Adobe Community: ACR and camera profiles

Currently Being Moderated

1. Ann Shelbourne,

Jan 10, 2009 4:02 PM in reply to greenjumpyone

Report

Which version of ACR do you have?

CS4/ACR 5.2 is a HUGE advance over earlier versions and comes with a series of Camera Profiles for individual models (four different ones for the D3, for example, to emulate the different rendering settings available in the camera itself) in addition to the old ACR 4.3; ACR 4.4 and the new Adobe Standard camera profiles.

The whole tool set has been updated and new ones have been added too.

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

2. greenjumpyone,

Jan 10, 2009 4:11 PM in reply to greenjumpyone

Report

I have CS3. Not sure which version of ACR I have ... let me see if I can figure it out ... sec ... ahh, I see on the title of the ACR dialog box that I am using version 4.6 and it also says Nikon D70. I presume that means it understands, by itself, that my files were from my D70?

I'll go and see if there is an update for my version of ACR for CS3.

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

3. greenjumpyone,

Jan 10, 2009 4:15 PM in reply to greenjumpyone

Report

Okay, I just checked on the Adobe website and I see that 4.6 is the most recent version of ACR for CS3.

I guess my system is all set, now I need to figure out how to properly use the program advancements! ;)

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

4. Ann Shelbourne,

Jan 10, 2009 4:30 PM in reply to greenjumpyone

Report

ACR 4.6 is the latest for CS3 you have to have CS4 to get ACR 5.2 with the new tools and camera profiles.

As for learning how to use it, Jeff Schewe's new update to "Real World Camera Raw" is unbeatable.

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

5. Nick Decker,

Jan 10, 2009 4:33 PM in reply to greenjumpyone

Report

Hopper, I could be wrong but I think there were some beta profiles posted for CS3. If you can find those (check John Nack's blog), you may be able to use them for your D70.

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

6. Ann Shelbourne,

Jan 10, 2009 4:48 PM in reply to greenjumpyone

Report

Nick:

You may be right. The other option would be to install Adobe DNG Converter because I think that that also installs the new Camera profiles.

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

7. (Silkrooster),

Jan 10, 2009 5:13 PM in reply to greenjumpyone

Report

Thats how I got the profile in my CS3 version. I found the betas listed in the Lab and downloaded them. I heard they are no longer Beta but I do not know if they updated the profiles or that only applies to CS4.

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

8. Ann Shelbourne,

Jan 10, 2009 6:41 PM in reply to greenjumpyone

Report

I don't think that the profiles changed much after Beta 2 anyway but they also come with Adobe DNG and that's a free download.

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

9. Ramón G Castañeda,

Jan 10, 2009 7:03 PM in reply to greenjumpyone

Report

The profiles are no longer beta. They come with the DNG Converter 5.2 and an installer, even for CS3. The version number of the DNG Converter is totally independent from the version number of Photoshop.

The profiles are camera model specific, so you will only see those for the camera that generated the raw file you open at any given time.

Hopper, if you do not plan to upgrade to CS4, consider getting a second-hand version of Jeff's book Real World Camera Raw CS3 . Now that the new edition for CS4 is out, many of us are getting rid of the old edition for CS3. If you plan to upgrade, then get the new version.

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

10. Hudechrome-sd9sPI,

Jan 10, 2009 9:52 PM in reply to greenjumpyone

Report

The Nikon D80 on CS3 had an upgrade to all the extra profiles, but the D90 is just 4.6. :-(

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

11. Ramón G Castañeda,

Jan 10, 2009 10:44 PM in reply to greenjumpyone

Report

Yes, there are profiles for just a few cameras.

However, you can now generate and edit your own profiles for any camera model with the DNGPE (DNG Profile Editor).

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

12. John Joslin,

Jan 11, 2009 7:55 AM in reply to greenjumpyone

Report

You may not need to mess around with anything if ACR is recognising your camera's raw files (which it is) and you can get good results with what what you have.

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

13. Hudechrome-sd9sPI,

Jan 11, 2009 9:04 AM in reply to greenjumpyone

Report

Right, and it does. But I liked the different versions available for the D80. The majority are moot, but at times, one or another pops up with a different POV as to a possible output.

The D90 profile is better than the ACR profile for the D80, so, I'll leave it alone.

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

14. Ann Shelbourne,

Jan 11, 2009 9:09 AM in reply to greenjumpyone

Report

I would recommend that if anyone is planning to buy "Real World Camera Raw", that they get the CS4 version (whether or not they think that they will be upgrading to CS4 immediately) because that book will give you some idea of the greatly improved capabilities of ACR 5.2 over previous versions.

To my mind, ACR 5.2 and the new version of Bridge are reason enough in themselves to buy the CS4 upgrade.

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

15. Nick Decker,

Jan 11, 2009 9:51 AM in reply to greenjumpyone

Report

If you're using a Windows OS, I'd strongly recommend downloading the trial before buying. A number of Win users (myself included) are experiencing serious problems with CS4. Adobe engineers have posted that they are working on a fix for some of the problems, but they insist that other problems are caused by drivers and third-party software. So, it remains to be seen if/when the problems will get fixed.

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

16. Ann Shelbourne,

Jan 11, 2009 10:36 AM in reply to greenjumpyone

Report

Nick:

Are your problems with OpenGL which does appear to be much more of a problem with bad video-card driver on the Windows side than on the Mac side?

And what happens if you disable all non-System and non-Adobe add-ons?

I try to keep away from "free" downloaded Haxies and have had absolutely no problems at all with CS4 on a non-Intel G5 Mac running OSX 10.4.11.

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

17. Nick Decker,

Jan 11, 2009 11:14 AM in reply to greenjumpyone

Report

Ann,

My problems appear to be OpenGL-related, as do many of the same problems other users are seeing. I'm willing to accept that something about the machine that I'm seeing the problems on (my main XP work machine) are related to something about my system. I've tried everything that's been suggested in the forum, including updating my video drivers and various other things. Part of the problem, IMO, is that video card makers are geared strongly toward gaming, and don't really care about PS users. Adobe tells me to contact ATI, which I did. ATI tells me it's Adobe's problem. Go figger.

My main problem is this: When I open a file in PS and then drag the window to a different location, the content of the window disappears, letting the background show through. Adobe says that they haven't been able to reproduce the problem, but it's been reported by some other users. Makes it kinda hard to get any work done!

On my other machine, which is used mainly for surfing, I recently did a clean install of Vista 64-bit, and CS4 works fine on it. Hence, I'm pretty sure my work machine is fouled up some how, I just don't know where to look for the problem.

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

18. Ramón G Castañeda,

Jan 11, 2009 12:36 PM in reply to greenjumpyone

Report

>I'm pretty sure my work machine is fouled up some how,

AMD machine, maybe?

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

19. Ramón G Castañeda,

Jan 11, 2009 12:38 PM in reply to greenjumpyone

Report

Ann,

I agree with your comments re ACR 5.2. I guess I should have included a winking smiley ;) in my post

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

20. Nick Decker,

Jan 11, 2009 12:41 PM in reply to greenjumpyone

Report

>AMD machine, maybe?

Yes, in fact, it is. However, if you've been keeping up with the various threads in PS Win, you will see that the same problems are experienced by both AMD and Intel boxes. Adobe has never said that AMD was not supported.

I should add that, on that machine, if I turn off OpenGL CS4 works well, for the most part.

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

21. Ramón G Castañeda,

Jan 11, 2009 12:55 PM in reply to greenjumpyone

Report

>if you've been keeping up with the various threads in PS Win

Not at all. I rarely venture there.

>Adobe has never said that AMD was not supported.

As a practical matter, however, the creator of both ACR and Photoshop has publicly admitted on the cross-platform ACR forum that certain inadvertent oversights regarding AMD machines have slipped through Quality Assurance in the past and adversely affected ACR. I was just extrapolating in the way of speculation. :)

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

22. Nick Decker,

Jan 11, 2009 1:14 PM in reply to greenjumpyone

Report

OK, thanks for that information. I didn't know that was the case.

I would add, though, that ACR has worked perfectly for me in all of its previous versions, and works fine in CS4 on that machine. It's the main CS4 program that is causing me (and many others) problems.

With that, I would say that this discussion should probably be taking place in a different forum. :)

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

23. Ramón G Castañeda,

Jan 11, 2009 1:26 PM in reply to greenjumpyone

Report

The affected releases of ACR were several versions back, either 3.x or 4.x. If you do a search in the ACR forum on AMD, older posts may still be around.

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

24. greenjumpyone,

Jan 11, 2009 1:32 PM in reply to greenjumpyone

Report

Now you guys have me curious: what, really, is the advantage to DNG formatting?

I understand that it's a universal format, that *should* carry into the future, BUT, if I convert my files from NEF to PSD, that's saving twice, if I add DNG in there, that's 3 versions of the same file. Is it really needed?

Pros, cons, thoughts?

oh and as far as purchasing CS4, right now, I can't see how I will be able to afford it. I am still in the thinking stages about a new camera. A new camera *and* CS4 will break my little piggy bank! ;)

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

25. Ramón G Castañeda,

Jan 11, 2009 2:19 PM in reply to greenjumpyone

Report

Hopper.

Speaking just for myself, I have played around with different versions of the DNG Converter, but I have decided not to adopt a DNG workflowpretty much for the reasons you cite.

Proponents of the DNG format point out that you can use the DNG Converter to get your raw files from the camera and to automatically save a set of DNGs as well. They claim that there is a greater likelihood that DNGs will be supported longer than the proprietary raw format for your camera model.

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

26. Ramón G Castañeda,

Jan 11, 2009 2:24 PM in reply to greenjumpyone

Report

Just to clarify, you DO NOT need to convert your files to DNGs just to use the new Adobe profiles that get installed with the DNG Converter. You only need a shot taken with your camera of a Gretag Macbeth (now X-Rite) Color Checker converted to DNG in order to use the DNG Profile Editor. But the resulting custom profiles you may make with it will be available to all raw files from that camera you open in ACR.

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

27. pfigen,

Jan 11, 2009 2:30 PM in reply to greenjumpyone

Report

The supposed advantage of dng is that it is a universal format not tied to any proprietary manufacturer's format like Canon's cr2 or Nikon's nef raw format.

It's conceivable that sometime in the future that support for older versions of these proprietary formats might be discontinued, making it difficult to re-process older raw files.

Making psd files from your raws is not the same. The psd files are processed from the raws and are not raw anymore, even though your raws are still there. The advantage of keeping the raws around is that you might want to be able to re-process your raw files again as better raw conversion software becomes available. In the last year alone we've seen big improvements in raw processing technology. We can only guess what might be in store down the road.

As far as CS4 is concerned, I wouldn't worry about it unless there is a specific new feature you just can't live without.

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

28. Ann Shelbourne,

Jan 11, 2009 2:45 PM in reply to greenjumpyone

Report

>As far as CS4 is concerned, I wouldn't worry about it unless there is a specific new feature you just can't live without.

For me CS4 in general, and especially Bridge CS4 and ACR 5.2, are STUFFED with features which I cannot live without!

Chalk from Cheese (fine St. André at that!) I haven't fired-up CS3 for work-purposes in the last six months.

The point about .dng is not only are your RAW files no longer tied to a particular manufacturer (and in this climate even Nikon or Canon could conceivably go bust let alone the lesser players) but the .dng files also encapsulate your sidecar data.

I am just beginning to consider archiving in .dng for the first time.

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

29. Ramón G Castañeda,

Jan 11, 2009 4:05 PM in reply to greenjumpyone

Report

As far as I'm concerned, my raw files are in no way tied to the camera manufacturer, they're just tied to Adobe Camera Raw. As long as Adobe software is around, I don't need DNGs. And if Adobe is not around, then DNG won't help me either.

Whether the sidecar resides just next to the raw file or encapsulated in the DNG makes absolutely no difference to me.

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

30. Hudechrome-sd9sPI,

Jan 11, 2009 5:36 PM in reply to greenjumpyone

Report

I guess your developer is getting old and worn, Ann!

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

31. Ann Shelbourne,

Jan 11, 2009 5:51 PM in reply to greenjumpyone

Report

Actually, I bought a whole lot more C41 recently just in case they stop shipping it!

Re the .DNGs:

DNGs may seem like a good idea and they do seem to compress losslessly to use half the disk space but they are February-molasses to both save and re-open so I guess I will dismiss the DNG idea. For now, anyway.

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

32. Ramón G Castañeda,

Jan 11, 2009 7:00 PM in reply to greenjumpyone

Report

Yes, opening and saving DNGs convinced me to stay away from them.

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

33. Ann Shelbourne,

Jan 12, 2009 3:51 PM in reply to greenjumpyone

Report

DNGs Re-visited:

I have spent a little more time looking at the DNG issue and I feel that i judged them too harshly originally.

The secret seems to be to make the DNGs (using the new Adobe DNG Converter 5.6) from a folder of closed ACR-edited NEFs.

This is MUCH faster than trying to save DNGs out of ACR and can be run in the background while you are doing something else.

12 MB NEFs take about 8 seconds each to process; and the sidecars are automatically collected from your ACR cache and embedded in the DNGs ready for burning to DVDs.

The saved DNGs seem to open quickly in ACR with all of your saved ACR adjustments in place and DNGs occupy only 3/5 of the disk space that my .nef files do.

I definitely plan to archive to DNGs from now on.

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

34. Ramón G Castañeda,

Jan 12, 2009 7:10 PM in reply to greenjumpyone

Report

>using the new Adobe DNG Converter 5.6

You mean 5.2?

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

35. Ann Shelbourne,

Jan 12, 2009 7:27 PM in reply to greenjumpyone

Report

Yes indeed: 5.2!

:)

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

36. Hudechrome-sd9sPI,

Jan 12, 2009 10:07 PM in reply to greenjumpyone

Report

...closed ACR-edited NEFs?

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

37. Ann Shelbourne,

Jan 12, 2009 11:02 PM in reply to greenjumpyone

Report

Yes, closed ACR-edited NEFs in a folder.
DNG Converter 5.2 will convert each NEF and embed the correct ACR side-car data in it automatically even when the side-car is stored elsewhere on your HD.

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

38. Hudechrome-sd9sPI,

Jan 13, 2009 6:24 AM in reply to greenjumpyone

Report

So you are saying to edit in ACR first, then convert?

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

39. Ann Shelbourne,

Jan 13, 2009 7:53 AM in reply to greenjumpyone

Report

Yes.

I download my RAWs directly from the card; edit in ACR and then use DNG Converter to convert copies of the whole folder which I can then burn to a DVD for archiving.

That way, all of the edits in the side-cars get embedded with the original raw file (which is itself unaltered from the way it was shot) and included in the DVD.

(My Sidecars are stored in a separate ACR Cache folder on my HD separately from the RAW files themselves.)

You can then either keep the DNGs on your HD for current access instead of the ACR-edited NEFs (the DNGs take-up less HD space but open a little more slowly in ACR than the originals); or trash the DNG folder and keep your original ACR-edited RAW files.

|

Mark as:

Photography

ACR and camera profiles

Jan 10, 2009 3:51 PM

More Like This

Bookmarked By (0)