+ 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

[PJA_Media]

Just thought of another which would be useful:

Better Batch processing in ACR - this hasn't improved since ACR's introduction. I thought that since the take over of Pixmantec, we would see some of the cool queue control features from Raw Shooter Pro inside ACR, such as the ability to delete specific entries from the queue, the ability to stop and start the batch queue also!

Paul A
www.pjamedia.com

[_Jack_Joseph_Jr_]

Camera Raw 4 is fantastic. I can do most of my sports photo processing right in Camera RAW. Even ACR sharpening works well with my crop and up-rez workflow. Because I use the crop tool on almost every shot a couple of improvements occured to me.

It would be nice to be able to store multiple user crop settings. I often go back and forth between 2400 x 3000, 2000 x 3000, 1500 x 3000 and 1728 x 1152. It's a real PITA to have to dial in the same user settings over and over and over again.

Additionally a center marker, similar to that in Photoshop would be of great help in centering the crop over the subject.

Other than that I have a hard time finding any flaws in Camera Raw. Good work Adobe.

[Lee_Jay-7OQGJF]

I'd just like ACR 4.x to not be crippled in Elements. I would likely upgrade if that were the case, but as it is I'll stick with Elements 3 + LR.

[KBStudio]

Well ACR 4.1 and still no way to know how big a file will be if you choose to change the export parameters in "Workflow Options". There is no way to know in advance the file size of any image before committing to a set of Workflow Options. I was hoping this would be a easy fix. Maybe next time.

Kim

[Ramón_G_Castañeda]

You're not content with knowing what the pixels dimensions are?

Frankly, I've never cared what the size of the file on disc is going to be.

[_Barry_Clive_Pearson_]

(This issue affects all Adobe code that attempts to recognise Pentax lenses. That includes Bridge and the DNG Converter).

Please cater for the new 3-byte Tag63 in the Pentax K10D Makernote, so that lenses can once again be identified in relevant Adobe software.

This isn't simply a request for a new feature. It is a request that Adobe restores an existing feature that has been disrupted by the Pentax K10D 1.20 firmware upgrade. Therefore. I've also started a new thread in case any Pentax users are puzzled about this regression.

The thread I've started is at:
http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx/.3bb6a85c.3bc423bc

Example of the change: old Tag63: 04 FE; new Tag63: 04 FE 00. The effect is that the DNG LensInfo is now not set up correctly, and the XMP exif/1.0/aux namespace information is not set up at all. So the real name of the lens is not shown.

[_Benedict_Slotte_]

I already posted a feature request as a new topic before I saw this thread. So here is my original text, please have a look:

http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx/.3bb6a869.3bc42a03

My feature request concerns noise reduction and I feel it would provide considerable benefit in reduction of noise in pictures shot in low, artificial light at high ISO.

Best regards
Benedict

[witkacy]

Paul Atherton wrote:
"(...)I know everyone says that the individual auto settings aren't coming back, fair enough! But what the new auto scheme does not allow is:
a. giving us an indication if a slider is set to auto already(...)
b. copying and pasting specific auto set sliders to other images(...)"

I'm also missing these features. If the only reason for removing individual autos was to save UI space, I would like these features back in other form. It is already possible to set individual sliders to auto, but this is no longer preserved when copying settings nor by presets (there is plenty of space in the New Preset Dialog and I can't see why not to remember individual autos when copying).

But maybe there were other reason for removing them altogether?...

Regards
m.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda]

>maybe there were other reason for removing them altogether?...

Ostensibly for compatibility with the Lightroom interface

[LRK_2]

Ian,

Thanks for starting this thread. Sorry I didn't see it yesterday. I started another thread last night but will post it here as well. I would like to see a CMYK readout in ACR, for use with the eye dropper tool.

Linda

[witkacy]

I would like to see a mechanism for storing snapshots or even pixel previews of files automatically every time the underlying algorithms that helped render them change.

Jeff Schewe wrote (http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?128@@.3bc03c04.3bc413f2):

"(...)people are seeing substantial and some might say radical improvements in software that make people's current and past work better. That's a new concept for photography...imagine that shots you did (as long as they were raw) in 2003 or 2004 can now be processed BETTER than they could then. Which means really that the images themselves have been improved (at least the potential has been) just while they've been sitting there..

I like that..."

I like that too, but. The problem is that they can change without us knowing. Imagine one time noise reduction in CR changes, and then a more aggressive sharpening can be applied, but even without a change in sharpening algorithms actual sharpening in the image changes, because suddenly it sharpens different image.

The differences in rendering could be minor, but they can build up in time. And what happens if the new algorithm doesn't have the ability to simulate the old one?

RAW supposed to be archival format, but the very nature of parametric editing takes for granted the fact that in the future it will be possible to process the data in the same way.

What do You think? Maybe something along the lines of PS history palette preference to save the snapshot of a file every time the file get saved (here: the engine introduces changes). Would the snapshots (as in Lightroom) be enough (when a new engine can simulate old behaviour) or maybe a whole new DNG pixel preview is needed?

Regards
m.

[_Jeff_Schewe_]

Uh huh. . .well, in the case of image sharpening in Camera Raw 4.1, the old code is gonesville...meaning one couldn't process with the old sharpening even if you wanted to. So, you can snapshot all ya want, but it's like a sex change op...once it's cut off, it ceases to function, ya know?

Thomas has already built in the ability to use current and original color profiles for backwards compatibility issue regarding Calibrate. But changes to things such as sharpening, new Camera Raw controls, and demosiacing and nose reduction won't carry the old code functionality...and there's nothing to be done about that except using the older Camera Raw versions if that's what you need.

[witkacy]

Thank You for clarification. So mere snapshots of parameters won't do. I still think that a mechanism in apps dealing with RAWs that would embed pixel preview in DNG every time the engine changes would be a worthy option.

To be honest it's not something I'm paranoid about. though (I hope ;-)). By this request I wanted to see how others feel about their images changing themselves over time.

Regards
m.

[witkacy]

Related to what we discuss here, there is a lot of discussion in Lightroom forum about the new demosaic algorithm in 4.1/1.1 ( Thomas Knoll, "NOT happy with image quality of Lightroom 1.1" #100, 1 Jul 2007 11:17 am). Some people seems to prefer the old way of rendering files (more noise but less artificial look). I could imagine a situation when a feature to use old engine (without resorting to install old version of ACR) would be desirable even when one is convinced that 4.1 is an improvement - for example when aiming for harsh grainy b/w look (as opposed to an impressionistic one ;-> )

Of course this is not easy to implement - suddenly there would be different metadata instructions for different engines - and this is just the beginning of ACR development (I hope). But those problems will only get bigger with time - we saw it when 3.7 could render LR 1.0-specific changes (vibrance etc.) but you could not adjust the sliders. Then again when you changed the new sharpening controls in 4.1 but LR 1.0 could not render them - even worse: when you changed _anything_ else in LR 1.0 the metadata instructions for 4.1 sharpening got wiped out. So maybe there should be mechanism to preserve metadata which could not be understood by the application in case it comes from newer version of the engine.

In the future I can see huge synchronize dialog which shows you that you have 3 different sharpness instructions for 3 engines and an earlier version of fill light adjustment with a masking bug. It could show you how the image would look like when you use different controls and would let you keep or clean the legacy instructions... Ouch!

Anyway - just thinking out loud.

Regards
m.

[b2martin_a]

Add a feature that lets you store colors (skin tone, sky, etc) from other images and then click on the area in another image and colors are changed to match the stored values. This would make it easier to color balance images that don't have gray.

[Hudechrome-sd9sPI]

I want the max pixel dimension to increase to the PS level.

[_Howard_M__Clarke_]

I am now using Camera Raw to process images from a Leica M8. The native 'raw' format for the M8 is dng which Camera Raw sees, from my point of view, as an image file rather than as a camera raw file. As a result, any image settings which are changed in Camera Raw are written to the original dng file and not to either an xmp sidecar file or the Adobe Camera Raw Database as selected in the Camera Raw preferences. This is difficult for me from a workflow point of view since I may have multiple backups of the original dng file but unless I select the correct one I will not have access to the previously chosen image settings.

My request is that for cameras using dng as their raw format that we be given a choice in the Camera Raw preferences of having the Image Settings written to the Camera Raw Database, a sidecar xmp file or to the original dng file.

Thanks,

Howard Clarke

[Lee_Jay-7OQGJF]

Thomas acknowledged here:

Thomas Knoll, "NOT happy with image quality of Lightroom 1.1" #100, 1 Jul 2007 11:17 am

that there is a change to the demosaicing algorithm going on based on camera and ISO.

I'd like this function, which is now automatic and/or pre-programmed, to become a slider in the UI, similar to the detail/NR balance slider in RSP. I'd also like this value to be storable in the by-camera and by-ISO defaults. It can certainly come with the defaults set the way they are inherently in ACR 4.1.

To me, the improvements in noise and sharpness in 4.1/LR 1.1 are vast and the resulting image quality is acceptable. However, having another degree of freedom in this area would still be helpful, since the NR system is still just two sliders, and improvements are always welcome.

[Guest]

Add in ACR the same Targeted Adjustment cursor behaviour seen in Lightroom. It is fine for single color adjustment on the whole image.

Add also the same interactive histogram controls and response (histogram zones can be edited directly on the histogram itself) seen in Lightroom.

Thanks

[_Jack_Joseph_Jr_]

A couple of minor ones that would be very helpful to me.

1. have the same screen sizing hot keys as Photoshop, ie CTRL-ALT-0 for 100% and CTRL-0 for fit to screen and maybe something like CRTL-P for print size. My usual 8x10s easily fit in the available space. I also like having icons to click but on a 24in monitor it's a long way up there when I'm working on something near the bottom-right.

2. display a cross-hair in the center of the crop area. Camera Raw's crop tool is so much better than Photoshop's but it's hard to center something without a cross-hair. It doesn't need to be the movable target like in PS, just a mark.

Other than that 4.1 issue talked about elsewhere Camera Raw is just about perfect. A Camera Raw-Canon that reads picture styles and WB is a dream but somehow I don't think that you could get Canon on board. They're pretty secretive.

[John MacLean]

Jack,

the keys strokes- sizing for fit screen and 100% works on my Mac

[01af]

I would like to see the following feature:

Please add to the Curves tool the ability to tweak each colour channel's curve separately, like in Photoshop. So rather than seeing only the RGB curve, I'd like to be able to choose between RGB, R, G, and B curves. (Capture One Pro, for instance, can do this, and it sure is useful.)

And it would be great to be able to switch over to Lab mode and then to have access to the Lab, L, a, and b curves, too.

-- Olaf

[Mathias_DK_]

Adding to Jacks #2 above: A 'rule of thirds' grid in the crop tool á la Lightroom is something I miss in CR.

[_jannes_bolten_]

It would be really great if ACR would allow the use of custom, LUT-based camera profiles.

[JimHess-8IPblY]

When creating a preset in ACR, I think it would be nice if Clarity was one of the options that could be selected.