Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Camera Raw Q&A => Topic started by: texshooter on July 07, 2013, 03:37:22 am
-
What I'm about to say might get me rebuked as a heretic, but I think Canon's Digital Photo Professional (DPP) raw converter gives better out-of-the-can results for Canon raw files than does Adobe's Camera Raw (ACR). I just tried DPP and was blown away. I can't get the same quality out of ACR. I'd like to know if I'm the only heritic out there. This leads me to ask, is it possible to do edits in two raw converter programs? If so, can and how do I go about converting my raw file in DPP and then reopening it in ACR for further edits. I like the smart object conversion feature in ACR, as well as ACR's other bells and whistles, but as far as the basic raw conversion goes, I like DPP better.
-
This leads me to ask, is it possible to do edits in two raw converter programs? If so, can and how do I go about converting my raw file in DPP and then reopening it in ACR for further edits. I like the smart object conversion feature in ACR, as well as ACR's other bells and whistles, but as far as the basic raw conversion goes, I like DPP better.
No...and you would realize that this is impossible if you think about it...
ACR/LR and DPP don' have any relationship between each other...nothing about DPP (or any other raw processors) could have any interrelationship with any other raw processor. How could it? DPP uses the Canon SDK, ACR/LR uses the Adobe SDK. Nothing about one relates to the other.
Actually, you might be right about "out of the can" default rendering of DPP and ACR/LR because, well, DPP is designed to make raw captures look like what Canon thinks your images should look like. Adobe renders raw files as "normalized" default raw files that has zero to do with any Canon "looks".
You won't be castigated as a heretic but more likely as ignorant of what you think you understand...vs. what you you don't understand. And if you understand raw processing better, you would realize this. And no, you'll never get to use Smart Objects and DPP processing. Not possible (and you would realize thins if you understood raw image processing).
-
You could save out the DPP version as a tiff and open that in ACR, not the same as opening a raw but close-ish.
-
DPP has good color because it uses good camera profiles, but the loss of DR (no recovery ability, highlights clipped to prevent false colors rather than taking pro-active correction measures, poor NR that in effect raises the DR floor) disqualifies it as far as I'm concerned. One nice feature that it does have which I would like to see in LR/ACR is the option to output linear conversions, which can be used in a blend to get all of the available highlight detail.
-
Have you tried switching from Adobe Standard to Camera Neutral in the Camera Profile tab in ACR?
Also, in the HSL/Luminance tab, slide the blue slider 15-20 to the left.
But, best to try this with a shot of an X-Rite colour checker.
Whatever you do, I'm pretty sure you'll find Camera Neutral a better starting point than Adobe Standard.
D.
-
DPP has good color because it uses good camera profiles
Something tells me that if I were to make my own camera profile, say with the X-Rite Colorchecker DNG profiler, I could get ACR's interpretation closer to DPP's, but I don't think such a custom camera profile would match 100% when it comes to contrast and sharpness. Custom camera profiles only address hue, luminance, and saturation. I'm sure Canon's DPP camera profiles are more complicated than what I can make myself. I guess I'll have to try it and see what happens.
And as far as doing the RAW conversions in DPP and importing a TIFF into ACR, I'm assuming I can still benefit from non-destructive parametric editing by converting it to a smart object in ACR and opening it into Photoshop. I understand it's not the same thing as converting a RAW file into a smart object, but a smart object is a smart object, whether the source file is RAW, TIFF or JPEG. Again, an assumption on my part.
-
texshooter,
Would still like to know what you think of ACR (Or LR) Camera Neutral vs DPP. Uncannily similar, in my view.
D.
-
Custom camera profiles only address hue, luminance, and saturation. I'm sure Canon's DPP camera profiles are more complicated than what I can make myself. I guess I'll have to try it and see what happens.
Canon (DPP or in-camera) uses "Picture Styles" which are preset packages that contain a profile plus contrast, saturation and sharpening settings. However, the P.S. can be modified quite easily by changing the contrast, saturation and sharpening elements either in-camera or by pushing sliders in DPP. Even the profile can be altered with the Picture Style Editor software supplied by Canon.
In LR/ACR these parameters are independent but can be bound together in a User Develop Preset. You can start with selecting one of the DNG Camera Profiles that are designed to simulate the various P.S. profiles used by Canon. They are not identical (considering that they had to be reverse-engineered, that would be too much to expect), but they are quite close and, as Dinarius writes, work quite well. Next you have to find basic settings for Contrast, Saturation/Vibrance and Sharpening that fit your taste or (if that is what you really want) imitate DPP. Create a Develop Preset, give it the name of the Canon P.S. to which it correlates and set it to be automatically applied at import to LR or file opening in ACR.
Making your own profile instead of using one of Adobe's Camera Profiles is, of course, a possibility, but I think you will find that you derive the most benefit from a Color Checker profile when it is made for specific and unique lighting conditions, while for sunlight and non-specific artificial light they do not give much added value beyond Adobe's profiles.
-
texshooter,
Would still like to know what you think of ACR (Or LR) Camera Neutral vs DPP. Uncannily similar, in my view.
D.
These views are based on a static unedited starting point to base a comparison. It doesn't indicate what DPP vs ACR/LR color engine given a particular working space (i.e. ProPhotoRGB/AdobeRGB) will do to the color editing the image.
Might try an experiment by first converting a copy of the Raw image in DPP to a 16bit tiff as is, no editing, locking in the default look that may or may not look better than ACR/LR's default.
Open tiff in ACR/LR and apply an extreme Contrast adjustment. Now do the same to the original Raw in DPP and see if there's a difference. Of course make sure working/output spaces chosen in each app are identical for the tiff and Raw in DPP.
-
if I were to make my own camera profile, say with the X-Rite Colorchecker DNG profiler, I could get ACR's interpretation closer to DPP's
I doubt that... it (XRite OEM software) does not allow to edit any LUTs, does it.
-
These views are based on a static unedited starting point to base a comparison. It doesn't indicate what DPP vs ACR/LR color engine given a particular working space (i.e. ProPhotoRGB/AdobeRGB) will do to the color editing the image.
Interesting point. For me the crucial point is how quickly Camera Neutral gets an X-Rite Colour Checker to correct Adobe 1998 values, whereas Adobe Standard is way off.
D.
-
texshooter,
Would still like to know what you think of ACR (Or LR) Camera Neutral vs DPP. Uncannily similar, in my view.
D.
Nope, not even close. ACR is way too blue. I don't know where ACR gets their camera profiles from, but certainly not from anyone who knows the workings of the CR2 format. But I'm use to this sort of thing, such as with manufacturers' provided paper ICC profiles. Par for the course.
-
Nope, not even close. ACR is way too blue. I don't know where ACR gets their camera profiles from, but certainly not from anyone who knows the workings of the CR2 format. But I'm use to this sort of thing, such as with manufacturers' provided paper ICC profiles. Par for the course.
Which is why I wrote above that you have to move the blue luminance in HSL about 20 points to the left.
With respect, "not even close" is a gross exaggeration.
The proof of the pudding is in the X-Rite CC, IMHO.
D.
-
Which is why I wrote above that you have to move the blue luminance in HSL about 20 points to the left.
D.
I did move the hue slider. The color balance improves but still not as good as DPP. I don't want better. I want best.
-
Camera Neutral gets you into a position where, using an X-Rite CC, a profile can be created for a given light set-up.
One can then enjoy the vastly superior features of ACR over DPP.
D.
Ps. Adjusting blue Luminance is more important than Hue, I think.
-
One important point I don't see mentioned in this thread...
The Adobe profiles can vary considerably on different camera bodies. For example, the Camera Faithful profile for a Canon 1Ds is quite different than the Camera Faithful profile for a Canon 5D3.
So when someone mentions the strength or weakness of a particular Adobe profile, ask what camera body.
-
Interesting point. For me the crucial point is how quickly Camera Neutral gets an X-Rite Colour Checker to correct Adobe 1998 values, whereas Adobe Standard is way off.
D.
Adobe Standard is way off for my Pentax K100D PEFs as well, but I see where and how off it acts on real scenes. I'm not much interested in what it does to a CC chart which I only use for custom profiles which on their own sometimes do awful things to real scenes that Adobe Standard will fix mainly with regard to clipping.
Adobe Standard is REALLY good at taming high contrast overly vibrant scenes on my PEFs that a custom profile will amplify (i.e. blooming from over saturated flowers).
But working in ACR has been like sculpting clay for me where I've gotten to understand on an intimate level how the tools effect hue/sat/lum to the point I can screw the image up choosing Adobe Standard and make it look identical to how it looked with the custom profile which I'm assuming is behind your Blue HSL adjustment tip.
Most folks don't want to work that much and expect the defaults to do most of the heavy lifting. I do the above so I can see what is going on under the hood with regard to how the tools effect the image because I shoot under a lot of available light, quite a bit of it no where near D50.
-
So when someone mentions the strength or weakness of a particular Adobe profile, ask what camera body.
Which also illustrates that the same camera body may differ from lot to lot. It's not like Adobe has built their profiles using dozen's of samples or wants to make a crappy profile. Probably worked well for them but is that profile representative of all said bodies? Probably not as we find people who build their own DNG profiles almost always report a better result than using the 'canned' profile.
-
Which also illustrates that the same camera body may differ from lot to lot. It's not like Adobe has built their profiles using dozen's of samples or wants to make a crappy profile. Probably worked well for them but is that profile representative of all said bodies? Probably not as we find people who build their own DNG profiles almost always report a better result than using the 'canned' profile.
Your point is well taken but doesn't exactly the same logic apply to Canon DPP or brand X conversion? After all, they too use but one canned profile and assume all the cameras are the same. So, how does that explain the observations about DPP?
-
So, how does that explain the observations about DPP?
I can only assume... My assumption would be that DPP, which is a Canon product only has to worry about Canon bodies, no other camera manufacturers. Canon should know the actual spectral sensitivity of their own sensors, everyone else has to make assumptions of the native raw color space.
But my main point was about the differences between a canned profile and a custom profile within a single raw processor by Adobe. I suspect that if someone were to build a custom profile for DPP, it might show further improvements over the canned profile (leaving aside the issues of building and using ICC camera profiles).
-
Probably not as we find people who build their own DNG profiles almost always report a better result than using the 'canned' profile.
oh, yes... specifically when they use PE and Adobe's own base profile... so they actually tells us that they do not like Adobe's rendering (represented by LUTs) or in most cases they act like kids enjoying their new colorful toy (colorchecker).
-
whereas Adobe Standard is way off.
because "standard" profiles were not designed for anything like "reproduction", but rather they reflect Adobe's (certain people) ideas how colors shall be rendered... and that's different from "camera profiles" for selected cameras (C&N and may be few others) even in how profiles designed inside... there were a number of topics about that @ http://forums.adobe.com/community/cameraraw - look for postings from Vit Novak (he tends to post in relevant topics).
-
...or in most cases they act like kids enjoying their new colorful toy (colorchecker).
Toy as in a possible size or you are making a broad statement about a tool that has been successfully used in the photo and film industry for a number of tasks for decades?
-
Toy as in a possible size or you are making a broad statement about a tool that has been successfully used in the photo and film industry for a number of tasks for decades?
Digital Dog -
I'm admittedly overwhelmed with the need to buy more stuff and when I got X-rite - I contemplated the colour checker but passed.
Can you tell me why (in a for dummies type language) I need this?
Thanks for any advise.
-
Can you tell me why (in a for dummies type language) I need this?
You'd want this if you decided to create custom DNG profiles. Or if you wanted a color reference target to compare say what you see on-screen to a print (within gamut limitations of each). If you wanted to white balance using a pretty spectrally neural patch or, in the case of the Passport, using the 'off white' group to WB visually. The Passport doesn't take up space or weigh much at all, it's a useful "first shot" reference to include for later processing as defined above.
-
Toy as in a possible size or you are making a broad statement about a tool that has been successfully used in the photo and film industry for a number of tasks for decades?
broad statement about 99% of users.. not all people who purchase a sniper rifle are capable snipers (but many think they are)... you understand the point.
-
You'd want this if you decided to create custom DNG profiles.
may be advise him to hit adobe U2U forums like http://forums.adobe.com/community/cameraraw and read relevant topics where VitNovak and Eric Chan were participating before suggesting to proceed immediately "to create custom DNG profiles"... way better investment of the time
-
broad statement about 99% of users.. not all people who purchase a sniper rifle are capable snipers (but many think they are)... you understand the point.
Actually no. Not all people who purchase a sniper rifle are capable snipers true, but the "tool" in this case isn't the culprit but the person using the tool. That's an issue with the user, not the tool itself. I'd be hard pressed to knock a sniper rifle (whatever that is <g>) because the person using it isn't a capable sniper (whatever that means).
So someone who isn't capable of correctly using either a sniper rifle or a ColorChecker have turned those products into toys?
-
may be advise him to hit adobe U2U forums like http://forums.adobe.com/community/cameraraw and read relevant topics where VitNovak and Eric Chan were participating before suggesting to proceed immediately "to create custom DNG profiles"... way better investment of the time
It's always been a better of investment of my time. Note too, I didn't suggest he has to make a DNG profile, I stated factually that the target under discussion is a necessary component in making a profile IF he decides to create one.
-
It's always been a better of investment of my time. Note too, I didn't suggest he has to make a DNG profile, I stated factually that the target under discussion is a necessary component in making a profile IF he decides to create one.
Understood and thanks to both for the info. I need to read the website and educate myself before I decide. This DNG profile topic has been presented to me a few times in colour calibration and printing and its obviously a hill I need to climb. Just have to get my head around it.
Thanks again
-
not the tool itself.
true... but I was calling it a toy only in such hands and not by itself... I am sure we have here certain people who can use it properly (you can of course), but of "hoi polloi" users do not...
-
I need to read the website and educate myself before I decide
If you are not using an Adobe raw converter (or one that supports DNG profiles), you can skip that part. The target is still very useful even if you never build such a profile.
-
true... but I was calling it a toy only in such hands and not by itself...
Better. It's not a toy, it's a tool that can act like a toy in the wrong hands. Let's put the 'blame' where it belongs.
-
I need to read the website and educate myself before I decide.
some time ago I tried to tag some interesting discussions w/ a tag in @ Adobe forums to facilitate the search
http://forums.adobe.com/tags#/?tags=profiles
PS: not all topics there were tagged by me.
-
some time ago I tried to tag some interesting discussions w/ a tag in @ Adobe forums to facilitate the search
http://forums.adobe.com/tags#/?tags=profiles
PS: not all topics there were tagged by me.
Thanks. You read my mind - because I clicked on the forum link and thought...wow..another full day to surf through the minutia. Learning is one thing - finding what is relevant to learn a whole new ballgame.
I do understand both your perspectives - I am not yet convinced colour checker passport is essential - for ME - because in the final analysis, who will know. Who will care? If it provides better accuracy to original shot - is that accuracy important to my audience.
However, I realize I could be summarily dismissing a tool that if I took some time to learn, would greatly enhance my delivery.
At present, in my uninformed state, I believe its another discipline which (I presume) adds to the time to capture-
-
I am not yet convinced colour checker passport is essential
it is not about colorchecker, but more about the tools like Adobe PE and how profiles are designed inside vs what you can do with Adobe PE (and less flexible tools like XRite OEM software... note that there are alternative solutions from QPCard, albeit their target is less nicely designed in terms of usability)
-
Learning is one thing - finding what is relevant to learn a whole new ballgame.
you just follow certain posters - they tend to participate in topics where you can learn something... I maintain a collection of personalities whose postings I follow on various forums to learn.
-
I do understand both your perspectives - I am not yet convinced colour checker passport is essential - for ME - because in the final analysis, who will know. Who will care? If it provides better accuracy to original shot - is that accuracy important to my audience.
Actually it's not about accuracy in terms of what you get out of the raw processor. You can use the Macbeth as an accuracy test as I pointed out (my display and my print look the same). You can use it to white balance in different ways which again, isn't about accuracy. It's a visual reference for one. It's something you can include in shots where the illuminate may be on the odd side suggesting a way to white balance or build a DNG profile depending on your goals. You don't have to use any such target to get a pleasing image. It might make getting there easier, might not.
-
build a DNG profile depending on your goals.
and why not just convert the actual shot (w/o colorchecker) to DNG , bring that into PE and edit the profile (within the limitations of the current version of Adobe PE vs the current state of DNG profiles) with the actual colors in front of you... how having a chart (in many cases in a separate shot) will add something of greater value vs just having actual shot, with actual colors present, that you want to have certain L&F... having a good quality (very neutral) WB patch from there is one thing, but chart itself ?
-
and why not just convert the actual shot (w/o colorchecker) to DNG , bring that into PE and edit the profile (within the limitations of the current version of Adobe PE vs the current state of DNG profiles) with the actual colors in front of you.
You could do that, might work well. But the editor isn't exactly intuitive and you're working on a profile on top of this. I suspect just creating a few DNG profiles for common illuminants that use your sensor is all you need (it's all I've ever needed).
-
Ok, I obviously don't know what I'm talking about.
(quote);
Actually it's not about accuracy in terms of what you get out of the raw processor. You can use the Macbeth as an accuracy test as I pointed out (my display and my print look the same). You can use it to white balance in different ways which again, isn't about accuracy. It's a visual reference for one. It's something you can include in shots where the illuminate may be on the odd side suggesting a way to white balance or build a DNG profile depending on your goals. You don't have to use any such target to get a pleasing image. It might make getting there easier, might not. (unquote)
Yes, ok, here we go (sorry) . The MacBeth accuracy test is still a mystery to me - but (accepting I'm opening myself up to a ton of ridicule) - the point I have been stuck on is:
- if the image you print is different than the image on your screen - HOW do you know if its the screen or the printer.
I downloaded your image from your website as a Jpeg. I then imported it into Photoshop CS5 - and printed my image . The fact that I'm viewing your test image on my software means I'm perhaps seeing it differently than you because of the software.
Anyway, the colours on the screen within CS5 (I used the internet sRGB workspace) were not 100% match for the colours on the print. Some (memory here but I still have the print out) were significant - in other words blue instead of green. Some were tonal variations (lighter or darker hues of the same colour).
The stupid question of the day is: How do I know what to fix? Or does it matter - meaning, the point is not which one is wrong, the point is both agree.
I still have the print out which was done BEFORE x-rite calibration. I then went out and bought x-rite computer monitor calibration and recalibrated. Viewing the image on screen against the printed one (using Canon profile for the paper I chose to print it and not a custom profile since I don't know how to to that) - it was still different.
I think at that point I abandoned ship ::) because my troubleshooting skills stop there.
I don't know what I don't know. If there is an obvious or glaring stupid thing I'm doing - feel free to point out. I also realize I may be diverging off topic, and if this is the case, apologies. I will accept re-direction to another thread /forum if that is more appropriate.
Now on Passport - I see. I confess, I just am blank because as you stated, its a pre-requisite to creating a DNG profile - and I'm not there yet. It is I think therefore important for me to start with learning how to create a DNG profile and until I do that I cannot appreciate the value of this tool.
-
Yes, ok, here we go (sorry) . The MacBeth accuracy test is still a mystery to me - but (accepting I'm opening myself up to a ton of ridicule) - the point I have been stuck on is:
- if the image you print is different than the image on your screen - HOW do you know if its the screen or the printer.
You have to hunt down the cause of any mismatch. It could be either.
The colours on the screen within CS5 (I used the internet sRGB workspace) were not 100% match for the colours on the print. Some (memory here but I still have the print out) were significant - in other words blue instead of green. Some were tonal variations (lighter or darker hues of the same colour).
With this reference image, OR a synthetic Macbeth, you know it's not the RGB values in the document. If you output the Macbeth such it matches the original, that's a good sign and the mismatch is then likely to be display calibration (or the preview portion of the ICC print profile).
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml
Now on Passport - I see. I confess, I just am blank because as you stated, its a pre-requisite to creating a DNG profile - and I'm not there yet. It is I think therefore important for me to start with learning how to create a DNG profile and until I do that I cannot appreciate the value of this tool.
Agreed, get a good screen to print match, using a reference image and then worry about DNG profiles.
-
If you output the Macbeth such it matches the original, that's a good sign and the mismatch is then likely to be display calibration (or the preview portion of the ICC print profile).
Edited because I should have checked the link.
The image I unzipped here viewed on my windows Operating system (not a browser and not CS5) is very close to the print out - meaning the colours are the same but the tonal variation is different .
Which tells me my luminosity (or calilbration) is off (I think) because for example her sweater is darker on the zipped file than my print out (which is lighter pink vs deeper shade )
Anyway, its helpful to get this link (below) and now I will go back and calibrate tonight and re-check my settings.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml
Many thanks again Andrew for your patience with this tedium.
-
and you're working on a profile on top of this.
but with Adobe PE we are always working on top of some base profile (as Eric Chan noted somewhere that will save a user from grave errors caused by improper setup of the target/light/etc - that what makes creation of dcp profiles somewhat more "easy" for an average Joe vs creation of "icc" profiles, because an average Joe will build on top of existing profiles - usually from Adobe itself, just replacing LUTs that are providing post matrix color transforms color corrections)... we heard that roundtrips are not handled properly in PE, so you need to take proper extra steps to avoid accumulations if you can't do all changes in one session.
-
but with Adobe PE we are always working on top of some base profile
Yes you are. The quality of it is up to debate as is the need for the edit compared to rolling your own profile in the first place. As I see it, two different tools and processes. Making a custom DNG profile is pretty easy and fast. That may be all that's needed. It's all I've needed. Editing a profile is a different process, for a different need.
-
...
As a disclaimer - when I print an image and compare it on screen - its visually very very close using the canon profiles and using the sRGB colour space and very very close to the DPP raw image which I believe (right or wrong) is the most accurate version viewed within the DPP software itself (not PS). As you may recall I asked you about using colour space on my camera and your suggestion was to stay with sRGB - so my raw shots are taken with that.
I realize sRGB has a more limited gamut and wondered about switching to Adobe - but since you are an expert - and I'm not - I went with what you said.
One nagging thing is - landscapes. I wonder if I'm clipping my colour range by shooting in sRGB but again, I'm not drawing from a deep well of technical knowledge -so when you said go sRGB (it won't matter ) I accepted it.
...
If you are shooting raw it doesn't matter what color space you shoot in, the raw file is just that, raw data from the sensor. Color space comes into play when that raw data is rendered into an image, thus the camera's color space setting has no effect on the camera original file unless you shoot in JPG or TIF. What it DOES effect in the camera is the image you see on the camera's LCD panel as that displayed image is produced from a temp JPG. Likewise it will effect the histogram on the camera as that too is based on raw data rendered into jpg. If you shoot raw+jpg it will effect the jpg file but not the raw portion.
-
Texshooter, my main specialization is architectural and interior design photography. In using both DPP and ACR I've found DPP out performs ACR hands down in regard to interiors. However it has been a couple of years since I've worked with ACR so to be fair I should look into it again. Exteriors from ACR generally look a bit better, especially skies. One thing that bothers me about ACR is on the pixel peeping level . Files from DPP look crisp at close inspection whereas ACR's have more of a not crisp smushed (how's that for tech talk?) look. So yes, I"m a very happy DPP user.
Peter Montanti
www.mountainphotographics.com
-
Texshooter, my main specialization is architectural and interior design photography. In using both DPP and ACR I've found DPP out performs ACR hands down in regard to interiors. However it has been a couple of years since I've worked with ACR so to be fair I should look into it again. Exteriors from ACR generally look a bit better, especially skies. One thing that bothers me about ACR is on the pixel peeping level . Files from DPP look crisp at close inspection whereas ACR's have more of a not crisp smushed (how's that for tech talk?) look. So yes, I"m a very happy DPP user.
ACR does look a bit more "mushy." i'm going to build a custom camera profile, so hopefully that fixes it.
-
DPP applies more sharpening by default than ACR. If you want crisper images from ACR, increase sharpening and/or clarity.
-
ACR does look a bit more "mushy." i'm going to build a custom camera profile, so hopefully that fixes it.
Is there a connection between the camera profile and image sharpness?
-
Is there a connection between the camera profile and image sharpness?
According to my copy of ACR (V5.4 running with Adobe PSE6) there is not a connection. By that, I can report that changing the camera profile does not change the sharpness slider settings. Interestingly, the settings under the first tab don't change either, not even the white balance.
-
I can report that changing the camera profile does not change <... removed...> the settings under the first tab don't change either, not even the white balance.
http://forums.adobe.com/message/2936925
-
Is there a connection between the camera profile and image sharpness?
I have to admit that my question was passive aggressive. The camera profile sets fundamental color rendering; from hints dropped by Eric and the observation that hue shifts are not caused by the sharpening, I think it likely that the sharpening is calculated in L*a*b* space and applied only to the luminosity. There can be no connection. Which is unlike DPP in which a Picture Style is a package that ties together a profile and a heightened sharpening setting. Of course it is easy to create a preset in ACR that does the same, but that is a connection that is imposed by the user and not inherent in the profile.
-
http://forums.adobe.com/message/2936925
The link shows a screen from a later version of ACR than 5.4, and probably not with PSE6. I reported on my version:
According to my copy of ACR (V5.4 running with Adobe PSE6) there is not a connection.
First image profile ACR 2.4, second image profile Camera Vivid (see histograms):
(http://kronometric.org/phot/profile/profACR2.4.gif)(http://kronometric.org/phot/profile/profCameraVivid.gif)
What was the version of ACR in your link and what was the application, e.g. PS/CS/LR ?
-
are you sure your .dcp profiles are different matrix wise ?
PS: camera raw version is visible in youtube video (see the top of the screen)
-
are you sure your .dcp profiles are different matrix wise ?
The profiles came with ACR 5.4. They're not mine. The histograms are different if that means anything.
I did try a profile I had made myself from a ColorChecker card shot. There was still no change in the first tab.
How does someone check matrices in a .dcp file?
-
The profiles came with ACR 5.4. They're not mine.
OK - are you sure that those 2 profiles are different matrix-wise (the matrices used for WB'ing in ACR) ?
How does someone check matrices in a .dcp file?
dump the content using dcptool from SandyMc into xml ... then it is human readable.
-
OK - are you sure that those 2 profiles are different matrix-wise (the matrices used for WB'ing in ACR) ?
Not being able to check them, of course I can not be sure.
[to check matrices], dump the content using dcptool from SandyMc into xml ... then it is human readable.
Perhaps 'eleid' would find that useful, but I haven't played with .dcp's in over a year. I don't use them at all, nowadays.
Thanks anyway . . .
-
Is there a connection between the camera profile and image sharpness?
No, there is not. The choice of profile in the Profile popup in the Camera Calibration panel affects color (and possibly tone) only.
For the topics of image detail and apparent sharpness, try the sliders in the Detail panel, as well as the Clarity control in the Basic panel.
-
No, there is not. The choice of profile in the Profile popup in the Camera Calibration panel affects color (and possibly tone) only.
any plans to allow that a-la "baselineexposureoffset" (like "baselinenoiseoffset", "baselinesharpnessoffset") ? what if I remove AA filter from my camera ?
-
Is there a connection between the camera profile and image sharpness?
No, there is not. The choice of profile in the Profile popup in the Camera Calibration panel affects color (and possibly tone) only.
Thanks for the clarification, Eric.
Ref. my side discussion with Vladimirovich, do different camera profile selections (esp. with different profiles) affect the slider settings? In ACR 5.4 it seems that a camera selection provides a base, thereby affecting the histogram and the on-screen rendition but not the slider settings which remain "on top" of that base.
I realize that if a sidecar file exists then than is applied or, equally, any embedded setting in e.g. a TIFF. Thus, on opening, the sliders are are pre-positioned by ACR, as it were but, if one then changes the profile, the slider stay in position.
-
No, there is not. The choice of profile in the Profile popup in the Camera Calibration panel affects color (and possibly tone) only.
Thanks for the clarification, Eric.
Ref. my side discussion with Vladimirovich, do different camera profile selections (esp. with different profiles) affect the slider settings?
I just referenced you to a topic where Eric Chan himself stated that it does (White Balance sliders), for as long as 2 profiles have different matrices that are used for WB in Adobe's converters...
-
I just referenced you to a topic where Eric Chan himself stated that it does (White Balance sliders), for as long as 2 profiles have different matrices that are used for WB in Adobe's converters...
Thank you, Vlad.
Following your earlier instruction, I downloaded and installed dcpTool. I de-compiled two of the profiles that, in my test with ACR 5.4, did NOT change the As-Shot WB sliders.
So in answer to your earlier question in this thread, I am now sure that the color matrices were different ;D
Might be a clue [as to why the WB sliders did not move] here:
These two tags were the same in each profile:
<CalibrationIlluminant1>17</CalibrationIlluminant1>
<CalibrationIlluminant2>21</CalibrationIlluminant2>
-
Ref. my side discussion with Vladimirovich, do different camera profile selections (esp. with different profiles) affect the slider settings? In ACR 5.4 it seems that a camera selection provides a base, thereby affecting the histogram and the on-screen rendition but not the slider settings which remain "on top" of that base.
Yes, the choice of camera profiles effectively determine a baseline. And the behaviors of the sliders and controls (e.g., tone curve controls) are built on top of these baselines. So choosing a different profile will effectively switch the starting point for further edits.
-
Yes, the choice of camera profiles effectively determine a baseline. And the behaviors of the sliders and controls (e.g., tone curve controls) are built on top of these baselines. So choosing a different profile will effectively switch the starting point for further edits.
Good to read this. I always set a camprof as first development a tion. Then go from top to bottom. In my LR course i give i train the participants to do it also as first thing.