ACR vs. Lightroom

I have Photoshop CS3 and Lightroom 2.x (as well as beta 3). I just bought a camera that is not supported in CS3 but Lightroom can open the RAW files. Lightroom notifies me when I open a RAW file for PS that the version of ACR I have won't open the file. That suggests to me that if I had CS4 ACR would handle the conversion rather than LR.
So my question is: is there a difference between LR RAW conversion and ACR RAW conversion? Will I get better quality conversions if I buy CS4?
Thanks in advance for any clarification.
-Arlin

-QQ- had this to say:
So my question is: is there a difference between LR RAW conversion and ACR RAW conversion? Will I get better quality conversions if I buy CS4?
CS3 is limited to using ACR in the v4.x. CS4 uses the ACR 5.x series,
and LR uses the same code (altho not as a plugin).
So no, you won't get "better" RAW conversions from CS4 than you will
from CS4. ACR 5.x (used in CS4) has the same conversion capabilities as
the LR 2.x you already have. You will be able to convert RAW images in
LR 2.x that you can't convert in CS3.
You could develop the RAWs in LR, then use CS3 for further processing,
if necessary. LR can pass the RAW as a TIFF to CS3.
You can, of course, upgrade your CS4, to take advantage of it's other
features (such as panorama merge, etc).

Similar Messages

Color Profiled Screen and ACR or Lightroom (Vista)

Hi,
My screen is calibrated and works with an .icc profile. I have set up the proofing colors in Photoshop to be my .icc profile. I do not attach any profiles to my pictures when I edit them in Photoshop and so they look the same in Photoshop and in non-color managed internet browsers. I also have a good correspondence between colors I see there and the printed pictures.
My problem is with how I see the colors when I open a file in Adobe Camera Raw, Bridge and Lightroom (actually in Windows Gallery too but this would be a topic for a different forum). They look very saturated, especially yellows, and very far from what I see on my camera (Canon 350d) screen, Explorer or the Canon's Raw Converter.
This problem is driving me crazy and I think I have tried everything with ACR and Bridge I could think of. Yesterday I have tried Lightroom and the colors there are absolutely the same as in ACR and Bridge. Which probably means that this is not a matter of the software version, but of something else I am missing.
Is there anyone who have had the same problem? How did you solve it? Is there anyway to set up something like proofing profile in either of those programs? Or is there any other way to fix this?
Thank you very much,
Vera

Thank you Zeno, I will try to reset them.
My problem is with how ACR shows colors though, not how it converts them.
If I open a RAW file in ACR the colors look really ugly. I convert it to JPEG without touching anything. If then I open this JPEG in Photoshop or IE the colors are fine. There are slight differences in colors if I compare them to JPEG I get from the Canon's software. But this is to be expected and can be corrected by the camera calibration.
I do not think that the way ACR displays colors can be corrected by this calibration.

Opening files in ACR from Lightroom

I am looking for the way to open JPEG and CR2 files in Adobe Camera Raw from Lightroom.
Any help would be much appreciated.

You can't, or at least not easily. Would you like to explain why you want to do that? Remember that the Develop module in Lightroom uses the same processing engine as ACR, so not sure what would be gained by being able to open files into ACR directly from Lightroom.

ACR in Lightroom

Dear All,
Last night, I noticed that my ACR in my Lightroom v1.0 shows 3.3. How do I update this ACR with the latest 4.1?
I have changed the RAW 4.1 plugin for PS CS3.
chityc.

That 3.3 that you are seeing is in the calibration panel, right? It just refers to the camera raw version in which that camera model was added.
LR 1.0 is using the ACR 4.0, and 4.1 features will be added in 1.1 on release shortly.
Victoria
www.photoshopservices.co.uk/lightroom.htm

Opening into ACR from Lightroom

I have downloaded the recent ACR 7 plguin for CS6. From Bridge I can open my faw files and the automatically open into ACR before photoshop. But can I do this from Lightroom? I know I can right click, get a drop down menu, and choose edit in photoshop, but at this point I would assume it would open up the ACR editor, but doesn't happen. what am I missing?

As far as raw conversion is concerned, you accomplish nothing by going from Lightroom to ACR because the controls are the same. Photoshop uses ACR to interpret the Lightroom adjustments. But, theoretically, that is all ACR is needed for in the transition from Lightroom to Photoshop. However, there is an option in Lightroom that allows you to open an image as a smart object. Or, once in Photoshop, you can convert an image to a smart object. Then, from Photoshop, you can open the image in ACR to make further adjustments if necessary.

UPRIGHT: why does ACR and Lightroom process images differently using Upright

Current version of ACR and LR
MBP 2011
OSX Mavericks
Hello - I process hundreds of architectural images daily in ACR. I started using LR but found that the Upright function in ACR is much more accurate. Am I missing something here? Are these not the same functions between software?
Cheers

I am seeing identical Upright corrections in both ACR 8.6 and LR 5.6 if I start with the same raw file. It might work differently if you're doing Upright in ACR of a smaller file or a JPG vs raw or something else that makes the image different for the detection algorithms.
Can you provide a sample image you’re seeing processed differently? Upload to somewhere like http://www.dropbox.com/ and post a public download link, here.
Also what precise versions of LR and ACR are you using?

How does Adobe make their camera profiles for ACR and Lightroom?

I'm not interested in the proprietary algorithms , but I am curious as to the photographic mechanics and hardware tools used by Adobe to make the various camera profiles as they differ markedly from the ones I make using the DNG Profile Editor.
My methodology is to set an X-Rite 24 patch Color Checker target, light it evenly with electromic flash (with 0.1 stops from center to corners as mesured with a Sekonic L-758r Meter) and make a series of exposures bracketed in third of a stop increments around the meter reading in case the camera sensitivity differs from the meter's.
I then process the raw files and convert them to the DNG format, select the best exposure and run it through the DNG Profile editor. My results differ from Adobe's generic profiles for that camera enough that that I don't thin kthe difference can be credited to the difference between a generic profile a specific camera.
How do the different tools work in the DNG converter? Starting with the Options for "Base Tone Curve"? Is there a document a moderately color geeky person can understand that explains this?
I thin kthe DNG Profile editor is a great and under usedtool. I wish more people knew about it.
Thank you for your time and consideration.

Someone who only eats sausage may not want to know how it's made. Someone who creates things with food, a chef, a cook, or otherwise is thinking about a career in the food industry, might have a interest in such things. Someone who is thinking of making sausage will want to know all the details. Someone who is concerned with the public safety might want to know how sasauge is made.
It would be nice for a sausage maker to give some hints about the process as compared to what each of us can do with the DNG Profile Editor and to the original poster's question, why are our profiles different from Adobe's?
It is my experience that when I create a profile with the DNG Profile Editor, and then compute the color error for each of the 24 color patches of a CC24, using a program like Imatest, some colors are quite a bit off and some are very close, and the colors that are off, are not the same ones that are off when I compute the color error using one of the Adobe Standard or Camera Standard profiles.
Is Adobe using more detailed and sophisticated color targets with hundreds of different colors, or if not, do the tools provide more feedback and allow more manual manipulation of the profile and so the differences are due to their judgement about which colors to make "right" and which ones to let have more error associated with them, that can be manipulated by hand instead of merely letting the DNG Profile Editor apparently distribute the error amongst the various colors with some sort of even-handed calculation.
For example it is easy to imagine that someone tweaking a profile by hand with a live readout of the error of each of the colors plus an overall composite error, might put more emphasis on skin tones being right if they have a background in people photography, or more emphasis on bright colors being right if their experience is in textiles and the current trend in the US is bright colors--and a different emphasis when the trend is muted colors so there is cultrual bias and life-experience coloring a "standard" profile.
In other words, how much of the difference between Adobe and our profiles are due to Adobe having different or better science, and how much of it is due to Adobe have different or better "artists" who decide what colors to make correct compared to others.

Colour correction in Lightroom - why can't it be as flexible as ACR? Feature request.

A lot of my work is fine art documentation for museums, galleries and artists.
In Adobe Camera Raw, I can perform a Fraser/Schewe type calibration.......
http://www.creativepro.com/article/out-gamut-calibrating-camera-raw-photoshop-cs
....that allows me total control over colour.
Essential to this exercise is a Color Sampler Tool, the ability to work in a colour space that everyone who uses my files will be using (Melissa? Seriously!) and (ideally) 0-255 RGB values.
At the risk of provoking attack ;-) I really think that when it comes to colour, Lightroom is more Prosumer than Pro.
I love using LR for my personal work, but I can't using it for colour critical work the way it is.
I accept that there will be 1000s of photographers who are achieving perfect colour from LR using some method or other. I just wish that a few of ACR's brilliant featuers hadn't been dropped and people like me had the choice.
Any chance, at the very least, of having a Colour Sampler Tool in LR4, as well as a grown up colour space? The % readout I could live with - just about.
Thanks.
D.

"What's added over ACR in Lightroom is just file organization and tagging tools and some output options. Not much more."
Yes, the way the grid engages automatically when making lens corrections is extremely useful.
"There is a color sampler in Lightroom."
Where?
"The default color space makes FAR more sense than the output referred spaces in ACR."
Not sure about that.
"Percentage values are far more useful than 8-bit values."
Totall agree.
You just need to learn how the color space works and you'll be able to do the same things as in ACR. If you ant to know the correct values for a MacBeth chart in Lightroom values (i.e. sRGB tone curve prophoto) see this list that I compiled ages ago.
Thanks for the link.
"But again, just generate a calibrated profile using DNG profile or X-rite's passport software (both free downloads) and set everything to default in Lightroom and you'll get "correct" color rendering from almost any camera in both LR and ACR."
One of the key points in the Fraser/Schewe exercise was that the grey patches had to be corrected before the colour patches could be. This makes perfect sense.
It's not clear to me that the DNG Profile Editor either requires this to be done first (e.g. in ACR and then choosing View/Apply Camera Raw Adjustments when the file is opened in the DNG editor) or that the DNG Editor can somehow compensate for this automatically. Any thoughts?
Thanks again.
D.

RX100 does not appear in Lightroom or ACR

I have all three of Sony's RX100 cameras. Cannot get them to appear in Lightroom or ACR.
I do not have any problem with any of my Canon DSLR bodies.

The RX100 cameras are supported as follows
Camera
File Extension
ACR min
version required
Lightroom min
version required
DSC-RX100
ARW
7.2
4.2
DSC-RX100 II
ARW
8.2
5.2
DSC-RX1R (RX1R)
ARW
8.1
5.0
DSC-RX100 III
ARW
8.5
5.5
Which versions of ACR and Lightroom are you running?

Lightroom will not move or rename files!

Whenever I try to move a photo (i.e. drag it into a new folder) or rename a folder in the library module I get an error message. The error message when I try to move a file says "There was an error copying files to the destination you selected. The following files could not be copied:" followed by a list of the file(s) that were not copied. When I try to rename a folder I get this message: "The folder X could not be renamed or moved." I have tried optimizing my catalog, updated ACR and Lightroom, restarting my computer, resetting my permissions on all my folders, merging catalogs, renaming the database, etc. all to no avail. Also the weird thing is it that it seems to only affect photos that I took before 2 months or so ago. All my most recently imported files can be moved with no issue. I have Mac OS X 10.5 running and I'm really not sure what is going on. Does anyone have any clue how I can solve this issue?

Same camera. I cant think of anything that I have changed in the past two months. Ok I did find a strange anamoly, but not sure how to fix it. I found that in the all the folders/photos before 4/21 the permissions have three names (C, M, & Everyone) with C & M having Read &Write privilege and Everyone having 'no access.' On the 4/23 and later folders the permissions have three different names (M, staff, and everyone) with M having Read & Write privilege and staff & everyone having read only privilege. So C is my husband we set him up a few months ago (but it was before April) as a shared user on my Mac and it seems all the ones with his name on the permissions dont work but then the ones that do work have a Staff and I dont know where that came from.
Sorry if this seems really confusing, but its confusing to me so I'm hoping someone who is more computer savvy then I can help me out.

HELP FAST! Need to go to my wedding-Lightroom 4 does not recognize Nikon D800 files

I try to import my d800 nef files and Lightroom does not recognize them and will not import. I looked on the site and it SAYS it supports them but nothing. I looked for a raw plugin but when I clicked the link it would not go anywhere. HELP! I don't want to shoot my wedding with this camera if LR can't support it and I have to return it to the camera store FAST if not.

Nidhaal Halid wrote:
Nikon D 800 is supported in the latest realease of camera raw. Make sure that you update the software to the latest version or download and install the latest version of Camera Raw 6.7 from the Adobe website.
But the question is about Lightroom. And Lightroom doesn't use any version of ACR. Lightroom 4 is somewhat compatible with ACR 6.7, and fully compatible with ACR 7.x. ACR 6.7 will read Lightroom 4 adjustments when an image is transferred to Photoshop, but it will not provide access to process 2012 sliders in ACR.

Lightroom and Sony A700 Raw (ARW) Files

I shot all pictures in ARW format. A number of the shots are at mid to high level ISO numbers. The shots above 400ISO are extremely noisy(both cloro and luminance)When I use the SOny supplied software
the same pictures noise level is significantly reduced. I have read on several other forums that ACR in lightroom is "messing up" the ARW files. This appears to be true. I use lightroom then CS3 to process my shots. The use of the Sony softweare complicates my workflow but at this point I am forced to do this. Is there any relief in site for this concern. Really want to combine everything into one system. By the way CS3 Bridge is not much better.
Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.
Bob

I have your lighting right here, JM.
It's quite clear you know nothing about shooting African Cichlids, the most colorful freshwater fish in the world.
These fish are "mbuna", they live in rocks, caves, and along rock faces and ledges. They are used to living many meters deep so the best fish always take up territory towards the bottom of the tank where the best structures are, where the light is most dim.
In this 120 gallon tank is well over 500 pounds of structure which consumes most of the space in the tank.
In many of the photos you will notice rock structures around the fish as the tank consists of a hundred or so ledges and caves.
African Cichlids are the smartest fish in the world and they even learn who is who...they are not ordinary fish.
No matter how much light you throw on African Cichlids it usually does not cure the problem since they spend most of there time peeking from, and hanging under structures. Shadows and dark areas are cast throughout the tanks due to the structures.
Not to mention you must use the lighting already available in every public tank in the business, not to mention fish vendors usually cannot add lighting to their tanks either.
That leads us to use high ISO when we must.
Here are a few Sony A700 test shots made with 3 custom temp 4 ft 40 watt tubes in a deep 120 gallon tank.
http://www.sonolta.com/sony-photos/v/sony+a700+test+photos/_DSC1158-ISO3200+Test+Photo.htm l
http://www.sonolta.com/sony-photos/v/sony+a700+test+photos/Sony+DSLR+ISO+640+A700.html
http://www.sonolta.com/sony-photos/v/sony+a700+test+photos/_DSC1191-Sigma+24+EX+DG.html
http://www.sonolta.com/sony-photos/v/sony+a700+test+photos/_DSC1209+Konica+Minolta+28-75D. html
http://www.sonolta.com/sony-photos/d/398-1/_DSC1290-Sony+ISO+1250+JPG
http://www.sonolta.com/sony-photos/d/380-4/_DSC1216-Minolta+28-75D
Here are a few old shots of mine when I used my custom built and designed setup w/6 custom temp 40 watt tubes made to fit a standard 55. Notice structure galore...it's like an urban housing complex in the mbuna tanks. I can shoot fish with a good pNs setup fairly well with this amount of light. Not many people anywhere get this amount of light on their tank, trust me.
http://www.illinoisphoto.com/pictures/d/60783-3/OB+Peacock
http://www.illinoisphoto.com/pictures/d/158391-2/25650281_002.jpg
http://www.illinoisphoto.com/pictures/d/158367-2/25713754.jpg
http://www.illinoisphoto.com/pictures/d/61099-3/23429774_001.jpg
http://www.illinoisphoto.com/pictures/d/60803-3/23538903.jpg
http://www.illinoisphoto.com/pictures/d/158377-2/25744617.jpg
http://www.illinoisphoto.com/pictures/d/158822-2/red+finned+borleyi
http://www.illinoisphoto.com/pictures/d/60815-3/Male+Red+Finned+Borleyi
http://www.illinoisphoto.com/pictures/d/158832-2/Rusty+Cichlid
http://www.illinoisphoto.com/pictures/d/158827-2/red+zebra
http://www.illinoisphoto.com/pictures/d/158865-2/25797261_001.jpg
http://www.illinoisphoto.com/pictures/d/158464-2/8838t-ob-peacock.jpg
I shot Minolta, and then Konica Minolta, and now Sony has bought KM, so Sony is the one making the bodies for our glass now.
Many of us will not give up image stabilized primes (body SSS) so we stay here. All lenses gain 2-3 stops on the Sony...A700 has top notch DR and great high ISO so most of us are not interested in Canon at the moment.
This thread is here to help the Adobe team make ACR better, please stop interfering with your brand bashing speaks.
Thank you.
-Sonolta
http://www.sonolta.com

Is it possible to edit a DNG file in Photoshop and get back to Lightroom?

Hi,
The question title probably doesn't explain much what I'm looking for...
I shot in RAW and then converted to DNG, I like DNG and I can't understand what so many people have against it, anyway that's not the point...
I know have the DNG as my digital negative instead of the original RAW file and I start to do some editing in Lightroom. But then I realized that Lightroom is not enough for something I want to do. For instance, just today I had this picture I needed to remove some people and I had to use heal/clone but as you know, Lightroom's clone and heal features are not as flexible as Photoshop ones.
So now I needed to go into Photoshop, fix the photo and get back to Lightroom and continue my editing. However, I couldn't find a way to do it how I wanted to do... What I did was open the original (unedited) DNG in Photoshop, Adobe Camera Raw pops up and I ignore it, remove the people from the photo and save as TIFF. Then, back in Lightroom I open the new edited TIFF and copy Lightroom's settings from one photo (the DNG) to the other (the edited TIFF).
This workflow sucks and I know there are some options in Lightroom to automate it, but still, I don't think it would solve my problem. At least I couldn't find a way to do it...
What I wanted to do instead was to indeed remove that people from the photo with Photoshop but keep those changes in DNG. But take a note here that those changes could very much be destructive, I'm not talking about ACR or Lightroom's non-destructive editing, the removed people would be gone forever unless I draw some new ones. I really wanted to edit and save some changes on the DNG in Photoshop and keep editing the DNG in Lightroom without using a TIFF in between, do everything in the DNG.
Is this possible or not at all?

Ricardo.Amaral wrote:
What I wanted to do instead was to indeed remove that people from the photo with Photoshop but keep those changes in DNG.
sorry, no can do...ain't gonna happen.
What you've done is hit the wall on is the basic difference between lite duty spot healing and photo level tone and color correction (Lightroom and Camera Raw) and heavy duty pixel retouching in Photoshop.
When you need to substantially manipulate the "pixels" you need Photoshop and you'll be forced to render the raw file into a TIFF or PSD file either through Camera Raw or more better, via Lightroom.
You can do the basic tone and color correction directly in Lightroom and edit in Photoshop from Lightroom. But you will NEED to create and save out a "rendered" image that is no longer raw...then retouch to your heart's desire, save it and it'll be available in Lightroom along side your original raw if you choose.
But no, there's no way to open a raw in Photoshop, manipulate the heck out of it with massive retouching then save that back out as a raw file...ain't gonna happen.

Processing Canon G10 RAW Images in CS3 and Lightroom 2.1

I've not found a post on point. If I've missed one, sorry.
Contemplating getting a G10. After research here's what I understand. Please, correct me if I am wrong:
1. To process a G10 image in ACR, one has to have 5.2. One cannot use 5.2 in CS3. To process the image in CS3 one has to first convert to DNG. This can be done by way of a separate converter OR in Lightroom 2.1, on import.
2. Lightroom 2.1 will process the image in either RAW or DNG formats.
So, since I own both Lightroom and CS3 -- I will be able to use ACR in Lightroom if I don't want to convert to DNG first.
Am I right?
I don't want to buy the camera if I can't use my usual workflow.
Thanks.
sjh
PS. I think my CS4 Master Suite will arrive tomorrow. But, there is a lot of odd information about ACR and the G10 out there so I thought I'd take the time to clear it up and see if I got it right.

Lightroom 2.1 does NOT support native files from the G10. LR 2.2, which will be released in December will. So for both programs you need to use the Adobe DNG converter 5.2 to convert to DNG for the time being. It is unclear whether when you have LR 2.2 and CS3 installed whether "Edit in Photoshop" will work correctly with files from cameras such as the G10. It will always work fine if you use dng.

Lightroom 4 RC2 won't upload raw files direct from Canon 5d mkiii camera

I can upload to DPP and then transfer the files into Lightroom but when I try and upload directly Lightroom just says, "Files not Uploaded not recognised" and I get an option to save or cancel. Why?, with LR3 raw files from my old camera uploaded just fine, whats going on.

You have a new camera, it is not yet supported in ACR or Lightroom. Most likely it will be supported in the LR4.1 proper, but not yet.
I assume your old camera is a 5DII, that is supported as its an older model.
If you want to use LR4.1RCx and your Canon 5DIII, you will need to convert from CR2 to DNG with the Adobe DNG Converter
link to the download
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/extend.displayTab2.html and scroll down a screen or so to find the links for MAC or PC depending on your software.
This will work til Lightroom natively imports Canon 5DIII RAW images
enjoy
hamish NIVEN Photography

Why when I open my raw files into lightroom, colors are different from my camera's preview?

Ciao,
I have a problem... maybe this can be a stupid question but anyway.. I would like to know the reason why when I open a raw image in lightroom, for a second I see the right colors/tone/contrast that i see when i look at the same images on my camera and soon after the word "Loading" I see the raw files with different colors.
Why this happens???
Before "Loading" and --> after
Thank you so much

Hey Giuseppe
I have a similar problem but the cause may be different from yours. I shoot a Canon 6D and as far as I know no one with the 5D MKIII has my issue, but maybe you could look into it.
Canon's Adobe Camera Raw in Photoshop CC, as well as Lightroom CC, is automatically down converting my CR2 RAW files from 14 bit color depth to 8 bit color depth. This is screwing up my colors, contrast, gradients, etc quite a bit when trying to process RAW files in Photoshop CC and Lightroom CC.
You can read my thread here:
Banding due to automatic downconverting of RAW files to 8 bit
You might want to check and see if your RAW files are actually being processed in 16 bit color depth. There is a possibility that they are being down converted automatically for some reason.
The bit depth in Lightroom for RAW files is supposed to be 16 bit but when opening my files it just converts it down.
Try downloading Canon's Digital Photo Professional 4
Canon U.S.A. : Consumer & Home Office : EOS 5D Mark III
Use that software to process a RAW photo and convert to a 16 bit TIFF. I know this software truly gives you a 16 bit depth image. Then compare the result side to side with what you're seeing in Lightroom.
If you are having this issue, I have not yet found a way to process RAW CR2 files in ACR or Lightroom and maintain 16 bit depth.
If you are batch processing to JPEGs it probably doesn't matter, but my issue is that it is down converting BEFORE exporting and thus any edits I do become much more destructive on my 8 bit image than they would if I was editing a 16 bit image. I have to be able to keep things in 16 bit up until the point they go to the printer.
Sorry, this may not help you at all, it looks like there could just be a difference in White Balance, but I figured I'd throw my two cents out there and maybe you could see if this is actually what is happening for you, and hopefully eventually Adobe could potentially fix this bug.

ACR vs. Lightroom

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for