• Members 5 posts
    April 15, 2023, 4:03 p.m.

    Hi all,

    after moving from dpreviev this is my first thread on dprevived (and second in total).

    After processing hundreds of RAW pics from Canon and Sony cameras I have concluded, that most of the work may be done by Camera RAW plugin, which starts when I open a RAW image with Photoshop. Optical adjustments, noise reduction, white balance, shadows, highlights and so on...
    Now I just use Photoshop tools on top of the Camera RAW plugin just to retouch some elements like those I do not want to see on the image. I also use sharpening and noise reduction by just clicking the standard option - I can see it helps when I submit photos to Shutterstock or Getty - they pass the review with no noise or sharpness issues more often than when I do not use those. But that's it. All is done in the plugin.

    Is it common to do most of the work in Camera RAW plugin? Or do I use the tool too much and should learn using PS tools?

    Regards
    Alex

  • Members 663 posts
    April 15, 2023, 4:32 p.m.

    Alex,

    I work mostly as you do. I use Adobe Camera Raw (ACR), then open the processed image in Photoshop instead of using the Camera Raw plugin in Photoshop. But the workflow is much the same and the end result is also.

    I do as much image adjustment in ACR as possible. That is, I keep all processing in the RAW stage as much as I can before going into Photoshop for any work I need to do there.

    However, I have all sharpening and noise reduction turned off in ACR. The default sharpening that Adobe builds in per camera profile is too heavy handed IMO. It takes a bit of doing to get all sharpening turned off and kept off by default. I don't know how those settings are handled in the Photoshop plugin. I (and many others) feel that getting the image into Photoshop as cleanly as possible, without the sharpening that ACR (or the plugin) does, results in the cleanest image.

    That brings up a whole other topic generally referred to as "capture sharpening," which I am advising to avoid. Over the years the trio of "capture sharpening," "creative sharpening" and "output sharpening" have been recommended as the best (combined) way to achieve sharpening from capture to eventual viewing by screen or print. I don't work that way at all and reserve sharpening to the last step before output. I generally use Topaz Sharpening, an AI-based program.

    Rich

  • Members 5 posts
    April 15, 2023, 4:42 p.m.

    Does the image get changed to jpg after the Camera RAW stage? I still see it as CR2 (Canon) or ARW (Sony) in Photoshop.

  • Members 1737 posts
    April 15, 2023, 5:05 p.m.

    It's not compressed into a JPEG unless you save it as a JPEG from Ps.

  • Members 1737 posts
    April 15, 2023, 5:06 p.m.

    ACR and Lightroom use much of the same code. Since Lr introduced all the mask operations a few months ago, my Ps usage has gone way down.

  • Members 663 posts
    April 15, 2023, 5:15 p.m.

    No. I can chose one of two options when I'm done editing in ACR.

    1. "Done" which saves the edits in a "sidecar" file, to be applied to the untouched RAW file when I open it again in ACR or

    2. "Open" which opens the file in Photoshop with all the edits applied.

    It's an open 16-bit file in ProPhotoRGB color space because that's how I have ACR defaults set to open the file in Photoshop.

    Yes, Photoshop identifies the open file with the RAW suffix it originally had. I can understand Adobe's decision to identify the open file that way for continuity, but it's not a RAW file any more. And it can't be saved with that file type suffix - only as "JPEG," "TIFF," "Photoshop," etc.

    Rich

  • Members 31 posts
    April 15, 2023, 6:06 p.m.

    Hi Alex.

    I am not any kind of expert - photography is a hobby and a life long learning journey for me. I have dabbled with Photoshop since CS3. I shoot raw (Nikon NEF files) and so I use ACR for the demosaicing step, and for all the basic adjustments like WB, contrast, saturation etc. Anything that needs more complex masking or layers or compositing I go to Photoshop. And I do perform some degree of capture sharpening in ACR. I used to find ACR a good starting point for global adjustments, but since Lightroom came on the scene and Adobe has converged both ACR and the Lightroom develop function, they have also greatly enhanced the abilities of local adjustments in both - so much so that I find I am doing more in ACR and less in Photoshop. Layers are big reason I still go to Photoshop, and plugins like the DXO Nik collections too.

    I think (just my opinion) that there are no hard and fast rules. If you find a workflow that produces the results you like, and with repeatable success, then do what you do and enjoy the process and the results.

    Peter

  • Members 1737 posts
    April 15, 2023, 6:13 p.m.

    Then there is the subject of blind spots.

    I've been shaving for more than 50 years now. During that time, not much changed. Sure, I've always used the latest razors -- usually from Gillette. The shaving cream, always from an aerosol can, has changed a bit over the years. Stainless steel blades came along, and they lasted longer than carbon steel; double-edged blades morphed into single-sided razors with ever-increasing number of blades, and the shaves got a little closer, but, for 50 years the quality of my shave didn't change much. For most of the last 25 years, I used one shaving cream, Edge. A couple of years ago, I had a cancelled flight and had to spend the night without my checked luggage. The hotel desk clerk supplied shaving cream, which I liked a little better than Edge.

    That one little change ended 25 years of shaving stasis. I started randomly buying different kinds of aerosol shaving creams; some were good and some weren’t so good, but there wasn't all that much difference between them. Finally, I happened upon a shaving cream from Italy that came in a old-fashioned metal tube (Proraso, if you’re in the market). It felt different, it smelled different, and it worked a heck of a lot better than all the aerosols. I went through a couple of tubes before I started to wonder if I was using it right. I bought a book on shaving (Imagine that! What's next? A book on brushing your teeth?). It turns out that I was indeed using it wrong: I was supposed to froth it up into a lather with a brush before putting it on my face. I bought a badger brush and a little stainless steel rack so that I could hang it upside down and let it dry out between uses. It took some practice to get the ratio of water to shaving cream right, but I persevered until I could consistently achieve a rich, thick lather. The result: a closer shave than I had ever imagined; a difference far greater than 50 years worth of progress in razors. I've since found another shaving cream that performs almost as well (Musgo Real, made in Portugal), and I suspect there are many others out there.

    You're driving down the freeway in your car, and you’re thinking about changing lanes. You glance at your mirrors and you don't see anything. But you know there's a blind spot there, so you look over your shoulder before you turn the wheel. We’re talking about blind spots here, but they're more insidious than the ones you deal with in your car. You know where they are. My ignorance about shaving was a blind spot I didn't know was there. Call it a double-blind spot. I had been going along for most of my life thinking I knew everything I needed to know about shaving. It never crossed my mind that there might be a serious gap in my knowledge. Not only did I not know how to make my shaving experience better, I had no idea that it could be made better. For all that time, there was an opportunity for improvement that was completely unknown to me.

    Donald Rumsfeld took a lot of heat for his didactic ruminations on "unknown unknowns", but the concept accurately generalizes what we’re talking about here.

    If unknown opportunities for improvement can persist in something as simple as shaving, they are far more likely in a complex and varied activity like photography. It is almost certain that there are things we can do to make our photography better, but we don't know where to look for them.

    One conceivable approach to discovering double-blind spots is to systematically take apart the way you make pictures, looking for alternate ways of performing each of the steps involved in photography. I don't think this is a highly productive path. If you've been making photographs for some time, it's become an organic activity, and thus one that is difficult to break down into its complement parts.

    If self-analysis doesn’t seem like a winning strategy, what does? For my money, the best way is to make photographs with others, and pay attention to what they do. You can do this in a workshop, a course, or informally with your friends. If you are an experienced photographer you may be tempted to ignore workshops. Don’t; even if you don’t learn anything new from the instructor, you can learn a lot from your fellow students. The key is to be on the lookout for things that people do that are different from the way you do them.

    If you are an experienced photographer at a workshop, you will undoubtedly be called upon to do some informal teaching. This, too, is a learning opportunity. If you’re trying to explain how to do something, one of your students is likely to ask you why you do something the way you do it, and in coming up with an explanation, you may realize that there are other, perhaps better, ways to go about it.

    If you are comfortable with a cerebral approach to photography, you can figure out where your blind spots are by reading a lot about photography. Don’t just read about things that are new to you; read about things you think you already know backwards and forwards.

  • Members 31 posts
    April 15, 2023, 6:27 p.m.

    Jim, you've written a lot there. I don't know how to interpret it. I was trying be encouraging to Alex. Did you take exception to my response? You quoted some of it. I try to expand my knowledge, but I'm not as fast as I used to be and I find I can get lost in reading and (trying) to learn and I end up missing the point - not enough doing, not enough practice, not putting that reading to use. I need to spend more time acquiring experience.

    Anyway I don't want a long banter - I just didn't get the point of your reply. sorry.

    Peter

  • Members 1737 posts
    April 15, 2023, 6:37 p.m.

    What I'm saying is that you could be happy with your workflow, and not know that there was a better way to work.

  • Members 31 posts
    April 15, 2023, 6:41 p.m.

    Kind of like "Cheer up, things could be worse. So I cheered up, and sure enough things got worse."? Or maybe "Ignorance is bliss"?

  • Members 25 posts
    April 17, 2023, 2:31 a.m.

    You are getting some good replies there, but I would like to add that once in PS, it is a great idea to use a Smart Object layer, then jump back into Camera Raw again if desired, from the Filter list in PS. There are many reasons why it is often handy to go back into Camera Raw again. But keep in mind that you will be editing a tiff now, not a raw file like the first time you opened it in Camera Raw. Since you are working from a Smart layer in PS, you can then go back into Camera Raw as many times as you like, and your edits are all still there just the way you left them. Note that at the top of the Filter list, there is the option to Change Layer to Smart Object Layer. That is easy to use, or you can right click on the layer and choose the same option I think.

  • Members 8 posts
    April 19, 2023, 4:51 a.m.

    I find I am able to use the Camera Raw features (in the filter list) without using a Smart Object layer. In fact I have never used the Smart Object feature.

    Dick Frederick

  • Members 2285 posts
    April 19, 2023, 5:22 a.m.

    me either. i just load a raw from faststone ( my image viewer) straight into ACR have my default sony a74 settings saved as a preset and then saved as the ACR default then when im finished there a16 bit file to play with in Photoshop then save the psd and the jpeg . i love photoshop because i can record "Actions" that speed up my processing when i have to process 100s of files from an event or studio shoot.

  • Members 2 posts
    April 20, 2023, 2:43 a.m.

    Yes. Do as many edits as you can in the ACR plug-in. The plug-in will give you a file with the most data to process (if shot in Raw). Once you exit the ACR plug-in your file is converted to a format useable for PS or LR (typically a 16 bit PSD, TIFF, or the same name as your Raw file). The Raw Camera filter within PS or LR can be useful but it uses the data information of the converted file (not the original Raw file). I just saw a recent YouTube explaining this with example images using the same preset edits and doing various ACR workflows.

    The bottom line is to do as many edits as you can in the plug-in before moving into PS or LR. For example cloning and masking may work be easier to do in PS…. As well as various plug-ins and final sizing/sharpening for web use or printing.

  • Members 878 posts
    April 20, 2023, 3:23 a.m.

    I almost never use ACR/PS. LR is enough for my purposes.

  • Members 663 posts
    April 20, 2023, 3:50 a.m.

    They are for all intent and purpose equivalent workflows. The underlying software is essentially the same. The user interfaces are very different and some of the philosophy of order of operations is a little different.

    Rich

  • Members 368 posts
    April 23, 2023, 12:23 p.m.

    Hi,

    These days, I use only Photoshop and ACR as I mainly use a Nikon Df and a Pentax 645D. Before those, I had a set of Kodak equipment (760c, 720x, 660m, Pro Back) and mainly used PhotoDesk, which was Kodak's raw processor. Before that, with the Nikon D1 series and a Kodak 460, it was Photoshop as well. ACR coming in with PS6. And it's up to what now? 22? Something like that.

    Back to the present, I perform most of my photo work in ACR and, as others have said, with the sharpening off. I eventually apply just a little bit later on. The main reason for Photoshop for me is I then want to save a PSD file and bring that into Illustrator. This is where another set of work is performed that most shooters never do. The idea here is to use the photo as a centerpiece with other graphics and text around it.

    IMG_20190227_172648.jpg

    This is a shot from the Df. Being as it's intended for this shirt, the photo is fairly small and so 16 MP is plenty. So the photo itself is done in Photoshop with ACR and then moved to Illustrator and all the rest is done there. Then, the final output is as a PSD to the RIP.

    The printer is a Direct To Garment which uses four channels of titanium white for an underbase and then CYMK on top of the white. The ink is DuPont Artistri textile inks. It is an entirely different workflow than for paper printing.

    However, for either textile or paper, the initial processing is done in Photoshop and ACR. I never did give the Lightroom product a try as I was already comfortable with my workflow in Photoshop and ACR before Lightroom came out.

    Stan

    IMG_20190227_172648.jpg

    JPG, 1.3 MB, uploaded by StanDisbrow on April 23, 2023.