+ Camera Raw Feature Requests +

[Ian Lyons]

UPDATE:

We're interested in what changes you would like see in our products. Do you have an idea for a feature that would help your workflow? Is there a small change that could be made to make your life a little easier? Let us know!  Share an Idea, Ask a Question or Report a Problem and get feedback from the Product Development Team and other passionate users on the Photoshop Family product Feedback Site on Photoshop.com.

In future it would helpful if you could use this thread as a means to add

"Features" that you would like to see in future releases of Adobe Camera Raw.

Please do NOT create additional new Topics and try not to duplicate requests by other users. Also, be thorough in your description of the feature and why you think Adobe should consider it.

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...

b If you're asking that a particular camera is supported in a future release or just taking the opportunity to carp that yours isn't then please do so in another thread!

IanLyons

Forum Host

[John MacLean]

Nigel,

Just use DNG and you won't have to sweat the xmp files ever again.

[Marco N.]

One of the missing feature of ACR is a navigator window.

[Peter_DL]

Hi,

This proposal refers to the Recovery slider in ACR.
I would like to have more control(s) with this feature
i.e. Amount, Tonal Width and maybe Color Correction (saturation)
such as given with the Shadow/Highlights tool in Photoshop.

Background is as follows: ACR is capable to show 'full' highlight details when setting almost all sliders of main adjustment tab to zero (except white balance of course) and by choosing an appropriate value for the Exposure slider. Thats sometimes called a 'linear rendition'. Its not meant to deliver an overall pleasing image, but it can be informative regarding single aspects.
Now, when we raise the main tone curve (resulting from Brightness + Contrast functions) e.g. to standard Brightness 50 + Contrast 25, data are compressed beneath the upper shoulder of this S-curve. Hence, highlight details, contrast as well as saturation are easily getting lost.

The Recovery slider seems to try to undo such damage which already happened earlier in the processing chain. I would assume that its based on a gradual selection of pixel (or mask) combined with some sort of darkening curve. However, I dont know about its mechanics, and its not really relevant here.
In practice, I often find that theres a quite high amount of Recovery needed to regain 'full' highlight details (as initially seen with said 'linear output') which then has a too strong influence down to the midtones. Recovery tends to darken the light midtones as well which is not necessarily desired. So its easy to run into a back and forth with all other sliders effecting tonality (including the curve tab)

With the S/H tool in Photoshop, the Tonal Width (of selected pixel, as I assume again) can be pulled down to very low values and even to zero which isnt actually zero as the results prove. Together with an appropriate Amount of lets say between 20 to 80%,
highlight recovery in fact stays limited to the highlights. For example the details of white clouds, etc.
My feeling is that such choice of high Amount and low Tonal Width is often preferred to mirror and counteract the roll off and related side effects from a sigmoidal tone curve (needed to compensate for dynamic range compression).

The latter consideration is of course subject to the image content, so Id like to keep it flexible with more control(s) as suggested above. <<

Peter

--

[_Josh_Vine_]

With the latest version of Camera Raw, I have been impressed my the raw conversion quality. I shoot most portraits in raw, and other images that I plan to tweak in Photoshop I usually shoot raw.

Josh Vine,
http://www.josh-photography.com

[Guest]

DNG - request for better embedded previews:

Most of my images are Canon RAWs (CR2s) which I convert to DNG to avoid the need for XMP sidecars. I have the DNG converter embed full size JPEG previews (produces 3504x2336 previews from my 1DMkII's CR2s). The full size previews are good quality but too big for fast browsing in most software. I tried embedding medium size JPEG previews in my DNGs (1024x683 from my CR2s) - they allow fast browsing but are too small and of such low quality that I cannot use them to evaluate my images.

My CR2s contain an excellent quality embedded JPEG preview (1536x1024) right out of the camera. That size preview big enough and clear enough to allow me to rate, label and select images and browsing is very fast. I wish I could embed that excellent Canon preview in my DNGs.

In the alternative I wish Adobe would make the JPEG preview options in the DNG converter more flexible. It would be nice if we had a list of size and quality options so we could embed previews of the size and quality that we need. A high quality 1536x1024 option would be most welcome.

Regards

Bill Wood

[Naughty_Nigel]

I am pleased to say that ACR 4.5 now seems to delete the XMP sidecar files when the original raw file is deleted.

Thank you for this update.

Is there any chance of a simple utility to find the old orphaned XMP files for deletion?

Thanks again.

Nigel.

[John MacLean]

Nigel, On my Mac I just type Command F and enter .xmp and it shows me all the files. I do create xmp versions for my presets, so I have kept my xmp files except for the CR2 files I manually converted in folders using the Adobe DNG Converter.

[01af]

William Wood wrote:
> ... which I convert to DNG to avoid the need for XMP sidecars.

Well ... I love the XMP sidecar files, and even though I like DNG due to smaller file size I usually avoid converting to DNG because that would make me lose the sidecars. They are so convenient; adding or changing bulk metadata is quicker on tiny sidecar files than on clumsy DNG files, and copying updated metadata to back-up folders is much quicker, too. Also writing my own scripts and programs that handle metadata is easier with the metadata stored in XMP sidecar files.

Actually, I'd like to see a mode for DNG files as well as for JPEG and TIFF files which makes them store their metadata in sidecar files rather than 'under the hood.' Sidecar files are not just a stopgap for adding read-write metadata to read-only raw files but a great feature of its own.

-- Olaf

[Naughty_Nigel]

A further benefit is that automated backup systems only need to backup the tiny XMP files when metadata changes are made, rather than the whole RAW or DNG file.

Nigel.

[_Designermonkey_]

I would like to see a Proof Setup option (like in PS) so I could use a keyboard shortcut, or click a checkbox to see what my RAW images would look like in my preffered CMYK profile.

We have a very fast workflow which is slowed by having to go back and re-edit the images once developed and edited in RGB and processed into CMYK

[Mathias_DK_]

I'd really like to have 'scrubby sliders' in CR, including mousewheel functionality. - To be honest, I'm a bit dissapointed this feature is not included in CR 5.0, as I thought the whole suite was updated to the same new GUI standards.

[Mathias_DK_]

Meta data panel in CR. Including Bridge / Lightroom stuff, such as keywording. Pretty basic for any RAW developer, I'd say.

[Marco N.]

What I see useful to add is at least metering type & compensation value

[Mathias_DK_]

White Balance as an option in Local Adjustments. Would help with mixed lighting images that otherwise warrant a lengthy smart object / Photoshop / masking procedure.

[John MacLean]

Mathias,

Lengthy indeed. But I don't think the local adjustment would be as versatile as doing independent exposures.

I've been doing a lot of the lengthy stuff lately: http://www.johnmaclean.com/blog/?p=27

[Mathias_DK_]

Perfect example of a lengthy procedure 🙂 Great work, and no, a WB local adjustment probably wouldn't get you thus far ;-)

But for my work, mostly live performance photography, this would come in handy with stage lighting all over the place. It would require some intelligent auto masking though.

[_aaabbb_]

1) I have a similar complaint as the person with the vertical monitor, which is lack of customizable workspace. At minimum the dialogue box on the right hand side should be moveable/customizable like the pallets in Photoshop. I use two monitors and usually keep the the main image in the left and all the pallets in the right hand monitor. It's possible to drag the window partially into the right monitor to give a bit more screen real estate, but it jumps back again every time ACR is opened.

2) It's badly missing a navigator panel like in Photoshop. If for example you are spotting, looking for CA, etc whilst at 100-300%, you need to spacebar drag and drop your way around the image, which isn't very good (bad enough with an 8MP image, but even worse with a 24MP scan). Also, with a navigator panel it would be possible to see exactly where you are.

3) Use the same shortcut keys that Photoshop uses. For example, although Page Up and Page Down navigates up and down the image OK, CTRL, ALT Page Up and Page Down doesn't let you navigate across the image like it does in Photoshop (left/right is better for spotting skies, etc). Also, CTRL + 0 to fit image to screen doesn't work if you use the numeric keypad, you need to use the 0 along the top of the keyboard instead (same goes with CTRL Alt + 0 for 100% view).

4) Better renaming in the Save options. The same goes for the stand-alone DNG convertor, which is also rubbish in this regard (in fact, I think it's exactly the same from memory). Use the same options that are in Bridges batch rename tool, which give much better flexibility and control. As an example, say you have a load of RAW files you want to convert to DNG. You find the folder, select the files in Bridge, click them (which opens them in ACR), select all, save as DNG, but there's no useful options for renaming. This means that you then have to batch rename them afterwards using Bridge's batch rename tool, when it could have been done in one hit. As it is, it doesn't even allow you to use the date the image was taken or add any custom text. All it does is give you options for parts of the serial number and today's date, which lets face it, are poor choices for photo file names.

5) Add preserve details slider to noise reduction area to mask edges/areas of detail? I must admit, I don't do noise reduction in ACR I do it in Photoshop, but to me it's logical to have a slider to preserve edges/details like in the reduce noise filter.

6) One last thing, which is only very minor, is in the workflow options. It gives the option to change the image size and resolution, why not show the print size so that you don't have to work it out in your head.

[PECourtejoie]

aaabbb, most of your complaints - 1) 2) 4) - are addressed in Lightroom.

[MadManChan2000]

Also, #5 is handled automatically.

[_tony_field_]

It would be very nice if ACR could be started from a simple Adobe-provided wrapper that is independent of Bridge which sort of works like a "nano Bridge" (at least in the context of processing raw/jpg files). I would see this working in the following way:

1. the little wrapper application opens a directory containing images which may be raw, tiff, jpg, etc.

2. all files in this directory are examined and the file list is passed to ACR - probably following the conventions that are used by Bridge. I assume this list of files is in some sort of temporary work file. Of course, a file selection window might be useful - however is not truly necessary because of the excellent ACR thumbs.

3. ACR opens the files just as though the file list were passed from Bridge.

There are multiple reasons for this.

1. cache files from Bridge are always built in the currently defined cache directory. Very often, this is not a desired operation. For example, if the images are in copied from a master directory into a temporary working directory. This puts unnecessary noise in the master cache that should be deleted and also may impact the limitation of 500,000 images in the bridge master cache.

Here is a workflow to illustrate: I have 1000 images of useful images in a directory. Of these, I copy 200 images (that I wish to send to my client) into a temporary directory. I start Bridge on this temporary directory and select all images for raw processing in ACR. After ACR processing (thank heaven that ACR is a "mini-photoshop"), the images are saved as JPG files in a new directory. These JPG files are sent to the client. I then copy the ACR generated xml files to my original image directory. At this point, I now have unnecessary Bridge cache entries that are useless, as far as I am concerned. The little wrapper programme effectively replaces Bridge as a mechanism to invoke ACR.

2. If such a simple wrapper application were available, it could be conveniently used in conjunction with other programmes. For example, if PhotoMechanic is used to choose 20 files, these files could be opened in ACR simply by passing the file list to the wrapper application. This would significantly speed up image processing when you are shooting some event and need to immediately process some selected images for transmission on the www. For example, shooting 400 images at a show jumping competition, choosing and processing 10 images for ftp to the newspaper and then returning to the shooting. I tried Lightroom - but that certainly is an inappropriate piece of software for this type of work (imo).

3. You could drag-and-drop a few images from Windows Explorer directory view of thumbnails and immediately pass them to ACR - avoiding Bridge.

[_Jeff_Schewe_]

>I have 1000 images of useful images in a directory. Of these, I copy 200 images (that I wish to send to my client) into a temporary directory.

Why the heck would you copy the files to a temp folder, process them then copy the sidecar files back to the original folder? Why not just work on the 200 or so files from their original location and bypass all the copying?

Either something doesn't add up or you're not making your case very well. If you don't like Bridge-fine there is an alternative version of Camera Raw called Lightroom. But what you are asking for really isn't in the cards so the best bet is to work on improving YOUR workflow rather than hope for changes that won't happen...

[_tony_field_]

I never said I did not like Bridge (don't know where you got that impression) - in fact I use on a regular basis. I have well over 400,000 images currently in my bridge cache. However, it is not necessarily the best for all seasons. Lightroom does not meet my needs as well - I tried that option.

Humm I though that the purpose of this discussion was to ask for features in ACR that will improve my, and hopefully others, workflow. My apologies for making such an obviously inappropriate request and should have known before hand that this was one of those "changes that won't happen".

[_Jeff_Schewe_]

> I though that the purpose of this discussion was to ask for features in ACR that will improve my, and hopefully others, workflow.

Again, you need to make your case...and based on your post I don't think you've done that. Again, WHY would you copy 200 files into a separate folder, process them then copy the sidecar files bak to the original folder?

Features are designed to solve use cases...you need to make your case.

[_tony_field_]

Here is an example. My second camera at a wedding just shot 2500 raw images over two days. I copy these from the CF card to a working directory. Processing these in Bridge is a "long" process. PhotoMechanic is VERY SIGNIFICANTLY faster at processing raw images than bridge for simple image selection.

From these 2500 images, I select maybe 200 that I wish to include on the customer CD. I copy these images to my client's working directory.

If Bridge were used, all 2500 raw images would be added to the cache - and effectively pollute the cache files with "useless" information. These cannot be conveniently removed by the cleanup operations since I have 400,000 plus images that have to be "examined" in my master cache - even to scan these images for possible cleanup will take Bridge a day of processing. Not only that, previous CS3 versions of Bridge had problems in this area. Fortunately, CS4 bridge has fixed some of the problems I identified before.

Again, read the original request for a sample of working at a sporting event in which a small selection of images must be done "very quickly" from a large selection. In many cases, SPEED is of the essence - and Bridge / Lightroom are designed for flexibility and features - NOT speed. That is why software such as PhotoMechanic exist (and have done so since the late 1990s).

[troyhark]

I have to agree with Jeff, you are not using Bridge's workflow to your advantage.
Simply leave images where they are and label/rate/keyword the images you want in your shortlist, then tick the attribute you have given them in filter panel and you'll see just those annotated files.
Much easier than moving them temporarily and then moving the .xmps back.