D700 Camera Profile Artifacts (still present in ACR 5.5?)

Just installed ACR 5.5 RC and it looks like the color problems with the "Camera" profiles (for the Nikon D700 and D3) are still present. Namely, green/magenta color casts in what should be neutral areas, and weird posterization effects in shadow areas. Then again, I'm not sure if installing a new version of ACR update camera color profiles.
I posted a thread about this on Dpreview a while ago; or just do a Google search for "D700 color" and it's one of the top results.
Here's a Flickr photoset with some crops showing the issue. The artifacts with the shadows are kind of hard to see in those small crops though (it's better to look at the original image).
To Adobe: can we get any sort of an idea when this is going to fixed?

What you're seeing - the color shifts anyway - are as a result of the "hue twists" in the new generation Adobe profiles. What it amounts to is that the new profiles change the hue of a pixel based on its intensity. So, what were in the original image two pixels with the same "color", but different intensities end up as different colors. This has been discussed quite intensively in context of the 5DII, which also shows these issues, both on this forum (http://forums.adobe.com/thread/311802?start=0&tstart=0) and on dpreview (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=32482073)
If you want to know more about the technicalities, I've written about hue twists here: http://chromasoft.blogspot.com/2009/02/adobe-hue-twist.html
You might say that well designed "hue twisted" profile would keep neutrals neutral, and that's true, but there's a complication - what neutral is varies with white balance, which makes it a judgement call as to how much "twist" you can tolerate close to a hue that might conceivably end up as a neutral. Probably what adobe will need to do to solve this issue (if they decide it impacts enough people to be worth addressing) is to tweak the profile to maintain "untwisted" across a wider range of near neutral colors.
Short Adobe fixing the profiles, you have three possible solutions;
a) Use the earlier profiles which didn't have the twist
b) use a profile generated by Adobe's DNG profile editor (which never have twists)
c) If you want to try and preserve some of the profiles's look, you can also try untwisting the profiles with dcpTool (disclaimer - I wrote dcpTool): http://dcptool.sourceforge.net/ However, be aware that dcpTool can only preserve some part of the look, not all of it.
Sandy

Similar Messages

My iPhone 4S stopped allowing me to attach picture to texts, some users. The camera icon is still present but it is a lighter gray and when you tap it nothing happens.

The camera icon is still present but it is a lighter shad of grey for only 2 of my contacts. The other contacts I can still attach photographs to. Don't know if accidentally changed settings for those users. I reset my network settings but that didn't work. Any ideas?

What happens when you click More next to Flickr in your last screen shot?

Recovery Slider: Color Changes with Camera Profiles, not so much with ACR 4.4 Profile?

I'm sure there's a reason for this, and not necessarily a defect, but I have to ask:
The recovery slider: if I use the Recovery Slider on an image set to the ACR 4.4 camera calibration profile, this helps control my highlights without affecting the overall color/tint of the image. However, if an image is set to the Adobe Standard camera calibration profile (or any of the other camera profiles) and I use the Recovery Slider on that image, the affect on the image seems to be different: the highlights are also controlled, but not without a perceived effect on the color tint of the image. The color balance almost seems to slightly change. Particularly noticeable on skin tones. I'm working with 5D files, using Lightroom 2.3 on a Mac.
What's the reason for this? Anyone experience similar?
Thanks

This is a known "problem". It is caused by "hue twists" that are present in the camera-matching profiles and the new Adobe profiles. Several threads on this in the ACR forum:
http://www.adobeforums.com/webx?128@@.3bc03c04.59b77b09
http://www.adobeforums.com/webx?128@@.3bc03c04.59b783f8

Serious scaling artifacts still present in CC

Hello,
Of course I was tracing forums for the issue dating back to CS5.5.
I mean scaling artifacts. Picture attached.
To reproduce it, please create a solid, then apply a strong noise, and then upscale or downscale image for about 4 or 7%.
You will see a grid pattern on the noised layer. It also appears on the footage when any scaling operation is performed. Test by yourself.
I spotted this when my first movie was screening in 2k cinema. Then I started to look up for solution.
In AFX CC you introduced new bicubic scaling, but it is only enhancing image, downscale artifacts are still present.
It is not a viewport issue. It is present after rendering in high quality scaling.
My orginal footage is not recorded with this artifact, I am sure. I use noise to prove it. Noise at 100% scale is perfect. Changing it makes grid pattern visible.
From coding point of view, I presume there is a problem with dividing, or sampling infinite fractions. The artifact grid square is 16x16 pixels small.
Test your own footage.
Too bad warp stabilizer does it too.
I was hoping the problem is solved in CC, but its not. It really can be visible in films. Premiere, on the other hand, seems to be free of it.
Adobe Guys?
All the best.

Couple of things. If you scale or reposition footage so that the original pixels values are used to calculate new pixel values that do not precisely line up with the originals. If there is any pattern of noise or detail in the video there is a good chance that the pattern become visible. Noise is a pattern. Adding noise at 100% to a footage layer and then scaling as you demonstrated with your first screen shot will reveal this pattern. AE's Noise effect generates noise on a 16 X 16 pixel grid so if you scaling has the chance of emphasizing that pattern. This is not a bug but rather a mathematical certainty most obvious at odd numbered or fractional values. Different scaling algorithms use different formulas to attempt to hide these problems and maintain apparent detail. The only way to completely hide the pattern is to use a scale factor that evenly divides or multiplies the pixels. One pixel becomes 4 or 4 becomes 2 for example. When 4 pixels become 3 fractional the fractional values emphasize any pattern that exists in the original image.
Second point. If your original footage came from any kind of compressed source, like from a DSLR or anything other than a professional video camera that has the capability of shooting uncompressed or lossless footage, your footage will use a compression scheme that uses 16 X 16 or larger blocks of pixels in the compression system. Any footage that is shot with any chroma subsampling other than 4:4:4 will also develop a pattern in the chroma if scaled so the pattern is introduced. This tells me a couple of things about your second screenshot. I would guess that the original footage was fairly noisy and that it comes from an MPEG source like a DSLR or consumer camcorder. Adding an effect like Unsharp mask to the scaled layer will only emphasize the pattern. The less noise in the shot the less visible the pattern.
Last point. Noise and grain move and the patterns are less discernible with the footage is moving. Judging the final output quality can only be done when the footage is playing back at the actual playback speed on the actual delivery device. If you really want to know what a shot is going to look like you have to play it back on the device you are going to be using for final output. If you are going to a film festival and your footage is going to be projected you have to test it on a projector.
Ok, the very last point, just to emphasize the importance of positioning. Any time you reposition a source layer to a position that causes the pixels to be reinterpreted in any way the image will degrade and there is nothing you can do about that. Scale, position and rotation all dramatically effect the quality of the image and potentially introduce repeating patterns if the pixels do not line up exactly with the pixel grid in the composition. If your scaling introduces repeating patterns in your image then the only solution is to hide those patterns by adding noise or grain using an adjustment layer, not scaled, to hide the artifacts.

Changing camera profiles in LR 2 and ACR 4.6

How does one change the camera choices in the Camera Profile panel in LR 2 and ACR 4.6? The only camera specific model that shows up for me is the Nikon D2X, and I shoot a Nikon D200.

I'm not interested in profiles that don't match my camera, but I was interested in using the D200 profile since that's what I shoot with. I've never heard anywhere that the D200 and D2X render identical files. so, when I talked about choice, I merely meant that I'd like to have the choice of using the profile for my particular camera. When Adobe lists the supported camera models, they do not say that one camera profile fits several different models that have entirely different sensors. I know for a fact that the D200 and D40 do not render identical files, yet both are restricted to using the D2x file, all of which seems a bit strange to me.
I don't expect an exact match, as I know that Adobe cannot simply copy Nikon's algorithms. Since these Adobe profiles are an approximation because of that, I would think that a profile closer to my model would be available. I know that all thw Adobe software gets from the camera is the white balance, and everything else in the Adobe profiles is generated bt Adobe to try to match the Nikon profiles as close as possible without a direct copy.
There is a major difference in how the various cameras render images, just open them in any of the various incarnations of Nikon Capture, and you'll see exactly how the camera renders an image. In conclusion, it does not look like Adobe supports the D200, and in spite of their claims to the contrary, what we get is a generic profile that is supposed to fit models with entirely different sensors.
Why even list the D200 if indeed they do not allow me to use a profile that more closely resembles the one from that model?

LR 3.6RC vs. LR 3.6 /w D700 Camera Profiles v4

I used the LR 3.6RC on Mac to develop a whole session using the Camera Profiles v4 that came with 3.6RC. The behaviour was a bit strange as the images got "lighter" the more you move the "Wiederherstellungs-Regler" (is that recovery control in the english version?) to the right. Anyhow, I developed some hundred images using LR3.6RC /w Camera Profiles v4 and after I installed the regular 3.6 now all images that have been done with 3.6RC are now too dark (and much too dark!). That means I have to go through all images to re-develop them?
You can see an example here: left is how it looks in (also devel here) 3.6RC1, right is how it looks now in 3.6

I'll have to add new findings to the above issue. When I switch to the library mode the image will be shown in the original development status as it has been done in LR3.6RC. You'll see it in the screendumps.
On the left side is the screendump from the library module. The right photo of the two is the one I'm talking about. The left one is a tiff version with all controls set to zero.
The screendump on the right site shows the same image in the development module of LR3.6. Same behaviour as in my first mail.
Any idea, help?

ACR 6 color artifacting not present in ACR 5

Has anyone yet noticed or reported the blotchy color artifacting in 6 (ACR 6.0.0.205) that was not there in 5?
I have noticed it in clear blue skies (see link below). When doing a conversion of a scenic file using the ACR interface, the skies show to be smooth and almost free from artifacting. But when I open up the actual JPG 12 file that was output, it shows large, magenta tinted, blotchy areas. The problem even exists when I set the color noise reduction to 100.
The texture of the clear blue skies is finer and more uniform in ACR6 (2010), there is less color bleed at sharp edges and transition, and overall resolution and definition is slightly better. ACR5 yields skies of a courser lumpier texture, and sometimes has areas where the blue bleeds into adjacent areas of a different color. But ACR 5 does not suffer from the magenta blotching that almost looks like faint magenta clouds.
When I try outputting to 16-bit TIFF (instead of qual 12 JPG), the sky in looks much more like the ACR 5 JPG output -- courser texture but no magenta blotches. When I save the 16-bit TIFF as a JPG12, (in Photoshop CS5), I see faint large blotchy areas of magenta artifacting in the JPG that are not present in the TIFF.
I have posted 3 files here: http://stevesucsy.com/ACR/
They are all in ProPhoto color space.
DPP-5424.jpg   converted in Canon's DPP     nice smooth sky, very few artifacts
ACR6-2003_NoBlotch-5424.jpg     using the 2003 process in ACR6 shows less clearly defined color noise that is spread more uniformly than the 2010 version
ACR6-2010_MagentaBlotch_5424-1.jpg    using the 2010 process shows faint magenta patches or blotches.
I just thought of something else. Here I tried setting ACR6 (2010) to the Adobe RGB color space (instead of ProPhoto). All the other settings are identical to the file above (with the magenta blotching). But this Adobe RGB file that was output by ACR6 (2010) has no obvious magenta blotching.
ACR6-2010-aRGB_NoBlotch-5424.jpg
Any comments/observations?
I hope Adobe will fix this problem, as I far prefer working in and keeping all my general purpose output in ProPhoto color space.

Thanks for your reply Doran.
The problem happened using ACR 6.0, ProPhoto, 16 bit. But it was "solved" (or improved) by using AdobeRGB in 16 bit.
And the problem did not happen using ProPhoto in 16 bit when using ACR 5.6.
I don't really want a "work-around".
I would like to be able to:
1) Have the interface accurately represent what I will get in the final file.
2) Be able to work in ProPhoto 16bit and get output that does not have banding and blotching.
Dave

Camera Profiles Missing from Lightroom and ACR since upgrade to Lightroom CC

I upgraded to the latest version of Lightroom yesterday. I have discovered since then that the only profile available in the Camera Calibration profiles pop-up menu is Adobe Standard. This applies to Lightroom CC, Lightroom 5 and ACR. Furthermore the folder where the profles were stored is missing. This is a problem as I have lost a custom profile for editing the white balance in infrared photographs. What is the likelycause of this situation and how can it be remedied?

Hi Beat,
thank you very much for your reply! :-)
That is what I find so puzzling - there are hundreds of profiles in that folder under a "1.0" subfolder...
And yes, I'm sure it's RAW I'm looking at (and the error message appears before I see Lightroom, so it's not about RAW/JPG).
While fiddling some more I found out, that if I start Lightroom as an Administrator, everything is back to normal, but I never had to do this before and I don't see why this should be the case. What would cause such a behaviour to appear suddenly?
Rant:
The whole UAC idea - as Microsoft implemented it - is a major pain, but so far I was willing to bear the burden for the supposed raised security, but more and more I tend to think about switching it off as I did under Windows Vista. If it interferes with my ability to get anything useful done it's not worth it (and I have other software that doesn't like it, not just - suddenly - Lightroom).
Thanks for any hints what this problem could be about!
Cheers,
Thomas Helzle

"Camera Profile" in Camera Calibration ACR tab - Q

I upgraded from PSE5 whcih used ACR 4.7 - and now using PSE8 w ACR 6.1
In the Camera Calibration tab in the Camera Profile drop down - I see "ACR 4.7" still listed.
Can someone tell me how to make use of this tab and how I can delete the ACR 4.7 and use 6.1 - if there is a benefit to doing so?
Thank-you!

I think the issue could be that I have both PSE 5 & 8 installed at the moment. I'm using the 30 Day Trial - and I'll uninstall PSE 5 once I get my actual disc & serial # in the mail. I did not want to uninstall v5 until I had the v8 serial # and was convinced that v8 worked well. During the v8 installation - it recognised v5 but said I can keep it. My concern is uninstalling both and reinstalling v8 and having catalog & stack issues.
I installed the camera profiles as Adobe directs "before" pasting the new ACR 6.1 file in the folder.
Nevertheless, I installed the cameraprofiles.exe again today - previous to posting this thread.
I guess a main question is - what would I be missing out on by not having ACR 6.1 in the profile? (vs 4.6)

Should i see same camera profiles in LR as i see in ACR?

I use macintosh and OS 10.6.6
I have found that i can see only the original camera profiles in ACR but can see eric chans's profiles in LR, in addition to the original camera profiles.
I have searched ACR, PS, and LR fora, as well as adobe websites and cannot finder an answer clear to me.
I have moved files between " /user/library/applicationsupport/adobe/camera raw/cameraprofiles",
and the "/library/applicationsupport/adobe/cameraraw/cameraprofiles" .
I do not see the same profiles, with lightroom showing eric chan's profiles, but these are not available in ACR.
I expect some simple answer and am prepared for disparagement, but i need some smarter person's advice and help.
thanks to any and all,
vince

thanks so much charlie.
that does not seem to work here. but perhaps i need to try again and delete some preferences, etc.
very grateful for your reply, which i think is probably the correct answer.
vince

Lightroom 3.6 / ACR 6.6 Camera Profiles Missing

Greetings.
I've read through so many threads about this, and still can't make camera profiles show up in either LR 3.6 or ACR 6.6.
I'm shooting RAW with a Nikon D7000. The only camera profiles available are Adobe Standard, Camera Standard, Neutral, etc. LR/AC recognizes the RAW file was produced by the D7000, or at least that's what shows up as Make & Model in the MetaData.
I've checked the path
C:\ProgramData\Adobe\CameraRaw\CameraProfiles\Camera\NikonD7000
and the 5 DCP files are present.
I've confirmed LR/ACR is reading from this path by exiting the software, and temporarily changing
...\CameraProfiles\...
to
..\FUBARCameraProfiles\...
and when I then launch LR/ACR, I get a message that camera profiles are missing.
I'm using Win 7 Ultimate 64-bit, logged in as the administrator to eliminate any security issue, and I installed LR/ACR as the admin as well.
Lens profiles work fine. On all my RAW file, the lens is correctly identified, and I can choose it from the dropdown for lens correction.
If anybody has any ideas on what else to try, I'd be grateful.
Happy New Year, all!

The camera profiles that you see in Lightroom don't specify which model they are for. They are automatically chosen for the camera that took the raw image. If you see Camera Standard, that is the Camera Standard for your D7000. When I see that one, it's for my D300.
Here's what I see for a Canon S90:
Here's what I get for a Nikon D300:
The v4's probably aren't there for you, but you shold see the rest of them.
Hal

New Nikon D3, D300, and D700 "Camera" v3 beta profiles

Hi everyone,
I have posted a zip file containing updated "Camera" color profiles (Camera Standard, Camera Neutral, etc.) for the Nikon D3, Nikon D300, and Nikon D700. The zip file contains a copy of the readme, but I'll post it here for convenience, too:
For lack of a better name, I am calling these "v3" beta profiles.
BETA RELEASE NOTES
Overview
These updated Camera v3 beta profiles for the Nikon D3, Nikon D300, and Nikon D700 are designed to reduce banding and highlight color artifacts. They also address the "too bright" tone curve issues with the previous "v2" version of the D3 and D700 profiles.
IMPORTANT NOTE: When using these v3 beta profiles, if you wish to match the default tonality of Nikon's Picture Controls (e.g., match View NX / Capture NX), you must set the Exposure slider in Camera Raw / Lightroom to -0.5.
Of course, feel free to adjust Exposure to make your image brighter or darker as you like. But in terms of matching Nikon's default tonality, you must set the Exposure slider to -0.5, or the default will be too bright.
For workflow convenience, you can use presets in Camera Raw / Lightroom to take care of both (e.g., simultaneously set the profile to "Camera Standard" and set Exposure to -0.5).
Installation
If you are on Mac OS X, drag the "Camera v3 beta" folder to:
    /Library/Application Support/Adobe/CameraRaw/CameraProfiles
If you are on Windows XP, drag the "Camera v3 beta" folder to:
    C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\Adobe\CameraRaw\CameraProfiles
If you are on Windows Vista or Windows 7, drag the "Camera v3 beta" folder to:
    C:\ProgramData\Adobe\CameraRaw\CameraProfiles
Note that the above path on Windows Vista and Windows 7 may be hidden by default. Check your folder settings.
Feedback
The profiles are currently in beta status. Please provide feedback via the online Adobe user-to-user forums here:
http://forums.adobe.com/community/cameraraw
http://forums.adobe.com/community/lightroom
Thank you!

Vit Novak wrote:
It's because ACR assumes that exposure slider at 0 actually means exposure correction of +0.5 EV for this camera model, so with expsure slider at 0, upper 0.5 EV of histogram is clipped
If this bothers you, there is a workaround - convert NEF to DNG, then change BaselineExposure tag in a dng from 0.5 to 0. There are several utilities for this
Or wait for some future version of ACR where this will be solved
The BaselineExposure used by the DNG spec and ACR can complicate ETTR exposure. A uniformly lit surface, when exposed as determined by the standard ISO light meter, should result in 0.18/sqrt(2) or 12.7% saturation of the sensor according to the ISO 12232 saturation standard. This is the standard used by DXO and it allows 0.5 EV highlight headroom. For ETTR exposure, no (or minimum) headroom is desired and mid-gray (18% reflection) is 2.5 stops below 100%.
For example, I exposed a gray card according to the camera light meter reading with the Nikon D3. The resulting 12 bit data number was 497 and the saturation is 497/4095 = 12.1 % saturation, which is very close to the expected value of 12.7%, confirming that the light meter and sensor are properly calibrated. The corresponding pixel value in 8 bit sRGB is 99.8 as shown.
The raw file can be rendered into sRGB with in camera processing or Nikon NX2, which closely approximates in camera processing. With the Standard Picture Control, the camera sRGB value is 150. This is a hot tone curve and the a highlight with 100% reflectance would be clipped. The table below shows the results with ACR and various presets. If one uses the Adobe Standard camera profile, the sRGB value is 162 rather than the expected 99.8 Other combinations are shown. To get the proper value for mid-gray one must use a linear tone curve (sliders on main tab set to zero and a linear point curve) and an exposure correction of -0.5 EV to compensate for the +0.5 EV BaselineExposure. With no exposure correction and a linear TRC, the sRGB value would be 116, very close to the calculated sRGB value of 117 for mid-gray (18%). However, the linear TRC gives a flat appearing image.
The take home point is that if you use Adobe Standard with no exposure compensation with ETTR, your images will appear overexposed and lead to cutting back on the camera expoure. The raw file highlights will have values well under sensor saturation.

Quality of Camera profiles measured (D700)

After never-ending debate about quality of Camera profiles, I decided to try to measure how good these profiles realy are. For that purpose, I made a kind of custom raw file for D700, with a kind of test chart inside it. It was not physical test chart, photographed by the camera, but generated by the program.
I developped this chart with NX2 using standard profile, and with ACR using Camera Standard profiles version 1, 2 and 3. In case of NX2, I turned off all corrections (except standard profile). In case of ACR, I used default settings for each of those profiles and no noise reduction. Also, I developped this raw using ACR with my version of Standard profile, which was generated by modified code I used for calibrating Canon compacts that are not supported by ACR. Color space used was Adobe RGB, 16 bit.
After that, I made graphical interpretation of degree of mismatch between result from NX2 and ACR. Results are shown in attached picture. First picture from the top is a part of a test chart, as developped by NX2. Remaining pictures show the difference between that picture and pictures developped by ACR with these profiles, multiplied by 10 to emphasise the differences. Each pixel is calculated according to the formula
Red = 10 * Abs(Red_NX2 - Red_ACR)
Green = 10 * Abs(Green_NX2 - Green_ACR)
Blue = 10 * Abs(Blue_NX2 - Blue_ACR)
So, intensity of each color in those "delta pictures" shows the error for that color. For total match, this picture would be totaly black
So, it is visible that v2 beta profile (3rd picture from the top) was actually worse then the first version of this profile (2nd picture from the top). But, things improved considerably with v3 beta profile (4th picture). Anyway, there is still some room for improvement, as shown with last picture which is the best I could get with my code at the moment. On real life pictures it is very hard to see any difference between those two profiles
My profile for D700 (Standard only) can be downloaded here
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=Y1OBM020
This is not official release from Adobe, so take it as is. Default settings for this profile (that will match the result from NX2) are the same as for v3 beta, except that blacks should be 0 (default value for blacks is 5 for Camera standard v1, v2, v3)

Well, my point was that v3 beta profile is good enough (although calibration procedure can be slightly improved). On several D700 photos I had (thanks menno1000 for the samples, because I don't have D700), it's very hard to see any difference between results from NX2 and ACR using whether v3 beta or my profile
There are also slight differences between jpeg from D700 and from NX2. It's the same with my Canon 400D - I compared some jpegs from the camera with results from Raw Image Task and Digital Photo Pro and all versions are slightly diferent from each other
The main reason why I don't like older camera profiles is because of some issues in highlights (already discussed here), but this was addressed with v2/v3 profiles. But doing similar test on 400D shown me that there are also some highlight issues with in-camera processing (also addressed with new models). It's quite complex stuff
Also, in case of Canon, there are considerable differences between sRGB profiles and Adobe RGB profiles in DPP software (even well inside sRGB gamut), that is also a reason for some mismatches between results from ACR and DPP when using sRGB, because there are no separate versions of camera profiles for these color spaces. In case of NX2, these differences are much smaller
In short, I don't think we need an absoulte match with manufacturer's profiles and I completely agree with Jeff's opinion about that
About calibrating procedure, it consists of making testing raw file (with a program) and developping it by the camera (in case of Canon compacts) or NX2 or DPP (in case of DSLR-s). After that, I calculate a profile on the differences between input and output. Since my profile in most parts looks very similar to v3 beta, I suppose that Adobe team used very similar approach. However, it's quite tricky to do it right, especially with the compacts, where I have relatively low quality data to play with (10 bit raw and 8 bit compressed jpeg output), so it took a lots of experimenting.

New camera profile not "appearing" in ACR, but does in Lightroom

I recently created a camera profile for a Nikon D200, using an X-Rite Colorchecker chart photo and the Chart feature in the DNG Editor. I exported the camera profile. When I go to the Calibration tab in ACR 5.5, the new profile does not appear in the drop down list with the other camera profiles. However, when I go to the Develop module in Lightroom 2.5, the new profile does appear in the drop down list there.
I am running Windows 7. Snooping around my root drive I find that if I look within the Users\User Name\AppData\Roaming\Adobe\CameraRaw\CameraProfiles directory (referenced in the Fraser and Schewe CS4 Camera Raw book as the Vista location for the profiles) I can find no camera profiles and when I place the new profile there it still does not appear in ACR. When I look in ProgramData\Adobe\CameraRaw\CameraProfiles\Camera\Nikon D200 directory I can see the regular set of camera profiles for the camera, as well as the one I created, but as I previously stated, the newly created profile does not appear in the ACR list.
A side note - I did some experimentation with camera profile names. I added "XX" to the end of the Nikon Vivid profile name (not the extension), and then that profile no longer appears in the ACR list of profiles. I removed the extra letters and then the profile reappears in the ACR list of profiles. Seemed odd behavior to me. I also noticed that the profile I created with DNG Editor is noticeably smaller than the others provided by Adobe (28K compared to 110k).
Hope someone has a suggestion for me.

Your reminder about both Photoshop (main) and Bridge needing to be shut down for changes to take effect reminded me that I had Bridge set to "auto-start at log-in". So I checked and it was still running (shown with the other hidden icons). When I "shut it down" from the UI I had thought it was fully terminated. So I completely shut Bridge down, restarted, and the new profile now appears.
Thanks for the reminder/pointer in the right direction.

Cannot see ACR 5.3 update in the Camera Profiles on CS4

I'm using CS4 on Windows Vista 64. I have tried the manual installation process multiple times before and after re installing CS4. I've tried the AUM with no results good or bad. I know there are two Camera Raw.8bi files that have to be installed in Vista 64 and I've been very careful to get both of the correct files to the correct destinations - I've gotten a lot of practice at this. There have been no error messages. One thing Bridge is doing now is that when I open an image, it opens it in Elements 7, which I upgraded from. When I close PSE7 and reopen the RAW file, it then opens in CS4. My big concern however is not seeing ACR 5.3 in my Camera Profiles. Any thoughts for a non-techie?

Robert, I am having a similar problem with Elements 6, in my case I have installed the 8BI file on my desktop, and I can see all the options Jim describes in camera profile My camera is Nikon, so those are the options I should get. But on my new laptop, all I get in camera profiles is ACR 4.4. I originally downloaded the most recent camera raw update to the laptop, but when that didn't work, I copied the 8BI file from the desktop to the laptop with a memory stick, and I still get the same results - no options. Camera raw on the laptop does recognize my camera, and lists it at the bottom of the preview screen, but it does not populate the options in camera profile.
I distrust the answer you got from FAQs, because my camera did not exist at the time ACR 4.4 was released, and it really does not explain why I can't get the same camera profile selections on the laptop as I do the desktop. Both are Dell, Vista 32. Both are PE 6. Both are the same camera, and now, the same 8BI file. And both show ACR 4.4, The 4.4 doesn't bother me, but I want the camera options on my laptop.

D700 Camera Profile Artifacts (still present in ACR 5.5?)

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for