Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: feppe on April 18, 2010, 05:03:58 pm
-
CS5 has a new and improved lens correction (http://tv.adobe.com/watch/photoshop-cs5-feature-tour/automated-lens-correction/) which seems quite impressive, with barrel/pincushion, vignetting, moustache, etc. correction. It also supports lenses from Sigma (http://www.dpreview.com/news/1004/10041602sigmalesadobecs5.asp), with more to come for sure.
What I don't understand is why is this in Photoshop, and not in a RAW converter, ie. Camera RAW or Lightroom. It would make much more sense to have such corrections done in RAW converter as they should be done as early as possible in the post-processing pipeline - and preferably be non-destructive so new and improved corrections later on can be re-applied.
Is there a technological reason why Adobe chose to go this way? Or do they want to differentiate PS as being the premium product, and avoiding LR from (further) cannibalizing PS sales?
edit: Schewe updated (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=43096&view=findpost&p=362466) us that Adobe will indeed include this in the RAW converter. Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zAJTUJiCME) it is in its full and impressive glory!
-
Edit: Sorry, misunderstood what was being referenced.
-
The new lens correction is in ACR. The traditional lens correction tools remain in PS itself.
The new lens correction Feppe is talking about is actually in PS.
-
It us unfortunate, and frankly a little puzzling since this feature seems like an obvious candidate for having in the raw pipeline. If nothing else, doing lens corrections in Photoshop is a bit of a pain because it means you can't crop in ACR.
-
CS5 has a new and improved lens correction (http://tv.adobe.com/watch/photoshop-cs5-feature-tour/automated-lens-correction/) which seems quite impressive, with barrel/pincushion, vignetting, moustache, etc. correction. It also supports lenses from Sigma (http://www.dpreview.com/news/1004/10041602sigmalesadobecs5.asp), with more to come for sure.
What I don't understand is why is this in Photoshop, and not in a RAW converter, ie. Camera RAW or Lightroom. It would make much more sense to have such corrections done in RAW converter as they should be done as early as possible in the post-processing pipeline - and preferably be non-destructive so new and improved corrections later on can be re-applied.
Is there a technological reason why Adobe chose to go this way? Or do they want to differentiate PS as being the premium product, and avoiding LR from (further) cannibalizing PS sales?
Perhaps there is a less sinister explanation. If you look at the splash screen of Photoshop, you will see a very large team with Thomas Knoll at the head. I understand that the ACR team is much smaller and consists of Mr. Knoll, Madman Chan and a couple of others. Considering the resources available, the ACR team is prodigiously productive, but the Photoshop team has much larger resources and can do more.
Bill
-
Perhaps there is a less sinister explanation. If you look at the splash screen of Photoshop, you will see a very large team with Thomas Knoll at the head. I understand that the ACR team is much smaller and consists of Mr. Knoll, Madman Chan and a couple of others. Considering the resources available, the ACR team is prodigiously productive, but the Photoshop team has much larger resources and can do more.
Bill
I suspect that Madman Chan is worth any six members of the PS team (maybe excepting Thomas Knoll).
-
Hi,
I absolutely am with Feppe on this one!
Best regards
Erik
CS5 has a new and improved lens correction (http://tv.adobe.com/watch/photoshop-cs5-feature-tour/automated-lens-correction/) which seems quite impressive, with barrel/pincushion, vignetting, moustache, etc. correction. It also supports lenses from Sigma (http://www.dpreview.com/news/1004/10041602sigmalesadobecs5.asp), with more to come for sure.
What I don't understand is why is this in Photoshop, and not in a RAW converter, ie. Camera RAW or Lightroom. It would make much more sense to have such corrections done in RAW converter as they should be done as early as possible in the post-processing pipeline - and preferably be non-destructive so new and improved corrections later on can be re-applied.
Is there a technological reason why Adobe chose to go this way? Or do they want to differentiate PS as being the premium product, and avoiding LR from (further) cannibalizing PS sales?
-
What I don't understand is why is this in Photoshop, and not in a RAW converter, ie. Camera RAW or Lightroom. It would make much more sense to have such corrections done in RAW converter as they should be done as early as possible in the post-processing pipeline - and preferably be non-destructive so new and improved corrections later on can be re-applied.
How do you know it won't be? At this point CS5 (with Camera Raw 6) hasn't even shipped and Lightroom 3 is at beta 2.
Is there a technological reason why Adobe chose to go this way? Or do they want to differentiate PS as being the premium product, and avoiding LR from (further) cannibalizing PS sales?
A "technical" reason? No, no technical reason at all–other than the fact that doing lens corrections parametrically is a LOT HARDER than simply doing it to pixels...as for your other presumption, uh, no...that's your bias showing...
-
Hi,
I absolutely am with Feppe on this one!
Best regards
Erik
Another explanation is marketing, to be sure that you'll buy Photoshop !!!
But DXO has those capabilities, without the need of Photoshop.
And yes, it's unconceivable that you may not crop before using Photoshop.
Not a very logical workflow !!!
Have a Nice Day.
Thierry
-
Another explanation is marketing, to be sure that you'll buy Photoshop !!!
Er.. to get ACR you need to buy PS, so that makes no sense.
And as the LR public beta is not feature complete, so you shouldn't criticise that either until you know what is in it.
-
How do you know it won't be? At this point CS5 (with Camera Raw 6) hasn't even shipped and Lightroom 3 is at beta 2.
I don't, and a fair critique - I was indeed making the assumption that LR3 doesn't have it based on the beta not having it.
A "technical" reason? No, no technical reason at all–other than the fact that doing lens corrections parametrically is a LOT HARDER than simply doing it to pixels...as for your other presumption, uh, no...that's your bias showing...
No, I meant technological.
Ignoring the ad hominem so this doesn't get locked - it's clear I'm not the only one keeping fingers crossed hoping this is a non-published feature in LR3.
-
A "technical" reason? No, no technical reason at all–other than the fact that doing lens corrections parametrically is a LOT HARDER than simply doing it to pixels...as for your other presumption, uh, no...that's your bias showing...
Probably so, but who said that everything ACR and LR do has to be controlable with parameters?
Since ACR's value is mostly in its after the fact live editable capability, I guess that the real question is whether lens correction will be possible to integrate in a Smart workflow. If it does then it being not part of ACR is probably not a big deal since you could still go back to ACR and modify some parameters without having to re-create the whole modification stack again.
If is not then it is indeed a pity since it is probably one of the first mods most photogrpahers would want to apply just after raw conversion.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Ignoring the ad hominem so this doesn't get locked - it's clear I'm not the only one keeping fingers crossed hoping this is a non-published feature in LR3.
Yeah, well it was you that presupposed that Adobe's motive for NOT doing Lens Correction in Lightroom 3 was a bit less that honorable...that's a bias YOU have. If you had contained your question to the technical aspects rather than slipping in a little twist of the knife, I would have ignored it...
And, I'm not sure what part of "feature incomplete" description of Lightroom 3 Beta 2 you don't understand...looking at the beta and presuming you know what will be in the final release is a bit presumptuous ya know?
-
Probably so, but who said that everything ACR and LR do has to be controlable with parameters?
I think his name is Thomas Knoll...he's the one who started ACR down the "parametric" path (and coined the term)...and Camera Raw and Lightroom will indeed keep going down that path for the foreseeable future (or at least as long as Thomas is still involved).
-
I think his name is Thomas Knoll...he's the one who started ACR down the "parametric" path (and coined the term)...and Camera Raw and Lightroom will indeed keep going down that path for the foreseeable future (or at least as long as Thomas is still involved).
Jeff,
I understand that Mr. Knoll is the father of ACR and LR's engine based on so-called parametric technologies.
I am not sure it means that he is against tuning this basic philosophy to meet customers expectations in some cases.
Having experienced this many times elsewhere in a similar context, I know for a fact that it is rarely a good idea to justify functional shortcomings using design philosophy as a reason when it looks like priorities is the actual motivation.
Anyway, still wondering if this can be by-passed with smart workflow or not.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
Would be nice to have explained why it is harder? As far as I can see it is just another transform to apply in processing.
The issue for me is essentially that I'm much in favor of having a parametric workflow. Once I started developing an application that essentially was similar to Lightroom, but much more limited in scope. Once Lightroom was released I realized that I would never achieve a similar functionality in one or a few life times. So my project went on the scrapheap and I have been a happy Lightroom user since than.
For me the parametric nature of Lightroom is essential and so is the data base based approach.
Now, as I see it, there are things that are best made in Lightroom and some that are better made in Photoshop. Photoshop extends more in image creation, I don't necessarily see that the two products compete. Lightroom also has some competion, Aperture from Apple but also the new Bibblepro 5 from Bibble labs, which may have some potential.
The parametric local edits we can do in Lightroom are a godsend, and the "automasking" feature is great help achiveing subtle burn in and dodging effects.
Best regards
Erik
A "technical" reason? No, no technical reason at all–other than the fact that doing lens corrections parametrically is a LOT HARDER than simply doing it to pixels.
-
I am not sure it means that he is against tuning this basic philosophy to meet customers expectations in some cases.
Well, he is pretty adamant in maintaining a very strict parametric/pixel editing line in the sand...what most people don't realize is there are some things that doing it parametrically is contra-indicated...meaning it's foolish to try to do it in parameters vs pixels...and just because some people want it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. And he's really not obsessed with meeting unreasonable customer's expectations, ya know?
-
Hi,
Regarding LR, I would say yes.
I don't see a problem really. If we can do parametric edit, LR is just fine. If we need to do pixel based editing we open the image in Photoshop, Picture Window Pro, PSE or whatever, but we also work on a pixel based image.
My personal view is that I want to do as much of the works parametric as possible, and essentially resort to Photoshop for things like composites, retouching and so on.
That said, I have used spot removal in LR for removing other things than spots, it's actually quite usable for removing things reflections and so on under some conditions. It's worth a try.
Best regards
Erik
Probably so, but who said that everything ACR and LR do has to be controlable with parameters?
-
Would be nice to have explained why it is harder? As far as I can see it is just another transform to apply in processing.
So, you have spot healing spots placed and local adjustment brush pins in place then you go into lens correction...exactly how do you expect the parametric spot healing and adjustment brush pins to react to a parametric lens correction? Should it matter what order you do things in? Do you want the spot healing and adjustment brush results to be lens correction accurate? See, that's the rub...its EALSY to do it in pixels...it's much, MUCH harder to do it parametrically. Read this thread from the Lightroom Forums: no optical distortion or perspective corrections?! (http://forums.adobe.com/message/2336964#2336964) in particular what Mark Hamburg writes (the founding engineer of Lightroom).
-
Hi,
Thanks for your comment. I see your point.
Best regards
Erik
So, you have spot healing spots placed and local adjustment brush pins in place then you go into lens correction...exactly how do you expect the parametric spot healing and adjustment brush pins to react to a parametric lens correction? Should it matter what order you do things in? Do you want the spot healing and adjustment brush results to be lens correction accurate? See, that's the rub...its EALSY to do it in pixels...it's much, MUCH harder to do it parametrically. Read this thread from the Lightroom Forums: no optical distortion or perspective corrections?! (http://forums.adobe.com/message/2336964#2336964) in particular what Mark Hamburg writes (the founding engineer of Lightroom).
-
Thanks for your comment. I see your point.
Note I didn't say it was impossible...just that doing it parametrically is a much more difficult proposition than when working with pixels.
And it would be useful if people didn't presume that the reason why Adobe hasn't already done it already is because of some feeble attempt at keeping people from getting what they want because they want to preserve Photoshop's position in the marketplace–which is ignorant on the face of it because if that was a concern they would have killed Lightroom a long time ago...
-
And it would be useful if people didn't presume that the reason why Adobe hasn't already done it already is because of some feeble attempt at keeping people from getting what they want because they want to preserve Photoshop's position in the marketplace–which is ignorant on the face of it because if that was a concern they would have killed Lightroom a long time ago...
Just because they haven't "killed it" doesn't mean they can't and don't differentiate consciously to segment the market.
Your position is not logically sound ... in fact, it is quite ignorant and naive.
-
Note I didn't say it was impossible...just that doing it parametrically is a much more difficult proposition than when working with pixels.
I would like to strongly disagree.
A parametric implementation is simply a deferred pixel implementation. But ultimately we users are just looking at the pixel result. LR has already sacrificed some of the real-time preview capabilities in order to implement the desired functionality, but even so, we are still basing our input on the pixel based preview.
So, there is no such thing as "doing it parametrically". The parameters are always translated to pixelbased corrections. It is just a matter of whether that can be done:
1) in near real time,
and for the sake of this discussion:
2) whether there are easy inverse transforms for user input if applicable.
A simple example would be the fact that we are usually looking at a preview proxy which is reduced in size. If we then apply sharpening parameters how should the result be applied/displayed?
Having said that, here is why I am really opposed to the parametric argument against lenscorrections:
Lenscorrections are not the same as perspective corrections. The latter is not really a correction, and most users can easily live with perspective corrections being relinquished to later photoshop editing, as it usually is a specialized task.
Lenscorrections should, and this is very very important, should be done BEFORE any other processing, including and most importantly before DEBAYERING and before COLORMANAGEMENT! Otherwise chromatic aberrations will have been obfuscated by crosschannel processing which degrades debayer performance and makes lenscorrections nearly impossible in later stages. (in the same way as white-point corrections are near impossible in non-linear gammacorrected data).
It seems however that LR and related products (and yes, I am making a presumption here) do these corrections further down the pipeline. Well after Debayering and a lot of the other processing. It is ONLY IN THIS case that you run into inverse-transform problems that I have seen mentioned. I therefore make this presumption of processing order, and would therefore also like to propose that the entire problem is not one of parametric vs pixels, but one of processing order.
And I also believe that this should be discussed pretty damn heavily & transparent at Adobe and elsewhere, because as it currently is, the DNG "standard" is in a developmental stage but it seems that a lot of the definitions are being based on the Adobe-processing-paradigm. And I already have mentioned earlier that the colormanagement implementation of DNG is in serious need of reconsideration, and now the lenscorrection definitions may just go in the same direction, which in my not so humble opinion is more southward bound than is absolutely necessary.
-
Just because they haven't "killed it" doesn't mean they can't and don't differentiate consciously to segment the market.
Your position is not logically sound ... in fact, it is quite ignorant and naive.
No actually my "opinion" is based upon knowledge of both the engineering and product marketing teams on Lightroom...I've been involved in the original marketing studies and further use case studies involving Lightroom. The fact is most photographers have an inflated view of their importance in the marketplace. Photographers make up almost ALL of the Lightroom user base while under 10% of the Photoshop user base. Under 10% and an even lower % of the whole Creative Suite user base.
Really, Adobe isn't consciously segmenting the market so much as it is marketing to different markets. But presuming that Adobe is NOT putting something in Lightroom because they want to preserve it for Photoshop is what is ignorant and naive...
-
A parametric implementation is simply a deferred pixel implementation. But ultimately we users are just looking at the pixel result. LR has already sacrificed some of the real-time preview capabilities in order to implement the desired functionality, but even so, we are still basing our input on the pixel based preview.
So, there is no such thing as "doing it parametrically". The parameters are always translated to pixelbased corrections. It is just a matter of whether that can be done:
1) in near real time,
and for the sake of this discussion:
2) whether there are easy inverse transforms for user input if applicable.
Guess you didn't read the thread with Mark Hamburg's explanation why a parametric approach to lens corrections is a problem, huh? See, auto lens corrections is already built into Camera Raw 5.3/Lightroom 2.3 and beyond. Yep...for certain lens camera combos, the camera raw pipeline is already doing the corrections for distortion, CA and vignetting. So, it's obvious the doing lens corrections parametrically is possible.
The problem comes when you allow the user some control over the lens correction settings (the parametric settings mind you).
When the auto corrections are applied, they are applied before any other pipeline processing so all other settings are coming after the correction. So spot healing and local corrections don't need to be adjusted for changes in the lens corrections because they are in the later stages of the pipeline.
So, if people didn't want any controls over lens corrections, the way it already works in Camera Raw could be expanded pretty easily Well, easy is a matter of debate, I've made lens corrections profiles for use in Photoshop CS5–there will be a free utility on Labs.Adobe.com for making your own profiles and it's tedious to do it.
But, what if you wanted manual control over the lens distortion corrections or CA or wanted to adjust perspective or scale? Again, what is the expected behavior if the user has already put spot healing and local corrections down? Would Camera Raw distort the spot healing circles? Ideally, yes...would Camera Raw adjust the shape and coordinates of the local adjustment brush? Ideally, yes...
The problem is, you don't really grok the difficulty of putting lens corrections in a parametric processing pipeline...the problem is indeed far more complex than simply warping pixels and yes, it WOULD be optimal to do the corrections in the raw processing stage–including perspective corrections...
-
But, what if you wanted manual control over the lens distortion corrections or CA or wanted to adjust perspective or scale? Again, what is the expected behavior if the user has already put spot healing and local corrections down? Would Camera Raw distort the spot healing circles? Ideally, yes...would Camera Raw adjust the shape and coordinates of the local adjustment brush? Ideally, yes...
The problem is, you don't really grok the difficulty of putting lens corrections in a parametric processing pipeline...the problem is indeed far more complex than simply warping pixels and yes, it WOULD be optimal to do the corrections in the raw processing stage–including perspective corrections...
It obviously is a matter of definition: is this problem inherent of parametric brushes, or of geometric distortions?
But the problem is more intricate than that: I'm sure you have noticed that it can be impossible to create a decent black&white image when chromatic aberration residue is present? So, it's not just a matter of geometric vs parametric.
It is necessary to rigorously define the steps required for a decent raw-conversion, then present the user these steps in a meaningful way. Something like tabs. Every tab/step contains the parameters that will influence the subsequent tabs/steps. Just as white-point and saturation settings affect eachother, or contrast settings and USM. Blackpoint and noise reduction and god knows what else...
Once you reach the "creative tab" you can go ahead and do all kind of parametric evil, but one should be aware that the actual raw conversion has been defined in previous steps. And it are those steps that are relevant to DNG.
Or to put it differently: the further down the pipeline, the less relevant for DNG...!?
-
I don't understand why parametric control of lens distortion is desirable beyond on/off? Assuming an accurate preset is available, I'd say the same goes for CA.
To a certain extent you might be right however, the current Lens Correction in Photoshop CS5 DOES allow the use of custom lens correction profiles that users can build on their own...if you go through the matrix of potential lens profiles needed by camera, I think you will see that expecting Adobe to make such an extensive range of primary and 3rd party lens profiles ain't gonna happen...hense the lens profile application that Adobe be giving away much like DNG Profile Editor was.
Lens makers themselves can also provide lens data for the creation of profiles. DP Review reports Sigma has already provided lens profile data for almost ALL of their 3rd party lenses...
But don't overlook the fact that lens corrections are really the tip of the iceberg. While not a lens correction per se, perspective adjustments are also important for accurate rendering of final images. And, if the Camera Raw team is gonna go through the hassle of doing lens corrections they might as well solve the perspective correction issue at the same time.
Which comes back to the basic issue, if the team is gonna do it, they want to do it well and not halfassed...and doing it well, isn't easy. Which has ZERO to do with market segmentation or preserving Photoshop's market superiority or any of the other "reasons" we haven't seen this stuff in ACR/LR yet...
-
It is necessary to rigorously define the steps required for a decent raw-conversion, then present the user these steps in a meaningful way. Something like tabs. Every tab/step contains the parameters that will influence the subsequent tabs/steps. Just as white-point and saturation settings affect eachother, or contrast settings and USM. Blackpoint and noise reduction and god knows what else...
No thanks...that breaks the parametric paradigm. I don't want to be constrained by what I've already done...while the pipeline should be free to do whatever it needs to do in whatever order it wants to do it in, I don't want that constraint.
I want to be able to do my spotting or local corrections at ANY time and not not be forced to do something in a particular order...that's way too much like a pixel editing approach where what comes after is completely dependent on what was done before. No thanks, I've got Photoshop for that...
-
... Photographers make up almost ALL of the Lightroom user base while under 10% of the Photoshop user base...
Thank you Mr. Schewe fo this wonderful piece of information! It finally removes the nagging sense of guilt I have because I can not see much (if any) reason to upgrade from CS4 (i.e., the "improvements" in CS5 appeared to be aimed at the other 90%).
-
Thank you Mr. Schewe fo this wonderful piece of information! It finally removes the nagging sense of guilt I have because I can not see much (if any) reason to upgrade from CS4 (i.e., the "improvements" in CS5 appeared to be aimed at the other 90%).
Actually, you would be wrong. Aside from Camera Raw 6, Photoshop CS5 will have a lot of additional functionality for photographers in spite of the fact that photographers are in the minority in terms of the user base...you upgrade or don't upgrade based on the upgrade feature set (like content aware fill, HDR Pro and things like auto lens correction) not because of guilt...(or at least I don't).
Look, do what you want, really, no skin off my nose...really. You're only shortchanging yourself.
-
Having said that, here is why I am really opposed to the parametric argument against lenscorrections:
Lenscorrections are not the same as perspective corrections. The latter is not really a correction, and most users can easily live with perspective corrections being relinquished to later photoshop editing, as it usually is a specialized task.
Lenscorrections should, and this is very very important, should be done BEFORE any other processing, including and most importantly before DEBAYERING and before COLORMANAGEMENT! Otherwise chromatic aberrations will have been obfuscated by crosschannel processing which degrades debayer performance and makes lenscorrections nearly impossible in later stages. (in the same way as white-point corrections are near impossible in non-linear gammacorrected data).
It seems however that LR and related products (and yes, I am making a presumption here) do these corrections further down the pipeline. Well after Debayering and a lot of the other processing. It is ONLY IN THIS case that you run into inverse-transform problems that I have seen mentioned. I therefore make this presumption of processing order, and would therefore also like to propose that the entire problem is not one of parametric vs pixels, but one of processing order.
As I see it, the only lens correction that is advantageously done before demosaic is CA. Many good demosaic algorithms are based on color differences, and CA feeds the demosaic errant color differences, leading to poorer demosaic. Geometric corrections such as barrel distortion etc, are better left until after demosaic, where the full resolution of the demosaiced image can be best used to interpolate the geometric corrections. Trying to do that before demosaic is hampered by the fact that the CFA data is of reduced resolution, with the additional resolution data being encoded in color correlations that the demosaicing process is designed to decode (if done well). Doing geometric corrections before demosaic risks destroying the color correlations that are needed for the demosaic, if the demosaic algorithm is designed to use them.
-
Hi,
I have the impression that Photoshop is used for many things from touching up images to creating new ones. There are also several editions with the more expensive versions adding capabilities which may not needed by photographers.
As I see it Photoshop tries to have all the tools needed. It's often lagging a bit compared to the competition. I'd probably use Autopano Pro instead of the Photomerge option in PS CS3 (what I have). I have the impression that the tools get refined for each release. On the other hand I feel that HDR in PS CS3 is quite good and prefer to use it compared with other tools I have. The main reason I use PS is that it is sort of defining the industry. So if you are told to use JPEGs with Quality 10 you know what that means. Not that I'm a HDR enthusiast, anyway.
I'll update from CS3 to CS5, definitively.
Best regards
Erik
Thank you Mr. Schewe fo this wonderful piece of information! It finally removes the nagging sense of guilt I have because I can not see much (if any) reason to upgrade from CS4 (i.e., the "improvements" in CS5 appeared to be aimed at the other 90%).
-
As I see it, the only lens correction that is advantageously done before demosaic is CA.
I don't disagree...however, I do think there are some real advantages to apply lens distortion correction as well as vignette inside of the raw processing pipeline and combine those corrections with perspective correction in one fell swoop...
The more you touch the data with various and multiple algorithms, the more eventual degradation of that data...
While it ain't easy, don't be at all surprised to see an ACR/LR lens correction/perspective correction solution sooner rather than later. The fact that's it's incredibly complicated and difficult to do parametrically, shouldn't be all that surprising that Thomas and team could figure it out.
So, bottom line, quit your bitching...you'll get what you want (and it'll be better than you expected) if you exhibit a degree of being patient, the odds are your "agitation" that lens corrections and perspective crop not being apparent in Lightroom 3 (for whatever reason) will make some people complaining the loudest sound, well, kinda petty...
Hint, hint...say no more–wink's as good as a nod!
-
Thank you Mr. Schewe fo this wonderful piece of information! It finally removes the nagging sense of guilt I have because I can not see much (if any) reason to upgrade from CS4 (i.e., the "improvements" in CS5 appeared to be aimed at the other 90%).
Not the case at all. Apart from the JDIs which ease workflow, things like refine edge will make a lot of photographers very happy. See Hair cut out Tutorial (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUIcQ1nXkWk&feature=player_embedded) to see what this can do. Then there is content aware fill, which is kind of handy. And if you are on a Mac then you get 64 bit power and it's faster generally. ACR is improved significantly and can make a big differnce to high ISO/poor lighting images.
-
As I see it, the only lens correction that is advantageously done before demosaic is CA.
Possibly, but:
1. scaling the red and blue channels for CA means that data is already compromised and resampling those channels twice is likely worse than the gain of not resampling the green channel(s) prior to Debayer,
2. at an early stage, resampling is probably close to transitive in the sense that
DEBAYER-sample(DEBARREL-sample) == DEBARREL-sample(DEBAYER-sample),
3. resampling the raw-data influences moiré, and thus influences moiré corrections that may be present in the debayer stage,
Having said that, one might discuss the exacts of the internal algorithms, but the question remains how this should be represented in a DNG file. And also how this should be represented in the GUI.
DNG file:
If you think of a DNG file as the RAW data + parameters for interpretation, then it becomes very apparent that creative edits are not initially relevant for RAW conversion. Neither is interpolation of two colorprofiles.
GUI:
what should actually be exposed to the user and more importantly HOW. We now have a hefty 9 sliders in the detail tab of LR, but is there a reasonable method, set of steps, that will get me to the optimal result most efficiently? Is there a single optimal setting?
If i have found an optimal setting in the detail section, will adjustments of the tonal section adversely affect the detail settings? It seems the detail setting is now very sensitive to small changes. I find it very difficult to come to a reasonable setting.
By reasonable method I mean something like:
1. set all sliders to default,
2. start by adjusting slider A until you see this,
3. then adjust slider B until you see this,
4. if you see this, then adjust slider C, otherwise leave it untouched,
5. etc...
Similarly, there are some noise reductions that may be useful prior to debayering (and lenscorrections), like dead pixel elimination. If these corrections are defined properly, they translate easily to a DNG definition, as well as to a proper GUI and processing method. If you see a smeared pixel, first try the dead-pixel elimination button/slider in the debayer section. If that doesn't change it, use whatever other section the raw converter producer thinks appropriate. etc...
Positional problems with a parametric brush doesn't seem to me to be a very good argument to hamper proper implementation of RAW-conversion features and standards. Lenscorrections seem more intrinsic to raw-conversion than parametric brushes...
-
I don't disagree...however, I do think there are some real advantages to apply lens distortion correction as well as vignette inside of the raw processing pipeline and combine those corrections with perspective correction in one fell swoop...
The more you touch the data with various and multiple algorithms, the more eventual degradation of that data...
While it ain't easy, don't be at all surprised to see an ACR/LR lens correction/perspective correction solution sooner rather than later. The fact that's it's incredibly complicated and difficult to do parametrically, shouldn't be all that surprising that Thomas and team could figure it out.
I agree that touching the data with multiple manipulations degrades it. However, once the data is demosaiced it doesn't seem to me that it should matter all that much whether further manipulations are carried out in the converter or in the editor, if the editor and converter teams are talking to one another and use a common data representation. Degradation would come from converting from ACR's internal representation to an output color space (and gamma), and then having to convert back to the internal representation (assuming the editor uses the same internal representation as the converter, I don't know if that's the case) in order to do geometric corrections. In such a case, it would be helpful if the converter output the internal representation directly for the editor to pick up if the correction was to be done in the editor.
So, bottom line, quit your bitching...you'll get what you want (and it'll be better than you expected) if you exhibit a degree of being patient, the odds are your "agitation" that lens corrections and perspective crop not being apparent in Lightroom 3 (for whatever reason) will make some people complaining the loudest sound, well, kinda petty...
Hint, hint...say no more–wink's as good as a nod!
Not sure who you're replying to here, the post you're replying to is my first in this thread, in which I did not moan about any current or impending software releases by Adobe. Nor am I agitated...
-
I don't understand why parametric control of lens distortion is desirable beyond on/off? Assuming an accurate preset is available, I'd say the same goes for CA.
For CA at least (and I'd think the same for distortion?) the error is distance-dependent : the correction could be made with the focus distance used, but first I'm not sure it's available as documented or known EXIF data in all cameras on the market, and second I'm not sure either it accurately describes the error affecting any object in the image.
That's a pity, because I really do agree that one ideally shouldn't have to fiddle with such settings : there is one right setting, it's the one that cures the error, period.
I completely agree too that once distortion is under control, it just calls for perspective control (which I personally need much more than distortion correction), which OTOH does need to fine tune and choice between the Charybdis of the vanishing roofs and the Scylla of the too-straight-not-to-fall-on-my-face square facade.
Conceptually, it's just a matter of deforming the reference space with the image - a transform which should be reversible (and therefore applicable to an edit's coordinates) as long as the image content is recognizable, shouldn't it?
And I'd say than transforming this rather simple concept view into actual working code is what I give Adobe hard-earned money for... So I'll just bow to Jeff Schewe's last remark and keep my fingers crossed (that may provide a good excuse for typos).
-
See, auto lens corrections is already built into Camera Raw 5.3/Lightroom 2.3 and beyond. Yep...for certain lens camera combos, the camera raw pipeline is already doing the corrections for distortion, CA and vignetting. So, it's obvious the doing lens corrections parametrically is possible.
Just to be clear, are you saying that ACR 5.3/LR 2.3 and later are doing DxO-type automatic correction of barrel, pincusion, etc. of some lens/ body combos? This is the first I've heard about that. How would one know it's happening, and for which lens/body combos? Seems like something that Adobe would be bragging about it, or at least informing somehow that it was happening (and maybe allowing it to be enabled/disabled).
-
To address some questions/issues raised in this thread:
There are pros/cons to the placement of a given "lens correction" setup in a processing pipeline. For example, it is conceivable that one might want to do vignette compensation as early as possible, e.g., as soon as the mosaic image is in a linear light space. It would have the advantage of processing only 1 image plane (instead of 3 or 4, for color images, if done later), so it would take less time. On the other hand, it would be preferable to keep the processed image with a data type that supports overrange values (i.e., outside the nominal [0,1] space). Otherwise if you blow out highlights by applying vignette compensation and clip the data, you can't get it back later. One of the many tradeoffs involved.
The question of DNG and its interaction with (optional) processing. There are three broad levels at which one can view DNG. The simplest is as the basic image container; just the image data and some required metadata that tells you about (e.g., CFA plane order, clipping level); in that case it is very much like existing TIFF or TIFF-EP. Without these basics, you simply could not get a useful result (like trying to read a TIFF without knowing the image dimensions). Next step up is additional (optional) metadata that may be useful for rendering, such as extra color profiles and/or processing instructions (e.g., to do per-column scaling calibration). The format and capabilities of these instructions was determined largely by feedback provided by the camera makers (familiar names in Japan and Germany). These are all documented in the DNG spec and implemented in the DNG SDK; they are technically independent of the raw converter, in the sense that any raw converter that wishes to support these additional goodies is welcome to do so (obviously they are not required to, and many choose not to), no legal/political/patent stuff involved. Finally there is optional processing metadata that is raw converter-specific, e.g., XMP metadata from Camera Raw. These are obviously proprietary and only make sense to the raw converter in question (e.g., there are a gazillion ways to define "Saturation" and there's no reason ACR's definition should be the same as the one used by another converter like Capture One or Aperture).
Order of operations in CR/LR and the preservation of the parametric workflow are both taken seriously by Adobe, because for many (not all, but many) users they are integral parts of the overall editing experience. It is true that rendering is essentially deferred. As much as possible, we very much want to preserve the concept of being able to tweak the sliders in whatever order you feel comfortable, without having to undo/redo one type of editing just to be able to use another. We do not consider it an acceptable user experience, for example, to require a user to redo local corrections to apply (or remove), say, a distortion adjustment. There are lots of existing images out there in the real-world that have local adjustments, spot healing, etc. already applied, and we respect that. In general, we do not consider X a shippable feature until X works appropriately with all other editing features. At least, that's the standard we try to hold. Admittedly we don't always meet that standard, but that's we strive for.
Getting back to the original question, I hope to provide more information about the situation very soon.
-
Not sure who you're replying to here, the post you're replying to is my first in this thread, in which I did not moan about any current or impending software releases by Adobe. Nor am I agitated...
You are right...I'm sorry...that part of my post was NOT directed at you...it was directed at some of the other posters in this thread whose hand wringing is getting a bit tiresome. I should have directed it to them and away from you...
-
Just to be clear, are you saying that ACR 5.3/LR 2.3 and later are doing DxO-type automatic correction of barrel, pincusion, etc. of some lens/ body combos? This is the first I've heard about that. How would one know it's happening, and for which lens/body combos? Seems like something that Adobe would be bragging about it, or at least informing somehow that it was happening (and maybe allowing it to be enabled/disabled).
Yep...Panasonic/Leica cameras and the recent Canon S90 are examples of camera/lens combos where ACR/LR does automatic distortion, CA and vignette correction based on metadata about lens focal length of zoom and I think subject (focus) distance...as to why Adobe isn't "bragging about", well, since the auto lens correction is being applied only to a few cameras and the reason why it is being applied is that otherwise the resulting images would look like crap, Adobe didn't want to make a big thing out of the deal...but the capability is already there.
-
... things like refine edge will make a lot of photographers very happy. See Hair cut out Tutorial (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUIcQ1nXkWk&feature=player_embedded) to see what this can do.
Not sure why would I, as a photographer, not as an illustrator or retoucher, would like to cut hair out, combine different backgrounds, etc. But, of course, I am speaking about myself only.
Then there is content aware fill, which is kind of handy.
Again, not sure how much I would like to alter photos (especially landscape ones) as a photographer. Being an illustrator, or "dreamscape" photoshopographer™, is a different matter, of course.
Besides, I am not at all impressed with it and here is why:
[attachment=21648:QmeqG.png]
... ACR is improved significantly and can make a big differnce to high ISO/poor lighting images.
And for that I will use Lightroom 3.
-
HAHAHAHA, you would think that the Adobe 'boys' would have gotten that one right. If you squint your eyes it could be Heidi Montag. I'll add a couple smilies so as not to offend anyone.
-
…
Besides, I am not at all impressed with it and here is why:
…
Just like HDR and DOF stacking, it'll take a couple of release before it works as expected!
-
Just like HDR and DOF stacking, it'll take a couple of release before it works as expected!
Wow - photoshop reveals secret alien beings!
It's pretty interesting what it does with her hair though. It lengthens it on the left, and on the right it adds a few strands "behind" her.
-
Hi Slobodan, one example of where content-aware fill can be useful to landscape photography is if you're doing some stitching. For example, if you're doing a standard horizontal stitch (say, 3 frames from left to right) you will usually have a crooked border across the top & bottom edges of the stitched image. Of course, you can eliminate these by cropping down. On the other hand, it can be useful to "fill in" the image areas, esp. if it's a relatively simple area such as sky.
-
Hi Slobodan, one example of where content-aware fill can be useful to landscape photography is if you're doing some stitching. For example, if you're doing a standard horizontal stitch (say, 3 frames from left to right) you will usually have a crooked border across the top & bottom edges of the stitched image. Of course, you can eliminate these by cropping down. On the other hand, it can be useful to "fill in" the image areas, esp. if it's a relatively simple area such as sky.
True. This is one place where the current healing brush fails miserably, it just can't handle filling in at the edge of the frame.
I still think the examples in the videos from a few weeks back are extreme to the point of being absurd. I don't think you replace that much of an image and not have it show (nor would I want to, at the point it's not really photography anymore IMHO).
-
Besides, I am not at all impressed with it and here is why:
[attachment=21648:QmeqG.png]
And for that I will use Lightroom 3.
Slobodan,
That is hilarious. That is the funniest thing I've ever seen on this forum.
Bill
-
Who cares? The camera guys will end up doing it in-camera because the customers need the correction, and Adobe will continue to make the money and everyone will be happy. My Nikon D3x already churns out Jpegs which are most of the time perfectly usable, with electronic "fill light", decent white balance, noise reduction and I think even chromatic aberration correction.
I would like to strongly disagree.
A parametric implementation is simply a deferred pixel implementation. But ultimately we users are just looking at the pixel result. LR has already sacrificed some of the real-time preview capabilities in order to implement the desired functionality, but even so, we are still basing our input on the pixel based preview.
So, there is no such thing as "doing it parametrically". The parameters are always translated to pixelbased corrections. It is just a matter of whether that can be done:
1) in near real time,
and for the sake of this discussion:
2) whether there are easy inverse transforms for user input if applicable.
A simple example would be the fact that we are usually looking at a preview proxy which is reduced in size. If we then apply sharpening parameters how should the result be applied/displayed?
Having said that, here is why I am really opposed to the parametric argument against lenscorrections:
Lenscorrections are not the same as perspective corrections. The latter is not really a correction, and most users can easily live with perspective corrections being relinquished to later photoshop editing, as it usually is a specialized task.
Lenscorrections should, and this is very very important, should be done BEFORE any other processing, including and most importantly before DEBAYERING and before COLORMANAGEMENT! Otherwise chromatic aberrations will have been obfuscated by crosschannel processing which degrades debayer performance and makes lenscorrections nearly impossible in later stages. (in the same way as white-point corrections are near impossible in non-linear gammacorrected data).
It seems however that LR and related products (and yes, I am making a presumption here) do these corrections further down the pipeline. Well after Debayering and a lot of the other processing. It is ONLY IN THIS case that you run into inverse-transform problems that I have seen mentioned. I therefore make this presumption of processing order, and would therefore also like to propose that the entire problem is not one of parametric vs pixels, but one of processing order.
And I also believe that this should be discussed pretty damn heavily & transparent at Adobe and elsewhere, because as it currently is, the DNG "standard" is in a developmental stage but it seems that a lot of the definitions are being based on the Adobe-processing-paradigm. And I already have mentioned earlier that the colormanagement implementation of DNG is in serious need of reconsideration, and now the lenscorrection definitions may just go in the same direction, which in my not so humble opinion is more southward bound than is absolutely necessary.
-
My Nikon D3x already churns out Jpegs which are most of the time perfectly usable, with electronic "fill light", decent white balance, noise reduction and I think even chromatic aberration correction.
Cool, so that means you won't be shooting raw anymore, right? If so, this thread is indeed useless for you. The rest of us do still care about an optimal raw processing pipeline...
-
Cool, so that means you won't be shooting raw anymore, right? If so, this thread is indeed useless for you. The rest of us do still care about an optimal raw processing pipeline...
Jeff,
You have been sitting in the garage in your car and inhaling your own exhaust for too long. Open a window before bad luck bites you!
In case you have forgotten, the camera guys have had embedded Raw conversion since Bayer matrices first shipped. It's there in every camera from cellphone up. And a quick look at a consumer Nikon or Canon shows that they do a pretty good job at it - good enough that even many serious amateurs are going to have trouble justifying $2K a seat to correct the distorsion of their eeeny teeny Powershot. Adjust wb and curves and distorsion and noise etc the camera may be able to do at shot or even after-shot now.
Frankly, the in-camera Raw converter on the Nikon D3x is so good that on the latest batch of Paris fashion shows i shot I did not really *need* to go to Raw for any of the A4 samples I handed out. And I prefer in-camera Nikon color to ACR defaults any day of the week.
Edmund
-
Jeff,
You have been sitting in the garage in your car and inhaling your own exhaust for too long. Open a window before bad luck bites you!
In case you have forgotten, the camera guys have had embedded Raw conversion since Bayer matrices first shipped. It's there in every camera from cellphone up. And a quick look at a consumer Nikon or Canon shows that they do a pretty good job at it - good enough that even many serious amateurs are going to have trouble justifying $2K a seat to correct the distorsion of their eeeny teeny Powershot. Adjust wb and curves and distorsion and noise etc the camera may be able to do at shot or even after-shot now.
Frankly, the in-camera Raw converter on the Nikon D3x is so good that on the latest batch of Paris fashion shows i shot I did not really *need* to go to Raw for any of the A4 samples I handed out. And I prefer in-camera Nikon color to ACR defaults any day of the week.
Edmund
You realise that you can now match those in-camera colour choices in ACR, right?
It's also a bit rich (sorry, bad pun) to suggest it's $2k just for lens correction in a Powershot. There are a lot of people shooting with lenses that won't be corrected in-camera and who want to shoot raw for all the other benefits who will love this - else the plethora of such software and plugins around wouldn't exist.
I think Jeff's point stands - you won't use it and that's fine, but many people will and they're here to discuss it. If you have nothing to add beyond "I won't use it", you're not really adding a lot, are you?
If your contribution is, "Hey, take a look at in-camera correction" then that's worthwhile - I'm sure many people will - but if you really think that there's serious lens correction happening in the time it takes your camera to cook a JPG I think you're misleading yourself. The results might be absolutely fine for you, but that doesn't mean they're being corrected.
-
Farmer,
If people are going to buy $2K software
You realise that you can now match those in-camera colour choices in ACR, right?
It's also a bit rich (sorry, bad pun) to suggest it's $2k just for lens correction in a Powershot. There are a lot of people shooting with lenses that won't be corrected in-camera and who want to shoot raw for all the other benefits who will love this - else the plethora of such software and plugins around wouldn't exist.
I think Jeff's point stands - you won't use it and that's fine, but many people will and they're here to discuss it. If you have nothing to add beyond "I won't use it", you're not really adding a lot, are you?
If your contribution is, "Hey, take a look at in-camera correction" then that's worthwhile - I'm sure many people will - but if you really think that there's serious lens correction happening in the time it takes your camera to cook a JPG I think you're misleading yourself. The results might be absolutely fine for you, but that doesn't mean they're being corrected.
Yes, actually there is some good work done in-camera. Leica is a good example, every M-series camera contains a database of mostly every M lens Leica ever made. I don't think Adobe has the resources to match this.
Let's be blunt, Photoshop is a very very good piece of software engineering but ACR is a "one size fits all". My Nikon D3x is a good SLR, but my Phase back will kill it in decent light; and similarly Photoshop is good software, but a manufacturer Raw converter will usually beat it with little effort. Why should I believe that the guys at Adobe who use the same software model for zillions of cameras will defeat the guys who spent years of their life in making *their* camera special ?
If I'm going to go to the trouble to resort to a Raw converter rather than take the Jpeg, why shouldn't I reach for the best ?
Edmund
-
Farmer,
If people are going to buy $2K software
Yes, actually there is some good work done in-camera. Leica is a good example, every M-series camera contains a database of mostly every M lens Leica ever made. I don't think Adobe has the resources to match this.
Let's be blunt, Photoshop is a very very good piece of software engineering but ACR is a "one size fits all". My Nikon D3x is a good SLR, but my Phase back will kill it in decent light; and similarly Photoshop is good software, but a manufacturer Raw converter will usually beat it with little effort. Why should I believe that the guys at Adobe who use the same software model for zillions of cameras will defeat the guys who spent years of their life in making *their* camera special ?
If I'm going to go to the trouble to resort to a Raw converter rather than take the Jpeg, why shouldn't I reach for the best ?
Edmund
I think your perspective is too narrow.
Your Phase will kill your Nikon...in decent light. Well, that's one situation, which means there is at least one situation in which the Nikon will do better. The list of such comparisons goes on - each is a tool suited to a certain task. If your Phase did everything, you wouldn't have a Nikon.
ACR might be "one size fits all", but it's very well configured and very configurable. Manufacturers spend a long time making cameras and lenses, and a lot less time putting together the software packages. They really only have one advantage - they know exactly what's happening in their cameras to create the raw, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're doing the best conversion. They're doing *a* conversion, just as ACR (and other raw converters) does.
For your particular needs, it might not be worthwhile, but to dismiss it because it doesn't suit your subjective perspective is simply wrong.
-
Why should I believe that the guys at Adobe who use the same software model for zillions of cameras will defeat the guys who spent years of their life in making *their* camera special ?
I'll put it the other way around : how is it that the raw converter shipped with my camera (canon DPP), being made by guys who know perfectly the innards of it and should also know how to optimize output, sucks so much and smears details instead of reducing noise?
And, using LR, I didn't even speak about usability...
Michael often states in its reviews that producing cameras and producing software isn't the same job ; he may well be right.
And on the jpeg vs. raw debate, it just feels like a time warp, or is it a case of demonic possession? KR spirit, I urge you by the great manes of Nikonos and Canonet to leave this body!
-
I'm not dismissing it; I'm saying that ACR is expensive and not good enough:
- Case 1: I need decent Jpegs, nothing complicated for a batch of fashion show images (eg. 300 images ). Then the camera provides me with usable Jpegs *fast*.Photoshop cannot beat that because the in-camera Jpegs are pre-curved and pre-sharpened very nicely these days, and in-camera white balance determination is excellent on the high end Nikons.
- Case 2: I need to fine tune with Raw, color grade, noise reduce, sharpen ONE SELECTION. Then the camera manufacturer software does very good sharpening (they know the AA filter best) and also yields excellent color because they really know their sensor best .So the file gets converted in software X eg. C1 and then moved to PS for retouch. Kludgy but unavoidable.
Enough! ACR is a nice converter, but in-camera Jpegs are so good now that ACR is at best equivalent when set to defaults, and simply cannot and doesn't cut it in the cases when I really need to resort to Raw.
The truth is, the camera makers sold or gave away Raw converters before Adobe did, and have hugely improved their in-camera Jpeg pipeline, at the same time as Adobe has hugely improved ACR. But the camera makers have the convenience of the end-product on their side, and zero-time is a powerful argument.
For 5 or 6 years I did Raw systematically. Now I use the Jpegs, in 95% of cases, and you know what? I like the time I save.
Edmund
-
Now, what I would really like to see in Photoshop is cutting-edge noise reduction and cutting-edge deconvolution tool and nice sharpening; and a really useful camera profiling tool, but in fact if you want these they are add-ons and you need to buy Focal Blade and Neat Image and Xrite Passport (which I helped design),
So you prefer a tool that you helped to design. Fair enough. Makes sense to me.
You're still dismissing ACR, regardless of your claim otherwise. You've just systematically explained why you feel it's never useful - that's dismissing it as a viable tool.
I think you're wrong.
In *your* *subjective* experience, you don't need it. Excellent.
-
You're still dismissing ACR, regardless of your claim otherwise. You've just systematically explained why you feel it's never useful - that's dismissing it as a viable tool.
I think you're wrong.
In *your* *subjective* experience, you don't need it. Excellent.
My opinion is indeed subjective but not entirely dismissive. - I do realize that ACR is almost an industry standard, a very useful universal piece of software and that many swear by it.
I also insist on using Macs rather than Windows, but I do realize that most of the world's useful work gets done on Windows.
By the way, have you ever tried Raw Developer? It's a neat alternative universal Raw converter for those who don't want to upgrade their Photoshop license. I find the quality is quite good.
Edmund
-
Frankly, the in-camera Raw converter on the Nikon D3x is so good that on the latest batch of Paris fashion shows i shot I did not really *need* to go to Raw for any of the A4 samples I handed out. And I prefer in-camera Nikon color to ACR defaults any day of the week.
Edmund,
As you imply, if you get exposure, white balance, the tone curve, and color balance just right, in camera JPEGs are good enough for many purposes. However, white balance is much better accomplished with raw files and highlight recovery is essentially impossible with JPEGs since the white balance multipliers for the red and blue channels would blow those channels once white balance has been applied. Furthermore, shooting JPEG essentially limits you to Adobe RGB and does not allow you to capture the full color "gamut" of your camera. To capture the full range of colors of your camera, it is best to render into 16 bit ProPhotoRGB or other wide gamut space, and that option is not available with JPEGs. The ACR custom profiles allow you to match the Nikon color without much trouble. To each his own, but for these reasons I rarely shoot JPEGs.
Regards,
Bill
-
Yes, actually there is some good work done in-camera. Leica is a good example, every M-series camera contains a database of mostly every M lens Leica ever made. I don't think Adobe has the resources to match this.
Yeah, ironic that Leica writes to a DNG and ships their cameras with Lightroom, huh? Maybe Leica knows something you don't.
-
My opinion is indeed subjective but not entirely dismissive. - I do realize that ACR is almost an industry standard, a very useful universal piece of software and that many swear by it.
I also insist on using Macs rather than Windows, but I do realize that most of the world's useful work gets done on Windows.
By the way, have you ever tried Raw Developer? It's a neat alternative universal Raw converter for those who don't want to upgrade their Photoshop license. I find the quality is quite good.
Edmund
I did look at Raw Developer a while back and it was very good. However, I use Windows for most of my personal work (occassionaly playing with Macs) and most of my Mac exposure is at work where critical raw development is less common (and we always have the latest CS suite anyway). So, Raw Developer doesn't suit me in that regard. For a complete workflow, I still prefer ACR (I prefer it to LR, although I have that as well and find it very useful). I'll happily change as tools change to get what I want from them.
I completely accept that other people have other preferences - I think the issue here is that people were discussing lens correction in CS5 and all you seemed to want to do is argue that people shouldn't use ACR. Wrong place, wrong time, perhaps?
-
What I don't understand is why is this in Photoshop, and not in a RAW converter, ie. Camera RAW or Lightroom. It would make much more sense to have such corrections done in RAW converter as they should be done as early as possible in the post-processing pipeline - and preferably be non-destructive so new and improved corrections later on can be re-applied.
Just pinging this thread on the fact Tom Hogarty of Adobe has indicated Lens Corrections will be a part of Camera Raw 6.x (not 6.0 though) and Lightroom 3 when it ships...see: Preview of Lens Correction Solution for Camera Raw 6 and Lightroom 3 (http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2010/04/preview_of_lens_correction_sol.html).
It works very well and the technical challenges that make parametric application of the lens and perspective corrections have been solved. This was something those of us who were testing couldn't discuss before now.
-
Just pinging this thread on the fact Tom Hogarty of Adobe has indicated Lens Corrections will be a part of Camera Raw 6.x (not 6.0 though) and Lightroom 3 when it ships...see: Preview of Lens Correction Solution for Camera Raw 6 and Lightroom 3 (http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2010/04/preview_of_lens_correction_sol.html).
And now this from Tom (damn impressive!):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zAJTUJiCME (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zAJTUJiCME)
-
And now this from Tom (damn impressive!):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zAJTUJiCME (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zAJTUJiCME)
That's very cool and also unexpected…
-
Just pinging this thread on the fact Tom Hogarty of Adobe has indicated Lens Corrections will be a part of Camera Raw 6.x (not 6.0 though) and Lightroom 3 when it ships...see: Preview of Lens Correction Solution for Camera Raw 6 and Lightroom 3 (http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2010/04/preview_of_lens_correction_sol.html).
It works very well and the technical challenges that make parametric application of the lens and perspective corrections have been solved. This was something those of us who were testing couldn't discuss before now.
Great news, thanks for the update!
edit: I updated the OP to reflect this. Watched the youtube video and am very excited - Adobe has even included profile creator, which was the main reason I didn't use DXO as my camera/lens combos were not covered.
-
This is terrific news! Between this and the content aware healing brush, I am (or expect to be) an extremely happy camper.
-
Just pinging this thread on the fact Tom Hogarty of Adobe has indicated Lens Corrections will be a part of Camera Raw 6.x (not 6.0 though) and Lightroom 3 when it ships...
Hi Jeff,
"Camera Raw 6.x (not 6.0 though)", would you be at liberty to indicate whether it's rather sooner than later in the 6.xx lifecycle? Not 6.0 is a bit disappointing, but it not being mentioned by others seems more disappointing (raising hopes and investment timing out of sync).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Bart, the video includes a hint as to which version it will be in. :-)
-
Hi Bart, the video includes a hint as to which version it will be in. :-)
Hi Eric,
I missed that hint, I'll review it again.
Ah, I thought is was a mock-up, but is version 6.1 scheduled rather sooner than later? Afterall, it can take at least 10 subversions to get there.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Bart, the video includes a hint as to which version it will be in. :-)
Oh I'm not going to fall for that one, again. I played a Teletubbies episode in reverse once and I had to take our cat to the exorcist.
-
Hi Bart, sooner rather than later. Our general schedule has been a dot release every 13 weeks or so, and we generally don't do double-dot or triple-dot releases. I understand you don't want to see a stream of 6.0.0.0.1 and 6.0.0.0.2 numbers appearing with 13 week deltas in between each one. :-)
-
Hi Bart, sooner rather than later. Our general schedule has been a dot release every 13 weeks or so, and we generally don't do double-dot or triple-dot releases. I understand you don't want to see a stream of 6.0.0.0.1 and 6.0.0.0.2 numbers appearing with 13 week deltas in between each one. :-)
Hi Eric,
Thanks for clarifying, appreciated.
Cheers,
Bart
-
New ACR engine and this tool as well? I want sooooooooooooo badly. I don't like LR but I'm updating PS just for the new ACR and hopefully even faster and streamlined bridge...
-
Enough! ACR is a nice converter, but in-camera Jpegs are so good now that ACR is at best equivalent when set to defaults, and simply cannot and doesn't cut it in the cases when I really need to resort to Raw.
Funny how I can can better images from my RAW files than even the nice jpegs, that come out of the camera. And that includes matching the look. And do so very quickly.
For 5 or 6 years I did Raw systematically. Now I use the Jpegs, in 95% of cases, and you know what? I like the time I save.
I used to shoot RAW + JPEG for that reason, but as the JPEGs aren't as good, particularly with the recent advances in ACR. I only shoot the JPEGs to remind me if I was in a B+W or colour mood, plus I can get a different look by PPing the JPEGs that is hard to match with the RAWs, not better quality, just different.
-
Funny how I can can better images from my RAW files than even the nice jpegs, that come out of the camera. And that includes matching the look. And do so very quickly.
I used to shoot RAW + JPEG for that reason, but as the JPEGs aren't as good, particularly with the recent advances in ACR. I only shoot the JPEGs to remind me if I was in a B+W or colour mood, plus I can get a different look by PPing the JPEGs that is hard to match with the RAWs, not better quality, just different.
Actually, I even used to make digital polaroids from the Nikon D3x to a Canon Selphy printer, the prints are so good I don't need to use PS, and I can crop and adjust color in-camera by reconverting the Raw in-camera. I think I can even redo sharpness and fill light. Strangely enough although Canon makes printers the polaroids from the 5D2 seem less good.
But of course what the camera does is not a Raw conversion - only Adobe knows about Raw
Edmund
-
But of course what the camera does is not a Raw conversion - only Adobe knows about Raw
That very disingenious of you to say. No one has made such a claim or an inference. On the other hand, you seem to be trying to tell us that ACR is useless when it comes to raw conversion (you claim it's no better than in-camera JPG and that where JPG isn't good enough you find ACR not to be good enough - without specifying which version you've been using I might add).
-
That very disingenious of you to say. No one has made such a claim or an inference. On the other hand, you seem to be trying to tell us that ACR is useless when it comes to raw conversion (you claim it's no better than in-camera JPG and that where JPG isn't good enough you find ACR not to be good enough - without specifying which version you've been using I might add).
Could also be user error!
-
http://www.adobe.com/go/alpc/ (http://www.adobe.com/go/alpc/)
-
But of course what the camera does is not a Raw conversion - only Adobe knows about Raw
So, you wanna keep being a putz or do you want to engage in serious discussion?
So far, you are doing a GREAT job of being a putz...
(congrats, if that is what your goal is...)
-
So, you wanna keep being a putz or do you want to engage in serious discussion?
So far, you are doing a GREAT job of being a putz...
(congrats, if that is what your goal is...)
Hey! Jeff, I've just learned a new word. Just goes to show, no matter how many posts one has there's always something still to learn.
Putz: Not only Yiddish slang for a fool or idiot, but also a vulgar term for penis. It even has an intransitive verbal format, to putz: meaning - 'to behave in an idle manner'.
-
http://www.adobe.com/go/alpc/ (http://www.adobe.com/go/alpc/)
Farmer,
what a nice, informative post with a nice informative link to a useful piece of software !!!
Edmund
Jeff,
I have a SINGLE wish for improvement in Photoshop, that would make the software increase by $100 in value for me: A simpler print dialog, and no need to uprez and/or sharpen before printing.
And then, I would like ... better sharpening, better noise reduction, a better out-of-gamut visualization, and last not least ... lower pricing.
As for ACR, I have 0 feature requests. I think that this software is never going to make me really happy, and what it does it does well enough for the people who like it.
But I'm sure I'm the only person who has asked for the above feature improvements in the past 10 years - after all we live in the best of all possible worlds, now there, don't we.
Or no we don't ,they didn't allow president Bush to get a third term, so the map makers still print "Iran" on that part of the globes. Ah well, there too we have space for improvement.
Edmund
-
As for ACR, I have 0 feature requests. I think that this software is never going to make me really happy, and what it does it does well enough for the people who like it.
Ok, fine...so you want to continue being a putz...(since you don't seem to want to actually learn how to use it)...
I'm ok with that (in fact rather like the fact you don't have a friggin' clue how to use it)...
The less I need to interface with you, the better, ya know? I suspect you won't be buying the book nor the video (heaven forbid that you should actually learn how to use the tools before you condemn them)...
You go right ahead and entertain yourself while the rest of the world moves forward...(did we mention ACR 6.1 will have auto lens correction?)
Seriously, don't be using ACR 6.x for your stuff...clearly you can do better shooting JPEG....
Right?
-
I just laugh when I read complaints about Adobe pricing.
I'm a cabinetmaker. The software I use costs $13,000 for the three modules I own...and that's without any CNC translation, just the basic commercial design and cutlist features. Simple cad w/ some rendering.
Version upgrades, every 18-24 months, are $500 ($1,000 for everybody who purchased after 1992). Upgrade pricing is cumulative...skip a upgrade, and you owe double for the one after that. Phone support is $1200 to $2500 year, last year they closed the web forums and web forum access now is $250/year.
One company, Planit International, bought up the two main players a decade ago, along with a couple of the smaller players. The few remaining alternatives are strictly amateur league.
Ya, Adobe is just raping you guys.
-
I just laugh when I read complaints about Adobe pricing.
Ya, Adobe is just raping you guys.
It's a very good point. You should see the prices we pay at work for GIS licences, or database licencing for our Sites and Monuments Record (and support fees), all on an annual basis per seat. Or the fees we pay to the Ordnance Survey for our base mapping (about £65,000 per annum last time I looked). With Adobe software you get fully functional 30-day trials, public betas, excellent Internet support and a widespread user community, and developers from the company who bother to drop in here and help out. Obviously they are not doing any of this out of a sense of public duty, they need to turn a profit just the same as anyone else. But when a photographer can get pretty much most of the features they need to make a nice print out of PS Elements for about 60 quid here in the UK, I don't see too much to complain about.
John
-
It's a very good point. You should see the prices we pay at work for GIS licences, or database licencing for our Sites and Monuments Record (and support fees), all on an annual basis per seat. Or the fees we pay to the Ordnance Survey for our base mapping (about £65,000 per annum last time I looked). With Adobe software you get fully functional 30-day trials, public betas, excellent Internet support and a widespread user community, and developers from the company who bother to drop in here and help out. Obviously they are not doing any of this out of a sense of public duty, they need to turn a profit just the same as anyone else. But when a photographer can get pretty much most of the features they need to make a nice print out of PS Elements for about 60 quid here in the UK, I don't see too much to complain about.
John
Hehe, I had a meeting with a software company, where I outlined (in my professional capacity, see the Ph.D) how the whole core of Photoshop could be redone quickly, a matter of weeks. There were a bunch of people much smarter than me with years in the imaging business present, and they agreed that my method would probably work, in fact we even did back of the envelope time of computation estimations.
So, I don't think that Adobe is raping anybody for price, they are just overpricing because they use PS as a cash cow to finance new acquisitions., in the same way MS used Windows and Windows server licensing to build their company. However with both Adobe and Microsoft, we can see that the excessive pricing is now creating an entry point for technologically savvy competition to provide a large fraction of the functionality (Linux server farms, $200 Linux netooks) for a fraction of the price.
Apple already employ a method similar to the method I suggested, in their graphics software packages . I am sure that Steve would never risk picking a fight over Flash if he didn't already have Pictures ready to launch along Pages and Numbers. After all they did manage to make a nice copy of Lightroom with Aperture - except Steve seems to have a time machine because Apertue arrived quite a bit *before* Lightroom,
Edmund
PS. Jeff, why don't we dig out some images and put them up for ocnversion here on the forum? We can do a nice little converter shootout where everybody picks his favorite engine to process the files. I will gladly provide some Paris landscape shots from Nikon, Canon and Phase.
Edmund
-
Hi,
Anyone is free to come up with a cheaper product. Actually there are some around:
Picture Window Pro
Photoline 32
And of course... GIMP the Gnu Image Manipulation Program
Best regards
Erik
It's a very good point. You should see the prices we pay at work for GIS licences, or database licencing for our Sites and Monuments Record (and support fees), all on an annual basis per seat. Or the fees we pay to the Ordnance Survey for our base mapping (about £65,000 per annum last time I looked). With Adobe software you get fully functional 30-day trials, public betas, excellent Internet support and a widespread user community, and developers from the company who bother to drop in here and help out. Obviously they are not doing any of this out of a sense of public duty, they need to turn a profit just the same as anyone else. But when a photographer can get pretty much most of the features they need to make a nice print out of PS Elements for about 60 quid here in the UK, I don't see too much to complain about.
John
-
Well, Edmund, if it's so easy you should do it. There's clearly a very large number of users willing to pay less to get the same functionality. Yes, I'm sure we're all well aware of your Ph.D since it's in every post you make. It seems very important to you.
"in fact we even did back of the envelope time of computation estimations."
Well, if you did back of the envelope stuff it *must* be all correct! SJ has clearly made a huge mistake by not coming to you and really since it's so easy why hasn't he just released it?
So, I guess what I'm saying is put up or shut up :-)
-
People love and people hate Adobe and its products, pricing, marketing, __________ (fill in the blank). Who gives a shit? I am at a loss to understand how so many of the posts in these forums degenerate into middle-school level namecalling and baiting. Who gives a rip if someone has a wierd opinion, just move along. It's as bad as the Nikon and Canon fanboys trolling on DPR. Jeeze, I thought this was a forum with grownup photographers.
-
"grownup photographers"
Ain't no such thing bud...
If you don't like the topic, move along...if you don't like the forums, again, move along...there's nothing here for you–these are not the droids you were looking for...
-
If you don't like the topic, move along...if you don't like the forums, again, move along...there's nothing here for you–these are not the droids you were looking for...
Man, talk about not taking your own advice....
-
Ain't no such thing bud...
If you don't like the topic, move along...if you don't like the forums, again, move along...there's nothing here for you–these are not the droids you were looking for...
What's worrying is that you talk about it like it's normal, and not something that can be fixed. Signal-to-noise ratio has been deteriorating here for a while, and an increasing number of threads need to be closed due to juvenile poo-flinging. I've already had to delete some of my posts in other threads which have deteriorated to such extent that I can't have my name associated even with the thread, although I wasn't even part of the "debate." Fortunately I haven't seen blatant trolling, just uncivil behavior.
There should be more temporary bans and lower tolerance towards such behavior.
-
. . . uncivil behavior.
There should be more temporary bans and lower tolerance towards such behavior.
No doubt. The level of dialog on these forums has suffered in recent times. Unfortunately, Jeff, who is in every tutorial offered on this site, is often the major offender, and banning him isn't likely to happen. I'm constantly amazed that Michael and Adobe would care to be associated with such a juvenile personality. Personal attacks and otherwise helpful posts laced with insults are his modus operandi.
-
Be careful gentlemen, your halos are slipping.
-
... Jeeze, I thought this was a forum with grownup photographers.
And you would be right... it is for grown-ups, i.e. adults. It is not PG 13, to use the movie-rating scale, but often R-rated and X-rated, which by definition might include sex, violence, foul language, crude humor, drinks, cigars and bikes. If are underage or prefer chick flicks, sorry, wrong forum. And once you get used to the Cerberus-in-Chief™ style, it becomes endearingly funny actually To quote another photographer: "Perhaps the world's second worst crime is boredom. The first is being a bore." (Sir Cecil Beaton). You can not seriously expect me not to be bored to death by the dry debate about lens corrections? And when it comes to raw, I prefer humor to converters