Previous news story    Next news story

Adobe update adds Fujifilm color profiles to Adobe Camera Raw 8.4 RC

By dpreview staff on Feb 21, 2014 at 19:22 GMT

Adobe has updated Adobe Camera Raw, adding color profiles for Fujifilm cameras, as well as Raw support for some recent models. The Release Candidate versions of ACR 8.4 for Photoshop CS6 and CC are now better able to mimic Fujifilm's Film Simulation modes - at least in terms of color response.

The camera and profile updates are available for CS6 users, as well as Creative Cloud subscribers. CC subscribers receive a series of additional features not supported in CS6, including a Before/After comparison tool.

In addition to the Fujifilm color profiles, the latest versions of ACR also add support for the following cameras:

  • Canon EOS 1200D (REBEL T5, KISS X70)
  • Casio EX-100
  • DJI Phantom
  • Fujifilm X-T1
  • Hasselblad H5D-50c
  • Hasselblad HV
  • Nikon D3300
  • Nikon D4S
  • Olympus OM-D E-M10 (*)
  • Panasonic LUMIX DMC-ZS40 (DMC-TZ60, DMC-TZ61)
  • Phase One IQ250
  • Samsung NX30
  • Sony Alpha a5000 (ILCE-5000)
  • Sony Alpha a6000 (ILCE-6000)

* denotes preliminary support

The update also includes 37 additional lens/camera profiles.



Image comparison

We've prepared a quick comparison of Adobe's versions of Fujifilm's Film Simulation modes, to test how closely they match the originals. Here we have three X-E2 images converted in-camera, using the relevant profile, and in ACR 8.4, using both the corresponding color profile and the existing Adobe Default profile, which was previously included.

The highlight differences in the images are likely to stem from the use of DR200% mode in all three images. Although ACR now interprets the DR setting so that the correct middle grey is achieved, it does not apply different tone curves for the different DR modes, so the highlight response is not consistent with the JPEG result.

Provia (Standard)

Camera Provia ACR 'Provia' ACR Adobe Standard

Astia (Soft)

Camera Astia ACR 'Astia' ACR Adobe Standard

Velvia (Vivid)

Camera Velvia ACR 'Velvia' ACR Adobe Standard

Comments

Total comments: 99
FR3DRIK
By FR3DRIK (1 week ago)

Wow, ACR 8.4 was just released today in Lightroom 5.4 and Photoshop CC.

The color rendition is almost perfect on my 1600 ISO RAFs with PROVIA when matched against JPEGs produced (also PROVIA) from the in-camera engine.

In my opinion the color matching between JPEGs and RAF+Profile applied is hugely improved on since the release candidate. FANTASTIC. Best color rendition so far of X-Trans RAF files!

0 upvotes
Johannes Zander
By Johannes Zander (2 months ago)

So now... what about a comparison with real film?

Oh ... wait, you would have to scan it in ... yes and then do we have calibrated Monitors

... so forget it

1 upvote
badi
By badi (2 months ago)

So true...
I mean yes it is a bit difficult... but it would be a great article (and a lot of traffic) if somebody (hint for dpreview) would actually shoot with a digital X-trans side by side with some roll of films, and post the results for comparison.
If nobody does it.... maybe I'll give it a shot at some point, at least for 2-3 types (though Astia seems not to be available in my region - and the simulation is kind of my favorite) ...

0 upvotes
five5pho
By five5pho (2 months ago)

Adobe is trying to capitalize on the VSCO ''film'' trend.
Pretty good though, I like it, even though they come late at the party!

0 upvotes
Sannaborjeson
By Sannaborjeson (2 months ago)

After what reallyniceimages.com and vsсо.со had done?
No chance.

0 upvotes
plasnu
By plasnu (2 months ago)

There is aesthetic issue with film simulation without doubt. They do look fake, and they actually are.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 38 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Just a Photographer
By Just a Photographer (2 months ago)

Sure they are fake, but people have an idea of what you may expect as an output file.

A known name that comes close to the output is therefore always better then to run an action e.g. called 'chocolate cookie pie', not knowing what to expect from such LR/ACR recipe.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 55 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Just another Canon shooter
By Just another Canon shooter (2 months ago)

It is a fake simulation of a fake image of the original.

0 upvotes
Sannaborjeson
By Sannaborjeson (2 months ago)

And they certainly are. But who cares if the result looks more pleasant than an image straight from camera? )

0 upvotes
57even
By 57even (2 months ago)

All photos are fake, specially on film. A camera is not a photocopier. Exact duplication is not part of the brief.

0 upvotes
Halstatt
By Halstatt (2 months ago)

I wholly subscribe to the comedy of companies and fan boys -- after hawking the benefits of digital for 25 yrs., now attempting to revive the "look" of film with pixels and the feel of older cameras.

Digital, primarily, has given us incredible resolving power. So amen to that.

But has anyone considered reviving the film industry and marrying the best aspects of digital to it? Cellulose looks different! Period. The formulas are there for rebuilding the beauty of film. All the formulas.

Naturally our ADD suffering invincibles won't be able to hack it. Too much work. Not fast enough. Gotta have those artifacts.

1 upvote
Les Lammers
By Les Lammers (2 months ago)

Is that such a bad thing?

0 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (2 months ago)

At first, I thought Casio EX-100 was a typo, and that they meant EX-10. But it seems that Casio has released another enthusiast compact, this time with a 28-300mm F/2.8 lens, similar to (or the same as) the one in Olympus Stylus 1. The form factor is the same as EX-10, though, so no built-in EVF.

I wonder why these are only released in Asia? Has Casio abandoned the European and American markets completely?

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (2 months ago)

We didn't have a press release when it was announced, but the EX-100 is in our database.

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Wye Photography
By Wye Photography (2 months ago)

Personal view to which I am entitled - don't bite my head off.

I find it mildly amusing that thousands upon thousands of people abandoned film in their absolute droves and "made the switch to digital", spent $1000's (the $ is there for the benefit of my American brothers) on the new gear, computers, software only then to mimic film. If I could understand irony, I think that could be ironic.

I use digital, I also use film (B&W, just started to self process colour), I can tell you those "film packs" are just a waste of money esp BW. I can process Tri-X in D76, HC-110, Prescysol and Perceptol and have four different results.

With colour, I get a slightly different colour and rendition from my old Canon kit as I do from my RTS (and those sublime Carl Zeiss T* lenses) kit.

Personally, I think all these film sim profiles, albeit free from Adobe, are a gimmick. Quality film kit is cheap as chips thanks to digital. Buy some, have a go, do if for real. You'll enjoy it!

7 upvotes
Grumpyrocker
By Grumpyrocker (2 months ago)

I think you are confusing people's like for certain film colours with the ease of use of digital technology.

There is no paradox here, nothing to scoff at. It seems perfectly reasonable that many people would like to retain the colour and contrast of older images yet at the same time have the convenience of digital.

You are entitled to your view, even if posted in the style of Sir General Bufton Tufton writing to the Telegraph about these new fangled horseless carriages.

15 upvotes
JakeB
By JakeB (2 months ago)

Glad to hear you take pleasure from shooting and processing film.

You should also, however, keep a more open mind about the quality, convenience, and creative options offered by skillful digital processing.

3 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (2 months ago)

Wye Photography:

Below ISO 400, and sometimes as high as ISO 800, colour film can be beautiful.

However it costs money to process, even if you do it yourself. ISO 2000 is unheard of. Good scanning takes skill and time, same with enlarger work. 5-7 bucks per roll, at only 36 exposures per roll, is expensive.

Yes, I know about bulk film and loaders. And yes I realize that B+W can be pushed more than colour film.

Nor am I defending these particular "film packs" from Adobe. I don't try to recreate the film look. (And would probably use DXO if I were to try.)

0 upvotes
Wye Photography
By Wye Photography (2 months ago)

Grumpyrocker, I'm not confusing anything. I am very well aware of digital workflow (having used photoshop from version 3, and I don't mean CS3 either). Neither was I scoffing at anything. If people want to digitally simulate film then that's fine by me (it may even encourage a few to try the real thing). I was saying that there is an irony of digital mimicking film. Then there is a danger of people thinking that the sometimes unconvincing result is genuine. As I process my own film I am perhaps more keenly aware than you of the convenience of digital as well as its cons.

I do apologise for sounding like a fictitious Tory MP, but, one is awfully well read, albeit without the politics, greed and laziness. I won't take umbrage and demand satisfaction.

JakeB, I think you missed the bit where I said "I use digital". I do have a open mind and a foot firmly planted in BOTH camps as one of my completely digital photography sites www.themountainphotographer.co.uk demonstrates.

0 upvotes
Wye Photography
By Wye Photography (2 months ago)

HowaboutRAW:

I absolutely concur with your sentiments.

For example, on a trip to Pen Y Fan (a Welsh mountain) I made 78 digital exposure to six on film. Two weeks before and another Welsh mountain, 238 digital to 12 on film. I shoot more digital because I can and I like to experiment with exposures etc.

I am much more conscious of the cost of shooting film so I am much, much more selective about what I shoot.

In truth, I love both film and digital for very different reasons, www.wyephotography.com is my BW film site, www.themountainphotographer.co.uk is my digital hiking over mountains with digital camera site.

As the great Ansel Adams once said "No man has the right to dictate what other men should perceive, create or produce, but all should be encouraged to reveal themselves, their perceptions and emotions, and to build confidence in the creative spirit".

I have views, sure, who doesn't, but, ultimately what other people do is up to them.

1 upvote
JakeB
By JakeB (2 months ago)

Your use of "genuine," "the real thing," and exhortation to "do it for real" suggests that while you may have adjusted your workflow to the digital age, you have not also adjusted your thinking.

This gives rise to your present attitudes towards digital, no matter how much you use it, as basically an inferior copy of "the real," which for you is film.

You were brought up in a world that equated reality with physical materials and chemical reactions. The arrangement of pixels to your mind is a pale imitation of these physical materials and chemical reactions.

End of the day, you are seeking to rationalize every passing generation's sense that the old ways were somehow better.

Digital vs. film is a discussion from the past, one we won't be hearing for much longer.

0 upvotes
viking79
By viking79 (2 months ago)

I like film too, and I respect Fuji and Adobe's desire to recreate some films that users will like, but at the same time I shoot digital because of the flexibility. In the cases above I prefer the ACR Standard to any of the film simulations. I like that they offer the choice, but I won't bother using them.

0 upvotes
Just another Canon shooter
By Just another Canon shooter (2 months ago)

It depends on the output. Physical slides, projected on a screen look great, indeed, hard to replicate with digital. Scanned slides, even with a professional equipment (yes, I have done it, Velvia 50, and all that) are just OK.

0 upvotes
Wye Photography
By Wye Photography (2 months ago)

JakeB,

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong!

I never mentioned the film vs digital debate. I'm not interested in that and I don't care either.

Film is film and is MUCH better than a digital simulation. End of! My digital work is separate, different and equal to my film work. I am often happier with my colour digital than my colour film work.

I view film and digital as different and complementary and work with film and digital on equal footing.

I think it is you who has the problem. Your old comments sound terribly prejudiced as if all things new are better than all things old. They are not! As you will one day find out. I think you are young(ish), don't you realise that one day people will say the same to you as you have to me!

No, I don't think digital should mimic film, it is inferior. Digital has its own nature - glory in it. Have you shot film? Developed it yourself? Made your own prints? Hmm?

At least you are a Mac user and that means I love you and Napoleon was a good guy.

0 upvotes
Wye Photography
By Wye Photography (2 months ago)

Just to clarify when I said...

"No, I don't think digital should mimic film, it is inferior." as above, I meant the digital mimic of film is inferior to film.

0 upvotes
plasnu
By plasnu (2 months ago)

I use real film, digital and digital film sim.

Film is film, digital is digital, sim is sim. I prefer real film by far and I'll trash all my digital camera, if film camera has the same convenience as digital.

1 upvote
Wye Photography
By Wye Photography (2 months ago)

Plasnu,

Excellently put.

0 upvotes
Les Lammers
By Les Lammers (2 months ago)

Both are time consuming processes. However, after using a 'digital darkroom' I have no desire to go wet again. ;-)

0 upvotes
BaldCol
By BaldCol (2 months ago)

"I can process Tri-X in D76, HC-110, Prescysol and Perceptol and have four different results."

That's why I like digital. The results are down to my skills not random chemical actions.

0 upvotes
Tom_A
By Tom_A (2 months ago)

When the light is difficult. I shoot Raw on my fuji xe1. But usually I set it to jpg Velvia. The saturated colours may not be real but I like that people look healthier than in reality :-)

0 upvotes
Wye Photography
By Wye Photography (2 months ago)

BaldCol,

Nothing random about it at all. A good worker will get consistent results ALL the time.

Only the inept get unexpected or unwanted results be they film or digital.

0 upvotes
Treve1
By Treve1 (2 months ago)

Will this work for the ACR that I use with Elements 11?

0 upvotes
Gao Gao
By Gao Gao (2 months ago)

Oh! Good... Will Adobe make Panasonic profiles?

0 upvotes
Eigenmeat
By Eigenmeat (2 months ago)

ACR is still a blurry mess compare to OOC JPGs.

2 upvotes
57even
By 57even (2 months ago)

Try sharpening.

4 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (2 months ago)

Try not to pixel-peep.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (2 months ago)

Eigenmeat:

Try learning how to use raw extraction software--ACR 8 included.

Try WB adjustment on any jpeg, sure is better to have the raw file and ACR, etc.

As for blurry mess and ACR, try setting things like Lumninance and all the other NR sliders to zero at the start. (Same basic rules apply to other good raw extraction software like CaptureOne and PhotoNinja.)

In other words you have no idea of what you're writing about.

5 upvotes
Just another Canon shooter
By Just another Canon shooter (2 months ago)

The OOC Jpegs are full of artifacts. The face of the woman is very unflattering in ACR. I guess Adobe are trying to get the best from that gravity defying sensor.

0 upvotes
photogeek
By photogeek (2 months ago)

Truth is, for the few Fuji cameras that it supports, Aperture produces much better results when rendering fine details and textures. This means Adobe simply didn't do a very good job with their demosaicing.

0 upvotes
Combatmedic870
By Combatmedic870 (2 months ago)

They did Velvia pretty dang well. Everything else is off. Astia being the most off.

2 upvotes
venancio
By venancio (2 months ago)

If you don't need the D4S or Fuji XT 1 equipment to come up with the processing objective of this release candidate, are they able to include one for the 7D Mark II and D400 to pacify a lot of people ? If you actually need the equipment, did Adobe already receive way way back, maybe many moons ago, a working unit from Fuji and Nikon? Yeah, it's only the profile, and then another revision will come when the actual production unit of these cameras become available... the Sochi games bring more excitement than the pre announcement of the D4S, pardon my naivete... and I see a lot of white colored lenses in the games... where's my converter that will allow me to use Fuji lenses on my Nikon bodies? Oh, ok, so there's one that will allow me to use those white lenses on my Nikon bodies? Cheers :)

0 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (2 months ago)

Considering that the E-M10 gets preliminary support, whereas no such qualification is made regarding D4S and X-T1, I'd imagine they've had access to production-quality units for a while.

0 upvotes
JapanAntoine
By JapanAntoine (2 months ago)

Are they also adding the Fuji profiles in LR4.4? or inLR5, maybe?

1 upvote
DotCom Editor
By DotCom Editor (2 months ago)

Probably to LR5, since it's the same engine. LR4.4 is deceased as far as Adobe is concerned.

1 upvote
D200_4me
By D200_4me (2 months ago)

Glad to hear that, regarding the Fuji profiles. Looking forward to it. I love the Olympus profiles for my E-M1.

I swear I'm always baffled by people that complain about the price of updating Lightroom to the newest version. Seriously? They'll spend thousands on gear but can't fork over $79 to upgrade an excellent editing tool every year or so? Amazing.

2 upvotes
graybalanced
By graybalanced (2 months ago)

It's not just that, it's also that many of these photographers will spend many more hours in their software than behind the camera, and yet somehow the software is completely devalued as an essential tool. How good of a lens can anyone get for $79?

2 upvotes
JapanAntoine
By JapanAntoine (2 months ago)

I think a good part of the responsibility for that is for Adobe to take... they are doing a pretty bad job at explaining their products to new users.
When I decided to buy LR for the first time a year and a half ago I had trouble to understand the differences with PS, ACR, etc... and maybe I am dumb, but then I might not be the only one. I still decided to buy the soft, because 130$ was still ok, but I remember feeling I was taking a risk.
That even went worse when I started using the tool itself: it is much more difficult to use than the simple tools I was used to. Probably more powerful, but the step-up is tough.

Anyway, I am fine with LR now, but the upgrade from 4.4 to 5 makes little sense and I still wish they improved the photos management tools and the overall user-friendly environment.

1 upvote
Oleg Vinokurov
By Oleg Vinokurov (2 months ago)

It's just people are used to "free" software. And quite many still use without buying license.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (2 months ago)

JapanAntoine:

Okay, but you're stuck with ACR 7.

If better raw processing, in ACR, and new camera raw compatibility isn't important, there's no reason for LR5.

Doesn't read like you have Photoshop CS6 or CC (or CS5).

0 upvotes
Robert Garcia NYC
By Robert Garcia NYC (2 months ago)

Looks good

0 upvotes
Rick DeBari
By Rick DeBari (2 months ago)

These are release candidates and NOT final versions! Personally I will wait until the final versions are released. It most likely will only be a few weeks until this happens.

1 upvote
mervis50
By mervis50 (2 months ago)

I found the RCs for LR v3 & v4 a little buggy. My new policy is to wait for the final versions

2 upvotes
jwkphoto
By jwkphoto (2 months ago)

They ARE the final versions!

0 upvotes
shooter00
By shooter00 (2 months ago)

No they ARE NOT the final versions.
It clearly states they are Release Candidates.....

4 upvotes
Mikity
By Mikity (2 months ago)

Will these updates work for Lightroom as well, or does LR require separate deivce updates?

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (2 months ago)

You'll need to wait for LR updates - although it's based around the same processing engine, it doesn't use the same plugin structure as Photoshop.

1 upvote
InTheMist
By InTheMist (2 months ago)

D4S support! Let the rumors begin.

Besides that, I would love to have a one-click solution to get those lovely Fuji colors out of my Nikon Raw files.

4 upvotes
piratejabez
By piratejabez (2 months ago)

Ditto that. The Nikon profiles are pretty good (compared to Adobe Standard) but these Fuji simulations would be great :)

1 upvote
hjs_koeln
By hjs_koeln (2 months ago)

Allright, just installed ACR 8.4 on my 2010 iMac (Photoshop CS6), and all of a sudden Photoshop no longer can find Adobe Camera Raw... In other words: It won´t open any RAW file at all. Started time machine, replaced Photoshop folders with those stored a few days ago, and tried again: Same result, Photoshop no longer finds Camera Raw.

What now....?!

This is the first time an ACR update has caused an troubles at all....!

0 upvotes
dudu_307
By dudu_307 (2 months ago)

Are you using 10.6.8? Not supported in CR 8.4

0 upvotes
luigibozi
By luigibozi (2 months ago)

Try 8.1 Pro
;))

0 upvotes
ginsbu
By ginsbu (2 months ago)

I like the way the comparison images are presented, but it would be nice to see a more direct comparison without the DR expansion mode confounding the results.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (2 months ago)

I agree - sadly most of my images in good weather were shot with DR Auto on, which is rather too keen to shoot at DR200%.

I'll see if I can find better examples.

2 upvotes
ginsbu
By ginsbu (2 months ago)

Thanks, Richard!

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (2 months ago)

I've had a look around and there's not much to be found - the weather here means I've only got a handful of images that are shot in good light, with greenery and blue skies. Almost none of those are in DR100.

I did find these, though:

Camera Provia JPEG

ACR Provia Profile

ACR Adobe Standard Profile

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
4 upvotes
ginsbu
By ginsbu (2 months ago)

It looks like Adobe's matched the camera Provia pretty well. Hopefully that impression holds up for other scenes and film emulations.

0 upvotes
wudyi
By wudyi (2 months ago)

Not interested. Migrating away from Adobe.

7 upvotes
BaldCol
By BaldCol (2 months ago)

Why do people with nothing to say feel the need to tell us they have nothing to say?

2 upvotes
Frederico70x7
By Frederico70x7 (2 months ago)

So am I forced to upgrade from LR v4 to v5?

1 upvote
mervis50
By mervis50 (2 months ago)

No. You can do whatever you like.

People who want to work with Fujifilm's Film Simulations in Raw format can choose to purchase Lightroom 5.4 when it is released.

3 upvotes
Cheezr
By Cheezr (2 months ago)

DPReview is being a little over eager, this is the Adobe Labs beta for ACR 8.4 and you need to use their links because the usual Adobe updaters will not pick it up until it is a released product.
I just installed it (it comes with an installer) and it works in both LR CC and PS CC

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (2 months ago)

We are, as we have regularly done, reporting the availability of Release Candidate versions on Adobe labs.

5 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (2 months ago)

Cheezr:

There's a LR CC? When did that come out?

0 upvotes
Frederico70x7
By Frederico70x7 (2 months ago)

Is there an update for LR v4?

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (2 months ago)

I don't think v4 is still being updated. Based on recent behaviour, it looks like LR 5.4 will be launched along with the full release version of ACR 8.4 (rather than at this 'Release Candidate' stage).

0 upvotes
BRPWS
By BRPWS (2 months ago)

too bad. Usually they release together. Some said they were able to update the Lightroom CC version.

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (2 months ago)

Every time I hear the word Adobe I get this taste in my mouth like someone poured in a bag of dirty pennies.

17 upvotes
flaca
By flaca (2 months ago)

Every time I hear someone criticise a company for offering a good product at a good price, I visualise my toddler having a tantrum. And no, I don't have any connection with Adobe other than being a happy customer who thinks $10/month for Lightroom and Photoshop is so trivial an amount that it doesn't even qualify as a no-brainer.

3 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (2 months ago)

flaca:

It's that the software (Photoshop CC) dies if you don't pay that money and Adobe won't give you the option of paying a higher one time purchase price as other companies that also rent their software do.

I have no problem with Adobe offering the rental option, but it can't offer only rental and keep me as a customer.

2 upvotes
flaca
By flaca (2 months ago)

Understood, and a fair point. I'm happy with that model (same thing for my satellite TV) but I understand that others are not. If I felt like that, it would certainly cause me to go to another vendor, but it still wouldn't cause me to equate speaking the vendor's name to filling my mouth with dirty penises or whatever you said.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (2 months ago)

flaca:

It's not rental that gives people, me included, such a bad taste; it's "rental only".

My CAD software (Ashlar) has had the option of renting for years. It's gone down in price a bit, but the full version is still something like $3,000 to buy, so there's real motivation for renting to learn or do something for a month or two. (I only ever owned the $1,200 variation, still more capable than Solidworks in many ways. And there's free reader software for the files.)

At least for users of PhotoShop CS6, Adobe's bad decision is going to make many seek out other raw extraction programs once Adobe no longer supports ACR for PhotoShop CS6, options like CaptureOne, PhotoNinja, and DXO9. No, Lightroom is too much of a mess to get future variations of ACR that way. And PhotoShop CS6, or CS5, will be excellent editing software for years.

1 upvote
BaldCol
By BaldCol (2 months ago)

Why do adobe haters keep hijacking news that adobe users will be interested in. The argument has been done to death. It is what it is. You don't like it, don't use it. Use one of the alternatives that the Adobe haters keep telling us are better anyway and leave adobe threads alone.

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (2 months ago)

BaldC:

Adobe made its choices and those choices still relate to ACR in particular, that's why you'll be seeing more comments about Adobe's bad behavior having repercussions and leaving a bad taste.

It's similar to Microsoft again and again releasing unstable operating systems full of security holes.

0 upvotes
luigibozi
By luigibozi (2 months ago)

you're lucky, HowaboutRAW (DPR didn't invent a "don't like" button).
over 4k comments and only 11 likes?!
waiting for a well written review (of some software, maybe?)

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (2 months ago)

luigibozi:

And if you read my comments, even from the last 3 months alone, you’ll see many more than 11 “likes”.

Conclusions, 2: You don’t read my comments, fine. And the “like” counting software doesn’t work. Not real surprising, given that DPReview can’t even fix the enforced GearCrap sign-in, and that’s been a problem on and off for something like 6 months.

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (2 months ago)

BaldCol,
I love my PS CS5. I own it. Adobe can't increase the price on me. If I don't pay this month, they can't take it away. I hope that you rent Adobe and have the same cheery attitude when they decide to raise your rent. I'm not a hater and I have no desire to hijack anything. In the case of this story, I was reminded that Adobe isn't going to let me using the new ACR unless I go in for their whole new pricing scheme. You'd think they could at least sell users of their legacy systems an update. Nope. Enjoy your rental. I hope you get royally screwed.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (2 months ago)

flaca:

Just noticed: It's "pennies", so a metallic taste, not "penises".

0 upvotes
Edgar Matias
By Edgar Matias (2 months ago)

Definitely an improvement.

The ACR Adobe Standard looks very flat in comparison.

Gotta say though... The OOC shots look really good (especially the skin tones). Not sure how much room there is to improve on them.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (2 months ago)

Cameras you be referring to? Fujis?

WB adjustment sure is easier with the raw files from whatever camera.

Also if you don't like results from a default ACR extraction, there's always learning to use ACR. (Doesn't work like that with out of camera jpegs from whatever camera.)

Then since you can extract to tiff you have a lot more to work with in a photo editor--PS, Corel Paintshop, GIMP, etc.

0 upvotes
Sessility
By Sessility (2 months ago)

@HowaboutRAW

Good thing with the Fuji cameras is you can shoot RAW+JPG and then later use the in-camera RAW conversion to make more JPGs with different WB - best of both worlds, you still get the OOC looks (and can even create JPGs with different film simulations from the one RAW).

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (2 months ago)

Sessility:

Or you can use serious raw extraction software to extract to tiff.

0 upvotes
Tapper123
By Tapper123 (2 months ago)

Great news. Makes Fuji X-T1 even more attractive now that LR can fully support it.

2 upvotes
Lee W
By Lee W (2 months ago)

What about LR?

2 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (2 months ago)

It looks like Adobe only does full updates of LR - not 'Release Candidate' versions - which would suggest the update will come when this version is finalised.

0 upvotes
JConrad
By JConrad (2 months ago)

Adobe's done plenty of Lightroom RC versions....I can't remember a time when they haven't done a Lightroom RC in addition to the camera RAW version.

6 upvotes
mervis50
By mervis50 (2 months ago)

Agree with Conrad. I had RC's for both v3 & v4.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (2 months ago)

I got thrown-off because the LR5.3 RC link from our last news story has now been broken (I thought it might always have been).

Either way, they haven't (yet) announced a LR5.4 RC.

0 upvotes
flaca
By flaca (2 months ago)

LR RCs have always (I think) come out in tandem with CR RCs, and we know that LR and CR share the same internal workings, so Adobe's intention is probably to release both RCs at the same time. But, this is software, so my guess (it is a complete guess) is that the LR5.4 RC was intended to be ready, but it didn't quite make it out the door in time. I expect the engineers would be under pressure to get an RC out in time for e.g. the XT-1, so they "split" the releases. I'd expect the LR RC to follow very shortly. Maybe someone with more inside knowledge than me (i.e. any inside knowledge!) can tell me if my expectations are accurate or hopelessly optimistic

0 upvotes
Top Dog Imaging
By Top Dog Imaging (2 months ago)

"The ACR Adobe Standard looks very flat in comparison," wrote Edgar. ... Me: RAW processors are intended to default to a flat looking file. Have you ever seen a Black Magic file? With a linear response curve, you are able to adjust the file to taste.

1 upvote
Total comments: 99