I recently purchased a Nikon D700 and the only time that I have used it was a couple of weeks ago taking about a hundred photos of Kite surfers strutting their stuff. I have loaded the RAW files onto my P.C.and they are viewable on Windows live photo gallery however when I try to import them into CS2 they wont open and I get a message saying 'Could not complete your request because it is not the right kind of document' Has anybody here come across this before. All other Raw files from my D200 are viewable in CS2

CS2 is too old to support D700 NEFs directly, but you can convert them to DNGs and work with them that way. Adobe has a free DNG conversion tool available on their website.

Rick Walker

My photos:
GeoVista Photography

Download from our library of Image Doctor podcasts here

Hi,

as a software developer myself, I find it a bit odd that the raw file formats seem to be marked so that it is too difficult to open by older versions of image editors. One would assume that a raw file format from D4 is close to that of D3S, D3 and D3X, except for the picture dimensions, of course. It is unlikely that the file format changes completely from one model to another. Then why is it not possible to read the image data part of the file and just ignore possible extensions like whatever model-specific settings the camera had when the picture was taken?

Lightroom reads NEF files but does not show selected white balance settings or focus points, for example -- probably due to some custom tags in the file which have not been reverse-engineered (if it is necessary for Adobe to do that now that NEF SDK is available). Of course, Lightroom has to support a large number of different camera models and building full support for certain Nikon cameras is not in Adobe's interest. Having said that, I would gladly welcome Adobe to make some additional camera-specific information available (e.g., focus point).

Best regards,
Kari

Your first question ought to be directed to Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc., all who chose to go with varying proprietary raw formats rather than go with a standard one. Even they have to update their own software to work with new cameras. Adobe is no different.

Lightroom does show you the white balance. The Nikon SDK is a bit of a ruse. If Adobe embedded it within Lightroom, it would completely squirrel up the program due to differing user interfaces, and it would slow performance to what you see with Nikon products. In addition, you'd have to save files and wouldn't be able to do the simple and rapid copying of settings between images (not to mention a host of other problems). Think of it as an embedded View NX2 black box, and you get the idea. There's a reason why virtually no one uses it.

Rick Walker

My photos:
GeoVista Photography

Download from our library of Image Doctor podcasts here

Gimp does not worry about the model camera, so it is possible to ignore the specific camera a RAW image comes from, but there is no restriction that a manufacturer may not make a radical change that the current programs could not handle.

You might want to look at the data complied by Phil Harvey as part of the documentation for his EXIF Tool program. I think you will see that there is some very fine detail available for different models that could be used to process the image. There is such a great difference between camera manufacturers and models that small programing staffs would rather not deal with that level of detail for every camera model.

You could also search Bill Claff\'s site and see the utilities he provided for renaming the camera model within the EXIF of an image so at the time some cameras were introduced and the software lagged well behind, users could process the images with existing software. There is even short term fix for the D4 to allow processing as a D3 model. Note these programs are not long term fixes, but are designed only for short term use and users are encouraged to keep an unaltered backup of the original image.

George
My Nikonian Galleries

Thanks very much for the replies I will see if I can download the converter from Adobe once I get my Desktop back from repairs. The Bill Claff/s site also looks like a descent work round.

I am contemplating purchasing another post processing program but now I am a bit wary of what I actually require. I don't believe that I would need the latest and greatest from adobe so what is the general consensus of programs for basic to semi advanced image post processing without the need for web publishing and other advanced options?

Visit my Nikonians gallery.