Lightroom ACR 3.3

I'm not really sure if this is a problem.
I've updated my ACR in Photoshop to version 4.1 but my Camera Calibration tab in Lightroom display ACR 3.3?
Is this a problem and how can I upgrade this version in Lightroom?
I have Lightroom version 1.1.
just curious...

The version of ACR where your camera was first profiled is shown in LR. In your case, your camera apparently was first profiled in ACR 3.3 and not updated since then in later editions of ACR. The LR tab shows that the calibration is coming from that version even though you may have 4.1 loaded in PS. You don't need to worry about it and you can't change it anyway. :-)
John

Similar Messages

New 30D Lightroom & ACR Preset Available.

New 30D Lightroom & ACR Preset Available.
I have a set of presets for Lightroom 1.1 and ACR 4.1 that will IMHO improve on the default color rendering from Adobe.
To obtain the beta please visit: http://www.huelight.com to download.
I look forward to your comments.

Phil, If you look further you'll find that <a href="http://www.xs4all.nl/~tindeman/raw/acr-calibrator-l.html" target="blank">Simon Tindeman's ACR calibrator script</a> takes away a lot of the tedium. I recently calibrated a Nikon D200 and a Canon 30D back-to-back under the same lighting conditions (studio flash) using this script and got: <TABLE BORDER=1> <TR> <TD ALIGN="CENTER">Item</TD> <TD ALIGN="CENTER">Nikon D200</TD> <TD ALIGN="CENTER">Canon 30D</TD> </TR> <TR><TD ALIGN="CENTER">Colour Temp</TD><TD ALIGN="CENTER">6150</TD><TD ALIGN="CENTER">6300</TD></TR> <TR><TD ALIGN="CENTER">Tint</TD><TD ALIGN="CENTER">-22</TD><TD ALIGN="CENTER">-29</TD></TR> <TR><TD ALIGN="CENTER">Exposure</TD><TD ALIGN="CENTER">0.55</TD><TD ALIGN="CENTER">1.4</TD></TR> <TR><TD ALIGN="CENTER">Red Hue</TD><TD ALIGN="CENTER">-13</TD><TD ALIGN="CENTER">-11</TD></TR> <TR><TD ALIGN="CENTER">Red Saturation</TD><TD ALIGN="CENTER">10</TD><TD ALIGN="CENTER">28</TD></TR> <TR><TD ALIGN="CENTER">Green Hue</TD><TD ALIGN="CENTER">-7</TD><TD ALIGN="CENTER">-14</TD></TR> <TR><TD ALIGN="CENTER">Green Saturation</TD><TD ALIGN="CENTER">9</TD><TD ALIGN="CENTER">-10</TD></TR> <TR><TD ALIGN="CENTER">Blue Hue</TD><TD ALIGN="CENTER">3</TD><TD ALIGN="CENTER">-4</TD></TR> <TR><TD ALIGN="CENTER">Blue Saturation</TD><TD ALIGN="CENTER">5</TD><TD ALIGN="CENTER">-2</TD></TR> </TABLE> When I applied them to some purple chocolate wrappers photographed in the studio they compared very well to each other and the real wrappers. YMMV, of course. However, don't be under the illusion that this 30D calibration is right for all 30Ds. In fact, it may not even be right for teh same 30D under different conditions. To illustrate this, today I photographed the same colour chequer twice and ran the script on both files. Under the studio fluorescents, with a very different illumination level, etc, etc - but the same camera within about three minutes, the same lights, the same colour chequer, and came up with: <TABLE BORDER=1> <TR> <TD ALIGN="CENTER">Item</TD> <TD ALIGN="CENTER">Photo 1</TD> <TD ALIGN="CENTER">Photo 2</TD> </TR> <TR><TD ALIGN="CENTER">Colour Temp</TD><TD ALIGN="CENTER">5500</TD><TD ALIGN="CENTER">5150</TD></TR> <TR><TD ALIGN="CENTER">Tint</TD><TD ALIGN="CENTER">16</TD><TD ALIGN="CENTER">21</TD></TR> <TR><TD ALIGN="CENTER">Exposure</TD><TD ALIGN="CENTER">0.6</TD><TD ALIGN="CENTER">0.7</TD></TR> <TR><TD ALIGN="CENTER">Red Hue</TD><TD ALIGN="CENTER">1</TD><TD ALIGN="CENTER">2</TD></TR> <TR><TD ALIGN="CENTER">Red Saturation</TD><TD ALIGN="CENTER">22</TD><TD ALIGN="CENTER">22</TD></TR> <TR><TD ALIGN="CENTER">Green Hue</TD><TD ALIGN="CENTER">24</TD><TD ALIGN="CENTER">28</TD></TR> <TR><TD ALIGN="CENTER">Green Saturation</TD><TD ALIGN="CENTER">-2</TD><TD ALIGN="CENTER">10</TD></TR> <TR><TD ALIGN="CENTER">Blue Hue</TD><TD ALIGN="CENTER">-6</TD><TD ALIGN="CENTER">-5</TD></TR> <TR><TD ALIGN="CENTER">Blue Saturation</TD><TD ALIGN="CENTER">8</TD><TD ALIGN="CENTER">-9</TD></TR> </TABLE> So, this would be telling you that - most things want more red saturation - my so-called 6500 K illumination is good in red but off in green - things are never the same twice So while it's interesting to calibrate, if you look too closely you'll end up wishing you'd never asked. Again, YMMV. Damian PS Not really sure why U2U formatting leaves so much space above my tables. I thought I was being soooo clever, too.

Problems viewing RAW photos properly in Photoshop/Lightroom/ACR

Hey folks. New here and looking to find some assistance with a problem I'm having in Photoshop CS4, Lightroom 2 and Adobe Camera Raw 5.7 when attemtping to view RAW photos straight from my Canon 450D. My computer is a Mac PowerPC G5 running OS X 10.5.8 with a single 1.8Ghz CPU and 3.5Gb of RAM. Photoshop CS4 is version 11.0.2. Lightroom is version 2.7. Adobe Camera Raw is version 5.7.
What I am having problems with is viewing RAW photos from my camera in all of these applications. No problems are encountered with any other file type such as PNG or jpg.
I have attached a screen capture of what I am seeing when I open a .CR2 RAW image in Camera RAW before opening in Photoshop. As you can see, the software seems to be having a difficult time rendering the photo properly. I can view these files on other computers using the Canon software that came with my camera. I get this same problem if I view the image in Lightroom.
As far as I know, I can't upgrade to PS CS5 or LR 3 because I am still running on the PPC architecture, so I need to find how to fix this without having to buy a Mac Pro and the newest software.
Any ideas on how to troubleshoot? If the screenshot is too small, I can provide the full-res version.

I'm well-versed in forum ettiquette, thank you. I do, however, see no problem why posting about this problem once in each forum covering the software involved in my problem would be an issue. If I posted about the problem in only one forum, let's say in the Lightroom forum, and the problem was experience by another person who did not use Lightroom and would not be browsing the Lightroom forum for help, how would they have come across this post? Unless they also looked in the Photoshop forum, they might not have seen this post. So where's the harm in having it viewed by a greater number of individuals?
With that aside, my problem is now resolved. After looking around a bit more on the forums here last night, I came across a thread started by a fellow who was experiencing the same issue as I, except he had newer versions of the software. Someone had replied to his post suggesting that it could have been faulty RAM modules and that they once experienced similar issues which were resovled by replacing the RAM. This was good news to me, since I had just purchased additional RAM for my Mac last week. It arrived today and I installed it and booted the Mac up. I purged any cache files used by these three software titles and then reattempted opening a RAW image in Photoshop. I took my latest RAW images from my camera, exported them to a USB thumb drive, and then from there exported them to my Mac. I tried to open on of the images in Photoshop and it opened successfully with ACR along with a complete and pristine preview of the image. Open the other RAW images in Lightroom, no problems.

Lightroom (ACR 4) color management problems

Lightroom (or ACR 4) has some color management problems. When I develop a DNG into Photoshop (sRGB) everything looks great. Then I proof colors for the web (monitor RGB) the reds become oversaturated. I don't see this problem when I develop the same DNG using Bridge (ACR 3).
Any picture that I develop using LR that looks great in Photoshop, becomes way too red when published on the web.
Whats going on here?

I have confirmed this finding using Photoshop CS3 beta - same problem in converting to the web - too red!

New Lightroom & ACR 400D Preset Available

I have a set of presets for Lightroom 1.1 and ACR 4.1 that will IMHO improve on the default color rendering from Adobe.
This is currently a beta, so feedback is appreciated.
To obtain the beta please mail me: [email protected]
I look forward to your comments.

Anyone know how to install these presets in XP Pro?
The website has instructions for OSX and Vista
from http://huelight.com/page3/page3.html :
"To install in ACR, Copy the .xmp to your Photoshop 'Settings' folder and select the Olycoly preset in ACR under the 'Presets' tab.
The settings folder is located as follows:-
Windows Vista - /AppData/Roaming/Adobe/CameraRaw/Settings
OSX - /Library/Application Support/Adobe/CameraRaw/Settings "
I can't find " AppData/Roaming/Adobe/CameraRaw/Settings " anywhere in XP.
Furthermore, when I unzipped the downloaded file there are TWO .xmp files. Which of the 2 do I copy?

New Lightroom & ACR 5D Preset Available

I have a set of presets for Lightroom 1.1 and ACR 4.1 that will IMHO improve on the default color rendering.
This is currently a beta, so feedback is appreciated.
To obtain the beta please mail me: [email protected]
I look forward to your comments.

Anyone know how to install these presets in XP Pro?
The website has instructions for OSX and Vista
from http://huelight.com/page3/page3.html :
"To install in ACR, Copy the .xmp to your Photoshop 'Settings' folder and select the Olycoly preset in ACR under the 'Presets' tab.
The settings folder is located as follows:-
Windows Vista - /AppData/Roaming/Adobe/CameraRaw/Settings
OSX - /Library/Application Support/Adobe/CameraRaw/Settings "
I can't find " AppData/Roaming/Adobe/CameraRaw/Settings " anywhere in XP.
Furthermore, when I unzipped the downloaded file there are TWO .xmp files. Which of the 2 do I copy?

Lightroom/ACR colours for Leica M8

I am (and have been for a number of months) trying unsuccessfully to obtain good colour with both LR1.3.1 and ACR4.3.1 with DNG files from a Leica M8. I have expended many hours running calibration routines (Thomas Fors and Rags Gardner's scripts) to obtain settings for the 'camera calibration' module.
Yes I know that colour is a subjective thing, but the colours which routinely come out of LR and ACR are not credible as opposed to incredible!
Since the Leica M8 was calibrated by Adobe in ACR 3.6 I believe, there have been a number of firmware updates for the camera and the majority of owners are using the IR cut filters to control the sensitivity the camera has in that part of the spectrum. Options exist in the camera menu to select whether these are fitted or not. They make a significant difference to the look of the image and therefore the settings needed by the RAW processor.
How would it be possible to request that Adobe recalibrate the Leica M8 with and without these filters in place and update the algorithm settings which the user is unable to adjust in both LR and ACR? I am not alone with my dissatisfaction with colour integrity issues being widely reported by many other Leica M8 users on web forums.
The Leica M8 camera is popular, selling far more units than was expected and probably has a disproportionate number of pre-eminent users; therefore it would seem justified to ask for the re-calibration to be carried out. If Adobe cannot do this, does anyone know how users might be able to effect this task?
If I use Capture One, then I am able to select a range of ICC profiles and easily obtain wonderful images, although the 'canned' Generic UV/IR filter one works very competently indeed. The 3D colour space being adjusted in the Adobe colour engine by just 6 single slider for Hue and Saturation in each of the R, G and B channels is too simplistic and these adjustments cannot be global across the whole range of tones and expect to get commendable results.
Many thanks
Baxter

Thanks Richard
I downloaded them and read the feature on which they are based. Essentially it is what I have been doing to date. The settings there are probably more extreme than those I have been using in terms of saturation.
My understanding is that LR/ACR identifies the camera name in the Metadata and then goes to a conversion routine/look-up table using hard-wired parameters which are based on Adobe's tests on those cameras. The presence of the IR cut filter makes a big difference to the look of the image. Thus I believe that the calibration for this internal setting mechanism needs to be amended after the camera has been reassessed.
Accepting that Adobe have assembled major players to help devise the way in which to convert RAW files, I am not saying it will not work, just that the output for this particular camera is awry. It may be that other camera types produce good colour from LR/ACR on account of their calibration. Maybe not, are there with Capture One experience who also find the LR/ACR colour conversion lacking in comparison?
Baxter

Thomas Knoll - Lightroom - ACR 4.3.1 Sony A700 Major Bug Needs Fixed

Please see this thread where all of the ACR4.3.1 problems are documented.
http://www.adobeforums.com/webx?128@@.3c060c59
Basically, ACR4.3.1 is useless to Sony A700 users on files approaching ISO1600 and beyond.
Many other raw converters render the files properly, but ACR4.3.1 can not.
ACR4.3.1 creates watercolor looking blotches that can not be removed, while every other converter on the market produces fine grained "regular" usable ouput.
The D300 and the A700 have the same sensor but ACR4.3.1 is completely trashing high ISO files from the A700. Other converters do not trash the A700 file.
All of the Sony A700 user base is affected, and many pros have been reporting and writing on this for months. This problem is camera specific to the Sony A700.
Reviewers and pro photographers around the world have writing about this ACR 4.3.1 issue and I had assumed you already were aware of the issue.
If not, please get ACR4.3.1 fixed for us in the next release. If you need any high ISO files to use I have maybe 10,000 A700 ISO1600-6400 files, so feel free to let me know.
Thank you very much and please make us aware that you have acknowledged the problems and are going to make a fix.
Have a good day.
-Sonolta
http://www.sonolta.com
http://www.illinoisphoto.com
http://www.rockriverfootball.com
and 97 others...

Yes, and in that thread I posted is also a comparison against ACDPro 2 KH did against a "ps expert", and two other links are posted that links to articles that compared another half dozen converters by one one of the most respected A-Mount pros on the planet.
The head to head conversions have been done in forums since September showing the ACR flaws against numerous converters by dozens of photographers.
That is the problem...it is just ACR mangling the A700 files. With the other converters the grain stays tight and small...with ACR as ISO rises to about 1600, smearing and blotches start taking over the image.
C1V4, Bibble, RT, ACDSeePro 2, etc, etc, all give a nice tight grained A700 high ISO file while ACR4.3.1 is the only one giving us the splotched watercolor blotches and detail smearing.
I think ACR is not recognizing something properly in the A700 files that the others are. Tone curve reproduction seems off at times, and some sort of NR/Blotches seem to be in the image before you even get started with ACR. Those two things don't happen when you use any of the other converters.
I don't know why it's happening, I just know it is happening. And since I have 200K files from a half dozen cameras it really sucks to have to use another processor on the A700 files...really throws a hitch in your giddy-up.
-Sonolta
http://www.sonolta.com
PS...Here is a link toy one of a couple articles by DK, quite possibly the most respected A-Mount guy on the planet. His test is not perfect, but it clearly show the splotches and artifacts (confetti, he calls it) that no other processors in the land gives us.
http://photoclubalpha.com/2008/02/08/capture-one-v4-cures-a700-high-iso-confetti/
These "watercolors" absolutely ruin shadow areas and backgrounds, and as I mentioned before everyone else (third party) in the business gives a fine grain pattern that can be easily dealt with after the fact.
Those ACR splotches are horrendous to deal with and that is the main reason we need the converter tweaked for A700 files...nobody wcan deal with those "watercolor" effects at high ISO!
I prefer IDC, most all other shooters are using RT, ACDPro2, C1V4 and others...

Lightroom / ACR / Bridge?

Where can I get an overview on the functions / purposes and overlap, if any, in regards to these programs? I am currently using CS4 and Thumbs Plus.
Thanks, Airpix

airpix wrote:
Thanks John, I've been Googling all morning without much luck
I just put in lightroom versus photoshop.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=lightroom+versus+photoshop&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org .mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

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.

ACR 4.1 Color space(s)

Windows XP Bridge CS3
ACR 3.7 and previous used to give the option to convert to various colour spaces (profiles I always get confused here).
I've noticed that my Canon raw files show up in bridge as "colour mode RGB"
If I edit in ACR4.1 and save; they show up as "colour mode RGB and colour profile Adobe RGB" which is the color space of the camera (20D).
Files that I have previosly edited in lightroom (ACR 4) show up as "pro photo RGB"
I have my colour space in photoshop set to pro photo RGB so lightroom edited files open without a mismatch whereas files edited in ACR4.1 in bridge produce a colour space mismatch.
Am I missing something? or has the behavior of ACR changed in this respect since the comming of version 4?

It sounds like you have Camera Raw set to Adobe RGB. You can change that to Pro Photo RGB.
Along the bottom of the Camera Raw dialog box there should be a link that lists the color space, bit depth, file size, and resolution. Click on that change the Space from Adobe RGB to ProPhoto RGB.

Lightroom to Photoshop export. Error upon saving to jpeg "Could not complete your request because of a program error"

Lightroom 2.4 to Photoshop CS2. My export parameters in Lightroom are Resize to fit W&H 850 pixels (for web), resolution 300 ppi. Export as TIF, sRGB, 8 bits. When I go to save as Jpeg, quality 10, I get the above error. I only get this error after I have used the adjustment brush in lightroom, and that is the problem. If I don't use the adjustment brush it saves fine. Now this is a recent issue. I have used the adjustment brush multiple times on a single issue in the past with no problem. Lightroom crashed about 2 weeks ago but I got everything up and running. I have reinstalled Lightroom and I have reinstalled Photoshop with no resolution. I have tested this may times and it's definatly the adjustment brush issue. If you have any ideas or experience like this I would appreciate some help. Thanks

You could try removing the Lightroom/ACR adjustment settings using File Info in Bridge or Photoshop. The screenshot included below shows the two items that you should remove.
Note that camera-raw-settings will definitely appear in the list, but camera-raw-saved-settings will only be listed if you had a Snapshot in Lightroom (normally at least one is automatically created)

Pentax K-7 support in Lightroom 2.4 not quite complete?

Hi,
I have my K-7, and Lightroom 2.4 installed. Lightroom reads K-7 pefs and dngs, but doesn't seem to do anything with the lens aberration info included in the pef files when that feature is enabled. Am I correct, and if so, is this just temporary, or a permanent situation? My understanding is that Lightroom does recognize and use the lens aberration info included in raw files created by the Panasonic DMC LX3 camera.
I understand that Adobe has updated the DNG standard to support the inclusion of such info in dng files. But no camera currently on the market supports this standard yet of course.
Just wonderin'
Mike

but doesn't seem to do anything with the lens aberration info included in the pef files when that feature is enabled. Am I correct, and if so, is this just temporary, or a permanent situation?
That is correct. Lightroom cannot read and use any lens aberration info from cameras other than the Panasonic LX3 and Leica that uses the exact same sensor, lens and electronics. This is in there because Panasonic would not allow Lightroom/ACR to render their RAW files without Adobe correcting for the distortion. They were worried people would see that their lens distorts and fringes very strongly if you would just get a straight RAW rendering.
Nobody knows whether the corrections will will be added to LR/ACR in the future for other cameras, but it would be an obvious next step. Very likely would be automatic LCA correction and barrel/pincushion distortion correction (perhaps not automatic but a simple slider like in the lens distortion correction in Photoshop)
I understand that Adobe has updated the DNG standard to support the inclusion of such info in dng files. But no camera currently on the market supports this standard yet of course.
Correct on both. We'll see what Adobe does next.

Weird outline occuring in resized pics in Lightroom 1.x

Hi,
I have a question regarding pics that are exported in Lightroom. When I'm done editing, I click on the export button and change the sizing dimensions to 1000x1000 so that I don't have to open it up in photoshop again to resize it. Whenever I do this, it creates an odd outline around some parts of the pictures. Here's an example from last night
http://digitalremix.net/upload/uploads/1/ninja_2010.jpg
If you look at the rear exhaust tip, you'll notice a white outline around the edge of the tip. The same occurs on the ZX6R lettering on the side of the bike. The only way around this, is to export in the original dimensions and then resize again in photoshop, but that's an extra step I'd prefer to not have to do. One of my friends experiences the same issue with lightroom, using the same version as me, which I believe is 1.4. Is there any way around this?

Ah, the resize problem:
http://lagemaat.blogspot.com/2008/08/resize-artefacts.html
http://lagemaat.blogspot.com/2008/08/lightroom-artefacts-even-show-up-when.html
This has to do with Lightroom/ACR's scaling algorithm. There is nothing you can do about it but using a different program such as LR/mogrify or Photoshop to scale your images. It doesn;t show up in many images for me, but when it does, it is a major annoyance.

Camera Raw/Lightroom: Kodak DCS SLR/n/c cameras missing Tone Curve support

Hi
I posted this as a support request here (not sure if that is a correct place) with technical details of my debugging the CameraRaw module. Basically, it appears that Lightroom/ACR do not handle the raw files from Kodak DCS SLR/n, SLR/c and 14n(x) cameras correctly. It appears that Lightroom/ACR skips the tonal expansion curve in these raw files and uses the compressed 10bit raw values (with expansion curve applied properly the raw files are 12bit and a curve itself looks very much like Sony ARW one). I provided all the technical details in that referenced post and it should be really easy to fix so I would appreciate if this is passed onto CameraRaw development team.
Thanks

Adobe has an almost 31-billion-dollar market cap at the moment, so there are likely layers to their intake process, between the users and the engineers. What I've suggested providing allows a first-level person at Adobe to demonstrate the clipping of the Adobe conversion relative to Kodak software, without having to get a Kodak camera and Kodak software nor know how to debug a program. A JPG (converted from the same raw file using Kodak software) provides a Kodak reference image for someone to compare to Adobe processing.
I am another user like yourself, and someone who was a double-major in computer-science and math before Macs and PCs were invented so can appreciate your analysis, and definitely believe what you're saying is occurring, I'm not questioning that, I'm just suggesting providing enough inputs for a customer-advocate-level person, who likely is the one who reads the forums and feedback site, initially, to demonstrate to themselves what is occurring that results in poor image conversions, so that the information can get into the hands of more technical people that do have ways to look at the code and authority procure cameras as needed to test and fix things. A lower-level Adobe employee won't have access to the camera to create their own test images and may reside in a different country on the opposite side of the world from those with a debugger. Even if an engineer did see this thread without it being routed to them via a customer-advocate, if they didn't have a Kodak camera in hand, then it might be too much work at the end of the day or at home at night to start the internal bureaucracy to have one delivered to their office some where in the world, and there might be multiple-levels of sign-off before that occurred, or if they request a loaner from Kodak there could be delays. Once you see something from Eric Chan, then you know an engineer has taken an interest in this thread, and/or the one on the feedback site.
If you are just passing on the information from others and don't have your own camera to produce your own raws, then fine, I was assuming you did have the camera in hand based on the detailed analysis you've provided.

Lightroom ACR 3.3

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for