Increased harshness in ACR 4.2

I'm working in PS CS3 and using ACR 4.2 on a Mac. I noticed that the files got a somewhat harsh graininess that I could possibly describe as "rice grains" and that details seemed smeared in an artificial way that I don't recall from previous versions of ACR. It's particularily unpleasant in faces and skin tones.
So I opened the same .CR2 image from my Canon Eos 20D in CS (ACR 2.4), CS2 (ACR 3.7) and CS3 (ACR 4.2) with basicaly the same settings, no sharpening and a minimum of noise reduction.
The result is that this graininess seems to increase and get harsher for every new version of ACR.
The only side-effect that I can consider as positive is that ACR 4.2 automaticaly smears/removes "hot pixels" from exposures of 30 seconds or more.
Could I please get any comments on the suposed benefits of this?
/*Peter RosÃ©n

Mathias,
I do definitively prefer lesser graininess and to work up luminosity detail in PS, as it used to be. I want to be able to start with an image that looks and feels as natural and with as little artifacts as possible. Artifacts will always be added upon editing the image (sharpening, adding saturation etc) but then at least I can control it. It's very dificult to go the other way and remove artifacts while keeping a natural photographic look.
Canons mid-range SLR cameras already feature an anti-alias filter that is too strong to my liking so there is no room for increased smearing in the raw converter. I think that Canons top line SLRs as well as Nikon and possibly other brands have a less extreme approach to in-camera anti-aliasing and noise reduction.
I don't know anything about DPP as I have never tried it. I used to be quite satisfied with ACR before this last upgrade. So I can only hope that the ACR team will go back to a more conservative approach in the future or find myself another raw converter that suits my needs better.
/*Peter

Similar Messages

Merge to HDR Pro asking (incorrectly?) to manually set EV

Hi,
I've got a large number of HDRI brackets for a time-lapse sequence, and while using Merge to HDR Pro in CC, some are merging to HDR automatically, while other bracket sets result in Photoshop asking me to manually set EV.
All of my images are TIFs, all have gone through an identical process of saving to TIF from Lightroom after being worked on with Lightroom and LRTimelapse, so one of these two programs could potentially be having an effect.
Normally I would assume that being asked to manually set EV means that metadata doesn't exist, however metadata appears to exist identically for both the brackets that work automatically, and also for those that don't. I've used my PLE version of Nuke to do a compare metadata, and all that changes is the shutter speeds as you'd expect for HDR, I can't see anything odd going on. Here's a single downsized tif bracket so you can check it yourself if you like: http://www.hyperfocaldesign.com/images/tifbracket.tif
What can I look at to try and determine the problem? What other causes might there be for images not automatically merging?
Thanks for any assistance,
Regards,
Jay

I have had that happen, but not for a long time, and I think it was Photomatix anyway. I'm pretty sure I'd exported TIFFs from Photoshop, but I can't remember how the EXIF was lost. As far as using three versions of the same exposure, from a high dynamic range point of view, that became increasingly irrelevant as ACR got better and better. You could still get a ‘look’ using apps like Photomatix on a single exposure, but I suspect even that has been superseded by all the Topaz and Nik type plugins available nowadays.
This is just about the last time I used an HDR app on a single exposure, and it was taken getting on seven years ago (blimey I feel old) !! Incidentally, it was very noisy, and there are a many hours worth of hand painting in it. I still like the picture though, and have it on a canvas print on the wall behind my monitors.

Lens Distortion for 18-105 Nikkor increases in ACR 6.4 beta

The lens distortion correction on an AFS DX Nikkor 18-105mm seems to INCREASE Barreling instead of decreasing it. To get rid of the barreling I have to cut back on the Distortion correction. Anybody else experiencing this?

What you say about overall usability is true (and unfortunate; all my film camera lenses, no matter how humble, had full control of all pertinent information), but I was referring to the corrections only.
So far as software is concerned, it won't perfectly make a silk purse ... but it comes damn close! Years ago, I did lens testing, for oscilloscope cameras, and the rigor even for that was very demanding. What I know about the conditions necessary for obtaining repeatable results during such testing cannot change unless you are willing to accept less than optimum results. The penchant to "Let software correct it" has some painful connotations!
Of course, the major source should be the lens makers themselves, but I fear this is a pretty guarded secret. No one wants to admit their failings, and because of the software correction capability, I suspect that certain parameters are of less concern at the lens tradeoff level. But Nikon or Canon isn't likely to tell you that!

I have multiple devices on the same account, can I increase my cloud allowance without paying extra?

Each device gives 5gig but multiple devices on the same account don't increase the cloud space. Do Apple recognise this and help?

Malcolm wrote:
Wow that's really harsh. Both my wife and daughter have disabilities and the idea of having one ID is to allow me to be able to track them quickly in times of emergency through 'find my iphone'. I did not realise this was 'creating a mess'. I thought support communities were intended to, you know, support people with genuine questions like mine not to rush to criticism. Unfortunately both answers to my question have been negative.
I am not being harsh, the truth is you are really creating problems for yourself e.g. calendars, contacts, etc. are all mixed up.
Support Communities are there to show you how to use the devices as intended, the "criticism" is about how you use the devices and not about you as a person. We are trying to help if you can listen.
You can use Find My Friends instead of Find My iPhone for your purpose.

Image Corruption in ACR/Bridge CS 6:

Shooting 1D mk lV, all image shot in RAW; Mac Pro Dual Core Xeon, ATI Radeon HD 5770. Downloads are via card reader.
Bridge/ACR will randomly take the first image I open and corrupt it. It could be per set of images or just the first image of the day. This is usually not a problem as my first images are usually just test/set up shots. This morning it screwed me royally.
I edited a shoot last night and put my highlight images into a separate folder. I then did ACR corrections and ran a batch for logo'd sample images and sent them to the client.
This morning I start up my computer and open the highlight image folder, select the 5 highlights, click on 'open in camera raw' and they pop up and after 2 seconds the first image corrupts.
I have tried copying the image to other drives as well as to my Mac Pro laptop and it does the same thing every time. Purging cache for selection doesn't work.
Copying the original in finder to another drive doesn't work (this has worked in the past).
This has happened in the past and I did find a fix of deleting a certain file in the adobe library (and it recreates it). I did save the page where I found the fix but haven't been able to find it.
I have re-created the ACR cache as well as the Bridge caches. After recreating the caches and clicking 'purge cache for selection' it briefly pops back the original and then corrupts again.
I've tried increasing cache size and various cache options.
When I view the file in finder, the tiny thumbnail shows the correct image but the preview shows corrupted image.
If I view the image in Canon's Digital Photo Professional, it pops up for a second normally and then corrupts itself.
I'm guessing it's a deep cache issue...I have well over a million images that have passed through CS6. I regulary clean my caches but am I missing something somewhere???
Any suggestions from anyone???

Doubleclicking on the files in Bridge causes that quicktime or VLC or itunes (depending on the file format) will open that, but bridge does not handle anything?!
Bridge CC and Bridge CS6 both handle my .mov files from EOS 1Dx and iPhone without any problems. The show in the preview window and can be played with sound in this same window. (MacPro with 10.8.4)
Purging cache is what it is, it dumps the previous cache of the preview and forces Bridge to create a new one, nothing else is set to default.
First try a reset of preferences and hold down option key while restarting Bridge and choose reset prefs. then try again.

Aperture + Adobe Bridge: does that increase amount of storage per image?

I recently installed Aperture after using Photoshop CS3 and Bridge for some years. When I import images into Aperture that have already been downloaded into Bridge, does that increase the amount of storage space I'm using and if so by how much? I am saving all files to the same folders but what about the various versions created. How much storage are they taking up. My iMac 24 w. 320 Gig is almost full so storage is important.
Also, if I start using Aperture 3 to download from my camera, do I need Bridge? Any danger in getting rid of Bridge?
Thanks,
Cliff

Cliff,
The first question is whether you want to run a Managed or Referenced library. The difference is that Managed copies and stores the images inside the Aperture Library package, where a Referenced library locates the master images in Finder somewhere.
The import procedure is done in both cases, but you use the 'Store Files' drop-down to tell Aperture where to store the master image files.
With Bridge, you were probably using 'Photo Downloader' to import the files to a selected folder, name the files using some options for format and counting, and perhaps adding basic or predefined metadata on import. This results in a Finder folder structure of your choosing (as well as file names).
With Aperture, you can do the same thing by selecting 'Choose' under the 'Store Files' drop-down (where you choose or create a new folder). Once you select a location, two other options become available; (1) to move or copy the files and, (2) to pick a sub-folder preset - or choose 'Edit' at bottom of list to design your own folder preset.
Once you have your location and folder settings selected, you can then use the 'Import Settings' drop-down to select 'Rename Files' option. This gives you a 'Version Name' drop-down in the pane which you can again select a preset or use the 'Edit' at bottom to design your own.
The items I listed would allow you to keep working like you have been with Bridge to import your images. If your current folder structure can be replicated in the Folder Naming preset dialog, then you could easily continue as you were with Aperture.
If you want to run the Managed Library, then importing your folders is possible, but you will need to decide how you want to organize the library structure when compared to your current hierarchy.
The thing to remember about Aperture is that 'Projects' are the only part that actually contain images (whether masters inside or references to masters outside). So, for example; you could use a 'Blue Folder' named 'Year 2010' and then have a 'Project' for each month under the Blue Folder. You could then make an 'Album' for day inside a month Project.
The result of the aforementioned structure would be a top level folder which then contains projects for each month (where each project is divided up using Albums). Because Projects are the only thing holding images, the albums use aliases for the various images inside that project. Clicking on a days' album would show just the images of that day, where clicking on the Project name would show all images for that month. The blue folder is just an organization tool to help control the clutter.
Before mentioning my workflow or suggesting another, I would like to compare Bridge/ACR/PS to Aperture work flow.
With Bridge, you import and organize images in a folder structure, then add metadata (keywords, personal info, etc.) You can also create collections and smart collections for quick references (which are generated by Bridge when asked, which can be a bit slow with smart collections). You then use ACR plug-in to make 'non-destructive' parameter decisions before sending to Photoshop for rendering and more specific edits and output.
With Aperture, you import into the library (where most of the processing is done on the front end for previews and database storage). You are then in a one-stop workshop where you just use the Inspector pane and toolbars to add metadata, create albums and smart albums, and add adjustments to the versions. At this point, you are set to decide on any output (using the print, image export or web/book album features).
In essence, and IMHO, you are changing from three separate programs to one program with three Inspector panes.
Workflow:
I use a managed library because I have the disc space. I also like the fact that I can copy the library package once a month (at least) to an external drive and have a full working backup which can be run from that drive or copied onto a new drive and double-clicked to load it. The downside to this approach is space. I typically shoot RAW + JPEG and import just the JPEG's to start > decide on the keepers and reject the rest > import the matching RAW's to the project. I use JPEG as Master, because they are all that is needed in many cases. I can switch to the RAW version at any time if I want something more than the JPEG can provide.
My first suggestion to you would be to create a new empty library as follows:
1 - Launch Aperture while pressing the 'Option' (Alt) key
2 - Select 'Create New' button
3 - Select a location and name the library with a unique name
This will allow you to import say a few folders (make sure to copy images, not move) and test out how you want to organize the library. You can always delete the library and start over. Look in to the File Naming and Folder Naming items under 'Aperture menu > Presets' to get a feel for the options you have and perhaps create a custom preset or two. These become options in the 'Rename Files> Version Name' and 'Store Files > Subfolder' drop-downs in the Import Pane.
Here are a few links from the online User Manual that might help clarify:
*Import folders of images*:
http://documentation.apple.com/en/aperture/usermanual/#chapter=4%26section=9
Pay special note to the statement under step #5: *"The top-level folder is converted to a project. If the folder you imported contains a hierarchy of subfolders and images, the subfolders appear as albums."*
That may address your importing of current image folders (or will give you a good test scenario for the empty library).
*Planning import strategy*:
http://documentation.apple.com/en/aperture/usermanual/#chapter=4%26section=3
*General importing files on computer*:
http://documentation.apple.com/en/aperture/usermanual/#chapter=4%26section=5
*Working with Referenced Images*:
http://documentation.apple.com/en/aperture/usermanual/#chapter=5%26section=16%26 hash=apple_ref:doc:uid:Aperture-UserManual-91292BSR-1037525
This last link should give you an overview of the options for working with and troubleshooting a referenced image scheme.
Okay, that should be enough for you to think about for a few. Feel free to ask more as needed. There are many here who know a lot more than I.

Setting my levels in ACR - is it possible?

Hi, I'm using CS2 and ACR 3.7.
Before I start I'll say that a)I'm colour blind... so I can't rely on my eyes to adjust b)my colour adjustments are not sophisticated, no profiles etc being used as I'm not certain of what I am doing yet.
When I open an image from my EOS 5D in Photoshop I nearly always end up (especially if it is a portrait) running an action to get the colours where I want them. The action takes the red channel and sets the middle input level from 1 to 1.1. It takes the green and sets it from 1 to 1.01. And it takes the blue and sets it from 1 to 0.95. Just now and then I want to set them to 1.2, 1.1 and 0.9 but that is unusual.
I would have thought that I could set these as defaults and save them on the calibrate tab of ACR. However I have no idea how the sliders in ACR relate to the levels for the three channels in a levels adjustment layer.
Would it be the same as increasing/decreasing the hue or saturation (or both) sliders for the appropriate colours? If so - how much? How do I work it out.
If not, can I do what I am trying to do in ACR automatically rather than having to do an action later?
Pointers to explanations elsewhere or guidance here both equally appreciated!
Thanks.
Mark

Chauncey,
> A color blind photographer, neat trick, got to be tough.
Maybe that's why I love black and white ;) It isn't too bad. I usually ask my kids or my wife to check stuff, but if faces look wrong they probably are!
WhiBal or any other balance method is ok if you can stuff it in the shot. If you're doing an event or a wedding there may not be a chance. But more to the point that relies on selecting and updating files in ACR with them all open. What I'm looking to do is go to bridge, select all the files and apply ACR defaults (having chosen my defaults... of course).
Upgrade to ACR 4.1 I'm sure would be great... but as I'm on CS2 that's not an option just now. It won't go beyond 3.7 :(

Tiff previously edited in ACR will not open in Camera RAW from Bridge

Yes, I have googled this and found instances going back to 2010 with no satisfactory answer. I have Photoshop 5.1 and the latest ACR and Bridge that work with it. 2011 MAC Mini 10.8.2.
I scanned a landscape oriented printed email image at 800 spi as a portrait orientation and saved it as a tiff. I opened this tiff in Preview and decided it needed more than minor tweaks so I opened it in ACR from Bridge, made a few adjustments and saved it. I thought I could see what I was doing better if it was in landscape orientation again so I opened it in Preview and rotated 90 deg CCW, saved it as a tiff. Going to Bridge I found Open in Camera Raw greyed out. I went back to Preview to see if I could get what I needed in its Tools while viewing it in landscape. Adjustments took forever this time, so I gave up and took a look at the image characteristics. Rotating in Preview had changed the image size to 3.3333...... times larger at 240 ppi still aRGB, still a tiff. This has never happened before, including slow adjustments
I duplicated the rotated file and changed it back to 800 ppi and normal size, went to Bridge, Camera Raw still greyed out. Original unrotated image
that had been edited in ACR and saved will still open in ACR.
All kinds of strange things have happened since updating to 10.8.2, but I don't think this is one of them because of the complaints I have seen that date back to 2010. I did a full maintenance routine, i e cleared RAM, reboot in single user with fsck -fy, repaired permissions, back up with SuperDuper which repairs permissions again. Then I tried Bridge again, original will open, rotated won't.
Anyone know the answe?

The answer is that making edits in ACR and saving it creates layers in the tiff and Bridge will then not open it again in ACR unless you flatten it. I still don't know why Preview increased the image size by 3.333.....x or why ACR increased the tiff file size by 2.6x and why the flattened tiff is 2x the file size of the original scan but the image dimensions are the same. This stuff apparently is above the pay grade of anyone in google, too.

Missing adjustment brush in ACR

I have PS CS6 with the latest updates, using a Mac Pro computer with OS 10.7 also with the latest updates. When in ACR, the adjustment brush does not appear on the screen unless I click the bracket keys which increase or decrease the size of the brush. If I paint a segment and the let go of the brush key, the brush disappears again. The adjustment effects work properly once I have brought up the brush by pressing the bracket key. I have to keep re pressing the bracket key if I am painting adjustments on multiple parts of the photo. I have restarted Photoshop and the computer numerous times, thrown away and reset the preferences for both Photoshop, Camera Raw, and Bridge, as well as repairing disk permissions on my Mac. Any suggestions?

If it was a PC I'd suggest seeking an updated display driver, because a missing or partial cursor is a pretty well-known sign of a display driver glitch. As it is a Mac you pretty much have to wait for a display driver to come in with an OS update. You might want to let Apple know that it's doing what you're seeing with your particular hardware.
-Noel

ACR is running VERY slowly.

When using ACR's Spot Healing Brush, even on relatively small files (67mg) it is taking 5 to 10 seconds to zoom and even longer for the brush to work. This is something that has recently become a problem. I am working on .dng files. It's a Win 7 Pro 64 bit machine with 16 gig of RAM, a 4 core i7 processor running at 3.7gHz with 2gig of V-RAM. I have a 7200 RPM, 2 TB dediated scratch disk and the OS is on a comletely seperate drive. My RAM prefs in PS-CC is set to 70% with 3 cache levels and 20 history states. Any ideas?

Personally I find all other stuff in ACR very slow and clunky and only ACR for basic development and then start processing in PS using layers and adjustment layers combined with actions.
The adjustment brush in LR is a disaster for me and I never could get any speed at all in the same brush in ACR. Masking is much more a gamble and almost impossible while you can create a channel based mask in PS in the blink of an eye, a second blink to create an adjustment layer with layer mask and brushing your adjustment is a pleasure in PS itself, very precise and lightning fast compared to ACR or LR. Cropping is the same disaster in ACR due to a very clumsy way of getting ratio and creating own presets (or did they changed that lately?)
However sometimes the basic tab in filmstrip mode can work dead slow also, I think having copied settings before and then tweak them in ACR is causing this but ave yet no proof.
Using a Mac I have no solution for Windows but handling a few large files in PS (say four 1.2 GB layered 16 bit ProPhotoRGB files) do eat up RAM very quickly and add a lot of Swap memory to the system, ultimately slowing down everything.
Restarting PS (and Bridge) does get rid of most Swap but sometimes I even restart the whole system.
Reinstall Bridge is absolutely pointless because it rarely solves things, resetting prefs often solves a bunch of problems and so might be the reset of prefs for PS. A complete reinstall should be an uninstall using Adobe uninstall, then the Adobe Cleaner Tool and then a new install followed by update.
A normal reinstall does not delete your collections btw. But to be on the safe side find the custom saved collection names in the App.data section (mostly hidden) under application Support / Adobe / BridgeCC. inhere are your custom settings regarding workspaces, keywords, AOM presets as well as your saved collections.
Collections are a bunch of aliases referring to their original saved place, but in the long run Collections have proofed to be unstable. If you value your collections you should select the files in one collection and add a keyword (name of the collection e.g.) as a back up to recreate your collections in case of losing them.
As for speed, restart your system and check your free space left on the disks. For HDD this would mean at least 15 % free space left. using SSD would also help increase speed.

BackPRD.log File Suddenly Increases to 78GB in SAPBACKUP folder in Linux server

Dear Experts,
There is a problem in our SAP Production server. As earlier when i check the space it is good and after 25 Minutes while i am checking of the Directory spaces, the Backup folder size increases suddenly to 100 more than earlier it is. The backPRD.log file size earlier it is 13 MB and it is Now showing as 78 GB. Is there any thing to resolve the issue and i have checked some forms also there is no thread for the same issue. With this the Restoration is also not possible Using the Source system Backup on Target system.
Thanks, Regards,
Harsha.

Hi Sanjay,
Could you confirm for
1.Any recent changes into DB as well as at the end of backup device (Could be a third party software or hardware) ?
2.Any recent SP,kernel,DB upgrade as well as OS upgrade activity performed at your end ?
3.Any modifications under backup schedule if using it from DB13 or any changes under third party scripts ?
4.Have you activated trace for the system ?
Addition to all if you're able to login to system than please share system logs from SM21,recent dump details from ST22 if any.
With this the Restoration is also not possible Using the Source system Backup on Target system.
With the above logs would like to check alert_<SID>.log file as well.
Regards,
Gaurav

ACR v4.1 vs v4.0: baseline high ISO NR - Part 1

Hi there,
I have been participating in a couple of threads in both this forum and the Lightroom forum with regards to additional "baseline" noise-reduction that appears to be happening on high ISO Canon files. To start, here are the links to the other threads:
ACR Forum (I started that thread):
http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx/.3bb6a869.3bc4323e/
Lightroom Forum:
http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx/.3bc44a00/
Here is a summery of the issues as I see them so far:
1) I, and numerous other photographers, are objecting to what appears to be additional baseline smoothing being done to high ISO raw files in ACR v4.1, even with the luminance NR slider at zero. Most users complaining appear to be shooting with Canon.
2) At issue is the (apparent) smearing of some micro-detail due to noise-reduction and an overall artificial looking rendering of detailed scenes when examined closely. In addition, out of focus details can start looking a little posterized and indeed, I have seen that all of the above effects can be worsened by the new sharpening controls, if one is not careful in their application.
3) Not all users are unhappy with this new processing.
4) I asserted that previous versions of camera raw did not appear to do additional ISO dependent smoothing but was corrected by Thomas Knoll who indicated that they did. Regarding this, I now have confirmed that indeed he is absolutely correct (as he should be!), but the effect is far more subtle in comparison to what ACR v4.1 is doing.
6) While this might all be construed as "pixel-peeping", several of us have confirmed that the effect is also visible in larger prints. In addition, some users (myself included) are unhappy with this apparent new "direction" that Adobe is taking since many felt that in the past that ACR produced the best compromise raw conversions - lots of fine detail preserved without any *obvious* smoothing. Without the ability to disable (or minimize) this smoothing, one is now forced to live with the default levels of NR on high ISO files in ACR v4.1.
7) While I claimed that I could not see this smoothing effect in other raw files from a Fuji S5 Pro, a Nikon D2X and a Leica M8 at higher ISO's, I am now beginning to think that the "chunkiness" of the noise in some of these other cameras might simply be making the new high-ISO smoothing less effective and thus less visible than it is on Canon raw files since ISO 1600 noise it quite tight and fine on my EOS-30D and most other Canons tested.
8 ) Further to point 7, Thomas Knoll also indicated that it was only Bayer-pattern sensors that "benefited" from this new raw conversion. That is why my initial testing did not show the Fuji S5 Pro (which has a complex hexagonal array Super CCD and not a simple rectangular array sensor) to suffer these same effects.
9) I presume this ACR comparison to hold true for Lightroom v1.0 compared to v1.1 as well.
In any case, what I have done is take a several ISO 1600 images from my EOS-30D and one ISO 1600 image from a D2X and make two versions of each image. One is the original CR2 or NEF file and the second, I used "exifedit" softare to modify the EXIF "iso-speed" field so that it no longer reads 1600, but rather 100. Opening these two versions of each raw file will show if there is any additional high-ISO-dependent differences in the raw conversions.
Indeed both ACR v4.0 and ACR v4.1 show a greater degree of noise reduction on the original ISO 1600 versions than when they are "tricked" into thinking the raw was shot at ISO 100. The effect is much greater in ACR v4.1 however and was immediately apparent to me within seconds of opening my first high ISO raw file. However with previous versions of ACR, it was so subtle that I never noticed it at all.
[...continued, with samples in next posting]

[Part 2 ...continued from previous post]
I have assembled several PSD files, each with 4 layers labeled as such (with description following the -->):
ACR v4.1 - ISO 1600 as 1600 --> original ISO 1600 raw file converted with ACR v4.1
ACR v4.1 - ISO 1600 as 100 --> same raw file but with EXIF edited to read ISO 100, converted with ACR v4.1
ACR v4.0 - ISO 1600 as 1600 --> original ISO 1600 raw file converted with ACR v4.0
ACR v4.0 - ISO 1600 as 100 --> raw file with EXIF edited to read ISO 100, converted with ACR v4.0
In both versions of ACR, the luminance NR slider was at zero, the chroma at the default of 25 and all the sharpening off or minimized. I have not found the chroma NR slider to have any visible impact to actual image detail, at least not in any of these samples, so I left it at 25. White balance was As-Shot and other controls at default/zero. No additional processing or sharpening was applied to any of the samples, apart from cropping the image to make it smaller for download.
Here are the samples:
http://www.beauphoto.com/galleries/images/D2X_Blur_Compare_crop.psd.zip
(5.39 Mb) An ISO 1600 D2X raw comparison. I use the word "blur" since we are looking at an out-of-focus background portion of the shot. Sadly the shot has no truly sharp detail to compare.
http://www.beauphoto.com/galleries/images/30D_Blur_Compare_crop.psd.zip
(6.06 Mb) An ISO 1600 30D raw comparison. Included to have a similar image to compare to the Nikon.
http://www.beauphoto.com/galleries/images/30D_Outdoor_Compare_crop.psd.zip
(13.14 Mb) An ISO 1600 30D raw comparison. The outdoor shot I had linked to in my other posts.
http://www.beauphoto.com/galleries/images/30D_Statue_Compare_crop.psd.zip
(5.79 Mb) An ISO 1600 30D raw comparison. The indoor Las Vegas statue shot I had linked to in my other posts.
The above files are just crops from the original full images. Decompress the zip and open them up in Photoshop, either at 100% or 200%. Simply check and uncheck each layer as needed to make comparisons between the different versions. When comparing, you might try to apply a small amount of sharpening (one pass of "Sharpen" for example) equally to each layer as the differences might become more apparent. Also, people viewing the samples on a CRT might find the differences less obvious than those using an LCD display.
My conclusions are as follows:
1) I believe that ACR v4.1 is indeed doing additional "baseline" smoothing of high ISO files. This is most apparent on the Canon examples but the noise is so coarse on the D2X file that is hard to be certain whether (a) there is no additional smoothing on the high ISO version, or (b) whether the smoothing is of insufficient strength (or radius?) to be clearly visible.
2) I personally believe there to be a slight reduction in "micro-detail" when using "ACR v4.1 - ISO 1600 as 1600". On some images more so than on others. In addition, there is a "smoothed" and "edge-detected" look to small details as well as some slight "furriness" where the NR algorithm appears to be deciding where edges of detail are and where smoothing should occur.
3) More to point #2, I prefer all three other versions of the converted files. That is, to my eye, the worst looking ones are "ACR v4.1 - ISO 1600 as 1600", at least on the Canon files.
4) However the very best version, when all aspects of image quality are being considered, is the "ACR v4.1 - ISO 1600 as 100" version! The ever-so-slight reduction in overall noise does not appear to affect micro-detail to any significant extent, yet there is a significant reduction in "white-specks" in darker areas (especially after post-sharpening) and certain areas of color in the images are identified and rendered better - the last item being really hard to describe. Look at the dark engraved lines on the head of the statue: ACR v4.0 fills them in as slightly "reddish" whereas in ACR v4.1 they are black and look more "normal" to me. On the outside shot, looking and the red brick colour of the wall in the distance (the one with all the patios on the right), ACR v4.1 seems to better identify where the colour should be, whereas ACR v4.0 slightly desaturates portions of that wall between floors.
5) Further to point 4 is that indeed there is obviously some very complex processing going on, and if one could reduce the level of NR on an ISO 1600 file, down to the level which ACR uses when fooled into thinking it is an ISO 100 file, I would certainly be quite happy with the results. I imagine many others would be too...
6) Finally, this effect will certainly not be visible in smaller prints however the more you push a file (for example a 20x30 print from a 30D will have a source resolution of about 117dpi) or if you end up cropping an image, thereby increasing the overall magnification and thus also the defects, well then those processing artifacts can become visible upon close and critical inspection - large prints of landscapes for example.
My humble request:
In ACR v4.2 or LR v1.2, please have the luminance NR slider, when set to zero, have the same degree of effect as when an ISO 1600 file is processed as though it were ISO 100. Alternatively, put in a "Preserve all texture detail" checkbox in the detail section that does the same thing. That way we'll have the best of both worlds: for some types of images, one can use this new-found intelligent NR but for those where the most natural look and finest detail is of utmost importance, we can turn it off - or at least reduce it to more-or-less the same level as previous versions of ACR.
In general, the new NR processing does seem quite "intelligent" and is a big step up from the previous version's crude luminance slider. I certainly do not want to change back to the old system as there are many real and visible benefits to the processing in the new ACR! In addition, the new sharpening controls are also a big step up from previous version, offering much more fine control and less artifacting, when used judiciously.
However, please leave the majority of sharpening and noise-reduction decisions to the individual user. That way, one can selectively apply these effects in layers or by using the history brush. I would be equally unhappy if suddenly there was an aggressive new baseline sharpening applied to all raw conversions, when the sharpening controls were at zero!
I realize now that maybe there never was a true "zero" in NR and sharpening, but with previous versions of ACR, this processing appeared to be very subtle and lent itself very well to post-NR and post-sharpening. This is why, even after trying out virtually every other raw converter made, I always came back to Adobe Camera Raw, time and time again.
Please don't give up on progress and on new and innovative ways to improve ACR, but also please don't take away those qualities that have made a legion of photographers use Adobe Camera Raw as their raw converter of choice!
Best Regards,
Mike Mander
http://www.sublimephoto.com

ACR sharpening range vs. PS4 sharpening range

I'd like to do my capture sharpening in ACR in Bridge then do output in PS4, but the Bridge Amount range of 1-150, while PS has an Amount range of 1-500; and an even more dramatic difference in "pixel" settings (ACR has .5 - 3.0 while PS has 1-64). I've read that the ACR sharpening is basically USM (unsharp mask), so is there any way to correlate these numbers? For instance, if I apply 150 in ACR does that equal 150% in PS or is the scale different so that ACR's 150 = PS 500% for an incremental increase of 3.3,
Brian

There are thousand ways of image sharpening and for ideal result there is no
such thing as 'one way fits all'
I'm no expert but don't think you can compare the two ways, better use them
both together, some even use three ways of sharpening and those ways are
again different for various purposes.
Try also pixelgenius.com
And here are two from the 2.6 million results after Google search about
Image sharpening :
http://www.pixelgenius.com/tips/schewe-sharpening.pdf
http://www.peachpit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=608637&seqNum=4
I've read that the ACR sharpening is basically USM (unsharp mask), so is
there any way to correlate these numbers?

Capture SHARPENING in ACR?????????????

Capture Sharpening in ACR???
OK, after going back and forth with Jeff Shewe a few times here on the forums (and doing some tests and a variety of additional study) I am becoming converted to believing that some "Capture Sharpening" in ACR (before interpolating a file substantially in PS) when done RIGHT can actually improve the
ultimate quality potential of a large, high res print. Believe me, this is new thinking to me. I would like this thread to be anything and everything, any experienced folks would like to throw into the mix regarding ACR "Capture Sharpening."
Questions, observations, links to more information...
This is because I want to absolutely master it and the knowledge of it. I'll start out below with some questions and concerns. Thank you anyone who contributes in any way.
Mark

Jeff, I have questions for you, if you don't mind...?
OK, I spent the last two days re-reading Bruce Fraser's wonderful book "Real World Image Sharpening" two
more times (I am certified to teach it now!) in attempt to make sure I have every word of the book understood and mastered in my head and in practice (with a twist of my own here and there).
But after reading it, a general question seems to nag me. Since sharpening does not really add any true
detail to a print, but instead, increases the
perception or illusion of detail by artificially increasing contrast in the form of halos specifically at
edges...
And because your general recommendation to sharpen at 100% view, just
until the image looks "good" without doing any damage to the image, or over-sharpening...
(BTW, for some peoples info, I make large to very large, high end, high res, continuous tone, landscape gallery prints)...
I am having a hard time understanding the
threshold of "damage" to do (or not to do) to an image file in ACR, by essentially increasing contrast halos, which in of themselves, it seems, are a sort of "damage"
if you will?
Maybe there is a book(s) or article(s) or something out there that can help me figure out how to take "Capture Sharpening" right up to its limitation without going over??? I guess I'm needing more
detailed explanation about how to figure out this threshold?
Another question...?
Can or does ACR sharpening (or is there a way in ACR sharpening) constrain the sharpening to specific tonal ranges (like when we use USM on a layer with the "blend if" sliders set to protect the top highlight and bottom shadow tones)?This allows the image to handle more sharpening with less damage.
The reason I ask, is because my main concern with "Capture Sharpening" is that I might take the haloing to a certain level, which may end up
limiting the amount of additional sharpening I can do effectively (without damaging the image) in PS after up-sizing, because the halos have reached towards, or close to black and white... (hopefully I can find a better way to re-word that last sentence)...
Sorry if I am asking too many questions... But that is one reason for forums, right, to mull over and learn about issues? I admit, I am an obsessive quality freak with my prints (anyone hear of Christopher Berkett? - I consider myself, sort of, in the same vein as him in terms of the technical quality of prints he strives to make) and I am always on a constant search for as close to perfection as possible, even if it pains me (yet, it is a pleasure!). I know its a sickness, but an enjoyable one!

Slow sliders in CS3 ACR

I've been a long time user of ACR in CS2. I've just recently upgraded to CS3 and, while I appreciate the new functionality in the newest version of ACR, I find that moving the sliders in the new ACR is massively slower than the previous version. It is not uncommon for a slider to take 5-10 seconds before it will even respond to a mouse click or drag. This is true even with the sliders that were present in previous versions of ACR so it can't only be because some of the new functionality is more compute-intensive.
This sluggishness really detracts from my RAW processing productivity. Is this expected behavior? Is there anything that can be done in my configuration to restore the performance I had in CS2?
For reference, I process 12MP RAW images from a Nikon D2Xs. I have a two year old computer - single core, Pentium 4, 3GHz, 3GB RAW. I did not have any of these performance problems with CS2/ACR.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.

sjprg,
What you say has some merit, but falls short of what is really needed to maximize a PC to run at the best speed you can get out of it. And, redoing your whole machine every six months is certainly effective--but doing it the hard way. Drive image backups will save a lot of work there.
Here are my suggestions:
My advice is to keep your boot drive (partition)small (20 gigs) and only install programs there that give you no choice of where to put them. And have another partition for a second boot drive (dual boot system)on a second hd, where you also have another small partition (8-10 gigs) for page file and virtual memory only, and use the remaining space for partitions to install programs to, and others for data, such as the LR database, including a large one for your image folders.
Such an arrangement will offer both increased program speed (LR and ACR can use all that you can give it) and better system recoverability. Having a dual boot system allows you to be able to access one side from the other if something goes wrong, or to use one side to first test out new programs like LR or CS3, or one side that is for editing only--no internet access, etc. I personally use a triple boot system, but that is probably not necessary in most cases.
Having your virtual memory and pagefile assigned to its own partition on a second hd will give faster access to those than having it on the same hd as you boot from, and the same reasoning applies to having your programs also on a different partition.
Add to this, regular partition image backups with a program like Acronis True Image--everytime you install or uninstall a program, etc,-- will make you virtually invulnerable to the most common machine killing incidents--accidental or intentional. You should also have a disk image of your basic OS install made before you add programs, so that if you do have some other disaster, you can start from scratch. That will save a lot of rebuild time.
I edit professionally, and I simply cannot afford down time. But when you get right down to the nitty gritty--no one wants a disfunctional computer to have to rebuild or slow, sluggish programs that struggle even more when installed on a non optimized computer.
Having said all this, I still suspect that the OP has a more basic problem--conflict or poor install, etc--with CS3, if the sliders are as slow as he says.

Increased harshness in ACR 4.2

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for