Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: ACR Default Questions  (Read 14064 times)
Robert Boire
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 164


WWW
« on: March 23, 2011, 05:55:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I have two questions.

1. My Canon allows me to shoot with various "Picture Styles" (landscape, portrait etc) when I shoot in raw.  Although similar "styles" exist in ACR in the Camera Profile tab, it seems that the default is "Adobe Standard", regardless of what was shot. Is there are way to set up ACR so that the default is the shot picture style?

2. What actually happens, when I choose a particular style. As far as i know the styles alter things like contrast, brightness etc. However I do not see any changes to the default values in the basic or tone curve tabs, but clearly something changes. Is something being done under the covers?

Thanks

Robert
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5541


WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 23, 2011, 06:11:45 PM »
ReplyReply

the aCR "default' can be changed for a particular camera, yes...simply choose a different profile and select Save New Camera Raw Defaults from the fly out menu. Note however that the profile will be changed but not anything else related to picture styles, on that profile and it won't vary depending on camera settings. The only camera setting that ACR reads is white balance info. Everything else from the camera is ignored.
Logged
Robert Boire
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 164


WWW
« Reply #2 on: March 23, 2011, 07:28:01 PM »
ReplyReply

and it won't vary depending on camera settings.

Yuk... a reason not to use ACR..

Speaking of white balance, does ACR make its own interpretation of the white balance correction or does it actually get it from the camera. For example if the camera is on auto white balance, does it make its own interpretation of what the color temperature should be? I am surprised for example between the difference between say auto and daylight when I know for certain conditions the photo was taken in full daylight.

Thanks
Logged

stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2907


« Reply #3 on: March 24, 2011, 04:58:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Yuk... a reason not to use ACR..

Speaking of white balance, does ACR make its own interpretation of the white balance correction or does it actually get it from the camera. For example if the camera is on auto white balance, does it make its own interpretation of what the color temperature should be? I am surprised for example between the difference between say auto and daylight when I know for certain conditions the photo was taken in full daylight.

Thanks

I think you are approaching this from the wrong direction. The WB is an arbitrary choice when you choose a setting. You should choose something that is personally pleasing instead of a "correct" choice. No progam maker is better than an other and auto white balance is a kludge that is purely a starting point that you should change to suit yourself. Think artistically rather than "correct". Smiley
Logged

NikoJorj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1063


WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 24, 2011, 06:31:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Speaking of white balance, does ACR make its own interpretation of the white balance correction or does it actually get it from the camera.
You choose between "Auto" (ACR does the guesswork) and "As shot" (ACR applies the camera reading, errr I'd rather say guess in the case of AutoWB).

Quote
For example if the camera is on auto white balance, does it make its own interpretation of what the color temperature should be?
Yes, autoWB does suck, even for correctness (as it's a reflected reading and not an incident one).
In daylight, I find much more efficient to choose a fixed WB setting between daylight and cloudy, ie warm to your taste. You don't want to neutralize the tint of warm sunrise/sunset light, do you?
Logged

Nicolas from Grenoble
A small gallery
AFairley
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1215



« Reply #5 on: March 24, 2011, 01:11:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Yuk... a reason not to use ACR..

Hmm, sounds like you have not grasped the reason for shooting in RAW in the first place.
Logged

k bennett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1489


WWW
« Reply #6 on: March 24, 2011, 01:24:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Yuk... a reason not to use ACR..


If you prefer that your raw converter read everything from the camera, choose the Canon DPP converter.

Logged

Equipment: a camera and some lenses.
Chris_Brown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 818



WWW
« Reply #7 on: March 25, 2011, 08:10:37 PM »
ReplyReply

1. My Canon allows me to shoot with various "Picture Styles" (landscape, portrait etc) when I shoot in raw.  Although similar "styles" exist in ACR in the Camera Profile tab, it seems that the default is "Adobe Standard", regardless of what was shot. Is there are way to set up ACR so that the default is the shot picture style?

Yes. Page 94 in my manual. <i>Picture Style</i> in Canon's workflow is not the same as <i>camera profile</i> in ACR.

Quote
2. What actually happens, when I choose a particular style. As far as i know the styles alter things like contrast, brightness etc. However I do not see any changes to the default values in the basic or tone curve tabs, but clearly something changes. Is something being done under the covers?

Page 93 in my manual.
Logged

~ CB
Peter_DL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 421


« Reply #8 on: March 26, 2011, 06:45:49 AM »
ReplyReply

In daylight, I find much more efficient to choose a fixed WB setting between daylight and cloudy...

With Canon cameras, my conlusion was that "cloudy" provides a biased auto-WB, warmer but not fixed.

You don't want to neutralize the tint of warm sunrise/sunset light, do you?

Totally agree.

Peter

--
« Last Edit: March 26, 2011, 06:50:03 AM by Peter_DL » Logged
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2907


« Reply #9 on: March 26, 2011, 07:13:43 AM »
ReplyReply

A lot of users think the settings in the program are the "correct" ones and don't realise that they are just suggestions. To make it worse you get some who think that Nikon Capture X is "better" and complain about the settings in ACR not being faithful to there settings from their Nikon camera which were only a subjective rendering to begin with. Having said that the latest Beta ACR  camera profiles are - imo - worth trying.  Smiley
Logged

Robert Boire
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 164


WWW
« Reply #10 on: March 26, 2011, 09:29:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Page 93 in my manual.

What manual?

Logged

Robert Boire
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 164


WWW
« Reply #11 on: March 26, 2011, 09:37:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Hmm, sounds like you have not grasped the reason for shooting in RAW in the first place.
A lot of users think the settings in the program are the "correct" ones and don't realise that they are just suggestions.
If you prefer that your raw converter read everything from the camera, choose the Canon DPP converter.

Actually - believe it or not - I get it.
In general I find ACR easier and more powerful to use than DPP. However it would be cool if I could set up my presets in ACR so that  as a starting point its reasonably close to my camera's/DPP interpretation. It would just save some time I think.

Thanks
Logged

Chris_Brown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 818



WWW
« Reply #12 on: March 26, 2011, 10:27:18 AM »
ReplyReply

What manual?

Photoshop.

RTFM.
Logged

~ CB
Tim Lookingbill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1264



WWW
« Reply #13 on: March 26, 2011, 02:44:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
However it would be cool if I could set up my presets in ACR so that  as a starting point its reasonably close to my camera's/DPP interpretation. It would just save some time I think.

Acquiring a consistent look to match a specific appearance of color rendered by another software is expecting too much from the hardware and software. A DSLR is not a scientific instrument that can be calibrated to reproduce within tight tolerances.

If you shoot under varying lighting situations like landscapes the best that can be expected is a very pleasant looking image which IMO ACR does a better job at this than the camera's jpeg, but I'm basing that on my own DSLR.

What I see coming from my own jpeg rendering of certain colors is very similar but not exact or consistent to assigning in Photoshop CIERGB profile to an NTSC or sRGB written image. Blue skies which in real life have a noticeable amount of magenta will render in my jpeg more cyan, warm beige will render with more green, skin shadows and midtone discolorations will look an odd magenta. These "inaccurate" hue twists which I don't care for can only be accomplished contorting the image's color tables which I believe based on observation Photoshop's and ACR's color engine tuned tools aren't designed to do not even using their HSL and Hue/Sat tools.

It's possible to match my jpeg but it takes too much time and is impossible to render this appearance on a consistent basis.

Also reasonable match to the jpeg or DPP's rendering of the Raw preview as you put it is very subjective.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2011, 02:47:09 PM by tlooknbill » Logged
Tim Lookingbill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1264



WWW
« Reply #14 on: March 26, 2011, 03:13:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Something else I want to add is in the film days when the processing was done by the lab, photographers didn't have anything to compare against. If it looked good on the light table or print, it was acceptable outside of some minor retouching and compositing from a professional standpoint.

With digital our eyes have quick access to seeing many various renderings of an image. We are constantly comparing. I accepted the look of my jpegs as looking VERY good even though I didn't notice the odd hue twists.

When I started shooting Raw I now had something to compare to the jpeg and the many ways I could make the image look different that would've never entered my mind because the jpeg was good enough.

I now make these same optically based comparative judgments on the ACR preview and don't bother comparing to the jpeg. But now on first view of the default ACR rendering I think it looks great! But then I start fiddling with the image adding clarity, contrast, brightness, apply a profile, adjust color temp, maybe some Split Tone effect and all of a sudden I have completely different and better looking image that wasn't in the initial default ACR preview.

See what I mean? It's always going to be like this in the digital world. You want to save time and hassle, you'll just have to find a way to overcome comparing and accept what you get or change it. 
Logged
Robert Boire
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 164


WWW
« Reply #15 on: March 29, 2011, 06:40:36 PM »
ReplyReply

What manual?


Photoshop.

RTFM.

Thanks. Very useful. You wouldn't want to give me a more detail reference of  your manual...something like the title and where to find it?
Logged

Robert Boire
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 164


WWW
« Reply #16 on: March 29, 2011, 07:02:03 PM »
ReplyReply


See what I mean? It's always going to be like this in the digital world. You want to save time and hassle, you'll just have to find a way to overcome comparing and accept what you get or change it. 

Yes I see what you mean.

I am particularly interested in landscapes. One of the things I struggle with is reproducing as closely as possible the actual scene...within the confines of unreliable memory. I suppose in the pre-digital world if a result was pleasing many (myself included) would consider it to be a reasonable reproduction...there be nothing else to compare with. In the digital world the camera jpeg inevitable becomes a frame of reference... because its there. And I have to remind myself that its really just an interpretation by software and no more valid than anything else. 

Thanks for your insights.
Logged

madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2110


« Reply #17 on: April 18, 2011, 05:03:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Correct, it's just 1 interpretation, and the premise behind raw is that you want to provide your own interpretation (instead of accepting somebody else's). This is even true for starting points. That is, you can establish your own starting points (default ACR adjustments) based on your visual preferences.

You can try to get back to the original scene values if you wish, but in general most people don't like the results. My personal view is that going for scene color reproduction is not a realistic goal in most cases, and even when it is, it generally doesn't deliver what the photographer really wants ...
Logged

bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2880



« Reply #18 on: July 28, 2011, 09:56:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Yuk... a reason not to use ACR..

I shoot Nikon rather than Canon, but the situation is similar for both brands. When I first started using ACR many years ago, I thought that the failure of ACR to read the camera settings was a serious liability. At that time I thought that I could set the camera style appropriate for the scene and save time in post processing. However, I soon found that it is very difficult to determine in advance the optimal settings for each type of scene, and some adjustments in post are usually necessary. I now set my camera to the neutral rendering for the JPEG preview and usually use the Adobe Standard profile in ACR. Any needed adjustments for similar scenes in the shoot can easily be copied en masse.

Some very experienced photographers (?Mark Segal--going from my memory) even set ACR to a scene referred setting (zeroing out the sliders and using a linear tone curve) to see what they got in the capture and then make the needed adjustments. Of course, the scene referred rendering appears flat and lifeless, but it does show what you have to work with.

Regards,

Bill
Logged
madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2110


« Reply #19 on: July 31, 2011, 07:50:27 PM »
ReplyReply

A practical reason why we don't adhere to the In-camera settings is that they can change (from model to model) and occasionally be expanded within a model (firmware update). Multiply this by the number of vendors, and we'd end up spending most of our time trying to model what other vendors have done, rather than working on imaging tools that will help users improve the final quality of their images! Instead, we figured it'd be more useful to let users define their own defaults and presets, and spend the time developing and improving the tool set.
Logged

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

Ad
Ad
Ad