+ 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

[_elmimmo_]

jfriend, Just my take on that. Please, forgive me if what I say is non-sense

You want to pick colors. CMYK is ink based, which means that same values of inks produce different colors on different media. Makes little sense to me to manually choose what is the mix of inks to produce a certain color, since there is no possible way to know what color that will turn into (whatever your screen tells you). Pick color and let the computer do the conversion to ink using an appropiate profile per each media.

[_jfriend00_]

Pick color and let the computer do the conversion to ink using an appropiate profile per each media.

elmimmo, I don't think you understand what I'm asking for or why I'm asking for it. In Photoshop, a given pixel in an image can be described in RGB color values, CMYK color values and LAB color values. In CS2, without changing the actual image itself, you can see the value of any pixel in any one of those color spaces, just by changing the info dialog to show you your choice. There are times when this can be incredibly useful. For example, an accurate skin tone cannot be easily determined when looking only at the RGB numbers, but an accurate skin tone can more easily be determined by looking at the same pixel, but described as CMYK values. It's analagous to an astronomer deciding that it's easier for them to talk about distances in light-years rather than miles or inches. We're talking about the same distance either way, just a more useful way of describing it and comparing one distance to another.

When dealing with skin tones, it's much easier to see if you have a proper skin tone when looking at a CMYK description of the color than it is when looking at an RGB description.

Since one of the most important things you do in the ACR RAW editor is adjust white balance, I'm just asking for this same ability to see color with the eye dropper as CMYK values in addition to RGB values.

[_elmimmo_]

I see the base of what you are saying, but I guess that since I am not used to that workflow, it seems weird to me.

Anyhow, there's still the fact that, in Photoshop, having the color picker over a same RGB pixel, the Info palette will display different CMYK values depending on which CMYK working space you have set in your Color Settings or your Proof Setup. That is so because, as I said, Photoshop tries to guess which is the proper ink mix that will produce the same color that the screen is displaying for each particular media (each media implied by a particular CMYK working profile), because different media react differently to the same ink mix (to put it simply) and adjustments are to be made in order to provide color consistency.

In any case, what do I know ^_^ I am not that much into color workflow, so maybe the differences I am talking about are subtle enough for making your suggestion a valid point, or maybe I got it all wrong in the first place.

[_jfriend00_]

> I see the base of what you are saying, but I guess that since I am not used to that workflow, it seems weird to me.

I'm not looking for sub-percentage accuracy here. I'm just looking for the exact same functionality that's in CS2 which I use quite successfully now. But, it's a pain to have to move a RAW file into CS2 in order to be able to do this when one is supposed to adjust white balance in the RAW editor.

Here's an example of how one can more easily use the CMYK values to set white balance: http://www.smugmug.com/help/skin-tone.

Since this seems weird to you, how would you tweak white balance to generate a proper skin tone on a photo that doesn't have any other obvious neutral or gray references in it without going purely by eye? How else would you suggest solving this problem?

I've found that reading the CMYK numbers is an excellent way to solve this problem (and thus why I was asking), but if there are other ways to solve this that work in ACR, I'm happy to learn those too.

[_Michael_Gebauer_]

jfriend00, you are absolutely wrigth. For tuning skin tones it is necessary to see the CMYK values as this is possible within PS CS2. And it is indeed a pain to switch to CS2 in order to get that information and afterwards do the correction in Camera RAW based on that information .

Regards
Michael

[_Anders_Holck_]

Would it be possible to make a new function called "Soften Overexposure"

My experience is that specular highlights that are way overexposed tend to show very ugly de-mosaic and/or sharpen artifacts.

What I propose is a new slider maybe in the sharpen section that would rollback this artifact in the highlights that are burned out, functioning as a combined amount & threshold.

What it would do is basically to key an unsharpned (maybe a little blur'ed version) back onto the image, based on luminance with a pleasing feather.

[_RubenSilva_]

It would be great to have a tonal range ecualizer (As curves or Levels does), but instead SIMILAR to audio ecualizers.

This is, for Audio Graphic Ecualizers: instead of octaves and controls for left & right stereo channles, have "tonal" controls (255?) and the possibility of moving each channel by itself or all together.

Also: there are Audio "Parametric" ecualizers: one just put a "center" frecuency (in this case would be a "center tone") and then moves the shape and amplitude of a gauss-shaped curve.

This would be a very nice feature for Photoshop as well.... and would let professionals make very precise adjustments!

Hope I could contribute!
Regards
Ruben Silva
r3silva@yahoo.com.ar

[_RubenSilva_]

I am experimenting with 25 megapix output files right from 6.1 megapix NEF files with atonishing sharpness.
I would like to have the possibility of a wider range for demosaicing and larger output files as well.

[_Janet_Taylor_]

A couple of things:

1. Corrections for barrel/pincushion and perspective distortions in ACR.
2. Something similar to Aperture's versioning (ie a way to have multiple xmp files for an image so you can play with different developing without having to dup the file.)
3. Something similar to Aperture's loupe tool (ie a way to quickly check for focus and motion problems on thumbnails, without having to open them at 100% in ACR.)
4. A way to compare two or more images in bridge or ACR.

Sorry if I duplicated anything from earlier in the thread--i did read it, but it's pretty long now.

[John MacLean]

>4. A way to compare two or more images in bridge or ACR.

Huh, you can already do this. Or am I not understanding your request?

[_Jack_Joseph_Jr_]

One of Camera Raw's best features is the Crop Tool. Please keep the cropped view in the Bridge thumbnails. It would be helpful if the Camera Raw Crop Tool had the center marker like the one in CS2. The center marker if really handy for centering the crop as well as rotating the crop around.

Also add more than one custom size. I'm always having to reset it between two or three different dimensions. Almost all of my images are cropped in Camera RAW

Finally, please add a Canon version with accurate Canon colors, WB and all of Canon cameras' settings including parameters, contrast, saturation, sharpness, color matrix and Picture Styles.

Some of us actually set up our cameras to take the picture that we want, as opposed to simply recording properly exposed basic numbers to throw at ACR, C1, or a number of other converters that are not true to Canon camera specs.

I know that this is a major philosophical difference between us but I chose Canon equipment for the quality of the resulting pictures, not just the numbers it outputs. I view the camera as the dog and the RAW converter as the tail.

That said, Camera Raw has improved to the point that I happily use it for 95% of my work. Its tool set is just terrific.

[_Janet_Taylor_]

>4. A way to compare two or more images in bridge or ACR.
>Huh, you can already do this. Or am I not understanding your request?

Oops. that does sound dopey. I meant at 100%. AFAIK, the only way to compare two images at full size right now, is to take them all the way to Photoshop and have two windows open. I've been messing with aperture, and i don't love it, but one of the very useful tools is the ability to grab two or more images and have them display side by side, either at "Fit to Screen" size, or at 100% (obviously in a window that you can pan).

[_Barry_Clive_Pearson_]

Janet, you can open two raw files at a time without converting them into Photoshop files - but you won't like it!

Open one in ACR hosted by Photoshop, and the other in ACR hosted by Bridge.

I said you wouldn't like it!

[_Rick_Boden_]

I'm sure this must have been asked but I missed it. I would like to see a way that new camera support could be added incremently when they became available rather than having to wait for a full application update.

Rick

[Chris Cox]

Rick - new cameras are already added with each dot release of ACR. There is no need to wait for application (Photoshop, Bridge) updates.

[_Rick_Boden_]

Chris,
Thanks for the reply. Yes I realize that, and knowing little about programming I assume that's the best way for you to do it. What I was hoping for was something like a database of camera info that could be downloaded and installed like plugins into ACR so I could just add the cameras I want when they became available rather than waiting for a dot release that covers a whole slew of cameras.

Rick

[_nunatak_]

rick ...

a "plug-in" architecture for ACR has been brought up before. given the current manner in which ACR's engine is tied, perhaps shackled, to the CS architecture--i suspect this might be more difficult to implement than it sounds. either technically and/or politically.

however, should bridge ever be shaped into a full-fledged digital asset management program, and ACR broken out as an independently powerful non-destructive editing application--we might see a separate plug-in architecture and much more. we need to wait and see what and who's strategic vision plays out ...

in the meantime ... keep looking forward to getting a clump of updates three or four times a year. :-)

[Mathias_DK_]

Its still a lot better than say, Aperture, which is tied to the OS. In order to be compatible with newer cameras, the OS has to be updated! (According to Michael Reichmann).

Mat

[Ian Lyons]

Camera Raw is a Plug-in, so how could providing plug-in architecture reduce the time required to include new camera models?

[_Barry_Clive_Pearson_]

Ian, surely the cycle time for ACR releases takes into account more than batching up a set of camera profile updates. There are facility improvements as well, or tuned demosaicing, etc.

SOME new cameras may need very little work indeed. How much work was needed to cater for the D70s, given the existing support for the D70? (And I suspect some of the Pentax models actually needed very little work).

I agree that plug-ins to plug-ins is a pretty weird concept! It isn't what I would choose. But I can sense the frustration of people who have been let down by their camera suppliers, (who OBVIOUSLY should have provided DNG as an option), and want Adobe to bail them out.

[_nunatak_]

ian ...
>so how could providing plug-in architecture reduce the time required to include new camera models?

third party support? let camera makers or alternate vendors offer their own immediate solutions --in addition to adobe's. in my books competition and choice are good things.

[_nunatak_]

barry ..
>I agree that plug-ins to plug-ins is a pretty weird concept!

i'll second or third that motion. 🙂 as you already know, eye prefer to see ACR set free to become it's own application rather than some separate engine hosted within Bridge or PS.

[_Rick_Boden_]

Just to be clear, I was asking for the ability to add individual camera data when they became available rather than when several dozen or so were accumulated, and the plugin reference was not meant to be taken literally and confused with Photoshop plugins. I have no idea how or if this could be accomplished...only that it would be nice. :-)

Rick

[_Curvemeister_]

Rick Bordon said (quite reasonably):
> Just to be clear, I was asking for the ability to add
> individual camera data when they became available rather
> than when several dozen or so were accumulated, and the
> plugin reference was not meant to be taken literally
> and confused with Photoshop plugins. I have no idea
> how or if this could be accomplished...only that it
> would be nice. 🙂

Rick is absolutely right. This is really the flip side of asking camera manufacturers to provide their specs for a new camera in a transparent and timely matter. Why not make ACR transparent enough that most new camera models may be added at the drop of a hat by modifying a text file?

Failing this, I think there are a number of things Adobe could do to make life a little easier. One would be for Adobe plugin hosts to recognize the situation where more than one format plugin exists for a given format. This could be as simple as putting up a dialog to allow the user to choose which one to use.

An example of this would be NEF files, which are supported by both ACR and the Nikon Capture plugin. Photoshop or Bridge would ask which plugin it should use, perhaps with some means of specifying a default. This would allow the additional flexibility to use Nikon's handler when desired.

Another improvement would be the ability to manually map camera models supported by ACR, by adding the model number to a text file.

If two cameras differ only in the model name, arrangement or phase of the Bayer filter array, or the filter colors, that could be specified in a table. I'll bet my copy of Siggraph 1984 that there is already such a table in ACR. So break it out into a text file.

This concept could be extended to cover differences in individual cameras - put the serial number in the text file and bingo, correction for individual camera ISO and color variation.

Yes, I understand there are technical hurdles. I predict that the first raw handler to actively address the issue of new camera models, and allow fine tuning of existing models, will become immensly popular for just that reason.

Mike Russell

[_Barry_Clive_Pearson_]

Mike, you say (#151) "I predict that the first raw handler to actively address the issue of new camera models, and allow fine tuning of existing models, will become immensly popular for just that reason".

Here is a small modification to that. How about a software product that generated DNG files according to such tuning parameters? In other words, instead of being part of ACR, it would be part of the DNG Converter?

Or part of "A" DNG Converter - not necessarily written by Adobe. One of the few things that concerns me about DNG is that the DNG Converter is currently single-sourced. I would like to see an open-sourced version. John Francis' SourceForge project appears to be going nowhere.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/openraw/

I would welcome a much richer toolset for reading and writing DNGs, going far beyond this issue. Obviously it would include comprehensive XMP manipulation. (The first thing I do with a folder-full of DNGs is apply my copyright template. But why wait until then? Why not do it at conversion time, which I do directly from the memory card?)

Doing something to ACR is limited. (For example, it would only apply to the latest ACR, not ACR 2.4). Doing something to DNGs is much more powerful. And it would perhaps convince the anti-Adobe conspiracy-theorists to embrace DNG and help bring a halt to the current farce.