Posterization in ACR?

I shoot mainly Canon DSLR landscape and sell large high end Silver Halide gallery prints..  Lately I think I have been finding (rarely) some indication of slight posterization in some very smooth transition areas in ACR 6.1 raw (case in point a sunset sky).  I'm basically talking about where the pixels don't have, but should have a very smooth tonal transition to them).  The images I am talking about were exposed optimally (histogram to the right) and no super radical settings applied. Sometimes it is not immediate in ACR but starts happening very quickly as I go into PS (16 bit) and start making some adjustments.
Has anyone else seen this?  If so, please feel free to share.
It caught me by surprise because for some reason I thought ACR CR2 raw files (and even 16 bit) could not do this.
I also have found (another totally different issue) that strong use of reversed "Clairity" (the glow/smoothing effect) seems to be able to exacerbate posterization as well.  Often when it is used somewhat aggressively in a localized area and then brought into PS (16 bit) there can be some (what looks to me like) posterization that no amount of healing brush cloning or blurring... resolves (again even in 16 bit).  There does seem to be a correlation between how strong the ACR adjustments and the amount of posterization is.
I thought maybe it was some sharpening issue (artifacts created by) but I have tried turning the capture sharpening off (and there is no other sharpening applied) and all sharpening off and I can still see it.
When I tried "Neat" (in PS noise reduction plug in) to see if that would eliminate it, it made it much worse.  I have found that a touch of grain simulation can disguise/camouflage it OK.
Maybe I'm off here, but I am just wondering if anyone else has experienced this or a similar thing?

Just like I expect from you Jeff, well thought out answer with good questions, thank you.
I think I am seeing slight banding in ACR 6.1, maybe.  On closer examination just now, I think it might be pixels where chrominance noise was resolved (no luminance noise reduction used at all) and so my statement about perfect exposure may not be so perfect (100 iso on the Canon 1DS Mark II and moderate noise in ACR says to me I had to brighten the area up too much).
As far as the same banding in print, no.  But my last test print had a touch of grain sim to try to disguise it.  What I hear you saying here is to do a test print without the "grain" and see if there is anything visible...
"Fact is, I've never seen banding in Camera Raw."  That is a reassuring statement.  I mainly wanted to throw this out to see if posterization is something people have seen in ACR, or should I look for another culprit.
But, yes when I use a lot of the "Anti Clarity" (as I call it) in an area (in ACR 6.1) and the area is an extremely slow transition area and then I bring the image into PS (CS5) in 16 bit it seems the area is very prone to posterization quickly.
"The odds are, what you are seeing is display banding caused by the profile of your display. Do you "calibrate" your display or merely profile it at the native white point and gamma?"
I never thought of that possibility.  I just run the Spyder 2.2 and then use that profile.  I do BTW need to get up to speed on color management/calibration due to getting extremely anal about printing quality these days.  All suggestions are welcomed!
Thanks you.

Similar Messages

  • Phase One Raw File have lines in them (Lightroom 2.1 ACR 5.1)

    when importing Phase One P25 raw files, Lightroom is displaying tin lines across the image. those lines are not appearing in any of the Capture one Software 3.7 4.1 or 4.5 I guess ACR is not reading the Digital Back Calibration Data. I am managing thousands of Images in Lightroom and I don't want to move back to Capture one as it is very limited in terms of its meta data management and no spot removal yet.
    if I convert the Raw file (IIQ Small or Large) to DNG using Capture one then Lightroom reading the DNG file without the Lines but the file size is 44MB instead of 15MB of the IIQ Small (Phase One Raw Format). obviously duplicating all my images to DNG Quadrupling disk space is not something I want to add to my workflow.
    Adobe, can you improve the way you read the Phase One Raw Files?
    I use Phase One P25 Digital Back with the latest firmware 3.6 , Windows XP 32 and 64bit and Lightroom 2.1 (this problem appears on all Lightroom Versions including 1.4,2.0,2.1)
    I can send to adobe some Raw File Example or assist in any way I can to find a solution.
    Please Help!

    Following does not alleviate the problem, but it may shed some light on the underlying reason.
    Phase One are fooling their customers with the promise of 16bit depth. However, in fact that is only 14 useful bits; the two low order bits *must not* be used, for they represent mainly the pecularities of the hardware.
    The following capture is from a P25+ raw image (converted in DNG by the Adobe DNG converter), but only the two low order bits are processed. These should be random on their own, as theoretically they would represent the finest transitions. The two thin vertical lines show the seams between the chips; their location depends on the particular camera copy (I have seen one or two seams, i.e. the sensor is made out of two or three chips, but perhaps there can be more).
    The horizontal stripes cause posterization if an extremely underexposed image's brightness gets adjusted; the seams can become visible as thin lines.
    The image is in the "native" (landscape) orientation. The orangy rectangle is not part of the image.
    http://www.panopeeper.com/Demo/PhaseOne_P25Plus_SensorSeams.GIF

  • ACR 5.2 camera profiles and Nikon D700 color artifacts

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

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

  • D700 Camera Profile Artifacts (still present in ACR 5.5?)

    Just installed ACR 5.5 RC and it looks like the color problems with the "Camera" profiles (for the Nikon D700 and D3) are still present. Namely, green/magenta color casts in what should be neutral areas, and weird posterization effects in shadow areas. Then again, I'm not sure if  installing a new version of ACR update camera color profiles.
    I posted a thread about this on Dpreview a while ago; or just do a Google search for "D700 color" and it's one of the top results.
    Here's a Flickr photoset with some crops showing the issue. The artifacts with the shadows are kind of hard to see in those small crops though (it's better to look at the original image).
    To Adobe: can we get any sort of an idea when this is going to fixed?

    What you're seeing - the color shifts anyway - are as a result of the "hue twists" in the new generation Adobe profiles. What it amounts to is that the new profiles change the hue of a pixel based on its intensity. So, what were in the original image two pixels with the same "color", but different intensities end up as different colors. This has been discussed quite intensively in context of the 5DII, which also shows these issues, both on this forum (http://forums.adobe.com/thread/311802?start=0&tstart=0) and on dpreview (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=32482073)
    If you want to know more about the technicalities, I've written about hue twists here: http://chromasoft.blogspot.com/2009/02/adobe-hue-twist.html
    You might say that well designed "hue twisted" profile would keep neutrals neutral, and that's true, but there's a complication - what neutral is varies with white balance, which makes it a judgement call as to how much "twist" you can tolerate close to a hue that might conceivably end up as a neutral. Probably what adobe will need to do to solve this issue (if they decide it impacts enough people to be worth addressing) is to tweak the profile to maintain "untwisted" across a wider range of near neutral colors.
    Short Adobe fixing the profiles, you have three possible solutions;
    a) Use the earlier profiles which didn't have the twist
    b) use a profile generated by Adobe's DNG profile editor (which never have twists)
    c) If you want to try and preserve some of the profiles's look, you can also try untwisting the profiles with dcpTool (disclaimer - I wrote dcpTool): http://dcptool.sourceforge.net/ However, be aware that dcpTool can only preserve some part of the look, not all of it.
    Sandy

  • Camera profiles for Nikon D810 reveal posterization

    The following profiles included with LR 5.6 & ACR 8.6 reveal noticeable posterization with the Nikon D810 RAW files.
    Camera Standard
    Camera Landscape
    Camera Vivid
    Camera Monochrome
    For more details, there's a large discussion of the issue on DPReview.com, here
    Additionally, shadow detail recovery in LR & ACR is less useable with the D810 RAW files. I am forced to use Nikon's Capture NX-D for better shadow recovery with accurate camera profiles, which significantly slows my workflow, as I prefer to do all imports and edits through LR & Photoshop overall.
    As a point of reference, LR & ACR's handling of D800E RAW files is wonderful; however the D810 RAW handling is not quite there yet. On the D800E RAW, I'm able to move the shadow slider significantly, revealing more detail with no compromise to image quality. On the contrary, shadow recovery in the D810, using LR 5.6 & ACR 8.6, is less forgiving; increasing the slider will sometimes affect other elements of the image, producing a less pleasing result.
    It would be be greatly appreciated if Adobe could address these issues in an upcoming update.
    Thanks,
    Rumi

    It is possible that the shadow recovery problems are profile-related and Adobe redoing them might fix both problems, but if all Adobe-supplied profiles have the same issue rather than just the subset that also has posterization problems, then I’d suggest you make a separate post about the shadow recovery issue, including screenshots of what you see and example NEFs from the D800 and D810 taken in similar conditions for others to download and replicate the issue with.
    That NX-D does something preferable to LR is probably not a good enough reason for Adobe to care, because the Adobe raw engine is not the same as the Nikon raw engine, as both are proprietary products known only to their respective manufacturers, so comparisons between Adobe handling of the same scene in different cameras were one is clearly bad, might have a better chance of being taken seriously.

  • Need Help All Files in ACR look VERY Bad

    The best way I can explain it is my RAW file's look like a GIF file. Mostly in the darker tones/shodows of the files. I have run some "process of elimination" tests to try to isolate where the challange is coming from.
    1. Raw Files are stll good, I have run them on another computer and the image is great.
    2. Moniter and Graphics Card are Fine, I open the RAW file in Picasa 3.0 and images look fin on my P.C
    I am currently Ruining Vista 64
    I am using
    Photoshop 11.0.1
    Bridge 3.0.0.464
    Lightroom 2.5
    ACR 5.5
    Any one out there ever run into this challange?
    Please Help.

    I can't get mine to look bad like yours.  With default settings, except Recovery = 100 and Contrast = 100, I still don't see the posterization nor the greens you're seeing, although the colors are a bit strong due to the contrast setting.  If you've changed more things than Recovery and maybe Contrast, perhaps post those settings.
    Does it look ok in ACR and then just bad in Photoshop or is it bad in ACR the same way?
    I wonder if you have a bad monitor profile that only Photoshop is fully utilizing and having issues with?  If you're on a calibrated system, you might temporarily setting your monitor profile to sRGB (or maybe AdobeRGB if on a Mac) and see if the Photoshop image changes.
    I have attached a yours/mine screen capture showing what I see when I max out Recovery and Contrast in an attempt to duplicate what yours looks like.  I have used LR to better document the conversion settings, but I also tried it in ACR 5.5 and Photoshop and don't really see much difference if any...where both should be using the ACR 5.5 engine.

  • Adobe Photoshop CS2 posterization problem on vignette

    I am having a problem with posterization in my image. When I try to vignette my photo (with black) it starts to block up in areas, mostly in the darkest part of the gradient. It ends up not making a smooth transitional gradient and leaves a line where it blocks up. It shows up on the screen as well as on the print. I have a calibrated LaCie CRT 19" monitor, G5 and I am working from digital raw files from a Fuji S2 that are AdobeRGB and also film scans that have done the same thing. What can I do to prevent this? Is it something to do with my G5 or is it the software in Photoshop? If there is any info that left out to help solve the problem please let me know!
    G5   Mac OS X (10.4.5)  

    If it shows up on screen and in print, then issue is with the software.
    Adobe has forums. Might try there.
    best wishes
    David
    Remember to mark an response helpful or solved.
    It protects the integrity of the board.

  • Can you temporarily overexpose a pixel in ACR?

    I was working on some images the other day when it occurred to me that I was influencing some of the pixels brightness in several different ways: using the Exposure slider, the Recovery slider, using an exposure Gradient, using the Adjustment Brush, etc., each one making some exposure compensation.
    I assume the order in which the controls are laid out doesn't necessarily represent the order the different controls' process settings are applied, but what started to worry me was a scenario in which one setting pushed exposure over 100% (i.e. clipped) before another brought it back down again (still clipped).
    So, what I'm trying to ask is: is there a combination of exposure settings to avoid? For example, is it a bad idea to boost the exposure in the basic panel only to reduce it again with a gradient - or would it be better to use a negative gradient instead? That's just one example; are there any other potential pitfalls with different combinations, or does ACR work around this problem with some clever jiggerypokery?

    The preview image is re-rendered using the entire combination of settings every time you move a control.
    If you move one control (e.g. Exposure) and that leads to a block of pixels being "whited-out", then you move another control (e.g., Recovery) that undoes that condition, then you haven't "overexposed" anything.
    Move the controls around freely until you like what you see in the preview and histogram, then press Open or Save.  It's really as simple as that.
    -Noel

  • Adobe Bridge CS4 will not launch ACR

    I'm getting this message when trying to open an image from Bridge CS4 in ACR,
    "Camera raw requires that a qualifying product has been launched at least once to enable this feature"
    Any ideas how to cure this, I've downloaded the update 5.2.2., what is the correct location for this? Automatic update is just opening a box withe file in and I cant find the previous.
    By the way ACR opens fine from Photoshop CS4.
    Thanks
    Philip James

    Philip:
    This has been discussed in the Camera Raw Forum: you may need to install the new ACR 5.2 plug-in in the correct place manually.
    Eric Chan, "ACR 5.2 not installing in CS4" #1, 30 Nov 2008 9:17 am

  • Bridge CC and ACR unbearably slow

    Upon researching the issue of a slow Bridge CC I realize I am not alone nor is this a new problem. The thread I read extensively is almost a year old. Despite paying for CC for about 9 months I still use CS6. I had hopes that the new 2014 CC would solve the bridge performance issues.
    I am running a six-core system with 32 GB ram, an SSD for my OS and programs, an empty 1.5 TB drive dedicated to cache, on a win 7 - 64bit OS. Bridge CC and camera raw are so slow I can't use them.  My only comparison is CS6 and using the same settings for both programs.
    When opening bridge CC to the folder that was previously cached and loaded used it took ~51 seconds of "building criteria" before i could view the file types, ratings, and details in the filter box. In other words I do not see any information in the filters box for that time. I made sure that the thumbs were completely loaded into the cache before I closed Bridge CC and opened the program to the same folder. The same folder in Cs6 takes ~4 second to load..
    I have performance issues in ACR too.
    I batch edit in ACR like out lightroom counterparts do but Bridge CC Plus ACR are too slow to work with.
    I selected the same 20 raw files in each case.
    bridge CC camera raw 8.5 took 5 seconds of a watch icon  to load the files into the camera raw dialog after hitting CTRL R
    No edits or changes were made to the files.
    when i click to the next image in the list (still in camera raw) it takes  0.5-1 second of the watch icon to load the next raw photo in the batch.
    in CS6 I selected the same 20 unedited RAW files, CTRL R and they immediately load. I can switch from raw file to RAW file without any hiccup or delay. 5 seconds vs instant. I didn't build a six core system to wait for things to load.
    not exactly scientific but that's the disparity I am seeing. Bridge CC is death to me. To make sure I wasn't crazy I clicked on a recent folder with only 80 raw files, 80 respective small jpgs and a couple video files (4.5 gigs of data). It took so long I freaked out that I had moved the files to a backup location instead of copying them. After 30 seconds I stopped counting, opened windows explorer, browsed the backup folder, copied the files and was about to paste them to what should have been the original location and then Bridge decided that it was ready to work. For that ~ 60-85 seconds there was no watch icon, no spinning circle or "building criteria". It just looked as if I was browsing an empty folder.
    Any suggestions?

    c. Once you post something that's helpful I'm sure someone will give you a thanks, until then stop trolling these boards - your name was all over that thread with useless and unhelpful information
    Well mister Chuck 'know it al', you can congratulate yourself. With just 2 posts in the past year and no points for helpful answers at al you come in hard and call one of the most helpful posters a troll.
    This was the limit for both of us, we had to stand a lot, including no help from Adobe but a more crippled forum website after each major upgrade. No possibility to place FAQs, a lot of people screaming for help without taking the effort to look first for similar problems, almost never providing correct details, crucial for a mixed Mac/Windows forum.
    We had to suffer a lot, getting in unpaid and just plain users like all other guests, only it did cost us a lot of spare time.
    But now we can rest from this task because mister Chuck "know it al" has jumped in to the rescue.
    I wish you good luck and pity your friends and family, it must be a difficult task to live with such a nice person.
    Goodbye to you all!!

  • New update 8.7.1 CS6 ACR not working---(I own hard copy not a Trial or part of CC), I purged cache in bridge, and photoshop. NO photos will open when I double clik, or  will not open again in ACR alone.  When I double clik on raw file I get Sign In requir

    I purged cache in bridge, and photoshop. NO photos will open when I double clik, or  will not open again in ACR alone.  When I double clik on raw file I get Sign In required Notice--We will now register your TRIAL to your Adobe ID-------I am alread a SUBSCRIBER-------------Yes I get this same issue in Creative Cloud and same issue. error: Camera Raw editing is not enabled-----Camera Raw editing requires that a qualifying product has been launched at least once to enable this feature. These errors are happening inside both CS6 Bridge and CCphotoshop Bridge------NOTE----I am ALREADY signed into Creative Cloud and still get those message errors.........Need to fix ASAP.

    When you sign in to Adobe.com with the user ID and Password your using in the Creative Cloud and Photoshop does this link  https://www.adobe.com/account/my-products-services.html show that the account has a subscription?
    Also this is a user forum not a Adobe Customer Services web site.

  • Adobe XMP Files not deleted with Raw Files in ACR

    I am using Photoshop CS3 on a Windows XP platform. My camera raw files are mostly kept on a Windows 2003 file server, which has a gigabit connection to my workstation. However, I have the same problems when using PS CS3 on my Windows XP laptop.
    I take many hundreds of 'technical' photographs using an Olympus E1 and Canon G9 cameras. I usually bracket the exposures on the E1, specially when photographing white painted yachts, and then rate and select the images that I want in ACR 4.1.1. Unwanted images are deleted at this time.
    The problem I am having is that the associated *.xmp files are not always deleted with the camera raw files, with the result that I now have literally thousands of these 'orphaned' files cluttering up the server. The only options I have are to delete the files manually, which is a pain, or to leave them on the server, wasting unnecessary space.
    I have the same issue with Canon and Nikon raw files, so this problem is not specific to Olympus files.
    This is a long standing problem, and I would be grateful if anyone has any answers?
    If any Adobe programmers are watching, it would be handy if you could provide a simple utility to delete orphaned *.xmp files, or at least compress them into some kind of archive.
    Thanks,
    Nigel.

    [quote] As far as Photoshop and ACR go, ALL raw files are treated as read-only.
    Your original raw files remain untouched, no matter what you do to them.
    Any adjustments you make to a raw file are kept only as metadata (flags, if you will) in that XMP side-car file. Every time you want to re-open that raw image file, ACR will reach for the XMP file and apply the adjustments automatically, transparently. [/quote]
    That is not quite correct. Camera RAW files can be permanently deleted from within Adobe Camera Raw. The problem with ACR 4.1 to 4.4 4 was that the XMP files were left behind. This now seems to have been rectified in the latest version (ACR 4.5).
    Thank you Adobe!

  • ACR locking up i7 processor when using selective adjustments brush

    I hit a strange problem last night that I've not previoulsy encountered with ACR, which is normally fast and responsive on my PC.
    I'm running CS5 on an i7 860 with 8GB RAM and a Radeon 5850 graphics card on Windows 7 64-bit.
    I'd previoulsy made a pretty large mask using the adjustment brush with an 8.5MB raw file. I say large as it was intended to significantly darken the background of the photo; it covered perhaps as much as two thirds of the image (not something I'd normally need to do) and the adjustment was set to darken by around -2 stops of exposure. I'd set up the mask a couple of days ago, but went back in last night to tweak it as some of the edges were a bit too abrupt in the way they transitioned from the black background to the subject of the photo. When I first set it up, it didn't seem to cause any issues other than slower loading of the file (but I expected this as it will of course be having to make a lot of ajustments to the image preview due to my heavy adjustment brush use).
    Working on it last night, ACR slowed to an absolute crawl. Even zooming in could take say 30 seconds to move from 50% view to 100%. Likewise, panning around the image when zoomed in was exceptionally slow. I have that standard Windows gadget running on the desktop that gives an indication of memory and processor use, and I was astounded to see that it was running the processor at 100% (I could also hear the fan kicking in to overdrive)! In all my time using CS4 and CS5 on this PC, it's never got to that level before, including when carrying out activities such stitching around 40 images together in Photoshop, working with 3GB PSB files, etc. This was after all a single raw file. I perceviered and managed to complete the edit. When I closed the file down I went back to Bridge and tried to open another file, and again the PC locked up at 100% processor use. I noticed that Bridge was still trying to generate a preview for the troublesome image I'd completed, and when it finally managed to finish this things went back to normal speed - I could for example open multiple raw files into ACR without any issues.
    I wonder if anyone else has experienced this kind of issue? Perhaps the adjustment brush can really push a PC if used heavily? Maybe I need to tweak some settings somewhere? I was using the 64-bit ACR launched from PS rather than from Bridge, and the only other application running was Bridge (as I would normally work). I'd have thought an i7 with a decent amount of memory could handle a single raw file, even with extensive modifications being applied.
    Be very interested to hear what others think.
    M

    Many thanks for your reply.
    I have previoulsy spent quite some time looking at the various recommendations Adobe give for performance and I think I've got my PC set up pretty well in respect of this. Having said that, I haven't adjusted any of the Windows virtual memory settings, so I might take a look at that later on. However, I'm not convinved this is the root cause of the problem: my memory use wasn't at 100% (just the processor), and as it was just one raw file on an 8GB system, I can't see how it could max out in the way it did... But then I'm not a computer expert either...
    (Oh, you linked to the Mac performance page! Threw me for a minute there! )
    M

  • ACR doesn't retain settings

    I'm using Photoshop CS5.1 on Mac OS Leopard. I adjust TIF and JPG files in ACR. Occasionally, the adjustments will be lost after opening in Photoshop. This doesn't happen with every file and sometimes after two or three tries the settings will be saved when they were lost the first time. Is there a way to assure adjustments will always be saved? Thanks.

    Sorry about the confusion.
    I work with JPGs and TIFs, preparing images for offset printing, sourced from stock agencies and individual photographers. I seldom work with RAW files. I really like the tools offered in ARC for adjustments because they are none destructive if I have to return to the source image for additional corrections. As I've stated above, I  make the corrections in ARC, open in Photoshop to continue my image prep. Occasionally, when I return to the source file in ARC, the adjustments are gone. I make them again and open in Photoshop. Sometimes the adjustments are saved the second time and sometimes not. So, I'm not sure what the problem may be. Hence, my post here...

  • 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.

Maybe you are looking for