NNN634292912424565347 wrote:What ist your point, Grant? What do you want to tell me? If I like one software to evolve most of my RAW files I have to choose something different than C1?
Using multiple RAW tools is not efficient! You need to know different reactions of different tools with different UIs different shortcuts and you have different workflows. I know what I am writing about. I have used Lightroom, C1, DxO and Aperture for RAW editing and Photoshop, OnOne, Topaz, Macphun, Portrait Pro, Nik and Exposure for fine tuning.
If I go on tour with different cameras evolving the shots in two (or more) different tools is not the kind of convenience I am looking for.
I am looking for a solution that works best for me. Using software that does not support the cameras I am using is no good solution for me. If widely RAW support in C1 is not assured than C1 is not the right product for me. And we are not talking about some Chinese no name product. We are talking about a Panasonic mirrorless camera. I think I can remembered that it was voted as one of the gear of the year at dpreview and the GM1 gets great feedback all around.
The point is that you cannot expect every company to support every camera - unless they are of such a size and influence that they effectively drive the industry. You may not get your wish for a single product that supports all the file types that you are using at any particular moment.
To do that, for most commercial software developers, might be commercial suicide.
For Adobe it might be commercial suicide to be selective so perhaps they feel they have to support anything that is put on the market. More or less. Providing they can do so without breaking any licence requirements. But their interest in doing so goes far beyond just RAW file conversion. In fact in the long term they may have, through DNG, a device that they might think of as a way to gain ever greater control over the marketplace for image editing. Only they know if that is how their strategy has been formulated. It will be interesting to see how things develop.
I quoted from your original post where you seem to suggest the solution to your immediate need - most pros work with LightRoom (or at least an Adobe product of some sort). That seems to be equally true even for many of the C1 users who fully expect that they (or their clients) will want to take the files into PhotoShop for further editing.
On that basis, even though I understand that we might prefer the results provided by C1 for initial RAW conversion, the lack of support for one camera type - whatever the reason - is hardly the end of the world and not really a valid reason for criticising a developer's commercial decision (or. perhaps, inability to find a way to deliver results that achieve the quality they wish to provide for some reason.)
As I said earlier and as your list of the applications that you use or have used seems to support, I doubt that you will find a single application at any point in time that will guarantee being able to supply satisfactory (to yours or my eyes) for all the cameras that are and have been available AND for them to be up to date (or even ahead of the dare) for new product releases. Unless someone (Adobe?) persuades all of the manufacturers to use a single standard for RAW files and their conversion from data values into interpreted images.
Or maybe the client expectations will change over time as the "smart phone cameras are good enough" idea comes to be accepted so that we can all give up on RAW files and just use in camera jpgs. That might solve the problems and I suspect that 99.9% of people looking at an image would not see any practical difference - especially once it has been run through PhotoShop or one of the styling plug-ins and presented electronically in a low resolution file on their smart device.
With the philosophy out of the way ...
Phase work on the basis of demand as recorded in their Support Case database and allocate resource to requests according to popularity. (And whether or not they can obtain samples of hardware for testing and development.)
That is what they tell us and I have no reason to doubt that they follow the process as closely as they can. At the same time products from some manufacturers are likely to be supported anyway, with or without specific requests. Even within that I would assume that some products are worth special attention and other not so much.
Presumably the positioning of the GM1 in the market may not make it an automatic candidate for RAW support efforts and they have not yet had enough Support Requests to move it up the list. If so that would suggest that C1 users are not often using GM1s or most GM1 users are not concerned about the lack of support.
Alternatively there may be some sort of technical challenge to getting things to work as would be required, or for some reason the hardware is not available or maybe there is some sort of Intellectual Property constraint that is causing delays. We don't know.
Surely it is disappointing for you but as I wrote earlier I think you may find yourself constantly disappointed based on your stated expectations. Either way if you want to get close to a better understanding of the C1 development team's position about GM1 support I would imagine that you are more likely to get that via a Support Case than through this User to User (or so intended) forum.
In summary, I sympathise with your wish to have a single RAW developer for all of your files and to some extent I envy your opportunities to work with so many products. But I see some benefits to not working with the latest greatest technology and not expecting to have 100% product support just when you feel you need it. I doubt it is cost effect to offer that level of support even even if it would be technically feasible and we should accept such situations for as long as they last and adapt our approaches accordingly.
In my opinion.
Grant
