Ok – so I’m still waiting for the Pro release of version 4 of the PhaseOne RAW software I use. Time not standing still and all that, I’ve been tinkering with other RAW solutions in the meantime to see how they compare. The past few days I’ve had a lot of shots to process for a commercial job so for expediency I decided to do it all just using Adobe Camera Raw 4. A few hundred shots later I thought I’d pass on some thoughts/advice on it for any interested parties.
ACR has a BIG trump card in its favour in that it’s free. Sort of. Free as in it is downloadable for use within adobe products such as Photoshop, Lightroom and the current version of Elements.
It’s also very fast. Processing a RAW file to raster data takes just a few seconds. Certainly as fast as any of the big pro RAW processors. The level of detail it extracts from the data file is also very impressive. Significantly higher than version 3 – a very real noticeable improvement rather than just a perceptual tweak. I compared similar shots from the same camera but processed in different apps and the adobe one beat it hands down. This is mainly down to its clarity improvement option.
Unfortunately, that’s where the good news ends. Many of its other enhancement tools appear to be very good within the RAW preview but when it is processed the results can be terrible – almost like the program can’t cash the cheques it’s writing for itself. These can be very destructive to the detail if they are over used. The fill light function for instance is practically redundant as anything over 10% value begins to posterise the image – badly. The afore mentioned clarity function works better but again – if it’s used heavy handed the results won’t stand up to any close scrutiny. They do appear optically ok but that’s about it.
The conclusion from all that preamble being then: if you have a lot of images to get through fast or just the odd occasional shot then ACR could be just the ticket. Just use it with kid gloves and keep in mind the preview in RAW may not translate that well to the finished product. If you are wanting a more consistent and polished quality result, probably best to look elsewhere and, unfortunately, splash some cash.
ACR has a BIG trump card in its favour in that it’s free. Sort of. Free as in it is downloadable for use within adobe products such as Photoshop, Lightroom and the current version of Elements.
It’s also very fast. Processing a RAW file to raster data takes just a few seconds. Certainly as fast as any of the big pro RAW processors. The level of detail it extracts from the data file is also very impressive. Significantly higher than version 3 – a very real noticeable improvement rather than just a perceptual tweak. I compared similar shots from the same camera but processed in different apps and the adobe one beat it hands down. This is mainly down to its clarity improvement option.
Unfortunately, that’s where the good news ends. Many of its other enhancement tools appear to be very good within the RAW preview but when it is processed the results can be terrible – almost like the program can’t cash the cheques it’s writing for itself. These can be very destructive to the detail if they are over used. The fill light function for instance is practically redundant as anything over 10% value begins to posterise the image – badly. The afore mentioned clarity function works better but again – if it’s used heavy handed the results won’t stand up to any close scrutiny. They do appear optically ok but that’s about it.
The conclusion from all that preamble being then: if you have a lot of images to get through fast or just the odd occasional shot then ACR could be just the ticket. Just use it with kid gloves and keep in mind the preview in RAW may not translate that well to the finished product. If you are wanting a more consistent and polished quality result, probably best to look elsewhere and, unfortunately, splash some cash.