Fractional values in camera raw 8.3

I can not set a fractional exposure in camera raw 8.3. OS X Mavericks

Try the last post in this thread
http://forums.adobe.com/message/5914523

Similar Messages

Using the histogram and RGB values in camera raw

This question was posted in response to the following article: http://help.adobe.com/en_US/photoshopelements/using/WS287f927bd30d4b1f5548d97812e28a69a90- 7ff4.html

K so no one has been able to help me. When I open a raw image all my highlighted areas are pink. I cannot turn it off by clicking the little triangle. I'm losing my mind. I've been trying to figure this out for months!

Camera Raw - Can't Apply Same Value Multiple Images

Camera Raw 8.1 opened from within Photoshop. Windows 7.
If I open a bunch of .cr2 files into Raw and want (for example) all of the Contrast values to be "25" or the Highlights to be "-90", I cannot seem to get images in the selection range other than the first one or two to mirror the same values. I shift click / control click for a range and then try either typing in the value (number number then enter) or by scrubbing to the value. Neither works. I've tried saving out an .xmp Settings file to import to the selection - same non result.
I even tried Synchronize - I tweak the first, select my range and then hit Synchronize and uncheck everything other than (this example) Contrast and Highlights and hit okay ... still nothing.
This has been like this for a while but now I'm working with a very large batch of images that share very similar lighting values so it's driving me nuts to sit here in 2013 and punch in numbers one at a time.
Thanks for your suggestions,
Marc

Two things, you have to be in Grid View, not Filmstrip Selection and not have Menu/Metadata/'Show Metadata for Target Photo Only' checked. I and others have gotten bitten by this, too.
Don

Displayed white balance differs from camera value (Canon .CR2 raw)

I've noticed that Lightroom will often display a sequence or group of pictures with a very visibly different white balance between consecutive frames.
Looking at the EXIF info in a sample Canon .CR2 raw (EOS-350D), the recorded colour temperature is 5200K (camera set for AWB), but Lightroom reports this as 4950K after import. For the next frame (continuous shot), the EXIF colour temperature is again 5200K, but Lightroom reports 4900K.
This still happens in LR1.2 (on newly imported photos).
Why does Lightroom appear to make its own decision for white balance rather than use the recorded value?
Thanks,
Barrie

In any case, I'm worried about the discrepancy
between Aperture and Camera Raw on something so
basic.
Sorry I can't help you directly with Aperture as I haven't bought it - yet. However, re-the above quote, I'd just mention that the interpretation of colour temperature values is not quite as simple as it might seem. Even more so when you bear in mind that RAW converters from 3rd parties like Adobe or Apple are not based on the RAW conversion engine produced by the camera manufacturer - in effect they have to guess/estimate what the temp/tint values in the RAW file actually mean...
Some time back I made a series of tests using 3 Canon cameras, with ACR, Capture One & the Canon RAW converter. Each produced noticeably different results, and C1 & ACR showed quite different temp/tint values. (The Canon software only showed 'As Shot' - no values). The differences were consistent between shots from each camera (using WB values input or AWB) - but they weren't consistent from one camera to another. Which program produced the best result depended very much on the Camera/Subject/Personal taste...
Hope someone can help with Aperture specific info, I'm sure there must be a way of making camera specific adjustments to the RAW conversions...

Camera Raw changes resolution to lower value (CS4, CS5)

When I open a tiff file that is 300 dpi in Camera Raw, process it some, then open it in Photoshop and save it, the resolution has changed from 300 to 240. Anyone know why this is and how to prevent it?

Because you've got the Workflow Options set to 240 PPI. See that info link at the bottom of the Camera Raw dlog? Click that and you can change the settings...

Jpegs opened in Adobe Camera RAW

With students new to digital photography and who are capturing in jpeg out of fear for the difficulties they assume go with RAW, I have found it useful to have them open some of their jpeg files in Adobe Camera RAW. They become familiar with the tools there and are willing to switch to RAW capture.
My question is this: What happens to that jpeg image if they set ACR to 16 bits and they continue to open their jpeg image into Photoshop (or Elements) with ACR set to 16 bits. Since that data isn't contained in the jpeg file, what does ACR do? Does it "manufacture" extra data?
Mary Lou

With either 8-bits or 16-bits black is 0 and white is the highest possible number, so adding bits just adds precision to the numbers, not extra data. With 16-bits you get 256 colors between each of the original 256-colors of the 8-bit JPG so it’s like having fractional colors compared to the original 8-bit colors.
An analogous situation using decimal numbers might be: if the JPG starts with 3 decimal digits of precision then the numbers could range from 000 to 999 with 000 being black to 999 being white, but if you doubled the number of digits to 6 then the color numbers would range from 000.000 to 999.000. These are exactly the same values as we started with, but if we choose to manipulate the colors, which is the point of using ACR in the first place, then we don’t lose information.

What is the difference in PS E12 between 'File Open' and 'File Open in Camera Raw' ?

Both routes launch a screen saying Camera Raw 8.3 - Canon EOS 5D Mark III?
Likewise on this screen there is 'Cancel' and 'Done' Buttons', what is the difference both close that screen.
I am assuming the 'Done' Buttons saves any manipulation of exposure or colours you may have made? and the 'Cancel' just forgets them?
Is there a manual for this product; that one can reference, screen by screen? explaining what each option actually does.

Chucky-Tiger wrote:
Both routes launch a screen saying Camera Raw 8.3 - Canon EOS 5D Mark III?
If you are opening a raw file (.CR2), both routes are identical, because you have to convert raw files in ACR anyway.
If you are opening a jpeg file, you can open the file directly in the Elements Editor (Open),
or
you can open it the the ACR module. The dialog is the same (or nearly) as for raw files, with the same sliders and features, including some you don't find in the editor : clarity, advanced denoising...
There are advantages in opening jpegs in ACR, especially because ACR works internally in 16 bits and in a wider color gamut. Very important for me is the fact that the ACR modules saves its edits as 'recipees' in the metadata section of the jpeg files, without changing any pixel value of the original.
Likewise on this screen there is 'Cancel' and 'Done' Buttons', what is the difference both close that screen.
I am assuming the 'Done' Buttons saves any manipulation of exposure or colours you may have made? and the 'Cancel' just forgets them?
Cancel does cancel every edit you have started. You are back to the original file.
'Done' saves your edits, as you rightly assume.
'Open' saves the edits and send them to the editor for further editing if you want, for local retouch or using layers for instance.
'Alt Open' does not saves the edits, but sends the edited result to the editor.
'Save' is only used if you wish to convert the raw files to the DNG format.

Use Camera RAW with Sony Nex-3

Hey Guys!
I want to get out more details from my photos.
Im using Adobe Photoshop CS5
Sony NEX-3 Compact Camera (listed in the camera raw compatibility list)
First i changed the cameras picture format from jpg to RAW & made some photos.
At home i tried to open the files with Camera Raw. Doesnt work. The sony camera saved the pictures as an ARW File.
So i downloaded Adobe DNG Converter. I converted the ARW into a RAW file and opened it with camera raw.
So far so good! I opended the RAW picture with Photoshop. Just for testing with 8 & also 16 bit. Does my camera support 16bit?
I compared the RAW File with the new created jpg.
Normaly the quality of the raw file should be much better than the compressed jpg i think.
I took a look at some other jpg pictures (i shot them in JPG Mode) & compared them with the RAW Images (RAW Mode).
I saw absolutely no difference between RAW & JPG.
I also tried a exact tonal value correction at both images.
Same with other picture corrections. Details, Noise, Sharpness.... same.
With the Sony NEX-3 there also was a RAW Program included which opens the ARW Files.
I cant see some differences between RAW & jpg here too.
What I am doing wrong?
I have to say that i am an camera raw beginner. I tried this for the first time. I thought this would be easier!
At the screenshot below you see a JPG picture on the left & a 16bit DNG on the right.
I found no differences!
I would be very happy about your help and some good advices.
Best regards Andi

Andi265 wrote:
Basicly i understand how RAW works. But im still wondering why i cant see just only a very little difference to my jpg Images.
The image of the Mountain Railway Station i postet has a lot of dark shadow areas & details.
I´m also wondering why these chromatic aberrations are shown in the RAW file? I thought its only in the jpg images because of the compression.
Your raw file may be 12 or 14 bit, and have no output colour space - it is only limited by its physical characteristics and analogue-to-digital converters. You should set Camera Raw for the biggest workspace necessary, which in my case is 16 bit AdobeRGB. Others work in ProPhotoRGB—it's a personal choice. This has the effect of constraining the raw data, and you will learn to use the sliders to work within those constraints.
Using normal processing settings there will only be subtle differences between the conversion preview and the camera JPEG. The tonal response will be slightly different, seeming slightly lighter or darker, and the colours' hue/saturation will be slightly different too. Also, depending on the camera, automatic distortion/vignette/aberration correction will be missing. This is all to be expected, and your expectations have been misplaced.
However, this is only a starting point. Whilst JPEG shooters can go on to process their images, the resulting quality will be inferior; JPEG is a finished image format. Raw shooters have much more to play with, and can manipulate the conversion's parameters to boost shadows, recover highlights, adjust mean exposure, increase/reduce/localise sharpening and noise control, apply processing gradients and masks, apply local contrast and selective saturation boosts, and correct your camera's colour response, as well as apply lens defect corrections—all before the conversion to JPEG.
So, you won't start to see the difference until you start to push these adjustments. You have been given a second (and a third and a fourth...) chance to create your JPEG using your own set of picture parameters, and the ability to change these parameters for each photo after taking the photo.
In your photo above, you can bring out detail in the shadows by boosting Fill and Blacks. As you shot in Raw, you will have a good amount of tonal resolution recorded in the shadows (assuming you didn't underexpose in the first place), which would be absent from a JPEG. You also have the ability to change the sharpening to suit the image, and even apply local sharpening where it's needed most (and less where it's not needed).
You also have the ability to modify Camera Raw's default settings how you like it. You can enable automatic lens defect corrections (like chromatic aberration—make sure you're on ACR 6.7). You can change the default camera profile (which dictates how tone, hue and saturation is translated) to a preset, or make your own using a calibrator. Do this and your starting point will be how you want it, not how Sony wants it.
I could go on, but I think you have probably heard much of this before. The main point I'm making is that you shouldn't expect to see a big difference straight away, but the possibilities you have created are much greater.
Message was edited by: Yammer P

+++ Adobe Camera Raw - Frequently Asked Questions +++

Q: Is my camera supported by Adobe Camera Raw (ACR)?
A: Here is the list of cameras officially supported by the current version of Adobe Camera Raw and Digital Negative (DNG) converter. The page also provides links to the current version of ACR and DNG converter for both Mac and Windows.
Q: what version of Camera Raw should I install?
A: Photoshop CS6: see first question.
Photoshop CS5: Camera Raw 6.7 Win | Mac
Photoshop CS 4: Camera Raw 5.7 Win | Mac
Photoshop CS 3: Camera Raw 4.6 Win | Mac
Photoshop CS 2: Camera Raw 3.7 Win | Mac
Photoshop CS: Camera Raw 2.4 Win | Mac
For Photoshop Elements, Windows:
Photoshop Elements 10: (See first question)
Photoshop Elements 9: Camera Raw 6.5
Photoshop Elements 8: Camera Raw 6.2
Photoshop Elements 7 and 6: Camera Raw 5.6
Photoshop Elements 5: Camera Raw 4.6
Photoshop Elements 4: Camera Raw 3.7
Photoshop Elements 3: Camera Raw 3.6
For Photoshop Elements, Macintosh:
Photoshop Elements 10: (See first question)
Photoshop Elements 9: Camera Raw 6.5
Photoshop Elements 8: Camera Raw 6.2
Photoshop Elements 6: Camera Raw 5.6
Photoshop Elements 4.0.1: Camera Raw 4.6 ( 4.1 under Mac OS 10.3)
Photoshop Elements 3: Camera Raw 3.6
Q: What version of Camera Raw started to support my camera?
A: This page: http://www.adobe.com/go/kb407111 lists when support for the raw files of your camera was added in Camera Raw. If the version listed is higher than the one supported by your version of Camera Raw, you first need to convert the files to DNG using the latest version of the DNG converter in order to open them in Camera Raw.
Q: I do not have the latest version of Photoshop, how can I open the Raw files from my new camera?
A: Only the current version of Photoshop will receive ACR updates that add support for the latest cameras. However, you can download the latest version of the DNG converter, and use it to transform your raw files to the universal DNG format. Camera Raw 2.4 in Photoshop CS and all newer versions of Camera Raw compatible with your version of Photoshop will be able to open the DNG files. Photoshop 7 and ACR 1.0 do not support DNG, therefore you will need to upgrade to the latest version of Photoshop.
Q: When will the new update of Adobe Camera Raw be released?
A: Adobe cannot comment on unannounced products, however, it is expected that ACR and DNG converter will be simultaneously updated 3 or 4 times per year (i.e. every 3 or 4 months).
Q: What does "Unofficial Support" for a camera mean?
A: Unofficial support means that Adobe's Quality Engineering department has not tested the support to the degree that they want, and thus cannot guarantee the results. So we don't include the camera in our official lists, and don't provide any technical support. Unofficial support means "use at your own risk".
Q: How do I know that Adobe Camera Raw is installed correctly?
A: For Photoshop CS customers, the most efficient way to ensure that you have the latest Camera Raw update installed correctly is to choose the Updates option from the help menu. For Photoshop Elements customers the best way to verify that the Camera Raw plug-in is installed correctly is to make sure it appears (only once) in the "About Plug-in" menu (see: Photoshop menu on a Mac or Help menu on a PC). The correct version is displayed when you pick its name and see its about box. If "Camera Raw" is not in this list, you have not installed it correctly.
Q: Why is the profile listed in the Calibration tab showing a version of Adobe Camera Raw that's older than I am using ?
A: What you are seeing is normal, and is due to the fact that the built-in profile for your particular camera model hasn't changed between that version of Adobe Camera Raw and the version you're using now. If you see the profile listed as "beta" then your camera has only unofficial support.
Q: Why is there more than one profile listed in the Calibration tab of Adobe Camera Raw?
A: The built-in profile for your particular camera model has changed since it was first supported. The profile shown by default identifies the latest version of Adobe Camera Raw in which the profile was updated. Other profiles in the drop-down list identify those included with earlier versions of Adobe Camera Raw, and are available in case you want to maintain compatibility with earlier versions.
Q: My camera is listed, but Photoshop cannot read its raw files.
A: Download and install the most recent update to Adobe Camera Raw.
Q: Where can I download the latest version of Adobe Camera Raw?
A: Adobe Camera Raw for: Macintosh and Windows
Q: I am trying to replace my existing ACR plug-in with a more recent version, but cannot find ACR in my Photoshop/Plug-in/File Formats folder. Where is it located now?
A: As explained in the "Readme", which can be found on the ACR download page, the correct location is:
Photoshop CS2
Mac: /Library/Application Support/Adobe/Plug-ins/CS2/File Formats/
Win: \Program Files\Common Files\Adobe\Plug-ins\CS2\File Formats\
Photoshop CS3
Mac: /Library/Application Support/Adobe/Plug-ins/CS3/File Formats/
Win: \Program Files\Common Files\Adobe\Plug-ins\CS3\File Formats\
Note that "Common Files" is localized in non-english versions of Windows.
Q: Why do I only see a small generic icon in Adobe Bridge instead of a thumbnail when I browse the folder containing my RAW files?
A: Bridge occasionally has difficulty with RAW files, but this is usually because the user has installed ACR into the wrong location or browsed the folder prior to installing the ACR plug-in that provides support for their particular camera model. The fix for this issue is usually to make absolutely sure that ACR is installed correctly, then purge the Bridge cache. If you're in the habit of using the Distributed cache (Bridge 1.x) it would be prudent to manually delete the cache files from the folder containing your RAW files.
Q: Whenever I open an image in Adobe Camera Raw a small explanation mark within a yellow triangle appears in the upper right hand corner of the image.
A: This symbol indicates that a high quality preview is being generated by Adobe Camera Raw. It should disappear after a couple of seconds.
Q: How do I turn off Auto Adjustments in Adobe Camera Raw 3.x?
A: Open Adobe Camera Raw. On the Mac press Cmd+U or on the PC Ctrl+U. This keystroke combination toggles Auto Adjustments On and Off. Alternatively, disable the Auto Adjustments setting from the fly-out menu adjacent to the Setting drop-down menu. If you want the default to be Off for Auto Adjustments simply choose "Save New Camera Raw Default" from the fly-out menu adjacent to the "Settings" drop-down menu then choose Done.
Q: What about Adobe Camera Raw 3.7 and newer versions?
A: Camera Raw 3.7 no longer supports per slider auto adjustments. One Auto control at the top of the panel now sets the Exposure, Shadows, Brightness, and Contrast sliders to their auto values. The Default control at the top of the panel sets these same four sliders to their default values. The keyboard shortcut for the Auto control is CMD/CTRL-U.
The keyboard shortcut for the Default control is CMD/CTRL-R.
Double clicking on a slider to set that single slider to its default value.
Shift double clicking on a slider to set that single slider to its auto value.
Q: Why do I get the the following message: "Unable to create an .xmp sidecar file. The image settings will instead be stored in the Adobe Camera Raw database."
A: This message means that Adobe Camera Raw is unable to write to the XMP sidecar file. Either the media is read-only (e.g. a CD), or you don't have write access to the folder containing the image, or the existing XMP sidecar file is locked.
Q: I cannot see all the tools and buttons of Adobe Camera Raw.
A: Set your monitor resolution to the minimum required for Photoshop CS and higher, i.e. 1024x768.
Q: Where can I obtain a listing of Adobe Camera Raw keyboard shortcuts and modifiers?
A: On the Photoshop online help file.
Q: When I open my Nikon NEF files, all I see is the simple version of the raw dialog.
A: You are running Nikon's plug-in, not Adobe's. Delete from Photoshop's plug-in folder and all subfolders all copies of the "Nikon NEF plugin". Nikon automatically installs this plug-in in up to two places inside Photoshop's plug-in folder, and both must be deleted. Otherwise it overrides the Adobe plug-in. An alternative to the deletion is adding ~ in front of the Nikon plug-ins names.
Q: I installed the update. I can now open my raw files, but I still cannot see thumbnails in the file browser.
A: Purge the file browser cache for the problem folder. Tools > Cache > Purge cache for this folder.
Q: Is it better to resize my images in Camera Raw, or in Photoshop?
A: The resampling code is fairly similar to (but not exactly the same as) the "Bicubic Sharper" resampling in Photoshop CS and CS2. It does not make very much difference which stage you do the resampling in. The exception is non-square pixel cameras (Nikon D1x and Fuji S2 Pro), for which it is best to upsample one size step in Camera Raw if you need a larger image.
Q: What are raw images, and how do they differ from JPEG ones?
A: Read this whitepaper (1MB PDF) written by Bruce Fraser for a concise answer.

You can check compatibility yourself:
1. Go to this page to see the different releases: http://forums.adobe.com/thread/311515?tstart=0
2. Navigate into the download link for the appropriate version of Camera Raw.
3. Follow the link to the ReadMe (e.g., http://www.adobe.com/special/photoshop/camera_raw/Camera_Raw_4.6_ReadMe.pdf).
4. Look to see whether your camera is supported.
5. If your camera is NOT supported, you can use the free Adobe DNG converter to create .dng files that your Camera Raw will be able to open.
Photoshop CS6 is anticipated to be out in a few months, and Camera Raw is supposed to have a whole new approach, so a lot of us are excited about anticipating that.
-Noel

Camera Raw 4.0 unusable in Photoshop CS2

If you have Photoshop CS2 and you download the latest RAW 4.0 update, forget about opening any RAW files from cameras produced in the past year and a half or so. As a clever marketing move Adobe has disabled all functionality for RAW cameras once covered under RAW versions 3.0 through 3.7 when using the RAW version 4.0 in Photoshop CS2. Why would they do that, you ask? To sell more software, of course!
The RAW 4.0 update adds only the Panasonic DMC-FZ8, a camera that I recently purchased. But, if I want to view RAW files from this camera I have to upgrade to Photoshop CS3 or buy Lightroom 1.0, and that is exactly what Adobe is hoping. Suddenly my Photoshop CS2 program has become obsolete because in addition I can no longer open RAW files from my Nikon D200. What is so difficult about making the RAW 4.0 plug-in compatible with other more recent Photoshop programs? Absolutely nothing! Adobe cares more about selling new software than they do about customer loyalty. Such a marketing practice is unfortunate and, in my mind, reflects poorly on Adobe's business ethics.

"I think a nice compromise to the ACR things is to design the next full version of upgrade of ACR (in this case 4.0) so that it will work with the last version of Adobe Photoshop (in this case CS2)."
Yeah, ok, here's the problem with that...Mac CS2 required 10.3.9 or above...Win CS2 required Win 2K or XP/SP2...Photoshop CS3 (and Camera Raw 4.0) requires Mac 10.4.8 and Win, XP/SP2 or Vista.
So, you code to the latest APIs of the system (10.4.x, XP/SP2 or Vista) and you are supposed to magically make a plug-in work on older APIs of the previous version of Photoshop? Even though, to progress and advance (and hopefully optimize) you commit to using the new APIs. So, how ya gonna make Camera Raw 4.0 work in Photoshop CS2-disable it for 10.3.9 and Win 2K? Forget about using new API's and suffer through the old ones?
So, you say, well, just keep updating Camera Raw 3.x...ok, for how long? Forever? For 1 quarter? For a year?
So, you got the Camera Raw engineering team (3 guys) taking time away from Camera Raw 4 to re-write code for Camera Raw 3 for cameras that weren't even sold when Camera Raw 3.x shipped...you ok with that? You realize that it will drain resources from new products with new features, but that's ok. . .you want Adobe to support old products even though they no longer sell them.
I suppose in a perfect world, that would be ok. But as a user of the current Photoshop CS3 and Camera Raw 4, I would want the engineers to be concentrating their time and energy working on what they ARE selling right now. Adding new cameras to Camera Raw 4. Adding new functionality to Camera Raw 4.
People have a pretty skewed view of software, IMHO. They drop down bucks for HARDWARE and expect the software to be upgraded forever, for free. There's just as much value in intangible personal property (software) as there is in tangible personal property (hardware). And...it ain't like these shiny new cameras don't come with the camera maker's software...and Adobe STILL provides support for new cameras in old versions via DNG...which, BTW is free...
Big ol' bad Adobe, out there trying to screw their customers...I don't think so. They bend over backwards to do the right things, but of course, to some people, even that's not enough.

Wanted: Bridge or Photoshop script for taking a camera raw "snapshot"

Hello,
i am looking for a way to create a "snapshot" in the xmp data of raw image files, like you do in camera raw's last tab "snapshots".
I can do copy&paste programming.
Here is a script that changes a certain value on a selection of image files. I can take this as a starting point to work in the xmp data in a selection of files. But what would a function to create a snapshot be?
#target bridge    if( BridgeTalk.appName == "bridge" ) {
setExposure = MenuElement.create("command", "Set Average Exposures", "at the end of Tools","exp");
setExposure.onSelect = function () {
var d=app.document;
d.deselectAll();
var sels = d.getSelection("cr2,crw,nef,mos,orf");
var noOfFiles =sels.length;
var diff = (3.25 / (noOfFiles-1));
var exp = 1.25;
var exp2=exp;
for(var a = 0;a<noOfFiles;a++){
    exp2 = exp - (diff*(a)).toFixed(3);
    var file = new File(sels[a].spec.toString().replace(/\....$/,'.xmp'));
    setExposure( file, exp2 )
app.document.chooseMenuItem('PurgeCache');
function setExposure( file, expose ){
     file.open('r');
     file.encoding = "UTF8";
     file.lineFeed = "unix";
     file.open("r", "TEXT", "????");
     var xmpStr = file.read();
     file.close();
     if (ExternalObject.AdobeXMPScript == undefined) ExternalObject.AdobeXMPScript = new ExternalObject("lib:AdobeXMPScript");
     var xmp = new XMPMeta( xmpStr );
     xmp.setProperty( XMPConst.NS_CAMERA_RAW, "Exposure", Number(expose) );
     file.open('w');
     file.encoding = "UTF8";
     file.lineFeed = "unix";
     file.write( xmp.serialize() );
     file.close();
regards,
Stephan Möbius

Hi Stephan,
Nice to hear from you.
I would first like to tell my understanding your problem clearly.
What I understood is that you want create a “snapshot” (thumbnail) of a camera raw file and put it inside the XMP Packet.
You have got a script which can update XMP of file, on selecting a menu item.
You want to know how to create a “snapshot” of a raw file so that you can insert it in XMP using the script.
Workflow will be, you will open a camera raw file, select some menu item, and on doing that the snapshot will be updated in the XMP.
Is this understanding correct?
If not please clarify the workflow and the problem you are facing.
Thanks,
Amit

Camera RAW / Bridge CC problem with Exposure in Mac OS X 10.9 Maverics

Recently I purchased MacBook Pro with OS X 10.9 Maverics and I have a problem as described below while working in Bridge CC:
If I open Canon RAW files (.CR2) in Photoshop by double-clicking the file (or File > Open With > Adobe Photoshop CC), Photoshop starts and a Camera RAW windows opens. If I set the Exposure value from -0.95 to 0.95 and choose Open Image or Done, a .XMP file is created, but the value of Exposure is NOT SAVED (Exposure value is still 0). If I set the Exposure to -1.00 (or less) or +1.00 (or more), it is SAVED.
On the other way if I open any RAW file just in Camera RAW (File > Open In Camera Raw) everything works fine: any changes of Exposure are saved in .XMP files.
Please note that I have all updates of Adobe and Apple software are installed.
Anyone can help?

Can't check with Mavericks because I'm still on 10.8.5, however I can't say I heard this behavior before.
Can you select a file that is changed with -0.95 but does not show the result and with right mouse click menu choose purge cache for selection, does that make a difference?
What version of Camera Raw are you using and What Canon are you using.

Possible GPU Issues With Camera Raw 6.6

Over the past day on my Windows 7 x64 workstation I've done some updates. Specifically:
The Adobe updater brought in Camera Raw 6.6, replacing 6.5.
I updated the to the ATI Catalyst 11.12 display driver version from previous version 11.11.
I allowed Windows Update to apply the dozen or so changes that were pending.
I was just doing some OpenGL testing with Photoshop CS5 12.0.4 x64 and I noticed that under some conditions I saw Photoshop drop out of OpenGL acceleration. Specifically, when I opened a Canon 5D Mark II image through Camera Raw I saw subsequent operations stop using OpenGL acceleration even though the checkmark remained in the [ ] Enable OpenGL Drawing box in Edit - Preferences - Performance.
What I did to determine whether OpenGL acceleration was enabled was this: Select the Zoom Tool, then click and hold the left mouse button on the image. When OpenGL is enabled, I see a smooth increase in zoom. When it goes disabled, I see only a jump in zoom level after letting up the mouse button. Also, the [ ] Scrubby Zoom box gets grayed out. As I mentioned, even in this condition, a check of Edit - Preferences - Performance still shows OpenGL enabled.
Just as a control, I saved the converted file as a PSD, and every time I opened THAT file (with a fresh copy of PS CS5 running) and did the same operations I could not reproduce the failure. The difference being I did not run Camera Raw.
Since I wasn't specifically looking for issues with Camera Raw, I am not sure that the problem occurred every time I did run Camera Raw. I do know that when I open images from my own camera (40D; I do not own a 5D Mark II) that the problem doesn't seem to occur. Notably I always open my image from Camera Raw to the largest possible pixel size - 6144 x 4096, as I did with the 5D Mark II image, so it's not an obvious size difference that's leading to the issue. Given other comments of late, I'm wondering if it could be a specific issue with conversions of files from 5D Mark II.
Nor am I sure whether any of the above updates caused it - it might done this before; I don't regularly convert 5D Mark II images. I DO think I would have noticed Photoshop reverting to GDI operation before, since I just noticed it pretty easily, but I'm not completely sure of that either. I do use OpenGL-specific features (such as right-click brush sizing) pretty often.
I'm trying now to find a set of steps with which to reliably reproduce the problem now, and will advise.
-Noel

Figures. Now I can't reproduce the problem at all, even after an hour of testing. It probably had nothing to do with Camera Raw.
I wonder if there are latent GPU status indicators and config values stored by Photoshop based on its specific environment that might not be right for the first run (or first few runs) after a display driver update. Hm....
-Noel

Quality Loss when saving Jpeg from Camera Raw

I am try to do some color correction on 400 wedding photos. I open like photos in Camera Raw then synchronize, make a few additional adjustments and then save the photos as psd files. When I save the files, the quality drops dramatically. I can see pixels and jagged edges (looks like steps) on anything curved. The photographer will not give me the RAW files, so I have to work with these high quality jpegs and I would prefer to use camera raw as it is nice and easy to fix many of the photos quickly. How can I save these files so as to not lose quality? Oh, I am on a Mac.
--K

Ramón,
now I am quite baffled. For years ago I conducted respective tests and demonstrated, that repeated saving with the same "quality" does not introduce image deterrioration; others did the same tests and came to the same result.
Now, to be sure, I did it again, and the result contradicts my earlier findings. Although the deterrioration is after five consecutive savings practically irrecognizabe without hugely amplifying it, it is there, and that is an issue of principle.
While it is possible, that I and others made some error in those tests, the question is (for me) what causes the difference.
I verified, that the encoding parameters are unchanged. Thus the difference must come from the calculation required to transform between the original pixel values and the encoded values by
a. the conversion between RGB and YCbCr,
b. the discrete cosine transform (a variation of Furier transform).
However, any differences resulting from the calculation (iteration, rounding) should be eliminated by the subsequent lossy step, the "quantization" (which is an euphemism for "throwing away most of the data"). Even if there is a difference between the first and second savings, there should not be any between the fourth and fifth savings - but there is.
One explanation could be, that the encoding and decoding functions work with different precision, though this sounds very outlandish.
Anyway, darn.
Re the encoding parameters: they *have to be* stored in the JPEG file, otherwise the data could not be decoded, except by that program, which knows the parameters. However, JPEG is not designed for human consumption but for computers (this fact makes testing a program, which reads or writes JPEG data a serious PITA). The metadata can be analyzed only by a hex editor, and one has to know the structure of that data.
Re knowing, if the file has to be compressed or not: JPEG is *always* encoded. There are different variants of the encoding method, but there is no "unencoded" version.

Camera Raw Camera Calibration Tab and 5D Mark III

I don't think that many people do this in camera raw, but it was kind of an important step in my workflow with the Canon 7D before and is just not working the same way with the 5D Mark III now.
In the Camera Calibration Tab (Third from the right side) I always changed Camera Profile from Adobe Standard to Camera Standard or Camera Portrait. This step made the image automatically look better, contrast was better and the highlights look a lot better that way. Of course the "Camera Portrait" option makes the image a lil bit red, like the Picture Style in the camera does. But it was an easy adjustment with the Hue Slider of the Red Channel. Like I already said - really great improvement of the image on the 7D raw files, beautiful highlights, shiny, contrasty and so on... Same stuff worked with 5D Mark II perfectly, too.
Now with the 5D Mark III the "Camera Portrait" option, my favourite one, gets me pretty bad results. The Image is too strong oversaturated, too much red in the skintones and in the shadows, too! Shadow contrast gets worse and I can't control this settings the way I did before with the hue/saturation sliders of the channels. It's too extreme red or it's too yellow, but not something right between this extremes. And the highlights get some green tint, so it's no real optimization of the image overall quality at all, like with the other cameras. I don't know if the support of the 5DMIII is still not up to date... It is not only my camera, I also have asked other photographers with a 5D Mark III and they have the same issues changing the camera profile. Lightroom has exactly the same effect... It would be great, if an Adobe Employee can forward this issues, so that it gets tweaked with the further updates and 5dm3 will work the same way in camera raw like mark 2 or 7D.
Sorry for my bad english

Yes, white balance is another possible reason for mismatch
These rules apply:
- if you use white balance "as shot", then white balance in ACR will be the same as from camera or DPP (in a sense - what is white color in ACR will be white in DPP also). However, color temperature/tint shown in ACR will be probably slightly different than value recorded in exif of jpeg or raw file. It's because in that case, whitebalancing is performed using some metadata in raw file by both ACR or DPP, while temperature displayed in ACR is calculated from that metadat using color matrices in selected profile, according to a formula from one book (as documented in dng sdk), while DPP is probably using some other formula or slightly different color matrices
- the same will happen if you use WB dropper on exactly the same position in the photo by both ACR and DPP
- but, if you use the same temperature preset in ACR and DPP (for instance 5200 K), then white in ACR and DPP will probably be a bit different, because whitebalancing is performed in oposite direction now (ACR calculates RGB multipliers from that temperature and using color matrices in the profile)
I hope this was understandable, although it's a bit complicated

Fractional values in camera raw 8.3

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for