Not long ago I set up a fresh Vista x64 system, in preparation for my move up to Photoshop CS4.
I've been using the Vista system with CS4 for a few weeks now, and I had initially thought that CS4 was producing better color from the Camera Raw 5.0 conversions of my Canon 40D files.
I have installed older versions of Photoshop (something I needed to do because I need to be able to test actions and plugins with older versions) and today I compared some conversions done with Camera Raw 4.5 and CS3. Lo and behold CS3 is producing the very same color as CS4.
I had spent quite a bit of time with CS3 on my older machine tweaking Camera Raw settings to get the color in the Raw conversions to fairly closely match what I'm getting from the camera in the JPEGs, which I happen to like. This required some radical changes.
My observation is this: Having used CS3 and Camera Raw 4 since CS3 was released, even though I kept up with all the updates yielded a very different result from Camera Raw conversions than what I'm getting from a fresh install of CS3 with the latest updates.
Anyone have an idea why this might be?
The CS4/Camera Raw 5 color still doesn't match the Canon files, and I will embark on tweaking the defaults a bit, but it's a LOT closer than what I started with before with CS3/Camera Raw 4!
The issue may be with the Vista 64 color engine. If you were used to the way Photoshop CS3 and ACR rendered color with XP and now see a difference with Vista 64, that would be the the difference.
Are you using a calibrated monitor?
Could you clarify the statement that the CS4/ACR 5.0 files don't match the Canon files? Are you talking about Canon jpgs or RAW images converted with Canon DPP software?
The latest version of ACR for Photoshop CS4 is 5.1.
According to Thomas Knoll, Adobe Raw engineer:
"5.1 runs under CS4 and has more user interface controls than 4.6. But it has exactly the same rendering and camera support as 4.6."
If you happened to have installed the latest camera profiles then both ACR 4.6 and ACR 5.xx as well as LR 2 will use the profile setting embedded in the (Canon proprietary) part of the meta data to automatically adjust your raw files to the same color, sharpness, etc. as specified in the camera for the jpeg files. This applies to the new ‘style settings’ in Canon’s latest 1D/5D bodies but I don’t think it will affect custom jpeg camera settings. Adobe created these profiles just so raw files could easily be matched to the camera’s jpeg settings without jumping through hoops.
These profiles may also install to ACR 4.5 but since I’ve updated to 4.6 I can’t test that. There is a good discussion of this in the Luminous Landscape Lightroom tutorial LR2-15.
One thing the boys didn’t make clear in the LL tutorial is that ACR 4.6 is the highest point release of ACR that will work with CS3 but not to worry it will also make use of these new profiles. You will want the latest point release of ACR 5.xx for CS4.
I have checked and the 4.6 release provides the same new features for CS3 and LR 2.1 as the 5.xx release (as discussed in the LL LR2 tutorial) provides for CS4 and LR2.1. Therefore the discussion in the LL LR2 tutorial applies to both ACR 4.6 as well as 5.xx.
I assume, since LR 2.0 shares the same raw engine with ACR, that when I upgrade to CS4 LR2 will then work with the 5.xx release of ACR.
You also might like to install the new DNG Profile Editor, on the Adobe Labs site.
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
I think you've hit on something there, Jerry. I suppose if Camera Raw is depending on some part of the OS to do some of the color conversion then a different OS could cause differences. Seems a little shaky that Adobe would accept that variance, but perhaps there's no other way to do the job.
To clarify: Out of the box, Camera Raw conversions have different color characteristics than out-of-camera JPEGs (I do not use DPP). Maybe not a huge difference but different enough to see plainly. Canon blues and cyans for example are much brighter, while reds are deeper and usually oversaturated. I've felt Camera Raw conversions just seem more "drab" than the color Canon delivers, which I've always liked very much. I especially like the 40D's color.
Here's an example of the difference:
I have a desire for the color in my Camera Raw conversions to very closely match my Canon JPEGs. This allows me to choose Raw or JPEG with concern only for the intended use. To that end, with CS3 I worked pretty hard on the default settings to make my Camera Raw conversions come out looking as much like my JPEGs as I could manage. Where I ended up frankly I couldn't tell them apart. I've just done that again with Camera Raw 5, though I haven't got the settings quite perfect yet.
Thanks for the tip on the 5.1 update. I just loaded it.
Matching your in-camera jpegs and RAW files is never going to be an exact science. There are just too many variables. Jpegs contain embedded color space as well as any other settings applied by the camera's processor.
ACR has evolved to a point that it helps match the in-camera processing by providing extended camera specific profiles that can be accessed and tweaked from the camera calibration menu before any other adjustments are made from the main ACR color controls. I have found these profiles to be a great starting point for my color management. I use different rendering profiles depending on the type of photo and my final output (print vs web etc).
Personally I have never used in-camera jpegs as a measure of accurate color. While they often provide pleasing color in a general sense, I find them to be over saturated and contrasty.
I think the new camera-specific profiles Jerry is referring to and the associated DNG Profile Editor are a pretty big deal for addressing the RAW color problem (we discussed them briefly, here). In my personal experience, the out-of-the-box color I get in my 5D images using the new profiles instead of the ACR 4.4 standard are a much better starting point for further adjustments.
I have *never* been interested in "accurate" color so much as "pleasing" color. It is my experience that these are almost never the same. I was one of the few who simply loved the Canon D30, and I really do like the color my 40D puts out; better than the 10D and 20D I had before. To each his own.
What I'm saying here is that I have a great deal of respect for the design work that's gone into the in-camera processor. Canon and I see pretty much eye to eye on color.
It's been my fond hope to get a simple workflow with ACR that delivers color consistently just as good - and in some cases better - than the Canon color.
And I'm not worried over numeric perfection for the color match, just a very similar look and feel, much like what I've achieved as illustrated above.
I'm using the ACR 4.4 profile, by the way. A while back I loaded up the beta profiles with CS3, and they did provide a good starting point, but if I can stay with the mainstream released profile I will.
Thanks for the tips on the profile editor. I'll look into it.
Linear Mode
