Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw plug-in for S2

[Ron Green]

Anyone tried this?

Adobe claims "The Photoshop Camera Raw plug-in provides fast and easy access within Photoshop 7 software to the proprietary "raw" image format of the S2 digital camera and others."

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/cameraraw.html

Here is a link to a review...

http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_04/essay.html

[bjnicholls]

I bought the the Adobe filter set today and have done some preliminary testing to see what the raw conversions are like. The interface is very good, but for my Fuji RAW files the "camera settings" color balance is very red (inaccurate) compared to what the Fuji EX converter provides. I don't know if this inaccuracy would apply to other raw file types, but I'm not very pleased about having to do color correction just to get to the same baseline.

I noted when I paid for the download that Adobe makes it clear that these capabilities will be added to the next version of Photoshop. I've read that Photoshop 8 will likely ship this fall, so unless you really need the integration or don't have a viable raw conversion application, you might just sit tight and wait for the upgrade.

I've tried the various other converters. Bibble offers a Photoshop plugin capability, but at least for the PC, the noise reduction for Fuji raw conversions can't be turned off and results in a plastic wrap look that obliterates fine details.

Adobe's interface is superior to any of the alternatives, including the Fuji EX application. Perhaps the camera settings defaults will be modified for better accuracy in a later release. The Adobe "smoothness" setting can be used at low settings to minimize track noise artifacts. But too high a setting is very destructive to detail, so be careful. I don't have any images that would test the moire reduction feature, sorry.

[steve bingham]

After extensive testing I have discovered that the Adobe plug in called Adobe Camera Raw has a few SERIOUS bugs. The biggest being loss of detail! When compared to EX the difference is amazing, especially with grass, hair, etc. In fact the ACR conversions look no better than 12 meg jpg images. It is fast, though. But so what!!!!!!!

Yeah, and Adobe admits as much. Forget it for now. They say they are working on a fix. We shall see.

[bjnicholls]

I use "camera settings" as a point of reference to see if the white balance is good (and it often is) before screwing with it manually. The Adobe converter doesn't honor the camera settings with anything like accuracy, so the starting point for getting color adjusted is a red shifted image. Yeah, I can save custom settings and will do so, but that doesn't negate the problem that the baseline is way off. If Adobe offers an "as shot" item, it should work. It doesn't.

I consider the camera settings display to be like seeing a slide. It may not be where I want the image to end up, but it has been a fixed reference for color. With the Adobe converter, I'm looking at treating raw file colors as basically arbitrary - much more like dealing with the inaccuracy of shooting negative film.

I also don't believe the color temperature slider. I'm working right now with a shot make on an overcast winter day, cool outdoors daylight. To get an image that appears about right, the slider gives me a ridiculous 4600 degree value. The value should be 7000-8000 degrees to have any agreement with reality. Perhaps this points to why the baseline is so far off. If you can't trust the color temperature reading (I just highlighted "cloudy" and my image went yellow-orange) you are basically working by eyeballing every image.

Just in case this is an installation bug, I'll uninstall the Bibble converter that still shows its icons before the Photoshop viewer generates a thumbnail, then I'll remove and reinstall the Adobe converter.

Try it. Pull up an outdoor shot and select an appropriate color temp setting. See if it's anywhere near the ballpark.

Here, take a look at this:

http://users.sisna.com/bjnicholls/Adobe-converter-tests.jpg

You'll have to trust me, but the Fuji EX camera settings (4th image) is far closer to the correct color balance than even my eyeball adjusted Adobe image. The shot was made in a rainstorm and the canyon walls had cool, muted colors. Ironically, the thumbnail that the Adobe converter generates is much closer to the correct color balance.

[bjnicholls]

At least one other Adobe Camera Raw user is seing the same problem with color that I've reported, and he points out that the image size options that Adobe provides are not the same dimensions that Fuji provides either out-of-camera or via the converters. This could mean a compromised interpolation if Adobe is shoehorning the image size to some canned sizes, rather than making an optimal interpolation for the Fuji sensor.

Since the Fuji sensor has the diagonal offset complexity, Adobe's interpolation may be okay. Color issues get in the way of interpreting the fine details, but the Adobe conversions look similar in quality to EX conversions. However, the Adobe conversions have a strip of null data that shows up as a white stripe at the side of an image that is downsampled to web sizes. You can see the white row of pixels on the bottom of the Adobe conversion samples (first three images).

[bjnicholls]

What is the color temperature that the Adobe converter gives you for this? I'll bet the number is ridiculous for a daylight balance.

I see red in the whites of this image. I'm finding this to be a problem with the converter - no matter how much I cool down the image, the white side values for the red channel remain pumped up.

Just because you can hammer the settings into something you find acceptable doesn't make the problems go away.

[bjnicholls]

I opened the jpeg in Photoshop to see if the chart colors were off because of a profile issue. Nope, I see a red cast that's obvious in the greyscale and the orange cast in the yellow.

I used curves to pull the red back out of the highlights and then brightened the values to compensate. If your adjusted Macbeth image looks good on your system, I'd check the calibration. Perhaps you lack experience in calibration...

[jknights]

Just purchased the PS7 RAW plugin.

Only one word WOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW...

Need to test it fully but at first glance it blows them all away, even my favourite Bibble.

I'll do a full test over the next couple of weeks and post my results/comments.

[bjnicholls]

Another series where the correct image colors are more obvious:

http://users.sisna.com/bjnicholls/adobeseries2.jpg

This was shot at on 12/29 at 1:40pm on an overcast day. Cloudy, cool daylight in winter. Color temperature should be 6000 or higher. Look at the absurd color temp value I had to use to arrive at a reasonable color balance using the Adobe converter controls, and the shift to green (that doesn't make sense to use unless dealing with an artificial light source). Note the difference in color balance for the Fuji EX and Adobe "as shot" images.

You can make the converter work by manually customizing and resaving all the presets, but the automation is wrong and the actual values for color temperature are way off what the application indicates. The camera's auto white balance works very well under many conditions and there is no manual workaround that will deliver the auto white balance with the Adobe converter.

[steve bingham]

Thanks, BJ!

Yes, I noticed that too. I have since corrected it and was going to put up a revised version. By the way, you did an excellent job. It has been my habit for years to run on the warm side, hence the reds. But you are so correct. Actually, my prints from the revised version look very good. As I use the Epson 7600 mostly that is my concern. I always need to adjust the profile a little for my old 1270. Right now I am in the process of making and saving other settings for other light sources. Adobe is way too generic to be useful.

[steve bingham]

Hmmmm. I know mine was off, which I have since corrected. But on the gray scale with yours I get a decided weakness in the reds. Using the color picker I get 243-255-255, 203-218-223, 159-168-175, 114-118-127, 62-65-70, 65-64-70, 1-1-1. The lighter grays are not neutral. Something to think about.

[fberg]

For me, the Finepix converter, works very fine.
And I use the LE version!

All agree in to say that, the done conversion
from the Finepix/software, mirrors the colors
presents during the shot.

Eventually, if serves some retouch, it takes an instant
to pass the picture on Photoshop.

I am an Adobe estimator, but I suppose
that in this moment, the product is not still to point.

As it regards my modest experience,
the best treatment is the following:

FINEPIX RAW---> FINEPIX/CONVERTER-->TIFF-->PHOTOSHOP 98.

Obviously, this is worth for me.

Well, why to spend money to create new problems? I prefere to save for a new, very good lens. This, will do the true difference!

Who leaves the old road for the new one, know what leaves, but doesn't know what finds!