Photoclubalpha

Not for me to take sole credit for the anti bionz war, but it surely didn't hurt. I did moan myself into some major hate emails..so I think I should be allowed some credit for it..but others did fight the battle too.

As for Thomas Knoll, he is the man who appears to have "fiddled" with the concept of base level noise reduction way back in LR 1.1 if I remember rightly. The point of this blast, is that ACR is pretty poor for high ISO work, putting it mildly. The fact the freebie picasa does (IMO) a nicer high ISO, is pretty worrying for Adobe. Really, this needs to be fixed, and I hope this one hits the top 10 threads on dp, because after all this time..Adobe have done sweet nothing almost, yes they turned it down a bit, but it is still a problem, even more a problem with the A200.

I hope Adobe take note of this and sort it out pretty quick. Or at least offer an "off" option..and you can be sure I will be pretty frank, and not pull any punches..

Well I have no problems letting Ken play with the raw file, it's only a junky snapshot anyway!

Back to ACR, I am NOT HAPPY at all with what is going on, and I am a bit let down there is not more support for this cause. ACR is a terrible choice for high ISO work, and the only reason for that, is the very ill informed choice of Mr Knoll himself. I really have no idea why he thinks his de-noise bayer routine, is decent. It's a pile of junk..being frank about it.

I like LR, it has it's share of issues, and this one has been dragging along for too long now. Time to come on-board folks, and join the crusade...

I'm with you Barry ... the problem is I can;t really speak intelligently enough about it to do any good. I never really liked Adobe as a company but they seem to have become the MS of the graphic arts industry, and the advantage to that is a stable, continuous methodology that people can learn and always know what they are doing in future versions.

Maybe Ken is busy! lol

Anyway, have a look here..

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read. ... e=30145534" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As you can see, it's not a camera specific problem. ACR is some ugly mess for high ISO work.

I started another thread on dp, open talk

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read. ... e=30146878" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Let the big guns fire away..I have no fear of a shame campaign against adobe, they deserve it.

Dp pulled my thread, well I can guess why!

1: They didnt want to upset adobe

2: People would question the validity of their reviews, which are based heavily on ACR

Dp don't want people talking about ACR and it's flaws..shame on phil and co...money talks eh?

New thread..let's see if this sticks!
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read. ... e=30147114" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have clashed with phil a few times in the past. But he has yet to ban me, for some reason.

The thing that bothers me, is that I raised a very valid point. Looking at that LX-3 conversion, there are no doubts as to which one is ropey, and which is decent.

This is in the interests of all users, esp adobe ones. LR is the only adobe product I use..I have no time for other stuff, acrobat..hmmm something simple that is slow and bloaty. But LR has the potential to be "great" this let's the show down. I sure wish some open source crowd would take the LR concept and do it nicely..then I wouldn't even want to use LR. We can but hope..

If Dp want to ban me, then so be it..

I saw a few threads on the adobe forums, but Mr Knoll was not too keen to listen..for some reason.

Oh and DP have pulled that one..how nice, I am in the mood for a fight!

bfitzgerald wrote:New thread..let's see if this sticks!
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read. ... e=30147114" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This new one seems to have been deleted too. I didn't see either one of them.

I won't be bothering myself with dp, I have better things to do, including working through some shots at the weekend.

No doubt I will directly tackle phil and co, when they next do a review with ACR..and ask them why they are using the worst software for high ISO. I respect phil for setting up a very popular site, but my respect has died in other areas. I think he should have left the party when the lights went down (aka when amazon bought it out), I don't hang around my ex employers workplaces

You might find this interesting though! lol


http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/ind ... 0&start=20" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Interesting!

ACR really struggles in the shadow areas, and has problems. The biggest of which is the nasty artefacts that come about with the "Knoll mushmaster" effect as I like to call it.

Played with IDC v 3, and whilst its not amazing, in most cases it did a better job than ACR, with IDC set to 0 NR.

Ken has now done a new thread, you can read it here..
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read. ... e=30163600" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't think Jeff wants to see the reality of the situation..He sure knows far more about PS than I ever will, by a long way. But I do print, and it isn't just about pixel peeping..if you want to squeeze the best possible IQ out of high ISO raw files (whatever camera) ACR is NOT a good choice IMO. Ok I won't notice it on 6" x 4" prints, but hmmm who is printing at those sizes anyway?? Many Adobe guru's are in a state of denial..in my view.

Here we go, A900 this time.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read. ... e=30262093" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


No need to be Mr Spock to see that there is a problem here. The image processing tools of the pros? Looking at the results, it's hard to see how Adobe can live with the bad PR this generates