wurre wrote: It´s quite simple, at 100 the detail slider is deconvolution-based and at 0 it´s convolution-based. I.e.it´s the same algorithm run backwards, hence the halo suppression Actually, it's not...it's far more complicated than that and the way the slider works is to interpolate between the two different algorithms. Halos suppression is not the opposite of deconvolution sharpening. ... View more

Andrew_Hart wrote: With this new understanding of what is supposed to be happening with deconvolution sharpening, I am utterly amazed, and just a little incredulous, that Adobe is able to say that they can achieve this with the simple positioning of the Detail slider.  Yeah, the elves at Adobe (in particular the Camera Raw team) do a pretty darn good job of producing magical results...par for the course (the boys are brilliant). The Detail slider is pretty special...course, so is the Masking (and all of the Noise Reduction sliders). ... View more

Read: Deconvolution on Wikipedia and in particular Richardson-Lucy deconvolution In basic terms it uses a point spread function (PSF) to "un-blur" a blurred image. ACR's deconvolution processing is very similar to Photoshop's Smart Sharpen when set to the Lens Blur option. It is also the basis for Adobe's tech demo on Image Deblurring that was shown late last year that can be seen on Adobe TV. Note, that demo caused a bit of a controversy because the demo showed a deblurring based on a know synthetic blur that was easier to deblur. ... View more

MadManChan2000 wrote: Yes, moving Detail towards 100 will use a deconvolution-based method to sharpen the image.  I recommend this only for clean (e.g., high ISO), finely detailed scenes. I'm pretty sure Eric meant to say (e.g., low ISO) :~) ... View more

grampus45 wrote: This would suggest that a significant use of masking would be appropriate in applying capture sharpening.  But many things I read, and many suggested 'presets,' tend to downplay or even ignore masking. I would argue against the term "significant" and more likely call it a beneficial use of masking. You want to be sharpening edges and generally don't want to sharpen surfaces (which are broad areas of tone/color). The default for masking is zero because, well, Thomas decided that no masking should be applied at default but almost any image will benefit from having some edge masking used. How much really depends on the edge frequency of the image…if you are shooting portraits you want a fairly high edge masking (40 or above). If you are shooting low ISO landscape images with a high frequency of image texture, you probably want less; 10-25 or so. But…that depends on the amount, radius, detail and noise reduction settings…you really can't give a range of settings for any single parameter because they all depend on each other... grampus45 wrote: We know from Bruce Fraser what the general principles of sharpening are.  What we need now is someone like Bruce to write a treatise on how to enact those principles, such as they are possible, with the sharpening facility in ACR. We can attempt to infer what's happening by moving the sliders themselves, but it's really going to take someone with "inside knowledge" to do the job properly. So far we only have vague hand waving. I did...when I revised Bruce's Real World Image Sharpening book...which came out just before the PV 2010 noise reduction functionality (unfortunately). The aim is to get the image to look good at 1:1. That is the intent and design of the Detail panel in ACR/LR. And yes, it's tough because there are tons of cameras and tons of image types to deal with...yes, it's tough to evaluate just enough sharpening but not too much. You can't accomplish that with a few presets...you need to educate your eyes...no way around that. And the other 2 phases of image sharpening, creative and output sharpening are further complicating factors. The ACR/LR creative sharpening is primitive but useful. The output sharpening in LR is actually very, very good. It's less good in ACR because of the limitations of the size functionality in ACR. Output sharpening MUST be done at the final output size...and sizing in ACR other than native are problematic. The bottom line is to make the image look good at 1:1. Don't try to do over/under sharpening in the Detail panel, don't try to sharpen for effect or do creative sharpening and don't worry at all about output sharpening. If you are shooting low ISO on high rez cameras, you can sharpen more aggressively, the smaller the capture size and higher the ISO the more you need to be careful of setting the sharpening and noise reduction correctly. The only generalizations I can make os that you do want to adjust all of the following; Amount, Radius, Detail, Edge Masking and Luminance Noise Reduction to get an optimal capture sharpening result. The numbers will vary by camera size, lens type, Exposure, ISO and shooting techniques. YMWV... ... View more

grampus45 wrote: Jeff, what's happening at Detail equal to zero?  and how does it (and in what sense) does it provide minimum halos? Sorry...the best I can tell you is that Detail at zero dampens the edge amount in the sharpening and reduces halos. Somebody on the ACR team would have to decide whether or not the question of exactly HOW it does it could be answered...I wouldn't presume to answer for them. Holding down option/alt when moving the slider will give you a rough preview of the effect. ... View more

Noel Carboni wrote: My suggestion is to just move 'em around until you like the way it looks.  You're overthinking it. I prefer, for my own defaults, Sharpening: 15, Radius 0.5, Detail: 100, Masking: 0 Noel habitually does in ACR upsampling and a lot of post conversion sharpening which tends to break (alter) the sharpening workflow that ACR/LR was designed to use. So his way is one way but not the ONLY way... I tend to evaluate my images at 100% zoom and sharpen for an optimal "capture" sharpening in ACR/LR at the native capture resolution. When I go to print I use LR's output sharpening after upsampling (which is an accumulated 2 pass sharpening + final rez upsampling). Noel is intentionally undersharpening his images in the capture sharpening stages because he's upsampling and then adding substantail post processing sharpening. That is his choice (but not the way I work). I want to get the raw capture "sharp" at the native resolution and keep that as my digital master and upsampke only at the printing stage with output sharpening applied on top. In any event, I do view Luminance Noise Reduction as the 5th sharpening slider...while the default is zero, almost ALL raw captures need "some" noise reduction as part of the capture sharpening process. ... View more

The Detail slider is an interpolation between deconvolution at 100 to full halo suppression at zero. The halo suppression reduces the total amount of edge contrast the Amount setting applies. Between zero and 100, it's an interpolation between these two parameters… ... View more

I think you are misreading what Martin wrote... 100 is deconvolution sharpening similar to Smart Sharpen in Photoshop. Zero is no devonvolution and max halo supression. Forget USM as it's no longer a model that is used in ACR/LR. ... View more

Sharity84078 wrote: Where do I pay for Camera Raw updates? You pay to upgrade to Photoshop CS6, that's how you get ACR 7.x. ... View more

christianbobak wrote: Otay, mista Jeff, suh. You de man, suh. Guess you don't really "grok" this stuff huh? I've been the co-author of Real World Camera Raw since version CS3. I've been directly involved in the development of Lightroom as well as Camera Raw (don't work FOR Adobe but I sometimes work WITH Adobe). Particularly with the image sharpening of ACR 4.X and LR 3.X. The output sharpening in LR 3.x is based on the routines of PixelGenius PhotoKit Sharpener (which I am a founding member of). So, yes bud...what you think you know and what I actually know is a bit different...you want to measure creds? You lose... So get over yourself...PV 2012 is a MAJOR advance...what you THINK you've lost is minimal (at best) and what you've received in it's place is major... But, hey, YOU be the judge.,if you don't like PV 2012, just use PV 2010...and if you think you've been ripped off on the upgrade, Adobe has a 30 day return policy...get your friggin' money back doode... Guess your life sucks huh? Move on...PV 2012 ain't gonna change because you are "displeased"...you can keep posting if ya want...ain't gonna change a thing (and I suspect you know that). You keep trying to one up me, ain't gonna happen.... Move along...these aren't the droids you are looking for... (and if that don't work, you are, well, a dummy–sorry to be blunt, but, well, that's the truth bud). You won't win this battle so only an idiot would keep banging his head against a brick wall. Keep banging your head if ya want...no skin off my nose. PV 2012 is a vast improvement and it requires that you relearn what you think you know...(and no, there's no real indication you really know how to use PV 2012 even if you think you know–you don't dooode). ... View more

christianbobak wrote: ...but you apparently seem to know so much more about my photos than I do, so I'm assuming this is the part where I'm supposed to bow down and grovel before your vast knowledge and intellect. Yes...since I seem to know just a bit more than you do...just sayin'. Either adopt PV 2012 or punt and use PV 2010. YMMV (my image quality is much better with PV 2012). Don't know about your's... Either way you have a choice...either stick your head in the sand and stick with PV 2010 or use PV 2012...that's your choice. Sorry bud, but either adapt and adopt or piss$moan. PV 2012 ain't gonna change because of you. Deal with it... ... View more

christianbobak wrote: And PV2010 sucked, how? What were you using to edit your digital photos 15 years ago? Oh, that's right. Nothing. Fill Light caused halos and artifacting...Highlight Recovery caused color casts and was unable to extract nearly as much image detail as PV 2012...BTW, ACR was released in Feb 2003 (hense the old PV 2003) so raw processing isn't even 10 years old. LR was only released in Feb 2007 so it's only 5 years old...and yes, I've gone back and reprocessed a ton of images in PV 2012 and gotten superior results. In the "old days" I had to end up fixing stuff in Photoshop...now? Not so much. Really, you might not like the taste of the medicine...but it does you good. ... View more

christianbobak wrote: Riddle me this, smart guy: What makes you so sure there is no possible way to keep old features when creating new algorithms? Because of the math...if you want more info about what is happening under the hood, check out this article: Magic or Local Laplacian Filters? Just a warning if you read the linked paper that was presented at SIGGRAPH 2011, it's pretty deep... Look at it this way, PV 2012 is leading edge impage processing tech...PV 2010 is old stuff that barely worked, but when it worked, it was "ok". There is no way to stuff the old stuff in the new stuff. Line in the sand... BTW, I am pretty smart, but I just barely understood the basics of the linked article...but I've talked to the engineers enough to know that when you redesign a series of processing routines, trying to shove in old processing doesn't work. ... View more

christianbobak wrote: I should have everything I had before plus new features, not new features at the expense of old ones. Because the underlying processing algorithms of PV 2012 are fundamentally different than PV 2010, that's impossible. Pure and simple. There is no way to make Shadows behave like Fill Light. Fill Light actually had several undesirable side effects (haloing in particular) that was the reason behind the redesign of PV 2012 from the ground up. The engineers made the choice to start over with the new algorithms which was a line in the sand with the old ones. That's why they created a new process version. You can't mix and match. If you really need PV 2010, LR 4 still has those algorithms, but you will be giving up the rest of the PV 2012 processing. Bottom line, you can't have your cake and eat it too. It's an either/or proposition...you choose. ... View more

christianbobak wrote: I don't understand all these comments that refer to "learning the new tools" and how "tricky" they can be. There is nothing tricky or difficult about the new tools (of which there are few anyway), and I have zero issue with them. The comments are there because you may THINK you know how to use the new PV2012 image adaptive controls, but you really don't. You are bringing your experience with PV 2010 and trying to force fit that experience into PV 2012. That dog don't hunt...you need to really understand what the new controls can do and how to deploy them–which if you are complaining about the removal of Fill Light and Highlight Recovery, you don't. You say you are shooting poorly lit scenes with lots of backlighting...which is EACTLY what PV 2012 is designed to deal with–high contrast scenes. But I bet you don't really use Exposure and Contrast in PV 2012, right? Your knee-jerk reaction is to slam the Fill Light up then tamp down the stuff that blows out? That's the wrong way of using the controls...there's a reason why the controls are there in the order they are in. That's the optimal order to use them in. Seriously, if you can't get better results with PV 2012 than you could with PV 2010 then you really don't know how to use the PV 2012 controls... Which is all moot anyway...PV 2012 is here now...it won't go away and Fill Light will not be added back in. If you want to stick your head in the sand, simply select PV 2010 and set that as the LR4 Default so you never ever need to see the new controls again. Course, you'll be leaving a lot of image quality on the table, but that's ok...you obviously know best, right? ... View more

TK2142 wrote: Jeff Schewe mentioned a good while earlier that all discussions that would imply UI changes would be moot because of UI freeze (e.g., for book authors). That related to the public beta of 4.0 relative to the GM retail release of 4.0. As long as Adobe can ship new features or functionality within the quater that the app shipped,new features can be added. But that is not true between the public beta and the .0 releases... ... View more

TK2142 wrote: If you still disagree with me, you don't have to tell me again. The only point I would still argue is that there's a reason Eric said what he said...if you don't first set the overall tone in Exposure then you're working on an image whose overall tone is wrong. Exposure and Contrast first does set up Highlights and Shadows nicely making Whites and Blacks being relegated to fine tuning (or jumping to Curves). Note, I don't think Curves use (point or parametric) has been eliminated, but I think the need to go to curves has been reduced... ... View more

TK2142 wrote: Thanks for sharing Eric's response. Was that from private communication or did he post that somewhere? From an email exchange... ... View more

Just to be perfectly clear, when ACR/LR designates a Process Version, it means it will stay in place for the future (assuming Adobe stays in business). That's the whole reason for that line in the sand... With regards to PV 2012: Eric said: There are two separate ways in which PV 2012 is retrieving more highlight detail compared to PV 2010. One is the improved highlight rendering logic, when one or two channels are clipped.  This is the "auto" part which happens even at default settings (e.g., Exposure 0, Highlights 0, etc.).  Previously in PV 2003/2010, the clipped channels would simply get clipped, so tones would be lost and colors could be shifted (e.g., skies would turn from blue to cyan).  You could get PV 2003/2010 to try to repair the partially clipped colors by using minus Exposure and/or Recovery.  In PV 2012, the new logic helps to preserve tonal distinctions and prevent color shifts, and this happens even without the user touching any controls. The second way is the image-adaptive logic and new algorithms behind the controls (e.g., the tech driving the Highlights slider).  This part isn't automatic, because it only kicks in once the user starts adjusting things (e.g., setting Highlights to a non-zero value). I tended to fixate on the second explanation vs. the first...if I have incorrectly described the wan PV 2012 is working, I'm sorry...(so I guess that counts as an apology, right?) ... View more

TK2142 wrote: BTW, maybe an apology is in order. I would be happy to accept your apology…the upside is that after all this time (and discussion) maybe you've learned something? Heck even Micheal Frye has said "I'm not thrilled about losing a true linear point curve. But I can live with it."... If he can, why can't you? Do you have some sort of personal agenda? ... View more

TK2142 wrote: I'd love to because I know a discussion with him would have logic as a common ground and he would not resort to quoting "authorities" when he runs out of arguments. I've not run out of aurguments, I was simply addressing your statement "With less "we know what users want"-attitude the commonplace love/hate relationship could have been a love-only relationship." and letting you know who the "we" is... ... View more

TK2142 wrote: With less "we know what users want"-attitude the commonplace love/hate relationship could have been a love-only relationship. If you want to argue the relative merits of optimizing image adjustments with Thomas Knoll, you go right ahead. Thomas isn't a dope...he kinda started this whole digital imaging thing ya know? He signed off on the PV 2012 (and added to it along with Eric Chan and Mark Hamburg who started Lightroom). You go right ahead and argue with these guys if ya want...I do on very rare occasions (when I have a real point and can make the case–so far you haven't). So far your arguments haven't gotten a lot of traction...wonder why? Could it be that you might, just possibly be wrong? Think about it... ... View more

TK2142 wrote: In thread http://forums.adobe.com/message/4166542, Eric acknowledges that the above two things have " Uh huh...did you actually read what he wrote? "Dorin, the automatic aspect has to do with the endpoint (i.e., white point & black point) handling.  The shape of the curve is calculated automatically to make transitions smoother as you approach clipping (to pure white or pure black).  Otherwise you'd get the traditional digital "hard clip" which can be rather rough, esp. in the shadows." So, I ask again, do you understand what Eric is talking about? That the highlights and shadows aren't being automatically being set but the RANGE is? The "image adaptive" aspect is setting the end points for highlights and shadows? So that the range of the PV 2012 adjustments are image dependent? Again, that's considerably different that saying highlights and shadows are being set "Automatically". TK2142 wrote: Please do not accuse someone of not knowing what is going on when you are not sure. Well, I seem to be just a bit more sure of what's going on than you are...correct me if I'm wrong. ... View more

TK2142 wrote: Eric Chan himself mentioned "auto highlight recovery" and "auto black-point" functionality in LR4. An image that shows blown highlights in LR3 will not show blown highlights in LR4 even when the same default develop settings are applied. That's because there is an automatic highlight recovery. This has nothing do with an "image adaptive" range of sliders. No, actually, it has EVERYTHING to do "image adaptive" rendering of highlight and shadow image data. I won't contradict Eric but I think what he was trying to do was simplify the explaniation of what PV 2012 was doing. If you to rephrase the terminology to be Auto-Ranging then that's different (although I would still argue about the characterization being an Auto-Highlights and Auto-Shadows which I think summarizes your misunderstanding of PV 2012). ... View more

TK2142 wrote: For some images it will be better to start without auto-highlights and auto-blacks so these non-optional auto-adjustments should be made optional. You really need to understand the fundamental differences between "Auto" and "Image Adaptive"... PV 2012 doesn't do anything "auto" (unless you click on the Auto" button). What it does do is an image adaptive ranging of the various controls' range. Does PV 2012 get more texture out of highlights and shadows? Yes, it does. Is this an "auto" function? I would dispute that characterization…What PV 2012 really does is evaluate the image and set the un-modified (zero settings) to have a range that will operate most productively, given that image's range between fully saturated (clipped) and low end blacks. Is this a different approach? Yes, clearly…PV 2010's image adaptive controls were really only Fill Light and Clarity. Now the image adaptive control set includes everything in Basic other then Whites & Blacks (and Vibrance and Saturation). You really need to learn how to set aside the concept or notion that anything in a raw file could EVER be "neutral" except for an image processed into a linear gamma (which as we've seen isn't really all that useful). Zero is a non sequitur...it doesn't really exist. What you THOUGHT was a "zero" setting in PV 2010 wasn't. ... View more