Comments on: About Camera Raw 4.1 http://photoshopnews.com/2007/05/31/about-camera-raw-41/ The latest news about the top pixel wrangling application on the planet. Sat, 06 Sep 2008 17:10:03 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: ngutman http://photoshopnews.com/2007/05/31/about-camera-raw-41/#comment-12168 ngutman Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:11:40 +0000 http://photoshopnews.com/2007/05/31/about-camera-raw-41/#comment-12168 Is there a "printer friendly" version of this article? Is there a “printer friendly” version of this article?

]]> By: Garland Cary http://photoshopnews.com/2007/05/31/about-camera-raw-41/#comment-11826 Garland Cary Tue, 10 Jul 2007 15:08:07 +0000 http://photoshopnews.com/2007/05/31/about-camera-raw-41/#comment-11826 Count me among the apparently few not impressed at all with the overall changes wrought upon ACR and Lightroom with these latest iterations. It appears that in their zeal to attract the larger marketplace of casual users, Adobe have "fixed" the one thing that wasn't broken with their previous versions of ACR and Lightroom: the quality of the basic RAW conversion. In place of the previously organic, if slightly noisy, image quality, we now have by default an overtly processed looking conversion. Sure, there's less visible noise, but fine detail has been obliterated, with delicate structures such as individual strands of hair having lost their dimensionality and now rendered as flat, planar surfaces. Now, I do understand what's happening and why: it would seem the software is bundling image data into little packets, then averaging the color and luminance data of that package to, effectively, reduce the impact of noise. The downside is that detail takes a noticeable hit, which I suppose is not big deal for most users who will downsample the image for majority of their uses. But for serious users whose work needs to withstand scrutiny at and beyond 100%, the decline in image quality is unacceptable. The worst part is that no "zeroing" of controls can coax from the new version a less-processed result as was previously the standard with ACR/Lightroom. The new versions of ACR and Lightroom may be better single-stop applications for casual users, but for critical usage, it's a step in the wrong direction as I can fairly easily get superior results from the older versions + Noise Ninja in Photoshop. In fact, I removed LR1.1 from my Mac and re-installed LR1.0, which I'll continue to use as long as there is support for my current and future DSLRs, but as I'm fairly certain Adobe will not expand DSLR support with this version to include future DSLR models, I'm very likely to return to using a combination of Canon's own Digital Photo Professional software and Apple's Aperture for my RAW workflow and conversion since either of these tools now give far superior quality of image than the latest versions of ACR/LR. I'm very disappointed that Adobe charges a professional price for Lightroom, but cripples it with consumer-level RAW conversion. Count me among the apparently few not impressed at all with the overall changes wrought upon ACR and Lightroom with these latest iterations. It appears that in their zeal to attract the larger marketplace of casual users, Adobe have “fixed” the one thing that wasn’t broken with their previous versions of ACR and Lightroom: the quality of the basic RAW conversion. In place of the previously organic, if slightly noisy, image quality, we now have by default an overtly processed looking conversion. Sure, there’s less visible noise, but fine detail has been obliterated, with delicate structures such as individual strands of hair having lost their dimensionality and now rendered as flat, planar surfaces. Now, I do understand what’s happening and why: it would seem the software is bundling image data into little packets, then averaging the color and luminance data of that package to, effectively, reduce the impact of noise. The downside is that detail takes a noticeable hit, which I suppose is not big deal for most users who will downsample the image for majority of their uses. But for serious users whose work needs to withstand scrutiny at and beyond 100%, the decline in image quality is unacceptable. The worst part is that no “zeroing” of controls can coax from the new version a less-processed result as was previously the standard with ACR/Lightroom. The new versions of ACR and Lightroom may be better single-stop applications for casual users, but for critical usage, it’s a step in the wrong direction as I can fairly easily get superior results from the older versions + Noise Ninja in Photoshop. In fact, I removed LR1.1 from my Mac and re-installed LR1.0, which I’ll continue to use as long as there is support for my current and future DSLRs, but as I’m fairly certain Adobe will not expand DSLR support with this version to include future DSLR models, I’m very likely to return to using a combination of Canon’s own Digital Photo Professional software and Apple’s Aperture for my RAW workflow and conversion since either of these tools now give far superior quality of image than the latest versions of ACR/LR.

I’m very disappointed that Adobe charges a professional price for Lightroom, but cripples it with consumer-level RAW conversion.

]]> By: luca http://photoshopnews.com/2007/05/31/about-camera-raw-41/#comment-10325 luca Thu, 07 Jun 2007 17:32:09 +0000 http://photoshopnews.com/2007/05/31/about-camera-raw-41/#comment-10325 I've always used in the very beginnig of my workflow the "local contrast enhancement" as Mr.Knoll suggested: amount 20% radius 50 threshold 0.That works fine for me in most images. Now I see that the "Clarity" does the same work,and I'd like to be able to use it instead of my old "local contrast..": which Clarity settings are equivalent (more or less) to a. 20 r. 50 t. 0? Thank you Luca lcafiero@fastwebnet.it I’ve always used in the very beginnig of my workflow the “local contrast enhancement” as Mr.Knoll suggested: amount 20% radius 50 threshold 0.That works fine for me in most images. Now I see that the “Clarity” does the same work,and I’d like to be able to use it instead of my old “local contrast..”: which Clarity settings are equivalent (more or less) to a. 20 r. 50 t. 0?
Thank you

Luca

lcafiero@fastwebnet.it

]]> By: rickbrad http://photoshopnews.com/2007/05/31/about-camera-raw-41/#comment-10324 rickbrad Wed, 06 Jun 2007 16:25:47 +0000 http://photoshopnews.com/2007/05/31/about-camera-raw-41/#comment-10324 Jeff, Do you know why the ability to selectively turn off auto settings was taken out of the converter? I liked on the older version I had the ability to revert the exposure back to where the image was captured but leave the brightness auto adjusted, etc. Jeff,

Do you know why the ability to selectively turn off auto settings was taken out of the converter?

I liked on the older version I had the ability to revert the exposure back to where the image was captured but leave the brightness auto adjusted, etc.

]]> By: glacort http://photoshopnews.com/2007/05/31/about-camera-raw-41/#comment-10300 glacort Mon, 04 Jun 2007 09:03:48 +0000 http://photoshopnews.com/2007/05/31/about-camera-raw-41/#comment-10300 Jeff, having read again this article, looked at the clips 100%, could not wait, run to buy the upgrade, downloaded 4.1, overwhelmed ! Much better than I thought, even a shade better that a certain converter I am in love with ... For most of my raws I will not need any more post process. Thanks ! Jeff,

having read again this article, looked at the clips 100%, could not wait, run to buy the upgrade, downloaded 4.1, overwhelmed !

Much better than I thought, even a shade better that a certain converter I am in love with …

For most of my raws I will not need any more post process.

Thanks !

]]> By: glacort http://photoshopnews.com/2007/05/31/about-camera-raw-41/#comment-10293 glacort Sun, 03 Jun 2007 07:50:13 +0000 http://photoshopnews.com/2007/05/31/about-camera-raw-41/#comment-10293 Jeff, Thanks for this review (more a tutorial than just a review) from a "blatant evangelizer" !. I was trying to do in post process a lot of what 4.1 does while converting, in particular I am an addict to LCE, so I look forward to use the Clarity tool (at present I have CS2 with ACR 3.7, so have to spend some for an upgrade). Question: LCE (in PS radius 40/50 amount 15/20%), while inreasing local contrast, tends to clip extreme highlights and to block darkest shadows, to avoid it I compress the histogram before apllying LCE. From the histograms in your review does not look like that the clipping occurs with Clarity, is it so ? Ciao Jeff,

Thanks for this review (more a tutorial than just a review) from a “blatant evangelizer” !.

I was trying to do in post process a lot of what 4.1 does while converting, in particular I am an addict to LCE, so I look forward to use the Clarity tool (at present I have CS2 with ACR 3.7, so have to spend some for an upgrade).

Question: LCE (in PS radius 40/50 amount 15/20%), while inreasing local contrast, tends to clip extreme highlights and to block darkest shadows, to avoid it I compress the histogram before apllying LCE.

From the histograms in your review does not look like that the clipping occurs with Clarity, is it so ?

Ciao

]]> By: joer http://photoshopnews.com/2007/05/31/about-camera-raw-41/#comment-10291 joer Sun, 03 Jun 2007 05:47:50 +0000 http://photoshopnews.com/2007/05/31/about-camera-raw-41/#comment-10291 Thanks Jeff. The sharpening steps and processes are very good but the concept of applying sharpening to a raw image makes me wonder. Up to now, sharpening was the final step after all other adjustments had been made, these adjustments usually taking the image out of the raw mode. Have a good trip to Toronto, my old home town. Thanks Jeff.

The sharpening steps and processes are very good but the concept of applying sharpening to a raw image makes me wonder. Up to now, sharpening was the final step after all other adjustments had been made, these adjustments usually taking the image out of the raw mode. Have a good trip to Toronto, my old home town.

]]> By: gx100 http://photoshopnews.com/2007/05/31/about-camera-raw-41/#comment-10279 gx100 Fri, 01 Jun 2007 12:54:57 +0000 http://photoshopnews.com/2007/05/31/about-camera-raw-41/#comment-10279 Jeff, thank you (and the team) for all the work on camera raw. One feature I would appreciate for my workflow is performing a colour noise reduction pass *before* greyscale conversion (currently it is disabled when using greyscale). For small sensor cameras (i.e. Ricoh) strong colour noise reduction before greyscale conversion is very beneficial with essentially no loss. Jeff,

thank you (and the team) for all the work on camera raw.

One feature I would appreciate for my workflow is performing a colour noise reduction pass *before* greyscale conversion (currently it is disabled when using greyscale).

For small sensor cameras (i.e. Ricoh) strong colour noise reduction before greyscale conversion is very beneficial with essentially no loss.

]]> By: Kim Brun http://photoshopnews.com/2007/05/31/about-camera-raw-41/#comment-10276 Kim Brun Thu, 31 May 2007 18:58:27 +0000 http://photoshopnews.com/2007/05/31/about-camera-raw-41/#comment-10276 Jeff, I know this isn't the venue for suggestion concerning ACR, but I haven't been too successful with Adobe so here goes. Is it possible to add the file size to the "Worflow Options" dialog box? All the information currently available would be enhanced with this final piece of information. Thus a new dialog would include, Color Space, Bit Depth, Pixel size, Resolution, and "File Size". Thanks for the consideration. Kim Jeff, I know this isn’t the venue for suggestion concerning ACR, but I haven’t been too successful with Adobe so here goes.

Is it possible to add the file size to the “Worflow Options” dialog box? All the information currently available would be enhanced with this final piece of information. Thus a new dialog would include, Color Space, Bit Depth, Pixel size, Resolution, and “File Size”.

Thanks for the consideration.

Kim

]]> By: Greg Barnett http://photoshopnews.com/2007/05/31/about-camera-raw-41/#comment-10275 Greg Barnett Thu, 31 May 2007 15:37:04 +0000 http://photoshopnews.com/2007/05/31/about-camera-raw-41/#comment-10275 Hey Jeff- Great article, just what I was hoping for! Have you thought about offering some suggestions for equivalency settings between PK capture sharpening and 4.1 at the various capture resolutions? Greg Hey Jeff-

Great article, just what I was hoping for!

Have you thought about offering some suggestions for equivalency settings between PK capture sharpening and 4.1 at the various capture resolutions?

Greg

]]> By: raw shooter http://photoshopnews.com/2007/05/31/about-camera-raw-41/#comment-10274 raw shooter Thu, 31 May 2007 15:13:43 +0000 http://photoshopnews.com/2007/05/31/about-camera-raw-41/#comment-10274 Finally --The missing link of raw sharpening has begun! 4.1 looks to be the tease, while it appears the next update of 4.x will deliver 'Photoshop' quality sharpening tools and control. I still can't believe how good Adobe Camera Raw has become. It has overachieved my wildest imagination since Version 1.x and 2.x. The future is truly bright - Count me as very happy. Finally –The missing link of raw sharpening has begun! 4.1 looks to be the tease, while it appears the next update of 4.x will deliver ‘Photoshop’ quality sharpening tools and control.
I still can’t believe how good Adobe Camera Raw has become. It has overachieved my wildest imagination since Version 1.x and 2.x.
The future is truly bright - Count me as very happy.

]]> By: mikeearly http://photoshopnews.com/2007/05/31/about-camera-raw-41/#comment-10273 mikeearly Thu, 31 May 2007 15:07:42 +0000 http://photoshopnews.com/2007/05/31/about-camera-raw-41/#comment-10273 Jeff, thank you very much for the explanations ... and for what it is worth coming from an outsider, I think your approach is right in line of adding what Bruce would have thought was important (as I can best understand from everything I have tried to absorb from his writings and lectures on the subject) .... thanks for caring ..... Jeff, thank you very much for the explanations … and for what it is worth coming from an outsider, I think your approach is right in line of adding what Bruce would have thought was important (as I can best understand from everything I have tried to absorb from his writings and lectures on the subject) …. thanks for caring …..

]]> By: bjanes http://photoshopnews.com/2007/05/31/about-camera-raw-41/#comment-10271 bjanes Thu, 31 May 2007 11:21:58 +0000 http://photoshopnews.com/2007/05/31/about-camera-raw-41/#comment-10271 Thanks very much Jeff for this heads up. The new detail control bears at lease some resemblance to Bruce's use of the highpass filter in overlay blending mode. One also wonders if the sharpening uses the blend if sliders as Bruce suggested in his sharpening book. All in all, it will take some time to digest these new changes, but they are most welcome. Thanks very much Jeff for this heads up.

The new detail control bears at lease some resemblance to Bruce’s use of the highpass filter in overlay blending mode. One also wonders if the sharpening uses the blend if sliders as Bruce suggested in his sharpening book.

All in all, it will take some time to digest these new changes, but they are most welcome.

]]> By: Ellis Vener http://photoshopnews.com/2007/05/31/about-camera-raw-41/#comment-10269 Ellis Vener Thu, 31 May 2007 11:12:31 +0000 http://photoshopnews.com/2007/05/31/about-camera-raw-41/#comment-10269 Thank you Jeff. How does the sharpening results compare to Photokit Sharpener's Capture Sharpener module? Thank you Jeff. How does the sharpening results compare to Photokit Sharpener’s Capture Sharpener module?

]]> By: Kent C http://photoshopnews.com/2007/05/31/about-camera-raw-41/#comment-10268 Kent C Thu, 31 May 2007 10:54:17 +0000 http://photoshopnews.com/2007/05/31/about-camera-raw-41/#comment-10268 Very thorough and helpful explanation of the new stuff. Thanks Jeff! Very thorough and helpful explanation of the new stuff. Thanks Jeff!

]]>