Photoshop Elements does not have the option to convert to Smart Objects. For this feature you need a version of Photoshop CS or CC which has full support for Smart Objects. Some Smart Objects functionality can be achieved by purchasing the Elements+ plug-in.

Adobe use the same generic RAW conversion algorithm for all cameras. Each camera has a profile described by a set of parameters that are based on manufacturers specs, lab measurements and some defaults assumed by Adobe software engineers. They do not use a special RAW conversion algorithm supplied by Canon.

That was interesting Les. I hadn't heard that Canon had provided its noise algorithm to Adobe. Not sure when that dates back to or whether Canon continues to provide updates as it improves its software?

However, it seems there is more to controlling noise than that, as Ian Wilson indicated a couple of posts earlier. The article Ian refers to in the Feb 2016 newsletter measured the noise difference between ACR and Canon DPP software. I contributed to the article with measurements from my old 700D (that I've since replaced). Tests on different Canon DSLRs indicate typically a 2 fold difference in final noise levels for the cameras tested. It may not be true for other cameras. A lot of the time it won't matter much, especially if the staring image isn't very noisy and/or a fair amount of size reduction is done to an image before its used (this will drop the noise levels as you know). For those situations where the best noise performance is required (high ISO shots, large format images etc), it will make a noticeable difference to use Canon DPP over ACR - at least for those Canons tested and reported by Ian. Of course, both Canon and Adobe can update their software in the future so this pattern may not always hold.

For me, I decided not to use a workflow solely around Adobe ACR and Photoshop. Instead, I went with a hybrid starting with Canon DPP and finishing with Adobe Photoshop Elements - which is an excellent product in my view. It means I don't have to think whether I put an image through a special workflow if I'm particularly worried about noise. Life is simpler that way.

When Nikon introduced the first series of high quality digital cameras, the D2’s; there was a great deal of anger from Nikon owners because Adobe did such a poor job of converting Nikon RAW files. Nikon’s own conversion soft wear was fine, but the results using Adobe was very poor.
Adobe’s explanation was that Nikon refused to share any of information about its camera technology- whether that be the RAW conversion logarithms or the characteristics of its lens mount. However, Canon did, and this accounted for difference in quality.
The debates at the time about Nikon's uncooperative stance when compared to Canon’s seemed endless; and you’ll still find reference to this unproductive policy in sites such as Thom Hogan’s. Lately the situation with Nikon has improved somewhat and Nikon lens mount details are now believed to be shared with third parties, such as Sigma. However, they still choose to keep their RAW conversion logarithms to themselves.
I would be very interested in following up the use of “generic conversion data” by Adobe. Since they go to the trouble of creating two sets of lens profiles for most lenses- one for use in Raw, I’m surprised that they would cease using accurate RAW profiles. Or is all this talk by Thom Hogan and others just so much rubbish?

Hello Les,

I see you misunderstand me as well as misquote me. A RAW conversion algorithm is a mathematical model used to convert proprietary RAW image files to a universal file format like 16-bit TIFF. The algorithm requires two sets of data, one is the camera profile, which is a set of parameters particular to each camera, the other data set is the RAW image file. Canon may well supply Adobe with some or all of the parameters they need to make CR2 conversions but the fact that RAW conversions from LR/ACR and DPP4 differ in lighting, colour, the rendering of fine detail, noise and sharpness indicates that Adobe do not use the same conversion algorithm used by Canon in DPP4.

Whether 'all this talk by Thom Hogan and others [is] just so much rubbish' I am unable to say as I only look at Hogan's blog when you point out that he has written something worth reading.