ERIC CHAN: weirdness in ACR v 8.7.1

Hi Eric,
There's something weird in ACR 8.7.1.
It's immediately putting the Adjustment icon (tiny circle with two slider symbols) visible in Bridge upon opening a raw image without having applied any adjustments whatsoever in ACR . This is not kosher.
Mac, Photoshop CS6 13.0.6.
In this connection, could you kindly look into this thread too:
Camera Raw 8.7.1 color issues
Thanks in advance.

station_two wrote:
There's something weird in ACR 8.7.1.
It's immediately putting the Adjustment icon (tiny circle with two slider symbols) visible in Bridge upon opening a raw image without having applied any adjustments whatsoever in ACR . This is not kosher.
Mac, Photoshop CS6 13.0.6.
All fine on Windows 7 Pro/64, CS6.

Similar Messages

For Eric Chan - is Adobe using legacy (or Sigma's) code to do NR for Foveon raw files ?

Hi Eric,
is Adobe using legacy (or Sigma's) code to do NR for Foveon raw files ?
it was stated (I think it was either you or mr Schewe) that Adobe nowadays do not use NR behind the scenes when NR sliders are zeroed - however this is clearly not the case for Foveon raw files... hence the question - is it Adobe's legacy code that for whatever reason was not changed from old days or Adobe is using some SDK provided by Sigma ?
compare two screenshots - one is ACR, another is SilkyPix v5 Beta... we do not have any demosaicking for Foveon, so it is clear that ACR despite zeroed sliders does NR behind the scenes... can that be fixed and modern Adobe's NR made available for Foveon raw files, like Adobe has it for other cameras ?

> Is it possible that this file has defaulted to the 2003 process version by accident?
ACR shows "Process: 2010 (Current)"
I think that foveon related code was kind of neglected for quite some time... however if Sigma indeed will start selling SD1 that might cause some influx of new customers and it is time to dust off whatever is for foveon inside ACR/LR.

For Eric Chan - Panasonic software optics corrections and "induced banding"

Hi Eric,
may be this was discussed already - not software optics correction of course - but whether that will induce a banding that is almost invisible, unless - and here goes a shot from GH2 and 20/1.7 (which is one of the most heavily corrected lenses)... do you see the pattern there ? was it induced by software correction of optics (distortions)? note that to make it visible sharpening was to extreme in ACR and that some HDR processing was done to make it more clear.

function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}
MadManChan2000 wrote:
The bands are introduced because uniform image noise becomes non-uniformly distributed upon image resampling (e.g., when spatially-varying optical corrections are applied).
With all due respect, I'm not sure I'm buying this...
If the resampling is done with a high quality algorithm I just don't see how a pattern would emerge from "uniform image noise". I can imagine that the noise might look more coarse in some parts of the image and finer than others, but that's it.
Resampling only adds patterns due to inaccuracies.
My money is on someone having made a "speed" vs. "quality" decision in the algorithm somewhere.
-Noel

Olympus E-M1 and CA corrections (or not), probably for Eric Chan

Hi
E-M1 is rumored to have (I'd assume in raw files) finally parameters for CA corrections (first for Olympus, always was the case with Panasonic cameras)... however upon conversion from .ORF to .DNG I still can see that "WarpRectilinear" has only the data for only one plane (while .RW2 to .DNG has that for 3 planes)...
So what does it mean :
1) Adobe support being preliminary does not include that yet ?
OR
2) Olympus does not provide that info (for CA corrections) really like Panasonic does in their raw files (and that means that evil Olympus hardcoded corrections in their software /firmware in case of OOC JPGs/ )
Thank you.

Closer to #1. Specifically, support for metadata-driven (opcode-based) lateral chromatic aberration for the E-M1 will be added in the next dot releases of ACR and Lr. However, note that we are almost ready to post the Release Candidate (RC) versions of the next ACR/Lr dot releases, and the CA correction will not be available in these RC versions (but will be in the final version).

Weird blocks on image after using adjustment brush in ACR

A group of people took an online webinar yesterday. The instructor is a heavy Adjustment Brush user, in LightRoom. After taking the class, many of the students in the group are reporting the appearance of weird blocks on images, after using the Adjustment Brush - both in LR and in ACR. It is also happening to me. I am a heavy Photoshop and ACR user - never before have I seen this. The only thing I'm doing differently is using the Adjustment Brush (because of the webinar class, as it was part of the instructor's core teachings). What could be causing this?

There was an adjustment brush bug in older versions of ACR. I first reported it here, and Eric Chan acknowledged the problem. It went away in future releases. Sorry, I can't remember what version numbers were involved.
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/928672
(see youtube demo)

Adobe Bridge CS4 will not launch ACR

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

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

ACR white balance tool Q!

ACR white balance tool Q!
Does it point sample one pixel, 3x3 average, 5x5 average... I have always wanted to know this!
Good question huh?!
Mark

.Eric Chan - 10:43pm Sep 14, 08 PST (#3 of 3)
The color sampler tool is different in that it uses a fixed # of pixels. The actual # of pixels used is image-dependent, however. So it's not something constant like 3x3 or 5x5.
I'm assuming this is just something you're curious about, as opposed to something that will actually help you use the tools?
Thanks again Eric.
Actually, I think it might HELP ME use the tools better. In PS, as we know, there is the option of choosing point sample, 3x3, 5x5... because the tools sometimes work very differently with the different settings. It seems reasonable to conclude that different results may occur, at times, in ACR if one could know and change the settings there. Of course (at least to my knowledge) the aforementioned tools cannot be changed in ACR, but I would like to better know how they are working for potential better results.

ACR with CS2 using Leopard

I have been using CS2 with Leopard.I upgraded from CS online with a download to CS2. My hard drive crashed. I was sent a link via email thru Adobe to download CS2 again. When I downloaded/installed the program, when opening Bridge the message I got was"The Application could not load Adobe Camera Raw. Use the Adobe Bridge Installer to install the adobe camera raw plug-in. I have 3.7 in the place that Ramo'n mentioned and no where else. What am I doing wrong can it work with out having to go to a lower Operating system?

Kellie,
>Use the Adobe Bridge Installer to install the adobe camera raw plug-in
That error message is incomprehensible. There is no independent "Bridge Installer" and Bridge has absolutely nothing to do with installing the Camera Raw plug.in.
I can't begin to imagine what would generate such a message error, ever.
I hope someone from the ACR Team responds to your post in the Adobe Camera Raw forum. The creator of both Photoshop and Camera Raw, Thomas Knoll, and one of the ACR Engineers, Eric Chan, are very active there, as is Jeff Schewe, who wrote THE book on Camera Raw.
I'm sure no one is ignoring you here, but, as I told you earlier, CS2 is not supported under Leopard. Basically, it it runs fine, if it doesn't, too bad.

Changing Brush size in ACR 7.2 - bug oder feature?

The update to ACR 7.2 changed the way the adjustment of the brush size is behaving. Before one pressed the right mouse button and moved left or right to change the size. Now it's not just left to right but right to left or up and down depending on where the tiny mouse indicatior on the outmost circle is placed. The has as an effect that it's not immediately clear in which direction the mouse has to be moved to change the size. Also the brush circle is move to the side while adjusting and is not congruent with the brushcircle after releasing the mouse botton.
Any ideas if this is a feature or a bug?

The ACR7.3 update did not fix the brush resize problem on my system either - also Win7x64 Ultimate, Ps 13.0.1 (currently I use only the x64 install but the problem exists with ACR hosted in the 32-bit install as well) and ACR 7.3.0.71.
Another annoying thing I've noticed with 7.3 (maybe it was there before 7.3 but I never noticed it) is that even if you set the Feather slider to zero pixels, as soon as you set the brush size to 10 pixels or more, the brush is shown as being feathered. Maybe the 10 pixel cutoff is related to my screen size and resolution: 1920x1200 and 88ppi (NEC MultiSync LCD 2690 WUXi2) but it is still disconcerting at any size.
The unexpected movement of the centre of the brush when you right click reported by the OP, another annoying characteristic, is always towards the centre point of your screen. If you are left of centre, it moves right and vice versa. If you are above centre it moves down and vice versa. Combinations move diagonally towards the centre.
Eric Chan seemed to acknowledge the mouse right-click brush resize and brush centre movement problems with ACR 7.2 in his post #1. Looks like he's forgotten us or has been too busy with other matters. Either way , it would be nice to hear from him again with an update.

Sharpening in ACR 7.1

I'm reading the part of Martin Evening's "Adobe Photoshop CS6 for Photographers" dealing with sharpening in ACR. As in his previous edition for CS5, he seems to be saying that putting the Detail slider at 100 is akin to USM in PS, while placing it at 0 minimizes halos. I would gather this means the 0 setting is deconvolution sharpening.
As I recall, Eric Chan indicated that the settings were the other way round: 0 was akin to USM and 100 deconvolution. Which is which?
thanks,
grampus45

grampus45 wrote:
This would suggest that a significant use of masking would be appropriate in applying capture sharpening. But many things I read, and many suggested 'presets,' tend to downplay or even ignore masking.
I would argue against the term "significant" and more likely call it a beneficial use of masking. You want to be sharpening edges and generally don't want to sharpen surfaces (which are broad areas of tone/color). The default for masking is zero because, well, Thomas decided that no masking should be applied at default but almost any image will benefit from having some edge masking used.
How much really depends on the edge frequency of the image…if you are shooting portraits you want a fairly high edge masking (40 or above). If you are shooting low ISO landscape images with a high frequency of image texture, you probably want less; 10-25 or so. But…that depends on the amount, radius, detail and noise reduction settings…you really can't give a range of settings for any single parameter because they all depend on each other...
grampus45 wrote:
We know from Bruce Fraser what the general principles of sharpening are. What we need now is someone like Bruce to write a treatise on how to enact those principles, such as they are possible, with the sharpening facility in ACR. We can attempt to infer what's happening by moving the sliders themselves, but it's really going to take someone with "inside knowledge" to do the job properly. So far we only have vague hand waving.
I did...when I revised Bruce's Real World Image Sharpening book...which came out just before the PV 2010 noise reduction functionality (unfortunately). The aim is to get the image to look good at 1:1. That is the intent and design of the Detail panel in ACR/LR. And yes, it's tough because there are tons of cameras and tons of image types to deal with...yes, it's tough to evaluate just enough sharpening but not too much. You can't accomplish that with a few presets...you need to educate your eyes...no way around that.
And the other 2 phases of image sharpening, creative and output sharpening are further complicating factors. The ACR/LR creative sharpening is primitive but useful. The output sharpening in LR is actually very, very good. It's less good in ACR because of the limitations of the size functionality in ACR. Output sharpening MUST be done at the final output size...and sizing in ACR other than native are problematic.
The bottom line is to make the image look good at 1:1. Don't try to do over/under sharpening in the Detail panel, don't try to sharpen for effect or do creative sharpening and don't worry at all about output sharpening. If you are shooting low ISO on high rez cameras, you can sharpen more aggressively, the smaller the capture size and higher the ISO the more you need to be careful of setting the sharpening and noise reduction correctly.
The only generalizations I can make os that you do want to adjust all of the following; Amount, Radius, Detail, Edge Masking and Luminance Noise Reduction to get an optimal capture sharpening result. The numbers will vary by camera size, lens type, Exposure, ISO and shooting techniques. YMWV...

Problem with ACR 7 support of Canon 5D Mark III

Just purchased LR4 with ACR7 (upgrade from LR3.6 - not happy about that either, but I am mostly over it) and tried to import photos from my Canon 5D Mark III. Import feature sees all the .CR2 files but when I try to import them it complains that it does not recognize that file format. Not happy.

Unfortunately two important cameras, the Canon 5D.3 and the Nikon D800, came out during the transition between LR3/4 and PS-CS5/6 so Adobe released beta versions of LR and ACR to help tide people over, but what gets released when is kindof messy during the transition.
A major version release requires debugging and testing so the functionality, including new camera support, must be frozen earlier as compared to mid-version camera-support releases that have minimal coding changes. ACR7-beta functionality was frozen back in February so has even less camera support than ACR6.7 beta, which confused PS-CS6-beta users as well.
Just so you’re aware, there is a bug when doing extreme adjustments in the new toning model and geometric lens-corrections have been applied, so be careful with that in the new LR4.1 RC2. Eric Chan has said the bug will be fixed in the release version of LR 4.1. The same bugs exist in the final ACR 6.7 that came out within the last week, so it is unclear what the status of a bugfix is for PS-CS5 users.
Here is a forum post with more information. Also check out the other threads people refer to with other examples of the bug:
http://forums.adobe.com/message/4380573#4380573

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

Very interesting and informative post-LR/ACR Camera Profiles

This post by Eric Chan from Adobe is very imformative and reveals the reality of processing of raw files not only from Adobe's perspective but for all software that processes raw files from digital cameras. The thread is concerning Adobe's processing raw files from a Panasonic Camera model in comparison to the Camera's JPEG rendition.
"Sorry for joining this thread late.
Unfortunately this is a limitation of our current color profile process. This limitation actually applies to all of our camera models that we support, not just Panasonic. What is happening is that the color transform we've built is optimized mainly for daylight and incandescent light conditions, but when applied to scenes with bright light sources (especially neon lights, and especially blue/purple lights), the transform will tend to oversaturate and clip those colors.
My team is investigating how to build better profiles going forward, but in the meantime, my main suggestion is to try reducing the Red/Green/Blue Saturation sliders in the Camera Calibration panel (not the HSL tab, and not in the Basic panel). This will help to reduce the oversaturation and clipping, and will give you a better starting point for further edits (Exposure, Contrast, etc.). As a shortcut, you can store your Red/Green/Blue Saturation slider adjustments as a preset that you can then apply quickly to other images you have that show the same issue."
Link to the actual thread.
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1254354?start=40&tstart=0

My Nikon D80 and D90 don't look the same and I have run comparisons between the Canon 7D and the Nikon D90. Taken together, they all different from each other.
The biggest difference between the D80 and the D90 seems to lie with the much larger dynamic range of the D90. Compared to the D80 at first glance, the D90 seems washed out at the lower values. This is easily overcome in ACR, but even with that, the subjectivity of the reproduction sometimes gives a nod to one over the other.
The closest film comparison is Fuji Astia vs Provia. The D90 at default Nikon Camera Standard resembles Astia, while the D80 is a cross between Provia and Velvia. All this is controlable. One slider I use to enrich the D90 presentation is the black slider
The Canon has other undefined differences which I have simply noted by viewing. I haven't engaged in any tweaking of that camera's images.
So I'll use both the D80 and the D90 according to what I am wanting to happen. Of course, there are times where the differences simply inform the operator of what may be doable, and then one is tweaked to look much like the other.
I checked out sprengel's links to the calibrator software. They have stopped at CS3, it seems. How does it perform with CS5? I may want to at least run a calibration of both cameras and look again.
And, of course, Adobe Standard and Nikon Standard do not agree. At all. So, when is a standard not a standard?
When there is more than one.
Looking back at your post, I should specify that the profile I used when making the comparisons have been the Camera standards, not Adobe Standard.
Message was edited by: Hudechrome

CS4 ACR 5.1 Did Not Fix Crashing

I was able to duplicate the problem in CS4/ACR5.1 in my first attempt using five layers in my problem workflow.
It appears at least part of the problem is happening in Photoshop (outside of ACR).
Would it be possible to hookup with a PS engineer to see if I can generate any useful crash reports to help expedite a look into the problem?
Thanks...

>> (GB wrote): I had such funky nasty hangs in 10.5/CS3 ACR and PS blinking out I thought I had bad hardware so I got an 8-core to write off the problem...the problem followed the 8-core so I was holding out for updates
ACR 5.2 appears to have fixed the funky nasty spinning beach ball crashes in ACR 5.1 thanks to behind-the-scenes followup by Eric Chan), however it revealed another crash problem in Ps CS3 and CS4 that a Ps engineer followed up on.
Today, on my first try in a matter of 30 minutes, I was able to duplicate the Ps crash (Ps blinking out) for the CS4 Ps team via me working remote on one of their boxes using only nine of their NEF files/layers.
I mention this only to say thank you, Adobe, for listening to me (I feel vindicated in my original instinct that my hardware and installs were good).

D3 NEF/ACR Conversion

I notice that there are now two ACR Profile options in the Camera Calibration panel for the Nikon D3. Namely 4.3 and 4.4; the latter apprearing to be the default. I have to say to my eye the conversions each make on a sample NEF file appear remarkably similar - although I have no doubt some who know better will tell me otherwise.
Notwithstanding that, I also notice from a thread in the LR Beta2 forum the hint from Eric Chan that moves are afoot to improve the ACR conversion performance nearer to that of Nikon, Canon etc. A hint supported by Thomas Knoll no less in the same thread. As my local farmers say, relative to rumours of the Beast of Exmoor: 'thar mut be summut init'.
Looking at the timeline of these postings and the release of ACR 4.4, my supposition is that such 'improvement' was not incorporated therein, and there is more on the way. Unless, of course, someone knows better.

There were some improvements made to all profiles in Camera Raw/DNG 4.4/Lightroom 1.4.
From the release notes:
Previous camera profiles identified in the Calibrate panel of the Develop module may have displayed poor results at extreme ends of the temperature and tint ranges. A new camera profile identified as Camera Raw 4.4 is now available and will be applied by default to all images without existing Camera Raw or Lightroom settings. The creation of new default profiles will also include the updated Camera Raw 4.4 profile.
So there might be a slight improvement for all your files in 4.4.1/1.4.1 (the current release). I created a preset to enable batch conversion, which is available on the site in the sig.
The 4.4 release isn't the same thing that Thomas and Eric are talking about.
Richard Earney
[commercial link deleted]

ERIC CHAN: weirdness in ACR v 8.7.1

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for