Sony A300 ACR Defaults noisy and over exposed

I have a A300, ACR 5.1 and Elements 6.0 I have recently compared three raw plugins, Adobe ACR, Sony's image convertor and Silkypix free. With the Sony s/w I turned off all automatic processing. The results are a surprise.
The same raw file has much more noise when being opened in ACR and requires a great deal of exposure reduction to reduce highlights and get the highlight warning to disappear from within the plugin.
When saved as jpegs from the various covertors the ACR is noiser and all settings seem too strong. On very noisey photos (or at least photo that look noisey from within ACR) it some times isn't possible to clean up the noise. It just doesn't seem ACR is doing a propper job of opening the Sony raw files.
I do like the ACR plugin and it is much quicker than the Sony but at the moment there does a ppear to be a quality loss using it.

OK, well I just tried this on a landscape image that is basically almost all high/mid frequency:
Amount 150
Radius 0.5
Detail 0
Masking 0 (although I would mask appropriately with any image)
and then compared it to
Amount 35
Radius 0.5
Detail 100
Masking 0
Critical viewing was at 100, 200, 300 and 400% in ACR.
I am really surprised at this!  Although the sharpening is extremely close to the same amount in appearance (at 100%) the first settings with detail at 0, to my eye has a lot cleaner edges (less halowing) and definitely less artifacting in smoother areas (even w no masking).  Basically at the edges of the image there seems to be less feathering of pixels transitioning them (may interpolate up better this way?).
I will do some more testing, to see how the file then handles Sharpening for Output (with the new datail at 0 settings).  I am thinking at this point that your detail at 0 idea might be sound. Less artifacting and cleaner edges seems to mean that the file will take more aggressive sharpening after up sizing it, and then the grain simulation I use to disguise the artifacting may be able to be a little less aggressive.
Question, do you still approach the masking (ACR) the same way?
Lastly, I tried using the first settings of sharpening on an image interpolated to max size in ACR (about 20MP) and then tried the same capture sharpening settings on an image at native size (about 12MP) then interpolated up to 20MP using PS Smoother (remembering that ACR applies the sharpening after the uprez). I have found the ACR uprez to have more detail at ultra zoom levels.  But if ACR applies the capture sharpening after the ACR uprez (if my reading is right, Jeff S said that) and the other is capture sharpened at native pixel size and then uprezzed with Bicubic Smoother, aren't I just comparing apples with oranges?  Also, when taking a image from 12.9 to 19.5MP is the ACR interpolating using its algorithm that is like Smoother?

Similar Messages

  • Nokia 920 Camera - Unfocused and over-exposed phot...

    I've been so let down with the camera on this phone.  Every photo taken appears out of focus and the white balance is WAY off making skin tones bleech white.  I've compared it to my old iphone 4s and the sharpness and color correctness blows my 920 away.
    Is there any chance this can actually be fixed or will the lack of focus/sharpness continue to be an issue.  I only have two days left to return the phone if I dont like it and the main reason I bought it was for the camera and WM8.  

    You can tweak your exposure value to fix most of that problem but applying post-process sharpening is about the only way to improve the softness... unfortunately that is a bandaid. You can't really put fine detail back in to a picture after the fact. Some folks have reported better results after changing the aspect ratio to 4:3 but that claim is mostly unsubstantiated as far as I can tell.
    barareklam wrote:
    I talked yesterday with Nokia care about images being not sharp on Lumia 920, and they told me that it is the first time thay get rapport about that issue? Very strange.
    That sounds like standard support-line nonsense. The Lumia 920 camera issues are pretty well known and there have even been comments made by a Nokia rep that they are working on fixing the problem (clearly implying that Nokia is aware of the issue). The general census is that it is probably an issue with the compression/filtering the camera uses at the software level (so it should be relatively easy to fix through an update). Take a look at the fairly well lit shots in the first few articles that come up on Google... obvious issues. 
    http://www.cnet.com/8301-17918_1-57542752-85/nokia-lumia-920-camera-vs-htc-windows-phone-8x-vs-iphon...
    http://www.slashgear.com/nokia-lumia-920-pureview-camera-hands-on-vs-iphone-5-05255660/
    You can certainly cherry pick best-case scenario shots from the Lumia 920 and say those look great (and everything is dandy because of it) but its the direct comparisons (apples to apples) that tell the real story. You can clearly see in med-high light situations the Lumia 920 consistently underperforms (compared to the iPhone 5 in particular... the camera on the 8x isn't really a selling point for that phone)..
    "Nokia France’s Xavier des Horts responded to a tweet about this supposed issue, which described images taken with plenty of lighting as too smooth, or soft-looking. Des Horts only replied briefly, but did note that Nokia would work to make adjustments to the 920′s camera to address this issue."
    http://pocketnow.com/2012/11/05/nokia-lumia-920-camera-fix

  • Nikon D700 Opens .6 to 1 stop over exposed in ACR 5.2

    My D700 histogram shows the pix to be properly exposed but when I open them in ACR all images are .6 to 1 stop over exposed. While I can reduce exposure in ACR I have not had this problem in CS3 with my D100 & D200 cameras. What's the fix?

    >The histogram you see on your camera is NOT based on your raw image directly, but on the JPEG preview created by the camera's built in software and to which adjustments are automatically applied.
    What Ramón says is quite true, but you can compare the raw histogram to the camera histogram, With the Nikon D3 set to Adobe RGB and the standard Picture Control, I have found that the camera histogram and blinking highlights are slightly conservative but are generally reliable indicators of the raw histogram. Since the D3 and D700 have essentially the same image processing, I would think that this would also be true for the D700. (since inline images are not allowed in these forums, the message is hard to read since you have to click on the link to see the image. Ramón has figured out a way to have thumbnails with Pixentral, but I have not found a way to do this with my site, Smugmug)
    Bill Janes, "ETTR and ACR" #3, 12 Nov 2008 6:37 am
    One must be aware that the black and white camera histograms are luminance histograms which are strongly weighted towards the green luminance, whereas the ACR histogram is an RGB histogram and is similar to the color histograms of the camera superimposed on one another.
    Both of these histograms reflect white balance. The red and blue channels may appear blown on the camera histogram or ACR histogram when in fact these channels are far from clipping in the raw file. Some users load a UniWB into the camera to get a better approximation of the raw channels.
    Since the widest space in the camera is aRGB, the camera histogram may show saturation clipping with intact raw channels. It would be nice if Nikon would also provide ProPhotoRGB as a color space.

  • ACR Defaults and Dynamic Range

    The tone curve in ACR has a profound effect on the dynamic range of the rendered image, and often this is not appreciated by users. To demonstrate the effects of the tone curve on DR, I photographed a Stouffer step wedge with the Nikon D3 and rendered the image into a TIFF with various tone curves and determined the resulting dynamic range with Imatest.
    Here is the target rendered with the ACR defaults for this camera, which include a black point of 5 (downsampled and shown as a JPEG):
    http://bjanes.smugmug.com/photos/422699368_FRdKT-O.jpg
    Shown below is the resulting characteristic curve as determined by Imatest along with the DR and other data. The total dynamic range is only 7.64 stops. This low DR results from the default black point of 5, which rolls off the darker tones as shown on the graph.
    http://bjanes.smugmug.com/photos/422697342_tnUFo-O.png
    By setting the black to 0, the total DR is increased to 12.3 stops and the useful photographic DR according to various quality levels is shown.
    http://bjanes.smugmug.com/photos/422697338_5e8pv-O.png
    One can also use a linear tone curve by setting all the basic settings to 0 and the point curve to linear.
    http://bjanes.smugmug.com/photos/422697332_u59B5-O.png
    For convenience, the tone curves are shown together here.
    http://bjanes.smugmug.com/photos/422697328_26BFV-O.gif
    One might wonder why Adobe chose a default black value of 5 for the D3, since it severely limits dynamic range by rolling off the blacks. The probable answer is that the full DR can not be reproduced on screen or in print without using a tone curve that would give the image a flat and unattractive appearance. Note that the darker steps of the Stouffer wedge are not distinguishable on the screen but differences can be noted if one measures the values with the eyedropper in PS. The default setting of 5 rolls of shadows which would not be reproduced and enhances contrast in the remaining image.

    >Why? Real World Camera Raw is platform agnosticaside from the fact that most all of the images contained in the book happen to come from cameras Bruce and I had/have and those are Canons. To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing in Camera Raw that is camera model dependent except for the DNG Profiles and the baseline demosiacing and noise reduction which vary camera by camera. Why should I care about the Nikon D3 specifically?
    In 35 mm style dSLRs (which I would venture to say are used by the vast majority of ACR users) Nikon and Canon are the two major brands. One thing that is camera specific is the baseline exposure offset that ACR uses for these cameras. For the Nikon D3 (and other recent Nikon cameras), ACR uses a baseline exposure offset of +0.5 EV. If you don't know this and try to expose to the right as much as possible, the histogram will appear overexposed in ACR when in reality the channels are far from clipping.
    This is demonstrated in the following screen capture using ACR defaults with an Exposure value of 0. The highlights of the target appear blown.
    http://bjanes.smugmug.com/photos/423897106_wvzqw-O.png
    They also appear blown using the new beta profile, which does not take the baseline exposure offset into account.
    http://bjanes.smugmug.com/photos/423897066_xeHoi-O.png
    Looking at the raw histogram with Rawnalize, we see that the channels are not blown:
    http://bjanes.smugmug.com/photos/423898181_md3kC-O.png
    And here are the actual raw values for the red, green and blue channels (highlighted) of Step 1:
    http://bjanes.smugmug.com/photos/423901972_MguxL-O.png
    The raw headroom in each of the color channels (as shown in the raw histogram) also has something to do with the amount of highlight recovery that is possible. I would think that these considerations would be of inerest to the readers of your Camera Raw book.

  • The control panel will NOT let me activate either CONTACTS or Calendar as it just says I do not have a default profile setup, which I do have. I have checked it over and over again but it still refuses to let me use these features. I am using Office 2010

    The control panel will not let me activate either Cointacts or Calendar as it says I do not have a default profile active, which I do have. I have checked over and over again, but it will still NOT let me activate it. I am using Office 2010 on a PC running W7 and Outlook form that package. I have taken a screen image to show what it states...

    thankyou. THANK you.
    thankyouthankyouthankyou!
    sorry about no screenie but the first option worked (at least so far!)
    THANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOU

  • OC4J 1.0.2.2.1, connection pooling, and over-riding the default username and password

    We are using OC4J 1.0.2.2.1 and connection pooling with data-sources.xml
    In data-sources.xml, we have specified the default username and password.
    However, there are situations where we will want to use a different username and password and still use the connection pool. For example:
    public static Connection getConnection(String aUserNameS, String aPasswordS) {
    Connection conn;
    try {
    InitialContext ic = new InitialContext();
    DataSource ds = (DataSource) ic.lookup("jdbc/ejb/OracleDS");
    conn = ds.getConnection(aUserNameS, aPasswordS);
    } catch (Exception ex) {...}
    return conn;
    Will this work? I mean, is it possible to specify a different username and password in the JNDI lookup and have it over-ride a provided default username and password in data-sources.xml?
    Thanks,
    Ed

    This may be problem with your userid/password. Please look the $OC4J_HOME/j2ee/home/config/principals.xml whether you have a right userid password.
    I did a quick test at looking up at "jdbc/OracleDS" for two users admin and SCOTT and this works fine both in 1.0.2.2.x an 9.0.2
    I got your errors when I had wrong passwords for these users
    regards
    Debu

  • Under and over delivery tolerance are not defaulted from Info record

    Under and over delivery tolerance are not defaulted from Info record. Does purchasing value key in material master has precedence over info record.
    What are the settings I have to check.
    Thnaks and regards,
    Suranjana

    No, Info records has precedence on PO than material master
    please check your info record and than verify the PO's plant and info record plant
    you might have more than one inforecord per plant for same vendor and material.
    so please check you have right value in right info record as per the PO vendor, mateiral and plant and Purchase org

  • My airport extreme (generation 5) was set up using wifi and has worked flawlessly (on macbook pro 2 iphones and window 7 HP pc)until recently. I have reset to factory defaults over and over but still cannot get on the internet. Any suggestions?

    My airport extreme (generation 5) was set up using wifi and has worked flawlessly (on macbook pro 2 iphones and window 7 HP pc)until recently. I have reset to factory defaults over and over but still cannot get on the internet. However I can then take my DSL cord and insert it in a different Ethernet port other than the WAN port and I can get internet on my Mac and iphones but only wifi on my husband's PC.  I hate to spend another $179 if this is just something I'm doing wrong. Please help

    I'm having a bit of trouble confirming that the ZyXEL is a combination modem & wireless-N router. If it is, then you really won't get any advantages of using the 802.11g AirPort.
    If the range of your ZyXEL is limited, you may find that doing either or both of the following will help: 1) Move the ZyXEL so that it is higher vs. lower in the room, that is away from any closed areas or placed in a metal cabinet, and 2) Changing radio channels. The latter is especially important in you live in an area where there are a number of competing Wi-Fi.
    A good utility to find out, is iStumbler. You would use this to find these other Wi-Fi and find which have the strongest signal value. Those that do, you would also want to note which channel they are operating on, and then, change yours to one that is at least 3-5 channels away. So, for example, if you find strong ones on channels 1 & 6, change yours to 11.

  • Why are my book preview photos over exposed and washed out requiring a revert to original to fix

    After I create the book and preview it before purchasing a large number of the photos are severely washed out or over exposed leaving only purple and yellow colors.
    I tried purchasing the book but a few days later an email came back:
    Due to an error when your order was submitted, your image file is unreadable or unprintable.
    To fix the corrupted images I have to go through every bad photo (looking at the preview of the book to tell which are "bad") and lift adjustments, revert the photo to original and then stamp the adjustments back onto the photo.
    The photos look normal while editing the book and laying out photos.
    The generation of the preview takes up to 18 hours for 250 photos sometimes.
    I am now on my third book where this has happened.
    Thanks

    There have been a few similar problems reported, but I have not seen any easy fix so far.
    What kind of image files are you using? RAW files? Images taken with an iOS device?
    If the images have iOS adjustments, the images may need reprocessing, alos, if there has been a RAW support update the originals may need reprocessing.
    See these similar discussions:
         Re: Unable to Order Book from Aperture
    https://discussions.apple.com/message/24082431#24082431

  • Creating that blur using my brush my entire image changes too and becomes blurry. Not only that but the area I painted also becomes over exposed. What can I do am I missing something here all I want is to blur a section and not change the rest of the area

    Creating that blur using my brush. When I paint the area, which highlights in red, I bring the clarity down to create more of that blur but what ends up happening is that my entire image changes too and becomes blurry. Not only that but the area I painted also becomes over exposed. What can I do am I missing something here all I want is to blur a section and not change the rest of the area I am painted by automatically becoming over exposed. Does anyone else have this problem that can help me?

    Quote
    Do you think I should try to find a cheap mobo to OC my current CPU?  How about trying to find one (mobo) used?  I fear that my only realistic choice will be to scrap the CPU and eventually buy a new mobo and CPU, but as the CPU was only released just under two years ago I would value being over to overclock it with a cheap enough mobo to last me another year or so.
    Who knows what additional problems may be run into by switching mainboards & such. The OS would have to be reinstalled fresh, etc. Money wise, it wouldn't make a lot of sense to invest more into a system that is rather outdated. The small performance gain making the switch to another board using the CPU you have, just doesn't really make much sense, especially if what you have now is completing the tasks asked of it. Save up some money, set it aside for a future build. There are plenty of new platforms in the works.

  • My ipad screen has turned color and looks "over-exposed" - help!

    my ipad screen has turned color and looks "over-exposed" - help!

    Settings > General > Accessibility > Invert Colors Off

  • Imported Sony F55 footage into Premiere and AME is overexposed.

    I am importing a series of .mxf files into AME directly into AME in order to save JPG sequences, however, we are encountering an unexpected issue. It looks like it's not properly processing the color space for these source clips and most of the exported frames are clipping or over exposed. Using the Sony RAW Viewer outside of Premiere, the clips look just fine.
    Is there a way to tell AME to use a particular color profile,  in order to correctly process and export the clips? Since CC came out everyone says these files import "natively", but it doesn't appear to natively handle the color out-of-the-box. Since I'm using AME, vs Premiere, I assume the setting would have to accessible in the export module?
    EDIT: Dug around the RAW Viewer a bit more and it appears to be using the Cine+709 Profile in AME by default. This is purely based on observation as the image in the viewer matches the preview in AME. When I select a different option, such as LC_709 in the RAW Viewer, you get back a lot of that detail.
    So the trick now is getting AME to chance which profile / LUT it uses. I'll keep plugin away but any suggestions are appreciated.
    Thanks

    I'm having some joy with MPEG Streamclip.
    If I convert my files to AVI with the setting Apple DV then I get files that look reasonable and are not jumpy in PP. They do appear a little pixellated and I need to switch audio to uncompressed otherwise it removes the audio.
    Also there seems to be no option for Type 2. (You can select codec, and these include PAL DV, PAL DVPRO, etc. but not much else for export type)
    Is this the kind of approach you were thinking?
    Thanks,
    Rob

  • Aperture is Over Exposing All My RAW Files- H E L P

    Whenever I open an existing project I have run into Aperture taking perfectly exposed shots and suddenly after loading they are over exposed to the point they are un-viewable. Theses are images that I have had for some time and this has never happened. Even when I download to my MacBook they are imported first with all the correct detail then once fully loaded they become over exposed. As far as details, all images where shot with a Sony a700, I'm using Aperture 2.1.1 on a MacBook running OS X 10.5.5. I have notice that this only affects my RAW images and not JPG. I recently uploaded the disc for the Apple Pro Training Series Aperture 2. I need help I don't want to ruin any more images. I will not be using Aperture until this problem is resolved. I have put too much time and effort into my remaining images to see all my work go away. Anyone (or anyone at Apple) who can help, it would be greatly appreciated.
    Thanks in advance,
    Al

    There is probably the known bug introduced in DCRCU 2.2
    See http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1713679&tstart=0
    Delete the file: System/Library/CoreServices/RawCamera.bundle then (re)install the previous version.
    Get the previous version here:
    http://www.apple.com/support/downloads/digitalcamerarawcompatibilityupdate21.htm l

  • How do you stop DNG Converter from embedding Adobe's ACR default settings instead of custom settings?

    I notice that the new version of Adobe DNG Converter (8.6, and maybe earlier) appears to place Adobe's ACR defaults in the converted file.  Thus, the converted files open up in Bridge with an indication that they already have settings made, and, hence, ACR does not apply the custom camera settings.  One has to Clear Settings first in Bridge, then open in ACR.
    This behavior is new, perhaps to 8.6.  But it's presence defeats the purpose of having custom Camera Defaults.
    Is there any way to prevent DNG Converter from installing settings?

    ssprengel wrote:
    What do you mean by “custom camera settings”?  Do you mean you’ve changed the Camera Raw defaults for a particular camera and those aren’t being seen until you do a Reset?  Or do you mean some sort of Nikon-settings that Adobe never looks at?
    Also at what point in the workflow are you converting these files, just after copying them to your hard-disk and before touching them with any other Adobe software, or after they’ve been adjusted in Nikon software, or after they’ve been adjusted in Bridge/ACR, initially as NEFs?
    I mean my custom camera defaults that are set by the Save New Camera Defaults for a given camera.
    My workflow is to take my original raw files first into Adobe DNG Converter.  I then open the folder in Bridge.  At this point I notice that my original raw files remain unaltered (there is no "settings" icon in the top right corner – circle with two lines and up-arrows – in the image's thumbnail), but the converted dng's (otherwise untouched and unopened in ACR) have a "settings" icon.  When I open the original raw file in ACR, it opens using my custom camera defaults.  When I open the otherwise virgin dng in ACR, it opens using the Adobe defaults (the same defaults that would be employed if no custom camera default had been set).
    This behavior is new.  DNGs formed by earlier versions of the DNG Converter did not apply any settings to the converted file, and when they opened in Bridge, they were given the custom camera settings.
    In order to retain the old (and proper) behavior, I now have to take the just-converted documents into Bridge, select them, and immediately apply Develop Settings/Clear Settings.  That gets rid of the settings that have been installed by the DNG Converter (as well as the "settings" icon on the thumbnail).
    I notice there is a new feature in Adobe DNG Converter 8.6, namely, a panel-specific toggle between the settings and the default settings. This indicates to me the likelihood that Adobe has been making some alterations with the settings that is having unintended consequences.  It clearly is not proper for DNG Converter to be adding (installing) settings, because that prevents the custom camera default settings from being applied, and hence defeats the purpose of the custom camera default settings.

  • I keep getting a pop up stating "uninstall set" it keep coming up over and over, why?

    I keep getting a pop up stating "uninstall set" it keep coming up over and over, why?

    This issue can be caused by an extension that isn't working properly.
    Start Firefox in <u>[[Safe Mode]]</u> to check if one of the extensions is causing the problem (switch to the DEFAULT theme: Firefox (Tools) > Add-ons > Appearance/Themes).
    * Don't make any changes on the Safe mode start window.
    * https://support.mozilla.com/kb/Safe+Mode
    If it does work in Safe-mode then disable all extensions and then try to find which is causing it by enabling one at a time until the problem reappears.
    * Use "Disable all add-ons" on the [[Safe mode]] start window to disable all extensions.
    * Close and restart Firefox after each change via "File > Exit" (Mac: "Firefox > Quit"; Linux: "File > Quit")
    In Firefox 4 you can use one of these to start in <u>[[Safe mode]]</u>:
    * Help > Restart with Add-ons Disabled
    * Hold down the Shift key while double clicking the Firefox desktop shortcut (Windows)
    * https://support.mozilla.com/kb/Troubleshooting+extensions+and+themes

Maybe you are looking for