This content has been marked as final. Show 9 replies
>Should I do most global adjustments in ACR on the 16bit TIFF files?
That's what I do because it is totally non-destructive. I save the original scan (as edited in ACR) as my Master Tiff.
I can re-open the file in ACR at anytime to create a different rendering and output a suitably formatted file for what ever purpose I need.
I do a Capture Sharpen in ACR and then do subsequent sharpening to suit the output and subject matter.
I also recommend Martin Evening's latest book: "Adobe Photoshop CS4 for Photographers" (even if you have an earlier version) because he has done an excellent job of covering the new tools in ACR 5.2, Lightroom 2.2 and Photoshop CS4 and so much has changed.
Ann - thanks for the response.
Part of the reason for my post is a line in "Real World Camera Raw with Adobe Photoshop CS3" by Bruce Frazer and Jeff Schewe relating to Tiff files. On page 112: "The jury is out on whether the ability for Camera Raw to open and adjust JPEG and TIFF files will end up being considered a good thing." Unfortunately it does not explain why there might be a limitations.
A couple of people I've spoken with, who do drum scans of med/large format, have indicated that they only operate in PS and do not use ACR, but only because that this is what they know and it works well for them. I, on the other hand, have only a modest knowledge of PS and from a brief exposure to ACR it is more intuitive. I would still be doing local adjustments (eg dodge/burn) with PS layers after using ACR.
I'm interested in learning if 8bit as well as 16bit are better handled in one of these two environments.
Also, is the improved capture sharpening tools in ACR negating the need to use PhotoKit Sharpener, which I'm been very pleased with.
I have Martin Evening's book for CS3 (which I would also recommend). I have not planned on updating to CS4/ACR 5.2 (to save the $), since I had read that the major benefit was performance.
>A couple of people I've spoken with, who do drum scans of med/large format, have indicated that they only operate in PS and do not use ACR, but only because that this is what they know
and they have not taken the trouble to explore any further?!
First, if you are planning on using ACR , you really do need the CS4 Upgrade which provides you with both the new ACR 5.2 and the vastly improved Bridge.
Even though you already have Martin Evening's book for CS3, I strongly recommend that you get his new one for CS4 because he explains the use of new CS4/ACR 5.2 tools so clearly.
The new tools in ACR 5.2 now allow you to do localised adjustments (including the equivalent of burning and dodging but with added finesse); and the sharpening tools are excellent and entirely customizable.
Your best bet would be to download the free trial of CS4 and see for yourself because CS4 offers a great deal more than just a boost in "performance" (by which I imagine that you mean "speed"?).
For what it is worth I remember reading Jeff Schewe state that ACR works best for incamera generated JPEGs.
> For what it is worth I remember reading Jeff Schewe
> state that ACR works best for incamera generated JPEGs.
Either I'm misunderstanding this, or you've definitely misremembering.
ACR was really designed to work on raw files, not (rendered) JPEGs.
> For what it is worth I remember reading Jeff Schewe state that ACR works
> best for incamera generated JPEGs.
> Either I'm misunderstanding this, or you've definitely misremembering.
> ACR was really designed to work on raw files, not (rendered) JPEGs.
I suspect that what was meant was
"ACR works best for incamera generated JPEGs rather then jpegs created from
I routinely convert my jpegs (from my Nikon S550) into DNGs so I that I can work
with them in ACR. I also work with my D80 raw files in ACR which keeps things
simple for me.
I think that the advice to edit JPEGs (whether they are as-shot or as-saved-previously JPEGs) stems from the fact that you are only embedding the ACR-edits in the Header and are not continually re-saving the JPEG and thus introducing further artefacts into the files.
Then you can make changes as frequently as you like to the original JPEG in ACR; and Save a new JPEG (with a new name) for as many each different versions as you need.
> I think that the advice to edit JPEGs (whether they are as-shot or as-saved-previously JPEGs) stems from the fact that you are only embedding the ACR-edits in the Header and are not continually re-saving the JPEG and thus introducing further artefacts into the files.
Rule #1 of Editing JPEGS
Don't do it.
Either do a conversion to DNG or (if you only do edits in PS) convert it to a
16bit PSD/TIFF file and work with that. Save out as jpg when you're done.
Doing ACR edits in a jpg is just asking for trouble. AFAIK, other tools (outside
of recent Adobe revs) do not recognize the edits which leads to problems when
you forget the edits are in there.
I have just tried it and a JPEG that was Saved with a new name out of ACR opens in everything that I have tried it on including various Browsers, Word, Mail, Preview and Acrobat Pro.
The test image started as a scanned 16-bit Tiff which was opened and edited in ACR and Saved as a JPEG (quality 12 and a new name). That JPEG was then re-opened in ACR and re-saved AGAIN as yet another NEW JPEG with another new name.
I don't actually shoot JPEGs (nor do I normally use them except for the Web and email) but I am just pointing out that ACR does seem to allow you to make endless non-destructive edits to the same JPEG which you can then Save out from ACR in any format you choose for the purpose at hand.
Incidentally that third generation JPEG still looks pretty stunning when displayed at full screen size not an artefact in sight!