CS3 Bridge and ACR automatically alters RAW image incorrectly

[PicGuy]

Hello everyone! I am new to this forum but have been reading LL for a few years now and have found the info on it to be some of the best around. I am hoping that you may be able to help me.

I am having a problem with CS3 Bridge previews and Camera Raw. I use a Canon 40D and Rebel XTi and have the problem with images from both cameras. It seems that Bridge previews and or ACR want to alter my image regardless of the settings I choose in camera RAW preferences. When I direct bridge to a new folder of images and just the thumbnails are viewable I can see that the thumbnail of the picture is the way I took it. BUT! when I click on the thumbnail to view it in the preview pane or double click it to bring up the Camera RAW workspace window the image changes. Typically it becomes duller, less saturated and with my recent fall shots, I lose the reds. I also notice this happening with the next few thumbnails in the filmstrip window.

I am using CS3 with ACR 4.6. In the Camera RAW preferences I have tried everything from unchecking every box to checking them all and the same thing happens time after time. I have even uninstalled the software twice and wiped and reformatted my entire drive and reinstalled the software fresh only to have the same frustration. My current settings are as follows:

The only boxes checked are in the bottom section for JPEG and TIFF file handling where I have both boxes checked. In the top General section I have Save Image Settings set to Sidecar .xmp files and Apply Sharpening set to All Images. In the Default Image Settings box and in the DNG File Handling box no check boxes are checked.

In the Preferences Settings (not the Camera RAW preference settings) for the Thumbnails part I have Prefer Adobe Camera RAW for JPEG and TIFF files box selected and the Convert to High Quality When Previewed circle selected. Again I have tried different combinations of the available options and settings and the Camera RAW preference settings but nothing seems to stop Adobe from changing my images to what it thinks they should look like. This problem does not happen whan I use Bridge/ACR for displaying JPEGS or TIFFS. This really aggravates me to no end especially since Canon's Digital Photo Professional software displays the RAW images as I took them in my camera!

When I bring up the RAW adjustment window in either Bridge or in Photoshop, it does not matter if I click the word AUTO or DEFAULT, I still cannot get CS3 to display the image as I shot it.

I need to know how I can stop CS3 from changing my image files to what it thinks they should look like and stay faithful to the image as shot in camera. Not using Bridge/ACR is not an option, nor is using Canon's software to convert the files to TIFFs first an option because I don't want to lose the capabilities and fine tuning the ACR workspace gives me with the RAW files.

I simply need CS3 to stop automatically altering my images and leave them as they were shot so I can make the adjustments from there. I do not want to spend hours in CS3 just to get my image back to the way it was when it was made in the camera.

Thank you in advance for your kind help and expertise.

[Schewe]

Assuming you don't have the Auto-tone option on, what you see when Bridge FIRST sees is the embedded EXIF jpeg file thumbnail, not the data data as rendered by Camera Raw. Camera Raw will always have it's own default rendering of the raw data and it may or may not bare any relationship to what the EXIF jpeg, which is produced in camera will look like. If you want to change the Camera Raw defaults, you can...if you like the camera maker's color rendering, better, go to Labs.Adobe.com and download the beta DNG Profiles and use one of the profiles that mimic the camera maker's rendering.

[Panopeeper]

A little bit expansion on what Jeff wrote:

the preview embedded in the raw file (not the thumbnail is shown but the preview), about half size, reflects all in-camera settings (WB, contrast, saturation, sharpness, tone). Picture stype is a combination of these.

ACR does not care for these settings, except for the white balance. Therefor the ACR rendering may differ a lot from the embedded preview.

If you want to expose correctly, then you should not use those settings anyway (and use a neutral whute balance tremplate). Then the thumbnail and the embedded preview will look horrendeously anyway and you will be happy with the default rendering by ACR.

Example: 40D Preview with neutral setting

Btw, perhaps it is only my aging eyes, but I find the font in your post painful to read.

[Ben Rubinstein]

A little bit expansion on what Jeff wrote:

the preview embedded in the raw file (not the thumbnail is shown but the preview), about half size, reflects all in-camera settings (WB, contrast, saturation, sharpness, tone). Picture stype is a combination of these.

ACR does not care for these settings, except for the white balance. Therefor the ACR rendering may differ a lot from the embedded preview.

If you want to expose correctly, then you should not use those settings anyway (and use a neutral whute balance tremplate). Then the thumbnail and the embedded preview will look horrendeously anyway and you will be happy with the default rendering by ACR.

Example: 40D Preview with neutral setting

Btw, perhaps it is only my aging eyes, but I find the font in your post painful to read.

I'm 28 and it was painful!

As the others have said, what you first see is the little jpg, same one that flashed up on your screen when you took the photo.

ACR then applies the Camera Raw Defaults for your camera which you are seeing as more washed out.

Keep in mind that RAW files in ACR are not jpg's. It's a RAW file with an absolutely huge range of options as how to process it using the RAW data before it even opens in photoshop. As such you may see the default as bland, however you can change it to whatever you like in ACR so that the image is under your total control rather than the jpg which is pretty much as you get it out of the camera period. That is the point of RAW - YOU decide how you want it to look. That ACR gives you a relatively bland 'default' image is just so you have a good foundation to start with. It's easier to see what potential you image has when you're applying saturation rather than apply desaturation, ditto contrast. It's the way the mind works. It's also important for technical reasons, you won't know what potential you image has information wise if the increased saturation and contrast is giving you a 'curve' which shows an image with far less information than it actually has.

If you really want the RAW image to look exactly like it did in camera before importing into photoshop you've missed the entire point of RAW! Why aren't you shooting jpg's if that is what you want them to be? The idea of RAW is that there is so much more information in your image that you can work with compared to what you saw on screen. You maximise it in the RAW converter so that you have far BETTER data going into photoshop. A file worked in ACR will have far better quality than on worked on in photoshop. Get the best foundation possible before building on it (layers). If you process the RAW file to match your in camera jpgs then your highlights will be as blown as they were in camera, the shadows as blocked, the colours as innacurate. Or in other words going to all the length to shoot RAW just to want a file with no benefit over the in camera jpg doesn't make sense.

However, there is a simple solution. You can change the defaults for your camera! All you do is set up ACR to match your expectations then click on the tiny arrow which is to the right and above of the white balance controls, select 'Save New Camera Raw Defaults' and from now on the Bridge preview will show those settings as standard for all your new images.

I would be careful though. I use defaults but I shoot weddings and I know that I want my shadows set to '2' rather than '5' by default, a certain small amount of saturation and slightly more contrast. I also want a custom point curve that improves facial tones. However, these changes don't fool me as to how much information I have in the image. Partially because they are minor and in most cases actually add more information, but mostly because I've processed RAW images from weddings for 5 years using ACR and have a feel for what is there. To do it the opposite way, to show less information, to compress the histogram, could lead to confusion when you wonder where all your shadow detail went or why some colours in the sky are blown, etc.

Good luck in any case and feel free to use the default font which though possibly boring, is far easier on the eye!    

[PicGuy]

Thanks to all who responded and sorry about the font, I did change it.
Regarding Pom's, Schewe’s and Panopeeper’s responses, I have my camera set to mimic (in my mind at least) the look of the different films I used to use, mainly Fuji and Kodak. I understand what you are referring to when you mention the wonderful things you can do in RAW which is why I shoot in RAW. However, I do not want to spend hours in front of my computer making adjustments. I do not consider myself to be a "Photoshopper". I know how to expose to get the image I want and usually all I need to do in CS3 is a little Highlight/Shadow adjustment, maybe some Contrast or minor adjustments in Curves and occasionally some Selective Color adjustments. It takes me all of a few minutes and I'm done. Then I print my images. There are times when I may have to sacrifice highlights or details in the initial exposure but either RAW or CS3 will help bring those back.

Maybe I’m just not getting what you are trying to tell me completely. I understand that ACR is pulling from the embedded EXIF info in the image but here’s the thing that still drives me crazy: Outside my home is a line of maples with leaves turning shades from red to orange. I take the pic with the 40D in RAW and bring it into bridge and the leaves are rendered shades of yellow. I look at the image in my camera and the leaf color is correct. I look at the RAW images in Canon’s DPP and again the leaf colors are correct. (In fact the only thing I alter a bit in the camera are saturation and sharpness a bit I do not change the color tone.) White balance is auto in camera which usually does a great job. All other colors in the image are correct in terms of hue, the street is black, the cars are white or whatever color they may be but ACR seems to be biased against red. The reds/oranges are rendered as yellows!! WTH??? I just don’t get it. BTW, same thing with my sunset or sunrise pics. ACR takes all the color out of the sky and leaves me with bland, blasé flat colors. I won’t shoot in jpeg due to compression issues and in case I do need to make some minor adjustments to highlights or shadows. I had this problem with CS2 but was able to stop it when I selected the appropriate options in RAW preferences to leave the file alone. CS3 does not want to seem to cooperate.

I’m not sure what Panopeeper is referring to when he says if you want to expose correctly, I want to expose the image fairly close to the Reala and Velvia exposed my film images which is why I adjusted the saturation and contrast settings in the camera.

Thanks again!

[Panopeeper]

PicGuy,

pls upload a sample raw file (like the orange-red leaves). Use yousendit for uploading, and check out the version of ACR you are using.

This with the yellow leaves instead of orange, red smells like a color space problem. ACR mistreats certain 40D raw files; this has been changed, but they are still mistreated, though now slightly differently.

[Schewe]

I have my camera set to mimic (in my mind at least) the look of the different films I used to use, mainly Fuji and Kodak. I understand what you are referring to when you mention the wonderful things you can do in RAW which is why I shoot in RAW. However, I do not want to spend hours in front of my computer making adjustments.

Those statements are in disagreement...if you want to set the camera to give you the exact rendering of the scene, then you really shouldn't be shooting raw...if you want a fixed rendering raw will make your life difficult because raw rendering is ALWAYS open to interpretation and requires the user to make that determination.

In any event, settings in-camera settings are ignored (except White Balance) in Camera Raw because the camera makers do not document what that metadata is supposed to mean. When you shoot raw, the ONLY camera settings that really make any difference to the raw file is F stop, shutter speed and ISO.

So, if you want to shoot raw (for the flexibilities offered) you ARE going to have to learn how to adjust those raw files to your liking. Whether that will take "hours" or minutes or seconds depends on how well you know the tools. But, if you want to use Bridge and Camera Raw, complaining about Camera Raw's rendering isn't going to do you any good. You'll just have to learn how to do something about it. Or not...your choice.

[jjj]

Outside my home is a line of maples with leaves turning shades from red to orange. I take the pic with the 40D in RAW and bring it into bridge and the leaves are rendered shades of yellow. I look at the image in my camera and the leaf color is correct. I look at the RAW images in Canon’s DPP and again the leaf colors are correct. (In fact the only thing I alter a bit in the camera are saturation and sharpness a bit I do not change the color tone.) White balance is auto in camera which usually does a great job. All other colors in the image are correct in terms of hue, the street is black, the cars are white or whatever color they may be but ACR seems to be biased against red. The reds/oranges are rendered as yellows!! WTH??? I just don’t get it. BTW, same thing with my sunset or sunrise pics. ACR takes all the color out of the sky and leaves me with bland, blasé flat colors.

ACR has always had issues with oranges and reds with Canon RAW files, its struggles with flames is a regular problem I have. I complained about this here a long time ago and was shouted down by some supposed experts. Even calibrating with a colour checker and using Fors script didn't really help.
But with the latest version of ACR/LR you can now add camera profiles which can improve this problem ACR has with orange/reds. I did a shoot at dusk recently with red car brake lights and orange sodium lights in shot. ACR without calibration made the 2 colours identical, very different from the more accurate JPEG. However after adding the new profiles [still in beta BTW] and enabling one, there was a marked difference and suddenly my brake lights were red again not a muted orange. This doesn't magically make alll pictures look better BTW, some look nicer with the 'wrong' calibration. You will also be able to make your own customised profiles.
More info about the development here
DNG  Profile editor

[jjj]

This with the yellow leaves instead of orange, red smells like a color space problem.

Nope it's a calibration issue.

Here's the image to show how calibrating ACR can improves ACR's problems wth red/orange/yellow with Canon cameras.

[richardfreedman]

It will be interesting to compare the results of these beta camera profiles to just simply processing our CR2's in DPP (just installed them, will test them tomorrow).  
Would it not be a safe assumption to claim that Canon simply knows the correct algorithms for their cameras' RAW files and built them into their proprietary software, whereas Adobe's attempt, while somewhat close, simply is wrong?
I find it frustrating when I view my RAWs in Photo Mechanic with the client, love what we see, then click "Edit" and watch ACR destroy my images right in front of the client; I can fiddle with the sliders for an hour, but can never get back that colour/vibrance/saturation that PhotoMechanic reveals that my 5D is capable of.  
I don't buy the "that's not the purpose of RAW" argument; if DPP can produce an immediately desirable RAW result, for those of us without the desire or time to "play" with our images (ie-1000+ wedding images each weekend) yet still want the "down-the-road" benefits of RAW, then so should Adobe possess this feature.  
Here's hoping that the beta profiles can get us 85% of the way to DPP.

[Ben Rubinstein]

I don't buy the "that's not the purpose of RAW" argument; if DPP can produce an immediately desirable RAW result, for those of us without the desire or time to "play" with our images (ie-1000+ wedding images each weekend) yet still want the "down-the-road" benefits of RAW, then so should Adobe possess this feature.  
Here's hoping that the beta profiles can get us 85% of the way to DPP.

DPP provides the same look at the in camera baked jpg, nothing more. That's why it looks exactly the same. As they wrote the jpg processing alogorithms they just apply them in DPP like they do in camera. If you want it to look like in camera then just shoot jpg, what do you want the RAW for? Turn the sharpening off to give you that control relative to printing size and enjoy! Or just use DPP. Canon are not sharing their software with Adobe so I can't see how to blame Adobe for not getting the DPP look right, except perhaps in accurate colour.

I'm using the new beta profiles though in my case to apply D700 colour to my 5D files via DNG Profile Editor. I'm also going to buy a mini Gretag chart for use with difficult lighting, looking forward to more accuracy for facial tones with mixed lighting abominations. I don't like the new beta profiles, there is too much red, even when I tone down the red tone, and I have to do it significantly compared to the standard profile, there is too much red tint in facial tones or hair to look natural (to my eye). The Adobe camera profiles are to my eye an abomination (pretty much as the original out of camera jpgs are, not blaming Adobe!). I would hate to be tied down to canon's jpg curves for my final product when I can set up ACR with my own camera defaults and apply Nikon like colour to them.

[Schewe]

Would it not be a safe assumption to claim that Canon simply knows the correct algorithms for their cameras' RAW files and built them into their proprietary software, whereas Adobe's attempt, while somewhat close, simply is wrong?

No...that would not be a safe assumption...

Camera Raw supports almost 200 raw file formats from Sigma non-Bayer sensors to the Phase One P45+ back. In all of them, Camera Raw tries to provide a "normalized" default rendering. As a result, before the DNG Profiles option, Camera Raw's defaults didn't even try to match the camera jpeg look and rendering. That's why Camera Raw has NEVER looked like the camera maker's default rendering.

But there is no "secret" about the raw files made by the camera makers other than there really are no secrets. Nikon and Canon have developed their "looks", their default rendering of the raw file for jpeg production as well as their processing software (which of course, is expected to match). But the concept that there is a more "correct" rendering brought about because Canon or Nikon knows the "correct algorithms for their cameras' RAW files" is drinking their Kool-Aid...there are technically correct renderings, there are pleasing renderings, there are the camera makers' "look" renderings, but none of them are fundamentally the "right" renderings.

Nikon and Canon try to get their renderings to "look" more like film based scene renderings–something that many former film shooters (primarily chrome shooters) are more comfortable seeing and thus think are more accurate. If you compare their renderings with software to measure the accuracy of the colors produced, you would find that they are often wrong, sometimes VERY wrong in their renderings (as film was often wrong).

But, if you like the Nikon or Canon look, do yourself a favor and quit using Camera Raw...or learn how to make the CR defaults match what you want. The DNG Profiles are a very good set of new options (should you actually WANT the Nikon or Canon "look"). It won't be more "accurate", nor "better" nor more "true"...it's different which is what raw processing is all about–giving YOU the control over the rendering of the raw image.

Really, Nikon and Canon have only been at this digital photography for a few years...they are struggling to figure out how to do this stuff just like everybody else it. But in software, Adobe has a much longer track record (particularly when it comes to well formulated and safe file formats) than any of the camera makers. To presume Nikon or Canon "know" their stuff better is, well, not born out by the facts.

[PicGuy]

I would like to thank everyone for sharing their knowledge and comments.

It would seem that jjj and schewe have hit the nail right on the head. In fact the three pictures in jjj's second post show the problem exactly! I downloaded the DNG beta profiles and that changes everything. While none of them are an exact match two get pretty close, close enough for me to make some minor tweaks and be done. I will try and see if I can customize a profile to make it a little closer, but for now this works.

You guys are great!

One thing I would venture to say about Adobe's take on RAW processing from what I understand after reading Eric Chan's comments in the link jjj provided is that Adobe probably went for some middle or neutral ground and gave us a base starting point with their version of the DNG or RAW file "developing". I think everyone should read it as it practically states the problem I've been having: "Many photographers have been asking us for better color from Camera Raw and Lightroom. Do you find deep reds becoming orange-ish and undersaturated?" and again: "We have a new set of camera profiles called the Adobe Standard profiles. Our goal in designing these profiles is to give photographers a better default color: that is, a better starting point for making image adjustments. With the new profiles, the main improvement is in the warm colors: reds, oranges, and yellows. Deep saturated reds should indeed appear red, without messing up skin tones."  I think it was really great of Eric to post the info he did in that article and speaks volumes for the people working for Adobe.

For anyone else reading this please read the article:  DNG Profile Editor. One may also want to read the info on these two pages from Adobe Labs and Adobe's The Digital Negative page.

Once again, my thanks to everyone!

PicGuy

[jjj]

Nikon and Canon try to get their renderings to "look" more like film based scene renderings–something that many former film shooters (primarily chrome shooters) are more comfortable seeing and thus think are more accurate. If you compare their renderings with software to measure the accuracy of the colors produced, you would find that they are often wrong, sometimes VERY wrong in their renderings (as film was often wrong).

And that's exactly why film looks nicer than video, which digital stills are simply a fancier version of.  This is also why video footage is often used creatively in films for a 'verite' look.

Really, Nikon and Canon have only been at this digital photography for a few years...they are struggling to figure out how to do this stuff just like everybody else it. But in software, Adobe has a much longer track record (particularly when it comes to well formulated and safe file formats) than any of the camera makers. To presume Nikon or Canon "know" their stuff better is, well, not born out by the facts.

Except that lots of people claim they don't like ACR's rendition and lots of people seem to like Nikon/Canons!!  

[jjj]

DPP provides the same look at the in camera baked jpg, nothing more. That's why it looks exactly the same. As they wrote the jpg processing alogorithms they just apply them in DPP like they do in camera. If you want it to look like in camera then just shoot jpg, what do you want the RAW for?

I can think of a one very good reason. If someone wants the look of the JPEGs and the flexibilty of RAW processing.

I'm using the new beta profiles though in my case to apply D700 colour to my 5D files via DNG Profile Editor. I'm also going to buy a mini Gretag chart for use with difficult lighting, looking forward to more accuracy for facial tones with mixed lighting abominations. I don't like the new beta profiles, there is too much red, even when I tone down the red tone, and I have to do it significantly compared to the standard profile, there is too much red tint in facial tones or hair to look natural (to my eye). The Adobe camera profiles are to my eye an abomination (pretty much as the original out of camera jpgs are, not blaming Adobe!). I would hate to be tied down to canon's jpg curves for my final product when I can set up ACR with my own camera defaults and apply Nikon like colour to them.

I have my own presets for the Canon JPEGs and I really like them, but I do agree that the newAdobe presets can make things look a little red, I use them when appropriate and add to taste, but remember, 1. they are in beta, 2. you can make your own!

[jjj]

I find it frustrating when I view my RAWs in Photo Mechanic with the client, love what we see...

PM simply shows the cooked JPEGs files from inside the undeveloped RAW file
 

....then click "Edit" and watch ACR destroy my images right in front of the client.

I'd suggest you learn more about what is going on, how to use ACR/LR better and develop some presets, with and without calibration. And the problem will simply go away. I used to use PM - nice programme, but Bridge and LR make for a better workflow.

 

I can fiddle with the sliders for an hour, but can never get back that colour/vibrance/saturation that PhotoMechanic reveals that my 5D is capable of.

You can do it without any clicking by simply having a default Develop preset, so when images are loaded into Bridge they have a develop setting of my choosing IIRC. I have to admit I'm not 100% sure on that as I actually leave it at Adobe's neutral default and choose the look I want later. But there is no reason why you cannot have a JPEG look as your preset. Work out the look you like and save that as default rendering.
With LR you can choose any develop preset on import which is slightly more flexible. So you could import via LR and then view in Bridge. Make sure LR is set to save to xmp in catalogue settings [good practice anyway].

I don't buy the "that's not the purpose of RAW" argument; if DPP can produce an immediately desirable RAW result, for those of us without the desire or time to "play" with our images (ie-1000+ wedding images each weekend) yet still want the "down-the-road" benefits of RAW, then so should Adobe possess this feature.  
Here's hoping that the beta profiles can get us 85% of the way to DPP.

It's already there. Look at these shots.
1. RAW
2. RAW with JPEG look added
3. RAW with JPEG look and calibrated using beta preset
4. JPEG [shot my my own tweaked presets in 5D]
The calibrated RAW file not only looks more like the scene than the JPEG, but is nicer too. Though initially the JPEG looks great compared to the RAW file, when you develop the RAW file, the JPEG then looks a bit lacking.
Hope this helps.

[jjj]

One last thing

However, I do not want to spend hours in front of my computer making adjustments. I do not consider myself to be a "Photoshopper". I know how to expose to get the image I want and usually all I need to do in CS3 is a little Highlight/Shadow adjustment, maybe some Contrast or minor adjustments in Curves and occasionally some Selective Color adjustments. It takes me all of a few minutes and I'm done. Then I print my images. There are times when I may have to sacrifice highlights or details in the initial exposure but either RAW or CS3 will help bring those back.

Sounds like you should simply ditch Photoshop and use Lightroom - a much better tool for what you say you do. LR's develop module is basically ACR in a different wrapper and generally a tad more ergonomic as a result. LR is much faster at dealing with lots of images than PS is. PS is better at fine tuning individual images at a pixel level.
Though Bridge CS4 is pretty brilliant it has to be said and  I use that rather than LR for sorting/finding/labeling images and often use ACR to develop too.

[PicGuy]

I am actually starting to use LR a bit more now. I am an old dog so new tricks don't always come easy! But the DNG profiles really helped. As far as the JPEG vs RAW debate, everyone is different and we each have our own tastes, that's what makes the world so diverse and wonderful! I have been shooting for a long time and have come to know what I like and how I want my images to look. Besides I don't think anyone can argue that color and one's perspective on it is extremely subjective. Some of us will prefer the JPEG look while others will prefer to edit the RAW file to our tastes. But again, that just adds to the diversity of life.

The key is that for those of us who want the flexibility of RAW but prefer to have our starting point as close as possible to the JPEG look we can now get closer to achieving that thanks to everyone's help and the DNG profiles. And let us not forget our host site's take on the subject here!