Profiles ACR 3.3 and ACR 4.4 missing?

I have Photoshop CS4 installed with ACR 5.3. I ran the camera profiles installer that accompanied the ACR plugin module in the update download. (Though the download was labeled ACR and DNG, the DNG installer was missing in action.) Presently I'm awaiting a second (replacement) 5D Mark II, but meanwhile I noticed that if I open a RAW file from the 5D in ACR, I have the ACR 3.3 and ACR 4.4 profiles listed in the Camera Profiles pop-up menu along with the 'camera' profiles, as I'm used to. But when I open a Mark II RAW file, the ACR 3.3 and 4.4 profiles aren't listed. Can anyone say why they're not accessed along with the camera profiles in the latter case?

Bishop10 wrote:
Can anyone say why they're not accessed along with the camera profiles in the latter case?
Sure...since the 5D MII was not supported in any earlier versions of Camera Raw, the first version to support it was ACR 5.3.
Since ACR 5.2, the DNG Profiles are the primary profiles for any new cameras added AFTER ACR 5.2. As a result, there will _NEVER be any earlier profiles for new cameras that ship after the release of the DNG Profile update. So, the Adobe Standard is now the primary default profile and the other vender matching profiles are also supplied.
There will never be any earlier profiles because Adobe isn't profiling cameras that way any more (which most people think is a really good thing).

Similar Messages

Changing camera profiles in LR 2 and ACR 4.6

How does one change the camera choices in the Camera Profile panel in LR 2 and ACR 4.6? The only camera specific model that shows up for me is the Nikon D2X, and I shoot a Nikon D200.

I'm not interested in profiles that don't match my camera, but I was interested in using the D200 profile since that's what I shoot with. I've never heard anywhere that the D200 and D2X render identical files. so, when I talked about choice, I merely meant that I'd like to have the choice of using the profile for my particular camera. When Adobe lists the supported camera models, they do not say that one camera profile fits several different models that have entirely different sensors. I know for a fact that the D200 and D40 do not render identical files, yet both are restricted to using the D2x file, all of which seems a bit strange to me.
I don't expect an exact match, as I know that Adobe cannot simply copy Nikon's algorithms. Since these Adobe profiles are an approximation because of that, I would think that a profile closer to my model would be available. I know that all thw Adobe software gets from the camera is the white balance, and everything else in the Adobe profiles is generated bt Adobe to try to match the Nikon profiles as close as possible without a direct copy.
There is a major difference in how the various cameras render images, just open them in any of the various incarnations of Nikon Capture, and you'll see exactly how the camera renders an image. In conclusion, it does not look like Adobe supports the D200, and in spite of their claims to the contrary, what we get is a generic profile that is supposed to fit models with entirely different sensors.
Why even list the D200 if indeed they do not allow me to use a profile that more closely resembles the one from that model?

Difference between ACR 4.1 and ACR 4.2

I have ACR 4.1 installed on Elements5 which works just fine for my Nikon D70. Does ACR 4.2 have any features beyond having more cameras available. I'm really asking if I should install 4.2 if 4.1 is OK?

In ACR 4.2 the sharpening algorithms (or was it the noise reduction algorithms?) were modified. Clarity was added to the check box list for creating presets. And additional cameras were added to the supported list. There may have been other minor changes that are undocumented. Generally speaking, it is usually a good idea to update ACR as long as it is supported by the software you are using.

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

Color Profile and ACR 4.6 (Vista)

Hi,
My monitor is calibrated with Spyder3. I have set up my Photoshop CS3 so that the color management policies are disabled and the proof conditions are set up to the .icc profile produces by the calibrator. With these settings the files that I save in Photoshop look similar in Photoshop, Microsoft Office Picture Manager, IE and on paper.
But if I decide to open a RAW file, then it is opened in ACR and looks very different: all colors are over-saturated and totally unnatural. Nevertheless, clicking on "Save Image" without changing anything produces a jpeg, which, if opened in Photoshop, looks fine.
I played with this jpeg in Photoshop and was able to reproduce those unnatural colors of ACR in the following way:
- Go to Save For Web&Devices
- Open the Preview Menu
- Chose Windows Color
Normally I have Uncompensated Color chosen there and then it looks normal.
Here are the examples. First, how the file looks in ACR ad then in PS:
Does anybody know why this might happen?
Thank you very much,
Vera

vemina39 wrote:
Thank you Ramon,
Could you please elaborate? I have looked through the page you gave me a link to. I did not see much new there.
The problem I have is with proofing. If I switch to sRGB I have consistent colors through all my applications but they look very washed out and way too cold. If I then make my picture look "natural" (whatever that means) on my screen, it looks too saturated and too warm on most of other screens I tried. (And on paper too.)
Proofing under my .icc does not give that problem, but it has the other: ACR and Photoshop proof differently. So I cannot use ACR for conversion and have to use the Canon's software, which (I suppose) uses the monitor profile for proofing.
Are you OYing about the fact that I do not convert the profile of my pictures before sending them to the printer?
Vera
Vera,
If G. Ballard's excellent, clearly written pages did not help you, you can bet I won't be able to either.
No, I was saying OY! about your entire post!
Good grief! you're turning off Color Management in Photoshop (or you think you are, but you're not "turning it off", you're just messing it up) and you're massively misusing your monitor profile.
Honestly I don't have the time, strength or inclination to explain it to you step-by-step.
CAUTION: NEVER, ever set your working space to be your monitor profile!
In very broad strokes:
Calibrate and profile your monitor, use the resulting profile ONLY in your OS and nowhere else, not anywhere in Photoshop. Set your working profile to a device-independent profile such as ProPhoto RGB, Adobe RGB or sRGB, embed the same device-independent profile such as ProPhoto RGB, Adobe RGB or sRGB, in your file (that is called "tagging your file"), work with your file and save it.
• Then, for the web, Convert a copy the file to sRGB if it's not already tagged as sRGB, then soft proof (Proof) the file with the sRGB profile to see how other people who happen to have a calibrated monitor (less than 2% of all web viewers) will see it in a color managed application.
For heaven's sake DO NOT soft-proof with your gosh-darned monitor profile!!! You're just fooling yourself that way. No one else in the entire world will see the image the same way except by sheer serendipity.
—What kind of printer are you using? Are you talking about your own inkjet printer or a commercial printing press?
• If your own printer, then your file should be created in an Adobe RGB working color space (you can move up to an even wider space once you know what you are doing), tag your file with the embedded Adobe RGB profile, and then use your TARGET (paper) profile to soft-proof your image. The Target Profile, also called paper profile, MUST be specific to a particular combination of paper/ink/printer.
• If a commercial press, ask them to provide their own profiles for their print presses or devices so you can use it for soft proofing.
In both of these last two cases, use the paper target profile for soft proofing. NEVER your gosh-darned monitor profile!
Again: If G. Ballard's excellent, clearly written pages did not help you, you can bet I won't be able to either. I'm done here.

Right steps to use DNG Profile Editor and ACR

What is the right sequence of steps to do to use properly DNG PE and ACR ?
Must be converted the RAW in DNG directly, without open the RAW in ACR ?
Must be opened the RAW file in ACR, reset the ACR values to zero and then convert the RAW in DNG format ?
Must be converted the RAW file in DNG and then reset the ACR values before apply the camera recipe created ?
thanks in advance,
federico

thank you Massimo,
the procedure is clear now.
"What is the nearest original Adobe profile that is so "equal" to the GM one you obtain?"
what i want to say is that when i open the file raw in ACR i see some colors. when i apply the profile generated by PE, i see about the sames colors. i notice that the colors are about the same without the profile (little differences i see in the darken tones but only in the ACR graphic). this with my D700. with the D200 the differences before to apply the profile and after are strong, visible.
Grazie Massimo,
credo sia tutto chiaro adesso anche se mi lascia perplesso il risultato finale.
"What is the nearest original Adobe profile that is so "equal" to the GM one you obtain?"
quello che volevo dire è che con o senza profilo, praticamente l'immagine con la D700 varia di pochissimo (me ne accorgo solo leggendo il grafico in ACR). con la D200 invece, applicare un profilo ha un impatto molto evidente, le differenze sono marcate.
grazie
ps: your english is right. it is mine that does not work so well.

ACR 8.3 and D600 .nef Files

I'm using a Nikon D600, shooting with a flaat picture profile to create both RAW and JPG files.
I'm using: Adobe Bridge CC ver: 6.0.1. 6 x64 / Lightroom 5.3 / ACR 8.3 (I'm a CC user and I have all the current software available.)
I have alot of experience with the workflow of Adobe Bridge->ACR->Photoshop using Photoshop CS3 extended version. I'm not sure what the Adobe Bridge Version would've been, nor ACR.
Today, when I look at my .nef files in Adobe Bridge, they are heavily contrasted images. The .jpgs look flat, just like the profile I chose, but the .nef's look like a preset is being applied to them.
I've read the forums topics about .nef files and Camera Profiles, but I've never had to change any preset when I used Bridge->ACR->Photoshop in the past. However, I did go into Adobe Bridge->ACR->Camera Calibration and changed the CAMERA PROFILE to "Camera Neutral" and left the PROCESS as "2012(current)." The "Camera Nuetural" DID help alot. But is that all that is available- or am I missing something?
I thought there was (maybe) a problem with Adobe Bridge, since the images looked like the preset was applied even before I ever tried to open any of the .nef images. So I went into Lr and when I imported the images, they looked like I would expect them to- until I clicked on them. Then I could see the preset being applied. So, I went into Lr->Develop->Camera Calibration and the same 2 settings as mention above where there. So I left the PROCESS as "2012(current), and changed the PROFILE to "Camera Neutral". It helped alot, but is that all that I can do?
Is that all I can do? It seems like too much is being changed on the .nef files without me ever touching them.
Thanks for your help,
Cathey

Thank you Jim. I appreciate your help. I have seen the different profiles that can be applied and the Camera Neutral makes a huge difference in the .nef image (bringing it back to more of a flat image, which is what I wanted).
I have the same issue in Adobe Bridge, and I can select the Camera Neutral from there as well and it makes about the same difference as in Lr.
I've pulled up some older images that I shot with my D200 (I can't tell you what picture profile I shot with). It confirms what I remember from working with .nef files before I got my D600 and started using the CC versions of Lr & Br which is: The .nef files are, well... 'raw', while the .jpgs look 'refined'.
In my case (now) its the complete opposite. My jpegs look 'raw' and my .nef's are punchy, contrasty, bright....
I can't help but wonder why my .nefs are so changed when they're supposed to be raw files. Even when I apply the profile in Lr, or in ACR of "camera neutral" it still does not get me back to what (I believe) the raw image should look like. Why would a .nef look better than the .jpg when I haven't yet applied ANY setting to it. And, if it's the profile in ACR or Lr that is causing this to happen, then why doesn't the .nef image look at least as flat as the .jpg when I change it to 'camera neutral'?
You said that Lr generates its own preview of the raw image data. I guess I don't understand why, then, when I change the image in Lr to Camera Neutral, how come I still have a .nef that is considerably brighter, more contrasty than the original .jpg?

Noise, Sharpening and ACR

I have recently switched from processing my raw files from Aperture to Adobe Camera Raw 4.4.1. I shoot landscapes with the Canon 1Ds Mark III, low ISO, and wish to make very large prints (30-50"). After reading "Real World Camera Raw with CS3" it seems like the authors say that capture sharpening can be accomplished in ACR instead of what I was doing right after Aperture (with sharpening off)- that is, using Ninja Noise and then capture sharpen with Photokit Sharpener. But if I now capture sharpen in ACR I won't be able to use Ninja Noise since one should not sharpen noise. Right? So does this mean that if I capture sharpen in ACR that I should also use ACR's Noise Reduction? Or should I turn off ACR's Sharpening and Noise Reduction and do as I did before - use Ninja and PhotoKit sharpening after raw processing? (I hope this makes sense - I'm still learning the basics). Also any rough settings for what I'm doing would be very helpful. Thanks in advance.

>Not at all. There's ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with that workflow. I would recommend it myself.
>[EDIT] except I prefer Noise Ninja most of the time, and Noiseware in a few cases.
I've discussed this matter with Gordon on another thread, but a few points are worth repeating here. On page 157 of his Image Sharpening with Adobe Photoshop PSCS2, Bruce Fraser states, "Always do noise reduction before sharpening. If you sharpen, you'll almost certainly make the noise worse; the noise reduction tool will have to work harder, and will probably wipe out the sharpening you did anyway."
Most noise reduction tools do not eliminate noise but merely make it less visible. When you sharpen after noise reduction, some or much of the noise may reappear. If you do the sharpening first, this problem is eliminated, but the effect of your sharpening may also be wiped out.
Sharpening and noise reduction are basically inverse processes and work against another. Some of these problems may be eased with the use of masks. You can use a surface mask during noise reduction to help confine the NR to smooth areas where the noise is most noticeable and keep the NR away from the edges where sharpness would suffer. Similarly, you can use an edge mask during sharpening to help confine the sharpening to the edges.
That said, Noise Ninja can work reasonably well on JPEG images that have been sharpened in camera as they often are. In this case, one has to use a different noise profile for the best results.
Bill

Corrupt shadows in LR 2.2 and ACR

Hi there!
I have an issue with both LR 2.2 and ACR for Windows XP.
I calibrate my monitor with Colovision Spyder (first version) which then creates an ICC profile and a LUT for the graphics adapter. I calibrate for gamma 2.2 and color temperature 6500K.
With the monitor profile loaded in the windows monitor preferences I get both in LR 2.2 and ACR (CS3 and CS4) horribly looking shadows, like they are over lightened, with plenty of noise showing even at low iso settings. With the same settings, Nikon View NX shows the photos with good shadows rendition (it darkens them). I get the same issue even if I export the file as JPG from LR 2.2 and open it in PS CS4. But not if I export from Nikon View NX and open in CS4!
The problem appears to disappear if I remove the profile from windows monitor preferences (so that I loads a default sRGB profile instead).
Now this to me does not seem a very good long-term solution, but just a work-around, since I am not exploiting the ICC profile I created for my monitor.
I worked with this settings before with no problems, before upgrading to LR 2.2 (i tried unistalling and cleaning, but to no avail) and recalibrating.
Does anyone have similar problems?
Has anyone idea to permanently solve this issue?

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
wrote:
> Of course, my display is not using your display profile either and Picasa
> strips all metadata from your files, so also icc profiles if they were
> attached. My guess is that your monitor profile is bad. You might want to try
> recalibrating or borrowing/getting another calibrator.
This could very likely be the cause... to wit:
I recently had my Mac laptop's HD replaced. When I got it back from
service and went on to browsing images LR, I noticed very strong
posterisation in the dark areas of images, that looked fine before.
Turned out while the techie managed to migrate all of the data from the
old HD just fine, somehow the calibration was lost in the process.
After re-calibrating the display all was back to normal.
Cheers Martin

LR 2.5 and ACR 5.5

I am not understanding things after searching thru the threads.
I have LR 2.5. When i look in the Develop module under Camera Calibration I see ACR 4.6. I had downloaded and installed ACR 5.5. Is it correct that i should see ACR 4.6?

What you're looking at is not the version of ACR, but a camera profile called ACR 4.6. Adobe used to call their profiles after the ACR release in which they were introduced. This is no longer true, so this is an older camera profile. You actually have ACR 5.5 as part of LR 2.5.
See this post for a further explanation of this.
Beat Gossweiler
Switzerland

ACR 5.3 RC - ACR 4.4 Camera Profile Appears Twice

Just installed the 5.3 DNG converter and Camera Raw RC/beta onto a WinXP SP3 system.
The ACR 4.4 profile appears twice in the ACR 5.3 Camera Profile drop down box for a Canon 30D DNG file.
Anyone else?

SCraig, this is likely because the original "ACR 4.4" profile got embedded into the DNG when you created it originally. So now you are seeing two copies of ACR 4.4 in the menu: the one that is embedded in the DNG, and the one that comes with Camera Raw. They should be the same functionally, however -- i.e., if you flip between them there should be no change in rendering. Let me know if that's not the case.

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.

Need help with Olympus E-M1 and ACR 8.3 Results

Hi:
1. I'm fairly familiar with photoshop and ACR, but definitely not an expert.   I'm also very familiar with the Olympus RAW files since the E-5 (I've owned the E-5, E-M5 and several Pens); I now recently purchased the E-M1 and I've been having problems getting decent images out of the RAW files (compared to the prior Olympus RAW files).
2. Problem: it just "feels" that the overall tone curve is more abrupt, especially in the highlights.    With the prior Olympus RAW files, the transition from moving the exposure slider to the right and then getting blown out highlights was more gradual;   there just seems to be an overt decrease in "headroom" when dealing with highlights in the E-M1 RAW files.   I know this makes no sense in that the dynamic range is supposed to be greater with this camera compared to the prior ones.
3. Problem: In relation to the above issue, it also seems that the highlight slider is not as specific as it used to be in that when I move it to the left, more of the histogram seems to be affected as opposed to the bright / highlight region.   It now seems to basically counteract any adjustments made to the exposure.   Again, this may be my imagination but it just feels this way.
4. Problem: In relation to the above issue, the other strange observation I've had is that although the histogram of the image shows no clipping, the image may have very bright areas with almost imperceptible detail;   when I click on it and view that data point within curves, it shows it to be well below 255.    In my lame flower shot example (it's not a good example but I couldn't find anything else right now), I would have guessed that in the brighest petal area, that it would be something like 250, but it's only 220.   But when I zoom in, there's really no texure or detail or data.
5. The above issue in re: highlight rendering and control may or may not be related but it's the first time, I've been having issues and I've never had such problems with either ACR or prior Olympus cameras and thus I'm wondering if this is some issue with how ACR interprets the E-M1 file. I did do some comparison with Capture One 7 and that does a definitely better job of highlight recovery in that it seems to more preferentially target just the highlights and definitely does a better job with color rendition.   I have Olympus Viewer 3, but it's so slow and lame, that I haven't done much testing with it.   Any thoughts and advice much much appreciated.

Also, you might want to upload your raw file, a full-size JPG of what you posted, above, and an example from C1 to www.dropbox.com and post a public link, here, for others to experiment with.

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.

Problem with JPGs Downlaoded with Nikon Transfer - Can't Apply Develop Settings in Bridge CS4 and ACR 5.3 Settings Don't Stick

I have found what I believe is a "problem" with JPGs downloaded using Nikon Transfer (ver 1.4.1) and processing same in Adobe Bridge CS4 (Develop Settings) and/or Adobe Camera Raw 5.3 (Photoshop CS4 and Elements 6 as hosts).
Anyone using these programs in their workflow?
The problem, quite simply, is that neither ACR settings (nor Bridge CS4 Develop Settings) "stick" when applied to JPGs that have been downloaded via Nikon Transfer ver 1.4.1.
The same images from the same cameras (D300 and D90), downloaded moments later using Nikon's predecessor software PictureProject work just fine in both Bridge and ACR. Develop Settings appled in Bridge immediately are seen, and JPGs opened in ACR, and settings applied, then "Done" immediately stick and are reflected in Bridge.
If someone else is processing their JPGs in this manner, please let me know, as I have reported the problem to both Nikon and Adobe, and although I have tested it on two different cameras and two differnt laptops, I would like to get an impartial result as well.
One other test, the problem does not seem to affect Nikon's RAW (NEF) format files downloaded from a D2x using Nikon Transfer. More/different test are forthcoming.
Thanks
jeff

ALoverofNikon wrote:
I have generally thought that using the camera manufacturer's software was the safest and most conveneint
Can't say one way or another on that statement about using manufacturers' software. Since Adobe has to interpret each camera models' RAW format having the latest ACR seems to be the best option. But if the manufacturers' software is more convenient, and you get the same results then use it. But it does appear you are not getting what you want, so suggest you try a duplicate test run with images straight from the card reader to Bridge and see if you still have same problems.
I do know it is widely recommended that using a quality card reader gives you more reliable data than getting the pictures straight from the camera. Does not seem intuitive, but that has been experience of many.

Profiles ACR 3.3 and ACR 4.4 missing?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for