In camera sharpening and acr 5.2

When I open RAW photo in acr although I have "apply sharpening to all images" option selected my pictures are not sharpened like when camera sharpens them. And it seems imposible to get acr to open raw to look as embeded .jpg ...they are overexposed by 1 stop and colors are of. If I use Nikon Capture NX Raw files look the same as embeded .jpg and it is sharpened in camera. I know i cant get the same looking picture in ACR as in NX but ACR is way off and it doesnt use camera sharpening at all.

The preference option you refer to (i.e., "apply sharpening to all images") means that sharpening -- if any -- will get applied to the image when you open the image in PS or save it as a rendered file (i.e., a TIFF or JPEG) to disk. The alternative (preview images only) means that you can preview any sharpening within CR, but that the sharpening won't get applied to the rendered file when you save it out or open it into PS.
This is separate from the actual controls that govern how much sharpening gets applied to the image. For that, visit the Detail tab. The default amount is 25. If that is too low for your taste, bump it up. You'll also want to tweak the other sliders (Radius, Detail, Masking) for best results.
CR does not use the in-camera sharpening algorithms, nor does it use the NX sharpening algorithms.

Similar Messages

Noise, Sharpening and ACR

I have recently switched from processing my raw files from Aperture to Adobe Camera Raw 4.4.1. I shoot landscapes with the Canon 1Ds Mark III, low ISO, and wish to make very large prints (30-50"). After reading "Real World Camera Raw with CS3" it seems like the authors say that capture sharpening can be accomplished in ACR instead of what I was doing right after Aperture (with sharpening off)- that is, using Ninja Noise and then capture sharpen with Photokit Sharpener. But if I now capture sharpen in ACR I won't be able to use Ninja Noise since one should not sharpen noise. Right? So does this mean that if I capture sharpen in ACR that I should also use ACR's Noise Reduction? Or should I turn off ACR's Sharpening and Noise Reduction and do as I did before - use Ninja and PhotoKit sharpening after raw processing? (I hope this makes sense - I'm still learning the basics). Also any rough settings for what I'm doing would be very helpful. Thanks in advance.

>Not at all. There's ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with that workflow. I would recommend it myself.
>[EDIT] except I prefer Noise Ninja most of the time, and Noiseware in a few cases.
I've discussed this matter with Gordon on another thread, but a few points are worth repeating here. On page 157 of his Image Sharpening with Adobe Photoshop PSCS2, Bruce Fraser states, "Always do noise reduction before sharpening. If you sharpen, you'll almost certainly make the noise worse; the noise reduction tool will have to work harder, and will probably wipe out the sharpening you did anyway."
Most noise reduction tools do not eliminate noise but merely make it less visible. When you sharpen after noise reduction, some or much of the noise may reappear. If you do the sharpening first, this problem is eliminated, but the effect of your sharpening may also be wiped out.
Sharpening and noise reduction are basically inverse processes and work against another. Some of these problems may be eased with the use of masks. You can use a surface mask during noise reduction to help confine the NR to smooth areas where the noise is most noticeable and keep the NR away from the edges where sharpness would suffer. Similarly, you can use an edge mask during sharpening to help confine the sharpening to the edges.
That said, Noise Ninja can work reasonably well on JPEG images that have been sharpened in camera as they often are. In this case, one has to use a different noise profile for the best results.
Bill

Capture vs. Content Sharpening in Lightroom and ACR

Hi,
I have a question regarding sharpening in Lightroom and ACR. In the information I have read, many authors point out that Lightroom and ACR's detail panel is optimized to provide control over capture sharpening. In a post that I read recently by Jeff Schewe, he clarified that and said that we are really sharpening for both capture and content with the detail panel in Lightroom.
That is confusing to me because after reading Bruce Fraser's book on sharpening, capture and content sharpening were treated as two different processes. If I understood correctly capture sharpening for digital captures was based on the characteristics of the camera and the file size of the image, with larger megapixel files receiving a smaller radius. In addition, I read that the radius in content sharpening is dictated by the dominant characteristics of the subject matter being sharpened, with high frequency subject matter receiving a smaller radius and low frequency receiving a higher radius.
The reason I am confused is that it appears that capture and content sharpening for the same digital capture can at times be quite different. For example, I believe that the book suggests a radius for an 11 megapixel capture of .4. If the image content calls for a sharpening radius of 1.3, what do I do? In Lightroom/ACR I can only choose 1 radius.
In all the reading I have done regarding the proper use of Lightroom and ACR, it suggest that you should use a radius that is suited to the image content. So it appears that we are that we are being encouraged to perform content sharpening only with Lightroom and ACR. What happened to the "capture" sharpening portion of the process?
Since Lightroom and ACR are capable of recognizing the camera make and model as well as the file size, are they applying capture sharpening behind the scenes that is tailored to that specific camera and file. If not, then how are we achieving both capture and content sharpening in the same operation?
Sharpening for both capture and content in one pass would seem to conflict with some of the basic concepts elaborated on in Bruce Fraser's book. I am assuming that since Lightroom is using Photokit Sharpener routines, that they have accounted for the capture portion of the sharpening, but I don't see that stated explicitly anywhere in anything that I have read. If they have, I say kudos to everyone involved as that would be great. I'm just looking for a clearer understanding of what's happening.
If anyone can shed some light on this topic I would be very appreciative.
Thanks,
John Arnold

>Since Lightroom and ACR are capable of recognizing the camera make and model as well as the file size, are they applying capture sharpening behind the scenes that is tailored to that specific camera and file. If not, then how are we achieving both capture and content sharpening in the same operation?
The answer is that the detail section crosses over into creative territory and is not strictly "capture sharpening," although that is what is mostly meant to do.
Following the ultimate logic of the "sharpening workflow" might make you conclude that Capture sharpening and output sharpening are purely scientific steps where you should not make ANY creative decision at all and that creative decisions are only to be made in the creative sharpening step. In the real world, there are creative decisions and decisions determined by the content matter that enter into the capture step too just like in the output step. You might like extra-crunchy prints for example, but somebody else might prefer softer prints making you approach the output sharpening with a creative intent. The sharpening workflow was probably (Jeff will know more about the history) more of an attempt to arrive at a more rational way of approaching the process and to provide a guideline. It is probably not meant to rigidly separate the workflow up in defined steps where in the 1st step you're not allowed to think or look at the image, in the second step you can go completely wild, and in the last step you have to close your eyes again. The goal was probably to make the photographer realize that the different steps have a different purpose. Not to make you turn off your creative genius or to treat the process like a black box.
My approach to this, inspired in some part by Jeff's many posts on this, is to make the image look good at 1:1 using the detail tool in Lightroom/ACR. This is inherently driven by content of course as you use visual feedback. If your image is large swaths of plain color separated by sharp transitions with little structure, you probably do not want a high setting on the detail slider as you might induce halos and you probably want to use some masking. Conversely, if you shoot brick architecture, a high detail value might look good. If you shot at high ISO, you might need a different approach again to not blow up noise. Also, portraits might need a different approach. After the 1:1 optimization, I sometimes selectively sharpen (or blur!) parts of the image (rare but can be effective - example would be people's eyes). Then for the output step I use appropriate output sharpening for the medium according to my taste. You see that this is not rigidly following the workflow, but still is in the spirit.

Sharpening and noise in ACR 6.3.... advice please

Hi,
Where can I find some good tutorial stuff (or other advices) about sharpening and noise in ACR 6.3.
My camera is a Panasonic DMC-FZ8.
Adjustments like color / blacks / contrast I can "see" on my screen (I'm satisfied until now).
But Noise and Sharpening..... "that is a different kettle of fish " .... I have problems with it ... complex....(my std JPG is better than the RAW-JPG).

Rules of thumb are usually made to be broken. They might provide a good starting strategy in many cases.
The thread I referred to is: http://forums.adobe.com/thread/780678
I re-read it and it doesn't have that much more info in it.
Keep in mind there's nothing fundamentally wrong with an image file getting larger. If you're short on disk space, new disks are incredibly cheap nowadays.
A good rule of thumb (!!) is don't save, then open, then resave JPEG files. You can do it once or twice in a pinch, but the compression artifacts will accumulate, as JPEG does lossy compression.
If a PSD file is growing larger from save to save, it may be because you are doing something to the image to cause that - e.g., creating new layers, or sharpening it and increasing the amount of apparent detail the compression process has to deal with.
-Noel

How ACR works with in-camera controls and ADR (Nikon D-lighting)

After using Bridge for years, exploring more intense in-camera color and ADR controls in my D700 has revealed something I did not know and wonder if there is a solution: Seen in the Bridge thumbnails, the photos show the effects of the in-camera settings, but when I click through to camera raw, the photos lose it, no color effects. How can I retain the in-camera choices in Camera Raw and thus in the save files in tiff which I prefer for working files. Thanks for answering what must be a very basic question.

The answer is actually very simple, Gary: What you are seeing is perfectly normal, expected behavior. It is as designed, and you cannot change that.
Those in-camera settings you reference apply exclusively to JPEG images, not to raw image captures.
What Bridge is showing you is not a rendering (conversion) of the raw image data, but rather the JPEG preview that is embedded by the camera at the time of recording the image and to which the camera does apply the camera settings. Depending on your Bridge preference settings, a new preview will be created once you apply your changes to the file.
Adobe Camera Raw is not designed to emulate the conversion performed by the camera manufacturer's software, whether in-camera or otherwise, but to preserve the entire range of characteristics of the image and offer you absolute control over the entire rendering process as well as to give you certain canned camera profiles to automate and/or speed the process.
Camera manufacturers design their raw conversion, in-camera and otherwise, to compress the shadows in order to hide digital chroma noise, and to provide an over-contrasty, over-saturated and over-sharpened look that appeals to the majority of consumers. Any savvy, experienced Adobe Camera Raw user can easily emulate said camera manufacturer's software and produce an identical result to the in-camera JPEG.
If you want to "retain the in-camera choices in Camera Raw and thus in the save files in tiff which [you] prefer for working files" you can either (a) shoot straight JPEGs, or (b) come up with your own Camera Raw presets that mimic the conversion of the camera manufacturer.
Raw means raw, uncooked, unsalted and unseasoned. The in-camera JPEG has already been cooked, salted and seasoned with pepper according to the camera manufacturer's criteria of what constitutes a good rendering of the image. A good, experienced cook can produce a much better, finer, more sophisticated cooked, salted and seasoned with a myriad herbs image from the raw capture with Adobe Camera Raw, in accordance with the skill, intention of the artist that produced the shot.
Adobe Camera raw gives you complete control, and it allows you to mimic or reproduce whatever look you want including the above described over-contrasty, over-saturated and over-sharpened look that appeals to the majority of consumers, once you learn how to use Adobe Camera Raw to its full extent. Here's an excellent place to start:
Real World Camera Raw with Adobe Photoshop CS5
Wo Tai Lao Le
我太老了 ( No connection to Adobe or to guru Schewe, author of THE book. )
EDITED formatting only.
Message was edited by: Tai Lao

Camera Profiles and Lens Profiles are missing in ACR 8.2.

Yesterday I tried to install a new update for CS CC, but it failed. Then I uninstalled the app completely, and installed it again.
When I opened ACR 8.2 I found out that there were no Camera profiles and LensProfiles (as it used to be before). Instead of usual Camera Profile was Matrix. There were no Lens Profiles in Photoshop Lens Corrections either.
The folder C/.../App Data/Roaming/Adobe/CameraRaw/LensProfilesDefault was also empty.
I reinstalled the application a couple times with the same result.
How can I fix the problem?
Regards, Yulia

Well, C:\ProgramData\Adobe\CameraRaw\CameraProfiles\Adobe Standard is also completely empty.

ACR 5.2 camera profiles and Nikon D700 color artifacts

Using LR 2.2 or Photoshop CS4, conversions of D700 NEFs often result in peculiar color 'artifacts' (posterization?) in certain images, when using the new camera specific profiles like Camera Standard (or particularly Camera Landscape). Typically, the Adobe Standard or ACR 5.2 profile don't exhibit this behavior, at least not with significant changes to saturation and contrast.
An example of this can be seen at http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3400/3179948383_cfda478eb8.jpg (LR 2.2, Camera Standard profile). Question is whether these sorts of results are expected? I'm otherwise quite happy with the new profiles. Thanks,
Mike

Mike,
1. You may be happy if the problem goes away with the lossless compression, but it would be a nice service to the D3/D700 owners' community to
b prove
this. There are many photogs convinced, that the lossy compression does not cause visible loss (Nikon created a myth about this issue already with the D70).
If you can create pairs of shots demonstrating the effect and would not mind my using your images, I would spread this on other forums as well, as I did with the D300.
2. Re WB:
i normally
you can accept the WB interpretations of different raw processors, but not if the issue is just the WB. The fact, that the displayed color temperatures are close, does not mean much: the color temperature is not absolute. I don't go so far as to say, that it
i should
be different between CNX and ACR, but you can not rely on the number.
Even the snow is clearly reddish in the ACR created JPEG. You may complain about ACR's WB conversion, but that is a separate issue. In order to compare the colors, first the greys have to be made grey in both conversions.

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

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?

Capture Sharpen (and other questions)?

I have been a very big advocate of capture sharpening for fine art workflow for more than a few years now (landscape fine art gallery enlargements). I was under the impression that in ACR (7.1) by using the Radius to the left (0.5) and Detail to the right (100) I was maximizing the deconvolution aspect of sharpening and maybe even drawing out a hair more real detail from the raw file.
Today I did a test on a high frequency raw image (trees) and had my settings at Amount 45, Radius 0.5, Detail 0, and masking at 20. But then I also did it on the same image, this way: I brought a second version of the raw file into PS with no capture sharpening, and saved it as a tiff, then I brought that tiff back into ACR 7.1 and then did the capture sharpening. In Photoshop CS6 I put them on top of each other as layers (one raw sharpened and one tiff sharpened) and at all viewing distances they were exactly the same to my eye (I did notice that the histograms of each were very, very slightly different).
But I could not see a single pixel or edge change anywhere in the image even at 1600% viewing distance. This seems to blow away my impression about deconvolution sharpening actually drawing out more real detail from a raw file. I totally understand that sharpening is not real detail, but on this forum years ago I came to believe that somehow a bit more real detail might be accessed in raw by the aforementioned settings. Any thoughts?
Second question: do you really think there is a quantitative quality difference in detail (or the illusion of) in an image that has capture sharpening applied in ACR (7.1) at its native size, then is enlarged substantially with further rounds of sharpening and grain simulation in the end (versus just sizing it up soft and doing all the sharpening at the end)? I did testing on this years ago and it seemed to be noticably better overall. I guess I'm just second guessing it again.
My basic workflow is capture sharpen Radius 05. / Detail 100, then upsize with Smoother (40, 50, 60, 70 inches...) then do some moderate high pass, then advanced use of unsharp mask (LAB - L channel - or Luminosity - RGB - also blending/blend if sliders for fall off if necessary) then ACR grain simulation (on a seperate layer - not to create grainy photos - but create the illusion of more detail and to camouflage artifacting). I believe after years of testing and practice this seems to be about as good as it gets for my content.
Lastly, smart sharpen... I have not used this much, but do you think this workflow might benefit from using it instead of USM (with the more deconvolution - lens blur/more accurate) type of sharpen near the end)?
Side note: for those involved with focus bracketing (for increased depth of field with the sharpest f/stop) it is common knowledge that capture sharpening at the raw stage (before the Auto Align and Auto Blend in PS) confuses the auto blend algorithm as to what are the real sharper pixels. So, we don't capture sharpen those images (this is common practice).
And after blending the images (Auto Blend) we usually just size up (for enlargement) and go. Now I am thinking that after the focus blending is finished and the file is flattened it might be a good idea to bring that tif file back into ACR and apply a little bit of capture sharpening before the upsize. Does that make sense to you?
Cheers for your time and feedback!
Message linebreaks added by: PECourtejoie

Disclaimer: I did not entirely understand the original post, and maybe some of this does not apply in your multi-step process, so take with salt...
ACRFREAK wrote:
With low ISO shots (100) I always try to use the least noise reduction possible in ACR (less is more approach) which means on correctly exposed images ("to the right") on Canon cameras, my ACR settings are often 0 on luminance and 0-5 on color noise.
At ISO 100, I rarely use any luminance noise reduction, however my experience is that even under ideal circumstances including low ISO, a modicum of color noise reduction is still essential for optimum image quality. - it is almost never desirable to set color noise reduction to zero, IMO - YMMV. (Note: in NX2 - you don't even get a choice about it - (true) color noise reduction will be applied, as Nikon sees fit).
Note: ACR's color noise reduction algorithm is image adaptive (it's more "aggressive" on higher ISO shots). You shouldn't see much (if any real) detail loss with color noise reduction at 25 on ISO 100 shots, eh?
ACRFREAK wrote:
My theory is that I am trying to keep a much of the fine detail as possible. Also the reason I like the 0.5 radius and 100 detail.
In my opinion, ideally, the sharpen settings should depend on the photo - type, and inherent focus... (.5/100 may be great for ultra-clean, ultra-sharp landscapes, but may not be appropriate for portraits...)
But different strokes for different folks. (and I don't know what kinds of photos you mainly (or only) shoot).
Rob

Capture sharpening and radius setting?

While I am getting better at sharpening per the Fraser-Schewe approach, I certainly still have a lot to learn.
I understand that landscape shots should usually have a radius in the range of 0.5 to 0.8 for capture sharpening (source + content) in ACR.
What are the most important factors to consider in selecting a radius in this range for capture sharpening of landscape shots? I don't think this topic was really addressed in the Real World Camera Raw - CS3 book.
Yes, I will continue to experiment on my own, but some guidance would be most useful.
BTW, my raw captures average 6MB (Canon Powershot S60, small sensor) and for landscape capture sharpening in ACR I am using radius=0.7, amount=60, detail=40.

Joseph one advantage of ACR over other RAW converters is the visual feedback, at least with a fairly fast computer. I would advice to practice more and not to rely on recommended settings. These are a good starting points to shorten the practice period but image content can be more important than blanket statements like "settings for landscapes".
Leaves were mentioned above so let me give an example. A desert shot will qualify as landscape but so will a golf course with grass and various foliage. Green foliage can give strange sharpening effects and often requires very different settings than say red sand and sandstone.
In some cases selective sharpening of selected image areas may be required for best results. Not necessarily as a start but perhaps worth the trouble for "best shot".

Camera raw and eos 60d

I have been trying to open raw files from my new Canon Eos, 60d but elements 9 tells my they are the wrong file type, I downloaded the camera raw patch to update things and I have that, but it will not install into the program, if anyone has any idea how I can deal with this I would appreciate it. Or, does elements 10 have the update, I would buy that but I don't want to find out I am back in the same place. Does anyone else think this web site is over complecated?

ACR has limited functionality in PSE. I suggest you look at Canon's free DPP editor latest version for additional features and then convert to a 16 bit or 8 bit tiff file to work on in PSE.
If you have not installed DPP from the Canon utilities CD that came with the camera you may need to install that first and then perform the DPP upgrade. You may need to register the camera model and serial number in an account you create on the Canon site to get some of the updates. If you go to the Canon site and to the 60D product page, clilck the software and drivers tab, then select the operating system, all of the utility updates will be listed with descriptions that you can download.
ACR does not read the proprietary non-standard metadata in the CR2 file that DPP can read and change (and change again if you wish) as it is non-destructive to the original pixels. With the updated DPP you can download some lens profiles that will assist in correcting chromatic aberration of particular lenses in the available list. If not in the list you'll still have the function available manually.
In the DPP view option turn on the Tool Pallet and you'll see three tabs. RAW sets up tonality, RGB offers color changing options, LENS offers optical correction. Saving a RAW file saves the "recipe" data adjustments in that CR2 file without modifying the pixels themselves. When you convert to TIF for editing, the adjustments you made in the Tool Pallet (and other adjustments) are applied to the tif file pixels that you'll edit in PSE.
The terminology in DPP is different than PSE but if you look at the histograms in the Tool Pallet views you'll get the hang of the sliders and selections for color and tonality and your preview window will show you the effects of those and overall modifications like sharpening. I recommend if you are going to process the output of DPP just do some generic sharpening and do not use the DPP unsharp masking. That should be done in PSE after cropping and sizing the tiff image to your liking including setting the resolution. Any function that offers a pixel radius choice should always be done after setting image size and resolution so if you decide to crop and resize further you are not resizing the outline introduced by those functions.
I have DPP version 3.11.26 which added the ability to download certain lens and camera profiles as starting points.

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...

Raw files loose camera setting in ACR

Hi everyone,
I have been shooting raw (nikon d80). I used to open my raw images with acr without any problem. But lately the acr wont read my camera settings.
I opened my raw file in window viewfinder and it has my camera settings just ACR seems to strip them.
How can I fix the ACR?
thank you

Which "camera settings" are you referring to? CR will read the "as shot" white balance setting from the camera, but nothing else (e.g., Picture Control, sharpening, etc.).
Eric

PhotoKit Sharpener or ACR?

Hi All:
Ive been trying out PhotoKit sharpener and so far Im impressed with its
performance. But I have a question about how it compares with the sharpener
in the latest version of Raw Converter. I know that the sharpener in RC is
meant to be a capture sharpener, but does anyone have an opinion on which
is better RCs or PhotoKit sharpener capture sharpener? At this point I
cant make up my mind.
John Passaneau

PhotoKit sharpener has three main components according to the sharpening methods Bruce Fraser developed: capture, creative, and output. The capture round of sharpening includes sharpening for source (camera MP count, anti-aliasing filter, etc) and image content (high-, mid- and low frequency). Many photographers use this round of sharpening to create a master image for later use.
The creative sharpening has tools applied selectively to portions of the image--e.g. sharpening brushes, depth of field, smoothing, etc. They must be applied individually and with good judgement to the image and can not be automated.
Output sharpening is not image or source dependent, but is determined by the image size and resolution, the type of output device (half-tone, continuous tone, injket, etc) and the paper type (glossy, matte, etc). You can try to do this on your own or with other tools available on the net, but Bruce did a great deal of testing to get the optimum numbers and this information is proprietary.
The new ACR sharpening features were developed in conjunction with Bruce Fraser and Jeff Schewe and apply the concept of capture sharpening to ACR. I don't know which capture sharpening approach is better, but, considering their source, I would expect them to be similar. The ACR sharpening integrates better into the work flow and is metadata based--you don't have to store a separate image with the capture sharpening.
Even if you use the ACR sharpening, you would probably find the creative and output modules of PhotoKit useful.

In camera sharpening and acr 5.2

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for