This content has been marked as final. Show 44 replies
Is there anything new, or is this just a camera compatibility release?
Thanks for your work, Tom,
For now it's mostly new camera support and some minor bug fixes. Ultimately you'll want to move up to it, for sure.
Probably the only thing that users will notice at this point in time is the negative range of the clarity slider that now matches Lightroom 2.0 beta.
On a technical level, this is the first release that has full support for the DNG 184.108.40.206 specification.
Also, Photoshop Elements users will now be able to control the camera profile used. This is part of the DNG 220.127.116.11 support which allows multiple camera profiles to be embedded in a DNG file.
This importance of DNG 18.104.22.168 support will become clearer in future...
Where is the support for the Sigma DP1????? Why is not in 4.5
What a bummer
Yeh, where is the DP1 support??????????????
No DP1 support this release due to issues beyond Adobe's control.
I'm an elements user and have an Olympus E420 so have downloaded to gain support for it it. I immmediately noticed the camera calibration tag as an extra. How will an Elements user go about setting up or obtaining calibration files?
Also It seems to me that the Auto adjustment seems a lot more conservative than previous versions (ie it isn't too far away from a Default conversion. Is this intentional.
Vaughan, all supported cameras in CR already have profiles (listed as ACR 4.4, ACR 4.5, ACR 3.3, etc.)
The access to the camera profile popup for Elements users will become more important in the future... At the moment, for most cameras, it only has a single choice to you can just ignore it.
I'm getting curiouser and curiouser....
Hopefully these are the long awaited default color improvements to ACR, it'll be nice to finally recommend LR/ACR without the big "BUT" regarding the color. I hope you guys deliver, looking forward to it.
Thanks Thom, I await developments with eager anticipation!
I downloaded and gave 4.5 a spin last night, hoping that the performance had improved on the higher ISO (above 1600) for the Sony A700. Unfortunately, tis not to be. :(
Is there some limitation that Sony has put on the ARW files that Adobe (and Apple for that matter) doesn't have access to?
I'm running a MacBook Pro OSX 10.5, with LR, PS, and Sony's RAW software 'ICD', and all are on latest versions.
Essentially, what I'm seeing is fairly sub-par performance on higher ISO images in both LR and ACR. 'Sub-par', as in unusable, on anything with a substantial amount of noise. Seems that ACR can't handle it. And yes, I even tried it in iPhoto. Again sub-par. Where as the Sony ICD software produces really solid results on reducing noise, while still retaining edge detail and dynamic range.
But here's the twist. And what I'm not getting about this deal.
ACR is completely blowing away the Sony ICD on images with lower ISO settings (below 1600)). Sharper, cleaner, more DR.
So what's the deal? Did Sony limit info on the higher ISO algorithms or something like that?
I'm an Apple/Adobe guy. And I've been an LR user since Beta 1. Point being, I believe in Adobe's industry-leading efforts in most categories it participates in. So I keep thinking that the 'next update' will make all this right.
And trying to work in this Sony ICD into my workflow doesn't sit well with my LR mentality.
So, is this a question and issue to be addressed by the Adobe team? Can it be addressed by the Adobe team? Or is this just the state of affairs of how Sony and Adobe will work together going forward?
Currently, I have to process my high ISO images with the Sony ICD, and then import everything back to LR. And seeing how ICD isn't in the ballpark of Lightroom's workflow process, this is not good for my overall workflow and production process, to put it mildly.
Thanks for listening. Hope someone has an answer for us ARW users here.
- Sol Sims
MBP 2.2 Intel OSX 10.5
There should be no differences between ACR 4.4.1 and 4.5 with regards to noise reduction, sharpening, etc.
Hi Sol, Would you please send me the original raws and also the 16-bit TIFF output and settings from the Sony software you are using,
so I can pass on to the developers to take a look? Thanks! ~Adriana
Thank you for the quick response, Adriana.
I'll put together the requested files and send them your way. And of course glad to help any way I can. :)
Thomas Knoll and other Adobe big-shots...Please do stop ignoring the Sony A700 raw file problem. We have waited for a fix long enough.
Lee Jay, "Lightroom and Sony A700 Raw (ARW) Files" #1, 7 Feb 2008 5:43 pm
Don Northup aka - minoltaman aka - sonolta
The full threads with examples:
Yes, it's become quite widely known that ACR/Lightroom is the WORST converter for high ISO A700 shots, and, since Adobe is so common among review sites, the A700 has gotten an undeserved, bad reputation with high ISO. With any other RAW converter, the A700 is very, very similar to the D300 :(
Mr. Northrup and G.h.:
First, I don't have an opinion re your issues with the Sony A700. If I knew more, I might share your frustration, and might be as exasperated as you are with the apparent ignoring of your posts on the matter.
I think it's very unusual -- extremely unusual -- to be able to post on a support board for a major application like Photoshop and ancillary products and have any hope of hearing from the fellow who wrote the program in the first place. I usually expect such folk to be too busy shopping for private islands in the Pacific to have time for users.
For the sake of others who may wish to continue to read Thomas Knoll's thoughts, and do not want to see him discouraged from posting here: may I ask you to vent (perhaps very appropriately) at Adobe as a company, and noe at Adobe 'big shots' as individuals?
I sympathize once again with you as to the problems with the A700.
I have also some issues with a Sony W200
Yeah, i kinda have the same issue :(
We have a long standing issue concerning FUJI FINEPIX S5 PRO images. ACR does a very poor processing of the 2 photosites data channels (one for highlights the other for lowlights) that this extended dynamic range camera provides. After testing this beta I see that the issue has not been solved in version 4.5 either.
The dynamic range of the original photo can span over 8 stops without noticing noise, or almost none, as observed on Fuji Hyper Utility 3 or on Raw Processing of ACD See Pro 2. But on ACR, ever since 4.1 which handled the S5, when reducing exposure by -3 or -4 stops I get lots of noise and a loss of details on bright detailed areas like cloud scenes.
Normally I should obtain a nicely sculpted cloudy scene with smooth transitions and no noise at all. AS an example I made a small jpeg image with the comparison of ACR and ACD See results. Can I post it on this forum?
I suggest, for such type of advanced cameras, that ACR offers to the user a special processing option that would apply some solid tonemapping techniques at a choice of intensities. This would secure optimal results at recombining the 2 photosite channels up to the limits of the available light data.
The threads I have listed and the issues I detail in all of my posts are camera specific to the Sony A700 and are not specific any other camera.
If an Adobe employee would lindly take the time to read the thread and look at the examples provided, we could one day get this ACR/Lightroom a700 issue corrected.
I have spent over 50 hours detailing this problem and providing examples, and all Adobe seems to do is look the other way.
Adobe is no longer my first choice when it comes to raw image editing and image management. Why Adobe wants to see butchered high ISO a700 files is beyond me.
Dozens if not hundreds of folks have spent long hours detailing this problem and making Adobe aware, but as it was months ago, Adobe seems to not care about the a700 problems with ACR/Lightroom...so sad since the Adobe CEO shoots Sony gear...
I have no troubles with ACR/Lightroom with the Sony A100, KM5D, Minolta 7hi, and KMA2. This is not a bash lightroom thing...it is a plea for Adobe engineers to fix the problems specific to the Sony alpha A700.
Does Sony have any comments on this issue?
What would Sony say? As far as they are concerned, they have provided a very good RAW processing software in their bundled ICD software. And on processing the high ISO images, it does rock.
But I, like Don and many other 'A-Mount' users started using ACR & Lightroom with our Minolta cameras, the 7D in my case. As Sony bought out Minolta's camera division, we all, having the inherited 'A-Mount' lenses, moved with them. And ACR & Lightroom have both giving great results up until now with the other A-Mount models. Then the A700 showed up, and Sony has moved up into the upper ISO ranges of Canon and Nikon, and unfortunately, the high ISO performance of Lightroom & ACR with the A700 files just doesn't hold up at all against the Sony ICD, or with certain other RAW converters out there.
I share Don's feelings on this in that I prefer the Lightroom workflow. But currently, LR is forcing me to move to another app for high ISO specific images. That's not good. If I'm leaving Lightroom to complete basic image editing, then Lightroom has failed to do what it's supposed to do in it's basic design. It's forced me to leave the app. We just want Adobe to get it worked out, ASAP. As a working professional photographer, time is money, and Lightroom is currently adding time to my workflow. Again, not good.
For the record, I do have to point out that since posting here recently, I have been contacted by the Adobe ACR team, and as requested, sent them files and very detailed descriptions of what's going on with the files and my workflow. My feelings are, they are very much trying to address the issue. I hope to hear back from them soon.
>What would Sony say?
I have no idea; I'm neither a mind reader nor a clairvoyant. My experience with Sony products since the early 1960s has been abysmally poor, with the exception of the Sony Artisan monitor.
I was just wondering if Sony takes a position on why their files behave differently from others when processed in ACR.
Like I said, Ramon, I would think Sony feels that their files are fine, considering that they do process fine going through Sony's own RAW converter. So I haven't really heard anything on a Sony "position" as to how Adobe's ACR deals with the files.
As well, a couple of other RAW converters that are preferred by many of the Sony DSLR shooters, do fine with handling the upper ISO images.
Sony bashers are out and about, eh? ACR engineers were not careful enough, or diligent enough, when setting the initial parameters of ACR for the a700. They used the ol' "it's a similar file to this and lets run with it" instead of looking deeper into the a700 ARW (new cmos sensor, new type of ARW file) high ISO files and tweaking the program as needed to render a quality high ISO output without watercoloring it.
ACR has been known to under-perform on certain files from certain cameras in the past, and fixes were issued. It's long past the time Adobe should have addressed the a700 ACR high ISO watercolor issue. Someone may be looking at correcting the issue now, but in the past, officials bug reports, emails to Adobe, emails to to the program author, discussions with Adobe gurus, monster threads at DPR, here, and other places have done Sony a700 users nothing so far.
Let us hope someone actually compares the ACR a700 high ISO output to Sony IDC or other converters before they release another version of ACR. The software is only as good as the engineer, so if the engineer thinks he is getting good output when their is clearly better to be had, what is it exactly that we can do?
Nothing....or use IDC and the others like we already are for tough 800 ISO and up...I for one am getting tired of proving the problem in forum after forum, submitting the info to Adobe, and then finding out nobody has done a dam* to correct the issue.
I screamed and shouted about watercolors immediately after the camera's release to the tune of 150 post threads at DPR back almost one year ago and Adobe is still wondering if the program needs fixed...sheesh. Since then the issue has been addressed by thousands of posts and articles across the net by hundreds od amateurs and professionals alike.
Sony's top line camera gets' this attention now...I can't wait to see what Adobe does withe the Sony flagship 24MP ARWs files in a month or two....NOT!!!!!
I only recently purchased my A700, so I haven't been ranting for a year now like you have. But I hear you, man. :)
I sent them original and processed versions of the ARW 3200 ISO files. I also sent them screenshots of what I was seeing 'real world' in Lightroom and ICD, both before and after.
Their response has been very cordial and they seem to want to try and get it worked out, and they appreciated the help supplied from my end. Hopefully it will help get us some results.
And hopefully, the realization that Sony is now the third major player in the DSLR game, as well as Sony being the number one sensor supplier, will demand that Sony's ARW files get high priority. In particular when our upcoming 24 MP model comes out.
Later dude. :)
I have Nikon D700 NEF images that would not open in ACR 4.4.1 so I downloaded the beta 4.5. Again got message "Could not complete your request because it is not the right kind of document". Fortunately I shot RAW and JPG images simultaneously so was able to use the JPGs. Is there any word when the D700 will be supported in ACR?
I upgraded Nikon Capture NX to ver. 2 to try to open the NEFs. However, the program is crashing left and right so need to contact Nikon.
BTW - I did night shots at ISO 2000 with the D700. Although I couldn't open the RAW files, the JPGs are amazing - so little noise! Was thinking of migrating from D200 to D300 but after seeing results from D700, will go that route instead.
Very soon. Sorry can't be more specific than that.
What is it that you can't you be more specific about? Sony? Nikon? Both? A new ACR release that finally treats A700 .ARW files properly??
Sonolta, I was responding to Richard's post. On a separate note, I am also studying A700 files. However I don't have any updated info for you yet.
We look forward to hearing something soon.
Saw this posting in another forum
Bibble will happily process the NEF if you alter the "D700" identification field to read "D3" instead.
Seems like it would be trivial for Adobe to update camera raw
This from people who apparently have no clue of any kind when it comes what
it takes to properly support a new camera. Adobe doesn't do hack jobs, don't
expect them to do it now.
Actually not. It comes from one of the most respected Nikon technical testers out there-Bjørn Rørslett. The D3 & D700 use the same sensor & process identically. The only update Adobe needs to do is update the camera name.