Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Lens correction in CS5 - why not in RAW converter?  (Read 14924 times)
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« on: April 18, 2010, 04:03:58 PM »
ReplyReply

CS5 has a new and improved lens correction which seems quite impressive, with barrel/pincushion, vignetting, moustache, etc. correction. It also supports lenses from Sigma, with more to come for sure.

What I don't understand is why is this in Photoshop, and not in a RAW converter, ie. Camera RAW or Lightroom. It would make much more sense to have such corrections done in RAW converter as they should be done as early as possible in the post-processing pipeline - and preferably be non-destructive so new and improved corrections later on can be re-applied.

Is there a technological reason why Adobe chose to go this way? Or do they want to differentiate PS as being the premium product, and avoiding LR from (further) cannibalizing PS sales?

edit: Schewe updated us that Adobe will indeed include this in the RAW converter. Here it is in its full and impressive glory!
« Last Edit: April 27, 2010, 01:21:39 PM by feppe » Logged

Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1622


WWW
« Reply #1 on: April 18, 2010, 05:58:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Edit: Sorry, misunderstood what was being referenced.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2010, 11:01:19 PM by Farmer » Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3197



WWW
« Reply #2 on: April 18, 2010, 07:35:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Farmer
The new lens correction is in ACR.  The traditional lens correction tools remain in PS itself.
The new lens correction Feppe is talking about is actually in PS.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #3 on: April 18, 2010, 11:27:04 PM »
ReplyReply

It us unfortunate, and frankly a little puzzling since this feature seems like an obvious candidate for having in the raw pipeline.  If nothing else, doing lens corrections in Photoshop is a bit of a pain because it means you can't crop in ACR.
Logged

bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2756



« Reply #4 on: April 19, 2010, 08:10:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: feppe
CS5 has a new and improved lens correction which seems quite impressive, with barrel/pincushion, vignetting, moustache, etc. correction. It also supports lenses from Sigma, with more to come for sure.

What I don't understand is why is this in Photoshop, and not in a RAW converter, ie. Camera RAW or Lightroom. It would make much more sense to have such corrections done in RAW converter as they should be done as early as possible in the post-processing pipeline - and preferably be non-destructive so new and improved corrections later on can be re-applied.

Is there a technological reason why Adobe chose to go this way? Or do they want to differentiate PS as being the premium product, and avoiding LR from (further) cannibalizing PS sales?
Perhaps there is a less sinister explanation. If you look at the splash screen of Photoshop, you will see a very large team with Thomas Knoll at the head. I understand that the ACR team is much smaller and consists of Mr. Knoll, Madman Chan and a couple of others. Considering the resources available, the ACR team is prodigiously productive, but the Photoshop team has much larger resources and can do more.

Bill
Logged
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7789



WWW
« Reply #5 on: April 19, 2010, 10:54:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: bjanes
Perhaps there is a less sinister explanation. If you look at the splash screen of Photoshop, you will see a very large team with Thomas Knoll at the head. I understand that the ACR team is much smaller and consists of Mr. Knoll, Madman Chan and a couple of others. Considering the resources available, the ACR team is prodigiously productive, but the Photoshop team has much larger resources and can do more.

Bill

I suspect that Madman Chan is worth any six members of the PS team (maybe excepting Thomas Knoll).
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7235


WWW
« Reply #6 on: April 19, 2010, 11:15:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I absolutely am with Feppe on this one!

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: feppe
CS5 has a new and improved lens correction which seems quite impressive, with barrel/pincushion, vignetting, moustache, etc. correction. It also supports lenses from Sigma, with more to come for sure.

What I don't understand is why is this in Photoshop, and not in a RAW converter, ie. Camera RAW or Lightroom. It would make much more sense to have such corrections done in RAW converter as they should be done as early as possible in the post-processing pipeline - and preferably be non-destructive so new and improved corrections later on can be re-applied.

Is there a technological reason why Adobe chose to go this way? Or do they want to differentiate PS as being the premium product, and avoiding LR from (further) cannibalizing PS sales?
« Last Edit: April 19, 2010, 11:17:05 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5415


WWW
« Reply #7 on: April 19, 2010, 12:01:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: feppe
What I don't understand is why is this in Photoshop, and not in a RAW converter, ie. Camera RAW or Lightroom. It would make much more sense to have such corrections done in RAW converter as they should be done as early as possible in the post-processing pipeline - and preferably be non-destructive so new and improved corrections later on can be re-applied.

How do you know it won't be? At this point CS5 (with Camera Raw 6) hasn't even shipped and Lightroom 3 is at beta 2.

Quote
Is there a technological reason why Adobe chose to go this way? Or do they want to differentiate PS as being the premium product, and avoiding LR from (further) cannibalizing PS sales?

A "technical" reason? No, no technical reason at all–other than the fact that doing lens corrections parametrically is a LOT HARDER than simply doing it to pixels...as for your other presumption, uh, no...that's your bias showing...
Logged
thierrylegros396
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 636


« Reply #8 on: April 19, 2010, 12:02:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Hi,

I absolutely am with Feppe on this one!

Best regards
Erik

Another explanation is marketing, to be sure that you'll buy Photoshop !!!

But DXO has those capabilities, without the need of Photoshop.

And yes, it's unconceivable that you may not crop before using Photoshop.

Not a very logical workflow !!!

Have a Nice Day.

Thierry


Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3197



WWW
« Reply #9 on: April 19, 2010, 04:09:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: thierrylegros396
Another explanation is marketing, to be sure that you'll buy Photoshop !!!
Er.. to get ACR you need to buy PS, so that makes no sense.
And as the LR public beta is not feature complete, so you shouldn't criticise that either until you know what is in it.

Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #10 on: April 19, 2010, 05:37:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Schewe
How do you know it won't be? At this point CS5 (with Camera Raw 6) hasn't even shipped and Lightroom 3 is at beta 2.

I don't, and a fair critique - I was indeed making the assumption that LR3 doesn't have it based on the beta not having it.

Quote
A "technical" reason? No, no technical reason at all–other than the fact that doing lens corrections parametrically is a LOT HARDER than simply doing it to pixels...as for your other presumption, uh, no...that's your bias showing...

No, I meant technological.

Ignoring the ad hominem so this doesn't get locked - it's clear I'm not the only one keeping fingers crossed hoping this is a non-published feature in LR3.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2010, 05:39:42 PM by feppe » Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7732



WWW
« Reply #11 on: April 19, 2010, 07:12:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Schewe
A "technical" reason? No, no technical reason at all–other than the fact that doing lens corrections parametrically is a LOT HARDER than simply doing it to pixels...as for your other presumption, uh, no...that's your bias showing...

Probably so, but who said that everything ACR and LR do has to be controlable with parameters?

Since ACR's value is mostly in its after the fact live editable capability, I guess that the real question is whether lens correction will be possible to integrate in a Smart workflow. If it does then it being not part of ACR is probably not a big deal since you could still go back to ACR and modify some parameters without having to re-create the whole modification stack again.

If is not then it is indeed a pity since it is probably one of the first mods most photogrpahers would want to apply just after raw conversion.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5415


WWW
« Reply #12 on: April 19, 2010, 10:15:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: feppe
Ignoring the ad hominem so this doesn't get locked - it's clear I'm not the only one keeping fingers crossed hoping this is a non-published feature in LR3.

Yeah, well it was you that presupposed that Adobe's motive for NOT doing Lens Correction in Lightroom 3 was a bit less that honorable...that's a bias YOU have. If you had contained your question to the technical aspects rather than slipping in a little twist of the knife, I would have ignored it...

And, I'm not sure what part of "feature incomplete" description of Lightroom 3 Beta 2 you don't understand...looking at the beta and presuming you know what will be in the final release is a bit presumptuous ya know?
« Last Edit: April 19, 2010, 10:18:33 PM by Schewe » Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5415


WWW
« Reply #13 on: April 19, 2010, 10:18:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
Probably so, but who said that everything ACR and LR do has to be controlable with parameters?

I think his name is Thomas Knoll...he's the one who started ACR down the "parametric" path (and coined the term)...and Camera Raw and Lightroom will indeed keep going down that path for the foreseeable future (or at least as long as Thomas is still involved).

Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7732



WWW
« Reply #14 on: April 19, 2010, 11:00:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Schewe
I think his name is Thomas Knoll...he's the one who started ACR down the "parametric" path (and coined the term)...and Camera Raw and Lightroom will indeed keep going down that path for the foreseeable future (or at least as long as Thomas is still involved).

Jeff,

I understand that Mr. Knoll is the father of ACR and LR's engine based on so-called parametric technologies.

I am not sure it means that he is against tuning this basic philosophy to meet customers expectations in some cases.

Having experienced this many times elsewhere in a similar context, I know for a fact that it is rarely a good idea to justify functional shortcomings using design philosophy as a reason when it looks like priorities is the actual motivation.

Anyway, still wondering if this can be by-passed with smart workflow or not.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7235


WWW
« Reply #15 on: April 19, 2010, 11:08:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Would be nice to have explained why it is harder? As far as I can see it is just another transform to apply in processing.

The issue for me is essentially that I'm much in favor of having a parametric workflow. Once I started developing an application that essentially was similar to Lightroom, but much more limited in scope. Once Lightroom was released I realized that I would never achieve a similar functionality in one or a few life times. So my project went on the scrapheap and I have been a happy Lightroom user since than.

For me the parametric nature of Lightroom is essential and so is the data base based approach.

Now, as I see it, there are things that are best made in Lightroom and some that are better made in Photoshop. Photoshop extends more in image creation, I don't necessarily see that the two products compete. Lightroom also has some competion, Aperture from Apple but also the new Bibblepro 5 from Bibble labs, which may have some potential.

The parametric local edits we can do in Lightroom are a godsend, and the "automasking" feature is great help achiveing subtle burn in and dodging effects.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: Schewe
A "technical" reason? No, no technical reason at all–other than the fact that doing lens corrections parametrically is a LOT HARDER than simply doing it to pixels.
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5415


WWW
« Reply #16 on: April 19, 2010, 11:14:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
I am not sure it means that he is against tuning this basic philosophy to meet customers expectations in some cases.

Well, he is pretty adamant in maintaining a very strict parametric/pixel editing line in the sand...what most people don't realize is there are some things that doing it parametrically is contra-indicated...meaning it's foolish to try to do it in parameters vs pixels...and just because some people want it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. And he's really not obsessed with meeting unreasonable customer's expectations, ya know?
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7235


WWW
« Reply #17 on: April 19, 2010, 11:19:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Regarding LR, I would say yes.

I don't see a problem really. If we can do parametric edit, LR is just fine. If we need to do pixel based editing we open the image in Photoshop, Picture Window Pro, PSE or whatever, but we also work on a pixel based image.

My personal view is that I want to do as much of the works parametric as possible, and essentially resort to Photoshop for things like composites, retouching and so on.

That said, I have used spot removal in LR for removing other things than spots, it's actually quite usable for removing things reflections and so on under some conditions. It's worth a try.

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: BernardLanguillier
Probably so, but who said that everything ACR and LR do has to be controlable with parameters?
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5415


WWW
« Reply #18 on: April 19, 2010, 11:21:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Would be nice to have explained why it is harder? As far as I can see it is just another transform to apply in processing.


So, you have spot healing spots placed and local adjustment brush pins in place then you go into lens correction...exactly how do you expect the parametric spot healing and adjustment brush pins to react to a parametric lens correction? Should it matter what order you do things in? Do you want the spot healing and adjustment brush results to be lens correction accurate? See, that's the rub...its EALSY to do it in pixels...it's much, MUCH harder to do it parametrically. Read this thread from the Lightroom Forums: no optical distortion or perspective corrections?! in particular what Mark Hamburg writes (the founding engineer of Lightroom).
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7235


WWW
« Reply #19 on: April 19, 2010, 11:49:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Thanks for your comment. I see your point.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: Schewe
So, you have spot healing spots placed and local adjustment brush pins in place then you go into lens correction...exactly how do you expect the parametric spot healing and adjustment brush pins to react to a parametric lens correction? Should it matter what order you do things in? Do you want the spot healing and adjustment brush results to be lens correction accurate? See, that's the rub...its EALSY to do it in pixels...it's much, MUCH harder to do it parametrically. Read this thread from the Lightroom Forums: no optical distortion or perspective corrections?! in particular what Mark Hamburg writes (the founding engineer of Lightroom).
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad