Unable to install software due to insufficient admin privileges.

[WelshGas]

I have just bought a new Canon camera and am trying to install the software
cd that came with it. The cd mounts, opens to show the setup.app and allows
me to click it , but then I get an error message "Installation program of
EOS Digital Solutions disk requires Administrator privileges ". I have tried
with another newly created Admin account to no avail. Canon support have not
been very forthcoming. Does anyone on here have any ideas. I have a 2010
iMac running 10.74.


--
Welsh Gas
Remove usual to reply direct.
paulatwoodsforddotcodotuk

[Jolly Roger]

In article <CC348F61.512EC%wels...@virginmedia.com>,

WelshGas <wels...@virginmedia.com> wrote:

> I have just bought a new Canon camera and am trying to install the software
> cd that came with it. The cd mounts, opens to show the setup.app and allows
> me to click it , but then I get an error message "Installation program of
> EOS Digital Solutions disk requires Administrator privileges ". I have tried
> with another newly created Admin account to no avail. Canon support have not
> been very forthcoming. Does anyone on here have any ideas. I have a 2010
> iMac running 10.74.

Sounds like a crappy installer. I'd be willing to bet the software it's
trying to install is equally crappy. Are you sure you want to risk
installing it?

Are you aware that you can probably connect your camera to your Mac and
transfer images to your Mac without any additional software? I recommend
trying that first. You probably don't need this software.

Otherwise, the CDs that come in physical boxes with products are often
extremely old. Have you checked to see if a newer version of the
software is available on their web site?

--
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

[George Kerby]

On 7/24/12 11:44 AM, in article CC348F61.512EC%wels...@virginmedia.com,

"WelshGas" <wels...@virginmedia.com> wrote:

> I have just bought a new Canon camera and am trying to install the software
> cd that came with it. The cd mounts, opens to show the setup.app and allows
> me to click it , but then I get an error message "Installation program of
> EOS Digital Solutions disk requires Administrator privileges ". I have tried
> with another newly created Admin account to no avail. Canon support have not
> been very forthcoming. Does anyone on here have any ideas. I have a 2010
> iMac running 10.74.
>

I never install Canon software when Apple has proprietary software built in
to do such things. Putting that Canon stuff on the Mac just takes up space.

[WelshGas]

On 24/07/2012 21:07, in article CC346A9D.8B38F%ghost_...@hotmail.com,

You are probably right. At present I use Aperture to good effect and CS4. As
the new camera can also take HD movies I wanted to see what the Canon video
software was like as it is supposed to have some editing functions.
This version I have is supposed to be the latest as the version with the
camera only mentioned OSX 10.5 and 10.6 and wouldn't install - same error
message, so Canon Support sent me a newer version CD for 10.6/10.7 but still
the same problem . The software on their website is an updater only and has
to have the original software installed first.
It must be their installer as I have never had this problem before. If
software requires to place something in system folders etc: then it asks
permission and requests the Admin password but this just says No - end of
story, so as you said Jolly Roger, "a crappy installer".

[Jolly Roger]

In article <CC34DE27.51303%wels...@virginmedia.com>,

No real loss. You can almost certainly edit movies easier and faster
with your Mac's built-in software.

[George Kerby]

On 7/24/12 5:20 PM, in article CC34DE27.51303%wels...@virginmedia.com,

Imovie can do a lot of functions. And there is always Final Cut for $299.

[Davoud]

George Kerby:

> > I never install Canon software when Apple has proprietary software built in
> > to do such things. Putting that Canon stuff on the Mac just takes up space.

If you're talking about photo cataloging and management, I agree. If
you're talking about precision live-view focusing and full control of
camera functions, Apple has nothing that can match the Canon software.
That's why, in addition to Aperture, I always install the Canon
software. It has always been pretty good, and the version that I
received with my new 5D Mark III last week is the best yet. Aperture,
on the other hand, goes from buggy version to buggy version. I've
bought a copy of Lightroom 4 to evaluate it. Switching would be time
consuming, but if I like LR and find it more reliable than Aperture, I
might switch.

<http://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval>

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

[Oliver Jennrich]

If the remaining functionality works for you, that is certainly an
option. Others, like the OP, might have different needs.

In any case - the problem is almost certainly not related to
Canon. Although it is somewhat of a clich�: Have you tried repairing the
permissions?

--
Space - The final frontier

[Jolly Roger]

In article <yg11uk0...@ID-371.news.uni-berlin.de>,

Almost certainly? I wouldn't go that far.

[Paul Sture]

On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 21:16:05 -0400, Davoud wrote:

> George Kerby:
>> > I never install Canon software when Apple has proprietary software
>> > built in to do such things. Putting that Canon stuff on the Mac just
>> > takes up space.
>
> If you're talking about photo cataloging and management, I agree. If
> you're talking about precision live-view focusing and full control of
> camera functions, Apple has nothing that can match the Canon software.
> That's why, in addition to Aperture, I always install the Canon
> software. It has always been pretty good, and the version that I
> received with my new 5D Mark III last week is the best yet. Aperture, on
> the other hand, goes from buggy version to buggy version. I've bought a
> copy of Lightroom 4 to evaluate it. Switching would be time consuming,
> but if I like LR and find it more reliable than Aperture, I might
> switch.

It also depends on the camera model. The software that came with my
point and shoot Canon doesn't seem able to manage something as simple as
changing the graphic displayed on power up. Yes, that option is there,
but promptly doesn't change the graphic.


--
Paul Sture

[George Kerby]

On 7/24/12 8:16 PM, in article 240720122116053218%st...@sky.net, "Davoud"

<st...@sky.net> wrote:

> George Kerby:
>>> I never install Canon software when Apple has proprietary software built in
>>> to do such things. Putting that Canon stuff on the Mac just takes up space.
>
> If you're talking about photo cataloging and management, I agree. If
> you're talking about precision live-view focusing and full control of
> camera functions, Apple has nothing that can match the Canon software.
> That's why, in addition to Aperture, I always install the Canon
> software. It has always been pretty good, and the version that I
> received with my new 5D Mark III last week is the best yet. Aperture,
> on the other hand, goes from buggy version to buggy version. I've
> bought a copy of Lightroom 4 to evaluate it. Switching would be time
> consuming, but if I like LR and find it more reliable than Aperture, I
> might switch.
>
> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval>

That is exactly what I was referring. OTOH, I have no need for umbilical
camera connection to a Mac. Maybe in my old studio days I would have need of
that setup, much like I did with my leaf backed view camera about 12 or so
years ago. Since most of my work now is in 'the field' with my EOS-1DS-III,
I never considered trying that out. Might by fun for experimental purposes,
though. However I believe the OP was not considering that aspect, but I
might be wrong, even though it would be obvious that we were talking apples
and oranges software.

[George Kerby]

On 7/25/12 7:42 AM, in article
jollyroger-5607E...@news.individual.net, "Jolly Roger"

;-)

[John Varela]

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 00:11:54 UTC, George Kerby
<ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Imovie can do a lot of functions.

Imovie HD is better, in my opinion.

--
John Varela

[George Kerby]

On 7/25/12 4:39 PM, in article 51W5y0sPNk52-pn2-mdpvqYxMcDzd@localhost,

True.

[Davoud]

Davoud:

> > If you're talking about photo cataloging and management, I agree. If
> > you're talking about precision live-view focusing and full control of
> > camera functions, Apple has nothing that can match the Canon software.
> > That's why, in addition to Aperture, I always install the Canon
> > software. It has always been pretty good, and the version that I
> > received with my new 5D Mark III last week is the best yet. Aperture, on
> > the other hand, goes from buggy version to buggy version. I've bought a
> > copy of Lightroom 4 to evaluate it. Switching would be time consuming,
> > but if I like LR and find it more reliable than Aperture, I might
> > switch.

Paul Sture:

> It also depends on the camera model. The software that came with my
> point and shoot Canon doesn't seem able to manage something as simple as
> changing the graphic displayed on power up. Yes, that option is there,
> but promptly doesn't change the graphic.

I have never read this or been told this, but it is my impression that
Canon's Digital Photo Professional (DPP) and EOS utility (note: *EOS* )
are intended for use pro and pro-like Canons, not with point-and-shoot
Canons. I don't know what software came with your camera, but I am
surprised that it has the option to change the startup graphic. That
sort of thing is usually a camera menu function on point-and-shoot
cameras, isn't it?

[Paul Sture]

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 23:57:59 -0400, Davoud wrote:

> I have never read this or been told this, but it is my impression that
> Canon's Digital Photo Professional (DPP) and EOS utility (note: *EOS* )
> are intended for use pro and pro-like Canons, not with point-and-shoot
> Canons. I don't know what software came with your camera, but I am
> surprised that it has the option to change the startup graphic. That
> sort of thing is usually a camera menu function on point-and-shoot
> cameras, isn't it?

This software is most definitely not what I would expect with the "pro
and pro-like Canons". A few months ago I mentioned here that I might go
looking for a software update but someone replied that I would probably
be wasting my time.

FWIW I bought a point and shoot for portability rather than the
functionality and quality of picture I would get with a pro or pro-like
model. It fits nicely in a pocket or bag and I carry it with me a lot
more often than I did the old analogue SLR with a bagful of lenses.

It also has a much faster startup time than the first digital camera I
bought circa 2001. I lost a lot of spontaneous shots with that because
the thing was so slow to whirl into action.

--
Paul Sture

[Davoud]

Davoud:

> > I have never read this or been told this, but it is my impression that
> > Canon's Digital Photo Professional (DPP) and EOS utility (note: *EOS* )
> > are intended for use pro and pro-like Canons, not with point-and-shoot
> > Canons. I don't know what software came with your camera, but I am
> > surprised that it has the option to change the startup graphic. That
> > sort of thing is usually a camera menu function on point-and-shoot
> > cameras, isn't it?

Paul Sture:
> ...

> FWIW I bought a point and shoot for portability rather than the
> functionality and quality of picture I would get with a pro or pro-like
> model.

Yes, but most name-brand P&S camera can make great photos. A lot of
pros carry point and shoot cameras in addition to their 10-lb monsters,
and a lot of pro-grade photos are made with these cameras. In my
opinion, for many professional tasks, the only area in which P&S
cameras fall short is their flashes. Even there it is possible to
trigger pro strobes in the studio remotely using the P&S's built-in
flash.

> It fits nicely in a pocket or bag and I carry it with me a lot
> more often than I did the old analogue SLR with a bagful of lenses.

That's the big thing. It doesn't matter how great one's pro camera is,
or how much one paid for it, it's not worth a nickel if it's sitting at
home when there's a unique photo opportunity. With the kind of
photography that I do <http://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval> I rarely
carry my pro cameras out of my home studio-laboratory (read: kitchen).
Thus my pocket camera and/or iPhone camera.

[Alan Browne]

On 2012-07-26 10:46 , Davoud wrote:
> Davoud:
>>> I have never read this or been told this, but it is my impression that
>>> Canon's Digital Photo Professional (DPP) and EOS utility (note: *EOS* )
>>> are intended for use pro and pro-like Canons, not with point-and-shoot
>>> Canons. I don't know what software came with your camera, but I am
>>> surprised that it has the option to change the startup graphic. That
>>> sort of thing is usually a camera menu function on point-and-shoot
>>> cameras, isn't it?
>
> Paul Sture:
>> ...
>
>> FWIW I bought a point and shoot for portability rather than the
>> functionality and quality of picture I would get with a pro or pro-like
>> model.
>
> Yes, but most name-brand P&S camera can make great photos. A lot of
> pros carry point and shoot cameras in addition to their 10-lb monsters,
> and a lot of pro-grade photos are made with these cameras. In my
> opinion, for many professional tasks, the only area in which P&S
> cameras fall short is their flashes. Even there it is possible to
> trigger pro strobes in the studio remotely using the P&S's built-in
> flash.

P&S are mainly limited by their lens. A good photographer can produce
good photos with such by understanding the limitations of the camera.
Shoot within the limitations, and the photos will look good.

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/13479112-lg.jpg
iPhone 4 grab shot.

Further such cameras almost universally have small sensors resulting in
tiny sensor sites with relatively low gain. So the noise is higher in
images. This is inescapable. Physics. (Though some sensors are now
built "upside-down" to maximize the gain (see "back illuminated sensor")).

Some (most?) P&S will not allow you to set the flash to non-pre-flash
mode, so when you shoot with the P&S, the pre-flash will go off (to
measure for the flash exposure) thereby triggering the studio strobes
(dumping the charge) and when the 2nd flash for the actual exposure
fires, the strobes don't have any more juice to drive the flash (or too
little). Studio strobes are not like TTL flashes which always charge to
max and discharge only as much as needed per the pre-flash (or manual)
exposure. Studio strobes only charge up to the power setting and
discharge completely.

There is a widget that you can attach to studio strobes that will ignore
the first (pre-flash) and trigger the strobes on the flash that comes
immediately after. However the studio strobe has to be able to bypass
its own flash sensor which is not always the case (depends on model).

Frankly I know a lot of pros and there is only one who comes to mind who
uses a P&S as well as the rest of his rig.


--
"Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities."
-Samuel Clemens.

[Yashvin chouhan]

admin sucks