Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Adobe Camera Raw 3.6 in PS CS (not CS2)

Reply
Thread Tools

Adobe Camera Raw 3.6 in PS CS (not CS2)

 
 
Paul Mitchum
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-15-2006
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> John Bean wrote:
>
> > The DNG Converter is a true stand-alone program which needs
> > no installation. Just copy it somewhere convenient and run
> > it.

>
> Just tried it out, and it seems to work well. Great solution!
>
> On a related note, has anyone compared ACR vs dcraw? I've been using
> dcraw for a bit, and it seems to produce pretty good results, though you
> get a giant tiff to work with (must get a bigger hard drive). However, you
> can set curves during conversion with ACR, but have to do so afterwards
> with dcraw, and I wonder if this is a problem? I will do a comparison
> myself, was just wondering if anyone else had already done so.


I use both (caveat: I'm using ACR 2.4 with CS). I use dcraw piped into
imagemagick for quick proofs, mostly. Dcraw doesn't do sharpening or
saturation or any of the other tweaks you can do in ACR, but it can do
auto-levels and auto-white point. Which makes it good for
batch-converting proofs.

Note that there's a drop-in replacement for imagemagick called
graphicsmagick. It can call dcraw and do the whole conversion in one
step on the command line. It's also supposed to be faster and yield
higher quality output. I have yet to get it to compile completely on my
Mac, so I'm still using imagemagick.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Hebee Jeebes
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2006
It won't work. Adobe uses ACR as a way to force you to upgrade. So every
time you buy a new camera with RAW you may have to buy new software as well.

R


<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> Does anyone know if the newest Adobe Camera Raw 3.6 plugin will work in
> Photoshop CS (not CS2)?
>
> Thanks,
> Drew
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Floyd L. Davidson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2006
(E-Mail Removed)0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
>I use both (caveat: I'm using ACR 2.4 with CS). I use dcraw piped into
>imagemagick for quick proofs, mostly. Dcraw doesn't do sharpening or
>saturation or any of the other tweaks you can do in ACR, but it can do
>auto-levels and auto-white point. Which makes it good for
>batch-converting proofs.


When you pipe /dcraw/ to "imagemagick", you can of course also
do sharpening/saturation/usm/cropping or whatever in a batch
process. In this instance, "imagemagick" is /convert/.

I use GIMP to manipulate individual images and /convert/ for
anything that is a "batch" (where the same operations are done
on more than one image).

One exception is that I use /convert/ on individual images to
construct a Postscript file for actual printing, in order to
apply borders, set page margins, add a copyright notice or
title, etc. etc. I find all of that much easier and accurate,
and far more flexible, to do from a command line rather than
with any sort of GUI interface.

>Note that there's a drop-in replacement for imagemagick called
>graphicsmagick. It can call dcraw and do the whole conversion in one
>step on the command line. It's also supposed to be faster and yield
>higher quality output. I have yet to get it to compile completely on my
>Mac, so I'm still using imagemagick.


I've never looked at Graphicsmagick. Is there any specific
advantage over Imagemagick?

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2006
John Bean <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 18:04:05 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>John Bean <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>> No, it won't. The latest version for CS is 2.4.
>>>
>>> If you have a camera not supported by ACR2.4 (but is by 3.6)
>>> there is a way around it. Use the stand-alone DNG Converter
>>> program that's bundled with ACR 3.6 to convert your raw file
>>> to DNG. The resulting file will open with ACR2.4 in CS.
>>>

>>
>>Which might be considered a good workflow reguardless.

>
> It's certainly my preferred choice (despite having
> CS2/ACR3.6) but I've witnessed enough anti-Adobe feeling at
> the very mention of DNG and had no desire to start another
> DNG "holy war" by suggesting it was A Good Idea rather than
> just a work around.
>


Since DNG is a completely open specification, I really fail to see why
anti-Adobe sentiment should have anything to do with it. Several DSLRs now
use DNG as their native RAW format. DNG is simply an extension of the TIFF
format in any event.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0


 
Reply With Quote
 
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2006
(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>
> On a related note, has anyone compared ACR vs dcraw? I've been using
> dcraw for a bit, and it seems to produce pretty good results, though
> you get a giant tiff to work with (must get a bigger hard drive).
> However, you can set curves during conversion with ACR, but have to do
> so afterwards with dcraw, and I wonder if this is a problem? I will do
> a comparison myself, was just wondering if anyone else had already done
> so.


You want to be making all exposure related changes in Camera Raw during
conversion and not after conversion, due to the linear nature of the data.
White balance, brightness, highlights, and shadows should all be adjusted
during RAW conversion [if necessary].

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0


 
Reply With Quote
 
drew.avis@gmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2006
John Bean wrote:
> Dcraw is great value of course...


Yes, after spending a lot of $ on equipment, it's nice to use some free
software.

> To be honest I don't use ACR that much there days, I tried
> Silkypix a few months back and became an overnight convert.
> Silkypix rocks!


I just looked at the web site for silkypix, and it looks very nice. I
couldn't find any description of the features that are disabled in
their free version... is it usable?

Drew

 
Reply With Quote
 
John Bean
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2006
On 16 Nov 2006 10:05:19 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>John Bean wrote:
>> To be honest I don't use ACR that much there days, I tried
>> Silkypix a few months back and became an overnight convert.
>> Silkypix rocks!

>
>I just looked at the web site for silkypix, and it looks very nice. I
>couldn't find any description of the features that are disabled in
>their free version... is it usable?


Yes, all the essential WB/exposure/gamma/contrast/etc work
in both versions with some of the options defaulted. Most
other more esoteric controls for lens correction etc are
disabled in the free version.

If you want to try it you can install the time-limited trial
of the full version (to see what you'll be missing!) and it
will automatically downgrade itself to the free version when
the trial expires and continue indefinitely in free mode.

--
John Bean
 
Reply With Quote
 
drew.avis@gmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-17-2006
John Bean wrote:
> It's certainly my preferred choice (despite having
> CS2/ACR3.6) but I've witnessed enough anti-Adobe feeling at
> the very mention of DNG and had no desire to start another
> DNG "holy war" by suggesting it was A Good Idea rather than
> just a work around.


I've just noticed something using this method: the DNG files are
smaller by 1.3 - 1.5 megs than their NEF counterparts. This seems like
a substantial difference. These are "semi-compressed" NEFs from a
Nikon D80. Is there information being lost in conversion, or does the
DNG format employ some sort of compression? Is this a problem?

Drew

 
Reply With Quote
 
John Bean
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-17-2006
On 17 Nov 2006 07:20:48 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>John Bean wrote:
>> It's certainly my preferred choice (despite having
>> CS2/ACR3.6) but I've witnessed enough anti-Adobe feeling at
>> the very mention of DNG and had no desire to start another
>> DNG "holy war" by suggesting it was A Good Idea rather than
>> just a work around.

>
>I've just noticed something using this method: the DNG files are
>smaller by 1.3 - 1.5 megs than their NEF counterparts. This seems like
>a substantial difference. These are "semi-compressed" NEFs from a
>Nikon D80. Is there information being lost in conversion, or does the
>DNG format employ some sort of compression? Is this a problem?


The converter uses lossless JPEG compression by default.
Don't confuse this with the lossy compression used by ".jpg"
files, the methods are unrelated other than they are both
standard compression methods overseen by the same
organisation.

There is no loss of image data whatsoever, you'll have to
check if all the metadata you use is intact too. I don't use
Nikon but I have no loss of anything in the raw formats I
use.

--
John Bean
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
canon ps sx1 raw -> adobe camera raw sobriquet Digital Photography 6 05-10-2009 03:58 AM
[Maxxum 7D] Dimage RAW Viewer v. Adobe Raw Plugin Alan Browne Digital Photography 3 03-12-2005 04:17 AM
Adobe PS RAW convertor vs Nikon RAW convertor Vlad Gunko Digital Photography 8 01-25-2005 07:43 PM
Adobe Camera Raw Filter for Fuji S2 Pro ? Holger Horn Digital Photography 2 07-12-2003 11:08 PM



Advertisments