ACR 4.0 Documentation

I downloaded and installed the ACR 4.0 plug-in last week. I also downloaded and printed the read me file for ACR 4.0. To my surprise, the read me for ACR 3.7 had more information regarding the new features in that version than the read me for 4.0. I was surprised that the read me for 4.0 had no mention whatsoever as to the usage of the new features and capabilities in 4.0. It's possible that those issues were discussed in the documentation for CS 3, but since I am using ACR 4.0 in Elements 5, I don't have access to any of that information.
I've been searching the Adobe support site and the forums (and just about anywhere else, for that matter), for any kind of tutorial or guide that would be helpful in learning how to integrate the new features of ACR 4.0 into my workflow. It appears that Adobe just put ACR 4.0 out there without any supportive documentation. Or perhaps it just looks that way to Elements 5 users. Can anyone assist me in my quest?

Jim:
Thanks for your reply. Camera Raw has been supported in Elements since version 3, in a limited capacity. ACR 4.0 has been designed to work with Elements 5, also in a limited capacity. However, version 4.0 does bring new functionality to the table versus version 3.7, even when using Elements 5. In Elements 5, you only have access to the Basic and Detail tabs, but those tabs offer full functionality as far as I know. For instance ACR 4.0 has the new Recovery, Fill Light, Blacks, and Vibrance sliders available to Elements 5 users. It is the use of those new features for which I am looking for direction.
My issue is about a lack of documention for ACR 4.0. I suspect such documentation has been provided to new purchasers of CS 3, but I don't know. But even if that is the case, it isn't available to Elements users and wouldn't fully apply anyway.
I will post of copy of my original post in this forum in the Elements forum. But my observation is that anytime an ACR question is posted in the Elements forum, the poster is directed to the ACR forum, and anytime Elements is mentioned in this forum, they are directed to the Elements forum.
Even though Adobe intended ACR 4.0 to be used with Elements 5, it seems that documention and support has been omitted from the implentation of that plan. I'd appreciate any additional comments from users or Adobe staff that might be of help.

Similar Messages

FotoStation wipes ACR settings from .xmp

My employer has recently decided we need to use FotoStation (mostly because we work over a network, and FS is good for that... anyway) to organise, and apply metadata to, our photographs and videos. I do still use Bridge for previewing, ratings and making adjustments via ACR.
I have noticed that when I have updated the metadata via Fotostaion, it removed ratings and ACR information from the .xmp file in Bridge (not the file itself, just the specific ACR/ratings data within). I made sure that, when I made the changes in FotoStation I selected to "Append new text to existing text" (the other option is to "Replace the existing text"). It definitely removes the ACR information because I tested it out by opening an image in ACR, editing it, clicking done (definitely clicked done not cancel, changes seen in Bridge) then updated the metadata via FotoStation, went back to Bridge and the ACR changes were gone. I opened the "File Info" and read the "Raw Data" before and after the FS edit and the info was there before and gone after.
SO is there a way to not allow this to happen? FYI I will be posting this to the FotoStation forum as well, I just want to cover both bases. FotoStation doesn't feel it is necessary to have a forum apparently. I'll provide camera and application information below.
Windows 7 x64
Working over a network
Adobe Bridge CS6 (v5.0.2.4)
Camera Raw 8.4
FotoStation 7.0 (Build 459)
Canon EOS 5D (.CR2 files)
No I cannot work off the network, or get newer versions of applications (at this current time); what I have there is all I have to work with at this point in time.
I will, for now, simply add the metadata using Bridge but I would still like to see this issue resolved if possible as it is the preferred method utilised by my employer and not my decision to change. My input is not required

I don't have FotoStation b459 only b60*. I can confirm that you need to rebuild the thumbnails in FotoStation to see metadata changes done in Adobe Bridge. This forces FotoSation to re-index the image.
There should be no unintentional metadata lost when going back and forth between FS and Bridge. However, you should check that your FotoStation metadata configuration includes the Adobe and IPTC name spaces and fields you need. If not you can create them manually or import from an image. The FotoStation documentation shows that this is easy to do.
As an aside I find that Adobe CS5 deletes metadata information in fields that are deprecated or no longer belong to the Adobe name space. This is a potential serious problem for digital images generated using legacy software and hardware.
As a FotoStation user for the last 4 years, in my opinion, your employer is correct. FotoStation is one of the best software for metadata and digital asset management. Good luck!

Converted raw (or .dng) will not open in ACR?

OK, now that I've gotten sort-of over the hurdle of synching all the pieces associated with a smart object, I've hit the NEXT hurdle (SOs appear to be the usual double-edged sword - kinda handy in a way but rife with pitfalls and hurdles)...
I open a .NEF in Bridge, go into ACR and open the file as a Smart Object in Photoshop. Double-click the layer icon and I'm back in ACR, just like all the demos and seminars I've watched. But, take the SAME .NEF in Bridge and open it as a standard image in Photoshop, then CONVERT it to a smart object, double-click the layer icon and all I get is a .psd and NOT jump into ACR. It does exactly the same thing with a .dng file And from Lightroom OR ACR...
I found an entry from a discussion (not in here, I couldn't find anything about this in here) about CS3 (yes 3), where a user had this problem and was told it's because the original image was opened as a rasterized image, NOT as a Smart Object from ACR... Which isn't making sense to me 'cause who cares what it was way back when, it's NOW a Smart Object and should be treated like one no matter HOW it got there...
Is there some preference or setting or something I need to change in Photoshop so this will work as expected is is there really some restriction about exactly HOW the Smart Object got created? And if so, is there some paragraph is big, bold letters in the documentation that makes it really clear to the uninformed that you MUST open it as a Smart Object or it won't work?
And yes, I KNOW that in ACR I can set it so it defaults to opening as a Smart Object, but like many other PS users I normally use Lightroom and I haven't seen any such default. Which means it's REALLY easy to forget to go down to the Open as Smart Object and instead just hit Open in Photoshop...

Listen, buddy, no one has any obligation to answer your questions here in this user to user forum. Lose the attitude.
I'll repeat the answer anyway, as you apparently are unable to read replies carefully.
davepinminn wrote:
…CAN I take an image that was opened in Photoshop as a "standard" image, then converted to a smart object and edit it in ACR? If yes, HOW?
No, ABSOLUTELY NOT ! You cannot. Period. That's what I said in post #2 of this thread.
ACR will only open and edit Smart Objects that contain raw data. Any image opened in Photoshop —not as a Smart Öbject—is already cooked and contains no raw data any more. Additionally, ACR can edit JPEGs and TIFFs if you set your preferences accordingly, but with much less latitude and functionality than a raw file.
What's more, the cooked Smart Object 's now in the cooked PSB format (a variation of PSD that can handle much larger files than PSD can) so there's no way on Earth ACR can open it.
davepinminn wrote:
I've gotta remember that people in here will pummel the semantics to death and miss the question…
…and we forum regulars have to remember that some folks come here just to argue, looking for a fight.
Please read this FAQ for advice on how to ask your questions correctly for quicker and better answers:
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/419981?tstart=0
Excerpt:
• Do not be abusive or aggressive in your tone
An aggressive or abusive sounding post will often evoke an aggressive or abusive and unhelpful reply
Remember, you are requesting Help from other users, just like you, who are giving their time free of charge. No one is under any obligation to answer your question.

ACR 5.7 not compatible with PSE 6 or 7

Though the recently released ACR 5.7 works with PSE 8, it is not compatible with PSE 6 or 7. A number of people (including me) have observed that if you try to open a raw file in 6 or 7 you get:
Unable to use the Camera Raw plug-in. It is not compatible with this version of Photoshop Elements.
The accompanying documentation is an inconsistent mess about which versions are supported, variously implying that it works with 6 or later, 7 or later, or just 8:
http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=4685
This new version of the Camera Raw plug-in replaces the original Camera Raw plug-in that was installed with Adobe® Creative Suite® 4, Adobe Photoshop® CS4, Adobe Photoshop Elements 8 and Premiere® Elements 8 software.
The Camera Raw 5.7 plug-in is not compatible with versions of Photoshop earlier than Photoshop CS4, versions of Photoshop Elements earlier than Photoshop Elements 6.0, or versions of Premiere Elements earlier than 4.0.
The latest version of the Camera Raw plug-in available for Photoshop Elements 6.0 (Windows) is Camera Raw 5.5.
This new version of the Camera Raw plug-in replaces the original Camera Raw plug-in that was installed with Adobe Creative Suite 4, Photoshop CS4, Photoshop Elements 7.0 or 8 and Premiere Elements 7.0 or 8.
5. Navigate to the location designated by your version of Photoshop Elements: (Please read directory carefully)
a. Photoshop Elements 7.0: Program Files\Adobe\Photoshop Elements 7.0\Plug-Ins\File Formats
http://www.adobe.com/special/photoshop/camera_raw/Camera_Raw_5.7_ReadMe.pdf
This new version of the Camera Raw plug-in replaces the original Camera Raw plug-in that was installed with Photoshop CS4, Photoshop Elements 8.0 and Premiere Elements 8.0.
The Camera Raw 5.7 plug-in is not compatible with versions of Photoshop earlier than Photoshop CS4 or versions of Photoshop Elements earlier than Photoshop Elements 7.0 for Windows and Photoshop Elements 6 for Mac.
Navigate to location designated by your version of Photoshop Elements:
a. Program Files\Common Files\Adobe\Plug-ins\Elements 8\ File Formats
b. Program Files\Adobe\Photoshop Elements 7.0\Plug-Ins\File Formats

I agree with John, there is certainly a mess and confusion
over the use of ACR 5.7 with PSE 7. I have tried to upgrade and got various error messages including the version incompatibility one. I did try both the 32 and 64 bit versions since I am running Windows 7 64 bit. However I have now reached a slightly different opinion since I am still able to open Raw files from my Canon G10 (which previously worked with 5.6) but cannot open my EOS 550D Raw files which suggests a specific code problem rather than a version incompatibility. Any comments or help Adobe?

How do I disable automatic hot pixel correction in ACR?

OK - I'm really conused here...
I just got a Nikon D800E and on my first day of shooting I noticed a hot pixel spot in my images in Bridge. The when I opened the files in ACR, the hot pixel spot was gone. Apparently this is a "feature" of ACR: it automatically replaces hot pixels with RGB values from neighbring pixels. (So those of you who think you have no hot pixels, think again - you might be shielded from the truth! I find this fact very disconcerting, but that's a separate issue...).
The problem is that I can't tell how many hot pixels there are. Based on the image in Bridge, it would have to be spot of 20 - 30 pixels (maybe even more). That's unacceptable to me, especially on a $3300 camera. Sure, maybe a few hot pixels spread around the image, but 20-30 bunched in that one spot, that's unacceptable.
However, I can't figure out how to disable the automatic hot pixel correction in ACR, so I don't know if the issue really is 20 - 30 hot pixels or if Bridge is just doing some type of sub-sampling that makes the problem look a lot worse than it is. Furthermore, this concerns me greatly because I've been using a D200 for many years and have never seen a single hot pixel issue. So that says to me that the sensor on my D800E has a bigger hot pixel issue than it should (I realize all sensors have some hot/dead pixels).
So, any help on how to go about figuring this out? The simplest solution is to disable the automatic hot pixel correction in ACR, but I can't figure out how to do that. I'm guessing it's not possible.
Thanks,
rgames

MikeKPhoto wrote:
…I was not aware and I have searched the ACR documentation and cannot find a reference, maybe you can point me to where this "well known for years" information is located…
Sorry, I' wouldn't presume to embark on a Google search for you, as I'm sure you can do that yourself, MikeKPhoto..
What I can tell you, without a question, is that it was discussed at length in these forums during the earliest versions of ACR eight or nine years ago or so, and I remember participating in a discussion of the feature myself with other Pentax users in the Pentax SLR Talk forum on DPReview around 2003 or 2004.
I found one such message from 2006 (see below) but I'm sure I was involved in earlier discussions a few years earlier:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=19247067
Forum
Pentax SLR Talk
Subject
Re: As my istD gets older... [SIMILAR]
Posted by
Zaldidun
Date/Time
2:09:06 PM, Tuesday, July 18, 2006 (GMT)
Interesting. It's possible that my camera does have a few bad pixels, but I'd never see them because I shoot RAW exclusively and Adobe Camera Raw maps them out on the fly.
One of these days, when I'm feeling masochistic, I guess, I'll try the Pentax software to convert a test image. Or maybe not.
(emphasis added)

NEF + ACR = HOPELESS

I'm using ACR 3.3 on Mac OSX 10.4.3. I'm a Nikon user - D2X, D200 and D70. I'm also a wedding shooter, which means nailing color (bride's skin and dress must be correct) in sometimes wildly different light - bright sunlight to deep shade to warm sunset to studio flash to on-camera flash to dim incandescent - all in a few hours of the same shoot. Sometimes exposure is off a bit - dress highlights blown or flash fails to fully recycle. Sometimes color is off a bit, or a lot; I'll take a custom WB when I can, but things are often moving too fast for that.
So I need color accuracy, the ability to correct color quickly and easily, and workflow efficiency (I average one wedding per week and 1300-1500 images captured per event with 500-700 "keepers"). Nikon Capture (4.4.1) gives me color accuracy and I'm so used to the interface that I can get a lot of images processed with relatively few mouse clicks. But it's extremely slow, crashes frequently and lacks certain key tools, such as a straightening tool and a decent cropping tool - forcing me to run most images through PS anyhow.
I tried ACR in it's early releases and had very little luck. Recently I got the Fraser book and tried again. I calibrated all my camera/lens combinations using the Fors script and the initial results were encouraging, but I was testing with easy subjects - nature scenes and studio shots of people. Then I tried a wedding: no joy!! I went running back to NC after a couple dozen images. I spent so much time tweaking the exposure and color controls in ACR that any time I gained due to the products speed was lost (and then some) fighting the color. At least with NC most of the wasted time is spent just waiting - so I can multitask to some degree.
I'm coming to the conclusion that ACR just doesn't work in my scenario. For anyone interested, my last sad and apparently wasted attempt with ACR is detailed in the DPReview thread below - note the change in my enthusiasm from the start of the thread until now.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=17605133
If I'm missing something obvious would someone please point it out?

Hi Greg,
I empathize. I own a couple of Nikon DSLRs-- but in my line of business I work with raw brands from all kinds of camera makers. Like you, like many others, I therefore prefer ACR for my workflow-- but accurate colo(u)r processing can be as elusive as riding atop a bucking bull. You can only stay on the saddle as long as you accurately predict, within narrow tolerances, the next wild swing.
From my humble experiences, calibration works best for daylight and tungsten-ish. I assume, and the more technically informed members are free to correct me, that's because those are the two fixed targets third party solutions will profile for. Most any deviation to the known profiles therefore becomes a moving target. Fortunately, in my case, most of the photos I deal with are more or less true to daylight. However for mixed lighting, the camera makers packages have shown to demonstrate their own advantages. I'll frequently disagree with some arguments Mr. Borg puts forth in the link you provided--but in this case I believe his reservations are accurate.
From what I have learned, here's why: Adobe and most third party alternatives don't have access to all the colo(u)r information your camera produces. Most, if not all, camera makers won't publish or document that data. Therefore Adobe, and other raw processors, must take the time to generate new profiles for every camera once it's released. Those new profiles, won't be anywhere near as detailed as the camera makers have avaialble to them. I believe this is the case because:
1. There isn't enough time to generate more than a couple of profiles (probably daylight and tungsten) before the market HOWwwwwels for their favorite new camera to be supported.
2. The ISO sensitivity of each sensor is not an absolute. The camera makers know much more about camera to camera deviation than the entire networked raw processing community.
3. There could be other proprietary channel data that only the camera makers are privy to.
So what does this mean? My interpretation of this is that if you use the Fors script to recalibrate ACR for a specific camera's deviation, you will have the best results when shooting at temperatures the camera was only initially profiled at. Anything else is a moving target and requires further futzing. Nikon Capture can lookup nikon's full library of profiles, and therefore provide you with more accurate results the first time around. This can be advantageous if you're shooting under deviant lighting and need bulk processing. Bruce, or others, are free to weigh in and dispute any of these interpretations if I'm not correctly describing them.
So what can be done? If you shoot under deviant conditions, you can either futz in ACR or grow your beard waiting for NC to process your images. Freshly enlightened, you could also join the growing movement to ask camera makers to document their formats so that everyone has access to the same colo(u)r information. In DPreview you'll read that the Open RAW foundation and others are active proponents of this solution. As an alternate, but I believe ultimately more effective solution, is one that you'll find myself, as well as some other forum members putting forth. That would be insisting camera makers --such as Nikon--first support the *option* of saving your raw files to DNG over NEF.
Why DNG? DNG places the burden of providing the correct spectral response with the file's maker. Therefore, Nikon, as the camera maker, would need to embed the correct, or at least a sanctioned spectral response into any in-camera DNG --thus making it self contained and independent of third party profiles. It's my assumption, but I'm not yet clear if this is absolute, that Nikon could do this *without* the need to openly document what they are doing. Furthermore, I believe that while camera makers will need their arms twisted by their customers to offer either:
A. full and open documentation or
B. DNG support
it will be far easier to leverage market support for a universal raw container--such as DNG before camera makers succomb to openly publishing the ingredients to their secret sauce.
In conclusion, while your title suggests NEF+ACR is hopeless, it's my belief that DNG+ACR could be very hopeful to your cause. :-)

My .cr2 files turn a tinted blue after saving as jpegs in ACR CS5

After color correcting a batch of about 100 images, I saved as jpegs and then hit done and a select few of the photos turn a tinted blue. All of the other settings stayed the same.. Does anyone have a clue as to what is going on? Or need me to explain more?

It sounds like user-error where an image off screen is still accidentally selected when tint is being adjusted on another group of images, perhaps with a mixture of fluorescent and daylight images, which have a significant difference in tint so the adjustment of one would be obvious on the other.
Since you posted here, I’d guess you don’t feel it is user-error and the ACR plug-in is doing something to cause the issue. Because it is across two different versions of Photoshop and occurring with different people, a bug would have to be longstanding, but I don’t recall others reporting it. Sometimes there are sliders that stick or become activated when an unrelated context is exited from (maybe I’m remembering things in Lightroom not ACR, though) so when the mouse-wheel is moved a slider unexpectedly moves instead of the thumbnail list scrolling, but that sort of thing should be obvious on-screen and not only when the JPGs are written.
Does the WB adjustment ever happen near the end of the process so it is the last thing done and a last-minute error might go unnoticed if ACR had not had a chance to redo all the thumbnails?
Is this a relatively new crew of people or a very light or very heavy load, where lack-of-attention or pressure could be leading to selection errors when and adjustment is applied and extra photos are getting selected by accident? Is there anything different about the one person who hasn’t seen the problem?
Is there anything with the computer monitors that make it difficult to see what images are selected?
It might be interesting to look at the timestamp of the XMP files (if you use those) to see if the one with a bad WB was updated at a different time compared to the ones surrounding it that all were probably done at the same time.
Are these files all local to each computer or are they being shared from a central location?
With a bug it would be nice to have a documented procedure that will always lead to the problem. Something intermittent that cannot be reproduced by Adobe isn’t going to get fixed.
If it happens relatively often, then you could record an entire session using a screen recorder (like camtasia or similar), or using a video camera over someone’s shoulder, and then play it back and look for either user-error, or as proof that there was none, but strange things happened.

Lightroom not showing edits made in ACR

I edited photos in Adobe Camera Raw from Bridge, but when I look at the same files in Lightroom, they do not appear to include the edits. I did verify that xmp files were created when I edited the files in ACR. Why is Lightroom not reading the xmp file and showing the edits?

I appreciate the detailed response. I have been told by a photography instructor that it makes sense to use both Lightroom and Photoshop together and that Lightroom is for end-to-end workflow (which Photoshop is not capable of). I was not aware that Lightroom is only designed for front-end workflow. Is there any formal documentation on this that I can read to understand the purpose of Lightroom?
The Adobe website has some good introductory videos. I think this is a great place to start:
http://tv.adobe.com/watch/george-jardine-on-lightroom/the-lightroom-catalog/
but the other videos can be found behind the Products and Channels links toward the top of that video's webpage.
The recommendation to use Lightroom with Photoshop, rather than LR on its own, is somewhat akin to recommending Bridge + ACR + PS, except it makes less sense to even think of using Bridge+ ACR on thier own without Photoshop. You can do a lot with LR on its own but not quite everything. On the other hand, those specific tasks which you cannot do in LR may be done using some other editing software than PS, including many cheap and even free alternatives, or using older versions of PS even if they are not ACR-compatible with your camera.
When you use Bridge, the Raw conversion and similar types of parametric editing are assigned to ACR and the rest is passed to Photoshop. Bridge cannot directly print or export without calling on another program or utility to do that. It can only view preview thumbnails and manage metadata and issue instructions to other software. ACR cannot paint, warp, use layers, etc - because it belongs to the same basic class of software, as Lightroom's Develop module capabilities.. in fact there is a very close functional correspondence between these two, and deliberately so; so that the image adjustment parameters involved can be inter-compatible.
When you use Lightroom, the Raw conversion and parametric editing can be very efficiently taken care of internally by LR so ACR does not need to be involved. This works especially well for dynamically applying edits across batches of images on the fly, previewing the effect of processing presets (recipes), making use of a full history of the changes applied to each image, and so on, You can print or export directly without leaving the parametric realm, a little as if you were able to do so from inside ACR.
But when an image editing task is required that is not of this parametric kind (such as compositing, detailed retouching other than a little dustspotting, etc) then just as Bridge can pass an image into PS that will be saved as a new file version, Lightroom can also do the same using its own workflow that does not involve Bridge.
The method is very simple: a new LR image version is created based on a brand new working file saved to disk. Ctrl+E or right-click and select "Edit in... Photoshop". and your image as it currently appears in LR, is automatically opened inside PS. Save when you are finished, and the PS-edited changes appear inside LR transparently. Then you carry on working with that, in the same way as for any other image inside LR,
RP

ACR not allowing me to open Raw Files on CS5 Extended Disc version.

Bought a new 21" Mac desktop 10.9.5 OS and Installed the Adobe Photoshop CS5 Extended CD successfully. But when I tried to open my Raw files I get the message below.
What can I do?
"Could not complete your request because the file appears to be from a camera model which is not supported by the installed version of Camera Raw.
Please visit the Camera Raw help documentation for additional information"
Had no problem with this on my previous laptop.
Thanks, Grace.

Thanks Ssprengel,
Works now!
Wish I had that list of cameras and software compatibility you sent me link of earlier. Originally did the updates to Photoshop straight after installation and downloaded the update for ACR which was what was giving me all the problems. It didn't seem to have any compatibility with my camera. Funny...you would think when you click the update software on Mac it would be automatically compatible with current version. Real nuisance that Adobe has stopped providing support for older versions. Just wasted a heap of download on "update all" only to find out the message after it was all downloaded that there was an error with installation and to click on the "support link" only to discover that when you do click on it...you find out there is no more updates or support. Great customer service....after spending over a $1000 on software.
Kind regards, Grace.

Extracting an .xmp sidecar from an ACR-edited RAW smart object layer...

Hello all. Given the following situation:
Several thousand TIFF files, each containing two RAW files embedded into separate Smart Object layers. The RAW files were named with sequential numbers prior to being composited into the TIFF files via a script, and the TIFF filenames correspond to those of the embedded RAW files. The RAWs have subsequently been edited in ACR from within the TIFF files.
I've done a little digging, but I can't seem to turn up answers to several related questions:
A) Should I wish to re-extract the RAW files from the smart object layers with the edits that have been applied, is there a method of PerLayerMetdata that can be used to extract a complete .xmp sidecar that will be recognized by ACR and associated with the exported RAW?
B) Should I wish to change the sequential-naming of the parent TIFF files, is there any method to correspondingly change the filenames of the embedded RAWs directly within the smart object layer? In other words, using PerLayerMetdata, can the filenames of the RAWs be changed without exporting the RAWs using a different filename and then replacing the contents of the smart object layer?
C) I would ultimately like to be able to save the embedded RAWs as DNGs with their ACR edits applied, if necessaray. Given a way to accomplish A), above, it would be a fairly simple to export the RAWs and associated .xmp files and then run the DNG converter on the lot. However, does anyone know of a way to save a DNG directly from the smart object layer?
Any ideas or pointers to existing documentation are much appreciated.

Thank you kindly, Michael. I see now that the example I was viewing had done exactly what you describe, writing ACR settings into the SO layer's metadata at the time of embedding. I was only looking at the portion which later accessed those settings using PerLayerMetadata, and I had mistakenly assumed that CS5 was automatically embedding xmp data in this manner, now, when opening or placing a RAW file as a SO.
I don't see a direct way to get at the ACR settings of a camera raw file embedded in a smart object.
This is sort of what I was afraid of. They're in there, somewhere, but I'm having no luck figuring out how to access them.
If the ACR settings for a RAW smart object are, indeed, not exposed to automation in some manner, I think I must change my workflow such that either: A) No edits are performed in ACR after object embedding; or B) the RAWs are converted to DNGs prior to smart-object embedding so that the ACR settings can be exposed in the exported file.

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.

Photoshop Elements 5, camera raw documentation

Hello,
Is there a specific location to find documentation updates from one version of Camera Raw to another? I purchased a manual for PSE5 and the Camera Raw displays are for a version that is older then what I have(Camera Raw 3.7) installed. It is hard to follow with the fields not being the same. Also is there any big advantages to upgrade to a newer version of Camera Raw, say from 3.7 to 4.3.1?
Thanks for any help
Rob

I have never used ACR with Photoshop Elements. I know that quite a few of the features are missing when compared with Photoshop. However, if you updated to ACR 4.3.1 I think you would have the clarity and vibrance controls that you don't have now. And there might be some other additions as well. I cannot tell you where to get more current documentation.

CRSS : Camera Raw Saved Settings - documentation ??

Hello,
I generated a DNG from Lightroom, and I get a XML tree using a crss (Camera Raw Saved Settings) schema.
Where could I get about this ?? I didn't find aything with Google.
Thanks.

Panoholic wrote:
I guess the meaning of "open standard" is, that it is open to anyone to write the documentation.
Well, considering that "Camera Raw Saved Settings" are not specifically a function of DNG I think that comment is inaccurate and unfair. XMP allows new and custom name spaces and fields as part of the XMP specification (which is not directly tied to the DNG spec). The fact that Adobe has chosen to extend (XMP = EXtensible Metadata Platform) the XMP fields to include CRSS (Camera Raw/Lightroom "Snapshots") is more a proof oc concept of the usefulness of XMP metadata and less am indictment of DNG's "openess".
Snapshots in ACR/LR are proprietary and thus are prolly intentionally "undocumented", don't ya think?
If you want to see what _IS_ stored in DNG/XMP, the "crs schema" should be able to enlighten you...

Thomas Knoll - Lightroom - ACR 4.3.1 Sony A700 Major Bug Needs Fixed

Please see this thread where all of the ACR4.3.1 problems are documented.
http://www.adobeforums.com/webx?128@@.3c060c59
Basically, ACR4.3.1 is useless to Sony A700 users on files approaching ISO1600 and beyond.
Many other raw converters render the files properly, but ACR4.3.1 can not.
ACR4.3.1 creates watercolor looking blotches that can not be removed, while every other converter on the market produces fine grained "regular" usable ouput.
The D300 and the A700 have the same sensor but ACR4.3.1 is completely trashing high ISO files from the A700. Other converters do not trash the A700 file.
All of the Sony A700 user base is affected, and many pros have been reporting and writing on this for months. This problem is camera specific to the Sony A700.
Reviewers and pro photographers around the world have writing about this ACR 4.3.1 issue and I had assumed you already were aware of the issue.
If not, please get ACR4.3.1 fixed for us in the next release. If you need any high ISO files to use I have maybe 10,000 A700 ISO1600-6400 files, so feel free to let me know.
Thank you very much and please make us aware that you have acknowledged the problems and are going to make a fix.
Have a good day.
-Sonolta
http://www.sonolta.com
http://www.illinoisphoto.com
http://www.rockriverfootball.com
and 97 others...

Yes, and in that thread I posted is also a comparison against ACDPro 2 KH did against a "ps expert", and two other links are posted that links to articles that compared another half dozen converters by one one of the most respected A-Mount pros on the planet.
The head to head conversions have been done in forums since September showing the ACR flaws against numerous converters by dozens of photographers.
That is the problem...it is just ACR mangling the A700 files. With the other converters the grain stays tight and small...with ACR as ISO rises to about 1600, smearing and blotches start taking over the image.
C1V4, Bibble, RT, ACDSeePro 2, etc, etc, all give a nice tight grained A700 high ISO file while ACR4.3.1 is the only one giving us the splotched watercolor blotches and detail smearing.
I think ACR is not recognizing something properly in the A700 files that the others are. Tone curve reproduction seems off at times, and some sort of NR/Blotches seem to be in the image before you even get started with ACR. Those two things don't happen when you use any of the other converters.
I don't know why it's happening, I just know it is happening. And since I have 200K files from a half dozen cameras it really sucks to have to use another processor on the A700 files...really throws a hitch in your giddy-up.
-Sonolta
http://www.sonolta.com
PS...Here is a link toy one of a couple articles by DK, quite possibly the most respected A-Mount guy on the planet. His test is not perfect, but it clearly show the splotches and artifacts (confetti, he calls it) that no other processors in the land gives us.
http://photoclubalpha.com/2008/02/08/capture-one-v4-cures-a700-high-iso-confetti/
These "watercolors" absolutely ruin shadow areas and backgrounds, and as I mentioned before everyone else (third party) in the business gives a fine grain pattern that can be easily dealt with after the fact.
Those ACR splotches are horrendous to deal with and that is the main reason we need the converter tweaked for A700 files...nobody wcan deal with those "watercolor" effects at high ISO!
I prefer IDC, most all other shooters are using RT, ACDPro2, C1V4 and others...

More ACR for elements questions

After having played around with ACR 4.1 I have a few questions and observations:
Not all the the features described as being in 4.1 in this article
http://photoshopnews.com/2007/05/31/about-camera-raw-41/
seem to be accessible, e.g. holding down the alt key while looking at radius and sharpening values to see the masks applied. Are these features available from CS but not in elements (It's the same plugin) or were they never implemented in 4.1 but only in some beta copy of the SW?
As noted in different msgs, there is scarcely any documentation for ACR 4.1 except what I can glean from articles like the one above and from trial and error - am I correct in this assessment?
If I bring the raw file into elements, some of the functions can work on 16 bit files but for most I must permanently convert down to 8 bits. How much print quality am I losing for 11x14 blowups during this process? I guess I'm losing none in resolution (PPI) but a little in gradations of color and luminosity.
How does this raw pre-processing in ACR compare with the new Nikon Capture 4 ( I have a D40x) ? Is it worth having both sets of SW? I couldn't find a price for Capture4 in the website - only a 30 day download trial. Anybody have any idea how much it costs?
Now if I would only go out and shoot some more photos instead of nerding out on the tech stuff!! Thanks.
Chris

Thanks Barbara - you wrote:
Your printer will almost certainly downsample your image to 8 bits when you print, so you're not losing there. The loss, such as it is, is in the available gradations of color for editing.
Is this the case If I get it printed at a photo printing/editing store (we have Mtophoto here in CO which I really like because a couple of the guys there really know their stuff)?

ACR 4.0 Documentation

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for