ACR INTERPOLATION Q

Simple Question (sorry I have not gotten the latest book yet - if the info is there).
When I use a higher MP DSLR like the Canon 5D Mark II... I only get one option to uprez (from 21. to 25.2) in ACR 6.1.
I want to know if in this situation (choosing the 25.2), is it going to interpolate with the algorithm that is very similar to Bi-cubic Smoother?
Since I am being open minded to the new information presented on this forum that interpolating in ACR with good Capture Sharpening settings, to the largest size, with the intent to push the boundaries of quality enlargements, that uprezzing in ACR can improve the quality... I want to do a series of tests on the subject.
The test would be:
1: (native 21MP) image, capture sharpened appropriately and then ACR interpolated to max size (25.2), and then in PS brought up larger to a 70 inch print using Smoother (200 ppi Lightjet Flex).
2: (native 21MP) image, capture sharpened appropriately (the same way) and then brought in PS at native size, and then in PS brought up larger to the 70 inch print using Smoother (200 ppi Lightjet Flex).
Of course output sharpening would be applied to both and the testing would look at both the image without output sharpening applied, then with.
Thank you in advance for your feedback.

function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}
Noel Carboni wrote:
Interesting to see you getting into the territory I've been mapping out... As you know, I asked a similar question about upsampling.
I think the real answer is that you have to try it yourself and see what results you can get. And don't stop just by looking at the pixels output from ACR... Take it to the next step and post-process your image(s) to see how much you can make of the results.
One thing is certain: If you have experience with past versions of ACR, you must unlearn some of what you have learned. The 2010 process doesn't respond the same ways the prior process did.
-Noel
I agree, TESTING!
Funny enough I just tested a very high frequency only image of a slot canyon wall (sandstone) shot with a top DSLR and top lens and top f/stop. I pushed the 21MP image to 70 inches at 200 ppi. One image was max interpolated in ACR, one was native size in ACR. Both capture sharpened with 40 - 0.5 - 100 - 0.
Once the images got into PS CS5 I used Smoother to go to the 70 inches on both.
At 100% they look the same.
At closer zooms, the opposite as I would suppose was true! The image brought into PS at native size (no ACR interpolation) was absolutely noticeably more detailed! I have no idea WHY. And I don't suppose it will be the same with every image!
But this is, so far, going against what I am hearing about ACR interpolation.
It will be interesting to me to see how further testing goes on other images of a variety of types...

Similar Messages

ACR INTERPOLATION UPSIZING

ACR INTERPOLATION UPSIZING (is it better?)
I have been off the subject for a couple years but the controversy seems to be about the same. I am a professional, high end, fine art, landscape photographer/print maker and I really want to ensure that my interpolation method is as BEST AS IT CAN BE for very large, high resolution gallery prints (usually the Canon 1DS Mark II or III). I did a very comprehensive research effort last time and basically found a lot of CONTRADICTORY info out there. I then tried all the up-sizing methods and then settled on PS Bicubic SHARPER (a tip by a very reputable fine artist/photographer and also mentioned in a KELBY book). Yes, I know this is unorthodox and controversial!
As I have gone through the database here on this forum I have all kinds of contradictory answers.
Some say ACR interpolation creates artifacts.
Some say it is the SAME as PS Bicubic Smoother.
I have also read DEKE say it is a "more sound algorithm" to interpolate in ACR at the RAW stage. This I also have found a few saying; that is is best done in ACR for quality, but the improvement is only slight (slight is good for me).
I am trying to produce some of the best, large, fine art landscape prints I can with my equipment (printed on Fuji Flex paper and printed on either a Durst Lambda or an Oce Lightjet) and I now want to re investigate this subject and get down to the bottom of it (again).
So... please throw out anything you know here! Is there a benefit to up-sizing in ACR, in terms of sheer quality large prints? Maybe JEFF SCHEWE would even throw in his perspective (again)?
Thank you for whoever participates in this beat to a pulp controversy. I just want to find out, if in two years, the subject has settled, or the answers changed?

OK, I finally did my first ACR interpolation VS PS Bicubic SMOOTHER interpolation "test" (previously posted the ACR VS Bicubic SHARPER results on this thread)...
Clearly not a scientific test, but very interesting (to me) for sure.
I took that same aforementioned (in this thread) image that has a ton of high to mid frequency areas (aspen trees in Glacier NP). It was cropped in ACR to a native 12.8 MP (a Canon 1DS Mark II file) and interpolated it as high as ACR would go to 19.4 MP and brought it into PS as an Adobe RGB file where it was converted to LAB and then sharpened with a global USM on the L channel at 500 amount, 1.0 Radius, and 0 amount (the image uniquely looked pretty good that way).
I then brought the native resolution 12.8 shot into PS and interpolated it to 19.4 MP using PS Bicubic SMOOTHER, then did the same LAB conversion and LAB sharpen.
I then slapped these on to each other as separate layers and looked them over very carefully in many different frequency areas.
I did this same test with the UNSHARPENED versions as well.
Interesting!
Still quite a noticeable difference at 200% zoom (but not nearly as much as the difference between ACR and Bicubic SHARPER). To my eye, the ACR image still was a tad "tighter" so to speak. In the sharpened versions, there was a noticeable "ultra fine detail" almost like an "ultra fine sharpening - minus any sharpening halos" in the ACR version (in the entire image). Almost like a very, very slight graininess, but not a "graininess" I would consider negative or a minus to an images overall quality. Maybe the type of "graininess" that would make an image appear less "digital" if you know what I mean. Although the "graininess" was SO fine I'm not sure it would make any noticeable appearance in a print (after the averaging that takes place turning pixels into a continuous tone print). I do wonder though, if it might be a touch more ultra fine DETAIL being preserved? I also wonder if the increased "tightness" would give the appearance of a slightly more detailed print in high to mid frequency areas?
In the UNSHARPENED versions the ACR image looked significantly "tighter" with a slight more ultra fine detail, but ONLY in the higher frequency areas. To my eye the mid and low frequency areas looked identical to the SMOOTHER version.
In the SHARPENED versions I did try to mimic the ultra fine detail (found in the ACR version) by adding just a bit more sharpening at the lowest radius possible on the L channel of the BICUBIC SMOOTHER version, but nothing I could do would make it look the same as the ACR version. Although I could get it fairly close, there was a slight increase of edge halos on the SMOOTHER version caused by the sharpening, that were not present in the ACR version.
Now I know this is not an exhaustive or scientific test whatsoever, but if I HAD to make my own personal conclusions or judgement based on this test alone... it would lead me to believe that I should interpolate using ACR as much as I can. Then If I needed an even bigger print than ACR can produce, I could then take the interpolation further in PS using Bicubic SMOOTHER. I also would guess that on large prints the overall print difference would be slight but noticable to a careful eye. My guess would be that small to mid sized prints may not make any discernible difference at all (say up to 18 or so inches).
Maybe more personal tests will are in order!

ACR vs CS 5 interpolation

Certainly is a minor question, but an advise is always helpfull!
To get the final size of the picture, in my case A3 o A3+, from a D 700 NEF, it is better to use ACR interpolation before to open the image in CS5 or open the file at native size and than immediately use CS5 interpolation to get the final size?
Many thanks for your co.operation!

Personally I find converting directly to an upsampled resolution yields the best results in my workflow. I also convert to ProPhoto RGB and 16 bit channel depth. This thread, which I started while I was doing my experimentation, might interest you:
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/682660?tstart=90
Some others claim other techniques work better for them, but I like my results.
-Noel

Easy capture sharpening in ACR 6

After reading most of the books available on ACR and sharpening, including Jeff's latest, and after having dinked with this stuff for many years, I've come to a startling conclusion, at least to me. Setting Amount = 150, Radius=1. Detail = 0, and Masking = 0 seems to work well for CAPTURE sharpening on all of my images. And I'm including low and high iso, "high frequency" and portrait, etc.
I capitalized capture because to me these settings work well on the initial image prep, narrowing the light/dark transitions without adding any discernable halo. Doing as is generally recommended, bringing up Detail to add a slight halo visible at 400% but not at 100%, with corresponding Amount and Radius adjustments, can certainly produce a slightly sharper appearing image on the monitor, but IMO one has now at least partially crossed over into output sharpening for the monitor.
Another advantage of the 150-1-0-0 approach is the lack of any artifacts as one continues to process the image, particularly upsampling for printing. For noisy images I do end up adjusting Masking as I interatively apply NR, but again in general the settings work well. And of course setting them up as ACR defaults simplifies processing. I'm curious as to whether others have arrived at a similar conclusion, or not. I haven't been doing this as a default very long, and wonder if I'll come across pitfalls later.
Richard Southworth

OK, well I just tried this on a landscape image that is basically almost all high/mid frequency:
Amount 150
Radius 0.5
Detail 0
Masking 0 (although I would mask appropriately with any image)
and then compared it to
Amount 35
Radius 0.5
Detail 100
Masking 0
Critical viewing was at 100, 200, 300 and 400% in ACR.
I am really surprised at this! Although the sharpening is extremely close to the same amount in appearance (at 100%) the first settings with detail at 0, to my eye has a lot cleaner edges (less halowing) and definitely less artifacting in smoother areas (even w no masking). Basically at the edges of the image there seems to be less feathering of pixels transitioning them (may interpolate up better this way?).
I will do some more testing, to see how the file then handles Sharpening for Output (with the new datail at 0 settings). I am thinking at this point that your detail at 0 idea might be sound. Less artifacting and cleaner edges seems to mean that the file will take more aggressive sharpening after up sizing it, and then the grain simulation I use to disguise the artifacting may be able to be a little less aggressive.
Question, do you still approach the masking (ACR) the same way?
Lastly, I tried using the first settings of sharpening on an image interpolated to max size in ACR (about 20MP) and then tried the same capture sharpening settings on an image at native size (about 12MP) then interpolated up to 20MP using PS Smoother (remembering that ACR applies the sharpening after the uprez). I have found the ACR uprez to have more detail at ultra zoom levels. But if ACR applies the capture sharpening after the ACR uprez (if my reading is right, Jeff S said that) and the other is capture sharpened at native pixel size and then uprezzed with Bicubic Smoother, aren't I just comparing apples with oranges? Also, when taking a image from 12.9 to 19.5MP is the ACR interpolating using its algorithm that is like Smoother?

Sony A300 ACR Defaults noisy and over exposed

I have a A300, ACR 5.1 and Elements 6.0 I have recently compared three raw plugins, Adobe ACR, Sony's image convertor and Silkypix free. With the Sony s/w I turned off all automatic processing. The results are a surprise.
The same raw file has much more noise when being opened in ACR and requires a great deal of exposure reduction to reduce highlights and get the highlight warning to disappear from within the plugin.
When saved as jpegs from the various covertors the ACR is noiser and all settings seem too strong. On very noisey photos (or at least photo that look noisey from within ACR) it some times isn't possible to clean up the noise. It just doesn't seem ACR is doing a propper job of opening the Sony raw files.
I do like the ACR plugin and it is much quicker than the Sony but at the moment there does a ppear to be a quality loss using it.

OK, well I just tried this on a landscape image that is basically almost all high/mid frequency:
Amount 150
Radius 0.5
Detail 0
Masking 0 (although I would mask appropriately with any image)
and then compared it to
Amount 35
Radius 0.5
Detail 100
Masking 0
Critical viewing was at 100, 200, 300 and 400% in ACR.
I am really surprised at this! Although the sharpening is extremely close to the same amount in appearance (at 100%) the first settings with detail at 0, to my eye has a lot cleaner edges (less halowing) and definitely less artifacting in smoother areas (even w no masking). Basically at the edges of the image there seems to be less feathering of pixels transitioning them (may interpolate up better this way?).
I will do some more testing, to see how the file then handles Sharpening for Output (with the new datail at 0 settings). I am thinking at this point that your detail at 0 idea might be sound. Less artifacting and cleaner edges seems to mean that the file will take more aggressive sharpening after up sizing it, and then the grain simulation I use to disguise the artifacting may be able to be a little less aggressive.
Question, do you still approach the masking (ACR) the same way?
Lastly, I tried using the first settings of sharpening on an image interpolated to max size in ACR (about 20MP) and then tried the same capture sharpening settings on an image at native size (about 12MP) then interpolated up to 20MP using PS Smoother (remembering that ACR applies the sharpening after the uprez). I have found the ACR uprez to have more detail at ultra zoom levels. But if ACR applies the capture sharpening after the ACR uprez (if my reading is right, Jeff S said that) and the other is capture sharpened at native pixel size and then uprezzed with Bicubic Smoother, aren't I just comparing apples with oranges? Also, when taking a image from 12.9 to 19.5MP is the ACR interpolating using its algorithm that is like Smoother?

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!

Images in ACR are softer than when viewed in Photoshop?

Greetings,
I'm finding that when I view a RAW image in ACR 4.1 that the image does not appear as sharp as when I open the image from ACR into Photoshop and view it in Photoshop. I open my RAW files from ACR into Photoshop as PSD files. The image as viewed in Photoshop looks sharper at values less than 100%. Here's a screen grab of the same image (Photoshop on the left, ACR on the right), side by side at the exact same viewing size (23.1%), and the Photoshop image has more sharpness and clarity to it. It's minor, but noticeable in the leaves and bricks and it gives the ACR image an overall soft feeling.
http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1jidvrPRXgXSfq8c5IHonNL13oeEI
Do the programs handle interpolation diferrently when viewing images at less than 100%? Or, do RAW and PS files inherently display differently when not viewed at 100%? When both are viewed at 100%, they match. This isn't a major deal breaker -- but the lack of clarity at smaller viewing sizes in ACR is unfortunate, since I rarely view images in ACR at 100% size when I'm reviewing images and images that I think are soft are, in fact, not.
The disparity seems more pronounced with images in portrait orientation.
I'm using a Mac Pro, Radeon X1900, 23" ACD. Canon 5d images.
Anyone experience similar? I love ACR, but wondering if someone can shed some light on this.

Thanks for the clarification now -- it makes sense. I knew ACR only showed the effects of sharpening at 100%, but had forgotten to take into account Photoshop shows the effects of sharpening at all sizes, including under 100%

ACR 4.1 only picking up 6M pixels from Fuji S5 Pro.

I have read that quite a few people are happily opening their raw files from a Fuji S5 Pro with ACR 4 & 4.1, but have any of you managed to get it to recognize the full 12M pixels. At first I thought it was me, new camera & all that, but then I opened a raw file in iPhoto & there it was in full resolution.
I'm guessing that ACR is not able to see the S pixel data in the image & is therefor only opening the remaining 6M R pixels, or visa versa.
I am using a MacPro & G5 with 10.4.10 & CS3 Design Premium with all the updates.
Thanks

The S and R sensors are not there to increase the resolution, but the dynamic range. You can select the number of pixels that you will export as they are interpolated anyways. (Click on the hyperlink at the bottom of ACR windows for workflow options)

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).

Banding in ACR workflow

Playing further with profiles for Nikon D7000, I finally noticed that there is indeed some strange kind of banding, that was mentioned by several users for different cameras. It is most noticable on saturated violet colors, as shown by this example (in Adobe RGB)
First picture is part of my test chart, developped by NX2, and second picture is the same test chart, developped by ACR6.3 using D7000 Camera Standard profile. If you compare those two pictures, you can see appearance of vertikal dark lines. It's more evident on the third picture, which shows the difference between first and second, multiplied by 10.

Some further analysis shown me that problem is in value of green color, as shown here. These graphs show value of R, G and B color on violet color in test charts, from black to saturation level. First graph is made on picture from NX2. Second one is made on picture from ACR using D7000 Camera standard. As you can see, green color doesn't rise smoothly in the shadows and that's the reason for banding. Even NX2 introduces some banding, but it's much more intensive on ACR
I made my own profile for D7000 with double number of value segments and result is shown on third graph. Banding is somewhat reduced, but it still exist and is still visible on the photo, so I'm not very satisfied with this solution. To reduce banding to the level of NX2, profiles would be much bigger than they are now (several MB).
Unfortunately, I didn't find a better way to reduce this problem than just enlarging the profile. Error is caused by interpolation method of lookup table of the profile in ACR internal workflow and amplified by applying tone curve and gamma curve further in ACR workflow, so only a change of interpolation algorithm can solve this. Although this problem won't be visible on 99% of pictures, this error is quite big and I hope that this problem will be addressed in the future

Can you temporarily overexpose a pixel in ACR?

I was working on some images the other day when it occurred to me that I was influencing some of the pixels brightness in several different ways: using the Exposure slider, the Recovery slider, using an exposure Gradient, using the Adjustment Brush, etc., each one making some exposure compensation.
I assume the order in which the controls are laid out doesn't necessarily represent the order the different controls' process settings are applied, but what started to worry me was a scenario in which one setting pushed exposure over 100% (i.e. clipped) before another brought it back down again (still clipped).
So, what I'm trying to ask is: is there a combination of exposure settings to avoid? For example, is it a bad idea to boost the exposure in the basic panel only to reduce it again with a gradient - or would it be better to use a negative gradient instead? That's just one example; are there any other potential pitfalls with different combinations, or does ACR work around this problem with some clever jiggerypokery?

The preview image is re-rendered using the entire combination of settings every time you move a control.
If you move one control (e.g. Exposure) and that leads to a block of pixels being "whited-out", then you move another control (e.g., Recovery) that undoes that condition, then you haven't "overexposed" anything.
Move the controls around freely until you like what you see in the preview and histogram, then press Open or Save. It's really as simple as that.
-Noel

Adobe Bridge CS4 will not launch ACR

I'm getting this message when trying to open an image from Bridge CS4 in ACR,
"Camera raw requires that a qualifying product has been launched at least once to enable this feature"
Any ideas how to cure this, I've downloaded the update 5.2.2., what is the correct location for this? Automatic update is just opening a box withe file in and I cant find the previous.
By the way ACR opens fine from Photoshop CS4.
Thanks
Philip James

Philip:
This has been discussed in the Camera Raw Forum: you may need to install the new ACR 5.2 plug-in in the correct place manually.
Eric Chan, "ACR 5.2 not installing in CS4" #1, 30 Nov 2008 9:17 am

Bridge CC and ACR unbearably slow

Upon researching the issue of a slow Bridge CC I realize I am not alone nor is this a new problem. The thread I read extensively is almost a year old. Despite paying for CC for about 9 months I still use CS6. I had hopes that the new 2014 CC would solve the bridge performance issues.
I am running a six-core system with 32 GB ram, an SSD for my OS and programs, an empty 1.5 TB drive dedicated to cache, on a win 7 - 64bit OS. Bridge CC and camera raw are so slow I can't use them. My only comparison is CS6 and using the same settings for both programs.
When opening bridge CC to the folder that was previously cached and loaded used it took ~51 seconds of "building criteria" before i could view the file types, ratings, and details in the filter box. In other words I do not see any information in the filters box for that time. I made sure that the thumbs were completely loaded into the cache before I closed Bridge CC and opened the program to the same folder. The same folder in Cs6 takes ~4 second to load..
I have performance issues in ACR too.
I batch edit in ACR like out lightroom counterparts do but Bridge CC Plus ACR are too slow to work with.
I selected the same 20 raw files in each case.
bridge CC camera raw 8.5 took 5 seconds of a watch icon to load the files into the camera raw dialog after hitting CTRL R
No edits or changes were made to the files.
when i click to the next image in the list (still in camera raw) it takes 0.5-1 second of the watch icon to load the next raw photo in the batch.
in CS6 I selected the same 20 unedited RAW files, CTRL R and they immediately load. I can switch from raw file to RAW file without any hiccup or delay. 5 seconds vs instant. I didn't build a six core system to wait for things to load.
not exactly scientific but that's the disparity I am seeing. Bridge CC is death to me. To make sure I wasn't crazy I clicked on a recent folder with only 80 raw files, 80 respective small jpgs and a couple video files (4.5 gigs of data). It took so long I freaked out that I had moved the files to a backup location instead of copying them. After 30 seconds I stopped counting, opened windows explorer, browsed the backup folder, copied the files and was about to paste them to what should have been the original location and then Bridge decided that it was ready to work. For that ~ 60-85 seconds there was no watch icon, no spinning circle or "building criteria". It just looked as if I was browsing an empty folder.
Any suggestions?

c. Once you post something that's helpful I'm sure someone will give you a thanks, until then stop trolling these boards - your name was all over that thread with useless and unhelpful information
Well mister Chuck 'know it al', you can congratulate yourself. With just 2 posts in the past year and no points for helpful answers at al you come in hard and call one of the most helpful posters a troll.
This was the limit for both of us, we had to stand a lot, including no help from Adobe but a more crippled forum website after each major upgrade. No possibility to place FAQs, a lot of people screaming for help without taking the effort to look first for similar problems, almost never providing correct details, crucial for a mixed Mac/Windows forum.
We had to suffer a lot, getting in unpaid and just plain users like all other guests, only it did cost us a lot of spare time.
But now we can rest from this task because mister Chuck "know it al" has jumped in to the rescue.
I wish you good luck and pity your friends and family, it must be a difficult task to live with such a nice person.
Goodbye to you all!!

New update 8.7.1 CS6 ACR not working---(I own hard copy not a Trial or part of CC), I purged cache in bridge, and photoshop. NO photos will open when I double clik, or will not open again in ACR alone. When I double clik on raw file I get Sign In requir

I purged cache in bridge, and photoshop. NO photos will open when I double clik, or will not open again in ACR alone. When I double clik on raw file I get Sign In required Notice--We will now register your TRIAL to your Adobe ID-------I am alread a SUBSCRIBER-------------Yes I get this same issue in Creative Cloud and same issue. error: Camera Raw editing is not enabled-----Camera Raw editing requires that a qualifying product has been launched at least once to enable this feature. These errors are happening inside both CS6 Bridge and CCphotoshop Bridge------NOTE----I am ALREADY signed into Creative Cloud and still get those message errors.........Need to fix ASAP.

When you sign in to Adobe.com with the user ID and Password your using in the Creative Cloud and Photoshop does this link https://www.adobe.com/account/my-products-services.html show that the account has a subscription?
Also this is a user forum not a Adobe Customer Services web site.

Adobe XMP Files not deleted with Raw Files in ACR

I am using Photoshop CS3 on a Windows XP platform. My camera raw files are mostly kept on a Windows 2003 file server, which has a gigabit connection to my workstation. However, I have the same problems when using PS CS3 on my Windows XP laptop.
I take many hundreds of 'technical' photographs using an Olympus E1 and Canon G9 cameras. I usually bracket the exposures on the E1, specially when photographing white painted yachts, and then rate and select the images that I want in ACR 4.1.1. Unwanted images are deleted at this time.
The problem I am having is that the associated *.xmp files are not always deleted with the camera raw files, with the result that I now have literally thousands of these 'orphaned' files cluttering up the server. The only options I have are to delete the files manually, which is a pain, or to leave them on the server, wasting unnecessary space.
I have the same issue with Canon and Nikon raw files, so this problem is not specific to Olympus files.
This is a long standing problem, and I would be grateful if anyone has any answers?
If any Adobe programmers are watching, it would be handy if you could provide a simple utility to delete orphaned *.xmp files, or at least compress them into some kind of archive.
Thanks,
Nigel.

[quote] As far as Photoshop and ACR go, ALL raw files are treated as read-only.
Your original raw files remain untouched, no matter what you do to them.
Any adjustments you make to a raw file are kept only as metadata (flags, if you will) in that XMP side-car file. Every time you want to re-open that raw image file, ACR will reach for the XMP file and apply the adjustments automatically, transparently. [/quote]
That is not quite correct. Camera RAW files can be permanently deleted from within Adobe Camera Raw. The problem with ACR 4.1 to 4.4 4 was that the XMP files were left behind. This now seems to have been rectified in the latest version (ACR 4.5).
Thank you Adobe!

ACR INTERPOLATION Q

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for