D300 NEF Files With Latest Update of Adobe Camera Raw

[joe_a2]

As many of you probably know, the version of Adobe Camera Raw that was previously current (in April-May anyway)

lost information when opening D300 NEFs. The shooting parameters were lost and were not applied to the file when

it opened in CS3. I checked the archives and found nothing on this, so I thought I'd post a head's up...

 

I finally installed the Adobe Update that's been getting prompted for the last few weeks, and part of the update was a

new version of Camera Raw (Version 4.4.1) I don't know what the prior version was. Looks like Adobe has "fixed"

the problem. Have others noticed this change after updating to ACR 4.4.1? If your shooting a D300 (and possibly

other newer bodies like the D60), I'd check to see if your ACR plug-in is the most recent version.

[walterh]

"The shooting parameters were lost and were not applied to the file when it opened in CS3. "

 

Which parameters exactly do you refer to?

 

White balance is the only parameter a p p l i e d to the image during image import by Adobe camera raw.

[dragonslayer55]

By my understanding, Adobe put out the faulty ACR 4.4 update, told users to revert to 4.3.1, and then quickly replaced it with 4.4.1. Ver 4.5 (release candidate) is out now...

[walterh]

David where do you see 4.5? At the Adobe download site the latest is 4.4.1 (April 10, 2008).

 

The combination of "release candidate" and "out now" is a bit puzzling :-)

[joe_a2]

Walter.... I am referring to settings such as sharpening, contrast, saturation, etc. If you take a D300 NEF and make a JPEG or TIFF via CS3 (with what I now guess was Ver 4.4 of Adobe Camera Raw), then compare it to the same NEF converted in View NX or Capture NX, you will see two very different JPEGs/TIFFs. The last ACR clearly drops all settings for sharpness, etc.

 

I am always a bit hesitant to quickly install updates (can you say D3 or, apparently, ACR 4.4), so that's why I waited. It was no big deal since I have always tended to take NEFs through a Nikon Program (View 6 before, View NX and the D300's free Capture NX now).

[zaakiy_siddiqui]

<b>Quick Question:</b> If I have installed the NEF driver update from Nikon, do I still need to install the Adobe one?

<br/><br/>

<i>(only just starting to shoot RAW)</i>

<br/><br/>

Zaakiy

[michael_bradtke]

Hmm

I installed ACR 4.4 when it came out. I had zero problems with it. Then when 4.41 was released I updated it with no problems.

 

As far as I know ACR still does not read all of the information that NX does. Its one of and maybe the only advantage that NX has over ACR

[ellis_vener_photography]

'then compare it to the same NEF converted in View NX or Capture NX, you will see two very different JPEGs/TIFFs. "

 

if you too kthe same NEF cand converted it in Capture NX2, Adobe Camera Raw 4.4.1 (or the current version of Lightroom which also uses ACR as the raw processor); Apple Aperture 2.1, or current versions of Capture One, Iridient Digital's Raw Developer, or Bibble Pro, even with all settings at full neutral you would end up with 5 different interpretatiosn of the raw data. The mathematical engines used in each and every raw processor are different and will render different results.

 

Yes CaptureNX will use as defaults whatever sharpening etc. editiing presets you've programmed your camera for, and outside of white balance Adobe Camera Raw doesn't read those metadata forks .

the reason for this is simple: eveery camera model from every camera manufacturer has slight differences in how that metadata is located even from othe rcamera's from that same manufacturer. Adobe (And I assume the other raw processor shops would have to constantly work on reverse engineering how each manufacturer in their software deals with that metadata and write and test a set of code to emulate that proprietary process. And ou'd have tobe able to prove that the engineers writing that emulation code never ever saw or spoke with anyone who had looked at Canon, Nikon, Hasselblad, leaf, Olympus, pentax, Phase One, etc., etc.'s code.

[dragonslayer55]

ACR 4.5 is available from here:

 

http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php?title=Camera_Raw_4.5#Download

 

I don't think it offers much that's new, beyond support for a couple of Oly cameras.

[joe_a2]

Thanks Ellis.... I guess it's a case of 4.4.1 being better than 4.4, but still not "ideal".

 

That's what I get for assuming a company the size of Adobe would take the time to make the flagship Photoshop

program work with a fairly major professional-market player like the D300. ESPECIALLY WHEN the Camera Raw

page at Adobe has a link to an Adobe-Nikon page that claims full intergration and cooperation with Nikon. Typical

2008 bull**** where it's become the norm to say whatever people want to hear without a second's thought as to

whether it's true or not.

 

Looks like the lesson learned is simple. I'll stick to my existing workflow and convert to JPEGs or TIFFs with View

NX or Capture NX. And I suggest we (collectively) stop telling people to use Camera Raw as if it were converting

properly. We wouldn't recommend a camera that made different RAW and JPEG files of the same scene, so why do

we recommend a plug-in that screws things up?

 

Thanks Everyone!

[georges_walker]

Is ACR 4.5 compatible with CS2 or should I move to CS3 in order to being able to access my D300 Raw files?

[joe_a2]

I believe you need CS3 to access D300 NEFs with ACR. You can use version 4.4.1 if you don't want to experiment with the beta version (ACR 4.5). It just seems that Adobe still doesn't have the D300's NEF secret sauce figured out yet.

 

You can also get proper and full control over the NEFs with Capture NX. There's a good chance your D300 came with a key-code to download and activate Capture NX 1.3.3.

 

Nikon Dowload Site: http://support.nikontech.com/cgi-bin/nikonusa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=61

[garrison_k.]

"That's what I get for assuming a company the size of Adobe would take the time to make the flagship Photoshop program work with a fairly major professional-market player like the D300."

 

It does work. And it works excellent.

[joe_a2]

It does not work completely, Garrison, so it can't be called excellent. Make a straight TIFF conversion with both Adobe Camera Raw and Capture NX, then compare the TIFFs side-by-side. Or make JPEGs, doesn't matter. Compare the file you saved that opened in CS2/CS3 via ACR, against the file you saved that opened in Capture NX, and you'll see color differences and slight contrast changes and brightness differences. Adobe clearly DOES NOT read the NEF code properly.

 

You can try the experiment with free Nikon View NX, too.

[garrison_k.]

Compare the file you saved that opened in CS2/CS3 via ACR, against the file you saved that opened in Capture NX,

and you'll see..."

 

As Ellis pointed out, this difference in results has long been known. They're also subjective. Do you really

think you can tell if others photos were rendered

through NX or CS3?

[joe_a2]

I can certainly tell if the parameters I carefully chose to get the shot correct in-camera have been tossed out. Nothing subjective about losing what you've shot, and you now acknowledge that information IS lost.

 

Go ahead, Garrison. It's OK. You can say it. "Nikon View NX, Nikon Capture NX, and Nikon Capture NX2 are THE ONLY PROGRAMS that properly convert D300 NEFs." Oh wait, you already did when you said "this difference in results has long been known".

[garrison_k.]

"I can certainly tell if the parameters I carefully chose to get the shot correct in-camera have been tossed out."

 

Everybody can and always have. What are you actually arguing here? You open the thread with "The shooting

parameters were lost

and were not applied to the file when it opened in CS3."

 

Other than WB, they never have been applied in an Adobe product or other third party converters. Not sure if this

is going to sink in but you're complaining about something that has never been supported. Read Ellis's post

again. Raw files have to be reversed engineered (hacked) in

order to work with third party converters, much of what they hack is proprietary of Nikon and the "secret sauce"

can't be used. This is a protectionist attitude from Nikon and Canon et all. Perhaps dive into theories on why

dng isn't being used universally (like .jpg) for deeper understandings. In the meantime, it's ridiculous to be

upset at Adobe and start an anti-Adobe campaign to warn others when the sky isn't falling at all.

 

"I can certainly tell if the parameters I carefully chose to get the shot correct in-camera have been tossed out."

 

I didn't say you couldn't and haven't argued otherwise. However, you are among the few that shoot raw this way. Most

do their tweaks in post production and don't bother setting in camera parameters as they are soon irrelevant once

opened and further adjustments are done in the computer. Sharpening for instance, is applied in various ways for

various outputs and

sizes. Why would you set sharpening "in camera"? Every scene is unique, why would you apply universal in-camera

"parameters" settings such as sharpening, contrast, saturation, etc to all of your images?

[joe_a2]

For the record, I am having a nice debate with you. No screaming hiding in my keystrokes.

 

This is obviously not going to sink in with you: You are recommending something to people that does not work the

way you yourself says it does. And it does not work the way Adobe says it does. Adobe chooses to put up a

specific webpage that says they have full integration with Nikon, and they simply DO NOT. I am not anti-Adobe, but

they are wrong here.

 

I am not warning others that the sky is falling, so stop exaggerating everything I say.

 

I set universal parameters depending on the look I'm after, whether it's trying to emmulate Velvia, or a clean portrait-

friendly emulsion, or B&W through filters, or whatever. How we shoot doesn't matter, though. The point is when we

(collectively) recommend something, we should post all we know to those who are asking because they don't know.

Don't leave out known faults.

 

I think you are among the minority if you tweek everything in post production. Yes, sharpening was probably a bad

example, but color modes and contrast and brightness have a very real effect on how an image looks. It's part of the

power that we pay for in our advanced dSLRs, and why they have shooting banks, etc. All these parameters CAN

be tossed aside if you want, of course, but if you go down the ACR route they MUST be lost.

[garrison_k.]

"No screaming hiding in my keystrokes."

 

You certainly use caps lock enough to give a different impression.

 

"Don't leave out known faults."

 

Setting your in-camera settings to something odd and then not having them show up in ACR is not a "fault" of ACR

nor has Adobe ever claimed you can do so.

 

I, like the majority, shoot RAW with just auto WB and adjust to taste after wards in post production. ACR handles

the nef file just like it is on my LCD monitor when I shot it. With the

millions of photog's that import their NEF's into Lightroom and/or Bridge, you're the first one I hear

complaining of short comings from Adobe. This is why you found nothing in the archives before you "gave us a

heads up".

 

What don't you understand from Ellis and others in this thread and this one?

 

http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00Q0Tj

[joe_a2]

Garrison.... I am not setting my camera to something odd. I am setting it to something besides straight-down-the-

center neutral. And I'm not sure why you accept dropping data as OK, especially when Adobe has chosen to claim

they have full two-way cooperation with Nikon. They obviously do not, yet they openly claim they do on this

webpage:

 

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

 

If you convert with View or Capture, you get what you expect as a starting point. When you convert with ACR (or

other 3rd party programs), you do not. Whether you want to keep the data or not, ACR chooses the answer for you.

I will continue to point this out to anyone who asks about converting NEF files. ACR is one conversion choice. It is

clearly not the best.