LR 4.2RC and ACR 7.2 RC won't read SONY RX 100 ARW files

I was at a wedding yesterday and had two cameras with me - a Nikon D800 and my little SONY RX 100.  I was using an Eye-Fi Pro card for the Sony.  I'm uninterested in the Wi-Fi capabilities when I'm away from home, but like the camera to upload pictures when I'm close to my big processing machine.  Long story short.  This was the first time I've used the LR 4.2RC and ACR 7.2RC with the Sony RX 100.  I plugged the card into both the regular Eye-Fi USB reader, and into my Hoodman USB 3.0 reader.  Of course, LR doesn't like the Eye-Fi reader, but it loves the Hoodman.  Finally, it recognized the Hoodman and the Eye-Fi card.  I have previews set to minimal and I was attempting to import all the raw (ARW) files into Lightroom.  When the initial previews come up as I start the import process, it shows about 1/3 of the previews and then tells me it can't read the rest, including MP4 files.  When I actually begin the import, it simply times out and reports that it was unable to import ANY of the ARW files, nor the MP4 files.  I have no trouble reading 63 files into Raw Photo Processor so I know there is nothing wrong with any of the files.  I can only conclude that there is something wrong with LR 4.2 and/or ACR 7.2.
Anyone else reporting this problem?  I'm puzzled because this is the ONLY time I have ever had trouble importing files from supported cameras.
Thanks for feedback.

Well.  After some experimentation, I discovered what the problem seems to be.  For reasons completely opaque to me, Lightroom expects not only that the Eye-Fi card will be read from its own reader, but it also expects that the Eye-Fi helper application be installed and running.  Of course, this means that I end up with duplicate copies of every file - once to the Eye Fi directory, and again to the appropriate Lightroom Folder on a completely different set of drives.   I guess the conclusion I can draw from this is that without the helper application, the Eye Fi card is dumb and the images only partly visibible.  The Eye-Fi helper can import the .ARW files, but it doesn't display them because Apple hasn't updated its camera list to include the RX100.  Until they do, I think I'll just use regular cards and consign the Eye-Fi card to the hall of unhelpful cards.  Yikes, the darned thing is as expensive as the Lightroom upgrade.
Sigh.

Similar Messages

  • I have a sony rx100 and my version of lightroom (4) will not recognize the raw (.ARW) files. Please help!

    I have a sony rx100 and my version of lightroom (4) will not recognize the raw (.ARW) files. Please help!

    I have version 4.4.1 on my computer now, which is functioning properly - but does not read the .ARW files. When I download the link you sent and try to open it, it pops up as version 5 and I get this image (attached). This is my first time in one of these threads, not sure if i have to reply to each of you individually?
    DdeGannes, could you please tell me how to recover the serial number from my operating system?
    Thank you SO much everyone!

  • 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

  • I had lightroom 4 and Photoshop CS4 I downloaded cc and trialled it and then uninstalled since then I cannot read/open my Canon cr2 files and

    I trialled cc Photoshop.
    I had Photoshop CS4
    and lightroom 4.4.
    I used LR4 and cc as well as CS4 during that time
    BUT
    when I uninstalled cc
    after initial work in LR4
    I try to open it in PS4
    it no longer recognise my Cr2 (Canon Mark 111 tif files)
    (which it had no problem with previously.
    When I try to go from LR$ to PSCS4
    it now tell me
    this version of Lightroom may require the Photoshop Camera Raw plug-in version 7.4 for full compatibility.
    Please update the Camera Raw plug in using the update tool in the Photoshop help menu.
    Ihave downloaded this off the net but it does not seem to solve the issue
    HELP!!!

    G'day Curt,
    I smacked myself on the forehead when I read your reply. How could I have forgotten to do that? However, after trying that, the problem persists and more files are corrupting. I now have around ten files of around 200 in a party folder I have that have corrupted. They all were perfect several days ago.
    I'm starting to get worried as I work for the local rag and have social pics this weekend to process. I can't afford to let this happen to them.
    Thanks for the suggestion....
    Onslow

  • Camera Raw 8.2RC and DNG Converter 8.2RC released

    Adobe Camera Raw 8.2RC and the Adobe DNG Converter 8.2RC are available for downloading at Adobe Labs.
    See this thread in the ACR Forum:
    http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1266809?tstart=0

    Thanks for your reply
    I've got window 7 and Photoshop CS6
    I've not tried Help>Updates but I'll go have a look
    I got the link http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/details.jsp?ftpID+5739    from Adobe under their download links DNG Coverter 8.4
    and when I open camera raw it does say it is the 8.4 version but that is the only thing that has changed everything else is as it was.

  • Need help with Olympus E-M1 and ACR 8.3 Results

    Hi:
    1.  I'm fairly familiar with photoshop and ACR, but definitely not an expert.   I'm also very familiar with the Olympus RAW files since the E-5 (I've owned the E-5, E-M5 and several Pens);  I now recently purchased the E-M1 and I've been having problems getting decent images out of the RAW files (compared to the prior Olympus RAW files).
    2.  Problem:  it just "feels" that the overall tone curve is more abrupt, especially in the highlights.    With the prior Olympus RAW files, the transition from moving the exposure slider to the right and then getting blown out highlights was more gradual;   there just seems to be an overt decrease in "headroom" when dealing with highlights in the E-M1 RAW files.   I know this makes no sense in that the dynamic range is supposed to be greater with this camera compared to the prior ones.  
    3.  Problem:  In relation to the above issue, it also seems that the highlight slider is not as specific as it used to be in that when I move it to the left, more of the histogram seems to be affected as opposed to the bright / highlight region.   It now seems to  basically counteract any adjustments made to the exposure.   Again, this may be my imagination but it just feels this way.
    4.  Problem: In relation to the above issue, the other strange observation I've had is that although the histogram of the image shows no clipping, the image may have very bright areas with almost imperceptible detail;   when I click on it and view that data point within curves, it shows it to be well below 255.    In my lame flower shot example (it's not a good example but I couldn't find anything else right now), I would have guessed that in the brighest petal area, that it would be something like 250, but it's only 220.   But when I zoom in, there's really no texure or detail or data.  
    5.  The above issue in re: highlight rendering and control may or may not be related but it's the first time, I've been having issues and I've never had such problems with either ACR or prior Olympus cameras and thus I'm wondering if this is some issue with how ACR interprets the E-M1 file.  I did do some comparison with Capture One 7 and that does a definitely better job of highlight recovery in that it seems to more preferentially target just the highlights and definitely does a better job with color rendition.   I have Olympus Viewer 3, but it's so slow and lame, that I haven't done much testing with it.   Any thoughts and advice much much appreciated.

    Also, you might want to upload your raw file, a full-size JPG of what you posted, above, and an example from C1 to www.dropbox.com and post a public link, here, for others to experiment with.

  • Capture vs. Content Sharpening in Lightroom and ACR

    Hi,
    I have a question regarding sharpening in Lightroom and ACR. In the information I have read, many authors point out that Lightroom and ACR's detail panel is optimized to provide control over capture sharpening. In a post that I read recently by Jeff Schewe, he clarified that and said that we are really sharpening for both capture and content with the detail panel in Lightroom.
    That is confusing to me because after reading Bruce Fraser's book on sharpening, capture and content sharpening were treated as two different processes. If I understood correctly capture sharpening for digital captures was based on the characteristics of the camera and the file size of the image, with larger megapixel files receiving a smaller radius. In addition, I read that the radius in content sharpening is dictated by the dominant characteristics of the subject matter being sharpened, with high frequency subject matter receiving a smaller radius and low frequency receiving a higher radius.
    The reason I am confused is that it appears that capture and content sharpening for the same digital capture can at times be quite different. For example, I believe that the book suggests a radius for an 11 megapixel capture of .4. If the image content calls for a sharpening radius of 1.3, what do I do? In Lightroom/ACR I can only choose 1 radius.
    In all the reading I have done regarding the proper use of Lightroom and ACR, it suggest that you should use a radius that is suited to the image content. So it appears that we are that we are being encouraged to perform content sharpening only with Lightroom and ACR. What happened to the "capture" sharpening portion of the process?
    Since Lightroom and ACR are capable of recognizing the camera make and model as well as the file size, are they applying capture sharpening behind the scenes that is tailored to that specific camera and file. If not, then how are we achieving both capture and content sharpening in the same operation?
    Sharpening for both capture and content in one pass would seem to conflict with some of the basic concepts elaborated on in Bruce Fraser's book. I am assuming that since Lightroom is using Photokit Sharpener routines, that they have accounted for the capture portion of the sharpening, but I don't see that stated explicitly anywhere in anything that I have read. If they have, I say kudos to everyone involved as that would be great. I'm just looking for a clearer understanding of what's happening.
    If anyone can shed some light on this topic I would be very appreciative.
    Thanks,
    John Arnold

    >Since Lightroom and ACR are capable of recognizing the camera make and model as well as the file size, are they applying capture sharpening behind the scenes that is tailored to that specific camera and file. If not, then how are we achieving both capture and content sharpening in the same operation?
    The answer is that the detail section crosses over into creative territory and is not strictly "capture sharpening," although that is what is mostly meant to do.
    Following the ultimate logic of the "sharpening workflow" might make you conclude that Capture sharpening and output sharpening are purely scientific steps where you should not make ANY creative decision at all and that creative decisions are only to be made in the creative sharpening step. In the real world, there are creative decisions and decisions determined by the content matter that enter into the capture step too just like in the output step. You might like extra-crunchy prints for example, but somebody else might prefer softer prints making you approach the output sharpening with a creative intent. The sharpening workflow was probably (Jeff will know more about the history) more of an attempt to arrive at a more rational way of approaching the process and to provide a guideline. It is probably not meant to rigidly separate the workflow up in defined steps where in the 1st step you're not allowed to think or look at the image, in the second step you can go completely wild, and in the last step you have to close your eyes again. The goal was probably to make the photographer realize that the different steps have a different purpose. Not to make you turn off your creative genius or to treat the process like a black box.
    My approach to this, inspired in some part by Jeff's many posts on this, is to make the image look good at 1:1 using the detail tool in Lightroom/ACR. This is inherently driven by content of course as you use visual feedback. If your image is large swaths of plain color separated by sharp transitions with little structure, you probably do not want a high setting on the detail slider as you might induce halos and you probably want to use some masking. Conversely, if you shoot brick architecture, a high detail value might look good. If you shot at high ISO, you might need a different approach again to not blow up noise. Also, portraits might need a different approach. After the 1:1 optimization, I sometimes selectively sharpen (or blur!) parts of the image (rare but can be effective - example would be people's eyes). Then for the output step I use appropriate output sharpening for the medium according to my taste. You see that this is not rigidly following the workflow, but still is in the spirit.

  • Problem with JPGs Downlaoded with Nikon Transfer - Can't Apply Develop Settings in Bridge CS4 and ACR 5.3 Settings Don't Stick

    I have found what I believe is a "problem" with JPGs downloaded using Nikon Transfer (ver 1.4.1) and processing same in Adobe Bridge CS4 (Develop Settings) and/or Adobe Camera Raw 5.3 (Photoshop CS4 and Elements 6 as hosts).
    Anyone using these programs in their workflow?
    The problem, quite simply, is that neither ACR settings (nor Bridge CS4 Develop Settings) "stick" when applied to JPGs that have been downloaded via Nikon Transfer ver 1.4.1.
    The same images from the same cameras (D300 and D90), downloaded moments later using Nikon's predecessor software PictureProject work just fine in both Bridge and ACR.  Develop Settings appled in Bridge immediately are seen, and JPGs opened in ACR, and settings applied, then "Done" immediately stick and are reflected in Bridge.
    If someone else is processing their JPGs in this manner, please let me know, as I have reported the problem to both Nikon and Adobe, and although I have tested it on two different cameras and two differnt laptops, I would like to get an impartial result as well.
    One other test, the problem does not seem to affect Nikon's RAW (NEF) format files downloaded from a D2x using Nikon Transfer.  More/different test are forthcoming.
    Thanks
    jeff

    ALoverofNikon wrote:
    I have generally thought that using the camera manufacturer's software was the safest and most conveneint
    Can't say one way or another on that statement about using manufacturers' software.  Since Adobe has to interpret each camera models' RAW format having the latest ACR seems to be the best option.  But if the manufacturers' software is more convenient, and you get the same results then use it.  But it does appear you are not getting what you want, so suggest you try a duplicate test run with images straight from the card reader to Bridge and see if you still have same problems.
    I do know it is widely recommended that using a quality card reader gives you more reliable data than getting the pictures straight from the camera.  Does not seem intuitive, but that has been experience of many.

  • Grainy, pixelated photos in Photoshop and ACR

    All my photos in Photoshop and ACR look very grainy and pixelated on my new Macbook Pro? How do I fix this? I have already updated everything and installed the plugin for my raw files. Any help is appreciated!
    Using Photoshop CS5

    Check Preferences > Performance > Cache levels.  It needs to be set to a value higher than one.
    If that does not help, can you tell us what camera these RAW files come from.  If a Nikon, have they been processed in the Nikon bundled software?

  • Roundtrip and ACR

    Hello,
    I find the ACR adjustments in Bridge and LR to be much more intuitive than Aperture. But, I don't want to switch to LR since Aperture (to me) wins hands-down as an overall better application.
    Until I really get a good handle on working with Aperture adjustments, I was thinking of a different workflow option for images that I need to externally edit in PS3. Basically, I was hoping to be able to roundtrip from Aperture to PS3, then open ACR to do the preliminary adjustments before the PS3 edits. It looks to me that this isn't possible - or maybe I'm just overlooking something.
    Does anyone know if this is possible - or perhaps have another approach?
    Thanks in advance,
    Dave

    I've designated Bridge as my external image editor and specified TIFF for the output format. When Bridge opens as the external editor, I open the TIFF version in ACR, edit, then open in CS3. After tweaking in CS3 with full use of my third-party plugins I save as TIFF, overwriting the original Aperture TIFF version. Back in Aperture, Viewer shows the changes made in ACR and CS3.
    PSD files cannot be opened by ACR, so TIFF is the only format for roundtripping to ACR that doesn't have the possibility of compression artifacts.
    Note that Aperture does the RAW conversion and ACR is used as an image processor for TIFF files, then CS3 is used for refinements to the ACR adjustments. ACR's RAW conversion is bypassed. Also note that the TIFF files are large, so there are no savings in storage space from all-Aperture processing. All versions are managed through Aperture, though.
    One inconvenience: even though I select multiple images to open with Bridge as external editor, only one file appears in Bridge so I can't do batch processing. If anyone figures out a workaround, please let us know!

  • In camera sharpening and acr 5.2

    When I open RAW photo in acr although I have "apply sharpening to all images" option selected my pictures are not sharpened like when camera sharpens them. And it seems imposible to get acr to open raw to look as embeded .jpg ...they are overexposed by 1 stop and colors are of. If I use Nikon Capture NX Raw files look the same as embeded .jpg and it is sharpened in camera. I know i cant get the same looking picture in ACR as in NX but ACR is way off and it doesnt use camera sharpening at all.

    The preference option you refer to (i.e., "apply sharpening to all images") means that sharpening -- if any -- will get applied to the image when you open the image in PS or save it as a rendered file (i.e., a TIFF or JPEG) to disk. The alternative (preview images only) means that you can preview any sharpening within CR, but that the sharpening won't get applied to the rendered file when you save it out or open it into PS.
    This is separate from the actual controls that govern how much sharpening gets applied to the image. For that, visit the Detail tab. The default amount is 25. If that is too low for your taste, bump it up. You'll also want to tweak the other sliders (Radius, Detail, Masking) for best results.
    CR does not use the in-camera sharpening algorithms, nor does it use the NX sharpening algorithms.

  • Corrupt shadows in LR 2.2 and ACR

    Hi there!
    I have an issue with both LR 2.2 and ACR for Windows XP.
    I calibrate my monitor with Colovision Spyder (first version) which then creates an ICC profile and a LUT for the graphics adapter. I calibrate for gamma 2.2 and color temperature 6500K.
    With the monitor profile loaded in the windows monitor preferences I get both in LR 2.2 and ACR (CS3 and CS4) horribly looking shadows, like they are over lightened, with plenty of noise showing even at low iso settings. With the same settings, Nikon View NX shows the photos with good shadows rendition (it darkens them). I get the same issue even if I export the file as JPG from LR 2.2 and open it in PS CS4. But not if I export from Nikon View NX and open in CS4!
    The problem appears to disappear if I remove the profile from windows monitor preferences (so that I loads a default sRGB profile instead).
    Now this to me does not seem a very good long-term solution, but just a work-around, since I am not exploiting the ICC profile I created for my monitor.
    I worked with this settings before with no problems, before upgrading to LR 2.2 (i tried unistalling and cleaning, but to no avail) and recalibrating.
    Does anyone have similar problems?
    Has anyone idea to permanently solve this issue?

    In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
    wrote:
    > Of course, my display is not using your display profile either and Picasa
    > strips all metadata from your files, so also icc profiles if they were
    > attached. My guess is that your monitor profile is bad. You might want to try
    > recalibrating or borrowing/getting another calibrator.
    This could very likely be the cause... to wit:
    I recently had my Mac laptop's HD replaced. When I got it back from
    service and went on to browsing images LR, I noticed very strong
    posterisation in the dark areas of images, that looked fine before.
    Turned out while the techie managed to migrate all of the data from the
    old HD just fine, somehow the calibration was lost in the process.
    After re-calibrating the display all was back to normal.
    Cheers Martin

  • Opening Nikon D600 NEF files using PhotoShop CS4 11.0.2 and ACR 5.7.0.213

    Hello,
    I've just bought a Nikon D600.
    I have Photoshop CS4 11.0.2 and ACR 5.7.0.213. 
    With these versions, I'm unable to open the D600 NEF files.  I get the following message:
    "Could not complete your request because it is not the right kind of document"
    Yet I can view the NEFs in other software that pre-dates the D600, e.g. FastStone Image Viewer 4.6.
    Does anybody know if I can get a plug-in from Adobe for PS CS4 that allows me to edit D600 NEFs?
    Many thanks for any help.
    Regards,
    Aisling

    Either upgrade to Photoshop CS6 or download the free DNG Converter and covert your NEFs to DNG.

  • LR 4.3 and ACR 7.3 compatability

    I received the familiar alert "This version of Lightroom may require the Photoshop Camera Rawy plug-in version 7.3 for full compatability" and accidentally clicked "don't show again" and "open anyway".  How can I get back to having the choice to "Render using Lightroom" when I export using command-E?

    rickpatrick wrote:
    If I understand correctly, when I click "render using lightroom" in LR 4.3 the result is the same as would be the case if I had CS6 and ACR 7.3.  Am I right?
    Yes but...
    There are two behaviors and it depends on whether or not ACR and LR are in-sync...
    If out of sync, Lightroom will render the file using the LR 4.x engine but it needs to save the file with a -Edit BEFORE sending it to Photoshop.
    If ACR & LR are in-sync, LR sends the image to ACR and ACR renders it and the file will only be saved when you save it from Photoshop (to where you save it).
    In the out of sync situation, the -Edit file is manditory, in the synced case, the file is only saved when you save it from Photoshop.
    However, in both cases, the rendered image will be the same. The only difference is the file handling.

  • Color in both Bridge CS5 and ACR look yellow.

    The color in my images are all yellow.  I've seen some posts but so far no answer to the problem. Can anything at all be done to fix this problem. It it very, very frustrating. Because it's so yellow I cant use ACR for anything at all.  Please help
    Igor

    Ok, for anyone having this problem with both Bridge cs5 and ACR. Here is what solved my problem. All images were looking yellow both in bridge and Camera Raw, so after I did a back up of my harddrive as a System Image all problems were gone! I have no idea what happened, but now the colors are just fine. The problem corrected itself. So, there you have it. Problem fixed.

Maybe you are looking for