+ Camera Raw Feature Requests +

ACR shouldn't do it by default.

But ACR can already emulate the over contrasty, over saturated, black levels stomped to the ground look that the in-camera JPEG processing gives you.

But it's your choice if you want to do that much damage to your picture.

> It is not ACR's goal to emulate either your in-camera JPEGs nor the conversions performed by your camera maker's software.

I shoot RAW because I like the extra control it affords me and the streamlined workflow in ACR. But, that does not mean that having the ability to emulate in-camera settings (curves, saturation, white balance, etc...) when I want it would not be a useful addition to my workflow.

I'm tired of people saying that ACR shouldn't do this. It should. It shouldn't be required for someone to use it, but it should be an option because it would help many people be more productive (such as gunder who requested this). As proof that this is not a black and white issue, people definitely find it useful that ACR attempts to support the in-camera white balance and, in fact, when that gets broken like it was with the Nikon D2X due to white balance encryption, people realize that it hurts their workflow not to have that option. I'd like similar options for in-camera curves, sharpness, contrast, saturation and other relevant settings that go into producing an in-camera JPEG. I'm not looking for an exact replica of the in-camera JPEG. That would be an impossible task since only the camera maker knows how the settings are really applied, but that doens't mean that trying to apply the other settings wouldn't be useful. In my opinion, it would.

It may be hard for Adobe. It may be a lot of work. Adobe may choose not to do it for whatever reason they have, but that doesn't mean it isn't a valid feature request. It would be useful to many and thus it is a valid feature request. For all those who don't want it, that's fine. You can campaign that Adobe spend it's time on other things. For those that think this would be useful and helpful, we can campaign for Adobe to spend some time on it. But, I'm a bit tired of reading that it's not a valid feature request. It is.

--John

Gunder,
>In addition to the ACR automatic settings, there should be another one making the picture look exactly like the JPG from the camera the picture comes from.

You can play with the controls and then save the settings just the way you like them. To emulate Canon's in camera raw-to-JPEG conversion, just play with the sliders to generate an over-sharpened, over-contrasty, over-saturated image, and compress the low end of the curve in order to hide the noise in that range. That's what Canon does with its JPEGs. You can save them with whatever name appeals to you, including "Default".

One of the "curves" I have saved I just named "Let_it_be", because it essentially leaves everything flat. If I don't like ACR's interpretation of a RAW file, I just apply that "Let_it_be" settings and go from there.

Alternatively, if you like the Canon JPEG look, you could just shoot JPEGs and save a chunk of money in CF cards and storage space. :)

It is not ACR's goal to emulate either your in-camera JPEGs nor the conversions performed by your camera maker's software.

>On my 350D I have the different parameter sets controlling Contrast, Sharpness, Saturation

All those settings you adjust in your camera are irrelevant when you shoot RAW. They only apply to TIFFs and JPEGs.

>Add-on 2

No comment. The answer is implicit in the above.

ACR for dummies

I like to do shooting in RAW because it gives me maximum flexibility after the shot is done. BUT I am not able to get the same picture as if I use JPG and let the camera do the processing. The colors are washed out, the sharpening is not as good etc. After what I have read I am not the only one...

The solution: In addition to the ACR automatic settings, there should be another one making the picture look exactly like the JPG from the camera the picture comes from. I have a Canon 350D , I would like to have the Canon option and make my changes from that.

Add on 1: I would add the user interface from the camera regarding processing of the picture. On my 350D I have the different parameter sets controlling Contrast, Sharpness, Saturation and Color tone. I would like to control these from inside ACR and get the exact same results as with the DIGIC II processor on the camera.

Add on 2: I would like a new button: P&S style (Point & Shoot style) which makes heavier use of sharpening and colouring so I with SLRs easy can get the same picture look (but with better quality) as I am used to from my P&S camera.

I believe that if this was implemented in ACR 4 a lot more people would start using RAW; now it is to much hassle if you are not really into it. I am trying to learn using RAW myself now, and so far my pictures have not become better, but I like the extra control and I like the concept of archiving everything that was captured by the sensor.

Thanks in advance!

One of the reasons I still prefer Nikon Capture to ACR is ACR calibration. I've used Bruce Fraser's book and the Fors script and neither produces as accurate a representation as Capture. I would like to see a calibration script or feature built into ACR that is a collaborative effort of Fraser, Fors and Knoll, that guides the user through calibration and the use of the Calibration tab.

I would like to see the selected item in the toolbar become a "sticky" setting, which does not change when a new file is opened.

Before the Train leaves the station GRID (on/off) in ACR would be nice.

Currently we have Camera vendor/make/model + image name and then (in brackets) the ISO, Shutter Speed, as shot Aperture, Lens with as shot focal length. Given that all of these are useful in determining which (if any) personalised settings for Noise CA correction, Vignetting and Calibration should be chosen then "I" think we're well covered.

Carol,

Your eyes are fine! Peripheral vision can play weird games with our brains.

I'm in the same boat using three camera bodies. When I saw your post my first reaction was: "exactly". Then. wait a minute, somehow I seem to know which camera I'm dealing with, I swear I've seen this displayed somewhere there.

But I had to go back and double check what was subconsciously in my field of view.

Missing the obvious is not that uncommon. where did I put my eyeglasses? I can't see them. ;)

Oh my Gawd - so it is - in large bold type too.

Me thinks I need a new pair of eyes, never mind glasses!!!