|
Farmer
|
 |
« Reply #60 on: April 26, 2010, 05:50:24 PM » |
 Reply
|
My opinion is indeed subjective but not entirely dismissive. - I do realize that ACR is almost an industry standard, a very useful universal piece of software and that many swear by it.
I also insist on using Macs rather than Windows, but I do realize that most of the world's useful work gets done on Windows.
By the way, have you ever tried Raw Developer? It's a neat alternative universal Raw converter for those who don't want to upgrade their Photoshop license. I find the quality is quite good.
Edmund I did look at Raw Developer a while back and it was very good. However, I use Windows for most of my personal work (occassionaly playing with Macs) and most of my Mac exposure is at work where critical raw development is less common (and we always have the latest CS suite anyway). So, Raw Developer doesn't suit me in that regard. For a complete workflow, I still prefer ACR (I prefer it to LR, although I have that as well and find it very useful). I'll happily change as tools change to get what I want from them. I completely accept that other people have other preferences - I think the issue here is that people were discussing lens correction in CS5 and all you seemed to want to do is argue that people shouldn't use ACR. Wrong place, wrong time, perhaps? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Schewe
|
|
« Reply #61 on: April 27, 2010, 11:48:43 AM » |
Reply
|
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. Just pinging this thread on the fact Tom Hogarty of Adobe has indicated Lens Corrections will be a part of Camera Raw 6.x (not 6.0 though) and Lightroom 3 when it ships...see: Preview of Lens Correction Solution for Camera Raw 6 and Lightroom 3. It works very well and the technical challenges that make parametric application of the lens and perspective corrections have been solved. This was something those of us who were testing couldn't discuss before now. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
francois
|
|
« Reply #63 on: April 27, 2010, 12:26:06 PM » |
Reply
|
That's very cool and also unexpected… |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Francois
|
|
|
|
feppe
|
|
« Reply #64 on: April 27, 2010, 01:12:46 PM » |
Reply
|
Just pinging this thread on the fact Tom Hogarty of Adobe has indicated Lens Corrections will be a part of Camera Raw 6.x (not 6.0 though) and Lightroom 3 when it ships...see: Preview of Lens Correction Solution for Camera Raw 6 and Lightroom 3. It works very well and the technical challenges that make parametric application of the lens and perspective corrections have been solved. This was something those of us who were testing couldn't discuss before now. Great news, thanks for the update! edit: I updated the OP to reflect this. Watched the youtube video and am very excited - Adobe has even included profile creator, which was the main reason I didn't use DXO as my camera/lens combos were not covered. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 27, 2010, 01:22:54 PM by feppe »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
AFairley
|
|
« Reply #65 on: April 27, 2010, 01:16:43 PM » |
Reply
|
This is terrific news! Between this and the content aware healing brush, I am (or expect to be) an extremely happy camper.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BartvanderWolf
|
|
« Reply #66 on: April 27, 2010, 01:30:33 PM » |
Reply
|
Just pinging this thread on the fact Tom Hogarty of Adobe has indicated Lens Corrections will be a part of Camera Raw 6.x (not 6.0 though) and Lightroom 3 when it ships... Hi Jeff, "Camera Raw 6.x (not 6.0 though)", would you be at liberty to indicate whether it's rather sooner than later in the 6.xx lifecycle? Not 6.0 is a bit disappointing, but it not being mentioned by others seems more disappointing (raising hopes and investment timing out of sync). Cheers, Bart |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
madmanchan
|
|
« Reply #67 on: April 27, 2010, 01:31:30 PM » |
Reply
|
Hi Bart, the video includes a hint as to which version it will be in. :-)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BartvanderWolf
|
|
« Reply #68 on: April 27, 2010, 01:33:34 PM » |
Reply
|
Hi Bart, the video includes a hint as to which version it will be in. :-) Hi Eric, I missed that hint, I'll review it again. Ah, I thought is was a mock-up, but is version 6.1 scheduled rather sooner than later? Afterall, it can take at least 10 subversions to get there. Cheers, Bart |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 27, 2010, 01:41:59 PM by BartvanderWolf »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
feppe
|
|
« Reply #69 on: April 27, 2010, 01:39:53 PM » |
Reply
|
Hi Bart, the video includes a hint as to which version it will be in. :-) Oh I'm not going to fall for that one, again. I played a Teletubbies episode in reverse once and I had to take our cat to the exorcist. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
madmanchan
|
|
« Reply #70 on: April 27, 2010, 02:20:56 PM » |
Reply
|
Hi Bart, sooner rather than later. Our general schedule has been a dot release every 13 weeks or so, and we generally don't do double-dot or triple-dot releases. I understand you don't want to see a stream of 6.0.0.0.1 and 6.0.0.0.2 numbers appearing with 13 week deltas in between each one. :-)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BartvanderWolf
|
|
« Reply #71 on: April 27, 2010, 02:38:16 PM » |
Reply
|
Hi Bart, sooner rather than later. Our general schedule has been a dot release every 13 weeks or so, and we generally don't do double-dot or triple-dot releases. I understand you don't want to see a stream of 6.0.0.0.1 and 6.0.0.0.2 numbers appearing with 13 week deltas in between each one. :-) Hi Eric, Thanks for clarifying, appreciated. Cheers, Bart |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ben Rubinstein
|
|
« Reply #72 on: April 27, 2010, 02:42:10 PM » |
Reply
|
New ACR engine and this tool as well? I want sooooooooooooo badly. I don't like LR but I'm updating PS just for the new ACR and hopefully even faster and streamlined bridge...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jjj
|
|
« Reply #73 on: April 30, 2010, 01:25:03 AM » |
Reply
|
Enough! ACR is a nice converter, but in-camera Jpegs are so good now that ACR is at best equivalent when set to defaults, and simply cannot and doesn't cut it in the cases when I really need to resort to Raw. Funny how I can can better images from my RAW files than even the nice jpegs, that come out of the camera. And that includes matching the look. And do so very quickly. For 5 or 6 years I did Raw systematically. Now I use the Jpegs, in 95% of cases, and you know what? I like the time I save. I used to shoot RAW + JPEG for that reason, but as the JPEGs aren't as good, particularly with the recent advances in ACR. I only shoot the JPEGs to remind me if I was in a B+W or colour mood, plus I can get a different look by PPing the JPEGs that is hard to match with the RAWs, not better quality, just different. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
eronald
|
|
« Reply #74 on: April 30, 2010, 06:58:17 AM » |
Reply
|
Funny how I can can better images from my RAW files than even the nice jpegs, that come out of the camera. And that includes matching the look. And do so very quickly.
I used to shoot RAW + JPEG for that reason, but as the JPEGs aren't as good, particularly with the recent advances in ACR. I only shoot the JPEGs to remind me if I was in a B+W or colour mood, plus I can get a different look by PPing the JPEGs that is hard to match with the RAWs, not better quality, just different. Actually, I even used to make digital polaroids from the Nikon D3x to a Canon Selphy printer, the prints are so good I don't need to use PS, and I can crop and adjust color in-camera by reconverting the Raw in-camera. I think I can even redo sharpness and fill light. Strangely enough although Canon makes printers the polaroids from the 5D2 seem less good. But of course what the camera does is not a Raw conversion - only Adobe knows about Raw Edmund |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Farmer
|
|
« Reply #75 on: April 30, 2010, 03:43:27 PM » |
Reply
|
But of course what the camera does is not a Raw conversion - only Adobe knows about Raw That very disingenious of you to say. No one has made such a claim or an inference. On the other hand, you seem to be trying to tell us that ACR is useless when it comes to raw conversion (you claim it's no better than in-camera JPG and that where JPG isn't good enough you find ACR not to be good enough - without specifying which version you've been using I might add). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jjj
|
|
« Reply #76 on: April 30, 2010, 07:46:50 PM » |
Reply
|
That very disingenious of you to say. No one has made such a claim or an inference. On the other hand, you seem to be trying to tell us that ACR is useless when it comes to raw conversion (you claim it's no better than in-camera JPG and that where JPG isn't good enough you find ACR not to be good enough - without specifying which version you've been using I might add). Could also be user error! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Schewe
|
|
« Reply #78 on: April 30, 2010, 11:08:37 PM » |
Reply
|
But of course what the camera does is not a Raw conversion - only Adobe knows about Raw So, you wanna keep being a putz or do you want to engage in serious discussion? So far, you are doing a GREAT job of being a putz... (congrats, if that is what your goal is...) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ray
|
|
« Reply #79 on: May 01, 2010, 09:04:05 PM » |
Reply
|
So, you wanna keep being a putz or do you want to engage in serious discussion?
So far, you are doing a GREAT job of being a putz...
(congrats, if that is what your goal is...) Hey! Jeff, I've just learned a new word. Just goes to show, no matter how many posts one has there's always something still to learn. Putz: Not only Yiddish slang for a fool or idiot, but also a vulgar term for penis. It even has an intransitive verbal format, to putz: meaning - 'to behave in an idle manner'. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
