+ Camera Raw Feature Requests +

Echoing an earlier posting, I'd like to suggest a tool to assist straightening operations, either a grid or a drag-out ruler which would align to the crop window (not the overall image window).

> The whole idea is to have quick sets of related setting jumps to try different styles or slants in ACR.

Ahh, I get it now. That would be useful in ACR.

--John

The whole idea is to have quick sets of related setting jumps to try different styles or slants in ACR. You could for example have a setting that increases saturation while reducing contrast and brightness, or viceversa, and quickly see the difference in the image.

Layers are a more formal and indeed finer instrument for the final image once you get into Photoshop. The ACR quick-tries are to get you in the ball park during the early development stage.

The ability to quickly save and recall settings and subsets is a real powerful tool within ACR. This would extend that, and is not a replacement for real work in PS with layers, as you suggest. That is indeed how I do my final image adjustments, and I always save with layers as a PSD.

Cheers!

DJ

> I would love to see a "Relative" option for settings. If the "Relative" option is selected, when activated the settings would be added to the current image settings, rather than replacing them.

Can you describe more what you are looking for?

You can achieve the "relative" effect already by using adjustment layers. If you just make a new curve/levels/hue-sat/etc... adjustment layer, you get a relative effect with the new layer.

--John

I'd like to place an order, please :D.

I would love to see a "Relative" option for settings. If the "Relative" option is selected, when activated the settings would be added to the current image settings, rather than replacing them. Thanks!

DJ

jfriend00,

Incidentally, the reason I did not address you directly in my last post is that, quite honestly, I did not read your very long post in its entirety and was, therefore, forced to skip all of your subsequent posts. For that I must ask for your indulgence, as my poor health forces me to limit my efforts.

As Chris correctly points out, what jfriend00 is asking for is really a request aimed at camera manufacturers to provide their own proprietary algorithms and write the camera settings to the memory card, sort of in a sidecar file, so that those settings can be applied during the raw conversion.

One would assume that such a workflow is implied in the camera manufacturer's raw conversion software.

As such, I see no reason for a user who desires those results either not to shoot JPEGs in the first place or not to use the camera manufacturer's raw conversion software.

Whether jfriend00 wants to characterize the desire to have images that are over-sharpened, over-contrasty, over-saturated and compressed in the low end of the curve in order to hide the noise in that range or not as idiocy is entirely up to jfriend00 to decide. I made no such inference.

This thread is provided for Feature Requests. I would also remind participants of the content of the header message.

Quote:

b "Oh, and if you find it necessary to comment on someone's feature request/suggestion, try not to get into a shouting match. The penalty for doing so is... "

nunatak, you say: "but imho fair sport. a "little bit" of peer pressure helps people strengthen their ideas before formulating their thesis".

("Sport"? Chuckle!)

I think there are two danger signs to look out for:

1. Is a critic trying to close down the discussion before it has even been opened up? Any significant idea is likely to need more than just one post to make it understandable. Sometimes it needs a joint effort to refine a thesis before it can be scrutinised properly.

2. More important, is the critic criticising the original statement, or a paraphrase of it? I am very familiar with people taking statements that I have carefully prepared, transforming them into something different, then attacking the latter. I tend nowadays to assume that if someone has to paraphrase a proposal in order to attack it, it is because the original proposal is hard to criticise.

(A refinement of that "sociology 101": at stage 3 the original critics claim the idea as their own! This is typical of politicians).

jfriend00 ...
>Here's how I would have liked to have seen a response to Gunder's posting.

hmmm ... by way of having access to some of the kernal folk--the nuclei at Adobe--it's my impression people default to believing these are "customer service" oriented forums rather than "user to user" forums.

eye actually prefer the "organic feel" of these discussions where people need to make their case by merit, rather than be encouraged by way of some welcome wagon. don't get me wrong, i also understand why your view may vary.

except for when Ian comes around with his big club-- these forums are pretty much self moderating and don't need a lot of rules. this "freespeak" rubs a lot of people the wrong way--but it also breeds some of the most creative discusions between peer groups. you will not find another ecosystem near as rich in "color management information" from as diverse an array of users--ANYWHERE. aside from photographers (novices and pros) there are graphic designers, software developers, creative directors, color theorists, production managers and print people --we're all here under one umbrella.

it's simply amazing! sometimes it's simply amusing!

we are too different to be alike. it's my feeling if we started structuring a facade which these moody, grumpy, innovative, short tempered and brilliantly creative people needed to conform to-- we'd lose a lot of the diverse talent in this ecosystem at the benefit of some very minor encouragement.

to paraphrase joni: "we'd pave paradise and put up a parking lot". :-)