This content has been marked as final. Show 677 replies
Currently: Click on neutral to "snap to" white balance
Please Add: Select color from skin-tone pallette, then click to "snap to" selected skin tone, w/ or w/o exposure/brightness compensation
And: User selects key colors (bride's dress, wall color, skin tone) and then use eye-dropper to snap image so sampled portion matches selected color
Vignette: allow user to move center of vignette to any part of image, not just center of image
Please go back to being able to set auto adjustments on the individual sliders rather than the whole group. It seems this was a big step backwards...
Ain't gonna happen because the Auto adjustments changed for Lightroom compatibility.
I agree the elimination of the Auto buttons on the sliders is a MAJOR step backwards in useability. There's got to be a better answer than "it ain't gonna happen".
Well, there isn't...so, you can either learn how to use the new Auto, or make yourself miserable complaining that it's changed.
The new Auto Tone really _IS_ much improved over the old multiple autos. . .which most people checked off, most of the time, leaving only one or two parameters checked. Auto, in Camera Raw 4 (which has more controls than 3.7) actually gets most of the settings correct usually only requiring the adjustment of one or two of the parameters...so, to me, it's six of one, 1/2 dozen of the other...you are free to disagree...but the guys doing Camera Raw pretty much stated that the change was a one way street and there's no going back. So, pretty much, "ain't gonna happen" is accurate...sorry.
There's no Auto routine that is going to get "most settings correct" for photographers that "expose to the right" as recommended in in Real World Camera RAW - which is exactly why so many people left only one or two parameters checked.
"There's no Auto routine that is going to get "most settings correct" for photographers that "expose to the right" as recommended in in Real World Camera RAW"
So, have you tested this on real world images? I have...CR 4 Auto Tone (as well as Lightroom) actually does a very decent job of correcting for ETTR images...it may be a bit aggresive on the highlight recovery and normally, I need to adjust the curves parameters-which weren't covered in the 3.x version of auto anyway.
I'll clarify. I don't see how any Auto routine can know that that my ETTR files are intended to produce a high tone image, where automatically setting any shadow clipping is completely contrary to the desired effect. However, automatically setting *only* the exposure *is* very useful when initially browsing such images and tagging the ones I want to work up!
Well, there is the problem...ETTR is intended to add exposure (move histogram to the right) with the intent to redistribute those lighter tone into the dark regions of the image-in effect, taking an overall light image and darken it...by clipping into the "shadows". You don't use exposure to darken the image so much as set the black point where "black" should be-if you hadn't done the ETTR...
You realize that the entire exposure/highlight recovery was changed, right? In CR 4 and LR 1, exposure doesn't do any "recovery"...highlight recovery is a separate control. Yes, it's interconnected...but so are all the rest of the controls. The new Auto Tone in CR4 and LR 1 is actually a lot better at correcting-for an initial round-ETTR images.
No, it won't "work" the same way...but in my experience, it is better. And better is different, I suppose. But, whatever, it ain't going back, so move on.
On the vignette tab. You cant move the vignette around. I use this a lot and want to move the center around in the image. This feature is a very strong feature but never has been updated. It would be nice to have a point to move.
>Well, there is the problem...ETTR is intended to add exposure (move histogram to the right) with the intent to redistribute those lighter tone into the dark regions of the image-in effect, taking an overall light image and darken it...by clipping into the "shadows". You don't use exposure to darken the image so much as set the black point where "black" should be-if you hadn't done the ETTR...
Perhaps I have been using the exposure control incorrectly, but I do not use the exposure control to set the black point. Here is my reasoning. Traditional exposure places the mid tones in the scene so that they are also in the mid tone area of the image: gray in the scene is reproduced as gray in the image. If you have a full scale image (one that uses the entire dynamic range of the camera) and render into a gamma 2.2 space, the mid tones will be in the center of the histogram and the extremes of the histogram will reach all the way to the left and right. In this case, any ETTR will blow the highlights.
However, with a short scale scene exposed in the same fashion with a mid tone reading, the histogram will have room on both the left and right. In this case, one can use ETTR and place the highlights just short of clipping. If you expose to the right by 1 f/stop, exposure for all photo sites of the sensor doubles and there is a linear scaling multiplication factor of 2 and everything moves to the right. In this way the information rich brightest f/stop (which contains half the levels of the raw data) is utilized and the increased exposure improves he signal to noise ratio by a factor of sqrt(2). IMHO, the extra levels in the brightest f/stop with ETTR are nice, but the eye can perceive only about 100 of these 2048 levels in a 12 bit raw capture, and the main benefit of ETTR is lessened noise rather than the increased number of levels.
Now, if this image were printed with no exposure correction, the mid tones would appear too light. One can use an ACR exposure setting of -1 to apply a linear scaling factor to the image and move the mid tones back to the the center. The image may appear too flat since it has no true blacks or whites, and one can set the white point and black point as needed for the best effect. Non-linear editing is required in this case for placement of the black and white points.
In the above situation, if one uses exposure to set the black point, the mid tones and highlights will be too dark.
>You realize that the entire exposure/highlight recovery was changed, right? In CR 4 and LR 1, exposure doesn't do any "recovery"...highlight recovery is a separate control. Yes, it's interconnected...but so are all the rest of the controls. The new Auto Tone in CR4 and LR 1 is actually a lot better at correcting-for an initial round-ETTR images.
In his ACR tutorial, Tim Cooper states that the exposure control of ACR works the same in ver 4 as in the previous versions: it applies a linear scaling factor to the image, moving all points in the histogram to the left or right by a constant factor. In my experience, highlight recovery is still possible with this control. If the highlights are still blown after the overall exposure is set to the optimum value, one can use the highlight recovery to apply a non-linear correction to this area as Tim describes. I think that Deke McClelland used a similar approach in his ACR Beta 4 video tutorials, which are no longer available for free viewing.
"In the above situation, if one uses exposure to set the black point, the mid tones and highlights will be too dark. "
You misunderstood what I was saying. Obviously, you don't use "exposure" to "set the black point" Doh...I said you don't use exposure to darken the image...the darkening comes as a result of setting the black point.
"Tim Cooper states that the exposure control of ACR works the same in ver 4 as in the previous versions"
Roughly speaking yes...but the exposure algorithm is actually different (correct me if I'm wrong Thomas) in that now that recovery is decoupled from exposure, exposure can just be used to set the highlight clip. Between recovery and fill light the whole approach for toning an image has changed in CR4. The parametric curves also radically changes the way the final tone curve is arrived at.
Back to the point that the individual Autos were removed, the way the poster was using it-to try to compensate for ETTR was fundamentally changed in Camera Raw 4 because of the addition of recovery, fill light and parametric curves. Don't you agree?
>"Tim Cooper states that the exposure control of ACR works the same in ver 4 as in the previous versions"
>Roughly speaking yes...but the exposure algorithm is actually different (correct me if I'm wrong Thomas) in that now that recovery is decoupled from exposure, exposure can just be used to set the highlight clip. Between recovery and fill light the whole approach for toning an image has changed in CR4. The parametric curves also radically changes the way the final tone curve is arrived at.
As mentioned below, I no longer have CR4 on my system, but as I recall, the exposure control was linear, moving everything to the left or right by a predetermined scaling factor. If the highlights were blown and exposure was used to move the overall exposure to the left, there was some degree of highlight recovery. As I understand the new control, it is nonlinear and affects the highlights more than the remainder of the image, whose tonality may already been OK. We can not use exposure as it should be used, rather than as a de facto highlight setting. would like some clarification in this issue.
>Back to the point that the individual Autos were removed, the way the poster was using it-to try to compensate for ETTR was fundamentally changed in Camera Raw 4 because of the addition of recovery, fill light and parametric curves. Don't you agree?
Yes, I think that the new controls are a marked improvement, but some degree of change in work flow may needed. I removed the CS3 beta from my system because I was getting too much system instability and needed to get some work done in CS2 with the old ACR. I am eagerly awaiting the delivery of CS3, which is on order. I understand that there are some further improvements over the beta.
Is there a reason why the Help menu is disabled when the ACR window is displayed? I understand that the window is running modally, but it is possible to support menus behind a modal window.
The Adobe Help application can run concurrently with ACR, and I can switch between them. But I have to remember to start Adobe Help before bringing up ACR. A minor annoyance, but maybe one that is easy to fix.
Its taken a while for me to reach the end here, and I must admit I skipped a few pages, so apologies if these feature requests have been mentioned previously!
1. If i have to edit an image in PS, I open it from ACR and eventually choose to save it as a PSD file. I label the images in Bridge such that I filter out the original and just display the final images that I wish to create JPS from - which ends up as a mixture of CR2 and PSD images displayed in Bridge. I love the ability in CS3 to open TIFs and JPGs in ACR, but wish that this was extended also to include PSD files. Without this feature, it means I can't use the Save option within ACR to save all the files I'm interested in, as the PSDs aren't opened in ACR, meaning I have to use Image Processor to create JPGs from the PSDs. Having the ability to open the PSDs alongside the CR2s in ACR would make saving to JPGs much easier.
2. I'd like an option in ACR which allows me to save all images consistently sized despite the fact that some images may be cropped. I have to supply my clients with all images the same size, but if have cropped some in ACR then my only option is running the images through an action PS to do the resizing - having this ability in ACR would make life much easier!
3. last but not least - I know everyone says that the individual auto settings aren't coming back, fair enough! But what the new auto scheme does not allow is:
a. giving us an indication if a slider is set to auto already - maybe the slider could change colour if it is set to the auto value?
b. copying and pasting specific auto set sliders to other images, like it used to be - so if one of the sliders on the source image was set with an auto setting, the slider on the destination images will also be set to an auto setting specific to that destination image - rather than just pasting the value from the source img as it does now!
Enough from me anyways. Thanks, Paul
Just thought of another which would be useful:
Better Batch processing in ACR - this hasn't improved since ACR's introduction. I thought that since the take over of Pixmantec, we would see some of the cool queue control features from Raw Shooter Pro inside ACR, such as the ability to delete specific entries from the queue, the ability to stop and start the batch queue also!
Camera Raw 4 is fantastic. I can do most of my sports photo processing right in Camera RAW. Even ACR sharpening works well with my crop and up-rez workflow. Because I use the crop tool on almost every shot a couple of improvements occured to me.
It would be nice to be able to store multiple user crop settings. I often go back and forth between 2400 x 3000, 2000 x 3000, 1500 x 3000 and 1728 x 1152. It's a real PITA to have to dial in the same user settings over and over and over again.
Additionally a center marker, similar to that in Photoshop would be of great help in centering the crop over the subject.
Other than that I have a hard time finding any flaws in Camera Raw. Good work Adobe.
I'd just like ACR 4.x to not be crippled in Elements. I would likely upgrade if that were the case, but as it is I'll stick with Elements 3 + LR.
Well ACR 4.1 and still no way to know how big a file will be if you choose to change the export parameters in "Workflow Options". There is no way to know in advance the file size of any image before committing to a set of Workflow Options. I was hoping this would be a easy fix. Maybe next time.
You're not content with knowing what the pixels dimensions are?
Frankly, I've never cared what the size of the file on disc is going to be.
(This issue affects all Adobe code that attempts to recognise Pentax lenses. That includes Bridge and the DNG Converter).
Please cater for the new 3-byte Tag63 in the Pentax K10D Makernote, so that lenses can once again be identified in relevant Adobe software.
This isn't simply a request for a new feature. It is a request that Adobe restores an existing feature that has been disrupted by the Pentax K10D 1.20 firmware upgrade. Therefore. I've also started a new thread in case any Pentax users are puzzled about this regression.
The thread I've started is at:
Example of the change: old Tag63: 04 FE; new Tag63: 04 FE 00. The effect is that the DNG LensInfo is now not set up correctly, and the XMP exif/1.0/aux namespace information is not set up at all. So the real name of the lens is not shown.
I already posted a feature request as a new topic before I saw this thread. So here is my original text, please have a look:
My feature request concerns noise reduction and I feel it would provide considerable benefit in reduction of noise in pictures shot in low, artificial light at high ISO.
Paul Atherton wrote:
"(...)I know everyone says that the individual auto settings aren't coming back, fair enough! But what the new auto scheme does not allow is:
a. giving us an indication if a slider is set to auto already(...)
b. copying and pasting specific auto set sliders to other images(...)"
I'm also missing these features. If the only reason for removing individual autos was to save UI space, I would like these features back in other form. It is already possible to set individual sliders to auto, but this is no longer preserved when copying settings nor by presets (there is plenty of space in the New Preset Dialog and I can't see why not to remember individual autos when copying).
But maybe there were other reason for removing them altogether?...
>maybe there were other reason for removing them altogether?...
Ostensibly for compatibility with the Lightroom interface
Thanks for starting this thread. Sorry I didn't see it yesterday. I started another thread last night but will post it here as well. I would like to see a CMYK readout in ACR, for use with the eye dropper tool.
I would like to see a mechanism for storing snapshots or even pixel previews of files automatically every time the underlying algorithms that helped render them change.
Jeff Schewe wrote (http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?128@@.3bc03c04.3bc413f2):
"(...)people are seeing substantial and some might say radical improvements in software that make people's current and past work better. That's a new concept for photography...imagine that shots you did (as long as they were raw) in 2003 or 2004 can now be processed BETTER than they could then. Which means really that the images themselves have been improved (at least the potential has been) just while they've been sitting there..
I like that..."
I like that too, but. The problem is that they can change without us knowing. Imagine one time noise reduction in CR changes, and then a more aggressive sharpening can be applied, but even without a change in sharpening algorithms actual sharpening in the image changes, because suddenly it sharpens different image.
The differences in rendering could be minor, but they can build up in time. And what happens if the new algorithm doesn't have the ability to simulate the old one?
RAW supposed to be archival format, but the very nature of parametric editing takes for granted the fact that in the future it will be possible to process the data in the same way.
What do You think? Maybe something along the lines of PS history palette preference to save the snapshot of a file every time the file get saved (here: the engine introduces changes). Would the snapshots (as in Lightroom) be enough (when a new engine can simulate old behaviour) or maybe a whole new DNG pixel preview is needed?
Uh huh. . .well, in the case of image sharpening in Camera Raw 4.1, the old code is gonesville...meaning one couldn't process with the old sharpening even if you wanted to. So, you can snapshot all ya want, but it's like a sex change op...once it's cut off, it ceases to function, ya know?
Thomas has already built in the ability to use current and original color profiles for backwards compatibility issue regarding Calibrate. But changes to things such as sharpening, new Camera Raw controls, and demosiacing and nose reduction won't carry the old code functionality...and there's nothing to be done about that except using the older Camera Raw versions if that's what you need.
Thank You for clarification. So mere snapshots of parameters won't do. I still think that a mechanism in apps dealing with RAWs that would embed pixel preview in DNG every time the engine changes would be a worthy option.
To be honest it's not something I'm paranoid about. though (I hope ;-)). By this request I wanted to see how others feel about their images changing themselves over time.
Related to what we discuss here, there is a lot of discussion in Lightroom forum about the new demosaic algorithm in 4.1/1.1 ( Thomas Knoll, "NOT happy with image quality of Lightroom 1.1" #100, 1 Jul 2007 11:17 am). Some people seems to prefer the old way of rendering files (more noise but less artificial look). I could imagine a situation when a feature to use old engine (without resorting to install old version of ACR) would be desirable even when one is convinced that 4.1 is an improvement - for example when aiming for harsh grainy b/w look (as opposed to an impressionistic one ;-> )
Of course this is not easy to implement - suddenly there would be different metadata instructions for different engines - and this is just the beginning of ACR development (I hope). But those problems will only get bigger with time - we saw it when 3.7 could render LR 1.0-specific changes (vibrance etc.) but you could not adjust the sliders. Then again when you changed the new sharpening controls in 4.1 but LR 1.0 could not render them - even worse: when you changed _anything_ else in LR 1.0 the metadata instructions for 4.1 sharpening got wiped out. So maybe there should be mechanism to preserve metadata which could not be understood by the application in case it comes from newer version of the engine.
In the future I can see huge synchronize dialog which shows you that you have 3 different sharpness instructions for 3 engines and an earlier version of fill light adjustment with a masking bug. It could show you how the image would look like when you use different controls and would let you keep or clean the legacy instructions... Ouch!
Anyway - just thinking out loud.
Add a feature that lets you store colors (skin tone, sky, etc) from other images and then click on the area in another image and colors are changed to match the stored values. This would make it easier to color balance images that don't have gray.
I want the max pixel dimension to increase to the PS level.
I am now using Camera Raw to process images from a Leica M8. The native 'raw' format for the M8 is dng which Camera Raw sees, from my point of view, as an image file rather than as a camera raw file. As a result, any image settings which are changed in Camera Raw are written to the original dng file and not to either an xmp sidecar file or the Adobe Camera Raw Database as selected in the Camera Raw preferences. This is difficult for me from a workflow point of view since I may have multiple backups of the original dng file but unless I select the correct one I will not have access to the previously chosen image settings.
My request is that for cameras using dng as their raw format that we be given a choice in the Camera Raw preferences of having the Image Settings written to the Camera Raw Database, a sidecar xmp file or to the original dng file.
Thomas acknowledged here:
Thomas Knoll, "NOT happy with image quality of Lightroom 1.1" #100, 1 Jul 2007 11:17 am
that there is a change to the demosaicing algorithm going on based on camera and ISO.
I'd like this function, which is now automatic and/or pre-programmed, to become a slider in the UI, similar to the detail/NR balance slider in RSP. I'd also like this value to be storable in the by-camera and by-ISO defaults. It can certainly come with the defaults set the way they are inherently in ACR 4.1.
To me, the improvements in noise and sharpness in 4.1/LR 1.1 are vast and the resulting image quality is acceptable. However, having another degree of freedom in this area would still be helpful, since the NR system is still just two sliders, and improvements are always welcome.
Add in ACR the same Targeted Adjustment cursor behaviour seen in Lightroom. It is fine for single color adjustment on the whole image.
Add also the same interactive histogram controls and response (histogram zones can be edited directly on the histogram itself) seen in Lightroom.
A couple of minor ones that would be very helpful to me.
1. have the same screen sizing hot keys as Photoshop, ie CTRL-ALT-0 for 100% and CTRL-0 for fit to screen and maybe something like CRTL-P for print size. My usual 8x10s easily fit in the available space. I also like having icons to click but on a 24in monitor it's a long way up there when I'm working on something near the bottom-right.
2. display a cross-hair in the center of the crop area. Camera Raw's crop tool is so much better than Photoshop's but it's hard to center something without a cross-hair. It doesn't need to be the movable target like in PS, just a mark.
Other than that 4.1 issue talked about elsewhere Camera Raw is just about perfect. A Camera Raw-Canon that reads picture styles and WB is a dream but somehow I don't think that you could get Canon on board. They're pretty secretive.
the keys strokes- sizing for fit screen and 100% works on my Mac
I would like to see the following feature:
Please add to the Curves tool the ability to tweak each colour channel's curve separately, like in Photoshop. So rather than seeing only the RGB curve, I'd like to be able to choose between RGB, R, G, and B curves. (Capture One Pro, for instance, can do this, and it sure is useful.)
And it would be great to be able to switch over to Lab mode and then to have access to the Lab, L, a, and b curves, too.
Adding to Jacks #2 above: A 'rule of thirds' grid in the crop tool á la Lightroom is something I miss in CR.