Question about the inter-relationship between Photoshop and Camera Raw

[woorob]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi, I've got a [possibly stupid] question about the inter-relationship between Photoshop and ACR. I'm using Photoshop CC and ACR RC 8.3.

 

I downloaded a bunch of the hi-res RAW files in the Sony A7r thread to compare the Sony .ARW files to the Leica .DNG files, and thus would prefer to compare them in Photoshop without any intermediary changes first being made by ACR. Does the "Copy Files" command in ACR (accessed using the Alt key in Windows) open a RAW file in Photoshop without any changes having been made by ACR? If not, is there any way of opening RAW files in Photoshop directly and without ACR getting in the way?

[250swb]

There are three options in the Photoshop version of ACR , either the two buttons saying 'Auto' or 'Default', or manually doing the corrections. You just need to keep the file set to 'Default' which is the native file (but there may also be some default mild sharpening so also turn that down).

 

Steve

[hoppyman]

If you import with the copy command, the files are not changed.

When any raw file is opened in Photoshop you are using the raw processing engine in Adobe Camera Raw. That engine is the same in Lightroom assuming version equivalency.

You cannot view the raw information as an image "normal" to our eyes without processing.

You can view the embedded preview (which is of lower quality) in the raw file.

[woorob]

Thanks. Just wanted through my inquiry to confirm that the files are not changed with the copy command, as there are many ways of altering the baseline image using the controls afforded by Camera Raw.

[01af]

... without any intermediary changes first being made by ACR.

Impossible.

 

Your question means you are not aware of what a raw file is in the first place. It contains raw photosite data, no RGB pictures. There is no way of opening a raw file and see the picture therein without a raw converter "getting in the way". That's like asking to try the taste of bread without an oven getting in the way—without oven, there will be no bread, only dough.

 

So think of the contents of a raw file as dough, and the raw converter as oven.

 

 

... as there are many ways of altering the baseline image using the controls afforded by Camera Raw.

There is no "baseline image."

 

 

You just need to keep the file set to 'Default' which is the native file ...

There is no "native file."

[250swb]

You could look up the adjective 'native' and see that a .dng file is a native file, a computer language from which the image is formed.

 

Steve

[01af]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You could look up the adjective 'native' and see that a .DNG file is a native file ...

 

Yes—'file' being the operational word here.

 

But we are talking about the picture that emerges after converting the native raw data into an RGB image that you can look at. After raw conversion, there is no such thing as a "baseline" or "native" image. And before raw conversion, there's no image at all, just a file full of numbers.

[250swb]

 

Yes—'file' being the operational word here.

 

 

Yes, 'file' is the word I used (twice) in the first instance. I didn't use the word 'image'? You need to press the 'OK' button in ACR before it becomes an image.

 

Steve

[01af]

Yes, 'file' is the word I used (twice) in the first instance.

You used that word indeed, but you used it as if it was a synonym for 'image.'

 

 

You just need to keep the file set to 'Default' which is the native file ...

There is no 'native file.'

Okay—so I'll re-word my reply:

 

Hitting 'Default' in Camera Raw (or Lightroom) doesn't set the 'file' to default but the raw conversion parameters. And the result thereof is neither a 'native file' nor a 'native image.' Instead, it's a raw conversion with a certain set of parameters which has been deliberately chosen by Adobe's engineers as 'default.' It's like suggesting a certain temperature and a certain time for turning your dough into bread using an oven—sticking to the default values does not mean your dough has not been baked.

[250swb]

I used the word 'file' the way I meant it to be used, to mean 'file'. Only you know what makes you want to suggest everybody knows fuck all except you, it seems to be a theme of yours. Your analogy with making bread is a good one, but if you can deal with those sorts of concepts and colloquialisms and mental imagery you can surely just accept the jist of what people mean instead of trying to pick odd words out to jump all over.

 

If you don't use some form of default setting you can't turn the file into a image file that can be saved, it remains nothing, just data. If you can't grasp that think of it like, this, if you don't turn your oven on and set it to a certain temperature you won't make bread even if the dough is in the oven. So unless you want to deal with paradox's some form of default needs to be agreed upon, either using ACR or another RAW converter. No RAW file can be viewed as a Raw file, it needs intermediary construction in ACR before the photographer presses the button to make it an image.

 

 

Steve

[01af]

I used the word 'file' the way I meant it to be used, to mean 'file'.

Did you or didn't you write, 'You just need to keep the file set to "Default" which is the native file ...'?

 

 

... you can surely just accept the jist of what people mean ...

[250swb]

Did you or didn't you write, 'You just need to keep the file set to "Default" which is the native file ...'?

 

Yes, I did. It is the native (RAW) file with as few modifications made to it as possible by the RAW software other than the organisation of programmed data. It shouldn't be necessary to write a book on a subject just to cover every minor aspect of language used to avoid the blatant attempts of one-upmanship that seem endemic in the 'Digital Post Processing and Bread Making Forum'.

 

I for instance know what you mean by dough, the analogy, we all get the sense of what you mean. It could be taken another way though. But let me get into character, how would Stanislavski had done it? OK I'm there, in the zone, the wife has run off with the milkman, the cat and dog have gone to live next door, and the tornado tore the roof off on the day I forgot to post the insurance cheque.....

 

"What do you mean by dough! I could've been the best bread maker in the world, the champion of the world, and I know dough ain't just dough! You kids today know NOTHING, you're all punks! Do you mean wholemeal dough, pizza dough, are you making Bagels or Bannocks? (softer voice, hangs head) I made that mistake once, mistook my Chapati for my Ciabatta and look where I am now, in the gutter, with only a mouldy Tortilla to my name. (Raises voice again) Dough destroyed me, I drank so much I couldn't even read the temperature of the oven and my Kugelhupf sank! (Slight pause, shot rings out, curtains).

 

So if you want to argue the toss over the exact point where the potentiality of the RAW file becomes a realisable image file I'll just ask you 'what kind of dough?'

 

Steve

[01af]

It is the native (raw) file with as few modifications made to it as possible by the raw software other than the organisation of programmed data.

Sigh ...

[woorob]

Your question means you are not aware of what a raw file is in the first place.

 

Of course I know what a RAW file is. I asked a simple question and got a snide reply. This is a camera forum where I do not feel the need to express myself in a technically correct manner. I've obtained a lot of help from members of this forum, and have tried to reciprocate whenever I can. There's no need to be nasty or condescending, we're not all a bunch of stooges.

[hoppyman]

Bob I think there are three aspects to your original question and I understood what you meant. Here's my attempt at clarification/summarising.

 

Firstly, while you can view the embedded preview, any raw file must be processed by a raw converter (eg Lightroom or Adobe Camera Raw) to be viewable to our eyes as a "normal" image.

 

Secondly the copy command for import does not degrade the image forming data at all, nor does lossless compression applied when using Copy as DNG.

 

Thirdly, any number of develop settings may be applied to the files by default. Your default might be what the program is set to on installation or any changes at all to settings that you choose (set as your new default).Those changes are in any case written as instructions into the DNG and are editable/reversible with no penalty while the file is a DNG. Only when the file is exported as a new version in a different format (TIFF, JPG) do they actually alter the image data.

[woorob]

Geoff, many thanks. You answered my question perfectly. Sometimes the interface between Camera Raw and Photoshop confuses me, but no more!

[jaapv]

Of course I know what a RAW file is. I asked a simple question and got a snide reply. This is a camera forum where I do not feel the need to express myself in a technically correct manner. I've obtained a lot of help from members of this forum, and have tried to reciprocate whenever I can. There's no need to be nasty or condescending, we're not all a bunch of stooges.

Look at the bright side . You were not taken to task for capitalizing raw.

[250swb]

Well sometimes a capital is needed to help knock the .NAIL into the densest wood.

 

Steve

[tobey bilek]

ACR converts ones and zeros to an image. If you set all the sliders to zero, no manipulation will take place.

 

Be careful where default setting is not zero such as sharpening.

 

Click open at bottom right and file goes to photoshop.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[01af]

ACR converts ones and zeros to an image.

Right.

 

 

If you set all the sliders to zero, no manipulation will take place.

Wrong.