Opinions on ACR3.1 in CS2

[Spooky]

Hello all

I have used ACR3.1 in CS2 a bit now.

How do people find the results and the automatic settings adopted by ACR?

I don't know if I am as happy with the results as I was getting with NC then PS CS2. However NC is not an option because of its dreadfully slow performance.

With exposure for example I find the majority of my shots ACR wants to drastically adjust the exposure, often by -1.75. It also pumps the brightness up high to compensate. It seems to have a total aversion to overexposed highlights. While this may seem good on the face of it, if there is a little piece of metal in the shot giving off a reflection this causes ACR to drop the exposure drastically. As a result 95% of the image appears underexposed just so the little highlight isn't too blown out.

Of course one is free to make adjustments to expose the image correctly however I find it a bit frustrating to have to fiddle so much to get a decent result. Half the time I think I would be better with the automatic boxes unchecked.

Just wondering what others have found with ACR3.1? Perhaps I am doing something wrong.

[Oneputt]

Good query this. I have used the auto settings which usually turn out well, but sometimes I find myself disagreeing with the auto choice of exposure. I have been doing some images on auto and then the same images manually according to my personal taste. The differences are quite marked.

[leek]

I'm still assessing it...

It seems to get it right most of the time, but I would like to have the ability to turn off the auto-adjustment unless I ask for it...

I can't help feeling that it's removing me from the equation...

However, there are several new features in ACR 3.1 that I really do love... like the ability to straighten the horizon, crop and adjust many other features of the photo before you even open it in Photoshop - also the fact that Bridge retains these selections in your thumbnail view of the NEFs...

[big pix]

I have found that the time I now spend PP in PSCS2 raw is the same as before , but the up side is my old RAW images reprocessed have a greater color range than before. The colors are much brighter and a bit more contrast.

The above could also be that I have also profiled my screen which made a big difference and also profiled my printers, now what I see on screen I get on prints, most of the time. If an image has lots of warm colors it will print warmer, a bit on the red side than what I see on screen, but I am still testing and remaking profiles to get the colors on print much closer to what I see on screen, as the different RGB test charts {there are 3} that come with the eye one software give different results on the same stock. After I had made all my profiles, would you believe that the software was upgraded so I now starting again, my computer tells me that they are the same files, but I am getting slightly better results on the new software for the eye one. I have only just down loaded profile editor and still working on that program, quite a powerful piece of software.

Over all, just to profile your screen is a must if you want consistent color from your camera, think of your screen as a light globe, as it lights up over long periods of time the color will change as does a light globe, so your screen will need profiling about every 3 to 6 months, if you use your computer a lot, to get consistent results, and camera profiles are yet another issue, as you can make a camera profile for all different lighting conditions, so how many would you do ?, the next best thing is to shoot in RAW and PP with a profiled monitor to get good results.

The 'eye one photo' is a great piece of equipment and a must if you do your own prints. What you save in ink and stock will pay for the item over time. I like to have my prints as perfect as possible so it is a must for myself. When I get the printers spot on, I will have a go at camera profiles, time is all I need

cheers
bp

[Aussie Dave]

Just pulling this one out of the archives from earlier in the year (thanks again Gary for re-installing the Db from after the hack of 05 )

I, too was a big fan of ACR is PSCS2 but for some reason always thought that something wasn't quite right when PP from ACR (compared to Nikon Capture).

Now that NC has had an update, and runs that little bit faster, I thought I'd jump back to it to see how it goes and I find myself blown away by the difference in quality when the NEFs are opened.

Colours & tones seem much more consistant to real-life compared to what ACR does. I have posted 4 examples below, using the same photo, opened with both NC and ACR. There has been no PP done except for resizing.

Via Nikon Capture (using camera settings):


Via ACR in PSCS2 (using Camera Raw Settings - WB As Shot):


Via Nikon Capture (using Auto Calc WB):


Via ACR in PSCS2 (using Camera Raw Settings - WB AUTO):


As you can see, there is quite a bit of difference between the 4. Admittedly, once you begin PPing them you will probably be able to get them looking similar, however as a starting point, straight out of the box with NC looks to be pretty good.

It is fair to say I have now reverted back to using NC to open my NEFS....but I still transfer them across to PSCS2 to PP them.

Has anyone else found similar OR contradictory conclusions ??

[mitedo]

Dave i have to say your rignt on, NC seems to be the best for NEF'S the next best thing i found was rawshooter, now i have NC back its all i use, Colours & tones seem much more consistant to real-life compared to what ACR does yep your spot on the right track

[leek]

I use ACR 3.1 exclusively for my PP and haven't really compared to Nikon Capture... ACR 3.1 supports my workflow better and the integration with Adobe Bridge is outstanding... It allows me to do most of my PP without even loading into Photoshop...

FYI ACR 3.2 will be out soon... It has been inadvertantly released on a few of the Adobe sites already, but has been withdrawn again.
The 3.2 version is rumoured to use the new mini-SDK supplied by Nikon to support accurate WB decoding... It'll be interesting to see if there are any differences between NC & ACR once this has been released...

[Aussie Dave]

I use ACR 3.1 exclusively for my PP and haven't really compared to Nikon Capture... ACR 3.1 supports my workflow better and the integration with Adobe Bridge is outstanding... It allows me to do most of my PP without even loading into Photoshop...

FYI ACR 3.2 will be out soon... It has been inadvertantly released on a few of the Adobe sites already, but has been withdrawn again.
The 3.2 version is rumoured to use the new mini-SDK supplied by Nikon to support accurate WB decoding... It'll be interesting to see if there are any differences between NC & ACR once this has been released...

this will be very interesting to see....thanks for posting this info Leek

I admit that from a workflow perspective, ACR is so much easier, but I tend to do my photos one at a time & I prefer the manual approach (and NC gives me the best starting point, so I've moved back to NC - for now at least)

[mitedo]

Hi Leek looks like i got lucky i downloaded ACR 3.2 last week from a website somewere working with no probs so far

[leek]

Hi Leek looks like i got lucky i downloaded ACR 3.2 last week from a website somewere working with no probs so far

Good one!!! It seems to have been pulled from all the normal sites now... Not sure if that means that they are still making changes to it...
I think the main differences with 3.2 is support for an increased number of cameras, but it would be interesting to see if your version shows such marked differences in colour treatment when compared to NC...

but I tend to do my photos one at a time & I prefer the manual approach

I do mine manually too, but do it all in ACR as you can now adjust all the main general settings, curves and sharpening in ACR. You can even save as JPG now...
The only thing that I tend to automate is the resizing and adding a frame if necessary...