Adobe Camera Raw 9.5 introduces new color scheme

80,000? Wow! There are more than 2,000,000 users of the Photoshop/Lightroom Photography plan alone, and they account for just over half of Adobe's customer base. I can't see Adobe bursting into tears just yet

In the subscription plan numbers are corporate users too.

Personally and Professionally I use Corel Aftershot

TLD, I'm not counting Lightroom, which likely makes up the majority of those 2M. It's a fine product at a reasonable price, albeit lacking the power and features of CS6. It's still available as purchase. It's subscription-only CC that's generating the interest amongst a lot of disenchanted CS6 users - at least from many of the photographers I talk to. Lots have reluctantly gone to CC, but would ditch it in a flash if they could. Now there's Affinity Pro, which looks to be better, takes Photoshop filters, is non-subscription - and only $69! I'm guessing many will indeed switch.

Adobe has had the field to themselves for years with few serious contenders to the full Photoshop - and thus could get away with gouging us for thousands of $ in upgrades and now monthly credit card payments. The first time Adobe experiences a hack and loses tens of thousands of credit card numbers, the floodgates to Affinity (as well as Corel Paint Shop Pro, DxO, etc.) will open.

I'm skeptical that some $70 no-name product is equivalent to Photoshop CS6. If you're lucky, it has 10% of photoshop's features and they happen to be the 10% that you use.

For a reasonable price, DXO optics pro is an excellent raw editor, with all the features of ACR and the best noise reduction in the business. And once you've converted the raw you can open it up in CS6 for advanced edits and filters.

I am also with you...I will not rent software...I use CS6 and very happy...and LR 6.5...I tried the CCLR....NOOOOO! WAY. there is just nothing there to ever update to even if I were to purchase it.......Have you looked at Capture One? it has most of the PS functions..... Thank goodness, I have a camera I will use for quite awhile, the Nikon 7100...love it and it fits PS...and LR...As I said, I will not rent software, especially PS and Lr...Just saying...

Not redundant at all.

I can do test PP in bridge (opens is photoshop camera raw) for unlimited files, and then import into bridge when all my selects are made. They get imported with all PP data already applied.

My workflow is real, and it is spectacular. :)

Seems the same to me. LR looks at the photos in a folder and builds previews to facilitate global adjustments. For Bridge to make adjustments it opens the photo in ACR.

Photoshop is good for local pixel editing and complete control, but I find it more cumbersome for global, photo-centric adjustments.

LR provides test PP in the Library module and full PP in the Develop module. Can batch process, rate and select quickly in LR too.

How is Bridge with videos–any limitations, like LR?

Thanks for the replies...

doty:

Bridge catelogs videos.

Also Bridge doesn't open files in ACR, PhotoShop opens files in ACR.

It does read like you've tried Bridge, best not to comment.

Also, Bridge doesn't catalog, LR catalogs...Bridge is a nothing more than a Browser. LR is a relational data base and thus catalogs are able to be filtered in numerous ways....Bridge, again, is just a browser...and yes, Bridge does open files in ACR....PS does not have to be open....Right click on a Thumbnail...second item down...there it is...OPEN IN CAMERA RAW (ACR)...

Fog:

Some people use LR to sort by ISO say, while Bridge doesn't allow that kind of thing.

I much prefer Bridge.

Slug:

Cool, found the window.

Bridge sure is faster than LR.

I know what you mean. However, Photoshop is the same in that one must "import" a raw photo to be able to use ACR. I do use CS6 for most of my importing and processing, then if there are features I need in Lr, I import the photos there as well. Actually I import all my photos to LR sooner or later, as the LR Catalogue is simply another DAM method, and duplication in the digtial age is a necessary evil. Eventually, since I haven't bought into the Photshop CC, I'll have to use LR to import all raw photos. Afterward, and after some basic processing in LR, I can go to Pshop and finish using my favorite program. And I still have the "old" UI in Pshop, which doesn't bother me a bit. :)

Babart,
The engine is the same, of course, but that subtle (and not so subtle) differences in interface make ACR as PS plugin much more suitable for speedy mass processing of hundreds of files.
No “import” procedure, none of that mind-boggling “library” (guys, I have file system, why do you need anything else... although I still can't imagine myself without two-blue-panels file manager, namely Total Commander, childhood habits from early 1990s die hard). Yes, ACR itself as I use it requires Photoshop, but I do additional post-ACR processing only for pictures which go to print — either in paper publications (magazines, newspapers, brochures, etc., or large-format (A2+), or inkjet for gifts (A3-). And the best tool for batch resize (and not only resize) is PhotoMechanic, which is, by the way, is the fastest RAW viewer ever, not to mention it's Canon-friendly and considers IPTC and Adobe XMP markups.

Yeah, I thought the same thing too while reading the title. Looking at the change list is telling. The only thing that looks mildly interesting is the change to outputing histogram values to the colorspace of the chosen file, which I thought it already did.

Of course, you've got the necessary camera hostage list that is added to this version to still make it valuable to people...

>>For that matter, I'd be much more impressed if they'd just make DNG Converter actually preserve the raw image data.

With the correct settings, that's exactly what a DNG provides (it's AS raw as the proprietary raw sensor data). Now proprietary metadata that ONLY the original proprietary raw converter can use? That's different. And only useful with one product.

digidog: It has nothing to do with "settings" -- I'm talking about the uncompressed DNG created by Adobe DNG Converter, not any postprocessing of it. The converter not only changes the pixel values for some cameras, but actually pretends to have more/fewer pixels for some cameras -- for example, the Sony A99 ARW has 6048x4024 pixels, but the Adobe DNG Converter makes an uncompressed DNG with data for just 6032x4024 pixels. Adobe also does very mysterious things to the color EXIF data.

Just to be clear, the DNG spec does allow the camera raw data to be kept intact -- that's just not what Adobe does when they convert. Their postprocessing also fails to produce reasonable output from standard-compliant DNGs that don't represent the color EXIF the same (proprietary) way that Adobe DNG Converter does it.

The settings Do play a role (you can produce a non raw DNG or one partially processed). Otherwise, the DNG data (sensor data) is just as raw as the original.

NOT all pixels are used for the image itself, some is used for WB capture and so it's not at all unusual to see slight differences in pixel dimensions but again, the DNG raw data is as raw in terms of actual image data as the original proprietary capture. You don't lose any image data!

Digidog: Adobe DNG Converter is supposedly producing a fully raw DNG in the cases I tested, but it's not. As for the pixel dimension errors, basically they pad/clip to I believe it's a multiple of 8. When they pad, they add random garbage values; when they clip (as for the A99), they remove black reference pixels. Now it turns out that Sony provides a black reference value, so you can convert without seeing the black reference pixels, but you can actually get a better noise estimate from looking at those pixels, so they are useful. Basically, Adobe left them out because ADOBE DOESN"T USE THEM.

In sum, native raws may have vendor-specific stuff in them, but Adobe DNG Converter basically makes proprietary-and-specific-to-Adobe decisions about how to encode a DNG from them, so you end up with something even more fragile than the original. So, you end-up with files that only Adobe fully understands, thus making it painful to switch to image postprocessing software not made by Adobe.

PS: The wrong pixel values are probably the result of either slightly wrong math (roundoff?) or applying some (minor) colorspace transformation as described in that pile of proprietary color EXIF data Adobe DNG Converter adds.

>>Digidog: Adobe DNG Converter is supposedly producing a fully raw DNG in the cases I tested, but it's not.

In what way? Again, the DNG should be as raw in terms of the sensor data as the original. Upload your raw somewhere so we can see what's going on before AND after conversion to DNG. They should be identical if the DNG converter is setup correctly. DNG=raw sensor data.

>>In sum, native raws may have vendor-specific stuff in them, but Adobe DNG Converter basically makes proprietary-and-specific-to-Adobe decisions about how to encode a DNG from them, so you end up with something even more fragile than the original.

The ONLY data that isn't necessarily saved (and it can be in private tags in a DNG) is original proprietary metadata ONLY one converter can undersigned and use; that from the camera manufacturer. Proprietary data is proprietary! NO 3rd party converter can use it if it's stored or not: IT IS Proprietary!

Color Space conversions play zero role on the number of pixels. Again, not all pixels on a sensor are used for capturing the image itself. It's not at all unusual to see differences in sensor pixels and resulting image pixels!

http://www.graphics.com/article-old/digital-photography-fundamentals-understanding-resolution-and-bit-depth

"However, not all the pixels in an image sensor are used to capture an image. Pixels around the edge are often masked, or covered up. This is done for a variety of reasons, from modifying the aspect ratio of the final image to measuring a black point (where the camera reads the value of a pixel when no light reaches it) during exposure for use in processing the final image."

>>The only way that Adobe DNG Converter preserves the original raw data is if you literally embed the original raw... which makes conversion to DNG rather pointless.

That's not so! The DNG is recording the raw camera sensors data! Please provide a raw if you can that you suggest is altered after DNG conversion. It's pretty easy to illustrate in any number of converters if there's any difference. VERY simple.

>> Basically, Adobe DNG Converter is really just a proprietary preprocessor to extract the info Adobe wants from raw images

All that is necessary is the actual/all raw sensor data, NOT proprietary metadata. DNG provides exactly that sensor data.

>>Again, DNG can, but Adobe DNG Converter generally provides only the info Adobe wants and in the format Adobe wants it.

What specifically isn't native raw sensor data?

>> What specifically isn't native raw sensor data?

The color basis function and CFA pattern, dark reference, pixel aspect ratio, DNG data format specifiers, etc. There's a lot of EXIF info needed to decode a DNG. There's even more potentially useful, from shutter speed to battery temperature, face-ID regions, etc. Take a look at EXIFTool to see what a mess this stuff is....

The problem for DNGs is that there are lots of alternative fields with slightly different ways to say the same things, and various DNG-processing tools assume they come in specific (proprietary/undocumented) groups. ADC does a good job of copying a lot of EXIF data into all potentially-relevant fields (e.g., it copies the "Shutter Speed" field into the "Shutter Speed Value" field), but things like color info get encoded very differently and the original fields are not passed-through. Some are changed a little: e.g., "Blue Balance" was 1.5 and became 1.496094? Maybe that's how some pixel VALUES change too?

>>DNG is dumb, though, so why bother?

Dumb for you, fine' don't use it. Lots of advantages to some of us in our workflows:

http://www.cnet.com/news/adobe-offering-new-reasons-to-get-dng-religion/

http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200709_adobedng.pdf

Data verification of DNG directly inside LR; awesome and not dumb functionality. For some....

While it has a few minor perks, most of the folks I've met who are DNG fans give reasons that are just kool-aid. Very few people seem to understand the nitty-gritty benefits of a DNG workflow. And even then, the pros are outweighed by the cons, in most cases.

(The links you shared are very old, BTW, LR4 was a total dog, DNG or not. And now, LR CC speed tests we've performed on DNG versus raw files do not favor DNG at all for most processes. That's why Adobe developed smart previews instead. Also, like I said, Adobe's lossy compression is pretty nasty compared to a Nikon 12-bit lossy NEF. I feel bad for any non-Nikon shooter who convinced themselves that lossy DNG was a good idea.)

But you're right, at least it's there for the folks who want to try it out. The lack of XMP sidecar files is nice, but only half the time; it's annoying when all you want to do is back up your edits and you have to backup the entire file.

Actually DNG's preform better on this end, thanks in large part to Fast Load previews etc. Your mileage may vary. IF DNG doesn't work in your workflow, fine. It works really well in some workflows including mine. Don't like DNG, don't use it; many of us who do could care less.

im dreading having to convert to dng for any of my raw files to use with cs6/LR 5. No way id make dng's without the full raw data contained. In the event you would have to strip it out one day, at least you have the option.

I dont want to be a part of the forever subscription gang. And im truly fearing that the next lightroom will be subscription only.

Gyaddamn it Adobe.

ive just gotten my hands on it and will install on a non-critical machine. Lets get this party started :)

Admittedly, Lightroom will always be a champion of speed and "normalcy", probably. If I'm editing a wedding for a client, LR is the fastest way to go.

I only crack open Capture One for the smaller jobs, or the personal work, where my passion leads me to photograph blazing fall colors or something else that I feel Adobe just cannot do justice to, especially as a Nikon shooter. Then, Capture One comes to my rescue and makes my images look gorgeous... :-)

but you can get a plug in from MadManChan which corrects it

Its on the adobe help forums somewhere

You can make your own profiles if you don't like the included ones.

even if you do that with the arrow keys the adjustments is not as fine as ACR..done did it, not the same.

paul simon king:

And ACR also runs within Photoshop--this process is non-destructive to the raw files.

Yes, then Photoshop allows for far more editing options to say for example tiff or psd files that have been extracted from raw with ACR. You choose whether to save as or save destructiveness.

Lightroom has sorting features like "sort by ISO" or "sort by date"--Bridge, which comes with Photoshop, Premier Pro, etc, has less of these kinds of sorting options, and is therefore much faster than LR.

I prefer to use Bridge. It's fast and simple, and I like having control over exactly where my photos are saved, rather than having them stored within some nebulous database.

I have a folder for each year, and Bridge is set to create folders by date when importing, and it also incorporates the date into the file name.

Use LR if you want one integrated environment for importing, cataloging, processing and exporting your RAW files.

Use Bridge/ACR/Photoshop if you need more hands-on control of the process or if you do a lot of photo manipulation or graphics work.

I come from a web/graphics background so I was used to the ACR/Photoshop option, for me LR kind of "gets in my way" a lot of times. But for others who come from a pure photography background, LR is a very familiar type of workflow and ACR/Photoshop is a lot of needless steps. So ultimately, it really depends on how you approach photography, it's great that Adobe offers different options.

Edgar_in_Indy, if you "like having control over exactly where my photos are saved, rather than having them stored within some nebulous database" then the program you want to use is Lightroom, not Bridge.

Both Lightroom and Bridge can store your photos exactly where you save them. If you think Lightroom hides your photos, you either don't understand Lightroom, or you're using it wrong. Even if you have Lightroom manage your photos, they are out in the visible file system.

As far as the "nebulous database," that's Bridge. The Lightroom database is a standard SQLite database you can open with non-Adobe tools. Now, Bridge is nebulous, because any changes that can't be stored in an XMP sidecar (folder sort order, collections, etc) is stored in the Bridge Cache and Camera Raw Cache. Most people don't know where they are, most people don't know it can be purged or lost if you clean up your computer in the wrong way, or how to move that info to another computer. Very nebulous.

Whatever "database" functions Bridge may have, I don't really use them. I just use it to browse and open my RAW files. Maybe I'll give Lightroom another shot...I just know I didn't like it as much last time I tried to use it.

If you only use Bridge to open/edit raw files, Bridge is the right choice and you don't need to use Lightroom. And no one should criticize you for it either.

I use Lightroom because I find a lot of value in being able to take advantage of the ways a database helps organize and retrieve photos beyond what a folder system can do. For me Bridge is too limiting.

you're right - it doesn't- there is the usual suggestion to uninstall /reinstall, apply hand brake, stand on your head and turn around three times .. repeat the process another three times and sing a shanty whilst balancing a teacup on your head
....but I just don't have time for all that Rollocks
;)

For users of cameras that are not supported in 9.1.1, the workaround is to smash your RAW photos into DNG files using DNG Converter.

There is an eyedropper. You can have up to 9 samples at a time, I believe.

Well, more of a reason to put that on ACR/Lightroom then. :) I'll check out Capture One.