ACR-in-PSE15 v ACR-in-PSE2021 - Comparing Auto function, JPEGs

Started 4 months ago | Discussions
Mikedigi
Mikedigi Forum Pro • Posts: 11,150
ACR-in-PSE15 v ACR-in-PSE2021 - Comparing Auto function, JPEGs
1

Just sharing some results. I don't shoot RAW but I sometimes edit JPEGs in Adobe ACR-in-PSE (simple and powerful) and I was interested to see whether the Auto function in PSE 2021 is different from the Auto function in PSE 15.

There are 6 SOOC JPEGs, each Auto-edited in ACR-in-PSE 15 and in ACR-in-PSE 2021 = 18 images.

9 images with this post and 9 images with the second post, all reduced to 1500 pixels.

The one which looks like an anomaly to me is # 12, where ACR-in-PSE 2021 Auto has failed to reduce highlights - the slider was left at 0 - strange. I tried it 3 times and it made no difference.

# 1 was posted previously on DPR by Jon_T, thanks Jon.

Comments welcome, but if replying, please do NOT reply-with-quote and repeat the images, it is such a waste of space.

Mike

1.

As shot

2.

ACR in PSE15

3.

ACR in PSE 2021

4.

As shot

5.

ACR in PSE 15

6.

ACR in PSE 2021

7.

As shot

8.

ACR in PSE 15

9.

ACR in PSE 2015

 Mikedigi's gear list:Mikedigi's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ8 Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS7 Olympus Stylus 1s Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ300
Mikedigi
OP Mikedigi Forum Pro • Posts: 11,150
Images # 10-18
1

10.

As shot

11.

ACR in PSE 15

12.

ACR in PSE 2021 - an anomaly I think, it left Highlights slider at 0, no highlights correction.

13.

As shot

14.

ACR in PSE 15

15.

ACR in PSE 2015

16.

As shot

17.

ACR in PSE15

18.

ACR in PSE 2021

What do you think? Apart from the anomaly in image #12, I see no consistent trend of difference in the latest version of ACR-in-PSE 2021.

But there might be differences in the handling of RAW photos of course.

If replying, please do not Reply with Quote and repeat all the images, it is such a waste of space.

Mike

 Mikedigi's gear list:Mikedigi's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ8 Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS7 Olympus Stylus 1s Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ300
Flavil Regular Member • Posts: 225
Re: Images # 10-18
2

Mikedigi wrote:

If replying, please do not Reply with Quote and repeat all the images, it is such a waste of space.

LoL We'll see how long that last.

Adobe is doing a reasonable job without destroying image quality. That, in and of itself, should be applauded. Shadows lifted with restraint. Very nice.

So many photos out there with such awful image quality caused by dollar store presents and slider abuse. It's reassuring to see Adobe create better jpegs with that level of professional discipline.

Mikedigi
OP Mikedigi Forum Pro • Posts: 11,150
Re: Images # 10-18
1

Thanks, yes, the Auto functions are pretty good in general, though that pic # 12 is a bit puzzling. Though easy to correct of course.

Mike

 Mikedigi's gear list:Mikedigi's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ8 Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS7 Olympus Stylus 1s Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ300
Jon_T
Jon_T Veteran Member • Posts: 5,503
FYI - Background
1

Mikedigi wrote:

Just sharing some results. I don't shoot RAW but I sometimes edit JPEGs in Adobe ACR-in-PSE (simple and powerful) and I was interested to see whether the Auto function in PSE 2021 is different from the Auto function in PSE 15.

There are 6 SOOC JPEGs, each Auto-edited in ACR-in-PSE 15 and in ACR-in-PSE 2021 = 18 images.

9 images with this post and 9 images with the second post, all reduced to 1500 pixels.

The one which looks like an anomaly to me is # 12, where ACR-in-PSE 2021 Auto has failed to reduce highlights - the slider was left at 0 - strange. I tried it 3 times and it made no difference.

# 1 was posted previously on DPR by Jon_T, thanks Jon. ...

1.

As shot

<SNIP>

Hi Mike,

Just a FYI/ background to others reading this topic, the JPG dam picture was a JPG and RAW comparison showing how even with the inexpensive PSE to PP RAW image with high dynamic range lighting conditions can recover far more of the highlights/ shadows than JPG image.

Below from my older post:

Below a image I posted awhile back only as an "quick example" of the ability of RAW PP to recover highlights/ shadows. Hence no need to get into what exposure adjustments "could" have been done for better JPG IQ. I did a rough/ quick exposure setting based on reading at top of the dam, and dark shadow area at base of the dam to aid with the RAW PP highlights/ shadows. In the RAW PP image if look pixel peep darker shadow areas already showing signs of underexposure (increased grain; muted color), hence any further negative EC to help with highlights overexposure would have underexpose darker shadow areas further.

FZ1K JPG+RAW: OOC JPG

FZ1K JPG+RAW: RAW PP with PSE 14/ ACR along with using Topaz DeNoise plug-in to cleanup noise/ sharpen.

Cheers,
Jon

 Jon_T's gear list:Jon_T's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 Canon PowerShot G15 Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Canon PowerShot S110 Leica C +16 more
Sue Anne Rush
Sue Anne Rush Senior Member • Posts: 3,048
Re: ACR-in-PSE15 v ACR-in-PSE2021 - Comparing Auto function, JPEGs
1

Hello...

Excellent series - thank you for sharing. 

-- hide signature --

Sue Anne Rush

 Sue Anne Rush's gear list:Sue Anne Rush's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS-1D X Mark III
Mikedigi
OP Mikedigi Forum Pro • Posts: 11,150
Re: FYI - Background
1

Thank you Jon, yes, the RAW PP version is very impressive.

I shall definitely shoot a High-DR RAW + JPEG pic today (sun is out) and try ACR on the RAW and the JPEG.

Don't know yet whether PSE 15 will handle the FZ330 RAW but the PSE 2021 should . . .

Mike

 Mikedigi's gear list:Mikedigi's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ8 Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS7 Olympus Stylus 1s Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ300
gardenersassistant Veteran Member • Posts: 8,962
Re: ACR-in-PSE15 v ACR-in-PSE2021 - Comparing Auto function, JPEGs
2

That's a very interesting comparison Mike.

I think the two versions of ACR have made different types of adjustment from image to image, As to which is more appealing in a particular case is I think a matter of personal taste.

For example, for my taste I prefer 2021 for the first, 2015 for the second and fourth, and for the other three I would probably prefer something different, perhaps something between the two versions, as I'm not really comfortable with either version.

I'm finding this easiest to pin down for #6, for which 2021 looks too dark for my taste in the background, while the upper, lighter petals in the 2015 version look too bright and desaturated for my taste.

#3 and #5 are more difficult to characterise. I think they are both difficult images, but broadly speaking the 2021 versions don't look sufficiently "bright day" to me while in the 2015 versions the brighter petal areas (small area in #3, most of the petal area in #5) don't seem quite right to my eye. (Can't pin it down any better than that I'm afraid.)

Overall I don't see any pattern from these examples which makes me favour one version over the other.

Mikedigi
OP Mikedigi Forum Pro • Posts: 11,150
Re: ACR-in-PSE15 v ACR-in-PSE2021 - Comparing Auto function, JPEGs
1

Nick, thank you for the analysis, and your conclusion is the same as mine - I cannot say that ACR 2021 is better than ACR 15, or vice versa, for editing JPEGs.

Variations, yes, but #12 was the biggest surprise to me, where the ACR 2021 left the Highlights slider at zero, i.e. made no attempt to address the flagrantly obvious over-exposure. I tried it 3 times and got the same result. But It is the only example of this behaviour that I have seen, hence my "anomaly" comment.

With both of them, as a permanent learner, I find it useful to run the Auto function, as they both, presumably, understand some of the functions better than I do (like White Point and Black Point), and then to tweak to taste, which generally seems to be Exposure, Highlights and Shadows, and of course anything else that I want to try.

For this tweaking, I use the sliders, rather than going to Levels and Curves, which are presumably another route to the same destination??? Or not?

I am also seeing how Faststone Image Viewer editing compares, and there too, if I run Auto Adjust Colors, it is surprisingly good, and I can then tweak similarly as in the ACRs. But in Faststone, for Exposure, there is no "Exposure" slider and I find it more convincing to go to Levels and use the middle slider in Input Levels, than to use the Brightness or Gamma slider. For Highlights and Shadows I like the sliders more than Curves. (?)

I also ran a "difficult" RAW file through the ACRs with "Auto" and compared and tweaked, but honestly, any significant advantage over shooting JPEG was difficult to see.

I think that the JPEG engine in the FZ330 is brilliant and I don't think that I can do better myself using RAW. The JPEG engine, unlike so many previous Pana FZ engines, really does do a good job up to 1600 ISO (with NR set to -5) and the constant f2.8 lens enables me to use around 400 ISO a lot indoors, e.g. for still objects in a museum or at an exhibition. A little fine grain noise at 800-1600 ISO is removed easily by Neat Image Free but I rarely bother.

Thank you.

Mike

 Mikedigi's gear list:Mikedigi's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ8 Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS7 Olympus Stylus 1s Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ300
gardenersassistant Veteran Member • Posts: 8,962
Re: ACR-in-PSE15 v ACR-in-PSE2021 - Comparing Auto function, JPEGs
1

Mikedigi wrote:

Nick, thank you for the analysis, and your conclusion is the same as mine - I cannot say that ACR 2021 is better than ACR 15, or vice versa, for editing JPEGs.

Variations, yes, but #12 was the biggest surprise to me, where the ACR 2021 left the Highlights slider at zero, i.e. made no attempt to address the flagrantly obvious over-exposure. I tried it 3 times and got the same result. But It is the only example of this behaviour that I have seen, hence my "anomaly" comment.

With both of them, as a permanent learner, I find it useful to run the Auto function, as they both, presumably, understand some of the functions better than I do (like White Point and Black Point), and then to tweak to taste, which generally seems to be Exposure, Highlights and Shadows, and of course anything else that I want to try.

I too use Auto Tone as a starting point to work from.

For this tweaking, I use the sliders, rather than going to Levels and Curves, which are presumably another route to the same destination??? Or not?

Ummmm..... probably.

I am also seeing how Faststone Image Viewer editing compares, and there too, if I run Auto Adjust Colors, it is surprisingly good, and I can then tweak similarly as in the ACRs. But in Faststone, for Exposure, there is no "Exposure" slider and I find it more convincing to go to Levels and use the middle slider in Input Levels, than to use the Brightness or Gamma slider. For Highlights and Shadows I like the sliders more than Curves. (?)

I also ran a "difficult" RAW file through the ACRs with "Auto" and compared and tweaked, but honestly, any significant advantage over shooting JPEG was difficult to see.

I think that the JPEG engine in the FZ330 is brilliant and I don't think that I can do better myself using RAW. The JPEG engine, unlike so many previous Pana FZ engines, really does do a good job up to 1600 ISO (with NR set to -5) and the constant f2.8 lens enables me to use around 400 ISO a lot indoors, e.g. for still objects in a museum or at an exhibition. A little fine grain noise at 800-1600 ISO is removed easily by Neat Image Free but I rarely bother.

Thank you.

Mike

Good experiments you are doing Mike.

Jon_T
Jon_T Veteran Member • Posts: 5,503
Re: ACR-in-PSE15 v ACR-in-PSE2021 - Comparing Auto function, JPEGs
1

Mikedigi wrote:

... I also ran a "difficult" RAW file through the ACRs with "Auto" and compared and tweaked, but honestly, any significant advantage over shooting JPEG was difficult to see.

I think that the JPEG engine in the FZ330 is brilliant and I don't think that I can do better myself using RAW. ...

Yes at lower ISO's and good lighting may not be that big of a difference between JPG+RAW.

But as lighting conditions become more adverse; as lighting decreases and ISO's increase, the more advantages RAW provides.

Need to keep in mind, even RAW cannot recover blown highlights. Which is why I always adjust exposure to prevent blown highlights, even if dark shadows may be underexposed.

Hence If a image has blown highlights you will not see any differences between JPG and RAW image as to recovery of the blown highlights.

... The JPEG engine, unlike so many previous Pana FZ engines, really does do a good job up to 1600 ISO (with NR set to -5) and the constant f2.8 lens enables me to use around 400 ISO a lot indoors, e.g. for still objects in a museum or at an exhibition. A little fine grain noise at 800-1600 ISO is removed easily by Neat Image Free but I rarely bother. ...

Good to hear. Pany's in-camera's JPG NR always been detriment on JPEG IQ.

Unfortunately I do not have the FZ300 so I'm unable to do any JPG/ RAW comparisons. But with my FZ1000 and ZS100 even using full negative NR settings, at 1600 and higher ISO's in lower lighting conditions (indoor exhibits, museums, etc,) I can get noticeably better IQ from RAW with DxO PhotoLab Elite.

Overall use what works best for you to get the IQ you want/ need.

Cheers,
Jon

 Jon_T's gear list:Jon_T's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 Canon PowerShot G15 Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Canon PowerShot S110 Leica C +16 more
Mikedigi
OP Mikedigi Forum Pro • Posts: 11,150
RAW and JPEG shooting in adverse conditions
1

Thank you Jon, yes I agree that RAW has advantages in adverse conditions, also in the FZ330, but that for my purposes, I do not really shoot in the degree of adverse conditions where RAW has major advantage, the way I use the FZ330.

And the way the FZ330 handles low light may not be DSLR but it is better than previous pinhead-sensor FZs and that is one of the things that I enjoy with the FZ330.

But as you imply, what suits me may not suit you, our aims and expectations are different.

Mike

 Mikedigi's gear list:Mikedigi's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ8 Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS7 Olympus Stylus 1s Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ300
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads