This content has been marked as final. Show 677 replies
I'd like to be able to soft proof!
I`d like to have separate RGB curves. Is there any reason why ACR doesn`t have them like most of the other converters?
I also would very much like to see Soft Proofing options included in ACR. I don't see the point in including color correction tools such as Curves without Soft Proofing..
I would like to see that 100% magnify tool like in Aperture. 100% of true capture, not some screen interpolation, to really make critical sharpness edits.
Have you tried "Option Command/Control 0"?
Is that coming right out of the file?
uh oh, I meant this to be a bridge feature, my mistake.
It would be helpful to have the file size of the converted image available in the window somewhere. When one changes the conversion parameters there is no way of knowing how large the file will be until it opens in Photoshop.
Look in the lower left corner, at the menu that picks the size.
I am missing it. The sizing window gives me the number of MP and pixel dimension but not the number of MBs the converted file will contain. It's the later that would prove helpful along with the current info.
The problem there is that there's no way to know what you're converting to and with what options, until you click Save and do. It would be nice in the Save dialog.
All the needed info is available in the window except the Image Size.
The workflow window has the files dimensions,in pixels, the image bit depth, 8 or 16, color space, RGB and the dpi. These will result in an Image Size calculation without having to first save or open the image. It would be convenient to have this info in advance of committing to the parameters you have for an image.
What I was trying to point out is that you would need it for TIFF in its compressed oand uncompressed modes; JPEG with several quality options; PSD; DNG with various embedding, preview and other options ... all these are options that affect the output size. Maybe you could just have compressed TIFF and PSD displayed?
Not necessarily. When you create a new doc in Photoshop, how you save the file isn't considered just the color space, dimensions, bit depth and dpi. This, if you like, could be a "base file size" that later could be saved in any manner. It is this "base file size" that I am looking for. If a client request a certain file size or if you want a particular file size, it would be helpful to know which of the preset dimensions, color space, bit depth, dpi would closest meet that requirement. It seems like a fairly straight forward process to have this information in the workflow window.
I'd like to save directly to 16bit grayscale from Camera Raw. I am processing up to 500 files a day, digitizing old black and white negatives with a 22Mp camera. Now I have to go through an extra action i Photoshop, converting from RGB to Grayscale (via Lab - for quality).
Being able to batch convert and save as grasycale from within Camera Raw would save me a lot of time.
New feature: Display the full original image in the thumbnail in Bridge after crops applied during Raw conversion.
I always make new exposures using Raw camera format, and ACR-CS2 to develop the image for Photoshop adjustments and printing. I will sometimes crop the Raw image during ACR processing, and occasionally produce two or more saved full and cropped files from the same Raw original exposure. Would it be possible to retain display of the full original image in the Raw file thumbnail versus the last cropped portion of the developed image?
I've searched this question under the Bridge, Photoshop and CR forums, with no hits. Thanks for reading and considering.
For me it is a very welcome new feature that fact that now Camera RAW writes legacy IPTC (IIM) data. I use several applications and some support XMP while others just IIM4.1, and I still want to access the same metadata (when the format allows it) in both apps (for instance, Apple Spotlight vs. Adobe Bridge). I think, however, that if you are adding that feature, you should do it to its full extent, and right now there are three field that are not being written that I think should be (specially the first one):
- Dataset 1:90, Coded Character Set: Without this, IPTC (IIM4.1) is pretty irritating to non-English users, i.e. anyone that uses anything beyond ASCII, if not completely useless for users who do not use roman letters (Japanese, Korean). The specs on this dataset are somewhat tricky. Be sure to have a look at http://www.iptc.org/download/download.php?fn=IIMV4.1.pdf page 20 and Appendix C. You might also want to have a look at an explanation and some JPEG examples by some guy in this non-ACR related thread http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=27238
- Dataset 2:92, Sub-location: according to the XMP Schema "IPTC Core" V 1.00, the XMP property name "Location" should have "Legacy / backward compatibility" with the IIM dataset "2:92 Sublocation". CRW 3.3 beta, though, does not currently synchronize them (I mean, it does not write the legacy IIM dataset at all).
- Dataset 2:100, Country/Primary Location Code: both the IPTC (IIM) specs and the IPTCore specs have a place to specify an ISO3166 country code. Surprisingly, the IPTCCore v1.00 specs ignores this and do not specify that the property "CountryCode" has "Legacy / backward compatibility" with the IIM Dataset 2:100 Country Code. In any case, again, both fields are useful in order to clear up things beyond language-dependent toponyms, and I see no reason for ACR not to synchronize both either.
Anyhow, thanks for this great addition to ACR!
Update - New feature: Display the full original image in the thumbnail in Bridge after crops applied during Raw conversion.
I recently purchased PE4 to evaluate for a friend's update from and earlier PE version. The original Raw file thumbnail retains its full file view after CR processing and subsequent cropping in the PE editor of PE4. Would it be possible for Adobe to release an update for CS2-Bridge-ACR to also retain the full original Raw file thumbnail view, since it may be some time (and further expense) before a potential change in CS3?
Joe - I like the current state. Are you asking for a non-default option?
Barry - Please read original request detail in post 116.
I'd like the default thumbnail view in Bridge-CS2 to display the full original Raw file view even if subsequent ACR or Photoshop crops are chosen from the Raw original. PE4 retains the full view of the original file after cropping. The current Bridge displays the original Raw file thumbnail as only the portion of the last crop action, not the full original view. If there is a way to keep the thumbnail of the original Raw file as a full, non-cropped view, I can't locate that option in Bridge, so, yes, it does appear to be the default display (with no further options).
For me to see the full original Raw file view, I must reopen the Raw file in ACR and clear the current crop. The thumbnail view restriction is not productive, to say the least.
The significant question for me is, Why does the "consumer" PE4 show the original full file view after a subsequent cropping action, when the "professional" oriented CS2 displays the original file thumbnail with only its last cropped portion? To meet both of our preferences, the option of view is needed here.
>The significant question for me is, Why does the "consumer" PE4 show the original full file view after a subsequent cropping action, when the "professional" oriented CS2 displays the original file thumbnail with only its last cropped portion?
There is no crop feature in Camera Raw for PSE4 so it's pretty hard to see how you would ever manage to see a cropped version of the raw file.
You are quite correct - PE4 and CS2 behave the same way when crops are made from the editor: both programs leave the full original Raw file thumbnail. My mistake.
Is it possible that Bridge-CS2 be made to leave the full original Raw file thumbnail after crops are made in ACR? This was my original request, from post 116.
I have come to make my crops in CS2-ACR during conversion versus my previous practice in Photoshop CS editor and earlier versions. Changing the Raw thumbnail view to reflect the last crop made in ACR obscures the original file content visible through the thumbnail, and requires quite a bit of extra work to see the original content again.
I don't see the logic or benefit behind cropping the Raw thumbnail view when using the CR crop tool approach versus leaving the full Raw view after using the PS editor crop tool.
>For me to see the full original Raw file view, I must reopen the Raw file in ACR and clear the current crop. The thumbnail view restriction is not productive, to say the least.
Right click (PC) or Ctrl+Right click (Mac) the thumbnail and choose "Clear Camera Raw Settings". This resets the preview back to the default but also clears any other edits you've applied. This shouldn't be a problem if the edited/cropped raw images have been opened/saved in Photoshop.
Thank you for those directions (post 123). That approach will not fit with my workflow.
I currently use a Whibal card image frame to obtain an accurate custom white balance setting for a batch of exposures (and ACR-CS2 is great for applying this information to the batch of images). Subsequent to the white balance I adjust individual frame exposure, curve other parameters in CR (along the lines that Bruce Fraser details in his "Real World Camera Raw with Adobe Photoshop CS2" book), to get the most from the Raw data before saving the output file or opening into the CS2 editor. Clearing the CR settings would wipe out a lot of work just to see the entire Raw file view in the thumbnail again.
I'd appreciate the option of always seeing the full Raw file thumbnail without any applied CR application changes. Processing with ACR does not alter the fundamental raw image data. The Raw file is my "negative". I don't see why the original thumbnail needs to display the effect of crops or the lastest CR adjustments, which may or may not have been saved to an output file for further processing.
I´d like for ACR to include something along the lines of shadow contrast and highlight contrast sliders. I often expand visible dynamic range by developing two files from the same RAW file and blending in Photoshop.
If there is a sane way of doing this already in the RAW converter, implement it. I´m sure many others do like me (I learned my photoshop blending techniques from Michael Reichmann and Jeff Schewe). Just do it better than the competition (more options for example).
I upload images for purchase and many times I have to crop the same image to different aspect ratios (2x3, 5x7, 4x5, etc.) Maybe I've been missing it, but I sure could use an indicator showing the aspect ratio of the crop if one has been applied. That way, when I go to process and upload an image previously cropped, I don't have to guess (or re-crop) them image if one has been applied. Sure, I could do the math from the length and width shown in the workflow options section, but by the time I do that I can have re-cropped the image.
Need CMYK pixel values in ACR for setting white balance for pleasing skin tone
One of the most valuable attributes of shooting RAW is to be able to adjust white balance while you still have maximum data around. To that end, adjusting white balance on people pictures where you are trying to get skin tone right is most appropriately done using CMYK pixel readings, not RGB pixel readings (for causasians - yellow should be 5-20% more than magenta, cyan is usually 30-50% of the magenta value, black should be pretty low). Since all I can find is RGB pixel readings in ACR now, if I have no other good references in the photo, I find I have to guess on the white balance by eye, open in CS2, check the CMYK values, close w/o saving, make a white balance adjustment in ACR and try again in CS2. All I need to avoid this inefficient workflow is to be able to see CMYK values in ACR just like I can in CS2. I'm not asking for CMYK curves or anything like that, I just need to be able to show pixel values with the sampler points in CMYK values.
jfriend, Just my take on that. Please, forgive me if what I say is non-sense
You want to pick colors. CMYK is ink based, which means that same values of inks produce different colors on different media. Makes little sense to me to manually choose what is the mix of inks to produce a certain color, since there is no possible way to know what color that will turn into (whatever your screen tells you). Pick color and let the computer do the conversion to ink using an appropiate profile per each media.
Pick color and let the computer do the conversion to ink using an appropiate profile per each media.
elmimmo, I don't think you understand what I'm asking for or why I'm asking for it. In Photoshop, a given pixel in an image can be described in RGB color values, CMYK color values and LAB color values. In CS2, without changing the actual image itself, you can see the value of any pixel in any one of those color spaces, just by changing the info dialog to show you your choice. There are times when this can be incredibly useful. For example, an accurate skin tone cannot be easily determined when looking only at the RGB numbers, but an accurate skin tone can more easily be determined by looking at the same pixel, but described as CMYK values. It's analagous to an astronomer deciding that it's easier for them to talk about distances in light-years rather than miles or inches. We're talking about the same distance either way, just a more useful way of describing it and comparing one distance to another.
When dealing with skin tones, it's much easier to see if you have a proper skin tone when looking at a CMYK description of the color than it is when looking at an RGB description.
Since one of the most important things you do in the ACR RAW editor is adjust white balance, I'm just asking for this same ability to see color with the eye dropper as CMYK values in addition to RGB values.
I see the base of what you are saying, but I guess that since I am not used to that workflow, it seems weird to me.
Anyhow, there's still the fact that, in Photoshop, having the color picker over a same RGB pixel, the Info palette will display different CMYK values depending on which CMYK working space you have set in your Color Settings or your Proof Setup. That is so because, as I said, Photoshop tries to guess which is the proper ink mix that will produce the same color that the screen is displaying for each particular media (each media implied by a particular CMYK working profile), because different media react differently to the same ink mix (to put it simply) and adjustments are to be made in order to provide color consistency.
In any case, what do I know ^_^ I am not that much into color workflow, so maybe the differences I am talking about are subtle enough for making your suggestion a valid point, or maybe I got it all wrong in the first place.
> I see the base of what you are saying, but I guess that since I am not used to that workflow, it seems weird to me.
I'm not looking for sub-percentage accuracy here. I'm just looking for the exact same functionality that's in CS2 which I use quite successfully now. But, it's a pain to have to move a RAW file into CS2 in order to be able to do this when one is supposed to adjust white balance in the RAW editor.
Here's an example of how one can more easily use the CMYK values to set white balance: http://www.smugmug.com/help/skin-tone.
Since this seems weird to you, how would you tweak white balance to generate a proper skin tone on a photo that doesn't have any other obvious neutral or gray references in it without going purely by eye? How else would you suggest solving this problem?
I've found that reading the CMYK numbers is an excellent way to solve this problem (and thus why I was asking), but if there are other ways to solve this that work in ACR, I'm happy to learn those too.
jfriend00, you are absolutely wrigth. For tuning skin tones it is necessary to see the CMYK values as this is possible within PS CS2. And it is indeed a pain to switch to CS2 in order to get that information and afterwards do the correction in Camera RAW based on that information .
Would it be possible to make a new function called "Soften Overexposure"
My experience is that specular highlights that are way overexposed tend to show very ugly de-mosaic and/or sharpen artifacts.
What I propose is a new slider maybe in the sharpen section that would rollback this artifact in the highlights that are burned out, functioning as a combined amount & threshold.
What it would do is basically to key an unsharpned (maybe a little blur'ed version) back onto the image, based on luminance with a pleasing feather.
It would be great to have a tonal range ecualizer (As curves or Levels does), but instead SIMILAR to audio ecualizers.
This is, for Audio Graphic Ecualizers: instead of octaves and controls for left & right stereo channles, have "tonal" controls (255?) and the possibility of moving each channel by itself or all together.
Also: there are Audio "Parametric" ecualizers: one just put a "center" frecuency (in this case would be a "center tone") and then moves the shape and amplitude of a gauss-shaped curve.
This would be a very nice feature for Photoshop as well.... and would let professionals make very precise adjustments!
Hope I could contribute!
I am experimenting with 25 megapix output files right from 6.1 megapix NEF files with atonishing sharpness.
I would like to have the possibility of a wider range for demosaicing and larger output files as well.
A couple of things:
1. Corrections for barrel/pincushion and perspective distortions in ACR.
2. Something similar to Aperture's versioning (ie a way to have multiple xmp files for an image so you can play with different developing without having to dup the file.)
3. Something similar to Aperture's loupe tool (ie a way to quickly check for focus and motion problems on thumbnails, without having to open them at 100% in ACR.)
4. A way to compare two or more images in bridge or ACR.
Sorry if I duplicated anything from earlier in the thread--i did read it, but it's pretty long now.
>4. A way to compare two or more images in bridge or ACR.
Huh, you can already do this. Or am I not understanding your request?
One of Camera Raw's best features is the Crop Tool. Please keep the cropped view in the Bridge thumbnails. It would be helpful if the Camera Raw Crop Tool had the center marker like the one in CS2. The center marker if really handy for centering the crop as well as rotating the crop around.
Also add more than one custom size. I'm always having to reset it between two or three different dimensions. Almost all of my images are cropped in Camera RAW
Finally, please add a Canon version with accurate Canon colors, WB and all of Canon cameras' settings including parameters, contrast, saturation, sharpness, color matrix and Picture Styles.
Some of us actually set up our cameras to take the picture that we want, as opposed to simply recording properly exposed basic numbers to throw at ACR, C1, or a number of other converters that are not true to Canon camera specs.
I know that this is a major philosophical difference between us but I chose Canon equipment for the quality of the resulting pictures, not just the numbers it outputs. I view the camera as the dog and the RAW converter as the tail.
That said, Camera Raw has improved to the point that I happily use it for 95% of my work. Its tool set is just terrific.
>4. A way to compare two or more images in bridge or ACR.
>Huh, you can already do this. Or am I not understanding your request?
Oops. that does sound dopey. I meant at 100%. AFAIK, the only way to compare two images at full size right now, is to take them all the way to Photoshop and have two windows open. I've been messing with aperture, and i don't love it, but one of the very useful tools is the ability to grab two or more images and have them display side by side, either at "Fit to Screen" size, or at 100% (obviously in a window that you can pan).
Janet, you can open two raw files at a time without converting them into Photoshop files - but you won't like it!
Open one in ACR hosted by Photoshop, and the other in ACR hosted by Bridge.
I said you wouldn't like it!
I'm sure this must have been asked but I missed it. I would like to see a way that new camera support could be added incremently when they became available rather than having to wait for a full application update.