Achieving good color in raw conversion, what is your view?

[Schewe]

Schewe, you absolutely need to include a chapter in your book w/ such lore... seriously !

Yeah, ya know, there's a lot of stuff I know that I'm not really at liberty to talk about...maybe some day when the guilty are gone (and forgotten)...it's been an interesting ride and a lot of stuff has gone on behind the scenes (for good and ill). But the bottom line has been Thomas Knoll has consistently done the "right things" for all the "right reasons" (and that purely pisses off some folks because he can't be "bought").

I actually included a bunch of background about ACR & LR in The Digital Negative...things like why LR was developed and the fact that Adobe RGB was based on a typo. I walked a very fine line but vetted stuff for accuracy (but not comfort value).

The utter irony is that Photoshop (and all things developed by John & Thomas Knoll) exist because George Lucas signed a waiver allowing John and Thomas to "sell" Photoshop to Adobe...so Photoshop (and ACR/LR) are derived from "Star Wars" in more ways than people know.

Now Disney has bought everything George Lucas (including Kerner Optical) which was Industrial Light & Magic's (ILM) code name...I remember getting completely lost in San Rafael, California when trying to find ILM when I shot a portrait of John Knoll...the really cool thing was I finally found the offices because I saw a bunch of Storm Troopers lined up waiting to get tickets to ILM's Christmas Party...I waited in line and was offered tickets (depending on what department I was in). The receptionist was kinda miffed when I said I was there to shoot John. I think I missed the boat by not going to the X-mas party :~)

So, yeah...I could tell ya some stories :~)

But not just yet...

[digitaldog]

Schewe, you absolutely need to include a chapter in your book w/ such lore... seriously !

Before that, maybe you can answer the questions addressed to you. How is using ACR tainting and how is it an effective or superior workflow for me or other readers here to zero out this fine tool, end up with an ugly image (PV2003) just to fix a big honking pixel based image in Photoshop?

[digitaldog]

But that's not what Dan sees...he sees Photoshop being relegated to a much less important role...and thus his role (and value) reduced...

Well he did say this on his list:

On Apr 18, 2008, at 2:32 PM, Dan Margulis <DMargulis@aol.com> wrote:

There are a lot of open questions about how raw files should be handled in
the context of this workflow; this is one of the main reasons I decided not to do
a book on the subject--just too much testing of the various possibilities.


The interesting and as yet unanswered question is as to whether such
opportunities exist in raw converters--that is, opportunities to do things that
appear to be harmful yet eventually result in a superior look. I have done
some testing with this with other modules but as yet don't have conclusive
results.

Open questions? Perfect Dan line. Adobe raw processors that 'appear to be harmful' (this from the guy who thinks high bit data is just a big waste).

Actually, he's anti ACR/LR primarily because Thomas Knoll refused Dan's request to have the curve control have a luminance only mode without impacting color.

He writes as well:

Only Adobe products use a master curve when extending range. All the
cameras I've looked at extend the range in each channel independently.

Only Adobe products. Wonder how many others he looked at (no comment of course).
All the cameras he's looked at how?

Of course one isn't supposed to ask the master such questions, just take the blanket statements as fact.

[deejjjaaaa]

Before that, maybe you can answer the questions addressed to you.

chill

How is using ACR tainting

one more time... for Dan's workflow he (Dan) does not need any postprocessing (except I guess a WB, which in ACR/LR is still a postprocessing operation, because it is applied to demosaicked data converted to a regular colorspace, linear gamma does not change that fact) in ACR/LR because he (Dan) can achieve his goals using PS... raw conversion ends with demosaick and color transform to a regular color space (RGB or non RGB)... the rest is a postprocessing... granted ACR/LR (and other raw converters) gain (and simplify a work for an average Joe) because they are tuned to do that postprocessing along w/ raw conversion before it... but whatever you do w/ UI in ACR/LR is just postprocessing... Dan does postprocessing in PS... are we clear now ?

and how is it an effective or superior workflow for me or other readers

do not speak on behalf of other readers...

here to zero out this fine tool, end up with an ugly image (PV2003) just to fix a big honking pixel based image in Photoshop?

1) why do you try to slip adjectives ("fine") again ? fine or not fine is irrelevant to Dan' workflow.

2) who says 2003 ? 2010 shall be OK too... the last process version when you still can have a minimum ACR/LR postprocessing through UI

3) ACR is also dealing with "pixel based image" BTW...

[digitaldog]

chill

So the answer from you about a workflow question is 'chill'? Not real useful. Seems to be you don't want to explain yourself.

one more time... for Dan's workflow he (Dan) does not need any postprocessing (except I guess a WB, which in ACR/LR is still a postprocessing operation, because it is applied to demosaicked data converted to a regular colorspace, linear gamma does not change that fact) in ACR/LR because he (Dan) can achieve his goals using PS... raw conversion ends with demosaick and color transform to a regular color space (RGB or non RGB)

It doesn't need any post processing in Photoshop after setting as he instructs (zero settings for PV2003 and 2010)? Sure looks like it does on the raw files I look at set that way. Maybe my display isn't properly calibrated like Dan's <g>.

do not speak on behalf of other readers...

Just speak on behalf of yourself if you can. Can you find any justification for using ACR on raw data as Dan describes? Is this your workflow? Why not just shoot JPEG?

[deejjjaaaa]

Yeah, ya know, there's a lot of stuff I know that I'm not really at liberty to talk about..

come on - just revisit your postings here and there I bet you can get an extra chapter of such stories that were already "posted"... it will be a good read in one place 

[Rhossydd]

do not speak on behalf of other readers...

Andrew can speak on my behalf on this and I'm sure others will think the same way.

This thread is supposed to be about getting good colour in RAW conversion, not whether you can get the same result by other means.

FWIW there's a huge amount of convenience in being able to do everything at the RAW stage as it makes so many workflows substantially more efficient.

[Tim Lookingbill]

do not speak on behalf of other readers...

I share Andrew's views on this subject.  Even though I cut my digital imaging teeth restoring scanned photos using Photoshop starting around '98, I still wished they had ACR back then as the scanner software. Things would've been much easier.

I will NEVER work an image in Lab space as long as I'm editing my own photos. I've edited in Lab and it's a big PITA especially on the eyes with regard to color perception. Don't care for the interface of the tools, either.

As for defining where the "post processing" occurs along the Raw data conversion pipeline, I look at working in ACR as "pre-processing" the instructions written into an xmp file driven by the user's response to the converter's preview whose core color engine behaves according to human perception with regard to color constancy issues and other human optical phenomenon.

Working in Lab just looks and behaves way too funky for my comfort and the way I SEE color.

[deejjjaaaa]

So the answer from you about a workflow question is 'chill'? Not real useful. Seems to be you don't want to explain yourself.

you know that "chill" was the answer to your line "Before that, maybe you can answer the questions addressed to you", the tone of which I did not like.

[deejjjaaaa]

Can you find any justification for using ACR on raw data as Dan describes?

there shall be some raw converter before PS... ACR is not the ideal one for his workflow, but ACR has an advatange of being supplied free w/ PS... you have PS = you have ACR, that's it

Is this your workflow? 

no... I am using ACR to post-process images after other raw converters... ACR is a good post processing tool, it is a pity that it does not allow a more suitable way to work in non RGB color spaces though...

Why not just shoot JPEG?

I guess you know that JPG is the result of raw conversion + post processing, both done by camera's firmware... I guess that will answer your question why JPG is not an ideal source for postprocessing - too much of it was done already before PS.

[deejjjaaaa]

FWIW there's a huge amount of convenience in being able to do everything at the RAW stage as it makes so many workflows substantially more efficient.

true - but not exactly in Dan's workflow... you don't like it, fine - nobody is pushing it down your throat... the point is that for his workflow the less post-processing done outside (well - before) of PS the better he (the author) thinks, that's it...

[Gulag]

Many top-level professional retouchers that I know tend to do little in ACR or C1 if anything at all.

[Tim Lookingbill]

Many top-level professional retouchers that I know tend to do little in ACR or C1 if anything at all.

Depends on the definition of retouch and what encompasses "doing little" in ACR. Everybody's got their own way of defining "Retouch" and methodology which makes your statement too broad in its scope.

You want to at least get color, tone and capture sharpening right as a starting point for further edits in Photoshop. You get it to look right overall in the Raw converter or else you may be correcting artifacts brought out in Photoshop especially at the output sharpening stage that weren't taken care of in the RC like maybe lens distortion and noise which can affect overall color zoomed in at 100% but look different downsizing for output.

I primarily use ACR to restore and expand dynamic range and color due to uncontrolled, suboptimal shooting conditions meaning not in a studio using expensive lights. Not everyone is a fashion and product photographer.

[Gulag]

Depends on the definition of retouch and what encompasses "doing little" in ACR. Everybody's got their own way of defining "Retouch" and methodology which makes your statement too broad in its scope.

You want to at least get color, tone and capture sharpening right as a starting point for further edits in Photoshop. You get it to look right overall in the Raw converter or else you may be correcting artifacts brought out in Photoshop especially at the output sharpening stage that weren't taken care of in the RC like maybe lens distortion and noise which can affect overall color zoomed in at 100% but look different downsizing for output.

I primarily use ACR to restore and expand dynamic range and color due to uncontrolled, suboptimal shooting conditions meaning not in a studio using expensive lights. Not everyone is a fashion and product photographer.

Maybe just some WB adjustments in ACR and that's it.  Yes, if an image calls for much more dynamic range,  two or more versions of the same RAW file will be created for blending in Photoshop.  They tend not to touch contrast, sharpening, color-correction, color-grading, sharpening,  or lens corrections at all in ACR. 

[Schewe]

Many top-level professional retouchers that I know tend to do little in ACR or C1 if anything at all.

Yeah, ya know, that doesn't surprise me at all because "retouchers" by and large are Photoshop experts (not unlike Dan M.) and want to make what they do look like "magic"...(meaning the retouchers don't really like to explain exactly how they do what they do and prolly would not admit to relying on the ACR/LR toolset).

Also add to the fact most retouchers are getting rendered files not raw files, the raw files are rendered by somebody-either the photographer or the client.

I think that most retouchers don't really know how to process raw files. Not unlike Dan M. they want to do all their stuff in Photoshop. And, I'm ok with that...I'm really good at Photoshop (I've worked in Photoshop since version 2.0) so I know what the differences are between ACR/LR and Photoshop. But it's foolish to ignore tools that are useful and improve workflow simply because "they" don't know how to use ACR/LR. A smart photographer will use any and all tools to get the image right..and that means using ACR/LR and Photoshop for doing what each can do the best. If you ignore ACR/LR, you are being foolish.

[Rhossydd]

... but not exactly in Dan's workflow... you don't like it, fine - nobody is pushing it down your throat...

You are, and it's not what the OP is asking.

[Tony Jay]

Jeff has given a very balanced point-of-view.
Essentially use Photoshop only to do what cannot be done in Lightroom or ACR, seems simple enough, but not for everyone, obviously.

Tony Jay

[Tim Lookingbill]

Here's some more balanced information...

The thread below shows what can be done with one of the worst images on the planet and a web jpeg at that all corrected in ACR. No Photoshop except for downsizing. I can assure you it took more than a little WB fixing.

http://photo.net/beginner-photography-questions-forum/00YmG4

I think my version looks the best.

Tim Lookingbill