I concur with Adam. G
On Feb 9, 2007, at 8:02 PM, Adam Maas wrote: > Except the plugin is different(I suspect you're confising plugin and > camera profiles). There's a fair bit of internal differences > between ACR > 2 and ACR 3, and while camera profiles are common to both, actually > adding the recognition portion of the code and testing it will be > different (There's two parts to adding support for a camera, one is > the > profile and the other is to modify the file type recognition, the > latter > is the issue). > > There's no economic justification for Adobe to continue to support > long-discontinued software like Photoshop CS and Elements 2, > neither of > which has been available from Adobe for 2 years. And since they'd have > to setup a group to QC the updates, this is a cost issue where Adobe > will have no income to justify the costs. > > -Adam > > > Paul Stenquist wrote: >> On this one, I suspect there's a bit of profit motive involved. >> The new >> camera specs and their RAW file parameters are identical whether it's >> ACR 3 or ACR 2. If you write a plug-in for one, I'm sure it's easy to >> transport it to the other. I use both a lot. ACR 3 adds a few >> features. In every other way, they're identical. But I'm not >> complaining. Profit is important. Keeps our favorite software >> provider >> in business. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
