Lightroom 4 and ACR 6.7

When I import my photos from Lightroom 4 into ACR 6.7 I get a message, "The selected image uses Process 2012. Convert to Process 2010 to adjust settings. When I do this, I lose all of my changes I made in Lightroom 4.
Thanks.

That's right, that's the way it works. ACR 6.7 will READ Lightroom 4 adjustments. But if you want to use ACR 6.7 to adjust the image you'll have to go back to process 2010. If that isn't going to work for you then you'll have to upgrade to Photoshop CS6.

Similar Messages

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.

Cropping in Lightroom and ACR+edit in Photoshop

Using the latest versions of Photoshop CC and Lightroom. After editing a raw file, including cropping, in either Lightroom or ACR and then
proceeding to Photoshop, the adjustments-exposure, white balance etc. are imported but not the crop! Very strange. Help would be appreciated in
solving this problem. Thanks in advance.

Thanks for the quick reply Graeme. That is correct. I have tested the issue with a representative from NIK/Google. The "selective tool" was causing the problem. I was dealing with other problems too, like the "exposure" slider in ACR was jumping back all the time. I have been following another discussion concerning this (http://forums.adobe.com/message/5806682#5806682). I have not tried it yet, but there they have had success tackling the problem by changing the Country/Region.
Regards,
Kamiel

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

Lightroom and ACR - Keeping all files together

Not sure I'm asking the right questions but I'll give it my best shot.
According to what I've read, it appers that the only way to get a job into Lightroom is to choose Import. What if I have a job folder with RAW files that have already been manipulated in ACR? Is there a way to simply point Lightroom to that folder without having to import into LR and have all the files be copied again?
Also, if I open the RAW files in LIghtroom after working on them in ACR, will LR cause the RAW files to first go back to their defaults? If so, is there a way to get them back in ACR as originally worked on?

Ian,
It's so nice to see you. I was thinking about you recently and wondering how your were doing.
Thank you for your help on this. I must have overlooked the drop down menu.
I am relieved to discover that even though LR copied and converted the files to DNG, it didn't seem to affect my previous work. Also come to find out it created a new folder for the DNG within the other folder.
Thank you again!
Linda

Lightroom and photoshop display colours differently??

I have just done a colour critical shoot of fashion garments. There is a dramatic difference particularly noticeable in Purple colours between Lightroom and Bridge. Lightroom displays it as blue and Bridge displays it correctly. I cannot figure out why this is - it means that I cannot work in Lightroom as I am not sure if the colour is correct or not.
Please - if anyone can shed some light on this I will be eternally grateful.
By the way I work on a mac with CS3 and the latest lightroom - on a calibrated system so it is not a calibration issue.
Marc

Are you sure that bridge is actually generating previews from the RAW and that you are not just looking at the camera-generated jpeg preview embedded in the RAW? This is pretty typical for bridge to do. The camera-generated preview generally looks very different color-wise from Lightroom and ACR because the camera manufacturer. Test this by double-clicking the RAW in bridge. Usually the color will be quite different from the preview you see in Bridge. After you close ACR, the preview will get updated in Bridge too. The reason behind this color difference is that camera manufacturers use secret, proprietary algorithms to determine the color from the camera's raw sensor data. This color is not necessarily correct, but what they consider "pleasing." If you shoot RAW, your RAW converter supplies its own interpretation of the data. Usually based on shooting color patches with the same camera.

Color Profiled Screen and ACR or Lightroom (Vista)

Hi,
My screen is calibrated and works with an .icc profile. I have set up the proofing colors in Photoshop to be my .icc profile. I do not attach any profiles to my pictures when I edit them in Photoshop and so they look the same in Photoshop and in non-color managed internet browsers. I also have a good correspondence between colors I see there and the printed pictures.
My problem is with how I see the colors when I open a file in Adobe Camera Raw, Bridge and Lightroom (actually in Windows Gallery too but this would be a topic for a different forum). They look very saturated, especially yellows, and very far from what I see on my camera (Canon 350d) screen, Explorer or the Canon's Raw Converter.
This problem is driving me crazy and I think I have tried everything with ACR and Bridge I could think of. Yesterday I have tried Lightroom and the colors there are absolutely the same as in ACR and Bridge. Which probably means that this is not a matter of the software version, but of something else I am missing.
Is there anyone who have had the same problem? How did you solve it? Is there anyway to set up something like proofing profile in either of those programs? Or is there any other way to fix this?
Thank you very much,
Vera

Thank you Zeno, I will try to reset them.
My problem is with how ACR shows colors though, not how it converts them.
If I open a RAW file in ACR the colors look really ugly. I convert it to JPEG without touching anything. If then I open this JPEG in Photoshop or IE the colors are fine. There are slight differences in colors if I compare them to JPEG I get from the Canon's software. But this is to be expected and can be corrected by the camera calibration.
I do not think that the way ACR displays colors can be corrected by this calibration.

Using Lightroom and then ACR and Photoshop on a another Computer

Hi all,
I am wondering how I go when it comes to using photoshop lightroom on my home computer, with photoshop only for additional work yet at the same time being able to edit photos at school (they do not have lightroom) on ACR and Photoshop. Is their away where the changes I make at school will sync? Surely I must be able to do it and won't have to give up lightroom.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated or links to tutorials etc.
Thanks in advance

Convert propitiatory RAW files to DNG and select save metadata to file, or save the metatdata to file as xmp data. This data will then be recognised by Bridge/ PS on other machines and any processing and labelling will be recognised by Bridge/PS. However these applications are not non destructive, so any changes made to the image subsequently on your schools computer using PS rather than LR will require the production of a new file. A better way, IMO, would be to export images following processing them in LR as 16 bit TIFF files for use at school (and to encourage them to get Lightroom).
As you can use LR on two computers under your license there is nothing preventing you installing a copy on a school machine (as long as the school will let you) and using your license. This can only be for use by yourself, but you could show your teachers how useful it is and you would be able to take your catalog on an external disk with you and use it there.

LR 4.2RC and ACR 7.2 RC won't read SONY RX 100 ARW files

I was at a wedding yesterday and had two cameras with me - a Nikon D800 and my little SONY RX 100. I was using an Eye-Fi Pro card for the Sony. I'm uninterested in the Wi-Fi capabilities when I'm away from home, but like the camera to upload pictures when I'm close to my big processing machine. Long story short. This was the first time I've used the LR 4.2RC and ACR 7.2RC with the Sony RX 100. I plugged the card into both the regular Eye-Fi USB reader, and into my Hoodman USB 3.0 reader. Of course, LR doesn't like the Eye-Fi reader, but it loves the Hoodman. Finally, it recognized the Hoodman and the Eye-Fi card. I have previews set to minimal and I was attempting to import all the raw (ARW) files into Lightroom. When the initial previews come up as I start the import process, it shows about 1/3 of the previews and then tells me it can't read the rest, including MP4 files. When I actually begin the import, it simply times out and reports that it was unable to import ANY of the ARW files, nor the MP4 files. I have no trouble reading 63 files into Raw Photo Processor so I know there is nothing wrong with any of the files. I can only conclude that there is something wrong with LR 4.2 and/or ACR 7.2.
Anyone else reporting this problem? I'm puzzled because this is the ONLY time I have ever had trouble importing files from supported cameras.
Thanks for feedback.

Well. After some experimentation, I discovered what the problem seems to be. For reasons completely opaque to me, Lightroom expects not only that the Eye-Fi card will be read from its own reader, but it also expects that the Eye-Fi helper application be installed and running. Of course, this means that I end up with duplicate copies of every file - once to the Eye Fi directory, and again to the appropriate Lightroom Folder on a completely different set of drives. I guess the conclusion I can draw from this is that without the helper application, the Eye Fi card is dumb and the images only partly visibible. The Eye-Fi helper can import the .ARW files, but it doesn't display them because Apple hasn't updated its camera list to include the RX100. Until they do, I think I'll just use regular cards and consign the Eye-Fi card to the hall of unhelpful cards. Yikes, the darned thing is as expensive as the Lightroom upgrade.
Sigh.

Why does Lightroom (and Photoshop) use AdobeRGB and/or ProPhoto RGB as default color spaces, when most monitors are standard gamut (sRGB) and cannot display the benefits of those wider gamuts?

I've asked this in a couple other places online as I try to wrap my head around color management, but the answer continues to elude me. That, or I've had it explained and I just didn't comprehend. So I continue. My confusion is this: everywhere it seems, experts and gurus and teachers and generally good, kind people of knowledge claim the benefits (in most instances, though not all) of working in AdobeRGB and ProPhoto RGB. And yet nobody seems to mention that the majority of people - including presumably many of those championing the wider gamut color spaces - are working on standard gamut displays. And to my mind, this is a huge oversight. What it means is, at best, those working this way are seeing nothing different than photos edited/output in sRGB, because [fortunately] the photos they took didn't include colors that exceeded sRGB's real estate. But at worst, they're editing blind, and probably messing up their work. That landscape they shot with all those lush greens that sRGB can't handle? Well, if they're working in AdobeRGB on a standard gamut display, they can't see those greens either. So, as I understand it, the color managed software is going to algorithmically reign in that wild green and bring it down to sRGB's turf (and this I believe is where relative and perceptual rendering intents come into play), and give them the best approximation, within the display's gamut capabilities. But now this person is editing thinking they're in AdobeRGB, thinking that green is AdobeRGB's green, but it's not. So any changes they make to this image, they're making to an image that's displaying to their eyes as sRGB, even if the color space is, technically, AdobeRGB. So they save, output this image as an AdobeRGB file, unaware that [they] altered it seeing inaccurate color. The person who opens this file on a wide gamut monitor, in the appropriate (wide gamut) color space, is now going to see this image "accurately" for the first time. Only it was edited by someone who hadn't seen it accurately. So who know what it looks like. And if the person who edited it is there, they'd be like, "wait, that's not what I sent you!"
Am I wrong? I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone. I shoot everything RAW, and I someday would love to see these photos opened up in a nice, big color space. And since they're RAW, I will, and probably not too far in the future. But right now I export everything to sRGB, because - internet standards aside - I don't know anybody who I'd share my photos with, who has a wide gamut monitor. I mean, as far as I know, most standard gamut monitors can't even display 100% sRGB! I just bought a really nice QHD display marketed toward design and photography professionals, and I don't think it's 100. I thought of getting the wide gamut version, but was advised to stay away because so much of my day-to-day usage would be with things that didn't utilize those gamuts, and generally speaking, my colors would be off. So I went with the standard gamut, like 99% of everybody else.
So what should I do? As it is, I have my Photoshop color space set to sRGB. I just read that Lightroom as its default uses ProPhoto in the Develop module, and AdobeRGB in the Library (for previews and such).
Thanks for any help!
Michael

Okay. Going bigger is better, do so when you can (in 16-bit). Darn, those TIFs are big though. So, ideally, one really doesn't want to take the picture to Photoshop until one has to, right? Because as long as it's in LR, it's going to be a comparatively small file (a dozen or two MBs vs say 150 as a TIF). And doesn't LR's develop module use the same 'engine' or something, as ACR plug-in? So if your adjustments are basic, able to be done in either LR Develop, or PS ACR, all things being equal, choose to stay in LR?
ssprengel Apr 28, 2015 9:40 PM
PS RGB Workspace: ProPhotoRGB and I convert any 8-bit documents to 16-bit before doing any adjustments.
Why does one convert 8-bit pics to 16-bit? Not sure if this is an apt comparison, but it seems to me that that's kind of like upscaling, in video. Which I've always taken to mean adding redundant information to a file so that it 'fits' the larger canvas, but to no material improvement. In the case of video, I think I'd rather watch a 1080p movie on an HD (1080) screen (here I go again with my pixel-to-pixel prejudice), than watch a 1080p movie on a 4K TV, upscaled. But I'm ready to be wrong here, too. Maybe there would be no discernible difference? Maybe even though the source material were 1080p, I could still sit closer to the 4K TV, because of the smaller and more densely packed array of pixels. Or maybe I only get that benefit when it's a 4K picture on a 4K screen? Anyway, this is probably a different can of worms. I'm assuming that in the case of photo editing, converting from 8 to 16-bit allows one more room to work before bad things start to happen?
I'm recent to Lightroom and still in the process of organizing from Aperture. Being forced to "this is your life" through all the years (I don't recommend!), I realize probably all of my pictures older than 7 years ago are jpeg, and probably low-fi at that. I'm wondering how I should handle them, if and when I do. I'm noting your settings, ssprengel.
ssprengel Apr 28, 2015 9:40 PM
I save my PS intermediate or final master copy of my work as a 16-bit TIF still in the ProPhotoRGB, and only when I'm ready to share the image do I convert to sRGB then 8-bits, in that order, then do File / Save As: Format=JPG.
Part of the same question, I guess - why convert back to 8-bits? Is it for the recipient? Do some machines not read 16-bit? Something else?
For those of you working in these larger color spaces and not working with a wide gamut display, I'd love to know if there are any reasons you choose not to. Because I guess my biggest concern in all of this has been tied to what we're potentially losing by not seeing the breadth of the color space we work in represented while making value adjustments to our images. Based on what several have said here, it seems that the instances when our displays are unable to represent something as intended are infrequent, and when they do arise, they're usually not extreme.
Simon G E Garrett Apr 29, 2015 4:57 AM
With 8 bits, there are 256 possible values. If you use those 8 bits to cover a wider range of colours, then the difference between two adjacent values - between 100 and 101, say - is a larger difference in colour. With ProPhoto RGB in 8-bits there is a chance that this is visible, so a smooth colour wedge might look like a staircase. Hence ProPhoto RGB files might need to be kept as 16-bit TIFs, which of course are much, much bigger than 8-bit jpegs.
Over the course of my 'studies' I came across a side-by-side comparison of either two color spaces and how they handled value gradations, or 8-bit vs 16-bit in the same color space. One was a very smooth gradient, and the other was more like a series of columns, or as you say, a staircase. Maybe it was comparing sRGB with AdobeRGB, both as 8-bit. And how they handled the same "section" of value change. They're both working with 256 choices, right? So there might be some instances where, in 8-bit, the (numerically) same segment of values is smoother in sRGB than in AdobeRGB, no? Because of the example Simon illustrated above?
Oh, also -- in my Lumix LX100 the options for color space are sRGB or AdobeRGB. Am I correct to say that when I'm shooting RAW, these are irrelevant or ignored? I know there are instances (certain camera effects) where the camera forces the shot as a jpeg, and usually in that instance I believe it will be forced sRGB.
Thanks again. I think it's time to change some settings..

I am having problems opening images renerated in lightroom5 into cs6. Cs6 bridge does not see the lightroom libarary. If I open lightroom and right clik the image, edit in cs6, 6 opens but the picture doesnot follow. What is going on? Give me a hand.

I am having problems opening images renerated in lightroom5 into cs6. Cs6 bridge does not see the lightroom libarary. If I open lightroom and right clik the image, edit in cs6, 6 opens but the picture doesnot follow. What is going on? Give me a hand, thanks.

What edition of LR 5? What edition of ACR does PSCS 6 contain. If they are not parallel (same edition number x in [5 or 8].x ), is LR making a tiff or psd rendition of the image?

Lightroom and photoshop cs4

how do I use the filters in photoshopcs4 with lightroom? I took a photo from lightroom and most of the filters in photoshop were grayed out?

PS CS 4 uses an earlier version of ACR to render files than is used by LR (no process 2010, no lens profiles, none of the new noise reduction). You can open the RAW files into PS CS 4 using ACR in the usual way, rather than using LR, as long as the RAW file is recognised by the version of ACR you have. The advantage you have by opening and rendering using LR 3 is that the process 2010 is now available as the file is rendered by LR. If you want to use files rendered as process 2010 directly in ACR you will have to upgrade to CS 5.
Either way you loose nothing my rendering in LR, irrespective of which version of PS you use. The only difference between rendering to CS 4 from CS 5 is that the new file issaved immediately rather than on save. CS 5 allows you to not save and have no new file. You always require a rendered file for use in PS as it does not directly edit RAW formats.

Lightroom and DNG compatibility?

Will Lightroom read DNG converted from RAW from a camera that Lightroom doesn't support?

> "Barry what do you mean by converter? I am talking about taking a CR2 image and converting it to a DNG file."
I was talking about converting raw files in general to DNG files. (Not just CR2s). I was NOT talking about "raw conversion".
Adobe provide ACR, Lightroom, and the DNG Converter. They can all convert CR2s to DNGs (among other things). (They are all DNG converters and all raw converters, sharing core code).
Hasselblad-Imacon provide FlexColor which can convert their raw file formats to DNG. Pentax provide PHOTO Browser which can convert PEFs to DNG. Better Light supply ViewFinder for their scanning digital backs.
Then there are amateurs to who supply (typically free) converters for niche and minority and unofficial raw file formats to DNG: raw2dng; DNGForPowershot; SMaL to DNG; eMotionDng; etc:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/products.htm#converters
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/products.htm#manufacturers
I suggest you following those links and see just what is out there.

LR 4.3 and ACR 7.3 compatability

I received the familiar alert "This version of Lightroom may require the Photoshop Camera Rawy plug-in version 7.3 for full compatability" and accidentally clicked "don't show again" and "open anyway". How can I get back to having the choice to "Render using Lightroom" when I export using command-E?

rickpatrick wrote:
If I understand correctly, when I click "render using lightroom" in LR 4.3 the result is the same as would be the case if I had CS6 and ACR 7.3. Am I right?
Yes but...
There are two behaviors and it depends on whether or not ACR and LR are in-sync...
If out of sync, Lightroom will render the file using the LR 4.x engine but it needs to save the file with a -Edit BEFORE sending it to Photoshop.
If ACR & LR are in-sync, LR sends the image to ACR and ACR renders it and the file will only be saved when you save it from Photoshop (to where you save it).
In the out of sync situation, the -Edit file is manditory, in the synced case, the file is only saved when you save it from Photoshop.
However, in both cases, the rendered image will be the same. The only difference is the file handling.

Lightroom and cr2 from my new Canon T3i :( ?

What's the story...? Neither Lightroom nor photoshop can open CR2 files from my new Canon rebel T3i? I've never had an issue with raw files as I have a bunch of canon cameras. Canon says it's not their problem. Is this on Adobe? I don't understand this phenomena. It seems particular to this camera and that is worrisome... do different cameras write raw files differently? Isn't a raw file a raw file? Even when I copied the files off the card onto the desktop still can't open them.
Am using Mac OS 10.6.7, lightroom 2, PS CS 4
Advice/insight would be appreciated as I still have time to return the camera :-)
thanks,
tom

If you've never had problems then your version of Adobe products has always been newer than your camera model.
Each new camera requires specific updates to Camera RAW and Lightroom to support it. Adobe only updates the current versions of software with new camera support. This means you'd need Lightroom 3.4 and Photoshop CS5 with ACR 6.4 to handle the new T3i. These two versions are in beta, right now, from Adobe Labs. Time to upgrade.
If you don't want to upgrade the alternative is to use the DNG Converter, and convert your CR2s to DNGs. These will be readable by older versions of LR and ACR.
The DNG Converter that supports the T3i is the DNG Converter 6.4 Release Candidate from Adobe Labs:
http://labs.adobe.com/
Click into the Camera RAW 6.4 RC a couple clicks an you'll get the download link for DNGC 6.4 RC for a Mac.

Different look in DNG PE and ACR why??

Hello,
I've tried recently to match ACR with my favourite settings from Nikon Capture and I cannot understand how tone curve ajustment works. When I set tone curve in DNG PE to best look (as in CNX2), and then load this profile into ACR my photo looks completely differently (it's much darker). I don't know what I'm doing wrong, but in ACR highlights are much more compressed than in DNG PE. All sliders in ACR are set to zero and so are tone curves. Please look at below thumbnails to see the difference - it's "Camera normal" profile, but it perfectly shows what I'm talking about.

I had this also with Lightroom and found the following.
The profile editor takes the DNG file and applies brightness and contrast to it. Unfortunately this is not shown or noted anywhere.
Then you can change the curves and co. and save the profile.
If I now use that profile in LR, I assume ARC does the same, I have to allow them to do the same adjustments as PE with brightness and contast to fit what I have seen in PE.
I have also seen that this is the case for my Canon RAW/CR2 files using the Adobe provided camera profile. Profile is used but brightness and contrast are up as described.
Regards
Peter

Lightroom 4 and ACR 6.7

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for