W7 64 and acr 8.4

On my windows 7 64 bit PS6 (not CC) I get no change at all when updating acr to 8.4?????????????

With Photoshop CS6 new features in Camera Raw will not be available. Since CS6 is the last perpetual version of Photoshop that will be available, Adobe will provide support for new cameras. But new features that are subsequently added will not be available.

Similar Messages

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.

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!

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.

PSE 11 and ACR version

I run PSE 11 and ACR Ver. 7.4.
Also, have LR 4 and have yet upgraded to LR 5.
My question is this: Adobe indicates Camera Raw 8.1 is available for PSE 11. I have been checking Help>Updates and am informed that this Camera Raw update (8.1) is not available. I keep getting the message that PSE 11 is up-to-date as checked (with Camera Raw 7.4). Can somebody clarify this - is this update available for PSE 11 or is Adobe's statement incorrect?
Next question - what version of ACR includes the adjustment tools? Is that part of 8.1?
Thanks in advance for any help with this.

Yes, I know that Adobe has put some statement on at least one of their web pages that ACR 8.1 is available for PSE, but I don't think that's correct. I don't think ACR 8.1 will work in PSE until PSE12 is released ... but ... I don't really know for sure.
Next question - what version of ACR includes the adjustment tools?
What adjustment tools do you mean?
Some adjustment tools in ACR will NEVER work in PSE (for example, the adjustment brush and gradient filter, and probably the new Upright features as well)

Camera Profiles Missing from Lightroom and ACR since upgrade to Lightroom CC

I upgraded to the latest version of Lightroom yesterday. I have discovered since then that the only profile available in the Camera Calibration profiles pop-up menu is Adobe Standard. This applies to Lightroom CC, Lightroom 5 and ACR. Furthermore the folder where the profles were stored is missing. This is a problem as I have lost a custom profile for editing the white balance in infrared photographs. What is the likelycause of this situation and how can it be remedied?

Hi Beat,
thank you very much for your reply! :-)
That is what I find so puzzling - there are hundreds of profiles in that folder under a "1.0" subfolder...
And yes, I'm sure it's RAW I'm looking at (and the error message appears before I see Lightroom, so it's not about RAW/JPG).
While fiddling some more I found out, that if I start Lightroom as an Administrator, everything is back to normal, but I never had to do this before and I don't see why this should be the case. What would cause such a behaviour to appear suddenly?
Rant:
The whole UAC idea - as Microsoft implemented it - is a major pain, but so far I was willing to bear the burden for the supposed raised security, but more and more I tend to think about switching it off as I did under Windows Vista. If it interferes with my ability to get anything useful done it's not worth it (and I have other software that doesn't like it, not just - suddenly - Lightroom).
Thanks for any hints what this problem could be about!
Cheers,
Thomas Helzle

Help with Nikon D600 NEF files, CS6, and ACR 7.3 beta

I have been unable to open NEF files from my Nikon D600 in Photoshop CS6, and ACR 7.3 beta. Any suggestions/guidance would be much appreciated.
RAW was set to 14 bit color, but I can't see that that would matter?

From discussion with others, it would appear that the files were corrupted during transfer.
I have some suggestions that I will try tomorow.
I have no problems opening old Nikon D700 NEF files in Photoshop CS6, and when ACR opens the file it indicates I'm using ACR 7.3 beta.
Regards,
Erich

Right steps to use DNG Profile Editor and ACR

What is the right sequence of steps to do to use properly DNG PE and ACR ?
Must be converted the RAW in DNG directly, without open the RAW in ACR ?
Must be opened the RAW file in ACR, reset the ACR values to zero and then convert the RAW in DNG format ?
Must be converted the RAW file in DNG and then reset the ACR values before apply the camera recipe created ?
thanks in advance,
federico

thank you Massimo,
the procedure is clear now.
"What is the nearest original Adobe profile that is so "equal" to the GM one you obtain?"
what i want to say is that when i open the file raw in ACR i see some colors. when i apply the profile generated by PE, i see about the sames colors. i notice that the colors are about the same without the profile (little differences i see in the darken tones but only in the ACR graphic). this with my D700. with the D200 the differences before to apply the profile and after are strong, visible.
Grazie Massimo,
credo sia tutto chiaro adesso anche se mi lascia perplesso il risultato finale.
"What is the nearest original Adobe profile that is so "equal" to the GM one you obtain?"
quello che volevo dire è che con o senza profilo, praticamente l'immagine con la D700 varia di pochissimo (me ne accorgo solo leggendo il grafico in ACR). con la D200 invece, applicare un profilo ha un impatto molto evidente, le differenze sono marcate.
grazie
ps: your english is right. it is mine that does not work so well.

Changing camera profiles in LR 2 and ACR 4.6

How does one change the camera choices in the Camera Profile panel in LR 2 and ACR 4.6? The only camera specific model that shows up for me is the Nikon D2X, and I shoot a Nikon D200.

I'm not interested in profiles that don't match my camera, but I was interested in using the D200 profile since that's what I shoot with. I've never heard anywhere that the D200 and D2X render identical files. so, when I talked about choice, I merely meant that I'd like to have the choice of using the profile for my particular camera. When Adobe lists the supported camera models, they do not say that one camera profile fits several different models that have entirely different sensors. I know for a fact that the D200 and D40 do not render identical files, yet both are restricted to using the D2x file, all of which seems a bit strange to me.
I don't expect an exact match, as I know that Adobe cannot simply copy Nikon's algorithms. Since these Adobe profiles are an approximation because of that, I would think that a profile closer to my model would be available. I know that all thw Adobe software gets from the camera is the white balance, and everything else in the Adobe profiles is generated bt Adobe to try to match the Nikon profiles as close as possible without a direct copy.
There is a major difference in how the various cameras render images, just open them in any of the various incarnations of Nikon Capture, and you'll see exactly how the camera renders an image. In conclusion, it does not look like Adobe supports the D200, and in spite of their claims to the contrary, what we get is a generic profile that is supposed to fit models with entirely different sensors.
Why even list the D200 if indeed they do not allow me to use a profile that more closely resembles the one from that model?

W7 64 and acr 8.4

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for