Samsung lenses in Camera RAW 8.7.1

After the latest update of Camera Raw 8.7.1 I still cannot see the Samsung 1650S and 50150S lenses. Due to this I cannot open my RAW files. Do I need to select some link specifically? How could I open my RAW files with Camera RAW 8.7.1 for the Samsung NX1 lenses?@

Hi Chris,
Thank you for your reply and sorry for my late answer. I can open the RAW files in Camera RAW, but then I cannot select the lens I used. In fact, I used the Samsung 1650S lens. This lens does not show in the lens profile list. I added a print screen. (It is in Dutch).
Do you know how I could add the 1650S lens? Or whom to contact to have this lens added to Camera RAW?
Regards

Similar Messages

Why are no Pentax lenses in the Adobe Camera Raw lens profiles when processing JPG files?

I normally shoot and process raw files and use the latest version of Adobe Camera Raw for processing. Some of these files are converted to jpg for use on the net or e-mailing etc. Sometimes I want to make minor changes to the now converted jpg file and often go to Adobe Camera Raw for ease and speed of use. Lately I have gone back to some files that were not thoroughly processed as raw files before conversion to jpg. When, in ACR, I go to Lens Corrections panel, Profile tab, I Enable Lens Profile Corrections and choose Setup: Auto (or Default) and get the message, "Unable to locate a matching lens profile automatically".
I then go down to Lens Profile and click on Make with the intention of choosing the Pentax lens which I used for the photo. Here is the problem - there are only six choices under make, namely Apple, Canon, Nikon, Sigma, Sony and Tamron. I have no such issues when processing a raw file in Adobe Camera Raw. Pentax lenses are automatically detected and Pentax, along with Leica, Samsung, Zeiss, etc. are choices under Make of lens.
Do other people have this problem? Is there some setting I have missed? Is Adobe just not permitting some makers' lenses, for which there are profiles, to be corrected if the files are jpgs?
BTW, I have checked and the same issues exist for tiff files opened in ACR.

Assuming I read your post correctly, and that you're trying to use Lens corrections on JPEGs and TIFFs... I believe there's a completely different set of profiles for correcting already "developed" images (such as JPEGs and TIFFs). If I recall correctly (and it's been a while since I read about this), it's the same set that's used inside Photoshop for the Filter - Lens Correction tool (I hope someone here will correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure I read this somewhere).
If your lenses are known to Camera Raw when you develop raw files, I suggest you will need to go all the way back to your Raw file and reprocess it from that stage. You'll get a better result anyway.
-Noel

Recently bought a samsung NX30 camera which came with lightroom 5, after several hours of googling i got it setup properly with the correct camera raw to be able to access my raw images. I found my old laptop was very slow when processing the hundreds of

recently bought a samsung NX30 camera which came with lightroom 5, after several hours of googling i got it setup properly with the correct camera raw to be able to access my raw images. I found my old laptop was very slow when processing the hundreds of images I usually take on a weekly basis. I bought a new faster laptop but when I looked for the cd with the software and serial I could not find it in the Xmas clutter. I downloaded a trial version of lightroom and got it working on my new laptop. Is there a way to access the serial number from my previously installed version and insert it into the trail version to make it work for me?
Myron

Mea culpa
While i registered all my cs2 thru 6 versions and my lightroom 2 thru 4 versions and recorded the serials and saved the adobe registration emails. Since this came as a freebee with the camera i neglected this vital step. I have the instslled version on my old laptop but want to install it on my new one. Thanks to Jim Hess I got the serial so all is well in my world and I will register it with ADOBE
Myron

Camera raw and Samsung NX200

When will a Camera Raw version that supports the Samsung NX200 be expected ?
greetings, Theo

Camera Raw is rev'ed 3-4 time/year. That camera isn't supported that I can tell in the ACR 6.6 RC, perhaps it'll be in the final release.

Panasonic gh4 / camera raw . no camera settings no lense settings available?

Hi eveybody,
When I open my gh4 raw files in camera raw, I cannot use the camera setiings nor choose the lens used for the shot... I isually do it with the D800 and all fonctionalities work but it seems not working for the GH4...
Any idea why?
Thanks a lot :-)
Cheers

Hi again,
In fact it's the camera profiles that do not appear - I just get the adobe standard - and none of the panasonic ones... Same for the lense profile... nothing at all.
thanks for your help

Camera Raw not able to load lense correction profiles

Hi there,
like the topic says.. I am not able to load lense correction profiles and get always the error message. I have the newest version (Creative Cloud Member) of Photoshop CC 2014 15.2.2 and my Mac OSX is up to date. With older versions (when I start from a backup it is working fine!? So what can I do?! I dont want to run PS from my backup folder.. it hast to work with the actual release as well. I did not change anything.. already tried with uninstalling and reinstalling PS. But it didn´t solve the problem.

Possibly a reset to both Bridge and Camera Raw is in order. First, close Bridge. Now hold Cmd+Opt+Shift as you restart it. A box will appear; Place a check mark on all three options and hit "ok." Now, again, Cmd+Opt+Shift as you "open in Camera Raw."
See is this helps.
Benjamin

Enable Lense profile in Camera Raw

I do not get the enable Lens Profile Corrections to work in PS CC2014.
The EF 16-35mm f / 4L IS USM on a 5D MKIII does not appear !! I have to manually go into the Camera RAW 8.6 to find it. The profile is there but it does not appear automatically as all the other lens proflies do. What is wrong?
Tanks Lasse

Yes everything is up to date.
Sendt fra min HTC
Fotograf Ørnelund AS
Lasse Lerdahl
Skigardveien 32
0681 Oslo
Tlf 90625190
www.ornelund.no<http://www.ornelund.no>

Camera Raw 8.2 in PS CS6 doesn't recognise new lens & camera profiles

I recently upgraded from PS CS5 to PS CS6 and have run the latest software updates for OSX 10.7.5 (ie PS CS6 13.05 and ACR 8.2.0.94). My old Canon 7D profiles are still available but, strangely, the camera and lens profiles I expected to see for the Canon 6D and Ricoh GR (among other late models) aren't shown in Camera Raw or PS Lens Correction Filters. Is this a known issue and/or is there a fix?
BTW - I can see some profiles were downloaded to HD:Library/Application Support/Adobe etc - were they meant to have gone someplace else?
Any help would be greatly appreciated!

The Application Support location is for Camera-Raw-Installed profiles.
The Users location is for user-downloaded or user-created lens profiles. You can download community-supplied profiles with the lens-profile-downloader available at Adobe.com.
In the past, user-downloaded and user-created profiles could all be mixed into the Application Support folder and be found, but some time back, Adobe started recognizing only their installed profiles in the Application Support area and required downloaded profiles to be in the Users area. This may be what has happened in your case.
When you asked your question, you used the term Downloaded, so I think Eric Chan thought you meant non-Adobe-installed profiles and gave the folder for user-installed profiles.
If you currently have user-installed profiles mixed in with your Adobe-installed profiles in the Application Support folder—they may have an older date/timestamp, then just move them from where you found them to the Users folder location Eric mentioned.
Another wrinkle is that raw and non-raw profiles are distinct, as well, so when you’re expecting to see lenses supported, make sure you’re looking at a raw file from the camera in question, not a JPG. Adobe rarely supplies JPG-lens profiles.

How to: DNG colors from pentax camera are completely different in camera raw compared to pentax soft

Hi all, i have a problem.
I always used adobe camera raw to manage RAW files. I find it really fast and friendly compared to many other programs (i mean lightroom, pentax digital camera utility, DxO optics pro, Silkypix, etc.). It has no rivals, on my macbook pro it is absolutely faster than others.
BUT i found a lot of differences comparing colors (not just tone, but definition inside an object with similar colors) from a DNG using camera raw vs pentax digital camera utility 4. It is a know problem by pentax people. You can check (without the camera) the problem here (see the colorcheker chart): http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxkx/page14.asp
I can post examples of what i mean speaking of "definition inside an object with similar colors"...
I always use the "embedded" camera profile in camera raw, finding it more similar to the pentax software. The adobe standard is really different.
Is there a way i can bypass this issue? using pentax digital software is really boring…it's unfriendly, SLOW, with bad light adjustments and interface.
I tried opening the DNG with pentax software and converting it to tiff: the colors are ok, but you lose a lot adjusting light etc.
thank you all

> I don't know anything, and haven't read anything, about the unique characteristics of Pentax DNG files.
firmware in cameras that can create raw files in .DNG format (Pentax, Samsung, Ricoh, Leica) will write so called DNG profile in those raw files (see Sandy's comments) - those profiles are not identical to what Adobe creates to use w/ ACR/LR, but they also can be used by Adobe raw converters (you will get a little different colors)... you can extract those profiles from native DNG raw files for example using Adobe DNG profile editor... in addition, Pentax cameras (modern) can create raw files either in their own PEF format or in DNG format and Pentax suppied software (DCU) can in fact create DNG files from PEF files and unlike Adobe DNG converter DCU will do that w/o discarding any information and it will write Pentax DNG profile in those converted DNG files.

"Upright" Content Awareness in Camera Raw 8 / Photoshop CC

One of the new features in Camera Raw 8, which will ship with Photoshop CC, is the ability for the software to "see" converging lines in your image and try to straighten things up for you, compensating for perspective issues / wide angle lenses, etc.
It offers various choices, including an "Automatic" mode that almost always makes distorted things look better without taking the corrections to extremes. It actually works pretty well. Some screen grabs to illustrate...
A photo taken with an extreme wide angle lens in a hotel.
Off: As shot, with no correction
Auto: Balanced perspective correction to make things look better without going to extremes.
Vertical: Make all converging lines absolutely vertical, even to the point where the image does not fit within the frame. Note that the Transform controls can be used to make it fit at the loss of more of the image. Also note that if it doesn't fit, the image is opened as a layer with transparency in the place where we see the checkered background in the preview, so conceivably you could use Content Aware Fill or cloning to fill it in.
Some additional examples...
As shot:
Auto:
Horizontal only:
Vertical Only:
Vertical with some added distortion to fit the frame:
Full Horizontal and Vertical:
Horizontal and Vertical, plus negative scaling so you can easily see how the image has been distorted:
I toyed with the idea of making the [A] (Auto) my Camera Raw default, and that has merit as it really does improve most photos. It will, for example, level most horizons (especially water). But in the end I chose to leave it off and just know it's there so that if I have a troublesome image I can get a quick correction by clicking one of the buttons.
I'd say this feature is pretty slick.
-Noel

You might also try this downloadable installer for the Camera Raw plug-in:
http://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/multi/camera-raw-plug-in-installer.html

Camera Raw vs. Photo Ninja

I've been hearing about a new product called Photo Ninja by the same people who make Noise Ninja, and some of the reviews by respected online personalities have actually touted it as producing superior images to Photoshop's Camera Raw.
Not being one to take others' opinions at face value without testing and looking at results with my own eyes, I requested an evaluation license to see for myself.
I'll say up front that going into the testing I figured Camera Raw would kick this contender to the curb. It's been (and still is) my opinion that Camera Raw is the best raw converter available today bar none.
Upon first trying out the package, I immediately stumbled upon a number of usability issues that would make PhotoNinja a pain to use... Things like unexpectedly slow control responses (I have one of the faster PC workstations available), some not quite intuitive controls, a UI that doesn't seem to conform to any known or typical computer standard (though I'll be the first to admit I have limited exposure to OSX)... It's not surprising someone intimately familiar with Camera Raw might have some initial troubles with the UI of another package, but I stumbled through it.
Mostly I am interested in image quality. Results - that which matters most to me.
I looked at a number of well-exposed Canon EOS-40D images I have captured, and some not so well-exposed. I looked at images that were taken with wide angle zoom lenses and needed correction of various kinds of distortion. In general, if I did something with either converter that made an image better, I attempted to equal or surpass the feat with the other converter. When I couldn't get things any better I stopped and examined the results.
Before I end up writing an even bigger novel, here are my (brief) observations on image quality so far, followed by a few screen grabs showing comparisons. Perhaps these can generate discussion...
OVERALL, Photo Ninja (PN) does a decent job - better than I expected, actually - but the devil is in the details. Photoshop Camera Raw (ACR) just makes images that consistently look better. I will say that I got to better looking results much more quickly with ACR, but I'm more familiar with it, so that may not be an important observation.
PN can't generate upsampled output (images with more pixels than the number of photosites in the camera), while ACR can. That flavors the quality - in general it means that while I started out thinking PN might be making images with more detail, it turned out that the more I tweaked each converter the more detail I was ultimately able to bring out with ACR, while PN reached a limit primarily because it couldn't pack the output pixels any tighter.
ACR is generally capable of finer adjustments. For example, PN can only rotate images in 1/2 degree increments.
Though PN does a quite decent job of de-mosaicing - visibly better than ACR's prior PV2010 process - the color and naturalness of appearance is better to my eye from Camera Raw with PV2012. Tree branches against bright sky or white buildings just look better and more natural from Camera Raw. That said, there were several cases where it appeared some lines were rendered more cleanly by PN (see the dark green trellis example below).
ACR's automatic chromatic aberration (CA) correction facilities seem more accurate overall, while PN left more colored fringes in most cases. On the other hand, ACR in some cases left slightly more colored de-Bayering artifacts.
Both tools seem capable of recovering a LOT of information from nearly overexposed parts of images, though ACR gets the nod for making the transition into overexposure look more natural.
I don't know how much profiling / tweaking capability PN has, and I do know I've tweaked my ACR some, but colors just look cleaner and more healthy to me (with a few exceptions) from ACR.
Anyway, I've made the following screen grabs to illustrate some of the above, Photo Ninja conversions are on the left, Camera Raw conversions are on the right. Note that the zoom levels are different because I opened images at upsampled resolutions in ACR (as I normally do) while PN cannot do this.
My conclusion: Though Photo Ninja produces surprisingly good conversions, it's not really serious competition for professionals who want to get the most out of their raw image data.
-Noel

Well done, Noel !
Even though ACR won out in your tests, the makers of PN should be pleased with your report and your methodology. Thanks for sharing.

More Usable Image Detail - Adobe Camera Raw Beats Canon DPP

Let me start with a question:
When you do your raw conversions, do you convert to an image that's got the same number of pixels as your camera's imager has photosites?
If so, why? I ask because I'm convinced that - with modern software - to get the most usable detail out of a raw image one should convert directly to an upsampled size. You might think that in trying to get "more megapixels from the same camera" I'm just fooling myself, but again and again when I look at the problem of maximizing the output from existing equipment (which, face it, is everyone's goal, no matter how good the equipment) I keep seeing that there is an advantage to selecting from the upsampled resolutions in Camera Raw. Of course, the computer must be up to handling the additional data.
In actual terms, my Canon 40D has 3888 x 2592 photosites (plus some guard pixels around the edges) making 10 megapixels, yet I find converting to 6144 x 4096 (25 megapixels) to be advantageous - ESPECIALLY when I use my sharpest lenses.
I happened to be doing a head to head comparison between Canon 50mm f/1.8 and Canon 50mm f/1.4 lenses, and the difference between the two appeared pretty subtle - UNTIL I converted to the aforementioned upsampled resolution, and then the more expensive f/1.4 lens clearly stepped ahead. There was simply extra detail I hadn't been seeing clearly at the native pixel size of the camera's imager, but which stood out clearly at the larger size.
This reaffirmed my previous observations that conversion directly to upsampled resolutions in Camera Raw brings out additional detail.
This screen grab shows part of the converted image, as produced by DPP and Camera Raw, both at 6144 x 4096 pixels as produced by the converters and displayed at 100% zoom. Note that the detail (e.g., in the terrain) is finer and more real looking in the Camera Raw conversion, while the DPP image seems to have more sharpening artifacts.
If you're interested in experimenting to see how much detail you can lift out of this same image, the raw file is here:
http://Noel.ProDigitalSoftware.com/temp/IMG_5400.zip
I don't have a copy of any other converters, for example Capture 1, to see how they'd do.
-Noel

Noel Carboni wrote:
Hudechrome wrote:
I hope that Noel will offer results that compare the Canon RAW in ACR with both resolutions as well.
Not sure I follow you completely... Just to be clear, can you lay out what "both resolutions" means? I'll be more than happy to go through different processes and present comparison images - I just want to be sure I understand just what you're asking for.
Oh, and you're right - some subjectivity necessarily will appear here. I might just like the "look" of one process while you prefer the "look" of another.
Lastly, one of my workflows involves sharpening images with my own fractal sharpening actions, and I am testing to see which converter process output produces the best result from that as well.
-Noel
I had to read that twice to make sure I knew what it meant!
What I am trying to say is to show the results of both converters in the native resolution and the 25M upsampled.resolution.
On another note, I have been playing around with the details of noise and sharpening in DXO and ACR, looking at 300%. It's both good and bad. If you are willing to mess with the ACR settings at 300%, then ACR has the edge, even comparing to manual tweaks in DXO. They do correctly optimize, however, except that point isn't as good as ACR. The depressing point is all the tweaking to do on an individual basis. Can you imagine tweaking 100 or more images that way? Then you get to move over to other corrections.
We are splitting tiny hairs here, and the bottom line is if you are going to make 30x40 prints from a given file, you may want to use ACR all the way and bite the bullet. If the Auto corrections for the lens employed in ACR is well done, as it seems for my Nikon 18 to 105, the workload is relaxed.
Finally, the ACR corrected image will need final sharpening at higher values than the DXO, and at that point, they come together a bit more...sharpening anomalys and all that.
The final fuss levels takes me back to my 8x10 days, where these kinds of determinations (max quality level) takes place under the focusing cloth, and deliberate selection of POV is carefully considered. Today, it's in front of the monitor. But instead of a few sheets of film to process, we have 100's to do.
I thoroughly enjoy working with the files on the computer, but not so much having to deal with less than optimum technical details right out of the camera. Barrel distortion? Hasselblad was not satisfied with the "normal" corrections in it's general optics, which were damn good, so came out with the 100mm Planar that was awesome! All they gave up was max aperture, and picked the FL at a value that provided for the best corrections. So I recall anyway.
Why should we be required to do these kinds of post corrections? Digital editing involves throwing away information, and ther appears to be enough so that correcting these deficiencies still gives a wonderful image. Just imagine what it would be like if all you need to do is to open the file and adjust values to taste, with all that information density available exclusively for that part. You don't even need to use a focusing magnifier!
Gotta run!
Lawrence

Adobe Camera Raw and Photoshop Actions

Hi guys,
I'm having troubles with Adobe Camera Raw settings and Photoshop actions. Basically, here is what I want to do :
apply settings for the general colours, exposure, tint, etc., but keep an automatic undistortion of the images thanks to the metadata of the CR2 file.
The preset I've done is working fine, and when I'm in ACR, I can apply the same preset to different photos with different lenses. Then when I'm opening them in photoshop, they look allright.
The problem seems to appear when I'm creating the action in photoshop. No matter if the lens profile is set to 'auto' in the preset, it looks like it's applying the one from the original preset. Then let's say the preset was created with a 50mm, then when I launch the action on a 85mm, the undistortion is wrong ...
If anybody has an idea how to fix the problem, that would be really helpful !
Thanks a lot,
Julien

This particular forum (sharing and storage) was created to help those transitioning from Photoshop.com to Adobe Revel. I am moving your post to the correct forum so that it can get proper attention. I understand that it is difficult to determine which forum to post in since there are so many.
I'll put I this posting in the photoshop community so the experts there can help you.
We also have many other forums relating to other Adobe products
http://forums.adobe.com/community/
http://forums.adobe.com
Out of curiosity, can you tell me how you found our forum page?

Camera Raw Update for Nikon D610???

Am new to Photoshop CS6. Just got a new camera, the Nikon D610 and now see that Camera Raw does not support the 610. What do I do? Is there an update?
Thank you.

Yes, it is more than 'a bit tricky' for D600 owners. We have two in my camera club, plus others we know about among PSNZ members. One buddy's camera has been back to Nikon so many times it can find its own way in the dark! She has had a D610 replacement for a while now.
All DSLRs accumalate sensor spots over time. My 1DsMK3 is a terror for it. I usually work carrying both the 1DsMK3 with 24-70mm f2.8L, and a 1DMK4 with 70-200mm f2.8L IS, so don't have to change lenses on the big sensor camera. But I can still recon on having to clean both cameras after a long weekend gig.
I rarely need to wet clean though, although I did when the cameras were new because of grease and oil from the mirror hinges. My secret weapon nowadays is an illuminated loupe so I can see where the dust is. Then I just fish it out with an Arctic Butterfly static brush thingie.
There was a great YouTube video for the D600 where he left it with an interval timer running, so it took a lot of shots without actually doing anything. He put the exposures together in a time lapse, and you could see the spots build before your eyes.

Camera raw 8.1 problem?

Hi, it seems i have a problem with photoshop cc when opening my canon 5d mkIII in camera raw 8.1 (using all lenses i have). Same problem in lightroom 5.
The files are good in DPP.
Can you tell me how to fix it?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/v0xtpynimm8xvef/Schermata%202013-07-12%20alle%2011.15.59.png

We would need to know a lot more details before anyone can help.
Details about your system, about exactlt what kind of files you started out with and every step you have taken to process them, what lens profiles you are using, etc.
It would be very helpful to know your level of experience with Camera Raw, whether you have really learned how to use it, or if you're just using the auto conversion and the default settings.
Your images look corrupted, obviously, and the first thing that comes to mind is that the ACR Lens Correction Defringe Purple Amount or some such setting is set way too high, or you have the wrong or corrupted lens profiles; but that's just complete speculation and a wild guess. Without details we have nothing to go on.
Please read this FAQ for advice on how to ask your questions correctly for quicker and better answers:
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/419981?tstart=0
Thanks!

Samsung lenses in Camera RAW 8.7.1

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for