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

Similar Messages

  • Aperture and ACR workflow

    For those who find Aperture's Camera RAW conversion too primitive, the program can be used in a simple workflow that maximizes your productivity while insuring maximum quality conversion.
    1- IMPORT your RAW images into Aperture and add keywords and other tags.
    Aperture brings in the RAW image UNALTERED.
    2- COMPARE AND SORT your images using the EXCELLENT TOOLS in Aperture.
    You can also freely experiment with versions to test ideas for everything from exposure to B&W conversions.
    3- SELECT YOUR BEST IMAGES inside Aperture.
    Most of us working in the professional world are really only interested in using the top 1% or less of a typical shoot. It is only those that need to be converted as output for Giclee printing or as digital masters for retouching and CMYK printing.
    4- EXPORT THOSE BEST IMAGES using the export "DIGITAL MASTERS..." command.
    Many of us find Aperture's RAW conversion to be excellent but for those who don't, you can choose at this point all your selected images, which by now should be a very short list, and export them as UNALTERED RAW files to a folder outside of Aperture.
    5- CONVERT those exported camera RAW images using whatever conversion program you want, for many it will be ACR, and do any extra retouching in Photoshop.
    And for those worried about Aperture's filing system, you can store these exported "Best Images" exactly like you used to do, in old fashioned folders on your hard disk, in whatever categories make sense to you.
    For those of us producing professional work on always shorter deadlines, Aperture is an outstanding tool that makes our job much easier.
      Mac OS X (10.4.3)  

    Tom, first allow me to congratulate you on starting a practical thread. Now that many of us own Aperture, and I'm not saying the issues threads aren't useful, figuring out where it fits in our workflow is a fine idea.
    Here is my (pre-Aperture) workflow, and some ideas for an interim (working with what we have) post-Aperture flow. I'd really appreciate any advice or suggestions.
    Pre: Conversion mostly in ACR/Bridge (occasionally in C1Pro-generally fleshtones). Color Space generaly set in camera as Adobe RGB, same for PS. Preliminary sharpening with PhotoKit, noise reduction if necessary with neat image or noise ninja, adjustments, aspect ratio crops, etc. Save as TIFF/16bit layered if necessary/add "Base" to filename when saving. Reopen in PS for output specific sharpening, save flattened copy. Open in ImagePrint-Print. Library has been on external HDs, backed up to duplicate HDs which are taken off premises. Current library size:700Gigs and growing fast.
    Post: Import into Aperture from Card, also backup RAWs to DVD. As suggested here, do sorts and picks in Aperture. Maybe do some crude adjusting for low res images for client proofs (web or contact sheets-sorry, haven't tried using Aperture with Epson drivers or tried the web posting). Export RAW picks for conversion and editing elsewhere (I have tested and the camera EXIFs are still there in PS (I'm not sure they will be on re-import?). So, now I've got a RAW with an attached .xmp, one or more Tiffs. I can reimport the TIFFs, but can I re-associate them with the Master? Is there any way that I can import the .xmp and associate it with the master? So, I can pick, web, go to printer and archive (although I'll hit a disk space issue-ideas there?)
    I tried to do this without asking for changes in Aperture, but not using Aperture where I felt it was immature. There are already enough discussions about conversion, editing and storage. The interface is promising and I would welcome any shortcuts you can come up with. Meanwhile, I'm going to try with new shoots, and a few existing shoots for experimanetation, but leave my old library intact. Then I'm going to put Aperture's library on an 800Gig external eSATA RAID0 -two disk; and back up to another. Wish me luck.

  • ACR 8.1 beta Crop/Workflow Options change is inconvenient

    I generally leave the ACR Workflow Options resolution set to default, and in the past have set the crop tool to a smaller pixel resolution, such as 1024x768.  I could then either run the image straight thru to Photoshop at full resolution, or apply a crop and save directly from ACR for proof/email lower resolution versions.
    However it appears that in 8.1 the crop tool no longer has a pixel setting, now I have to set the resolution in the workflow options in order to save out a proof/email image.  If I want to run the full resolution image thru to Photoshop I have to click on the Workflow Options link and disable the resolution setting.  So I can't switch back and forth without changing workflow options, which requires more clicks, and is easy to forget; Is there a way to save multiple workflow options settings and select among them?  Such has been requested for a long time, but apparently is still not available.
    Richard Southworth
    Added by edit - the new item in the Workflow Options is a Resize to Fit section, which can be enabled/disabled with a check box.  Is there a shortcut key to toggle, something quicker than going thru the link at the bottom?

    I'm in the process of going through 1100+ images from a recent vacation, selecting and re-sizing for transfer to an iPad.  Actually the new arrangement is working out ok, I'm adjusting and cropping on the originals, then going back and doing a multiple save out at the desired resolution.  Most of my images are un-cropped, so this new configuration saves a lot of full frame cropping.
    As long as I remember to disable the resize before moving images to Photoshop all is ok, even preferable.  Sorry I complained, nothing like using a tool to understand the pros and cons.
    Richard Southworth

  • Color/Banding problems while exporting

    Hello,
    every time I export an edited RAW-file from LR 4.3 (64bit) to PS CS5 (64bit) or directly to disc, the exported version shows "color cuts" or "banding": Where there is a continious blue sky in LRs develop module, it looks like 6 stripes of different blue in PS and JPEG. When importing it to PS as "sRGB" it's a little better, but far from acceptable. I never experienced that behaviour before, but now have a new computer. I used LR for cropping and noise reduction before exporting. Any tipps? Thanks in advance,
    Jan
    PS: Win7 64bit, Canon 1d M3

    Since things are fine in LR and ACR and the only problem is in PS, then I'd like to concentrate on the ACR/PS part of things without LR coming into the picture except maybe saving settings in the XMP file for PS/ACR to use.
    So start with the NEF and corresponding XMP in a folder, and use PS / File / Open of the NEF and observe the ACR rendering, then click Open and observe the PS rendering.  From what you've said, earlier, I think the ACR version is ok and the PS version is not, right?
    When you use PS / File / Open the ACR workflow options are important so that's why I asked what those were.  The normal situation would be to use ProPhotoRGB 16-bit and that information would be listed at the bottom of the ACR window before clicking Open and nothing to do with the configuration in LR:
    Since things are fine in LR and ACR and the only problem is in PS, then I'd like to concentrate on the ACR/PS part of things without LR coming into the picture except maybe saving settings in the XMP file for PS/ACR to use.
    So start with the NEF and corresponding XMP in a folder, and use PS / File / Open of the NEF and observe the ACR rendering, then click Open and observe the PS rendering.  From what you've said, earlier, I think the ACR version is ok and the PS version is not, right?
    When you use PS / File / Open the ACR workflow options are important so that's why I asked what those were.  The normal situation would be to use ProPhotoRGB 16-bit and that information would be listed at the bottom of the ACR window before clicking Open and nothing to do with the configuration in LR.
    The bit-depth of the image in PS are listed in the title bar of a document in PS:
    The RGB Workspace options are in PS / Edit / Color Settings.  I would suggest you set this to ProPhotoRGB and have all the mismatch warnings enabled:
    Besides these settings, you might also check the Conversion Options settings at the top right of the Color Settings panel.
    The thing that both I and 21 have mentioned is the turn off the graphics card acceleration to make sure it isn't an OpenGL issue:

  • ACR settings prior to merging

    I've recently started to use CS5 Photomerge for panoramas, focus stacking and some HDR.  I'm interested in learning the recommend ACR workflow prior to doing the photomerge.   I shoot with the camera (5DII) set to UniWB to assure reliable histograms as I expose to the right. My searches have led me to the following ACR workflow and settings:
    - Reset CR defaults to 0 for Recovery, Fill Light, Blacks, Brightness, Contrast,  Sharpening amount, Noise Reduction and a linear tone curve.
    - From Bridge open all images to be merged in CR.  Select All.
    - Set White Balance as desired. (Since the camera is set to UniWB when I open the image in ACR, Temp and Tint are at the minimum.)
    - Set Exposure as desired and 'Done'. 
    - At this point, from the bridge: Tools>Photoshop>Photomerge or Merge to HDR Pro. Save the merged file as TIFF.
    - I then use ACR controls on this file (and later CS5 as/if needed).
    Questions: Is this the recommended workflow prior to merge?  Is the TIFF file I've saved after the merge a "scene referred" file?  

    Hello d2inaa
    Congratulations on your new Mac!
    Befor you migrate anything from the G-4 to the Intel Mac have a look at Kappy's Basic Guide for Migrating to Intel-Macs it will save you alot of trouble.
    http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=435350
    Dennis

  • Malfunction of Detail Sharpening in ACR

    I'm using two Mac computers, both with PS CS5 12.0.4, ACR 6.6.0, and OS x10.6.8.
    On one computer, PS and ACR work fine.  On the other, I have the following problem:
    When I apply Sharpening in the ACR Detail panel, setting all the sliders, then open the image in PS as a smart object, the sharpening has not taken effect on the image in PS.
    When I re-open the image in ACR, I find that the Amount slider in the Sharpening panel has re-set itself to zero.  The other sliders in the panel are still where I had set them.
    However, the output sharpening in the ACR Workflow Options area does take effect in PS, and appears to be working fine.
    I just re-installed everything, but no improvement.
    As I said, it all works on the other computer, so I have a reference for what PS should do.
    Any insights will be appreciated.

    In case it might be useful in the future, here is what fixed hte problem.
    I established another user account on my computer, and opened PS through that.  The Detail/Sharpening worked fine.  The defect was not present, showing that the problem was in my user directory and not in PS.
    Back in the original account, I ran cs5cleanscript from Adobe.com to uninstall cs5 and all related files.  It missed some, which I deleted, along with old files from previous PS and ACR found in users/name/library/preferences.
    Reinstalled PS.  It works.

  • Interlace-like banding in ACR6.1 vs. ACR4.6

    I am experiencing interlace-like banding when sharpening images with ACR 6.1. This may be a phenomenon which occurred sometime between ACR 4.6 and ACR 6.1, but I made the jump directly from CS3 to CS5 and so I would not be able to narrow it down any more than that.
    Here's what I'm experiencing in a nutshell:
    1) If I open up RAW files shot on my Rebel XT, I can sharpen them fine without the banding in ACR 6.1.
    2) If I open up .DNG files shot on my 5D Mark II, they sharpen fine in ACR 4.6.
    3) If I open up .DNG files shot on my 5D Mark II, they produce banding in ACR 6.1.
    4) If I open up RAW files shot on my 5D Mark II, sharpening produces the banding in ACR 6.1.
    Here are two examples: (This shot isn't the quintessential example, but it was readily accessible. The phenomenon is most pronouned in the palm trees.)
    Example One:
    Canon 5D Mark II DNG (Shot in sRAW1 & Zoomed to 100%) with 150 sharpening applied in ACR 4.6
    Example Two:
    Canon 5D Mark II DNG (Shot in sRAW1 & Zoomed to 100%) with 150 sharpening applied in ACR 6.1
    Any help would be greatly appreciated. Since ACR 4.6 cannot open raw files from the 5D Mark II, both of these images were obtained from a DNG conversion of the original RAW file. Sharpening of the RAW file in ACR 6.1 produces identical banding.
    Thanks,
    Dave

    Ok, if I zoom in to 300%+ in FireFox on my 1600x1200 monitor I can see the lines.  This could be a result of the new noise/detail processing in LR2.7/ACR5.7 but without more tests it is not possible to say if this is a result of the camera doing something when creating the sRAW which is just an already demosaiced TIF, or if it is happening with all the images from the camera.   I'd suggest trying a full RAW file and see if the banding is there.  Since LR is not demosaicing an sRAW there is less blame for it than there would be for full RAW. 
    Pre-ACR 5.7 would be using a much less detailed sharpening and noise-reduction algorithm which could be why you don't see the banding in the ACR 4.6 processing.
    I still suggest trying both Process 2003 and Process 2010 to see if it makes a difference, as well as fiddling with the Detail and Contrast and sharpen-masking sliders to see if you can reduce or eliminate the banding.

  • Color managed workflow for web and camera raw

    I recently calibrated my monitor and was wondering what is the preferred workflow for the web? I shoot with my camera in sRGB and my working space in Photoshop is sRGB aswell. The problem that has arised now is that the color managed colors in Photoshop are way different than the non-color managed in my web browser. Is this normal? And what I don't quite get is how a photo that has an embed sRGB profile looks the same in Firefox (that understand embed profiles) and Photoshop, but in Google Chrome (that does not recognize embed color profiles) shows the colors very differently, although the browser should understand the photo is in sRGB by default and show the same colors that are in Photoshop, right? So what happens here, because the colors are not the same? What information does Photoshop assign to the embed color profile that makes the colors so different?
    Anyway, I assume the problem here seems to be my newly calibrated monitor profile. The only way I can get the same colors to my photo in Photoshop and to a photo in web is to use soft proofing set to my Monitor RGB AND save without a color profile. Is this the way to go? But here comes another problem. I shoot in RAW and use camera raw to edit my photos. Camera Raw doesn't allow soft proofing, so I'm stuck with these color managed colors that are so different from non-color managed colors I get in my browser that any color correction in Camera Raw is simply useless. Unless everyone was using color managed browsers and I could start to use fully color managed workflow, but that's not the case I suppose. So, what's the solution here?

    First off, you need to be working in sRGB, or converting to sRGB when you save out files that are destined for the web. You can change the color space that Camera Raw (ACR) send your raw files to by clicking the blue text in the bottom center of the ACR window. This is probably that safest workflow for you until you get a handle on color management. If the color of your images is very important, you might consider embedding a color profile in them, which will help color managed browsers render your color properly.
    If your display's color gamut is different than sRGB (many are), you'll find matching colors for non-color-managed browsers to be impossible. But consider the average display and take heart. The best you can do is correct to a standard and hope for the best.
    Both the convert to sRGB and embed color profile options are in the save for web dialogue box.
    More about the ACR workflow options here:
    http://help.adobe.com/en_US/Photoshop/11.0/WS739D7239-24A7-452b-92F9-80481C544F25.html
    More about matching colors for the web:
    http://help.adobe.com/en_US/Photoshop/11.0/WSB3484C68-ECD2-4fa4-B7CC-447A5FE86680.html
    http://help.adobe.com/en_US/Photoshop/11.0/WSD3F5E059-4F51-4b44-8566-13B854D3DF5F.html
    http://help.adobe.com/en_US/Photoshop/11.0/WS0B3CD652-4675-44be-9E10-445EB83C60BA.html

  • ACR 7.3 Highlight Clipping Indicator

    Just updated to the release version of ACR 7.3 and notice some weirdness with the highlight clipping indicator.
    The file is from a Nikon D3 set at ISO 3200 with Nikon 24-70 f2.8 (shot at f3.2)
    Open the file and all looks OK (it's noisy but what do you expect at ISO 3200). Set enable lens correction and the highlight indicator shows clipping with all other controls set to zero. OK I thought, lens correction is correcting for fall-off at the edges of the frame. Now go to the adjustments panel and just move the highlight conntrol to the left, you would think that the clipping would be reduced or maybe even eliminated - no the highligh clipped area increases in size. Zoomed in to 100% to see if it was a display anomoly, and no the clipping stays the same. The reverse of the shadow clipping I reported back in June.
    Would have thought that moving the highlight slider to such an extreme value would have reduced the clipped area not make it grow.......
    Here are some screen shots:
    Image as opened in ACR
    Now with lens adjustment applied
    Now with highlight slider set to -85 (all other controls at zero)
    Highlight at -85 100% Zoom
    Update - something is not right with the displays with this latest version of ACR, opening up the shadows on the same image and the highlight clipping indicators actually show them decreasing
    Another Update: These shots were taken in mixed lighting, colored gels adding to the mood of the icerink that were periodically changing color, ranging from Blue, Green, Red and combinations. Using the white balance picker on the white background the highlight clipped areas went away, but changing the color balance destroyed the mood of the scene as negated the color lighting effect. But should a change in color balance effect the highlight clipping so dramatically? Basically it looks like the highlight clipping indicator is being effected by contrast rather than the actual highlight values?
    Running Photoshop CS6 13.01 (x64) on Windows 7 x64
    Mike

    We were discussing this in another thread several months ago
    So, under certain conditions and when some camera profiles are used (both Nikon and Canon), it can happen that trying to reduce clipped area with sliders actually increases that area. It's caused by the profile as made by the factory (Nikon, Canon) and isn't ACR issue. I think I also posted a graphical representation of one profile showing why it happens. If not, I can post it
    The fact is - sRGB / Adobe RGB gamut is smaller than gamut of raw image, so some colors are clipped even if they are not clipped in raw color space, sometimes in slightly unexpected way. However, if Adobe standard profile is used, clipping is performed according to ACR workflow which also has some drawbacks, which we also discussed in another thread on raw image from Olympus camera, several months ago
    Showing area with RGB 170,165,180 as clipped is unexpected - can you post the sample ?

  • ACR w/ D800E Curiosity

    Just playing with a new D800E and the files open just fine with ACR 6.7.0.339 via Bridge w/CS5.5 as well as with ACR 7.1.0.354 via Bridge w/CS6 (PC/Vista64).
    One curious thing I just noticed when setting ACR Workflow Options/Size is that in both ACR versions I'm not offered an option to upsample the image. Normally I would see the native resolution presented in the middle of 7 options, with 3 downsampling options and 3 upsampling options. What I am seeing is the native 36.2 MP resolution diplayed as the highest of 7 options and 6 downsampling options.
    Is this lack of any upsampling normal and might this be a 'work in progress' where an upsampling option will be available in a future ACR updates?
    Thank you for any info.
    Russell

    rproulxmtl wrote:
    Is this lack of any upsampling normal and might this be a 'work in progress' where an upsampling option will be available in a future ACR updates?
    Yes...as far as upsampling already large captures, ACR/LR often does not offer upsamped resolutions in the normal Workflow Options or Export sizes...the odds are you won't need to upsample very often and most often you'll be dowsampling...this is normal with large MP captures...you can always upsample with Image Size in Photoshop.

  • Sharpen in "workflow options" and "Detail" tab

    how does the sharpen within workflow options relate to the sharpening applied within the detail pane?
    Does one override the other or would the sharpening be additive?
    thanks.

    >I probably would never use the workflow settings, especially since they are not well defined settings, and I assume for "general" office work...
    In my opinion, the workflow options for output sharpening in ACR are rather awkward to use. One advantage of parametric editing is that the edits are stored in the ACR database or in the XMP file in a compact form without the necessity of large and possibly multilayered TIFF files. After making the required edits, one has repurposable masterfile that can be used for derivative images.
    However, when one uses the ACR output sharpening, the dimensions of the image and the resolution must be determined in advance. One then has an output file that is suitable only for printing that specific image, and repurposibility is lost.
    Furthermore, the output sharpening in ACR requires the setting of the resolution in pixels per inch. When printing to a relatively large output size, one usually renders the image at the native resolution of the camera and then sets the image dimensions of the picture without resampling. In the ACR workflow one must manually calculate the needed output resolution from the intended output size in inches and the native resolution of the camera in pixels.
    For example, if one is using a Nikon D3 camera with a resolution of 2832 x 4256 pixels and wants to print on super B paper with a short axis dimension 12.5 inches, it is necessary to predetermine the required resolution in pixels per inch by dividing 2832 by 12.5 to obtain the needed resolution of 227 pixels per inch. One enters this value in the ACR dialog box.The result is an image that is suitable only for printing at that size.
    Personally, I would prefer to use ACR to make a repurposable masterfile which can later be resized and output sharpened as necessary. Currently, I use PKSharpener for this purpose.
    It would be nice to be able to store several possible output options in the XMP file or database, and this is currently not possible. For example, one might want to store settings for 8 by 10 or 11 x 14 inch prints.

  • Is ACR as good as Photoshop for jpeg processing?

    I have CS3 and use ACR 4.1 for processing my RAWs. I love it's intuitive easy workflow.
    I have many many jpeg files from my pre-RAW days that I'd like to improve by doing slight adjustments i.e. crop, adjust tone, WB, set white point, contrast, saturation, colour tweaking,resize, sharpen. I do this so they can be displayed online on a Zenfolio or pBase account, NOT for printing.
    I like ACR's workflow and myriad of adjustment options yet I wonder if it is a better platform for jpeg processing than Photoshop. For ease of use it clearly is, but what about end product?
    For best results, Photoshop requires me to create a new adjustment layer for each adjustment. I DO speed up the workflow by creating Actions that convert the files to 16 bits as well as creating new adjustment layers upfront. I still have to apply batch processes to merge layers, resize, sharpen, convert back to 8 bit and save as jpg. But I still have to go in to each layer and make adjustments. ACR 4.1 is much easier because all the sliders are more easily accessible. But I wonder if it sacrifices results because I don't know if it is working in 8 or 16 bits. With ACR workflow is easier to recover shadow/highlight detail (though I am not sure if it is more effective).
    For the best results am I still better off using PS for jpeg tweaking, despite its more cumbersome workflow, because I can work in 16 bits?
    I really like ACR's workflow. But from what little theory that I do have it sounds like PS ability to work in 16 bits still gives it the edge.Or am I missing something here?

    "...if you open a JPEG...it is converted to 16 bit, linear Pro Photo RGB for editing. It's been shown (by Lightroom) ...that the totality of the edits in CR are in linear ProPhoto you could see a real benefit to processing camera JPEGs (as apposed to already edited JPEGS saved out of like Photoshop) over doing similar edits in Photoshop."
    This is interesting and good news! Now my grasp of all this technical talk is limited so bear with me if I am not up to speed. I just want to make sure I understand this.
    ACR opens all 8 bit JPEGs automatically in 16 bit ProPhoto workspace BEFORE the actual editing is performed?
    At the risk of hopelessly confusing myself even further, why would ACR be a better platform for JPEG processing with out of camera jpegs but not previously edited JPEGs?
    Jeff, I know you've stated "it's beed shown by Lightroom" but can you show me this? Where has it been shown? A link, webpage? That way I can look at this myself, spare you trying to explain it to me and (yes this is pure self interest) hopefully free time up for you to work on the ACR 4.1 book I am looking forward to.
    Thanks for the time you devote to helping us noobs pursue our passions!!

  • Can you suggest a workflow for me?

    While I love the file organization and keywording functions of Lightroom, I want to use only Adobe Camera Raw and Photoshop for processing.  I'm struggling with how to develop a workflow that would include Lightroom, but only for organization purposes.
    It seems that every Lightroom workflow tutorial, article or video always insists on making use of the "Develop" module, which I do not want to use.  Can you suggest a workflow for me?  For instance, which first thing would be best....import my Raw files to a file on my hard drive or import my Raw files into Lightroom.  I would prefer working out of Lightroom for post-processing, as I mentioned, but I want to be able to update my Lightroom catalogue with my changes.  Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.  Thank you!
    Dave

    What is your workflow, now, with Bridge/ACR/Photoshop?  What value-added does Lightroom bring to the Bridge/PS/ACR workflow you currently have, and what do you feel LR doesn’t do well that causes you to want to use Bridge/ACR, instead?
    The XMP file will save the Develop settings between LR and ACR.  ACR will read settings from the XMP files (as long as you have the preference set not to store the settings in a central camera-raw database) whenever you are in Bridge or ACR and ACR will write to the XMP files whenever you click Done to exit, or choose Update XMP or whatever the menu items says.
    LR can be told to Synchronize metadata settings, or you can explicitly read and write to the XMP files.  LR also reads from the XMP files when you import, and writes to them in the background if you have Automatically write XMP files (or whetaver the phrase is) enabled in Preferences.
    If you want to live I both worlds then you need to think about what you’re doing with what XMP files, when, so you don’t overwrite something you work on in the other program.  As others have suggested, this is harder than if you just used LR or Bridge/ACR for everything.

  • Posterization in ACR?

    I shoot mainly Canon DSLR landscape and sell large high end Silver Halide gallery prints..  Lately I think I have been finding (rarely) some indication of slight posterization in some very smooth transition areas in ACR 6.1 raw (case in point a sunset sky).  I'm basically talking about where the pixels don't have, but should have a very smooth tonal transition to them).  The images I am talking about were exposed optimally (histogram to the right) and no super radical settings applied. Sometimes it is not immediate in ACR but starts happening very quickly as I go into PS (16 bit) and start making some adjustments.
    Has anyone else seen this?  If so, please feel free to share.
    It caught me by surprise because for some reason I thought ACR CR2 raw files (and even 16 bit) could not do this.
    I also have found (another totally different issue) that strong use of reversed "Clairity" (the glow/smoothing effect) seems to be able to exacerbate posterization as well.  Often when it is used somewhat aggressively in a localized area and then brought into PS (16 bit) there can be some (what looks to me like) posterization that no amount of healing brush cloning or blurring... resolves (again even in 16 bit).  There does seem to be a correlation between how strong the ACR adjustments and the amount of posterization is.
    I thought maybe it was some sharpening issue (artifacts created by) but I have tried turning the capture sharpening off (and there is no other sharpening applied) and all sharpening off and I can still see it.
    When I tried "Neat" (in PS noise reduction plug in) to see if that would eliminate it, it made it much worse.  I have found that a touch of grain simulation can disguise/camouflage it OK.
    Maybe I'm off here, but I am just wondering if anyone else has experienced this or a similar thing?

    Just like I expect from you Jeff, well thought out answer with good questions, thank you.
    I think I am seeing slight banding in ACR 6.1, maybe.  On closer examination just now, I think it might be pixels where chrominance noise was resolved (no luminance noise reduction used at all) and so my statement about perfect exposure may not be so perfect (100 iso on the Canon 1DS Mark II and moderate noise in ACR says to me I had to brighten the area up too much).
    As far as the same banding in print, no.  But my last test print had a touch of grain sim to try to disguise it.  What I hear you saying here is to do a test print without the "grain" and see if there is anything visible...
    "Fact is, I've never seen banding in Camera Raw."  That is a reassuring statement.  I mainly wanted to throw this out to see if posterization is something people have seen in ACR, or should I look for another culprit.
    But, yes when I use a lot of the "Anti Clarity" (as I call it) in an area (in ACR 6.1) and the area is an extremely slow transition area and then I bring the image into PS (CS5) in 16 bit it seems the area is very prone to posterization quickly.
    "The odds are, what you are seeing is display banding caused by the profile of your display. Do you "calibrate" your display or merely profile it at the native white point and gamma?"
    I never thought of that possibility.  I just run the Spyder 2.2 and then use that profile.  I do BTW need to get up to speed on color management/calibration due to getting extremely anal about printing quality these days.  All suggestions are welcomed!
    Thanks you.

  • Does duplicating layers from an 8-bit PSD reduce the color depth of a new 16-bit edit?

    I have been using several versions of Photoshop over the years starting with CS3, then CS6, and finally CC. Through 2012, all my RAW files were converted using 16-bit color depth in ACR. However, in examining my files recently, I noticed all were in 8-bit color-depth, which likely happened once I upgraded to CS6 and ACR left 8-bit as the default. As such, I now have hundreds of images that I wanted to edit in 16-bits that have been converted to 8-bit starting with my ACR export. The files are all RAWs from cameras like the Canon 5D, 5D Mark III, Olympus OMD EM5, and Sony RX100.
    I have 8-bit PSDs of my edits of these files which contains multiple layers. I use features from the Nik and Topaz collections for noise reduction, contrast enhancement, black and white conversion, and sharpening. I also use layered Photoshop features like Selective Color. I want to know if I can simply duplicate the layers from the 8-bit PSD files onto a new 16-bit RAW converted background layer rather than re-edit each and every file. There would be no change in the crop of other reasons why the layers would not match up, but I am concerned that duplicating those layers might throw away the benefit of moving to 16-bit since they were created in an 8-bit color-depth.
    As a test, I looked at a few files where I had pushed the shadows and colors to an extent and duplicated the layers from an 8-bit conversion to a 16-bit conversion and could see no difference. I am not sure if this is because Photoshop has become very good at reducing color-depth without a perceptible difference or if I am throwing away information in moving the layers.
    I work off of a fairly modern computer and a top-end Eizo CG276 self-calibrating monitor and good video card. I am extremely sensitive to color and shade changes as well.
    Thanks for any help, I am a bit stressed at the thought of re-editing hundreds of files from step 1, but it is important to me that I not throw away color information and it is better I start re-editing now rather than years from now.
    Ketan

    While raw file contain a 8Bit jpeg previews image in some color space. The RAW sensor data is not a color image and has no color space and the bit dept of pixels depend on the manufacturing.  Most sensor produce one value for each pixel  10 to 14 bit seems to be common.   Sensors only measure the light intensity not color.  If front of each pixel sensor is a color filter which lets Red or Green or Blue light be measured for intensity.
    A RAW converter can convert your sensors RAW data into a color RGB image in any color work-space in 8 or 16 bit color depth.    No Adobe update went around and scanning your computer looking for 16bit color depth images and convert all of them to 8bit color.  Your ACR workflow settings may have been change from 16 bit color to 8 bit color by you or set to 8bit by some update or script used.  So you current ACR work-flow setting may be converint tou raw datya into 8bit RGB images. As long as you have you raw files you can reprocess these  to produce 16Bit color RGB Image by makinf the proper ACR work-flow settings.   You can also change your 8bit image to 16 bit image mode.  However this will not recover any color quality lost or posterization that has set in..  It will give you a bit more latitude using Photoshop filters which may help you not get banding posterization.

Maybe you are looking for