Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Confusion Over Options For RAW Image Processing  (Read 5870 times)
JimAscher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 328



WWW
« on: February 27, 2011, 02:26:48 PM »
ReplyReply

My confusion here is principally concerned with the the options offered within Adobe products, but I am open to consideration of any relevant third-party alternatives.

As I understand it, not only can Adobe Digital Raw (ADR) captures be initially edited within ADR itself, but since Photoshop and Lightroom also incorporate the ADR engine, why doesn't any alternative or subsequent editing of a RAW (ADR) image within Photoshop or Lightroom in reality offer the same thing as within ADR, but possibly with cosmetically(?) different controls?  Or are the options contained in Photoshop and Lightroom in ADDITION to those options contained in the initial ADR controls? 

It is likely my confusion stems from a considerable misunderstanding of the concepts (and processing software and options) involved.   I would welcome any clarification anyone can provide.  Thanks.
Logged

Jim Ascher

See my new SmugMug site:
http://jimascherphotos.smugmug.com/
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6918


WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 27, 2011, 02:43:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I never heard about ADR. Lightroom and PS share the Adobe Camera Raw engine, with mostly cosmetic differences.

Best regards
Erik

My confusion here is principally concerned with the the options offered within Adobe products, but I am open to consideration of any relevant third-party alternatives.

As I understand it, not only can Adobe Digital Raw (ADR) captures be initially edited within ADR itself, but since Photoshop and Lightroom also incorporate the ADR engine, why doesn't any alternative or subsequent editing of a RAW (ADR) image within Photoshop or Lightroom in reality offer the same thing as within ADR, but possibly with cosmetically(?) different controls?  Or are the options contained in Photoshop and Lightroom in ADDITION to those options contained in the initial ADR controls? 

It is likely my confusion stems from a considerable misunderstanding of the concepts (and processing software and options) involved.   I would welcome any clarification anyone can provide.  Thanks.
Logged

JimAscher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 328



WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 27, 2011, 03:12:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I never heard about ADR. Lightroom and PS share the Adobe Camera Raw engine, with mostly cosmetic differences.

Best regards
Erik


Whoops!  My mistake.  Of course, I meant Adobe CAMERA Raw (ACR).  Please substitute that in my initial query (which remains).
Logged

Jim Ascher

See my new SmugMug site:
http://jimascherphotos.smugmug.com/
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5255


WWW
« Reply #3 on: February 27, 2011, 03:14:21 PM »
ReplyReply

My confusion here is principally concerned with the the options offered within Adobe products, but I am open to consideration of any relevant third-party alternatives.

Yes, you are confused...particularly the name of the raw processing in Photoshop. It's Adobe Camera Raw (ACR). ACR is a plug-in for Photoshop that allows you to render a raw capture into Photoshop. When you open a raw image, it opens first in Camera Raw for rendering. You have access to a special set of parameter adjustments–all the slider controls. Once you've set the parameters, you then render the raw file into Photoshop itself. After editing inside of Photoshop, you then save the image as a rendered file with whatever file format you need. But the original raw file is not actually altered, only the parameters. Adobe software considers the raw file to be a read only file. The parameter settings don't actually alter the pixels in the raw file...just the metadata stored either as a .xmp file (or stored in the raw file if the raw format is DNG).

Lightroom is an asset management application that stores image setting parameters in a database (although you can write the metadata out as sidecar .xmp files). Lightroom uses the same raw processing pipeline as ACR but is built into Lightroom and isn't a "plug-in" like ACR is for Photoshop. Lightroom allows you to maintain a database and export or render images for web pages, slideshows or printing. You can also open images from Lightroom directly into Photoshop for additional image editing.

The rendering of raw files from Camera Raw and Lightroom are exactly the same...however, the usability of the toolset is slightly different and the interface is considerably different. Which you should use depends entirely on the type of workflow you want. Camera Raw, Bridge and Photoshop combine for a raw processing workflow. It takes all three to have a complete workflow. Lightroom incorporates the processing into a single application–although LR can't do the same sort of image manipulations that Photoshop can do. For photographers, Lightroom is intended to be an 80/20 or 90/10 solution...it can't do EVERYTHING Photoshop can do but it can do a lot. It just depends on what your needs are.
Logged
howardm
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 651


« Reply #4 on: February 27, 2011, 03:20:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Phrased differently, *all* raw images must be rendered before you  can work on them in Photoshop or LR.  For Photoshop, that rendering takes place inside ACR.  For LR, the (mostly) same ACR code is buried inside LR (ie. not a plugin) but no matter how you slice it, Photoshop itself can't directly handle RAW data, it relies on ACR to render it into something that looks like an image.
Logged
JimAscher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 328



WWW
« Reply #5 on: February 27, 2011, 03:27:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Jeff:  Yet one more time i am appreciative of your willingness and considerable ability to effectively clarify difficulties for me as i encounter them.  And especially, as in this instance, so promptly.  As you perhaps recall, my focus is entirely on black-and-white, and I need to determine for myself how much effort I need to (or should) put into RAW (color) processing before commencing a conversion and editing in black-and-white.  Thanks again.  Regards, Jim  
Logged

Jim Ascher

See my new SmugMug site:
http://jimascherphotos.smugmug.com/
JimAscher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 328



WWW
« Reply #6 on: February 27, 2011, 03:29:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Phrased differently, *all* raw images must be rendered before you  can work on them in Photoshop or LR.  For Photoshop, that rendering takes place inside ACR.  For LR, the (mostly) same ACR code is buried inside LR (ie. not a plugin) but no matter how you slice it, Photoshop itself can't directly handle RAW data, it relies on ACR to render it into something that looks like an image.

Howard;  Thanks for joining in and essentially confirming what Jeff explained.  I definitely am now the wiser.  Jim
Logged

Jim Ascher

See my new SmugMug site:
http://jimascherphotos.smugmug.com/
JimAscher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 328



WWW
« Reply #7 on: February 27, 2011, 03:39:02 PM »
ReplyReply

For what it's worth, I just realized that my additional confusion between the acronyms ACR and ADR stem from the fact that, as a lawyer, I use ADR frequently, where in the legal realm it means Alternative Dispute Resolution.  Sorry, again. 
Logged

Jim Ascher

See my new SmugMug site:
http://jimascherphotos.smugmug.com/
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6767


WWW
« Reply #8 on: February 27, 2011, 04:46:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Some times I sense that hefty doses of ADR could be useful in digital imaging web forums. :-)

Back to serious, for black and white, you can do the basic conversion from colour to B&W in ACR or Lightroom and get excellent results. The applications offer a lot of flexibility to alter grayscale tonality using the luminosity controls as well as the lightening and darkening of the grayscale corresponding with the individual colour groups which make up the image. OR you can colour correct in ACR/Lighrtroom, export to PS and do a similar conversion in PS, OR use a third party plugin in PS such as Nik SilverEfex Pro 2 which does an excellent job and provides almost an infinity of permutations and combinations you can experiment with. Starting with a colour image which is properly corrected at least for brightness and contrast before working on it in B&W is usually recommended - one way or another it will need to be done anyhow.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
JimAscher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 328



WWW
« Reply #9 on: February 27, 2011, 05:00:35 PM »
ReplyReply

... Starting with a colour image which is properly corrected at least for brightness and contrast before working on it in B&W is usually recommended....

Mark:  That's what I thought, and the way I intend to proceed.  I assume by your recommendation to "properly (correct) at least for brightness and contrast" includes setting the "white balance' correctly.  I have access to most of the applications you cite, except I still employ the old Silver Efex Pro.  I don't believe I need though at this stage to invest in the latest version 2.  It's fun trying everything, but I do need eventually to "downsize' my tool-kit for a more simplified work-flow, if nothing else.  Many thanks.  Jim     
Logged

Jim Ascher

See my new SmugMug site:
http://jimascherphotos.smugmug.com/
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6767


WWW
« Reply #10 on: February 27, 2011, 05:13:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Mark:  That's what I thought, and the way I intend to proceed.  I assume by your recommendation to "properly (correct) at least for brightness and contrast" includes setting the "white balance' correctly.  I have access to most of the applications you cite, except I still employ the old Silver Efex Pro.  I don't believe I need though at this stage to invest in the latest version 2.  It's fun trying everything, but I do need eventually to "downsize' my tool-kit for a more simplified work-flow, if nothing else.  Many thanks.  Jim     

I haven't converted the same image to B&W with and without white balance correction to see whether it makes a difference, but WB is so easy to do in LR/ACR, no harm just doing it and starting the conversion with a colour-correct image, because those colour channels underly the B&W rendition. Versioin 1 of SEFEX Pro is fine - it's just that version 2 of course has added features you may find handy or interesting, including amongst numerous others a more efficient processing algorithm and the ability to do mixed B&W/Colour effects on the same image within the plugin.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
JimAscher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 328



WWW
« Reply #11 on: February 27, 2011, 06:07:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Mark:  When I first switched from film and a wet darkroom last year, I worked with Photoshop Elements and Silver Efex Pro, relying heavily on the SEP pre-sets.  The pre-sets  were great in that they simplified my process as well as revealing to me many of the potentials lurking in my various digital images.  This year, however, I've wanted to get away a bit from the "crutch" of the SEP pre-sets and start to manipulate my captures on my own, somewhat from scratch (from the ground up, so to speak).  I turned to Lightroom (which was then within my budget), and even though LR has its own pre-sets, I didn't really use them.  Now I'm considering exploring  some of the more advanced tools for black-and-white processing which a full version of Photoshop (CS5) might offer, beyond those available in LR.  Hence, my initial query regarding ACR and how much I need to process in RAW color before moving on to black-and-white.  My question has been today very well answered in this forum, thanks to you and your fellow experts.  I am now much clearer to how to proceed herein.  Thanks again, and regards, Jim       
Logged

Jim Ascher

See my new SmugMug site:
http://jimascherphotos.smugmug.com/
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6767


WWW
« Reply #12 on: February 27, 2011, 06:51:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Now I'm considering exploring  some of the more advanced tools for black-and-white processing which a full version of Photoshop (CS5) might offer, beyond those available in LR.         

Jim - there are none. Whatever is in LR and ACR for doing colour to B&W conversions and the basic effects and variations within B&W is not exceeded in Photoshop unless you use a plugin such as SEFEX. The value-added you get in PS is all the added features and functions which don't exist in any raw converter; much of it is usable on B&W images, but not specific to B&W. 
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
JimAscher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 328



WWW
« Reply #13 on: February 27, 2011, 07:20:33 PM »
ReplyReply

... The value-added you get in PS is all the added features and functions ... much of it is usable on B&W images, but not specific to B&W. 

Mark:  Right.  I'd didn't mean that I thought there were "features and functions" in PS solely for use with B&W.  Just that there were "features and functions" in PS not readily (or at all) available in Lightroom that I could usefully employ in my advance(?) B&W processing.  From my readings, these go under the headings of Channel Mixing, Hue/Saturation Technique, and also a B&W Stand Alone feature.  If some of these can be duplicated somewhat also in Lightroom, their functionality in PS seem more refined and responsive.  I, of course, may be wrong.   I often am.     
Logged

Jim Ascher

See my new SmugMug site:
http://jimascherphotos.smugmug.com/
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1573


WWW
« Reply #14 on: February 27, 2011, 07:26:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Jim - there are none. Whatever is in LR and ACR for doing colour to B&W conversions and the basic effects and variations within B&W is not exceeded in Photoshop unless you use a plugin such as SEFEX. The value-added you get in PS is all the added features and functions which don't exist in any raw converter; much of it is usable on B&W images, but not specific to B&W. 
Mark, this is not entirely true; I believe channel mixing approach to B&W is only available in PS.
Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6767


WWW
« Reply #15 on: February 27, 2011, 07:45:06 PM »
ReplyReply

There's nothing you can do for B&W conversions in the Channel Mixer that you can't do with the PS B&W Adjustment Layer, and there's nothing you can do in that Adjustment Layer that you can't to in ACR/LR. The Channel Mixer approach to B&W was a long-time favorite of many photographers, but it has been overtaken by events. I think this is pretty well known, but you can test for yourself and see.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6767


WWW
« Reply #16 on: February 27, 2011, 07:49:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Mark:  Right.  I'd didn't mean that I thought there were "features and functions" in PS solely for use with B&W.  Just that there were "features and functions" in PS not readily (or at all) available in Lightroom that I could usefully employ in my advance(?) B&W processing.  From my readings, these go under the headings of Channel Mixing, Hue/Saturation Technique, and also a B&W Stand Alone feature.  If some of these can be duplicated somewhat also in Lightroom, their functionality in PS seem more refined and responsive.  I, of course, may be wrong.   I often am.     

As I just reponded to Alan, using the Channel Mixture for achieving B&W effects has been overtaken with newer and more functional tools. There is a very large literature on Channel Mixing, but it predates the recent releases of PS, ACR and LR. The B&W stand-alone feature in PS you refer to is the B&W Adjustment Layer, which as I mentioned above, adds no value relative to the grayscale conversion possibilities in LR/ACR. I don't know what you mean by Hue/Saturation technique, because you wouldn't normally use that adjustment in B&W work as far as I know, but there are also hue/saturation tools in LR/ACR. Now of course, there are also the Advanced B&W drivers in Epson and Canon printers which create B&W images bypassing all these conversion techniques, but you have less control over their effects because they can't be directly soft-proofed.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1573


WWW
« Reply #17 on: February 27, 2011, 08:32:59 PM »
ReplyReply

There's nothing you can do for B&W conversions in the Channel Mixer that you can't do with the PS B&W Adjustment Layer, and there's nothing you can do in that Adjustment Layer that you can't to in ACR/LR. The Channel Mixer approach to B&W was a long-time favorite of many photographers, but it has been overtaken by events. I think this is pretty well known, but you can test for yourself and see.
I don't use the channel mixer as I get pretty much the same results using the LR B&W conversion tool but there are some subtleties that can be achieved through it that make it a "different" tool.  Similarly the desaturation technique used to be advocated in LR 1 because of noise caused by the B&W conversion tool but subsequent LR releases have negated the need for that approach as well (excepting some special effects).
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5255


WWW
« Reply #18 on: February 27, 2011, 09:22:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Whatever is in LR and ACR for doing colour to B&W conversions and the basic effects and variations within B&W is not exceeded in Photoshop unless you use a plugin such as SEFEX.

Not true...in Photoshop you can have the red, green and blue channels of a color image work as layers (technique ala JP Capnigro and myself see: Art of B&W pdf) and use opacity blending and layer masks to get a B&W conversion that you can't do in LR/ACR.
Logged
sniper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 571


« Reply #19 on: February 28, 2011, 01:45:27 AM »
ReplyReply

As I just reponded to Alan, using the Channel Mixture for achieving B&W effects has been overtaken with newer and more functional tools. There is a very large literature on Channel Mixing, but it predates the recent releases of PS, ACR and LR. The B&W stand-alone feature in PS you refer to is the B&W Adjustment Layer, which as I mentioned above, adds no value relative to the grayscale conversion possibilities in LR/ACR. I don't know what you mean by Hue/Saturation technique, because you wouldn't normally use that adjustment in B&W work as far as I know, but there are also hue/saturation tools in LR/ACR. Now of course, there are also the Advanced B&W drivers in Epson and Canon printers which create B&W images bypassing all these conversion techniques, but you have less control over their effects because they can't be directly soft-proofed.
A popular b+w conversion method a while back, 2 hue sat ajustment layers, the top one set to colour blend mode and the saturation set to 0, the bottom one than had the hue altered to ajust the tones. It did work but was a bit hit and miss IMHO.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad