You should probably study (on the Web or in books) what each of the controls in that window actually do, because they're different than the Levels etc. in Photoshop after you click Open Image. A great book is Real World Camera Raw. The fact that the book is 448 pages should be a clue as to how much power is actually in Camera Raw.
For example, Recovery and Fill Light bring back details at the ends of the tonal range using methods that would take many steps in Photoshop with channels and masked curves and such, and they have clean raw data to do it with. Same with the Clarity slider and the Sharpening controls; they are actually condensed, simplified versions of advanced Photoshop tricks that take several steps involving layers, masks, etc. After learning more about what raw converters do I am starting to think of Photoshop as "the long way around." This also explains why Aperture and Lightroom have gotten so wildly popular: They incorporate the latest labor-saving yet pro-quality advanced image processing at the raw level, built on top of a powerful asset manager; in many cases this is all someone needs.
Well that makes perfect sense . I'll certainly have a look at the book you suggest as well. So, bearing in mind that I'm doing that in PS Elements 6.0, is there a reason why others don't appear to be using this? Whenever I read something on RAW no-one refers to PS being used as a RAW editor (to the point where I only found out recently that I already owned the software I needed to process RAW!). I can appreciate that pros might use something with more impact but for 'serious amateurs' is this as good a method as any?
More practice needed but learning all the time!:rofl
Nikon D50, 18mm-55mm, 55mm-200mm, 50mm f/1.8, SB800, LowePro Slingshot 200AW and other bits!
This answer seems way too obvious for the question having read thorugh this thread so what am I missing?!?!
Yeah, compare your screen capture of ACR in Elements to mine (CS4). I'd say you're missing PLENTY.
Specifically notice that my ACR has 9 tab screens on the right hand side, where yours has two. Plus I have 14 tools on the upper left, while you have 9. You're missing all the good stuff.
Yeah, compare your screen capture of ACR in Elements to mine (CS4). I'd say you're missing PLENTY.
Specifically notice that my ACR has 9 tab screen on the right hand side, where yours has two. Plus I have 14 tools on the upper left, while you have 9. It's all the advanced stuff that's extremely powerful once you know how to use it.
So do I assume from this that the same ACR plug in is not used in both Elements and CS? I'm not in a position to (nor would I get the use out of) CS to upgrade but am curious about whether the tools you refer to are commands you have created or options that come with the more powerful editing program.
I think my tag says it all!!!:D
More practice needed but learning all the time!:rofl
Nikon D50, 18mm-55mm, 55mm-200mm, 50mm f/1.8, SB800, LowePro Slingshot 200AW and other bits!
With Photoshop, it depends on the version, generally, each major upgrade offers new tools. So if you are using CS, you have less tools than CS4. It is not just tools, there are improvements to other existing features, such as better noise reduction or improved interpolation or whatever. Then there is the support for new camera models. Adobe offer free "point" updates to address new camera models, however, to get all the good stuff one generally has to upgrade the entire Photoshop package to the new version (one can't use the CS4 plug-in with CS3).
I am sure that Elements works in a similar way, however I don't know for sure. You could always download a demo of the latest version to see if there are improvements.
With Photoshop, it depends on the version, generally, each major upgrade offers new tools. So if you are using CS, you have less tools than CS4. It is not just tools, there are improvements to other existing features, such as better noise reduction or improved interpolation or whatever. Then there is the support for new camera models. Adobe offer free "point" updates to address new camera models, however, to get all the good stuff one generally has to upgrade the entire Photoshop package to the new version (one can't use the CS4 plug-in with CS3).
I am sure that Elements works in a similar way, however I don't know for sure. You could always download a demo of the latest version to see if there are improvements.
The easiest, cheapest way to get full advantage of Adobe Camera Raw today, is to purchase Lightroom2 - the panels look a bit different, but the software engine underneath is said to be exactly the same, and that is my experience as I use both CS4 with Bridge and ARC, and Lightroom2.
You might want to wait until Lightroom3 ships which should happen sometime this spring or this summer. You will have the very latest Adobe Camera Raw facility at half the price of Photoshop CS4.
Whether the Camera Raw offered in Elements matches that in Photoshop I do not know as I do not own a current copy of Elements. I would not be surprised if the Elements version is a limited version of ACR.
Each panel in ACR has quite useful features, which can't be fully described in a few words. Schewe and Fraser's Real World Camera Raw is an excellent resource.
Yeah, compare your screen capture of ACR in Elements to mine (CS4). I'd say you're missing PLENTY.
Specifically notice that my ACR has 9 tab screens on the right hand side, where yours has two. Plus I have 14 tools on the upper left, while you have 9. You're missing all the good stuff.
I disagree. While those additional features are nice, I do 90% of my raw conversion work on that first panel, especially white balance, exposure tweaking, fill light, black point, recovery, clarity and vibrance. If the OP hasn't done any raw processing, most of the benefit of ACR is available with what he has.
I don't know what Adobe's policies are for ACR upgrades in Elements, but the screenshot shows ACR 4.2. It's probably worth checking to see if it's possible to upgrade to 4.6. I can't remember what the differences are, but newer versions are generally better than older ones.
After getting to know the ins and outs of raw, it might make sense to move to the latest version of ACR. You can do that either by purchasing LightRoom or by upgrading from Elements to CS4. The latter is more expensive, but far more powerful.
I disagree. While those additional features are nice, I do 90% of my raw conversion work on that first panel, especially white balance, exposure tweaking, fill light, black point, recovery, clarity and vibrance. If the OP hasn't done any raw processing, most of the benefit of ACR is available with what he has.
I don't know what Adobe's policies are for ACR upgrades in Elements, but the screenshot shows ACR 4.2. It's probably worth checking to see if it's possible to upgrade to 4.6. I can't remember what the differences are, but newer versions are generally better than older ones.
After getting to know the ins and outs of raw, it might make sense to move to the latest version of ACR. You can do that either by purchasing LightRoom or by upgrading from Elements to CS4. The latter is more expensive, but far more powerful.
Thanks Richard. I'll investigate the upgrade to 4.6. I do feel like I have enough within Elements to begin getting to grips with RAW. I'm sure there are many other things I could learn to do but probably ought to go one step at a time (and, as you suggest, I assume Adobe has good reason for selecting these particular tools for Elements users).
I am always, however, open to persuasion!!!
(PS - I feel I ought to point out that I'm not the OP and I hope he doesn't mind me adding to his original post!!!)
More practice needed but learning all the time!:rofl
Nikon D50, 18mm-55mm, 55mm-200mm, 50mm f/1.8, SB800, LowePro Slingshot 200AW and other bits!
I disagree. While those additional features are nice, I do 90% of my raw conversion work on that first panel, especially white balance, exposure tweaking, fill light, black point, recovery, clarity and vibrance. If the OP hasn't done any raw processing, most of the benefit of ACR is available with what he has.
Richard, I know where you're coming from, because I've been there as well. However, those are basically the training wheels of RAW. If you've ever sat down with an expert and actually seen what those other features do, you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss them as just being "nice". There's a whole world of processing capabilities in RAW, once you scrape through the veneer. Most of the stuff we normally do in Photoshop is actually done better in RAW.
The new state of the art noise reduction, and film grain facilities sound very exciting. Glad to hear it will be available very soon!
I'm very interested in the noise reduction part, less so with the grain. Once I got Noiseware, I disabled NR altogether in ACR, but it sure would be nice to eliminate the extra step. It doesn't have to be better than the popular plugin products, but it won't convince me unless it's at least as good.
Expect what? Maybe another beta... that this one is running out doesn’t mean a release is coming next.
Correct, but it's not possible to run a "Why and How Guide" eSeminar for LR3 on the basis of a beta that is so emasculated and lacking in new features.
Furthermore, the pattern set with the LR1 and LR2 betas is that the full feature set is not revealed until the final release, so I'm guessing that LR v3.0 will be publicly available before 29 March.
Situations beyond my control did not allow me to post earlier. I would like to thank you all for your advice. You all helped me get a better idea about Raw and Raw processing and I am thankful to all of you.
As others have said you need software to handle RAW files. There are quite a few out there but IMO I think LR is the best. Mostly because you do not convert anything. You work with the RAW file the whole time and never save and never loose anything. You can always go back to the original digital negative no matter how many times you mess with a photo.
As Zoomer has said there are some advantages to JPEG. To me the big one is in camera processing. With this your camera does some of he heavy lifting for you. There are some cool things new, and even older cameras can do for you. Big ones are noise reduction, sharpening, color and with Nikons active D. With RAW, you don't get these, unless you use your cameras proprietary software bundle.
But what you loose with JPEG is latitude for adjustments. You just do not get as much because there is not as much info. I shoot RAW most of the time. For anything I am shooting less than 1000 photos. If it is a big event and I am shooting more than that, or have multiple photographers, it is JPEG. Otherwise it takes too long to handle the files. And I want the camera to do that some of the work for me.
The biggest advantage with RAW is white balance adjustments and applying your own noise reduction and sharpening to your taste. Also you do have more data to work with for fixing exposure problems. RAW will not solve big problems with a photo. But it can help. The OP was converting to TIFF so all advantage of RAW went down the tubes at that point. To see RAW files you can download Codecs to see RAW, NEF, and DNG or whatever in Windows explorer. LR is the best bang for the buck for any photographer. I don't know what I would do without using it. For what I shoot and how I shoot with 100s and 1000s of files there would be no other quick way do process that many RAW files that quickly and easily.
For the OP, go back to JPEG for a while. It is OK. The world will not explode because you are doing it. You are not less cool as a photographer. Work on your exposure and WB while you are shooting instead of falling back on processing. Get good at processing your JPEGs then you will see the advantages later as you start working in RAW. You can also try shooting RAW + JPEG in your camera. This way you can decide on your own which is better. I did this for a while to see what I liked. Lots of times I liked the JPEG better.
Comments
Well that makes perfect sense
Nikon D50, 18mm-55mm, 55mm-200mm, 50mm f/1.8, SB800, LowePro Slingshot 200AW and other bits!
Photoshop and Bridge use the "Adobe Camera Raw" plug-in. Many shorten this name to ACR or CR (same with Adobe Lightroom, or ALR or LR).
Stephen Marsh
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx/
http://prepression.blogspot.com/
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx/
http://prepression.blogspot.com/
Yeah, compare your screen capture of ACR in Elements to mine (CS4). I'd say you're missing PLENTY.
Specifically notice that my ACR has 9 tab screens on the right hand side, where yours has two. Plus I have 14 tools on the upper left, while you have 9. You're missing all the good stuff.
Link to my Smugmug site
OK - so now I begin to see the light (and feel pretty dim in the process!!)
So do I assume from this that the same ACR plug in is not used in both Elements and CS? I'm not in a position to (nor would I get the use out of) CS to upgrade but am curious about whether the tools you refer to are commands you have created or options that come with the more powerful editing program.
I think my tag says it all!!!:D
Nikon D50, 18mm-55mm, 55mm-200mm, 50mm f/1.8, SB800, LowePro Slingshot 200AW and other bits!
I am sure that Elements works in a similar way, however I don't know for sure. You could always download a demo of the latest version to see if there are improvements.
Stephen Marsh
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx/
http://prepression.blogspot.com/
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx/
http://prepression.blogspot.com/
Thanks Stephen - much appreciated:)
Nikon D50, 18mm-55mm, 55mm-200mm, 50mm f/1.8, SB800, LowePro Slingshot 200AW and other bits!
You might want to wait until Lightroom3 ships which should happen sometime this spring or this summer. You will have the very latest Adobe Camera Raw facility at half the price of Photoshop CS4.
Whether the Camera Raw offered in Elements matches that in Photoshop I do not know as I do not own a current copy of Elements. I would not be surprised if the Elements version is a limited version of ACR.
Each panel in ACR has quite useful features, which can't be fully described in a few words. Schewe and Fraser's Real World Camera Raw is an excellent resource.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
I disagree. While those additional features are nice, I do 90% of my raw conversion work on that first panel, especially white balance, exposure tweaking, fill light, black point, recovery, clarity and vibrance. If the OP hasn't done any raw processing, most of the benefit of ACR is available with what he has.
I don't know what Adobe's policies are for ACR upgrades in Elements, but the screenshot shows ACR 4.2. It's probably worth checking to see if it's possible to upgrade to 4.6. I can't remember what the differences are, but newer versions are generally better than older ones.
After getting to know the ins and outs of raw, it might make sense to move to the latest version of ACR. You can do that either by purchasing LightRoom or by upgrading from Elements to CS4. The latter is more expensive, but far more powerful.
Thanks Richard.
I am always, however, open to persuasion!!!
(PS - I feel I ought to point out that I'm not the OP and I hope he doesn't mind me adding to his original post!!!)
Nikon D50, 18mm-55mm, 55mm-200mm, 50mm f/1.8, SB800, LowePro Slingshot 200AW and other bits!
Ah, right. I think we must have scared him off.
Richard, I know where you're coming from, because I've been there as well. However, those are basically the training wheels of RAW. If you've ever sat down with an expert and actually seen what those other features do, you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss them as just being "nice". There's a whole world of processing capabilities in RAW, once you scrape through the veneer. Most of the stuff we normally do in Photoshop is actually done better in RAW.
Link to my Smugmug site
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
No, they didn't show up till 5.something.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
I'm very interested in the noise reduction part, less so with the grain. Once I got Noiseware, I disabled NR altogether in ACR, but it sure would be nice to eliminate the extra step. It doesn't have to be better than the popular plugin products, but it won't convince me unless it's at least as good.
Noiseware is the standard they have to meet. Adobe DID say "State of the Art" so we can hope. Removing noise via metadata sounds good.
Adding noise is less meaningful, I agree, but again, if it fits easily into the workflow, fine. I tend to add noise as my very last step however.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Expect what? Maybe another beta... that this one is running out doesn’t mean a release is coming next.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Furthermore, the pattern set with the LR1 and LR2 betas is that the full feature set is not revealed until the final release, so I'm guessing that LR v3.0 will be publicly available before 29 March.
But all will be revealed in good time!
As Zoomer has said there are some advantages to JPEG. To me the big one is in camera processing. With this your camera does some of he heavy lifting for you. There are some cool things new, and even older cameras can do for you. Big ones are noise reduction, sharpening, color and with Nikons active D. With RAW, you don't get these, unless you use your cameras proprietary software bundle.
But what you loose with JPEG is latitude for adjustments. You just do not get as much because there is not as much info. I shoot RAW most of the time. For anything I am shooting less than 1000 photos. If it is a big event and I am shooting more than that, or have multiple photographers, it is JPEG. Otherwise it takes too long to handle the files. And I want the camera to do that some of the work for me.
The biggest advantage with RAW is white balance adjustments and applying your own noise reduction and sharpening to your taste. Also you do have more data to work with for fixing exposure problems. RAW will not solve big problems with a photo. But it can help. The OP was converting to TIFF so all advantage of RAW went down the tubes at that point. To see RAW files you can download Codecs to see RAW, NEF, and DNG or whatever in Windows explorer. LR is the best bang for the buck for any photographer. I don't know what I would do without using it. For what I shoot and how I shoot with 100s and 1000s of files there would be no other quick way do process that many RAW files that quickly and easily.
For the OP, go back to JPEG for a while. It is OK. The world will not explode because you are doing it. You are not less cool as a photographer. Work on your exposure and WB while you are shooting instead of falling back on processing. Get good at processing your JPEGs then you will see the advantages later as you start working in RAW. You can also try shooting RAW + JPEG in your camera. This way you can decide on your own which is better. I did this for a while to see what I liked. Lots of times I liked the JPEG better.