 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / October 2006RAW Conversion: Adobe Capture Raw vs. Canon Digital Photo Pro
Folks, I have done alot of RAW conversions (20D) with ACR. I like ACR's interface and the chromatic abberation correction. However, I seem to keep coming across situations where ACR does not do a good a job as Canon's RAW conversion (whether in camera to jpeg or via DPP). I have seen the following issues: - sudden light to dark tranasitions (e.g. a lampost against a bright sky). ACR seems to generate color artifacts whereas Canon's conversion significantly less so. - very dark areas of the image. Canon's conversion seems to generate smoother more 'photographic' or desireable results whereas ACR tends to look noisy and/or posterized. I have noticed that sometimes the way ACR converts, it creates a spike at '0' in the Blue channel histogram. DPP with the same image does not (even with a whole lot of tweaking, ACR still does this). I wonder if this is why shadows appear noisier? - color rendition. Canon seems to give a more neutral natural looking result, whereas I have seen some casts when using ACR. I typically set my WB to Sunlight when working outdoors, and the results seem to be more what one would expect with Canon's conversion, even when I use the 'as shot' setting in ACR - I have also occasionally noticed less detail with ACR but this is hard to quantify (e.g. I had one image where a building reflected in the glass of another building, and there was noticeably less detail in the ACR image in this reflected area. Sharpening was off, but even with the sharpening turned way up in ACR, the detail was still less than the DPP conversion. Yet, other parts of the image did not exhibit less detail...a strange one). I really want to use ACR for the chromatic abberation and workflow. But based on my experience, I now am using DPP. Also, it would seem not even to make sense for me to consider lightroom if it is built on the same RAW conversion engine as ACR. Has anyone else seen these or other issues with Adobe Camera RAW? Thanks W > - very dark areas of the image. Canon's conversion seems to generate > smoother more 'photographic' or desireable results whereas ACR tends to > look noisy and/or posterized. I have noticed that sometimes the way ACR > converts, it creates a spike at '0' in the Blue channel histogram. DPP > with the same image does not (even with a whole lot of tweaking, ACR > still does this). I wonder if this is why shadows appear noisier? Yes, clipping of shadows will create a noisy appearance. However, the shadows may very well not really be clipped; what color space are you converting to in ACR? A *LOT* of images will clip shadows going into sRGB, but not with a wider space like Adobe RGB or ProPhoto RGB. You may be able to squeeze the range into sRGB with adjustment, though the quality will suffer for it. > - color rendition. Canon seems to give a more neutral natural looking > result, whereas I have seen some casts when using ACR. I typically set > my WB to Sunlight when working outdoors, and the results seem to be > more what one would expect with Canon's conversion, even when I use the > 'as shot' setting in ACR Canon's conversion has the advantage of knowing what 'as shot' means. ACR can only approximate. More adjustment will often be necessary as a result of the simple fact that it's a third-party conversion versus one designed to match the camera exactly. > I really want to use ACR for the chromatic abberation and workflow. But > based on my experience, I now am using DPP. You could also use both, choosing whichever one you feel will best suit a given image.  SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com Thanks for the response. I used Adobe1998 color space for both converters. Even when I used 'exposure' and/or 'brightness' in ACR making the image appear significantly lighter than the DPP conversion, there was still a spike at '0' in the blue channel histogram on the ACR converted image whereas the DPP converted image did not display such a spike(and by the way, I am talking about the histogram as displayed in photoshop on the converted image in both cases). That's why I suspect something is 'not right' with the ACR conversion. I guess I will use DPP as my default converter and ACR only when I feel a DPP result is lacking in some regard. > > - very dark areas of the image. Canon's conversion seems to generate > > smoother more 'photographic' or desireable results whereas ACR tends to [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > You could also use both, choosing whichever one you feel will best suit > a given image. > Thanks for the response. I used Adobe1998 color space for both > converters. Even when I used 'exposure' and/or 'brightness' in ACR > making the image appear significantly lighter than the DPP conversion, > there was still a spike at '0' in the blue channel histogram on the ACR > converted image whereas the DPP converted image did not display such a > spike What do you have the "shadows" slider set for in ACR, when you get blue channel clipping? Do you get it even when you set it to 0? SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com yes even with the shadows slider set to 0 > > Thanks for the response. I used Adobe1998 color space for both > > converters. Even when I used 'exposure' and/or 'brightness' in ACR [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > What do you have the "shadows" slider set for in ACR, when you get blue > channel clipping? Do you get it even when you set it to 0? > yes even with the shadows slider set to 0 It sounds like you may just have images that are better suited to the Canon software, since it doesn't produce that problem on output. Sorry I couldn't be of more help... SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com yeah, but I question why an image should be 'better suited' to a particular RAW converter. If I had to guess, I would guess that there are subtleties particular to the 20D sensor that maybe only Canon knows about. ACR must work for a whole boatload of different cameras. Perhaps whatever public data that Adobe gets from the various vendors does not completely describe how the sensor captures the image. Perhaps the transmissive characteristics of the red green and blue filters in the Bayer array vary among manufacturers and are not completely described in the public data. Or maybe they are but it is asking too much of ACR to accomodate such sublteties for all sensors. I really don't know, but I do know that I have seen deficiencies in some ACR conversions...enough to (at least for now) switch me over to DPP as my default converter. I did find a post in some other photo site newsgroup with similar 'complaints' about ACR vs. DPP. So at least I know I am not completely nuts! It is an interesting topic, but it takes away from photography time :(. > > yes even with the shadows slider set to 0 > > It sounds like you may just have images that are better suited to the Canon > software, since it doesn't produce that problem on output. Sorry I couldn't > be of more help... I just did a quick check of Lightroom Beta 4....it seems to do the same thing as ACR :( > yeah, but I question why an image should be 'better suited' to a > particular RAW converter. If I had to guess, I would guess that there [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > software, since it doesn't produce that problem on output. Sorry I couldn't > > be of more help... I just did a quick check of Lightroom Beta 4....it seems to do the same thing as ACR :( > yeah, but I question why an image should be 'better suited' to a > particular RAW converter. If I had to guess, I would guess that there [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > software, since it doesn't produce that problem on output. Sorry I couldn't > > be of more help... >I just did a quick check of Lightroom Beta 4....it seems to do the same > thing as ACR :( from i saw it does quite a bit more than ACR... >> yeah, but I question why an image should be 'better suited' to a >> particular RAW converter. If I had to guess, I would guess that there [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> > couldn't >> > be of more help... Yes, featurewise it does alot more. I was referring to the fundamental RAW conversion issues I mentioned in an earlier post on this thread. > >I just did a quick check of Lightroom Beta 4....it seems to do the same > > thing as ACR :( [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >> > couldn't > >> > be of more help... > Yes, featurewise it does alot more. I was referring to the fundamental > RAW conversion issues I mentioned in an earlier post on this thread. that's similar, yes. In fact, maybe is lightroom for normal user even too rich with features which will rarely be used... >> >I just did a quick check of Lightroom Beta 4....it seems to do the same >> > thing as ACR :( [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >> >> > couldn't >> >> > be of more help... >> - very dark areas of the image. Canon's conversion seems to generate >> smoother more 'photographic' or desireable results whereas ACR tends to [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > You could also use both, choosing whichever one you feel will best suit > a given image. one question from my side...i've read that these express photo labs which (at least here) widely use Fuji 350....photo lab - by default use sRGB color space, so if sending to develop pics, saved in other spaces, as Adobe or ProPhoto may result in different colors in final developed picture...they also can't read embedded color space (if it is embedded in jpg, that is).. so, let's say i convert in ACR and use ProPhoto...then i get jpg in that color space. What next? When final work on them is done, convert to sRGB? Typically it makes sense to give a photo-lab files in sRGB space unless they state otherwise. So before saving your jpg, convert to sRGB for files destined for such labs. > >> - very dark areas of the image. Canon's conversion seems to generate > >> smoother more 'photographic' or desireable results whereas ACR tends to [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > so, let's say i convert in ACR and use ProPhoto...then i get jpg in that > color space. What next? When final work on them is done, convert to sRGB? > Typically it makes sense to give a photo-lab files in sRGB space unless > they state otherwise. So before saving your jpg, convert to sRGB for > files destined for such labs. i wonder...never tried yet...is it possible to convert jpg images? I mean, if i'd set to sRGB in ACR, what's the point of ProPhoto then... I guess i should convert to jpg in ProPhoto mode, and then convert jpg's i want send to lab into sRGB...? >> >> - very dark areas of the image. Canon's conversion seems to generate >> >> smoother more 'photographic' or desireable results whereas ACR tends [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] >> so, let's say i convert in ACR and use ProPhoto...then i get jpg in that >> color space. What next? When final work on them is done, convert to sRGB? On Oct 19, 12:00 pm, "Protoncek \(ex. SleeperMan\)" <protoHAHAHn...@bonbon.net> wrote: > > Typically it makes sense to give a photo-lab files in sRGB space unless > > they state otherwise. So before saving your jpg, convert to sRGB for [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > >> >> But > >> >> based on my experience, I now am using DPP. You can convert Adobe RGB to sRGB in Photoshop, but you won't get any more colors going the other way. So it makes sense to use Adobe RGB (or ProPhoto) and convert later to sRGB. Some printers do use Adobe RGB like a Chromira or Lightjet, so alway ask your printer. I did have some vacation 4x6s made at CVS recently, they said they had an sRGB printer, so I converted my files, everything looked flat, sent some back in Adobe RGB ancd these came out looking like my files, pays to experiment. Tom > one question from my side...i've read that these express photo labs which > (at least here) widely use Fuji 350....photo lab - by default use sRGB color [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > so, let's say i convert in ACR and use ProPhoto...then i get jpg in that > color space. What next? When final work on them is done, convert to sRGB? My recommendation for "what next" is to avoid those labs like the plague on photography they are. sRGB butchers images. Almost all print processes are capable of gamuts exceeding sRGB, especially photographic printing processes. Use a lab that (preferably) supports color managed workflow, or (at least) doesn't require sRGB input. In addition to the smaller gamut, there is an issue with doing the conversion in working space -- if you convert from a wider-gamut working space into sRGB, out-of-gamut colors are simply clipped. You can't use "perceptual" rendering here, because there is no such thing as a perceptual conversion to sRGB (Photoshop will let you choose it, but it will do a relative colorimetric conversion anyway). If, however, the lab itself does a conversion from your working space into its output space, the conversion can be perceptual, and out-of-gamut colors can be scaled back rather than clipped, resulting in better output quality. So, avoid sRGB and the labs that require it. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com I have similar experience. I experiemented with RAW+JPG using PS CS2, ACDSee Pro 8, and Canon's Zoombrowser 5.6c. Photos converted from Raw to Jpg by Zoombrowser is more vivid and smooth while PS CS2 and ACDSee produce flat and darker pictures. Zoombrowser produced Jpg is very close to the camera's JPG output. > Folks, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Canon's RAW conversion (whether in camera to jpeg or via DPP). I have > seen the following issues: Yes it is unfortunate that ACR has this problem. It kind of eliminates the usability of Lightroom since it seems to exhibit the same 'noisy shadow' problem. All the features in the world don't help when there is such a fundamental shortcoming in the RAW converter :( > I have similar experience. I experiemented with RAW+JPG using PS CS2, > ACDSee Pro 8, and Canon's Zoombrowser 5.6c. Photos converted from Raw [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Canon's RAW conversion (whether in camera to jpeg or via DPP). I have > > seen the following issues: The sad thing for me is I have been using ACR for the last couple years for converting my 300D raw photos. At first, I thought it is my camera that produce darker photos as I have read many threads indicating 300D are deliberately set to use lower exposure. Adjusting higher exposure in ACR will make the photo look flat. When I upgraded to 20D, the exposure improved but still photos showing in ACR is not as vivid as my friend's Nikon D200. He suggested to me to try using Canon's own solftware to display the RAW because he has similar experience that Nikon's own software shows NEF photos much better than ACR. Now I have to go back and re-convert my last 2 years of RAW. Fortunately, I didn't delete those RAWs. I am really pissed with ACR!!! > Yes it is unfortunate that ACR has this problem. It kind of eliminates > the usability of Lightroom since it seems to exhibit the same 'noisy > shadow' problem. All the features in the world don't help when there is > such a fundamental shortcoming in the RAW converter :( > The sad thing for me is I have been using ACR for the last couple years > for converting my 300D raw photos. At first, I thought it is my camera [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > to go back and re-convert my last 2 years of RAW. Fortunately, I > didn't delete those RAWs. I am really pissed with ACR!!! Whatever color and contrast you can get from the Nikon or Canon software, you can get with ACR. What ACR doesn't do is try to match the camera's own output, or to give you what you want with no adjustment. If you want to make it merely a "conversion" (as opposed to processing), or you're thinking in terms of how one or the other program "shows" the picture, then no, you absolutely should not be using ACR. (The actual demosaicing process, and things like shadow noise, are real differences from one to another, though, and are a separate matter.) SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com My greatest concern is with shadow noise. It is almost like a dirty little ACR secret. I don't know if it is Canon (or for that matter 20D) specific or not. This can be a near show stopper for me (wrt using ACR). In terms of the overall look, while you can certainly do alot of tweaking in ACR to get nice looking photos, my experience has been that DPP gets you there more quickly and easily....I'll admit that that may be just personal preference. > > The sad thing for me is I have been using ACR for the last couple years > > for converting my 300D raw photos. At first, I thought it is my camera [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > (The actual demosaicing process, and things like shadow noise, are real > differences from one to another, though, and are a separate matter.) You are right that I just wanted a conversion, not processing. What puzzles me is using Zoombrowser with camera default settings, I got a great JPG output. This is not true with Photoshop ACR. When I simply increase exposure in Zoombrowser Raw image, I still get good contracts and vivid colors; however, when I simply increase exposure in ACR in Raw image, I got a washed out JPG, visible noise in dark area. Giving that Zoombrowser is free while Photoshop is costly, I expect more from Adobe, not less. I admit that I am no Photoshop expert. I am sure you can spend time and tweak the settings to get great output. For me, why bother if Zoombrowser is already done a great job. I would rather spend my time to shoot more interesting photos. > Whatever color and contrast you can get from the Nikon or Canon software, > you can get with ACR. What ACR doesn't do is try to match the camera's [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > (The actual demosaicing process, and things like shadow noise, are real > differences from one to another, though, and are a separate matter.) > You are right that I just wanted a conversion, not processing. What > puzzles me is using Zoombrowser with camera default settings, I got a > great JPG output. This is not true with Photoshop ACR. Like you said, you wanted conversion, not processing. ACR makes no attempt to do what you want. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> You are right that I just wanted a conversion, not processing. What >> puzzles me is using Zoombrowser with camera default settings, I got a >> great JPG output. This is not true with Photoshop ACR. > >Like you said, you wanted conversion, not processing. ACR makes no attempt >to do what you want. There is no such thing as "conversion, not processing" of a RAW format to something like JPG. No matter how you want to look at it, RAW format is sensor data, not an image. It *has* to be processed to get an image. The problem is that you want a *default* configuration for that processing which closely matches your perception of what the final result should be. That is not entirely unreasonable... and camera manufacturers recognize it as such and provide software intended to approximate that goal for most people. The third party providers often do not make any attempt at a default which might be an acceptable configuration for most people. I'm not sure what they aim at, or why. But since the whole purpose of such software is to provide more or better options for the process, it certainly does not hinder the users they are targeting. It might actually help them by forcing users to learn how to change the configuration (hint hint). SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > There is no such thing as "conversion, not processing" of a RAW > format to something like JPG. I didn't say he was *doing* a plain conversion; I said that's what he *wanted*. Like it or not, many people look at it as a simple file format conversion, like going from TIFF to JPEG. They want to click "go" and get their picture out the other end. The most common question about ACR is some variation on "why doesn't it look like it's supposed to by default?" What these people want is what the vendor software gives them -- a default conversion that looks just like the one the camera would have produced (because it's the same processing). They have it in their heads -- deeply -- that there is such a thing as an "as shot" state of the image, and that "as shot" means "looks just like the in-camera JPEG or what the vendor software produces". It doesn't matter how many times it gets explained, here and elsewhere, over and over, that this isn't how it works, that there is no such thing as "converting" a raw file into a JPEG or whatever. For these people, ACR is definitely not the right software. They shouldn't go anywhere near it. It will not make them happy. Frankly, if you think "Raw vs. JPEG" is even a valid comparison, you don't need to be using ACR, because you don't get the basics. Not everyone needs to. Lots of people sent their film off to a lab and were perfectly happy with what they got back, after all. > The third party providers often do not make any attempt at a > default which might be an acceptable configuration for most > people. I'm not sure what they aim at, or why. Well, what I want is most certainly *not* a default that tries to be a finished picture; I want one that presents a good starting point for processing. I am never going to just click "go" and take what comes out. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com Regarding 'as shot'. Correct me if I am wrong, but when I set white balance to 'as shot' in ACR, shouldn't the data be there in the RAW file for what 'as shot' (wrt white balance only) means? My experience is that in ACR when white balance is set to 'as shot' it is different from Canon's 'as shot' white balance in DPP. Seems to me from a white balance perspective there should not be a difference. More specifically, if I set the camera to 'daylight' white balance, then use ACR and set WB to 'as shot' the result is different then setting ACR to 'daylight' white balance. As a user this seems to make no sense. ACR should know what the specific cameras 'daylight' setting means, and I assume that the way the camera is set is in the RAW file, otherwise how would DPP know? > > There is no such thing as "conversion, not processing" of a RAW > > format to something like JPG. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > processing. I am never going to just click "go" and take what comes > out. I am with you here, W. There IS such thing as "AS SHOT" selection in ACR. I am all for more features and more tweaking in ACR. But how about making the "starting point" closer to what the camera output should be according to manufacture? What I mean is if I set my camera to RAW+JPG. After taking a photo, I convert RAW to JPG using "AS SHOT" settings. I expect the output JPG comes as close to the original JPG as possible. Is there a technical reason that Adobe cannot do it? Before I have known the issues with ACR, I have to constantly tweak photos in CS2 to try to get things right (due to the crappy "Starting Point" ACR created). When switched to Canon's raw converter, I rarely need to do anything. The photos just came out right to my untrained eyes. > Regarding 'as shot'. Correct me if I am wrong, but when I set white > balance to 'as shot' in ACR, shouldn't the data be there in the RAW [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > means, and I assume that the way the camera is set is in the RAW file, > otherwise how would DPP know? > I am with you here, W. There IS such thing as "AS SHOT" selection in > ACR. I am all for more features and more tweaking in ACR. But how [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > need to do anything. The photos just came out right to my untrained > eyes. You can change the defaults in ACR to whatever suits you. The in-camera jpeg settings can be changed as well so it's all a matter of choice. I shoot jpeg plus RAW and have the jpegs set to lowest contrast, saturation & sharpness to avoid blowing things out. It's easy to apply curves for boost where I want it, harder to remove excess contrast. I have ACR set for fairly strong contrast because there it's easy to tone down the sliders. SignaturePaul Furman http://www.edgehill.net/1 Bay Natives http://www.baynatives.com > What I mean is if I set my camera >to RAW+JPG. After taking a photo, I convert RAW to JPG using "AS SHOT" >settings. I expect the output JPG comes as close to the original JPG >as possible. Is there a technical reason that Adobe cannot do it? Probably not. But why should they? Do you want a JPEG that matches the settings that Canon chose in their in-camera JPEG conversion? Or would you prefer Nikon? Pentax? Sony? They won't all match. There's no such thing as the 'original' JPG - the (true original) sensor data has been processed in several ways; a tone curve has been applied, sharpening has been done, and levels and contrast have been adjusted. Each of these steps introduces some small amount of error. If you're going to do your own processing of the image between conversion from RAW and final production of a print or a JPG you want control of the entire process; you don't want Camera Raw making any changes you didn't specifiy. > I am with you here, W. There IS such thing as "AS SHOT" selection in > ACR. Of course there is, but since it's different software, it isn't going to look exactly like the output from the vendor software. > But how about making the "starting point" closer to what the camera > output should be according to manufacture? What would the point be? Why should ACR try to match the vendor software output? If that's what you want, just use the vendor software. > What I mean is if I set my camera to RAW+JPG. After taking a photo, > I convert RAW to JPG using "AS SHOT" settings. I expect the output > JPG comes as close to the original JPG as possible. And that's your problem. You're expecting the wrong thing. You're expecting ACR to match the output from the vendor software. Or, you're under the impression that there is such a thing as an "as shot" image when shooting raw. There isn't. That JPEG out of the camera was converted and processed from raw using the vendor software, inside the camera. If you expect ACR to match it, you're expecting ACR to be the vendor software. You have the idea that the output from Canon's software is some kind of "baseline" for what the image "should" look like. That's not what it is. The output from Canon's software is just the output from one particular image processing application, one with very different goals than ACR has. > Is there a technical reason that Adobe cannot do it? Yes. They aren't using the same software to process the image, and their software does not have a goal of duplicating the output from the camera manufacturer's software. > Before I have known the issues with ACR, I have to constantly tweak > photos in CS2 to try to get things right (due to the crappy "Starting > Point" ACR created). When switched to Canon's raw converter, I rarely > need to do anything. The photos just came out right to my untrained > eyes. Then you should absolutely not be using ACR. I don't understand the problem. If Canon's converter produces the output you want, why would you not just use it? Why in the world would you expect all other image processing software to produce exactly the same results? What, then, would be the point in any other software existing, or the point in using anything else, if the results will be the same? SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com I guess the reason I was using ACR at the first place is out of ignorance. I thought that Photoshop is such a powerful program, why bother with Canon's little utilities. I didn't even bother to install any of Canon's software. Now, my work flow is changed to mainly use Canon. But I still have to switch to Photoshop from time to time to do certain things. I just wish I don't have to switch software to get the job done, easily!!! > > I am with you here, W. There IS such thing as "AS SHOT" selection in > > ACR. [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > would be the point in any other software existing, or the point in using > anything else, if the results will be the same? >> I am with you here, W. There IS such thing as "AS SHOT" selection in >> ACR. > > Of course there is, but since it's different software, it isn't going to > look exactly like the output from the vendor software. No but you can get darn close. I use iPhoto and from what I hear it uses the same engine as Apple's pro Aperture. Guess what? It's RAW conversions look better than what I get from ACR. They come very close to what I get from Canon's software. It didn't start out this way, but as Apple got better with their RAW conversion routines, the output has gotten much better and closer to Canon's SW. > What would the point be? Why should ACR try to match the vendor software > output? If that's what you want, just use the vendor software. Cause many of us like the one stop shopping in ACR. Open the file in PS and convert it and go. No intermediary stops at DPP or Zoombrowser. > to be the vendor software. You have the idea that the output from > Canon's software is some kind of "baseline" for what the image "should" > look like. That's not what it is. The output from Canon's software is > just the output from one particular image processing application, one > with very different goals than ACR has. I've found the output from Canon's and Apple's routines to be very very close to what I remember. I've found I need to tweak ACR photos a lot to get that look. > It didn't start out this way, but as Apple got better with their RAW > conversion routines, the output has gotten much better and closer to > Canon's SW. Maybe that's what they're trying to do. That's not what ACR is trying to do, nor would I want it to. >> What would the point be? Why should ACR try to match the vendor software >> output? If that's what you want, just use the vendor software. > > Cause many of us like the one stop shopping in ACR. Open the file in PS > and convert it and go. No intermediary stops at DPP or Zoombrowser. You're still making a stop in ACR. I don't see any difference. If the workflow isn't to your liking in some other software, that's an issue with that software; it's certainly not a reason for Adobe to cripple their software. If you're going to take an image into Photoshop, you're going through some raw conversion software to get there; what's the difference which one it is? If you're not doing any Photoshop work on the image then it obviously still doesn't matter. > I've found the output from Canon's and Apple's routines to be very very > close to what I remember. I've found I need to tweak ACR photos a lot > to get that look. Well, if that look is what you want, then that's the software you should use. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> It didn't start out this way, but as Apple got better with their RAW >> conversion routines, the output has gotten much better and closer to >> Canon's SW. > > Maybe that's what they're trying to do. That's not what ACR is trying > to do, nor would I want it to. I would think they could easily accommodate both of us. Give me an As Shot that comes close to emulating Canon/Apple and leave the adjustments as is for you. > You're still making a stop in ACR. I don't see any difference. If the > workflow isn't to your liking in some other software, that's an issue > with that software; it's certainly not a reason for Adobe to cripple > their software. How would it be cripling? Just make the As Shot really work like As Shot. It's nice to be able to double click the photo in iPhoto and have it open up the RAW file directly in PS. Then I get presented with ACR to do the import. One Stop shopping. For the others, I'd have to have iPhoto convert all to TIFF or open the pics in DPP, convert to TIFF/JPEG, save them, then open in PS. A couple more steps and not nearly as convenient. Again, an As Shot button that works would solve this problem while retaining the features you love. > How would it be cripling? Just make the As Shot really work like As > Shot. This is the point I keep trying to make: you are under the impression that "as shot" means anything at all other than "what the vendor software makes it look like by default". What that looks like is most certainly *not* my idea of "as shot". It's more like "overprocessed to hell and back". > It's nice to be able to double click the photo in iPhoto and have > it open up the RAW file directly in PS. Then I get presented with ACR > to do the import. One Stop shopping. Well, that sounds like two stops to me. > For the others, I'd have to have iPhoto convert all to TIFF or open the > pics in DPP, convert to TIFF/JPEG, save them, then open in PS. A couple > more steps and not nearly as convenient. Typically, ACR is my only stop; most of my pictures don't need to go into Photoshop at all. I usually don't even launch Photoshop when doing my initial processing, just run ACR from Bridge. Honestly, Photoshop is more of a plugin for ACR these days than the other way around. > Again, an As Shot button that works would solve this problem while > retaining the features you love. But you're not suggesting an "as shot" button; you're suggesting a "process the crap out of it till it looks like the vendor software's output" button. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > This is the point I keep trying to make: you are under the impression that > "as shot" means anything at all other than "what the vendor software makes > it look like by default". What that looks like is most certainly *not* > my idea of "as shot". It's more like "overprocessed to hell and back". I use a Canon 10d. When I shoot JPEGs with it, the images I get from the camera look great (in fact, most agree Canon JPEG's are the best). When I shoot RAW and then process with DPP or iPhoto (Apple's RAW) I get great images. When I process with ACR in PS, I the pics are lacking something and need lots of tweaking to get to great. If As Shot in this scenario means processed to hell and back, that's fine - the pics from this method look great. >> It's nice to be able to double click the photo in iPhoto and have >> it open up the RAW file directly in PS. Then I get presented with ACR >> to do the import. One Stop shopping. > > Well, that sounds like two stops to me. Right - 1 stop in iPhoto to look at all my pics and decide on which edit, a double click to open in PS and edit. I really don't count ACR as a step because it automatically comes up when opening a RAW file. > Typically, ACR is my only stop; most of my pictures don't need to go > into Photoshop at all. I usually don't even launch Photoshop when doing > my initial processing, just run ACR from Bridge. Honestly, Photoshop is > more of a plugin for ACR these days than the other way around. I'd be interested in how you get great results from straight ACR. Perhaps I'm missing something? > But you're not suggesting an "as shot" button; you're suggesting a "process > the crap out of it till it looks like the vendor software's output" button. That's fine as long as it gets me close to what I remember. Which the "Process the crap...." button would do. :) > If As Shot in this scenario means processed to hell and back, that's > fine - the pics from this method look great. Right, but you're asking for them to "look great" by your standards. What about people who want them to "look great" but have a different idea of what that means? > Right - 1 stop in iPhoto to look at all my pics and decide on which > edit, a double click to open in PS and edit. I really don't count ACR > as a step because it automatically comes up when opening a RAW file. It's still a step in ACR and then a step in Photoshop. > I'd be interested in how you get great results from straight ACR. > Perhaps I'm missing something? There's no trick. ACR offers everything I need for most images. And you can easily set the (per-camera) defaults to whatever works for you, so there's no reason you can't find settings that make your images come out like you want, and set it as a default. Calibrating it to your camera using one of the available scripts is also quite helpful. If the color, contrast, tonal response, or whatever is the difference, there is nothing stopping ACR from producing the same result as some other software. Just create default settings that do what you like. If it's the demosaicing or the reported shadow noise that you have trouble with, well, there's nothing really to do other than use something else, but that's to be expected. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > Regarding 'as shot'. Correct me if I am wrong, but when I set white > balance to 'as shot' in ACR, shouldn't the data be there in the RAW > file for what 'as shot' (wrt white balance only) means? My experience > is that in ACR when white balance is set to 'as shot' it is different > from Canon's 'as shot' white balance in DPP. Seems to me from a white > balance perspective there should not be a difference. White balance is as much a matter of opinion as anything else in image processing. Your definition of "as shot" seems to be "exactly what it would look like after being processed by the vendor's software". If that's what you want -- why use ACR in the first place? Why not just use the vendor software? ACR does not try to match the output from the vendor software; there would be no point to that. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com Is white balance really a 'matter of opinion'? If I shoot a "grey card" and the light is a certain color temperature and I set the camera to that color temperature, should not the average of the card in the image be very close to equal parts 'red', 'green' and 'blue'? If my above statement is correct, than 'as shot' for white balance should generally give the same look whether it is ACR or DPP. I have seen where a greyish street has a clearly different cast when generated by ACR vs. DPP when they are both set to 'as shot'. At the same time, I have not done a measurement to see which is more accurate (grey remains grey). > > Regarding 'as shot'. Correct me if I am wrong, but when I set white > > balance to 'as shot' in ACR, shouldn't the data be there in the RAW [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > use the vendor software? ACR does not try to match the output from > the vendor software; there would be no point to that. > Is white balance really a 'matter of opinion'? If I shoot a "grey card" > and the light is a certain color temperature and I set the camera to > that color temperature, should not the average of the card in the image > be very close to equal parts 'red', 'green' and 'blue'? In the final image, after processing, sure. After white balance is applied. The raw image doesn't have "red", "green" and "blue". That only exists once it's been processed into an image. > If my above statement is correct, than 'as shot' for white balance > should generally give the same look whether it is ACR or DPP. Why? The algorithms are different; the results can be different. You may need a different white balance setting to get the same result in one application versus another because those red, green, and blue portions of the image are being created differently. It's important to understand that the image *doesn't exist* as such until it's been processed by whatever software is processing it. There is no color in it. The color comes from the processing, and the processing is different, so the colors are different. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com So I guess the essence of what you are saying is that different raw conversion algorithms will produce different results....agreed. As an extreme example, say a grey object was photographed and converted through two different raw converters(assume that white balance was set to reflect color temperature of light). Converter 'A' produces a tone near grey, converter 'B' produced a tone that was brilliant red. Clearly in that case converter 'B' is inferior to converter 'A' in terms of color accuracy. So it comes down to (wrt color accuracy) how close to true grey should one expect in the final image. I suppose it comes down to how well the camera is characterized plus sample to sample variation between cameras. In the final analysis grey should come out grey (in the converted image) within the tolerance of the camera characterization and camera sample to sample differences. > > Is white balance really a 'matter of opinion'? If I shoot a "grey card" > > and the light is a certain color temperature and I set the camera to [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > software is processing it. There is no color in it. The color comes from > the processing, and the processing is different, so the colors are different. > As an extreme example, say a grey object was photographed and converted > through two different raw converters(assume that white balance was set > to reflect color temperature of light). Converter 'A' produces a tone > near grey, converter 'B' produced a tone that was brilliant red. > Clearly in that case converter 'B' is inferior to converter 'A' in > terms of color accuracy. Not necessarily. You have to apply white balance first. What if the camera is actually producing a result skewed vastly toward red, and the vendor software is compensating for that digitally in the white balance process with a massive correction? (Keeping in mind that larger corrections introduce posterization and increase noise.) In that case converter 'B' is showing you the truth, while 'A' is hiding it from you. For final color accuracy, you would need to apply white balance and then see how the entire spectrum looks at that point. After doing the balance for the known gray, you see how accurate your other colors are -- the blues, reds, and greens, the skintones, the foliage, the sky, etc. If they're all bang-on *after* white balance, then you have color accuracy. If you find that some are right and some are wrong -- say, grass and trees and skies look fine, but skin is too yellow -- then it's not accurate, and white balancing can't help make it accurate. Color is relative, so you have to start from a known point and see if everything is right; judging just from a gray won't tell you much. You can always make one color accurate by adjusting the overall color balance, but you don't have real accuracy unless the colors are right in relation to each other at the same time. If your gray is perfect, but your reds are too yellow, then you're in trouble. You may need a different absolute color temperature setting from one raw converter to another to get the same results, simply because of differences in the image generation algorithms. You can't set the raw converter to simply match the assumed temperature of the light and have it be right. The *vendor* software may be able to do that, since it can start from the known characteristics and biases of the sensor and compensate for them, but no one else can do that. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com Your discussion below gets into the other point I raised in my previous post....camera characterization. Now, when ACR reads a 20D file, I do not know what level of camera charactization data is or isn't available to ACR. If it is the case that this information is only availble to the camera vendors themselves, it would stand to reason that their converters have a much better shot at doing a better conversion job than third party converters. > > As an extreme example, say a grey object was photographed and converted > > through two different raw converters(assume that white balance was set [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > known characteristics and biases of the sensor and compensate for them, > but no one else can do that. > Your discussion below gets into the other point I raised in my previous > post....camera characterization. Now, when ACR reads a 20D file, I do [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > converters have a much better shot at doing a better conversion job > than third party converters. If your definition of "better" is "what the camera vendor software produces", then yes, the camera vendor software will be better. The point is that "accuracy" has *nothing* to do with "what the image looks like with some arbitrary default settings in some particular software". Plus, looking good, or looking exactly the way you want, doesn't necessarily mean it's accurate. Most landscape shots you see don't have accurate color, they have pleasing color. Most in-camera JPEGs aren't what I'd call pleasing -- they tend to be too contrasty, over-saturated, and have lots of clipping at both ends of the scale. That's also what the vendor software tends to produce by default, and I'm not really interested in using that as a starting point. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com Accuracy does have to do with grey coming out grey. In any case, my main issue with ACR is not white balance. It is noisy shadows and clipping at the low end of some channels when DPP does not and also produces cleaner less noisy shadows. Tons of tweaking in ACR did not help this. This is the primary reason I now use DPP. > > Your discussion below gets into the other point I raised in my previous > > post....camera characterization. Now, when ACR reads a 20D file, I do [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > That's also what the vendor software tends to produce by default, and > I'm not really interested in using that as a starting point. >>> You are right that I just wanted a conversion, not processing. What >>> puzzles me is using Zoombrowser with camera default settings, I got a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > No matter how you want to look at it, RAW format is sensor data, > not an image. It *has* to be processed to get an image. not bad dude not bad > The problem is that you want a *default* configuration for that > processing which closely matches your perception of what the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > they are targeting. It might actually help them by forcing > users to learn how to change the configuration (hint hint). |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.