ACR and camera profiles

[Hop...@adobeforums.com]

I feel like such a dunce! I have heard this mentioned before, but I don't understand. How do I select my specific camera in ACR? I'm sure you all know by now, but I am using the Nikon D70.

thanks!

Hopper

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

Which version of ACR do you have?

CS4/ACR 5.2 is a HUGE advance over earlier versions and comes with a series of Camera Profiles for individual models (four different ones for the D3, for example, to emulate the different rendering settings available in the camera itself) — in addition to the old ACR 4.3; ACR 4.4 and the new Adobe Standard camera profiles.

The whole tool set has been updated and new ones have been added too.

[Hop...@adobeforums.com]

I have CS3. Not sure which version of ACR I have ... let me see if I can figure it out ... sec ... ahh, I see on the title of the ACR dialog box that I am using version 4.6 and it also says Nikon D70. I presume that means it understands, by itself, that my files were from my D70?

I'll go and see if there is an update for my version of ACR for CS3.

[Hop...@adobeforums.com]

Okay, I just checked on the Adobe website and I see that 4.6 is the most recent version of ACR for CS3.

I guess my system is all set, now I need to figure out how to properly use the program advancements! ;)

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

ACR 4.6 is the latest for CS3 — you have to have CS4 to get the ACR 5.2 with the new tools and camera profiles.

As for learning how to use it, Jeff Schewe's new update to "Real World Camera Raw" is unbeatable.

[Nick_...@adobeforums.com]

Hopper, I could be wrong but I think there were some beta profiles posted for CS3. If you can find those (check John Nack's blog), you may be able to use them for your D70.

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

Nick:

You may be right. The other option would be to install Adobe DNG Converter because I think that that also installs the new Camera profiles.

[Silkr...@adobeforums.com]

Thats how I got the profile in my CS3 version. I found the betas listed in the Lab and downloaded them. I heard they are no longer Beta but I do not know if they updated the profiles or that only applies to CS4.

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

I don't think that the profiles changed much after Beta 2 anyway but they also come with Adobe DNG and that's a free download.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

The profiles are no longer beta. They come with the DNG Converter 5.2 and an installer, even for CS3. The version number of the DNG Converter is totally independent from the version number of Photoshop.

The profiles are camera model specific, so you will only see those for the camera that generated the raw file you open at any given time.

Hopper, if you do not plan to upgrade to CS4, consider getting a second-hand version of Jeff's book Real World Camera Raw CS3 <http://www.amazon.com/Real-World-Camera-Adobe-Photoshop/dp/0321518675/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231642828&sr=8-2>. Now that the new edition for CS4 is out, many of us are getting rid of the old edition for CS3. If you plan to upgrade, then get the new version.

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

The Nikon D80 on CS3 had an upgrade to all the extra profiles, but the D90 is just 4.6. :-(

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

Yes, there are profiles for just a few cameras.

However, you can now generate and edit your own profiles for any camera model with the DNGPE (DNG Profile Editor).

[John Joslin]

You may not need to mess around with anything if ACR is recognising your camera's raw files (which it is) and you can get good results with what what you have.

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

Right, and it does. But I liked the different versions available for the D80. The majority are moot, but at times, one or another pops up with a different POV as to a possible output.

The D90 profile is better than the ACR profile for the D80, so, I'll leave it alone.

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

I would recommend that if anyone is planning to buy "Real World Camera Raw", that they get the CS4 version (whether or not they think that they will be upgrading to CS4 immediately) because that book will give you some idea of the greatly improved capabilities of ACR 5.2 over previous versions.

To my mind, ACR 5.2 and the new version of Bridge are reason enough in themselves to buy the CS4 upgrade.

[Nick_...@adobeforums.com]

If you're using a Windows OS, I'd strongly recommend downloading the trial before buying. A number of Win users (myself included) are experiencing serious problems with CS4. Adobe engineers have posted that they are working on a fix for some of the problems, but they insist that other problems are caused by drivers and third-party software. So, it remains to be seen if/when the problems will get fixed.

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

Nick:

Are your problems with OpenGL which does appear to be much more of a problem with bad video-card driver on the Windows side than on the Mac side?

And what happens if you disable all non-System and non-Adobe add-ons?

I try to keep away from "free" downloaded Haxies and have had absolutely no problems at all with CS4 on a non-Intel G5 Mac running OSX 10.4.11.

[Nick_...@adobeforums.com]

Ann,

My problems appear to be OpenGL-related, as do many of the same problems other users are seeing. I'm willing to accept that something about the machine that I'm seeing the problems on (my main XP work machine) are related to something about my system. I've tried everything that's been suggested in the forum, including updating my video drivers and various other things. Part of the problem, IMO, is that video card makers are geared strongly toward gaming, and don't really care about PS users. Adobe tells me to contact ATI, which I did. ATI tells me it's Adobe's problem. Go figger.

My main problem is this: When I open a file in PS and then drag the window to a different location, the content of the window disappears, letting the background show through. Adobe says that they haven't been able to reproduce the problem, but it's been reported by some other users. Makes it kinda hard to get any work done!

On my other machine, which is used mainly for surfing, I recently did a clean install of Vista 64-bit, and CS4 works fine on it. Hence, I'm pretty sure my work machine is fouled up some how, I just don't know where to look for the problem.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

I'm pretty sure my work machine is fouled up some how,

AMD machine, maybe?

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

Ann,

I agree with your comments re ACR 5.2. I guess I should have included a winking smiley ;) in my post…

[Nick_...@adobeforums.com]

Yes, in fact, it is. However, if you've been keeping up with the various threads in PS Win, you will see that the same problems are experienced by both AMD and Intel boxes. Adobe has never said that AMD was not supported.

I should add that, on that machine, if I turn off OpenGL CS4 works well, for the most part.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

if you've been keeping up with the various threads in PS Win

Not at all. I rarely venture there.

Adobe has never said that AMD was not supported.

But, as a practical matter, however, the creator of both ACR and Photoshop has publicly admitted on the ACR forum that certain inadvertent oversights regarding AMD machines have slipped through Quality Assurance in the past and adversely affected ACR. I was just extrapolating in the way of speculation. :)

[Nick_...@adobeforums.com]

OK, thanks for that information. I didn't know that was the case.

I would add, though, that ACR has worked perfectly for me in all of its previous versions, and works fine in CS4 on that machine. It's the main CS4 program that is causing me (and many others) problems.

With that, I would say that this discussion should probably be taking place in a different forum. :)

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

The affected releases of ACR were several versions back, either 3.x or 4.x. If you do a search in the ACR forum on AMD, older posts may still be around.

[Hop...@adobeforums.com]

Now you guys have me curious: what, really, is the advantage to DNG formatting?

I understand that it's a universal format, that *should* carry into the future, BUT, if I convert my files from NEF to PSD, that's saving twice, if I add DNG in there, that's 3 versions of the same file. Is it really needed?

Pros, cons, thoughts?

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

Hopper.

Speaking just for myself, I have played around with different versions of the DNG Converter, but I have decided not to adopt a DNG workflow—pretty much for the reasons you cite.

Proponents of the DNG format point out that you can use the DNG Converter to get your raw files from the camera and to automatically save a set of DNGs as well. They claim that there is a greater likelihood that DNGs will be supported longer than the proprietary raw format for your camera model.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

Just to clarify, you DO NOT need to convert your files to DNGs just to use the new Adobe profiles that get installed with the DNG Converter. You only need a shot taken with your camera of a Gretag Macbeth (now X-Rite) Color Checker converted to DNG in order to use the DNG Profile Editor. But the resulting custom profiles you may make with it will be available to all raw files from that camera you open in ACR.

[pfi...@adobeforums.com]

The supposed advantage of dng is that it is a universal format not tied to any proprietary manufacturer's format like Canon's cr2 or Nikon's nef raw format.

It's conceivable that sometime in the future that support for older versions of these proprietary formats might be discontinued, making it difficult to re-process older raw files.

Making psd files from your raws is not the same. The psd files are processed from the raws and are not raw anymore, even though your raws are still there. The advantage of keeping the raws around is that you might want to be able to re-process your raw files again as better raw conversion software becomes available. In the last year alone we've seen big improvements in raw processing technology. We can only guess what might be in store down the road.

As far as CS4 is concerned, I wouldn't worry about it unless there is a specific new feature you just can't live without.

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

As far as CS4 is concerned, I wouldn't worry about it unless there is
a specific new feature you just can't live without.

For me CS4 in general, and especially Bridge CS4 and ACR 5.2, are STUFFED with features which I cannot live without!

Chalk from Cheese (fine St. André at that!) … I haven't fired-up CS3 for work-purposes in the last six months.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

As far as I'm concerned, my raw files are in no way tied to the camera manufacturer, they're just tied to Adobe Camera Raw. As long as Adobe software is around, I don't need DNGs. And if Adobe is not around, then DNG won't help me either.

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

I guess your developer is getting old and worn, Ann!

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

Actually, I bought a whole lot more C41 recently just in case they stop shipping it!

Re the .DNGs:

DNGs may seem like a good idea — and they do seem to compress losslessly to use half the disk space — but they are February-molasses to both save and re-open so I guess I will dismiss the DNG idea. For now, anyway.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

Yes, opening and saving DNGs convinced me to stay away from them.

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

DNGs Re-visited:

I have spent a little more time looking at the DNG issue and I feel that i judged them too harshly originally.

The secret seems to be to make the DNGs (using the new Adobe DNG Converter 5.6) from a folder of closed ACR-edited NEFs.

This is MUCH faster than trying to save DNGs out of ACR and can be run in the background while you are doing something else.

12 MB NEFs take about 8 seconds each to process; and the sidecars are automatically collected from your ACR cache and embedded in the DNGs ready for burning to DVDs.

The saved DNGs seem to open quickly in ACR with all of your saved ACR adjustments in place and DNGs occupy only 3/5 of the disk space that my .nef files do.

I definitely plan to archive to DNGs from now on.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

using the new Adobe DNG Converter 5.6

You mean 5.2?

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

Yes indeed: 5.2!

:)

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

...closed ACR-edited NEFs?

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

Yes, closed ACR-edited NEFs in a folder.
DNG Converter 5.2 will convert each NEF and embed the correct ACR side-car data in it automatically — even when the side-car is stored elsewhere on your HD.

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

So you are saying to edit in ACR first, then convert?

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

Yes.

I download my RAWs directly from the card; edit in ACR and then use DNG Converter to convert copies of the whole folder which I can then burn to a DVD for archiving.

That way, all of the edits in the side-cars get embedded with the original raw file (which is itself unaltered from the way it was shot) and included in the DVD.

(My Sidecars are stored in a separate ACR Cache folder on my HD separately from the RAW files themselves.)

You can then either keep the DNGs on your HD for current access instead of the ACR-edited NEFs (the DNGs take-up less HD space but open a little more slowly in ACR than the originals); or trash the DNG folder and keep your original ACR-edited RAW files.

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

I'll try it.

I didn't know DNG would keep the edit info. Is that new?

I would likely go the opposie: Burn the DNGs and keep the ACRs in HD. That way, I can discard stuff in ACR I really don't need but was afraid to delete! :D

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

I am actually doing that too: burning DNG to DVDs and keeping selected ACRs on my HD.

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

You mentioned 5.2 so it made me wonder a bit.

I didn't D/L that version as I seldom use DNG so I am going to check it out.

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

5.2 was a major update — far more than its dot update might imply.

Check out the new local adjustment tools and, particularly, the TAT!

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

Local adjustment tools?

I see only the usual front panel and a preference panel.

[PSh...@adobeforums.com]

You need to open the file in ACR to access the tools.

ACR 5.2 / Bridge in 2009 = Lightroom 2.0 in 2008. :p

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

I suspected it is connected to CS4...which I still don't use.

It's a platform issue. At the end of the year, I decided against updating the computer and updated the cameras/lenses instead.

Thanks phil.

[Q_P...@adobeforums.com]

Lawrence,
What camera? D90?
Q

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

ACR 5.2 is part of CS4.

You might choose the Lightroom route (which also includes ACR 5.2) if you don't want to invest in CS4 at this time because ACR 5.2 is streaks ahead of previous versions.

For me, Bridge CS4 and ACR 5.2 alone are reasons enough to need the CS4 upgrade and I just cannot get fond of Lightroom.

You don't HAVE to install a Open GL supporting video card to use everything in CS4 except for the special OpenGL features which are not needed for running the rest of the program.

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

yes, I know that ACR 5.2 is part of CS4, but DNG 5.2 is not. I thought we were referencing the DNG.

The camera is the D90, and folks, please spare me any bluster like "What? you didn't buy a D....?:D

I'm also evauating new lenses, and my basic guide is SLRGear testing. It tracks extremely well with my own findings. And yes, using is not the same as testing.

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

I know that ACR 5.2 is part of CS4, but DNG 5.2 is not. I thought we were
referencing the DNG.

The DNG Converter 5.2 is a free stand-alone but I think of it as being in tandem with ACR 5.2 — and I reckon that you are soon going to find that you want/need the latter too.

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

First things first, however. And that is a really fast, stable platform that will run Vista 64 and install CS4 like it was an ordinary app. :-)

Sounds a bit idealistic, but I have been testing software on my choice for over 6 months now. I'm into $600 for mobo and cpu and I haven't even the OS.

The stable part is key. With all the grief CS4 has for many, I refuse to run a system that hasn't solid proof of stability. That proof I have seen and tested for myself.

[Q_P...@adobeforums.com]

Lawrence,
The D90 sounds great to me. Great photographs at a very reasonable price. What's not to like?
Q

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

Agreed. After careful testing, I find the D90 to run a I would expect from the DXO site data. I still have to check out the dynamic range capabilities. However, I noticed immediately that my defaults for the Shadow/Highlight tool are too aggressive for this body, and in many cases where it is called for with the D80, none is necessary with the D90. What I do want to accomplish is a check on the dynamic range change with ISO changes.

I also added two lenses, one prime, (Nikon 50mm f1.8) another a shorter zoom range (Tamron 28 t075mm f2.8), which I chose because of the results indicated in SLRGear. My objective here is excellent sharpness, CA, vignetting and distortion figures over the focal length range. The downside of the Tamron seems to be that the combination here tends to go on a hunting expedition when auto focusing. I set up a test, and at f8, I could not see any sharpness differences, but at f2.8 I could. I tried different lenses at the store, they all do it.

For critical work, I can see to focus with the F90, but it is a drag. OTOH, setting the focal point with respect to desired DOF has always been the job of the photographer, and depending on autofocus to do that has been a negative for me, no matter the camera's capability. Why I can't have a screen like a split image is beyond me. The manual focus indicator does help, though.

From a qualitative pov, I am finding less need to go the stitched route to excellence in images, but at the same time, the stitched images are smoother due to the low values in distortion and a more consistent exposure from frame to frame when shooting.

I still expect to do the stitched version for the big landscapes, but everything else seems just fine as a single shot.

I probably will add a macro sometime down the line, perhaps the Nikon 85mm prime.I am less sure here because i don't do macros, so I don't know where to land so far as the basic F/L is concerned. The longer versions seem the better route as one can be physically further from the object, but DOF is to be considered as well. So, any suggestions here?

The cinematography capabilities are the most novel part of the D90, and boy, am I bad at that! :D

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

Strange, but if you put parentheses around f2.8 or f1.8, you get this:

(f2.8), (f1.8)

[Nick_...@adobeforums.com]

It's the closing parenthesis following the 8 that gives you the smiley.

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

8)

9)

7)

Hmmm, why 8) and not the others?

[Nick_...@adobeforums.com]

Well, if you look at the 8 and parenthesis sideways, it resembles a smile. I guess the forum software is programmed to turn it into a smiley.

[John Joslin]

<http://imageshack.us>

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

This is a test. This is only a Test. If there were an actual.....

8-)
:)

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

I seriously suggest that you stay with Nikon's own lenses — even if you can't buy everything that you want immediately.

Tamrons have ALWAYS been a mixed bag — with very variable performance from individual lenses.

Try the Nikor 70mm-300mm zoom. It's a "Prosumer" full-format lens so is not one of the fastest, but the quality that it produces is astounding — and it is remarkably inexpensive.

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

Ann, that is a consideration after I cover the range this one does. It's important because the vast majority of my stitching focal lengths fall there.

Certainly tamron is a mixed bag. I am aware of the problem with theflex circuit cable they have had in the past. But the optical performance is of the best in it's range, so for $400, I can tolerate an occasional replacement! The shot I did in the fog a couple of days ago rivals a contact print from an 8x10 neg!

I have been running back and forth this morning on the AF/MF problem, and I cannot replicate it, so it may have been an operator problem.

I do agree that, if the problem results in reducing my output because of such fussiness, the lens goes. I can cover that range with the 18 to 135, albiet with barrel distortion, CA and vignetting to have to compensate.

[Silkr...@adobeforums.com]

Thanks John for smiley chart.
Lawrence aren't you concerned about 3rd party lenses on a new body? I would be worried that they may damage the electronics of the body.

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

No way. Why should a new body be any different than an old? Errors in connections are as possible with lenses of the same brand as third party, and would instantly be apparent the first time you use it.

In fact, the only problem I ever had with connectivity between the body and lens was a Nikon lens. It had some sort of crud on a contact. A bit of cleaning and all is well.

[Silkr...@adobeforums.com]

Why should a new body be any different than an old?

Because it was just paid for.

I guess my main concern was a 3rd party not abiding to the correct pin layout and causing damage to the body.
I had it in my mind there is a reason why the lenses are cheaper. I guess I am a bit paranoid.

[Nick_...@adobeforums.com]

The fact that any number of Nikon lenses will work on a given Nikon body must mean that the mount and pin arrangement is pretty standardized.

[Allen...@adobeforums.com]

Regardless of brand IMO a new body will likely have tighter tolerances than one with 100k pix on it; same for lenses. However those small differences in tolerances at the lens connection point do not appear to be significant to operation.

What may be an issue with 3rd party lenses is full conformance with camera vendors' future electronic capabilities. Not that damage would be likely, rather that certain future features might not be available.

E.g. almost all Nikon lenses will attach to the latest D3x, but at various vintages certain features are unavailable. With tech evolving so quickly and the camera manufacturers very proprietary and very secretive about future plans third party lenses are probably less future proof.

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

I am aware of that also, and the Tamron runs just fine witrh either body to date.

At $400 vs $1400, I can run a replacement when needed.

What seems to be evolving is that, with two different bodies, 4 lenses, 2 nikon, 2 third party, I have some interesting image profiles with which to work.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

Lawrence,

…with two different bodies, 4 lenses, 2 nikon, 2 third party, I have some
interesting image profiles with which to work…

My apologies in advance if I'm misconstruing that part of your post, but in ACR, you are presented only with the particular profiles that are specific to the camera that generated the image you are opening at any given moment. In other words, the profiles built for camera model A will not be available for camera model B.

Again, sorry if I misunderstand.

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

I don't mean that kind of profile, Ramon. You are correct about that. Profile in this instance does not involve ACR or PS.

The profile to which I am referring is probably better termed a transfer function, that is, the kind of function which is what you get with film. As you know, each film has it's particular look. But in digital, these values are much more closely matched; nevertheless, when taking the entire system in perspective, you will find more subtle (no Velvia unless you drag the Vibrance slider way over!) variations, and these are fixed. So, I can decide that a particular combination of camera and lens will deliver the look I want. One is crisp and rather wide in tonal range, the other delivers a more dense look, richer, in my view anyway.

These differences are not great, but they start the process rolling in a particular direction.

I got the idea from the way the multiple camera profiles I can get from the D80 in ACR: Vivid, Standard camera etc.

So< I took a second look at what each body can deliver, and I believe that the D80 will still have a role to play.

I called it a profile, but really, it isn't a profile existing as software modifying data, but rather, a look which I memorize and use when shooting by simple selection of hardware.

Hope this all makes sense! :-)

Some differences are far enough apart that one is considered inferior in some way. I would rather try to make use of those differences.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

Thank you. I did misunderstand—not that I understand now. :D

[Laurenti...@adobeforums.com]

I love it when Larry isn't trying to blend-in with the obnoxious kids (or geezers : )

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

Hmmm, geezer. Google that and you get lots of entries.

I'm not sure if either of the Larrys here qualify due to age, but otherwise?:-)

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

Cutting to the chase, think of it as similar to changing film types, except here you also see that type of difference changing lens brands as well, and, I'll bet, from one class of lenses to another in the same brand.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

Where and how do you use them, Lawrence? That's what's unclear to me.

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

It's similar to having extra backs on the Hasselblad, but with more complexity. Changing backs is far simpler than changing cameras! It may turn out to be more trouble than it's worth, and if my SO and I are out together, she will be using one or the other anyway.

It's somewhat a justification for keeping the D80, but with some clarity as to what and why.

I haven't checked b&w differences yet, and that would be another consideration.

Sometimes, things get more complex before they get simpler again.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

Again: Where and how do you use them, Lawrence? That's what's unclear to me.

What application? Where in the application? How?

I'm just not following you.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

haven't checked b&w differences yet

Black and white in raw images? There's no such thing. The in-camera setting for b&w is just a flag that tells the raw converter to demosaic the raw file and immediately desaturate the colors upon conversion.

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

No, no no, Ramon. I'm using the B&W converter in Photoshop. There is actually a converter in ACR and you can manipulate the b&w with the color sliders available when you select "Convert to Grayscale"/"Grayscale Mix". but I prefer to use the conversion in Photoshop.

I am not referring at all to ACR or RAW when I speak of profiles, Ramon, just as profiles for the printer is not in ACR. I speak of profile in a generic term, not an ACR only term.

Look at it this way. If you shoot the same scene with both cameras in quick succession and open in PS after first running ACR in the default mode for each camera, the images look different. If I were OCD, I would shoot everything in all the combos possible (not gonna happen!) but I can have some variation available.

It's that difference that intrigues me, Ramon, at least in the immediate future. Maybe I won't go there in the long run, but I try everything.

When I taught photography, the students were worried about mistakes in the darkroom. I told them the only true mistake was to do the fixer first. All other variations were simple data points, and that an under or over developed neg with respect to the Time/Temp specified was not necessarily a mistake. Some one might actually prefer the out of spec version. You look and make choices.

If you could see my files on film choice/development, your eyes would roll way back! :D

This simply carries on my pov concerning technique. Mistakes are rare, data points rule!

Anyway, the profile here is in my head, so to speak. I memorize the look with respect to the equipment and choose, not unlike Chopin having two pianos.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

I give up.

[Nick_...@adobeforums.com]

Lawrence, I understand what you're saying.

Ramon seems to look at everything in terms of what it means software-wise. Well, that and how he might be able to insult someone.

I look forward to his next insult to me!

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

You're beneath insults, Decker.

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

It's not unusual, Nick. I deal with software people all day and I don't go on too much when it comes to hardware/software trade offs.

I am rather surprised, Ramon, that after the Chopin comment you don't see where I am going. However, I am not going to belabor it.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

Lawrence,

that after the Chopin comment

What Chopin comment was that? I'm not a fan of Chopin or Liszt, but I don't despise either of them.

I'm not as concerned with where you're going as I am with where you're coming from, Lawrence.

There was a comment you made in this thread that I took to be related to the discussion of ACR and the DNG Profile Editor, and that threw me off.

Let's see if I can find it…

…OK, here we go, starting with #10:

Lawrence Hudetz - 9:52pm Jan 10, 09 PST (#10 of 82)

The Nikon D80 on CS3 had an upgrade to all the extra profiles, but the
D90 is just 4.6.

Then #13:

Lawrence Hudetz - 9:04am Jan 11, 09 PST (#13 of 82)

Right, and it does. But I liked the different versions available for the
D80. The majority are moot, but at times, one or another pops up with
a different POV as to a possible output.

The D90 profile is better than the ACR profile for the D80, so, I'll leave
it alone.

That's why I was thrown off by your post #67:

…What seems to be evolving is that, with two different bodies, 4 lenses,

2 nikon, 2 third party, I have some interesting image profiles with which

to work.

Part of my confusion stems from the fact that I have more than one poster blocked (plonked) so I don't read or even see all messages in the thread now.

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

Ah, I see. Yes, it did start out as a comment on the abbreviated profile content of ACR 4.6 for the D90, and then I went on to outline some of my thinking about upgrades as extensions ve upgrades as substitutions.

The Chopin comment is in Post 82. He owned two pianos with different sound.

Seems you are too dialed in with the word "profile" pertaining to its use in digital. It is a word that has been used long before digital came along. After being around technology for 55+ years, I tend to be a bit more comprehensive in the use of terms like this. But that's me. :-)

[Geof_...@adobeforums.com]

Hi I have just downloaded Camera Raw 5.2 for Photoshop CS4. Can anyone tell me where to put the new camera raw plug-in...Thanks Geof

[Fred_...@adobeforums.com]

They couldn't have buried it deeper if they tried:

C:\Program Files\Common Files\Adobe\Plug-Ins\CS4\File Formats

[Geof_...@adobeforums.com]

Thanks Fred....I am on a Mac though I don't suppose you know the directory tree
into it? I am searching but can't find it still! Thanks Geof

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

Adobe Bridge Macintosh forum [CLICK HERE] <http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?14@@.3bba3d51>

Adobe Camera Raw Forum [CLICK HERE] <http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?13@@.3bb6a869>

[Geof_...@adobeforums.com]

Thanks Fred I have now found it...it's the same tree but applications/adobe photoshop CS4/plugins/file formats if anyone else is stuck.It now works but I wouldn't have found it without your guidance....Geof

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

applications/adobe photoshop CS4/plugins/file formats

No. That is the wrong location.

Mac: /Library/Application Support/Adobe/Plug-ins/CS3/File Formats/…

Make sure that is your ROOT LEVEL Library, NOT your user Library.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

Ozpeter,

Maybe you want to edit #89 to delete the wrong path given there. It will cause endless grief to any Mac user who might follow it.

Thanks in advance.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

You'll know you are in the correct location ONLY when you find the old camera Raw plug-in there, which MUST be replaced by the new one. You can have only one instance of Camera Raw per each version of Photoshop.

[Ho]

Larry, I can understand using two cameras or multiple settings to achieve different looks if you're shooting jpegs, but I'm not sure of the value when shooting RAW (given the latitude that exists for tweaking during the RAW conversion).

I may be missing the obvious since I tend not to use ACR all that much, preferring NX2 for preprocessing shots that I care about.

[PSh...@adobeforums.com]

I may be missing the obvious ...

Ditto. With DSLRs and RAW, I don't see any benefit at all. (shooting JPEG isn't even a consideration for me)

With film, it's standard practice to choose a stock based on a specific "look". However with digital, I can create as many different looks as I want. Apps like Lightroom make this brain-dead simply by creating Virtual Copies of a file - you don't actually duplicate it, you just create a separate set of processing instructions. The benefit to this is that it takes up very little hard drive space - you could have a hundred different looks that takes up less room than a single duplicated RAW file.

Just pick the camera with the best quality (or desired feature), and go with it.

-phil

[Geof_...@adobeforums.com]

Ramon

Thanks for your help and forum links...but on my Mac and CS4 extended there was no Camera Raw plug in in the file formats folder.I spent ages looking for it. I put the ACR 5.2 in there though and it opens the files (Canon G10) that it previously didn't recognise. Just to avoid any confusion for people looking for the existing Camera Raw plug-in. Thanks Geoff

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

It's not my experience with the two cameras.

You can carry this to extremes and use Canon and Nikon and...No matter how you tweak them, they can't be nulled out. Otherwise, why the preference in the first place?

I have less of a sense of the perfect and more the sense of possibilities.

Were I back in commercial full time, I would standardize on a system, and that in itself tells the same story.

Have you ever had the experience of seeing the world differently because the lens you are using is now f2 and not f4? Or f5.6 in the case of some teles? Something you respond to with a fast lens now looks uninteresting with the slow and visa versa. Chiaroscuro becomes a dominant element with the slow lens. I frequently had to stop down my 80mm on the Hasselblad to 5.6 when switching from the 250 to see "better"!

So, I am trying an experiment, so long as I have the D80 as well as the D90. It means multiple switches of cameras and lenses for a certain time period anyway.

Simply put, my images look different with the D90, and how that difference influences my choices in the field is important. It is subjective.

Of course, shooting architecture, or studio work presents one with a different need. That's instrumentation. It is objective. Get it right and standardize.

Anyway, my POV. Just because I have a $100,000 piano to play does not guarantee music.:-)

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

Geof,

on my Mac and CS4 extended there was no Camera Raw plug in in the file
formats folder

That is because you were looking in the WRONG PATH! I already told you you need to look at the path starting with the ROOT LEVEL Library.

STOP giving bad advice! Don't send people looking at the wrong location just because you couldn't find the right one yourself! That's just plain unconscionable and nasty!

The screen shot below shows the correct location for CS4. Look carefully where it begins: right after the name of your hard disk,

<http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1Nsyhj0jPk6y1lu2uBxpnqcIX7ysa> Click on thumbnail for full image, then scroll horizontally. VERY wide image.

Do not, repeat DO NOT keep your copy of ACR in the Photoshop CS4 folder in application. Bridge cannot see it there, the Adobe updater won't find it, neither will the Adobe Uninstaller, and you WILL have all kinds of grief in the future.

Go to the Photoshop menu > About Plug-in > and tell us what you see there in regard to ACR version number. My guess is you'll see two instances of ACR (a huge no-no!).

Putting it there was a terrible idea.

====================================
Ozpeter,

Please edit Geof's post to delete that very poor and harmful advice.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

Geof,

Next time you feel the urge to post about ACR, please post in the Adobe Camera Raw forum indicated below:

[Geof_...@adobeforums.com]

Phew! that told me..sorry if it was offensive Ramon but if you check the threads you didn't say anything about Root folders until after my horrendous mis demenour...I will now put it in the correct place...

Geof