ACR 6.0 Grain Question?

I am a professional fine art landscape print maker. My question is about adding grain in ACR 6.0. I do most work in ACR with some capture sharpening there, a touch of color noise reduction and no luminance noise reduction (all images are ideally exposed at very low ISO). I then do fine tuning in PS (now CS5). Speed of workflow is of no concern. Quality is the highest concern. I interpolate using Bicubic Smoother (lets not argue about that...). I make very large high end laser (light-jet) silver halide (flex) super gloss prints. After interpolation, the last major step in my workflow is always extremely advanced custom sharpening. I am just starting to get into adding grain, and will be doing test prints shortly.
The question(s):
It does not seem like the best time to add grain (in ACR 6.0) considering my workflow. It seems that the best time might be after interpolation, and right after the sharpening. Why would I add grain that would then be interpolated considerably, and then sharpened? Is sharpening digital "grain" a ideal way to develop an image? If my intuition is right here (maybe I am wrong) maybe a trip back to ACR with the giant finished, sharpened, TIFF would be a good idea? Or is the grain making abilities of PS (CS5) as good or better than ACR 6.0? Maybe I am way off on when the best time to add grain to my workflow is?
Thanks!

I posted this a long time back, and now that I have done quite a few jobs (landscape
galley prints for myself and other clients - I do photo retouching professionally) I have to say that I really like the grain simulation in ACR. Once the enlargement is finished, sharpened and all that, I make a copy of it (Tiff) and send it through ACR and add the desired grain texture.
I just finished a 70" landscape for a client (on FujiFlex poly paper using the Oce Lightjet) at 200 ppi. I used ACR grain on a layer at Amount 500, Size 18, and Roughness at 35. Then once that grain layer was in Photoshop as a layer, I graduated it into the scene at about a 30-40% opacity to meet the images needs (of mainly disguising artifacts and creating an illusion of more fine detail but not creating a "graininess" look to the image) and erased it from the sky entirely. I viewed the image mainly at 50% but would also do some evaluation at 100%. Having the luxury of being a professional photo retoucher and having a clients images going to gallery almost daily has really allowed me to experiment with both PS grain and ACR grain techniques, and I can say I am impressed with ACR (as I always am).

Similar Messages

Switching From Windows To Mac: ACR Database, Bridge Cache Questions

I am planning to switch from Windows XP to the Mac running Leopard. I am now running CS2 in Windows, but will upgrade to CS3 on the Mac. I am maintaining my RAW file settings in ACR central database and my Bridge cache in a centralized cache file. I've searched the forums but couldn't find answers to my migration questions: 1. Can one move the ACR database file from Windows (in folder C:\Documents and Settings\<username>\Application Data\Adobe\CameraRaw) to a folder somewhere on the Mac to preserve the settings on RAW files that are also moved to the Mac? Or does one need to export individual XMP files for the RAW files in Windows and move both the RAW files and their associated XMP files to the Mac? 2. I have a similar question for migrating the Bridge cache from Windows XP to the Mac. Can one somehow move the Bridge cache over (I think it's in C:\Documents and Settings\<username>\Application Data\Adobe\Bridge\Cache\Thumbnails\) or do I need to export the cache for each folder and subfolder and move them over along with the folders and subfolders? I would appreciate any help or pointers to any Adobe documents or directions. Thank you.

Man-Kong,
Since you said that you were also migrating from CS2 to CS3 I would have said that their cache files were incompatible. That is what I experienced with CS1, CS2, and CS3 in the past. But Thomas indicated it should work. I must be missing something.
The XMP files move fine for me. The local cache (folder) files have completely different names with each version and I see no evidence that they can be shared. This is also a problem with archived CDs. CS3 always has to rebuild cache if they were archived from CS1 or CS2.
Since the central cache must have some folder references, and this structure will be completely different on Mac, I dont see how it can work. It doesnt work for scripts or actions either.
So my humble recommendation is to set your preferences to store cache and XMP files in the local folders where possible. Then simply bite the bullet. Each time you visit a folder for the first time in the new environment, cache will be rebuilt.
Cheers, Rags :-)

ACR 4.2 Setting Questions

I recently took a series of pictures with the Canon 40D white balance set to
daylight. When I look at the white balance numbers in ACR they are not the
same for each picture.
Why is this?

Rob - I believe that OP did shoot raw, or ACR would not show him him color balance numbers.
Ramon - the question was not why his color looked different. It was why the color balance settings differed from image to image, given that they were fixed in the camera.
I believe that when ACR is set to "As Shot", then it should represent the color balance as set in the camera. In my experience, it has done this.
EmJayPrice - do you have the color balance in ACR set to "As Shot"? If not, that would certainly explain it.
David

Grain/Noise disappear while making adjustments in ACR

Can someone help me wrap my head around this? When making an adjustment using, for example, a luminance slider,(Hue Sat Lum dialog), in ACR, Noise and Grain disappear during the adjustment only to return after releasing the left click button. This makes it very difficult to get a real time feel for adjustments. More like trial and error. I haven't noticed this before. I've been running CS5 on win7 with a dedicated 500gb scratch disk. I work primarily with Raw files. The appearance during the adjustment resembles having cranked the luminance or masking, (in the sharpening/noise reduction dialog), way up. It may be that this is most prevalent when working on an image that has been significantly cropped.
Thank you...

The latest update for Photoshop CS5 is Camera Raw 6.7. You should update. Try first by choosing Help - Updates in Photoshop. If that doesn't work, seek out the Camera Raw 6.7 update on one of these pages:
http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?product=39&platform=Windows
http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?product=39&platform=Macintosh
-Noel

Capture SHARPENING in ACR?????????????

Capture Sharpening in ACR???
OK, after going back and forth with Jeff Shewe a few times here on the forums (and doing some tests and a variety of additional study) I am becoming converted to believing that some "Capture Sharpening" in ACR (before interpolating a file substantially in PS) when done RIGHT can actually improve the
ultimate quality potential of a large, high res print. Believe me, this is new thinking to me. I would like this thread to be anything and everything, any experienced folks would like to throw into the mix regarding ACR "Capture Sharpening."
Questions, observations, links to more information...
This is because I want to absolutely master it and the knowledge of it. I'll start out below with some questions and concerns. Thank you anyone who contributes in any way.
Mark

Jeff, I have questions for you, if you don't mind...?
OK, I spent the last two days re-reading Bruce Fraser's wonderful book "Real World Image Sharpening" two
more times (I am certified to teach it now!) in attempt to make sure I have every word of the book understood and mastered in my head and in practice (with a twist of my own here and there).
But after reading it, a general question seems to nag me. Since sharpening does not really add any true
detail to a print, but instead, increases the
perception or illusion of detail by artificially increasing contrast in the form of halos specifically at
edges...
And because your general recommendation to sharpen at 100% view, just
until the image looks "good" without doing any damage to the image, or over-sharpening...
(BTW, for some peoples info, I make large to very large, high end, high res, continuous tone, landscape gallery prints)...
I am having a hard time understanding the
threshold of "damage" to do (or not to do) to an image file in ACR, by essentially increasing contrast halos, which in of themselves, it seems, are a sort of "damage"
if you will?
Maybe there is a book(s) or article(s) or something out there that can help me figure out how to take "Capture Sharpening" right up to its limitation without going over??? I guess I'm needing more
detailed explanation about how to figure out this threshold?
Another question...?
Can or does ACR sharpening (or is there a way in ACR sharpening) constrain the sharpening to specific tonal ranges (like when we use USM on a layer with the "blend if" sliders set to protect the top highlight and bottom shadow tones)?This allows the image to handle more sharpening with less damage.
The reason I ask, is because my main concern with "Capture Sharpening" is that I might take the haloing to a certain level, which may end up
limiting the amount of additional sharpening I can do effectively (without damaging the image) in PS after up-sizing, because the halos have reached towards, or close to black and white... (hopefully I can find a better way to re-word that last sentence)...
Sorry if I am asking too many questions... But that is one reason for forums, right, to mull over and learn about issues? I admit, I am an obsessive quality freak with my prints (anyone hear of Christopher Berkett? - I consider myself, sort of, in the same vein as him in terms of the technical quality of prints he strives to make) and I am always on a constant search for as close to perfection as possible, even if it pains me (yet, it is a pleasure!). I know its a sickness, but an enjoyable one!

(Minor?) Bug: ACR Preferences file does not match ACR version number

This may be of no major consequence (I don't know one way or the other) but the preferences file for ACR 4.2 on my Mac shows up as "Adobe Camera Raw 4.1 Prefs", even after trashing it and letting ACR rebuild it.

The question mark should have been after "Bug", I reckon. (As in "Bug?")
The reason I brought it up was that it has caused confusion to at least one user over at the Bridge Macintosh forum.
The Adobe Bridge team has been suggesting to purge the ACR cache as a means to alleviate a very significant bug in Bridge (it's showing the wrong thumbnail and preview in some instances, speciously calling up thumbnails and previews of totally unrelated images in very different folders).
Therefore, that user (and I suspect others) tried nuking the ACR preferences file as well.

ACR color mode defaults

raw captures do not use the camera settings. It records them in the EXIF data.
ACR uses the EXIF data when opening a raw capture. This is painfully obvious when it comes to white balance if it has not been set properly at capture time. Not a problem, that can be modified the EXIF WB is the starting point.
The questions concerns the color mode:
If set at sRGB at the time of capture, does ACR uses the camera EXIF setting (sRGB) as it does for the white balance?
If so, should not color mode be a choice BEFORE opening the raw capture in ACR?
The 'no question asked', EXIF color mode data opening is troubling as sRGB cuts the gamut quite a bit. All edits are made in the sRGB mode. Setting the 'open as 16 bit RGB' only opens a 16 bit sRGB image as if it was a 16 bit RGB, meaning there is no color in the suddenly re-opened gamut space since the original color data has been killed when opening the file.
Last question:
What am I missing here?
Message was edited by: Jacques V, 'wording'

The answer is bad....
This is the transcript. It confirms what I suspected.
Thank you for contacting Adobe.
A representative will be with you shortly.
You are now chatting with Abhishek Joshi.
Abhishek Joshi: Hello. Welcome to Adobe Technical Support.
Jacques V: This is a two pronged question that concerns ACR and raw. Background A raw capture does not use the camera settings but records them, including white balance and color mode. ACR uses that recorded data to import the raw image as illustrated by the 'default' that reflects the original color balance. Questions: Does ACR uses the color mode recorded as camera setting when importing the image? If so, is there a way to override that import setting in ACR? My concern is that if ACR defaults to the camera settings the potential color gamut is ignored and one of the advantage of the raw format is severely limited by ACR as the raw format allows for a color mode change.
Abhishek Joshi: I will check it first
Abhishek Joshi: I am checking on this please provide me 2 minutes
Jacques V: Ok
Abhishek Joshi: Thankyou
Abhishek Joshi: Thank you for your time and patience
Abhishek Joshi: ACR information is derived from your RAW picture
Abhishek Joshi: If you do ACR default it will take the picture to the original state
Jacques V: Meaning it will use sRGB?
Jacques V: (as it was the camera setting, even if not used when recording the raw caprture)
Abhishek Joshi: You clicked the picture in sRGB ?
Abhishek Joshi: What ever the profile you chose in camera while capturing the picture
Jacques V: Ok then. In this case we eidt the raw file in sRGB and the export to PS CC is whatever is set in the option link in ACR. Am I correct?
Abhishek Joshi: Correct
Jacques V: Thank you. Not good news but a good information to have.
Jacques V: Good bye.
Abhishek Joshi: Your welcome
Abhishek Joshi: BBye

PSE 10 - ACR 6.6 Lens Profiles

I noticed in the structure of the Lens Profiles folders by brands that they were labeled by camera model. I'll be purchasing a lens listed under the earlier Canon EOS 5D model but I am using an EOS 50D. Will ACR find this profile?

I didn't notice the ACR forum where this question was answered basicly the camera model is ignored and only the lens description matters.

Lost grain?

I'm working on a short film in FCP7 and added a bit of grain to my shots to make them feel less like video. I'm using the Nattress Film Effects plugin. The grain looks great in FCP, as does the movie I export from the sequence. However something seems to happen in either Compressor or DVD Studio Pro that causes the grain to disappear. When I play back my burned DVD it looks like smooth video again -- no noticeable grain. My only thought is that I'm burning a standard def disc and the grain is so fine that such details/subtlties are simply lost, but I'm not sure if that is the case.
Has anyone had a similar experience or have any ideas what might be happening? Thanks in advance for any thoughts/suggestions.

Not to solve the lost grain question, but more to the "I don't want it to look like video" point, I find two things useful.
- Address the Gamma. You need something like Nattress's Film look tools or use Color to stretch the color and luma distribution into a film S curve. Dealing with this goes a long way to changing the "video" look.
- The other thing that sets video apart from "film" is the frame rate. Video usually looks much smoother due to the higher 60 fields per second or 30 progressive frames per second recording rate. The 24p fps frame rate of film has an immediate visual impact. If you go that direction, use Compressor and set the retiming setting in Frame Tools to Better (not best) as a start. Best does yield slightly better images. However, they may not be noticably improved and they come at a really significant computational time increase.
Of course, well lit, well recorded material can be pushed and pulled much more effectively. It's really hard to do much with murky or over exposed material.
Have fun.
x

Hot key to open image from Camera Raw?

Is there a key combination in Camera Raw v4.1 to open the image in Photoshop CS3 instead of having to use the mouse to click on the Open Image button?
Thanks to anyone who can help me out.

Barry,
You are under yet another misconception if you think I have been commenting on your workflow. I have not, and will not.
From the beginning, I have been focusing on a single issue: what single-key stroke may affect the Open button in the ACR dialog box. The answer was (and remains) that there is no single-key stroke that will open the image in Photoshop if you're having Bridge host ACR. Command+O will open the image on the Mac, or Ctrl+O on Windows.
Jeff then pointed out to you that the Enter key activates the Done button
as long as Bridge is hosting ACR, and that the same Enter key activates the Open button
if Photoshop is hosting ACR.
The question of deciding whether Bridge or Photoshop is going to be hosting ACR is a separate question from using Bridge to open your images.
Of course you can open your image through Bridge and
still have Photoshop host ACR.
Thus, your workflow has nothing to do with what I've been trying to convey to you.
And I have no comment, criticism or suggestion in connection with your workflow.
As Jeff has repeatedly explained to you, it makes more sense to have Bridge host ACR when you're only making global adjustments to your images, and to have Photoshop host ACR when you need to make localized adjustments, (e.g. selections) to your images or to print them.

Problem with DNG conversion of Panasonic FZ-200 .RW2 file?

When I convert a Panasonic FZ-200 .RW2 raw file using DNG Converter 8.6 on Windows 8.1 64 bit, I get a warning from ExifTool of "Invalid DistortionInfo." Looking at the ExifTool source code, this happens when the length of the block containing the distortion information is not 32 bytes in length (which it is in the .RW2 file).
This indicates to me that the DNG converter is not correctly rewriting some of the metadata correctly.
Can anybody else reproduce this, and is this the proper forum for reporting this problem?

I am seeing the same thing, both with the standalone DNG Converter 8.6 and DNGs saved from ACR 8.6:
My question would be whether the DistortionInfo is supposed to always be 32-bytes according to some current standard or if there is somewhere else in the file that says how long the DistortionInfo area actually is so it's fine that it's not 32-bytes. I mean is the DNGC doing something wrong or is EXIFTool too inflexible.

No monitor profile available. Yellow tint after import

Hello. I have bough last week a new Toshiba notebook which has Windows 8.1 preinstalled on it.
I have noticed a problem that seems other came also on the same issue. When i watch images on a non profile managed software, the images look fine. Once i import them on Lightroom or Photoshop, the images get a yellow tint.
The problem and a possible solution is also described here: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1164320 . This is setting the sRGB as a monitor profile. I know this is not a great solution, but surely better than what i see on my monitor. In any way, this unfortunately this did not work for me.
This is what i mean with the yellow tint (left Lightroom, right Irfan)
Today i tried following:
Step 1
The image is in RAW format. I import it in Lightroom and gets that yellow tint i described.
I export it with sRGB in jpg format. The jpg file has still that yellow tint. Please note here, that others that report similar problems, they mention that after the export they image looks again fine.
Step 2
I open the RAW image with Irfan (not color managed) and save it as jpg. The image is saved "correctly", as you see on the right side of the image above.
Step 3
I import the exported jpeg that was created with Irfan and import it to Lightroom.
The yellow Tint now does not appear on the imported JPEG.
One more tip i can give is: When i do a Soft proofing on Lightroom and choose sRGB i still see that yellow tint.
What exactly is happening ? I try to identify the problem. Why i see just raw images with this yellow tint, no matter the profile i set for my monitor and no matter the proofing options on lightroom.
I don't want to spend 100+ euro for a calibration device and not being able to use the profiles.
Any suggestions for further testing ?

First - Irfanview needs to be at least IV 4.35 and needs to have the LCMS.DLL plug-in installed as well as having the Color Management enabled so that you have some chance of your Photoshop and IrfanView versions of an image matching:
Alright we have the first conflict here.
I have the latest IrfanView version (4.37) , i saw that the Lcms.dll exists in the plugin list, and i have set the settings as suggested.
Furthermore at the moment i have sRGB as my default monitor profile. Still this is how i see things.
IrfanView and Photoshop have the same difference as before. Yes i have rerasted IrfanView on every change. I actually freshly installed also the latest irfanView version with its plugin.
Photoshop - Irfan Side by Side
Monitor Profile Settings 1
Monitor Profile Settings 2
IrfanView Settings
About this
As you can see the Adobe default processing with the Adobe Standard profile, at top left, is a little greenish. This is compared to the default camera processing as viewed in the camera-embedded preview jpg from the CR2 at the bottom right which a white frame around it.
When i open the raw image on LR, i have (from what i can see on my monitor) the same results as your Adobe default processing (Top left) . What confused me on your image above is bottom left image "Adobe processing - Camera standard". What is with Adobe processing meant here? The camera profile? If yes then how can we have Adobe camera profil but also camera standart ? If you mean the process LR provides, mine is set on 2012. But no adobe available for selection. I do not know if this is meant though.
Here is my comparison between Adobe Standart Profile and Camera Standard.
LR: Adobe Profile vs Canon Standart Profile
One more comparison is of the files you made available including the IranView jpg you supplied as compared to the Canon JPG preview that I extracted from the CR2 file:
What you can see is that the CR2 as viewed in LR and LR's exported JPG of that CR2 look about the same (top and bottom left), and the IrfanView and Canon-JPG versions of the CR2 look the same (top and bottom right). This is your IV version of the JPG, not something I made, but I expect IV has just extracted the camera-embedded fullsize preview JPG from the CR2 file just like I did using a different tool, so they look the same, but it is possible your IV is using a Canon-specific plug-in that uses the Canon-supplied SDK library DLLs that can also duplicate Canon processing. I only have the Formats.dll and the CRW.dll but not all the extra SDK DLLs so I expect my IV is only extracting the camera-embedded preview JPG.
Yes i can confirm that also on my environment. The exported CR2 from LR matches the exported JPG as also there is a match between IrfanView CR2 with the Camera standard profile export. Unfortunately i cannot confirm if IrfanView uses a sort of Canon-plugin to make the RAWS rendered automatically with the Canon standard profile.
And if you want your Adobe treatment of CR2 files to look much more similar to your camera's treatment, then use the Camera Standard profile in Lightroom and the PS ACR plug-in.
Question on this. Should i always put a Camera Standart profile on all my images after importing them on LR ?
Also please, let me know what you meant with Adobe Processing. I searched on the web with "Adobe Processing lightroom" , but i could not understand what is meant.
If using the Camera Standard profile doesn't make things look almost the same, then please post a side-by-side of LR's view of the CR2 and IrfanView's JPG extracted from the CR2--what you've linked to, just above.
Here is a comparison between an exported JPG from Lightrom with camera profile (Right) compared to an exported JPG with IrfanView from the RAW (left). As mentioned before the images look identical, with the one exported from LR with Camera profile being a bit more vibrant. But not much of a difference.
IrfanView vs Camera Profile export
So in the end it seems you see also that green-yellowish cast on the RAW image. From what i see on the screenshots you made.
The question now is why i do not see RAW the same as Adobe software ? Could i do this test with an other viewer?
To summerize from my side as well. A monitor calibration is surely good to do. On the other side the cast i see on the RAW in this case has not to do with the profile but rather with Adone profile and the way this image was captured.
PS. I must admit that is one of the best on line support i have ever seen. Thumbs up ssprengel !

Open as "Smart Object" from ACR to PS questions.

I have 2 questions associated with opening from ACR as a Smart Object in Photoshop. I'm using CS4.
1. Is there a way to retrieve the original filename (complete with path) using a script or a setting somewhere to do this? I'm currently using Bridge Talk to ask Bridge what the active folder is then adding that to the document's .name property and taking off the " as Smart Object-1" part. Then I add a .psd extension to it and then I have to save it to retain that name unless there's an answer to #2 below.
2. Is there a way to change the Document's name as described above from "Filename as Smart Object-1" to "Filename.psd" without actually saving it?
It seems to me there would be a simple way that I might be overlooking here.
Thanks
Mike

Sorry, I guess I need to explain better.
I wrote a script to do this, but here is this portion of the workflow:
1. Open CR2 file in ACR and make adjustments.
2. Open as Smart Object in PS.
3. Script Events Manager activates this script on Document Open, checks to see if it was opened as a Smart Object. We'll assume it did.
4. The script asks me if I want to make another layer. I pick yes. The script copies the SO layer, sets an inverted mask, and opens to edit settings in ACR again.
5. I adjust the settings for that layer in ACR and click OK.
The script will keep looping between 4 and 5 as long as I pick YES.
This gives me more local control of areas. If I want to bring out eyes a bit, I can up contrast, saturation, sharpness, brightness, exposure, or whatever looks best for the eyes in ACR, then unmask the eyes as much as I want on that layer in Photoshop. There is more data to pull from in the RAW file vs trying to do the same thing within Photoshop.
Opening as a regular image file then converting to a SO doesn't give me the same control. I would have to reopen the file separately, make the adjustments in ACR, open to PS then copy that document and paste as a new layer in the original.
Duplicating the document might work also, but I can also just save as .psd at that point since I'd have to know the path name by then anyway. I'll give that a try, though, and see if it might work better. The only catch with the save part is it slows me down waiting for it to write the file and if I have 5+ SO layers, it takes awhile. Once I unmask where I want, I flatten to a rasterized layer and continue.
Thanks

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)?

PSE10 & ACR: A Basic Question

I have been using PSE8 because of the full-featured version of ACR (v. 5.7 hosted by Adobe Bridge; not the version hosted by PSE8) for several years. To my dismay, this version of ACR does not support RAW files from Canon's 60D camera. Since I have been experiencing trouble using Adobe's DNG Converter, I am considering upgrading to PSE10.
Question: Does PSE10 contain the full-featured version of ACR or just the abbreviated version?
Thank you kindly.

I think it's probably one of those things that was overlooked, whether by mistake or on purpose, i cannot say, but 100's if not thousands of people have the same "glitch" using pse 8 on macs.
Examples of some other "overlooked" functions in various versions of elements
Photoshop elements 1 has an easy workaround for getting a layer mask
Photoshop elements 2 has a full brushes palette just like photoshop 7
Photoshop elements 3 has the Select>Color Range command
Photoshop elements 4 has Smart objects
Photoshop elements 5 has Lab mode
Photoshop elements 6 has an editable black and white adjustment layer
These are just a few of many functions in elements that aren't "supposed" to be there.
I should add that most of the above require an action from photoshop to enable them, but they are there.

ACR 6.0 Grain Question?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for