ACR 6.1 and process 2003 versus 2010

[David Kilpatrick]

I've been testing CS5 for report purposes as well as my own use. This is important, ACR 6.1 offers a choice between the 'old' deBayer process (called '2003') and the new one ('2010'). This difference is sufficient to transform many older high ISO raw images beyond recognition, no matter what camera. Some are more clearly improved (such as Sony Alpha 700, Pentax K10D, Canon 10 megapixel or smaller, Olympus). Nikon is the least improved, the 2010 process really just brings other cameras up to Nikon standard.

Revising 6 megapixel files from 2004 onwards using CS5, and various later files, I am quite knocked back by the enhancement. I now have new images to file from ISO 800 or 1600 shots which I was not happy with. Now they are often as good as ISO 100 shots in the past.

BUT - if you have previously processed your raw file (and the same may apply in Lightroom 3, I have not checked yet) Adobe will remember that you used an old camera profile and the 2003 process. So you will see no difference unless you deliberately go into the settings, and select 2010 process, Adobe Standard (or another) profile, and so on. It also pays to revise any sharpening and NR settings as these now behave very differently.

The improvement has made my early 6 megapixel shots look more like 12 megapixel shots. Remember, Elements 8 uses the same ACR and may be a cheap way to get the 2010 conversion. I now have to consider how many images to reprocess. What's good is that with Expression Media Pro, I simply need to save a new file in the folder replacing the old one, then run Sync Annotations, and the new file will acquire all the keywords and metadata from the old one even after I have deleted it. So I can replace any files I want, and not lose any of my keywording.

David

[bakubo]

I've been testing CS5 for report purposes as well as my own use. This is important, ACR 6.1 offers a choice between the 'old' deBayer process (called '2003') and the new one ('2010'). This difference is sufficient to transform many older high ISO raw images beyond recognition, no matter what camera. Some are more clearly improved (such as Sony Alpha 700, Pentax K10D, Canon 10 megapixel or smaller, Olympus). Nikon is the least improved, the 2010 process really just brings other cameras up to Nikon standard.

Revising 6 megapixel files from 2004 onwards using CS5, and various later files, I am quite knocked back by the enhancement. I now have new images to file from ISO 800 or 1600 shots which I was not happy with. Now they are often as good as ISO 100 shots in the past.

Thanks for this update! I have lots of old Canon 30D and 300D raw files plus old A700 and A100 raw files. Do you think it will do well with high ISO A100 files too?

BUT - if you have previously processed your raw file (and the same may apply in Lightroom 3, I have not checked yet) Adobe will remember that you used an old camera profile and the 2003 process. So you will see no difference unless you deliberately go into the settings, and select 2010 process, Adobe Standard (or another) profile, and so on. It also pays to revise any sharpening and NR settings as these now behave very differently.

If I delete the xmp file that ACR creates will that make ACR forget that I have previously processed the raw file?

The improvement has made my early 6 megapixel shots look more like 12 megapixel shots. Remember, Elements 8 uses the same ACR and may be a cheap way to get the 2010 conversion. I now have to consider how many images to reprocess. What's good is that with Expression Media Pro, I simply need to save a new file in the folder replacing the old one, then run Sync Annotations, and the new file will acquire all the keywords and metadata from the old one even after I have deleted it. So I can replace any files I want, and not lose any of my keywording.

As I was reading I was going to ask about PSE 8, but you answered my question in the last paragraph. I still have PS CS2 and PSE 6, but mostly use PSE these days since it has ACR 5.6 which can process A700 files. Sounds like it is time to update to a new PSE.

[David Kilpatrick]

If you delete the .XMP files, it will start all over from defaults, but for any given camera it may be worth checking the defaults, setting the best profile and the 2010 process.

I have a problem with A100 files at ISO 1600, and ACR 6.1 - I have very few such files, mainly just tests as the camera was so poor at 1600. With ACR 6.1 it seems much better, but my 1600 raw files look two stops overexposed. The JPEG can look perfectly normal, and all the raw files from 100 to 800 look a match for JPEGs. Then at 1600 the raw file looks massively overexposed and I have to reduce brightness to 0, cut the exposure, etc.

I don't know what is going on here. It does not happen with A700 files. The improvement in A700 high ISO files is the biggest improvement I can find for any type of raw.

David

[bakubo]

I have a problem with A100 files at ISO 1600, and ACR 6.1 - I have very few such files, mainly just tests as the camera was so poor at 1600. With ACR 6.1 it seems much better, but my 1600 raw files look two stops overexposed. The JPEG can look perfectly normal, and all the raw files from 100 to 800 look a match for JPEGs. Then at 1600 the raw file looks massively overexposed and I have to reduce brightness to 0, cut the exposure, etc.

Same here. I have very few A100 ISO 1600 files, but a few ISO 800. I try to not go above ISO 400 on this camera.

I don't know what is going on here. It does not happen with A700 files. The improvement in A700 high ISO files is the biggest improvement I can find for any type of raw.

I have quite a few A700 ISO 1600-6400 files so this is good news!

[Dr. Harout]

I have quite a few A700 ISO 1600-6400 files so this is good news!

Indeed, very good news it is.
This way one problem (high ISO noise) might be solved for good.

[David Kilpatrick]

Here's process 2003 and process 2010 compared on A700 ISO 1600:

2003process.jpg (19.72 KiB) Viewed 5851 times

2010process.jpg (17.93 KiB) Viewed 5851 times

It's difficult to find examples which really show all the benefits as you see the change in the pixel structure differently in different tones, and the amount of detail also changes the look. But just the view above should tell you how VERY different the processes are!

CS5 ACR does bring up a little exclamation mark emergency action symbol, if you open a file and it is still set to use 2003 process and needs changing.

David

[UrsaMajor]

BUT - if you have previously processed your raw file (and the same may apply in Lightroom 3, I have not checked yet) Adobe will remember that you used an old camera profile and the 2003 process. So you will see no difference unless you deliberately go into the settings, and select 2010 process, Adobe Standard (or another) profile, and so on. It also pays to revise any sharpening and NR settings as these now behave very differently.

I am not at home and do not have Lightroom on my laptop, so I cannot check my recollection, and I've only used LR3 on a couple of previously processed images . However, I think that I remember the same behavior for LR3. If you are satisfied with your results from LR2, you have no need to do anything, as LR3 will not change the processing. If you wish to use the new process on previously processed images, it is very easy to do so.

With best wishes,
- Tom -

[Dr. Harout]

...CS5 ACR does bring up a little exclamation mark emergency action symbol, if you open a file and it is still set to use 2003 process and needs changing.

David

Same does LR3

[youpii]

Totally agree.
I took some shots at 6400 recently, thinking of processing them in B&W to get away with the "red blotchs". But found out that the results in LR3 were perfectly usable.





Luminance NR: 25 (details 50)
Chrominance NR: 50 (details 50)

The skin looks a bit "plastic", maybe setting the NR a bit lower would be better.

[bfitzgerald]

Agree the new process is much improved even the A200 isn't half bad now. However I set all my files to "linear" and not "medium contrast" as this is too contrasty for images IMO.
Biggest thing for the A200 is being able to remove colour noise (much more a problem for that model) LR3 can now do that and much much better than before.

[Richard T]

David, Thanks for the "heads up" - FWIW Our office copy of PSE8 only had RAW version 5.5 loaded but there's a free download on the Adobe website which was installed last night & appears to work OK although I didn't have time to do an in depth check.
Richard T

[supernovak]

I agree with all above with one huge reservation - I don't like skin tones from LR3/ACR6.1, and this is specially obvious if you shoot RAW+JPEG. It is really hard to match Sony (or Minolta) skin tones with LR3.
I now always shoot RAW+JPEG to get the best idea on how the file could look like.
If you shoot RAW only, you are fine, as you don't know better
I am pretty happy with my (quite expensive unfortunately) workflow now which I apply to high ISO images:
I open up the files in Dx0 6xx and save file as DNG - the DxO almost 100% matches Sony colour which is fantastic. Everything is at 0, especially noise reductions as, while it does decent job, DxO does not match LR3/ARC6, Then I open it in LR3, touch noise, clarity, contrast, grad filter and all bit of brush tool if needed and... voila - you just squeezed the best of that sensor!

[dynax800si]

There is a review of Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3 HERE.
On the RAW compression page you can choose Sony A850 from the drop down menu and see the difference in the ACR 2003 and 2010 processes, Bibble 5 and IDC.