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!

Similar Messages

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...

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?

ACR has stopped allowing to upsize to 4113x6144 automatically

I have used ACR to upsample to 4113x6144 by years, because my camera is a little older and doesn't shoot at the capabilities I need.
This past week it has stopped working and limits the upsampling to basically nothing, it keeps it at 10.0 MP and is shrinking my images now. I have to print 12x18 for a class I am in and I just noticed this problem. Does anyone know how to get my ACR back?

The newer ACR version has a different way to specify the output size, either during Save Image or Workflow Options but your enlargement size should still be available within the constraints of the aspect ratio of your images. If you're only getting smaller than native options then check to make sure the Don't Enlarge checkbox is checked. If this doesn't look like your Workflow Options panel then please post a screenshot of yours:

Upscale / Upsize / Resize - best practice in Lightroom

Hi, I'm using LR 2 and CS4.
Before I had Lightroom I would open a file in Bridge and in ACR I would choose the biggest size that it would interpolate to before doing an image re-size in CS2 using Bicubic interpolation to the size that I wanted.
Today I've gone to do an image size increase but since I did the last one I have purchased OnOne Perfect Resize 7.0.
As I have been doing re-sizing before I got the Perfect Resize I didn't think about it too much.
Whilst the re-size ran it struck me that I may not be doing this the best way.
Follow this logic if you will.
Before:
ACR > select biggest size > image re-size bicubic interpolation.
Then with LR2
Ctrl+E to open in PS (not using ACR to make it the biggest it can be) > image re-size bicubic interpolation.
Now with LR2 and OnOne Perfect Resize
Ctrl+E to open in PS > Perfect Resize.
I feel like I might be "missing" the step of using the RAW engine to make the file as big as possible before I use OnOne.
When I Ctrl+E I get the native image size (for the 5D MkII is 4368x2912 px or 14.56x9.707 inches).
I am making a canvas 24x20"
If instead I open in LR as Smart Object in PS and then double click the smart icon I can click the link at the bottom and choose size 6144 by 4096 but when I go back to the main document it is the same size... but maybe if I saved that and then opened the saved TIFF and ran OnOne I would end up with a "better" resized resulting document.
I hope that makes sense!?!?!?!
Anyway I was wondering with the combo of software I am using what "best practice" for large scale re-sizing is. I remember that stepwise re-sizing fell out of favour a while ago but I'm wondering what is now the considered best way to do it if you have access to the software that was derived from Genuine Fractals.

I am indeed. LR3 is a nice to have. What I use does the job I need but I can see the benefits of LR3 - just no cash for it right now.

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)

Upsizing files in LR

One of the great features of ACR is the ability to upsize digital camera files to, say, meet standard photo library submission specs - not to mention specifying colorspace and resolution. As far as I can see there is no way to do that within LR 1.0, which means you have to add another step to your workflow outside LR to embed that instruction in the RAW/DNG file - kind of a nuisance. Or am I missing something?
Mac OSX

Knew there had to be something - thanks for that.

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).

Downsizing: in camera, ACR, or Photoshop

I'll start by quoting Jeff Schewe on a upsizing thread:
"In any event, I _DO_ agree that the whole sizing function in ACR needs a rev. I also agree thst upsampling in ACR is better than after the fact in PS because the sharpening and noise reduction can scale better when you set ACR to upsample. And I think it can be argued ACR upsampling is a bit better than PS's. So, I think that use case should be pushed..."
I was wondering about the opposite, and did not want to pollute the other thread.
With the advent of 36MPX cameras, if one knows that some images will end online, and their goal is not to be printed in a large size, or if storage space is an issue, should one use the cameras ability to record smaller images, downscale in ACR, or in Photoshop, for optimal quality? (I know that if it is not recorded, it is lost forever, while doing it in ACR/Ps keeps the raw file intact.)

Perhaps the answer has to be based on the individual's situation and projected use of the image data.
One could argue that you should shoot at the best possible quality and resolution, and save the raw file regardless of what your current known need for a photo is. Some day you might happen to need a super high res version. Of course, that happens in practice for some folks only very rarely.
What's the size of a D800 NEF? 40 MB? No lightweight for sure, but with today's drives of several million megabytes or more is it consequential?
The strategy I've found works best for me (and I have only a 10 MP camera) is to shoot in my camera's largest raw size, upsample during Camera Raw conversion (e.g., to 25 MP), then resize for use after the hijinks in Photoshop are completed using Bicubic resampling (the new Ps CS6 defaults are not good IMO).
I can see my strategy being roughly the same with a camera with a lot more MP, except that I'd probably not upsample during conversion.
You need to outfit yourself with a decent computer for storing and working with very large datasets to be practical. But such things, especially gargantuan storage, are cheaper and more powerful than ever today.
-Noel

ACR v4.1: Canon files being overly smoothed?

Hello,
I prepared a long knee-jerk post about having the ability to completely disable luminance noise-reduction in ACR, as one was (presumably) able to in previous versions of ACR. After working with numerous files from my Canon 30D and Pro1, I noticed that even with all noise-reduction and sharpening sliders at zero, ACR v4.1 still seems to do some significant luminance smoothing, especially on higher ISO files from my 30D and even ISO 50 files from my Pro1 P&S.
I was quite upset by what I had seen and took this as a fundamental change in Adobe's philosophy to raw processing. However I now do believe this to be (mostly) a bug, oddly enough Canon specific, since I have now tested ACR v4.1 with higher ISO shots from numerous other cameras - Nikon D2X, Hasselblad H3D/39 (DNG export from FlexColor), Leica M8 and a Fuji S5 Pro - and found this problem to be nowhere near as dramatic and, indeed, at times not even noticeable at all. In fact, on many of these other tests, files from the H3D/39 in particular, I feel ACR v4.1 is actually doing fantastic job!
Granted, I don't have anywhere near the selection of shots from these other cameras as I don't own them personally (I just have many tests from ones I have access to at work), however I am reasonably sure ACR v4.1 does not have the same problem with those cameras as with shots from the Canons I do own. Again... hoping this is just a bug.
I will be following this post with my original (long) knee-jerk response as I think it is important that Adobe hears such feedback in any case, whether this issue with Canon files is a bug or is intentional.
So, you are warned... the post following this one is long!
Best Regards,
Mike Mander

Hello,
[ Before reading this post, please make sure you have read the one immediately preceding this! ]
First off, apologies, as this is quite a long post. System info: MacBook Pro C2D (3Gb RAM), OS X v10.4.9, Photoshop CS3 with ACR v4.1, Lightroom v1.0. Tests done with Canon EOS-30D & Powershot Pro1.
While there are a lot of things I really like about the image processing in the new version 4.1 of ACR, like the new optional edge-defringing, the more flexible sharpening controls (with no black halos around specular highlights!), less white-speckling in dark areas of higher ISO shots etc., I have come across a very disturbing fact which I believe has already been noted by a few others as well.
The fact being that v4.1 of ACR is now seemingly applying a certain degree of luminance noise-smoothing to raw files that is camera and ISO specific and, as far as I can tell, cannot be turned off. In my humble opinion, this is a bad bad thing! ACR has been known in the past as having one of the most "hands-off" approaches to raw image processing and this new smoothing effect is going against the grain! Pardon the pun... :-)
I first noticed this when I was processing ISO 50 files from my PowerShot Pro1. Being a P&S, even at ISO 50, there was a certain amount of noise texture which I found rather pleasing but with ACR v4.1, even with all noise reduction and sharpening set to zero, images that I post-sharpened in Photoshop had a certain watercolor-like look, somewhat similar to what, for example, Genuine Fractals might give one upon upsizing an image. When I went back to the Lightroom processed versions, which is using the older raw rendering engine, I did not see this effect and indeed, there was a dramatic difference between the two.
I had extensively tested ACR v4.1 with ISO 100 files from my EOS-30D and 20D, and did find that with certain settings, the new sharpening controls would render a similar watercolor type look when one is viewing files at 100%, but when sharpening was dialed right down and the image was post-sharpened in Photoshop, the differences between the old and new ACR, while visible, were not too dramatic and I did actually prefer the slightly cleaner rendering of skies and shadow areas in v4.1.
However after seeing what v4.1 ACR did with my Pro1 files, I decided to look at some ISO 1600 shots from my 30D and compare them to the previous version of ACR. Whoa! What a dramatic difference! There seems to be a considerable amount of luminance smoothing going on, even with all sharpening and noise reduction controls at zero, which wipes out subtle surface textures and can make edges of fine detail sort of "blend" together. Please do note that I realize that on anything other than the biggest prints or enlargements (or viewing at 100% zoom), one probably would not notice the effect of this new image processing, however...
I primarily do landscape photography and for me, preserving every last bit of texture detail is very important in making an image look natural. I much prefer a more "film-like" rendering of a raw file, even if that means a bit of graininess, rather than a smoothed image that looks artificial and more processed. In addition, this new image processing in ACR v4.1 limits the amount of post-sharpening that can be done to an image since too much sharpening starts to bring out edge-artifacts where ACR has made "decisions" on what was legitimate detail and what was sensor noise.
What I will say, is that this new processing in ACR v4.1 actually seems very sophisticated, and reasonably benign in many cases, low ISO digital SLR shots for example, so for certain types of images and applications, it may well be a very good thing, however certainly not for everything. So this brings me to my request...
I humbly request that the developers of ACR put in the option to turn any and all noise smoothing off in the next version of Camera Raw. Just a checkbox in the Detail Pane labeled "Preserve All Texture" maybe, or have luminance smoothing truly at zero when the slider is at zero. As I mentioned, I think the new processing might be preferable for certain types of images and workflow, so I don't want to completely go back to the old system, but I really do want the option to preserve as much image detail as possible when needed. I expect that there are many pros out there that will agree with me.
As a bit of background, I have been working in the professional imaging industry now for well over 10 years, having started off back in the days of the Kodak DCS-420 and Nikon E2. I manage the digital imaging department in a high-end professional camera shop and have extensive experience with all manner of digital SLRs, medium format digital backs, film scanners and so on.
I always have been a strong proponent of shooting raw and, in the past, have always felt that Adobe Camera Raw gave, by far, the best looking rendering of raw files when it came to detail and a general lack of demosaic artifacts. I have experience using a large number of other raw conversion programs available (Capture One, Raw Developer, Canon DPP, Nikon Capture, Hasselblad FlexColor, SilkyPix, LightZone, Aperture etc.), and while I haven't always found the color rendering to be best in ACR, as far as image detail and creating a clean, natural looking file that doesn't look "digital", I have always found ACR to be absolutely top-notch. Color rendering one can fix in post... however when a raw converter does detail destroying smoothing, creates nasty demosaic artifacts that pop out when sharpening etc., well that is something than cannot be fixed or recovered in Photoshop afterwards! Well, at least not without an inordinate amount of work or trying to mask the effects by adding noise etc.
In fact, a number of revisions ago (maybe v3.4?), Adobe subtly changed the raw rendering of ACR and noted at the time that the demosaic algorithm had changed in order to create slightly sharper looking images. At that point, I already felt that a slight step backward had been taken (with respect to generating the most "natural" looking digital images), however with judicious adjustment of my post-sharpening technique, I was able to accommodate that change in my workflow and I think many others did not even notice it. This new version of ACR, however, has gone too far IMO...
Since I have recently dedicated myself to using Adobe Lightroom, I am also quite concerned that the next version will have this same new raw rendering engine. After recommending LR to many other professional photographers, I am now worried at this development since with a new version of LR, there will probably not be any way to downgrade the raw engine as one can with the plugin architecture of Photoshop.
I may not have time to check this forum on a regular basis, so if anyone from Adobe would like further clarification regarding my opinion on this matter, please feel free to email me directly. An email link can be found on my personal website:
http://www.sublimephoto.com
or just email "mander" at the above domain.
Thanks for letting me rant on about this!
Best Regards,
Mike Mander

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

ACR INTERPOLATION UPSIZING

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for