2.4 now available for download

[Schewe]

It is good to know that Adobe will be addressing the problem for those who are concerned by the base NR effect.

I didn't say that...first off, I'm unconvinced it is a problem for most cameras/users. I still think most people don't know what the heck they are looking at at 1:1 zoom. I also think many people complaining don't know how to set the Detail settings to get edgy noise back in a shot (if that's what they think they really want).

What I was "trying" to hint at was that Adobe ain't standing still and the next version will be aimed at two major areas of concentration; Image Quality and Workflow. In terms of IQ, don't be surprised to be surprised...there's an old saying among long-term alpha testers at Adobe, be careful what you wish for...you just may get it (and it may not be at all what you were expecting).

That started about the time Mark Hamburg put History in Photoshop (Ps 5). All it was supposed to be was a multiple undo feature...but Mark didn't think that was all that interesting so he turned it into History..

So, I wouldn't be presuming too much about the exact direction any hints that come from me (or Eric since I know he stops from time to time) may take. It's actually a degree of meanness on my part to even hint instead of just keeping my mouth shut. Since I know what's coming...it's real hard to not just tell people. But I really can't–partially cause the stuff ain't done yet so it may not be what I expect either–and partially cause, well if I spilled the beans, Adobe and engineers would quit telling me stuff! And that would be no fun at all...

[oldcsar]

I didn't say that...first off, I'm unconvinced it is a problem for most cameras/users. I still think most people don't know what the heck they are looking at at 1:1 zoom. I also think many people complaining don't know how to set the Detail settings to get edgy noise back in a shot (if that's what they think they really want).

What I was "trying" to hint at was that Adobe ain't standing still and the next version will be aimed at two major areas of concentration; Image Quality and Workflow. In terms of IQ, don't be surprised to be surprised...there's an old saying among long-term alpha testers at Adobe, be careful what you wish for...you just may get it (and it may not be at all what you were expecting).

That started about the time Mark Hamburg put History in Photoshop (Ps 5). All it was supposed to be was a multiple undo feature...but Mark didn't think that was all that interesting so he turned it into History..

So, I wouldn't be presuming too much about the exact direction any hints that come from me (or Eric since I know he stops from time to time) may take. It's actually a degree of meanness on my part to even hint instead of just keeping my mouth shut. Since I know what's coming...it's real hard to not just tell people. But I really can't–partially cause the stuff ain't done yet so it may not be what I expect either–and partially cause, well if I spilled the beans, Adobe and engineers would quit telling me stuff! And that would be no fun at all...

I too am unconvinced it is a problem for most cameras/users (but I think that point alone is pretty clear in my first post on this thread). However, I have no experience personally with Minolta or Sony RAW with ACR, so it only seems civil to give Barry the benefit of the doubt, even if it grinds against what I am seeing personally. Thank you for this clarification, as it is more persuasive coming from someone who has a degree of involvement with LR/ACR development. Yeah man, I wish you could just come out and say what you know... but I am nonetheless intrigued. You are a cruel, cruel man!

[JeffKohn]

I'm unconvinced it is a problem for most cameras/users

I guess that's debatable, especially depending on how you define "most cameras/users". I just don't like the way Adobe hides these baseline adjustments from end users, it smacks of arrogance. I say give users a choice, and let them decide for themselves how they want to process their images.  At least in the case of the baseline exposure adjustment it can easily be undone; but the same is not true for this baseline NR, and users who want to use their own dedicated NR tools would be better off without ACR's hidden NR getting in the way.

I was recently evaluating Capture One. At base ISO, there's no real difference in detail between C1 and ACR for my D300 NEF's. But even at ISO 400, I can see signs of NR in the ACR conversion that aren't there in the C1 conversion. And it's not like the C1 conversions had objectionable noise - just better fine details. Personally, I'd rather have a bit of grain in the shadows than detail smearing caused by NR anyway.

I'm glad to hear the ACR team has interesting stuff in store for future versions; overall there have been big improvements from the CS days and I really like the color I get from the custom profiles. But if I were one who shot a lot of high-ISO images I probably wouldn't be so happy with the current version of ACR.