Lightroom and Camera Raw

I am in the early stages of trying Lightroom 4. There are some great features and may purchase a copy after the trail ends.
However, I have a question about using Lightroom with older versions of Photoshop.
I made some changes to an image, mostly used the Lens Correction feature, changed the white balance and changed the tone curve as my images always look a little flat.
At the end of "developing" I like to add some sharpening. I prefer to use Photoshop for this as I use different mettods depending on what result I want.
When I chose Photo > Edit In > Photoshop CS4 (CS4 being the version of Photoshop I have) I get a message along the lines of Lightroom needing Camera Raw 6.7. If I select open anyway I see the original flat image before I made the changes in Lightroom. Is this correct.
My version of Photoshop is fully updated but the version of Camera Raw is 5.7. Can I get Photoshop to "use" Lightroom instead of Camera Raw?
I did once click a button that said something along the line of Use Lightroom, but Photoshop started to "do stuff" with the images I had imported into Lightroom. What was it doing?
I hope that makes sense.
Thanks for any help.
Chris.

You should choose the option to open a copy with Lightroom settings. When you open an image from Lightroom into Photoshop, ACR is used to translate the adjustments made in Lightroom. Since you are using an older version, ACR cannot translate all of the adjustments. So it's best to let Lightroom create the copy first because it will include all of your Lightroom adjustments. It's really only a difference of WHEN the copy is made because after you make changes in Photoshop the new file has to be created anyway.

Similar Messages

Lightroom and Camera Raw 3.7 discrepancy

After I process am image in Lightroom 1.0, I look to see if any highlights are burned out. Then if I open the same image in Camera Raw 3.7, it shows a considerably higher degree of highlights being burned out than Lightroom does. Has anyone noticed this difference? How would I know which program is giving me more accurate information?

ACR probably figures the blowing out slightly differently then LR, but assuming both are simply showing where one of the channels saturates, the difference is probably coming from the different white point of adobeRGB vs prophotoRGB (D65 vs D50), this will cause slight differences in where you'll blow out highlights since it shifts the color around slightly. If you set up ACR to render to ppRGB, you should see more or less the same blown out areas.
Also, keep in mind that what is shown is where the
result is blown out. You cannot see where one of the CCD or CMOS channels is blown out with ACR or lightroom as the white balance correction and rendering in the new color space distorts that information. That would be really useful information BTW, but I don't know how to get to it currently.

Color discrepancy between Lightroom and Camera Raw

I'm new to LR and came across a color issue when viewing the photos in LR.
When view the RAW in LR, I see a color discrepancy compare with ACR. The color in LR is more like the JPEG view in Windows Photo Viewer (an non color-managed application). I suspect it's a color space config but can't find any in LR as in PS.
When I changed my monitor's ICC profile to "SRGB IEC61966-2.1", all the applications, LR, ACR, WPV, look the same then. It's said that profile just for troubleshooting and should change back to monitor's profile. Can someone help to explain what's happen and what should I do to get consistent color? Thanks a lot!

It sounds like the monitor profile from the monitor manufacturer is not compatible with LR. This is a common problem, and you have confirmed it by temporarily switching to sRGB.
If the only profiles you have available are sRGB (which is consistent but may be wrong) and the monitor profile (which doesn’t work) then for more accurate color you’ll need to buy a hardware calibrator.
I use the i1DisplayPro. Others might use a Spyder or a ColorMunki, although the i1DisplayPro has some more detailed options for creating profiles (Matrix vs LUT or ICCv2 vs ICCv4) that can be necessary to make LR happy, or at least my preference is to have a more powerful program in case I do need to tweak things. I haven’t ever used a ColorMunki or Spyder so perhaps they work fine, too. I think the color-measuring hardware with the i1 is better, though. I guess you get what you pay for.

File appearence not the same in PS CS4, LR2 and Camera RAW

I've just noticed that files as displayed in Lightroom 2 or in Camera RAW, when opened in Photoshop CS4 have a different appearence. In Photoshop the file appears much flatter and with considerably less saturation and dynamic range. When you compare the files beside each other in RAW and in Lightroom, they look the same. I have tried exporting the files to Photoshop from Lightroom using the "open with Lightroom Edits" and Edit a Copy and Edit the original, but the results are the same. After editing a photo in Photoshop and saving it back into Lightroom, the photo appears very saturated in the Lightroom or in Camera RAW. I don't know how long this has been this way, but now that I hace noticed it, it is driving me nuts.
Thanks for your help
Steve

Christopher thank you so much for responding and you have pinpointed the problem. The problem was the color settings. Color settings were set to sRGB and when I changed it to ProPhoto RGB Photoshop rendered file as it appears in the files in Lightroom and Camera RAW. I shoot in ProPhotoRGB and that seems to be why the images looked so flat when imported using sRGB.
Thanks for taking the time to help
Steve

PS, LR and Camera Raw

I'm sorry but, at today I use PS only with my CAAD images.
My Photoshop CS 6 extended in Cloud mode also contains Lightroom and Camera Raw?
I'm sorry for my English.

Giovanni,
I think your question is not clear. Could you please go ahead and explain the question in detail or attach screenshots to explain the issue.
Mandhir

Lightroom 2.3 and Camera Raw 5.3 Available - Note from Adobe

Lightroom 2.3 and Camera Raw 5.3 are now available as release candidates on Adobe Labs.
Lightroom 2.3, http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Lightroom_2.3
Camera Raw 5.3, http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Camera_Raw_5.3
Regards,
Tom Hogarty
Adobe Systems

Hi All:
based on the good work of Dorin above (post #19), he did a timeline of various releases of Lightroom from Adobe and it shows that from "version x RC" to "final release version" was around 1 month.
as it is already exactly one month now, it must not be too much longer till they will release the LR2.3 Final Version.
As for what Robert said in post #23, well, there's never any "guarantee" on a problem-free piece of software, or, for that matter, anything one purchases or anything in life, actually!! Yet, one can make educated extrapolations, right? From the range of comments thus far on LR2.3RC, it appears that it is the best version yet of LR2.x. This leads to the conclusion that it is probably a "good bet" that this version will likely lead to the least amount of issues, right? Maybe not "zero issues", but most likely, the least amount of issues from the various LR2.x versions available.
So by waiting, say, merely 1-3 more weeks approximately, i can go directly from LR1.4 (which i've been using for many months) to LR2.3 Final Release Version. It seems like it is a prudent and conservative move or plan.
What do the good folks here think, please?
thanks in advance for helping me to mull this over. If i were a PC expert, i'd be thinking about this less. as i'm just a somewhat competent user, and not a whiz, i thought that a bit of care and planning it out intelligently can possibly reduce frustrations later.

Lightroom 3.2 and Camera Raw 6.2 Now Available

Final releases of Lightroom 3.2, DNG Converter 6.2 and Camera Raw 6.2 are now available. Additional details here: http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2010/08/lightroom-3-2-and-camera-raw-6-2-now-avail able.html
Regards,
Tom Hogarty
Lightroom, Camera Raw, DNG Product Manager

function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}
function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}Hudechrome wrote:
You have a wild hair about Bridge, Noel?
Not at all. I like good tools, and from everything I read Bridge is marvelous. I don't have anything against Bridge, I just don't need it.
As a computer engineer, I use my computer for WAY more than just Photoshop. As such, I do everything I can to have the operating system (via Windows Explorer) integrate things for me.
For example, via right-click or double-click or drag and drop onto icons:
I access my configuration management system from Explorer (Tortoise SubVersion).
I do searches (grepWin) from Explorer.
I compare things (Beyond Compare) from Explorer.
I start Photoshop and other image tools on raw and processed image files I manage with Explorer.
I start my development tools (Visual Studio and a host of utilities) from Explorer (e.g., double click .sln files).
I access my web sites with Explorer (via WebDrive).
I get file paths from Explorer (right click, Send to Clipboard as Name).
I access office management apps from Explorer (e.g., double click .doc or .xls files).
This is an abbreviated list. Explorer can be a VERY powerful integrator, and is at the center of my computing world at a higher level. So now you can start to imagine why I prefer Explorer for image work.
-Noel

Lightroom 3.2 and Camera Raw 6.2 Release Candidate on Available on Adobe Labs

http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2010/08/lightroom-3-2-and-camera-raw-6-2-available -on-adobe-labs.html
with additional lens profiles available.

function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}
function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}Hudechrome wrote:
You have a wild hair about Bridge, Noel?
Not at all. I like good tools, and from everything I read Bridge is marvelous. I don't have anything against Bridge, I just don't need it.
As a computer engineer, I use my computer for WAY more than just Photoshop. As such, I do everything I can to have the operating system (via Windows Explorer) integrate things for me.
For example, via right-click or double-click or drag and drop onto icons:
I access my configuration management system from Explorer (Tortoise SubVersion).
I do searches (grepWin) from Explorer.
I compare things (Beyond Compare) from Explorer.
I start Photoshop and other image tools on raw and processed image files I manage with Explorer.
I start my development tools (Visual Studio and a host of utilities) from Explorer (e.g., double click .sln files).
I access my web sites with Explorer (via WebDrive).
I get file paths from Explorer (right click, Send to Clipboard as Name).
I access office management apps from Explorer (e.g., double click .doc or .xls files).
This is an abbreviated list. Explorer can be a VERY powerful integrator, and is at the center of my computing world at a higher level. So now you can start to imagine why I prefer Explorer for image work.
-Noel

Lightroom 3.2 and Camera Raw 6.2 final releases are available

Lightroom 3.2 and Camera Raw 6.2 are now available as final releases on Adobe.com and through the update mechanisms available in Photoshop CS5 and Lightroom 3. These updates include additional lens profiles support among others. Check out http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/. Following the example of Adobe's collaboration with SIGMA, leading lens manufacturers such as Pentax, Tamron and Zeiss worked closely with Adobe to create some of the profiles.
-Simon

Excellent! Now if there were only a way to use my S95 in raw... I guess I'll have to wait another few months

Lightroom 2.7 and Camera Raw 5.7 Release Candidates now Available

http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2010/04/camera_raw_57_and_lightroom_27.html
Regards,
Tom Hogarty
Adobe Systems

Tom Hogarty wrote:
Here is a draft of my final release notes for working with Lightroom 3 and Camera Raw 5.7:
Viewing Lightroom 3 settings in Camera Raw 5.7
Before working in conjunction with Lightroom 3 and Camera Raw please set the Camera Raw preference to: Save image settings in: Sidecar ".xmp" files. By default Camera Raw will display the image adjustments exactly as performed in Lightroom’s develop module. However, at this time Camera Raw 5.7 is unable to support further adjustments to the following settings or tools:
Highlight Priority and Color Priority post-crop vignette
Enhanced Luminance and Color Noise Reduction
Grain effects
Process Version
Lightroom is also dependent on a compatible version of the Camera Raw plug-in for the "Edit in Photoshop" functionality to work properly. Camera Raw 5.7 will ensure that Lightroom 3 beta 2 will maintain that compatible functionality with Photoshop CS4.
Regards,
Tom Hogarty
Adobe Systems
That seems to clarify the interoperability of ACR 5.7 and LR 3. Thank you for that, Mr. Hogarty.
Now, for the benefit of those of use who are not and/or will not be using Lightroom 3 for whatever reason, perhaps Mr. Chan or you can address the question of whether ACR 5.7 RC has a different or improved Noise Reduction functionality over that of ACR 5.6, and/or whether this will be the case for the final, GM release of ACR 5.7. Let's leave any and all versions of LR out of the equation for a second, please.
I think I see improved Noise Reduction in ACR 5.7 RC, but I wonder if this is real or whether I've just improved my skills in handling the noise reduction sliders since earlier versions.
Thanks.
Wo Tai Lao Le
我太老了

Curious question about Lightroom previews and Camera Raw Cache

Posted in the Flickr Lightroom Group as well:
I have noticed something about the Lightroom (3.6) previews and Camera Raw cache that have me puzzled.
I create a brand new empty catalog and purge the Camera Raw Cache.
Then I import ONE Nikon RAW (NEF) file with dimensions 2592 x 3872 (10 megapixels - 10,036,224 pixels).
Next I export that NEF file to an uncompressed 8-bit TIFF file. You would expect the size of that TIFF file to be roughly 30 megabytes (10 megapixels x 3 bytes per RGB value) and in fact the TIFF file is 30,135,830 bytes in size. If you export the same TIFF file but specify ZIP compression the resulting file size is 10,834,038 bytes. Obviously the compression obtained here is going to be highly specific to the image but so far no surprises.
During import I specify render 1:1 previews and I go into Loupe mode and view the entire image at 1:1 size. I also visit the develop module and do a bunch of manipulations on the image but no cropping.
At the conclusion of all of that I exit from Lightroom and examine the size of the Camera Raw Cache folder as well as the Lightroom previews folder. It would be my expectation that the previews folder should have a rendered full image and that the Camera Raw Cache should also have a rendered form of the raw data. What would you expect the size of those respective folders to be?
In fact - in my trials the previews folder totals a mere 1,675,264 bytes and the Camera Raw Cache which contains one DAT file corresponding to the one cached image is merely 267,374 bytes. This does not seem like nearly enough bits to preserve the rendered image nor is there a full size image tucked away in the actual catalog either - that file is not large enough to contain that. And yet I can use Loupe mode at 1:1 size and move from image to image with no loading delays (even when importing multiple files).
I'm wondering if I've missed something obvious in my analysis and if not, whether someone might care to speculate as to what magic Adobe is practicing here. Even if we grant them some special algorithm to compress their previews I don't see how they can achieve a compression so much greater than the ZIP-compressed TIFF file achieves.
And for those that might think to ask - I've repeated these experiments with multiple raw images and on both the PC and MAC platforms.
I look forward to some answers or interesting theories or perhaps someone might replicate the experiment and report findings.

MadMan and Hal - thanks so much.
So that was my D'Oh moment of what I was missing - the use of re-rendered JPGS as previews. That certainly does fit with the file sizes I am seeing. I had naively assumed that the previews might have tried to preserve the full fidelity of the image - But as you suggest that full fidelity is likely only there in the develop module.
This perhaps explains another observation from the Develop module - moving from one image to another might display "Loading" either briefly or across a longer duration. My guess is that the length of the loading process might have to do more with what is cached in RAM than cached on disk in the camera raw cache. More of a shame then that 64-bit Lightroom on 64-Bit Windows cannot grab more RAM than it seems to do at present.

Installed Lightroom 5.7 Update and Camera RAW 8.7 But still will not recognise my Canon 7D MkK ll even though this is now on the list

Installed Lightroom 5.7 Update and Camera RAW 8.7 But still will not recognise my Canon 7D MkK ll even though this is now on the list- what can I do?
Operating System OSx Yosemite IMac.

What exactly does "not recognise" mean, Kathy?
You're on Mac (thanks for providing that detail): are you getting a "could not be read" message? If you are, it's a write permissions issue with the destination. Change the permission, and all should be well.

With the Photoshop and Lightroom bundle, does Bridge and Camera Raw come with it?

With the Photoshop and Lightroom bundle, does Bridge and Camera Raw come with it?

Hi,
Yes, both Camera Raw and Bridge are included. Bridge will need a separate installation, however.
regards,
steve

I have Lightroom 3.6 and Camera Raw 6.6 but I can't open my CR2 files from my Canon eos 6D

Hi,
I have Lightroom 3.6 and Camera Raw 6.6 but I can't open my CR2 files from my Canon eos 6D
Lightroom doesn't show a thumbnail image and when trying to import it says the camera format isn't supported. But normaly Camera raw 6.6 should cover the Canon eos 6D
All help is welcome,
Thanks

No, the older versions are not free. If you upgrade you will have to get Lr5 unless you can still find Lr4 for sale somewhere as it has been discontinued by Adobe. You can also use the FREE DNG converter to convert the 6d files for use in Lr3.6.

Hasselblad 3FR and camera RAW/Lightroom

I use CS3 and Lightroom for all of my work (Canon Raw) now very happily. Having recently purchased a Hasselblad HD3-31 it would make my day if I could directly import the 3FR files into Lightroom or Camera Raw. I did check before buying and was fully aware that this format was not supported by CR or Lightroom and that there is a mechanism to convert the 3FR files into DNG and then import them into Lightroom. This is however a slow and cumbersome process and it would be far better if I could bring the files straight into Lightroom.
Does anybody know if Adobe are intending to support this format or is there a third party plugin available. It would be good to hear if anyone else shares this problem and if so what they are doing about it.

I have now had an update from Hasselblad confirming that they won't share their code and that they feel they have something special in respect of the colour algorithms. Having used both Flexcolour (slow and prone to crashes) and their DNG converter then CR 4.1 I know which I prefer - (hint it comes from Adobe). They have also confirmed that their proprietory lens correction algorithms are not implemented through the DNG conversion. Personally I think that they have made a very poor strategic decision here and that their attempt to buck the marke will fail.
To answer LRK's point I use Canon 1DsMkII's as my normal system but for certain applications the Haselbald wins hands down. If you compare an image taken on the 1Ds and on HD3 side by side the Hassdelblad image is more detailed, less "jaggy", and has smoother colour transition from pixel to pixel. We purchased this system for food photography and it does this superbly.
Yes their attitude is annoying, no the software is not perfect, yes the equipment is superbly engineered but the image quality is A1. In England we say it's horse for courses.

Lightroom and Camera Raw

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for