's absolutely no reason for it - if you discount incompetence and greed.

I does seem illogical to be angry with Adobe for not spending their resources (which of course we all pay for) maintaining older versions of software when you chose to buy a new camera and the manufacturer chose to change the file format.There is of course always the option of using the DNG converter to convert your files to a version that you s/w understands.  Adobe develop and provide this for free.

There are some very interesting points raised in this discussion. Members might be interested in reading Jeff Schewe’s take on this from the following 2 extracts taken from the LR forum. These were in reply to concerns raised regarding the delay in Adobe providing support for the new Canon 7D.

    1.Well, I am the co author of Real World Camera Raw and work with the engineers on certain aspects of Camera Raw features such as capture and output sharpening (as well as a few "other" things). I've also been directly involved with the development of Lightroom since the very beginning–one of the first dev meetings on Lightroom (AKA Shadowland) was held in my studio.
 
So, yeah I am pretty much an expert-professionally speaking...
 
I've been trying since early 2003 to get the camera makers to either 1) fully document their file formats or 2) adopt a standardized raw file format at least as an option on cameras...Certain camera makers have seen the light such as Pentax and Leica-both of whom offer DNG as an option and whose buyers get out of the box compatibility with Camera Raw and Lightroom. But it seems Nikon and Canon users must continue to struggle with time delays because of those camera companies' policies...
 
Because make no mistake about it, the camera companies COULD make this issue disappear...but as long as new camera buyers are predisposed to blame Adobe, I doubt we'll see much change.


    2. Too bad more shooters don't grok the truth. If they did, we might just be able to turn the tide on the Nikons & Canons and make them behave in a manner better suited to the digital photography industry....because seriously, who can possibly think that way things are now is a "good thing"?
 
Every step of the way whether you count Adobe's effort on .XMP metadata (a free standard), .DNG (a free standard) .PDF (and open standard advocated by Adobe) and TIFF–a standard inherited from Aldus and maintained by Adobe as a (free) standard for TIFF-6 and TIFF-EP (which is the basis for DNG and generally adopted by CR2 and NEF files) you really need to understand just how far Adobe has gone to improve and benefit the digital photographic industry...
 
To then have people with no clue about the political and technical challenges leak&Moan™ about the fact that it takes a bit of time for Adobe to decode and re-engineer Camera Raw to support newly released cameras (which COULD be automatically supported if the cameras supported DNG) get some people (for example ME...) just a bit ticked off that some users are so quick to condemn Adobe for failing to support their cameras BEFORE the *******' cameras are even released....
 
Sorry, this is a subject that I have very little patients for...
 
Personally, I find it hard to fault his reasoning although I do have sympathy for the argument that perhaps Camera Raw could perhaps be sold separately although with coding issues across various versions of Photoshop I don’t know whether this would be technically possible or indeed financially viable.
Title: Re: tiffs
Post by: picsfor on November 22, 2009, 10:22:24 PM
An interesting statement that makes for interesting reading.

What would really be nice is if Nikon and Canon were invited to respond.
I am all for a universal standard in raw file format, after all te computing world hasn't suffered too badly from Microsofts efforts to develop common standards.

I suppose the digital camera industry is running a bit behind in this area...
Title: Re: tiffs
Post by: anglefire on November 22, 2009, 10:34:50 PM
I suspect some of the issues will be down to Canon/Nikon/who ever not wishing to loose their ability to keep some elements secret - like the pictures styles (Canon term for the tonal recipe) for example.

But why it has to change on the release of every new camera does seem unclear - something must be added to the header data.

One of the problems with keeping ACR backward compatable with say CS3 from CS4 is that the code of CS4 has been written to decode the ACR metadata for things like adjustment brushes etc. Though you would have thouht it possible to disable those features in CS3 like they do with elements.
Perhaps that is not possible with the current version, but with the next version, surely Adobe could do an update to CS4 to look for a switch in ACR and know if the version of ACR is not for it directly, that it can ignore it.
Title: Re: tiffs
Post by: oRGie on November 22, 2009, 11:42:18 PM
Interesting reading for sure..   Just a thought to throw in the mix, if canon and nikon decided to play ball and adopt either DNG or the option of it in Cam, would having a standard file format for raw actually limit the technology from moving forward ?  if canon and nikon are spending bucks on r&d to improve picture quality in line with their hardware technology improving could something like this lead to less advances ?   Perhaps r&d in canon and nikon are being innovative, whereas adobe are reactionist ?

Not meant to be siding with camera makers, just a thought.. perhaps there is no better way than the way we have now, except perhaps as i said splitting acr from ps so they can be sold seperatley, however I accept that may not be possible the way the software is now, but for future releases, as this situation doesnt look like its going away :)  not forgetting converting to DNG of course, allways an option..
Title: Re: tiffs
Post by: Oldboy on November 23, 2009, 12:03:15 AM
Interesting reading for sure..   Just a thought to throw in the mix, if canon and nikon decided to play ball and adopt either DNG or the option of it in Cam, would having a standard file format for raw actually limit the technology from moving forward ?  if canon and nikon are spending bucks on r&d to improve picture quality in line with their hardware technology improving could something like this lead to less advances ?   Perhaps r&d in canon and nikon are being innovative, whereas adobe are reactionist ?


With the D3 you can output as a Tiff file, but at 35mb each not many people would.  :o
Title: Re: tiffs
Post by: oRGie on November 23, 2009, 03:49:46 AM
Just as well mine doesnt do tiff, the raw files are over 25mb anyway  :D  hence the new drive and some housekeeping, all done now, cs4 installed and updated with acr5.5, new firewire cf reader is working and well quick, happy bunny..   :beer:  cs4 does look nice and bridge seems to have more functionality at first glance.
Title: Re: tiffs
Post by: anglefire on November 23, 2009, 05:40:29 AM
Oh, yes I should have said, Bridge works well in CS4- I never used it in CS3!
Title: Re: tiffs
Post by: Jonathan on November 23, 2009, 10:29:08 AM
Quote
Perhaps r&d in canon and nikon are being innovative, whereas adobe are reactionist ?

Nope.

It's tricky to hold DNG up as the gold standard since it's from the firm we all love to hate but it's the closest to a standard we have.  It seems (I haven't read the spec in detail) that it's an extensible standard.  Tomorrow I could think of a new feature (maybe angular momentum info from the anti shake system) and add it into today's format.  Apps that speak DNG written yesterday may not be able to use the new data - but they should be able to read and process the file just like they do today.  For best results use the latest version but any version should allow you to edit the file.

There's absolutely no reason why Nikon, Canon or kings of proprietary Sony couldn't do that.  They could even shoot DNG if they wanted - I mean it's good enough for Hasselblad....  (as an interesting development - you can hack some Canons to shoot DNG....)

As for separating ACR from other products....well this is presumably possible.  You make ACR output an interim "DNG" and your other apps read that.  There are technical challenges with that like the local area adjustments.  I guess it would fit on the "hard but doable" list.  But....why should they?  You're asking a company to spend a considerable amount of time and (your) money to make their applications slower and clunkier and sell fewer of them.  That's a pretty tough sell to the accountants who run companies.
Title: Re: tiffs
Post by: Jonathan on November 23, 2009, 10:38:58 AM
OK.  I take back everything I said about Hasselblad.

Just downloaded some sample raw files from their site.  They are in .fff format.  Which absolutely nothing reads - apart from their "Phocus" software.

It's possible I can't get a copy of that without paying £18K for an H3D. 

Do a bit of Googling on .fff - Thomas Knoll gets pretty angry about it......
Title: Re: tiffs
Post by: Oly Paul on November 28, 2009, 08:49:30 AM
Interesting reading for sure..   Just a thought to throw in the mix, if canon and nikon decided to play ball and adopt either DNG or the option of it in Cam, would having a standard file format for raw actually limit the technology from moving forward ?  if canon and nikon are spending bucks on r&d to improve picture quality in line with their hardware technology improving could something like this lead to less advances ?   Perhaps r&d in canon and nikon are being innovative, whereas adobe are reactionist ?


If that were the case and the camera makers raw software gave so much better quality conversions then everyone would be using it. But you only have to go on the photo forums including here and what you hear most to the question which raw converter do you use is Lightroom or CS4!

As Jonathan said its hard to hold DNG up as the gold standard just because it is Adobe, but it is getting there, nearly every image browser supports it, raw converters like Capture One, Silkypix Pro and ACDSE PRo3 just to name the ones I have used support it. :)
Title: Re: tiffs
Post by: Forseti on November 28, 2009, 11:11:57 AM
Oly wrote:
If that were the case and the camera makers raw software gave so much better quality conversions then everyone would be using it. But you only have to go on the photo forums including here and what you hear most to the question which raw converter do you use is Lightroom or CS4!



That's not entirely true of course, or at least my understanding/interpretation of what I have been reading on various forums is somewhat different. My understanding (and also personal experience) is that Canon's own software (DPP) produces far better results straight out of the box when compared to Adobe's ACR. Where it does fall down is the 'extras' provided by ACR such as the TAT and Brush tools (to name but two) which makes using ACR/Photoshop/Lightroom overall far more convenient. DPP has become increasingly better over the years and if Canon would/could only expand upon it a bit I feel sure even more users would remain with it. Let's face it, and taking only the RAW converter into consideration, when one considers what one pays for Photoshop (ACR) when compared to the FREE offerings of Canon it really is no contest.
Title: Re: tiffs
Post by: picsfor on November 28, 2009, 12:11:28 PM
My understanding (and also personal experience) is that Canon's own software (DPP) produces far better results straight out of the box when compared to Adobe's ACR.

That was previously the case - but LR2 matches it comfortably now hence i use it so much - because as you say, it has the better processing tools.
But if we are looking at value, no, the Canon stuff can not be touched - for a freeby it is excellent and was my main stay until LR2 came about.

I would not be concerned if i had to use it again...
Title: Re: tiffs
Post by: Jonathan on November 28, 2009, 12:34:54 PM
If that were the case and the camera makers raw software gave so much better quality conversions then everyone would be using it. But you only have to go on the photo forums including here and what you hear most to the question which raw converter do you use is Lightroom or CS4!

Yes but......quality of output isn't always the main driver.  Right now I believe that the best quality converter for Nikon neffs is Capture NX 2.  DxO Optics is probably a close second (or may have edged into the lead with the latest version - I haven't tried it).  But I don't use them.  I don't like the interface and find them pretty slow.  By comparison, Lightroom lets me fly through edits.  It's also tightly integrated with Photoshop and supported by a huge user community.  If I get stuck with something then there are hundreds of blogs and forums to consult as well as people writing cool and useful addons.

Other people prefer Aperture and use that for the exact same reasons.  Very few people actually run proper tests (or even read them if they can find them) to determine what gives best quality.
Title: Re: tiffs
Post by: anglefire on November 28, 2009, 12:36:54 PM
Its an interesting strategy by Canon - their software is actually very good - and I know alot of togs use it in preference to anything else - compared to Nikon who give a cut down version of their software free - and from what I've read, its not that good (Considering the cost of the paid version!) But I will be slapped down, cos it is only what I've read!  ::)
Title: Re: tiffs
Post by: Oly Paul on November 30, 2009, 04:15:46 PM
Oly wrote:
If that were the case and the camera makers raw software gave so much better quality conversions then everyone would be using it. But you only have to go on the photo forums including here and what you hear most to the question which raw converter do you use is Lightroom or CS4!



My understanding (and also personal experience) is that Canon's own software (DPP) produces far better results straight out of the box when compared to Adobe's ACR. Where it does fall down is the 'extras' provided by ACR such as the TAT and Brush tools (to name but two) which makes using ACR/Photoshop/Lightroom overall far more convenient.

If that is the case then why not use it to just develop the raw then use CS4 to do everything else that can be done in LR which CS4 is more than capable of and proberly better at and get the best of both worlds, or is that the conviniance outweighs ultimate image quality?  In my case Olympus Master is a abismal raw converter so it was a no brainer for me.  :)

Off course it could still be said that there are still real benefits for the modular, three pronged approach to a photographers' workflow. When someone builds a better mousetrap you can update that component, be it a faster Image Browser, better RAW Converter, or more efficient Cataloguing application. ;)