Can CameraRaw smart layers in photoshop send data upstream ?

[larkis]

I'm not sure if this is technically possible with Photoshop's current architecture, but it would be nice to have the ability for a camera raw layer to always be "live" for further adjustment layers. For example, a levels adjustment layer would have access to the shadow information actually stored in the raw file and not the shadow information that is "cooked" as final pixels in that layer. Having to double click on the camera raw layer to do compensating adjustments is a bit of a roundabout workflow.

I would ideally like it to work like Nuke (by the foundry) where raw files from cameras such as the RED are always live, and all the data within them is accessible by all the nodes.

With Lightroom's limited masking abilities and the lack of full adjustments in masked areas (such as curves, HSL, etc) I find myself still venturing into photoshop for some images. I would be less hesitant to do this if photoshop had access to all the raw data in the file.

[deejjjaaaa]

access to the shadow information actually stored in the raw file

what is exactly "the shadow information actually stored in the raw file" ? you mean ACR adjustment parameters ? you want to be able to change plug in parameters w/o going to plug in itself ?

[D Fosse]

a camera raw layer to always be "live" for further adjustment layers.

It already is, unless I misread your question.

Opening a raw file into Photoshop as a smart object means that a copy of the original raw file is embedded in the Photoshop file. You can always go back and readjust through ACR by double-clicking the layers thumbnail. This does not affect the original raw file, though, only the embedded copy.

But you can also "Place Linked" from inside Photoshop. With this option you re-edit the original raw file from inside the Photoshop file, and the result is an updated original.

Either way, you do indeed have direct access to all the information stored in the raw file.

I used to do this a lot, until Process Version 2012 came with its superb highlight and shadow recovery. Now it's very rarely needed.

[deejjjaaaa]

You can always go back and readjust through ACR by double-clicking the layers thumbnail.

he says "Having to double click on the camera raw layer to do compensating adjustments is a bit of a roundabout workflow." - so he cleary wants something different UI wise

[howardm]

I thought I saw a 'Camera Raw' *filter* in PS CC or CC2014. 

[deejjjaaaa]

I thought I saw a 'Camera Raw' *filter* in PS CC or CC2014. 

OP knows, his question is apparently about a different way of working with ACR adjustments w/o launching ACR though SO in a layer below

[D Fosse]

Ah, so I did misunderstand what the OP meant.

In that case the answer is simply "no". A raw file is just a very dark grayscale (un-demosaiced) image. It has to be rendered through a raw processor before it makes any sense to Photoshop.

I suppose it's possible, though. Maybe you could put the raw file in a TIFF wrapper and do the proper gamma transform from linear to 2.2 or 1.8. But the color information wouldn't be there.

[larkis]

Sorry, I guess my question is not being expressed very well. Basically take this scenario: A camera raw layer inside of the PS file is set to exposure -5.00 so you basically get a black frame (depending on the image you have). On top of that, you add an exposure adjustment layer set to +5.0.
Right now, the data that the exposure adjustment layer has access to is the "baked" -5.0 exposure of the layer underneath, not the actual data that is contained in the raw file.

Basically the +5.0 adjustment does not equal double clicking on the raw file and setting the -5.0 exposure value back to 0.

[Wayne Fox]

Even if it were possible,  I just can’t imagine any scenario where this would be useful.  Photoshop is a pixel editor, so it works on the rendered data.  In your example, what be accomplished by counteracting the raw development with an opposite raw development, instead of just opening the raw and making the adjustment directly on the data?

[deejjjaaaa]

In your example, what be accomplished by counteracting the raw development with an opposite raw development, instead of just opening the raw and making the adjustment directly on the data?

for example speed and convenience ... making it more parametric with lesser efforts on user's behalf

[D Fosse]

If this example of yours involves selective masking (why else would there be any point), you can do that with "new smart object via copy". This tears off a new separate ACR smart object, independently adjustable. Stack as many of these as you like.

Other than that I agree with Wayne, it's really hard to see the usefulness - given that Photoshop is indeed a pixel editor. Maybe what you really want is layers in Lightroom/ACR. That should be technically possible if the demand was there (virtual copies stacked instead of side by side).

[larkis]

Even if it were possible,  I just can’t imagine any scenario where this would be useful.  Photoshop is a pixel editor, so it works on the rendered data.  In your example, what be accomplished by counteracting the raw development with an opposite raw development, instead of just opening the raw and making the adjustment directly on the data?

This scenario has a lot of uses and is a day to day reality in the visual effects field in which I work. Having access to all your data at all times has a ton of power when doing a lot of value adjustments. When pixels need to get moved, the way photoshop works right now would make some of this difficult, but the color adjustment chain should have access to all the data.

Once lightroom will add a lot more articulated masking options, masking layers (or mask labels) and have the ability to do all of it's adjustments on masked areas, photohop will have a lot less use for many photographers.

[stamper]

This scenario has a lot of uses and is a day to day reality in the visual effects field in which I work. Having access to all your data at all times has a ton of power when doing a lot of value adjustments. When pixels need to get moved, the way photoshop works right now would make some of this difficult, but the color adjustment chain should have access to all the data.

Once lightroom will add a lot more articulated masking options, masking layers (or mask labels) and have the ability to do all of it's adjustments on masked areas, photohop will have a lot less use for many photographers.

[/color]

Do you think Adobe will introduce these features to LR and make PS less attractive with respect to profit viability? Not any time soon imo......if ever.

[deejjjaaaa]

[/color]

Do you think Adobe will introduce these features to LR and make PS less attractive with respect to profit viability? Not any time soon imo......if ever.

both PS and LR are for $10/mo... so there is no point not to.

[D Fosse]

I once had an idea that Photoshop was a dinosaur, although still at the top of the food chain ultimately doomed; the future being a small furry animal called Lightroom. I still like to think that, but there has to be an equivalent to layers and masking before Lightroom can take over the world.

The usual argument, of course, is that Lightroom and Photoshop aren't really targeted at the same audience. Maybe so, but my impression is that most if not all photographers use both.

I don't see anything unreasonable in the OP's question; it's just a little unrealistic given the overall architecture of Photoshop as a pixel pusher. I'm sure if Photoshop was designed from the ground up today it would look radically different. All the "non-destructive" new features have the distinct feel of being slapped on and fastened with tape and rubber bands.

Still, I insist that what larkis wants is available, in the slightly different form of stacked smart objects. All the information in the raw file is there and maskable. The way I understand this, that's the main thing.

[stamper]

both PS and LR are for $10/mo... so there is no point not to.

Which on the other hand means there isn't any point to implement it either?

[deejjjaaaa]

Which on the other hand means there isn't any point to implement it either?

it makes sense to watch what the competition (even if LR has most of the market in its segment) is doing and competition will inevitable come (or already has) such functions in products designed to compete against specifically LR (think C1)