It appears that Camera Raw is now applying significant sharpening with no control now at removing this. Even if we choose 'Camera Settings' for the 'Raw Defaults' we can't seem to get rid of this extra sharpening. Any ideas?
Can you explain what you're seeing and where? I can absolutely see sharpening taking place in Detail when zoomed at 100%. And zoomed out although that's not how you want to be viewing an image when applying the sharpening. The images don't appear 'over sharpened' to me but of course it depends on the settings.
DS images would appear to be oversharpened if they had a workflow that assumes images are not capture sharpened in the camera raw output, but rather sharpened downstream in another application. If they had selected the Preview Sharpen Only option, and were using a workflow that sharpens downstream, their images would indeed be sharpened twice now that option has been removed. This has broken the workflow for many users and will require the rewriting of actions and scripts that relied on no sharpening taking place at the Camera Raw output stage. Sharpening can of course be set to zero in the detail palette but this will make a less than optimal viewing experience.
Do explain exactly what you think I don’t understand?
Where to begin? I know, facts and actual working experience.
Of the two of us Ash, one is a professional photographer who with 5 other professional photographers developed a suite of Photoshop plug-in’s, one dedicated to sharpening images (PhotoKit Sharpener). The sharpening workflow and sharpening routines were licensed BY Adobe for use IN both Lightroom and ACR. For over a decade! One of us knows what's going on under the hood in terms of this sharpening.
One of us not only reads both release notes (before installing software) and manuals, one here has worked on writing both release notes and manuals for software.
You want a primer on how LR/ACR sharpens, start at the very beginning:
As to manuals, be happy to send you the one on sharpening from PhotoKit Sharpener if you'd read it, but the introductory concept that’s important is how/where you view sharpening. Page 4 of the PKS manual discusses this and shows it:
Now there is another major difference in our posting agenda, certainly in two Adobe forums. One of us is trying to assist users with both older or newer Adobe products and has done so for many years. Another is mostly spending his time whining about a new version of one product and our posting histories are a paper trail anyone can examine. I should feel guilty hearing about your sadness and displeasure caused by the nonfulfillment of hopes and expectations from ACR but I’m struggling to do so.
In 12.3 you can only preview at 100% original pixels. In 12.2 you can preview at 100% view of any chosen output size.
The preview of a 42MP image at 100% is about 8 foot wide on my monitor, totally useless when it comes to knowing what a 4K or 2560px image will look like.
The preview in 12.2 even reduced way down to 2560px is accurate, it looks exactly the same as the resultant output file, you can load the output back into ACR and compare it to the downsized preview of the full raw file. Flick between them. They look identical. Try it.
So the two workflows for 4K... 12.2: Preview at 4K and sharpen knowing exactly what the sharping will look like. Export jpgs and you are ready to post the USB.
12.3: Export at 4K resolution with no sharpening, save those files, probably about 800 tiffs, open all those back up and now 100% view will be the 4K image (that you got without any effort in 12.2) so you can sharpen them. Export *again* to jpgs, delete the tiffs that were using up space on your SSD for no good reason.
The 12.2 workflow is far faster and more efficient in drive space.
If it was one 60" print then I'm happy with the 12.3 workflow. But for 800 images, being able to see a preview of the deliverable is a superb feature of 12.2.
Pretending to know all the requirements and workflows of every photographer would be arrogant in the extreme.
The new behavior is actually 'more correct' then previous if you take how sharpening is conducted in a sharpening workflow. Yes, you may prefer the old way but there are reasons the new way was produced. 1. As I mentioned in the 2nd part of this thread, the only accurate way to view capture sharpening (and that's key to state; capture sharpening) is at 100% preview (Develop in LR, or main window ACR). Odd zoom ratio's greater, depending on display can be iffy. 2. OUTPUT sharpening has NEVER been previewed in the past in any version(s) of LR or ACR. There are many good reasons not to, one being, it's based on the actual size (pixel density of the resulting rendered image, which can differ from the original), and it is based upon the CAPTURE sharpening you can and should adjust to taste. 3. Output sharpening for print can look really ugly but make a wonderful looking print, again depending on the above and other parameters like paper type. Note LR/ACR only provided limited output sharpening; screen and print. A few strengths, you never, ever see that visually on-screen. 4. Considering that you cannot know or control how others view your images on-screen, only your display, output sharpening for screen is more of a YMMV condition. In the same context, at 100% current resolution of the original, you've hopefully applied Capture Sharpening visually as desired. What happens upon resampling is not WYSIWYG until you resample. It may be close, it may not be. The sharpening IS adjusted while ACR/LR conduct it's unique adaptive interpolation!
Yes, the resolution of the final image plays a role in how the image appears in it's final form but again, you will never see it that way due to Output Sharpening IF used, is never shown to you.
Yes, the new ACR behavior better matches LR and LR's been doing this more correctly, based on the above facts, than 'legacy ACR'. I understand you may like it better, but there is justification for the new ways.
The initial question here was rather simple and I'll copy and paste the question as that's why they came here:
It appears that Camera Raw is now applying significant sharpening with no control now at removing this. Even if we choose 'Camera Settings' for the 'Raw Defaults' we can't seem to get rid of this extra sharpening. Any ideas?
The OP left without answering the question to assist (post#2) and then the post degraded (again) into how 12.3 is 'broken'.
The facts for the OP who left a month ago is there is control over sharpening. The facts are, indeed, 12.3 is different as Andrew Davies has outlined. There are some facts as to why. IF you want to really SEE the effect of both Capture and Output Sharpening on a print, you need to apply the later at the print size and make a print! IF you want to see the effect of both Capture Sharpening and Output Sharpening for a display, again you must do the same; render the image and see how it looks on YOUR display. How it looks elsewhere is an assumption and we've got enough people assuming than necessary.
The preview in 12.3 is more broken than just turning on and off sharpening can fix.
Pre 12.3 you could preview the files at the size they were going to be exported at. It is now broken and 100% is always 100% pixel view and does not respect your output size. You could see the files as they look at 4K for example. Why is this important? Lots of reasons. E.g. Some people own a combination of 12MP, 24MP, 42MP, 61MP cameras from the same camera brand. To be able to fairly compare the final result you want to be able to match the final size and zoom in and compare at that size. E.g. You can see how the sharpening and noise reduction looks at 100% for a set of say 4K images. I used to open all the images within a ISO range and adjust those and I could see what the final quality would look like. You can flick through and check noise and sharpness for quality control.
If you are going suggest the majority is OK with 12.3 then you really don't understand the ACR userbase. Most Photography plan users will not complain about ACR because they don't use it. They use Lightroom. A lot don't know ACR or Bridge exists. Those that do usually don't know you can open more than one file in ACR (at one time I ran a photography meetup group with 1000+ photographers, demoed to 50+ at a time, I have a fair idea). I ended my subscription and will resume when ACR goes back to the old layout and the essential feature are back.
Andrew, thanks for your clarity on this. There are some people here that have no idea of the issues 12.3 has caused many (yes, Andrew MANY) photographers that use ACR. Hopefully in time Adobe will add back what we liked/needed in the Legacy ACR, in the meantime I have reverted to the previous version as recommended by Adobe, some helpful people and a troll.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
All you have to do is open up a high resolution image in 12.2 and 12.3. Set the output parameters at the bottom to 2560px by 2560px. Now zoom in at 100% with version 12.2 and 12.3. There is a complete change in the behaviour. 12.2 show the 2560px result at 100% and shows the sharpening at that size. You get to see how the downsizing has affected noise levels. 12.3 shows the full resolution ignoring your output size changes.
The following should be noted... 1) if you like 12.3 behaviour then 12.2 can do that. You just don't change the output params and you can do the output resize in the save dialog or image processor. Everyone is happy.
2) if you like the 12.2 behaviour, 12.3 has no option for it. Not everyone is happy.
Should be obvious which of those is better.
Just because someone didn't use the feature (If you use Lightroom then you didn't) it does not mean others didn't know how useful it was.
I'd like to think the team designing the new interface didn't even know the old version worked the way it did, to change it deliberately would make no sense at all.
Andrew, I'd like you to examine the two screen captures below from 12.2 and let me know if you see the same results and care to comment.
The first screen capture is in ACR 12.2, the preview is at 100% as it is set for 1000x1000 pixels (so a resample DOWN from the captured raw), there is NO output sharpening set and you wouldn't see it in ACR anyway:
The image is then opened in Photoshop, it is again set at 100%:
The sharpening absolutely does NOT match. The Moire pattern in the woman's top is very apparent in ACR, it doesn't show up in Photoshop.
When one alters the workflow settings (link) in ACR, as seen above, yes indeed, the image zooms out in this case, the asked for rendering is only 1000x1000 pixels. The sharpening doesn't at all appear to update or be anything like what the sharpening appears as after.
Based on this, I do not believe capture sharpening was ever meant to be close to WYSIWYG expect at full resolution at 100% (1:1). It appears all ACR does is update the preview at 100% based on the asked for output of pixels but has no bearing on the sharpening.
But if you can provide a preview at 100% in ACR that matches what results in Photoshop, I'd be interested in seeing it.
I have no idea why your preview looks so awful, something is very wrong there. It looks incredibly noisy. Maybe your GPU is messing up. My preview was very slightly noisier with GPU on but nothing like yours. It is like you are trying to make it look bad. Should be very clean with GPU off, almost identical to the final output. Couldn't possibly work with the quality of your preview.
I'd suspended my adobe sub until this feature is added back. I left some feedback day one of 12.3 release, there was a fix rumoured, I was looking in these threads to see if there was any news of that fix before I take up a Capture One discount. Doesn't seem to be coming.
I have no idea why your preview looks so awful, something is very wrong there.
Nothing wrong; and its not noisy but I upped the setting for sharpness slider a LOT to see the effects visually. But that's not the issue; the two previews don't match. So can you produce a match even if the sharpening is 'over done'? Of course, if indeed, the 'feature' is as you describe, they should match. It does help to use an image with high frequency areas, like the shirt shown.
Maybe your GPU is messing up
Better off after it zooms out but still a mismatch (the sharpening just doesn't match).
Should be very clean with GPU off, almost identical to the final output.
What do you mean almost identical. If it's doing what you say, it should BE identical. It still isn't; the sharpening isn't WYSIWYG as you describe with a smaller rendering.
IF the image is output at 100% native resolution, the two are identical at 100%:
An exact match AS expected at 100% resolution from a rendering.
I'd suspended my adobe sub until this feature is added back.
I'm uncertain the 'feature' ever existed. I'm willing to believe it might IF I can see a match but I can't.
Yes, the image zooms at 100% based on the settings just applied in this older version. No, the sharpening doesn't match what I end up with after rendering.
I left some feedback day one of 12.3 release, there was a fix rumoured
Where was this, who said it was a bug?
Again, it might be a bug in the NEW version. It could be a bug in 12.2 but what I can tell you is on this end, I cannot produce a match in sharpening seen between ACR and Photoshop unless I render at 100% native resolution as shown above. It's a JPEG screen capture above, on my NEC PA271Q, the ACR window preview and the resulting Photoshop preview match exactly. It is WYSIWYG and that's to be expected. anything smaller, no.
You are right, for very high levels of sharpness the two won't match. I've just found at the levels of sharpness I use the match is very good. If I am dealing with 16,24,42MP images I can compare better on the downsized 4K preview than I can either at 100% true pixel view or on a much smaller fit to view. Have to run, I'll find the fix thread tomorrow.
You are right, for very high levels of sharpness the two won't match.
Good to know we're on the same page.
So I suspect this wasn't a real feature. That is, some sharpening is applied but it isn't visually accurate less than 100% and when ACR workflow options show 100% after you alter the controls for less than a native output resolution, what's shown isn't expected to be WYSIWYG. So 12.3 simply fixed this disconnect (it's not nice to show something that's not real). So it's not a 12.3 bug, it's a 12.3 fix.
I used a very high level of sharpening so it was easy to detect a match. Easy to see at 100% native resolution; match. Easy to see at less then 100% native resolution: Mismatch.
Having a downsized view IS a feature even if the sharpness isn't an exact match at all amounts. It is very close at normal levels and you know the final result will look no worse. So if I am judging if a little motion blur on a 42MP image is going to impact a 4K output I can do that. Is it better or worse than the second shooters 24MP image? A standard 100% view of each doesn't compare them at all fairly. It is a 12.3 removal of a feature you personally didn't use. Calling it a fix, I don't know what to say.
Would be nice if the ACR team listened to ACR users and not Lightroom users.
Even the version number was a mistake. 12.3 is hardly a minor version change, it is the biggest change since I stared using it back on CS2 15 years ago. It made the changes unexpected as well as unwelcome.
12.2 + the hue shift tool would have gone down great, instead a useful post about a nice new feature was overwhelmed by all the problems 12.3 created in peoples workflows.
Sorry, are you suggesting I zoom out the high resolution images to better match the size of the lower ones? I must have misunderstood. Because that method for 2000 images (split over the 4-5 cameras we use) will need thousands of extra mouse clicks (changing zoom is two clicks).
Pre 12.3 you can select all the images, zoom all to 100% in 2 clicks and compare all of them at a standardized size set by workflow options. The workflow was useful, I was very happy with it.
I have in length explained how the feature you assume works doesn't and why the change may have been made. I clearly stated that may change but it probably will not.
The thing is Andrew (Rodney) that we get that you are not receptive to the concept of any voices of discord being acted upon.
We (certainly I) are basically trying to catch the ear of the people more important than you (yes, there are some amazingly) who may think "actually yes, that would be worth looking at" and have the clout to actually fix the issues some people are having, without spoiling the pretty new suit ACR is wearing.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
It worked perfectly well enough to be useful for many years and hundreds of thousands of photos. You had to use silly sharpening levels to prove a point. And as I have explained, even if the sharpening isn't an exact match it is still a very useful feature to match cameras of different MP. It would have been better to try and improve the preview rather than taking away a tool while some people were still using it.
If you want you can carry on suggesting that: 1) there was a super obvious bug in ACR that was so bad it needed removing but that it took them over a decade to do it. 2) All people that used that bug (which had a prominent menu to access and change its parameters) and found it useful don't know what they are doing. So much so that when it has gone they have the audacity to complain.
The drop down on 12.2 says WORKFLOW options. It does NOT say OUTPUT or SAVE options. Logically you'd expect them to be used as you work, not just for output.
I make a point based on my actual usage of the software. On most images at the sharpening levels I use, it is close enough to be a useful feature. That my exports will be higher quality than the preview is acceptable.
The funny thing is, you can use the ALT key to preview the masking and other sliders on the reduced 100% view. And if you are at a view other than 100% a warning pops up about the preview not being accurate. At 100% that warning goes away even if you have a reduced size preview.
Leaving the warning to say it might not be identical would be OK, an improvement perhaps, but taking the feature away completely is not OK.
I make a point based on my actual usage of the software.
So did I; the sharpening isn't matching and thus incorrect despite what you wrote twice and quoted.
On most images at the sharpening levels I use, it is close enough to be a useful feature.
You could say the same of color matching without color management or using an uncalibrated and profiled display. But ACR, Photoshop etc work with color management so there are exact color matching. Not 'close enough'.
When I render the at the native resolution, Capture Sharpening is an identical match between ACR and Photoshop when viewed at the correct zoom ratio. EXACT and IDENTICAL. This is expected and designed behavior. The same should be true in your preferred and assumed feature but it isn't. So again, a bug? Maybe. A misunderstanding of what's being seen? My impression based on testing, images uploaded and shared; one impression above you agreed with.
It isn't right for ACR to show a preview that doesn't result in what it is going to provide after rendering within the KNOWN design I've tried to explain here (Output Sharpening is never shown, zoom ratio's that are not 100% or greater and undergoing subsampling for zooming out etc). This is exactly what is seen with the preview in ACR and Photoshop using a native resolution and it isn't what's seen if not.
What should Adobe do? IMHO (and I have some influence but only a little): 1. Don't show an incorrect preview based on workflow settings that make users assume it's showing sharpening correctly. That's the current behavior in 12.3.
OR
2. Make it show sharpening correctly based on the Workflow Options. 12.2 does neither. Bug? Maybe.
The funny thing is, you can use the ALT key to preview the masking and other sliders on the reduced 100% view.
It isn't funny, it is by design. Masking covers all of the underlying image with a mask, it's an utterly different kind of preview. But if you wish to see the actual effect of the resulting sharpening, you must view them at 100%.
Leaving the warning to say it might not be identical would be OK, an improvement perhaps, but taking the feature away completely is not OK.
Perhaps, make a feature request. Recognize some will rant ("I don't want to see this all the time, blah, blah blah")
An improvement is users understanding how the tools actually work without assumptions which as I've said, have been heard here far too often.
A broken feature may have been removed. Maybe it will be fixed, maybe not.The feature you speak of isn't working as it should. It absolutely isn't WYSIWYG unless you can prove otherwise like I have attempted and have done above. There is ONE and only one condition where I get a match, we both know how that's done in either version.
In 12.2 I can judge if the sharpness of an image is acceptable as it will be delivered at 4K. Simple as that.
I might not see exactly the sharpening (though it is very close at defaults) but I can say "this looks sharp" and know that no one is going to say "why did you give me a blurry photo".
I can compare if a slightly motion blurred 42MP looks better or worse than a 16MP image.
If I can not do this I have to: export all to 4K look to see if they now pass quality control remove the ones that don't rename the raws and exports the same way to remove missing numbers.
In 12.2 you can have your cake and eat it, no one is forcing you to use the reduced size in the workflow options.
For a handful of images, I'll switch to full image views and sharpen by hand, but if you are processing thousands of images a week then any efficiencies in workflow mount up. That is why I use ACR in the first place.
I'll leave it there and we can see how 12.4 turns out. This and the bizarre crop tool change are my major issues. Removing the tabs was silly and little things like leaving the scroll bar area showing when no scroll bar is required are a basic errors. Like showing a scrollbar on a webpage that shouldn't scroll due to an overflow.
In 12.2 I can judge if the sharpness of an image is acceptable as it will be delivered at 4K. Simple as that.
Yes, you can. Other's can't because the preview is wrong and those users, and Adobe engineers don't accept "Close Enough". It's not correct in 12.2 and it's gone in 12.3+ Maybe it will come back fixed. Maybe it will never come back.
I'll leave it there and we can see how 12.4 turns out.
Again, you're making assumptions.
I'd suspended my adobe sub until this feature is added back.
That might make looking at that version a tad difficult ;-)
Andrew, with a sigh I will ignore your approach to me and my professional work, and instead thank you for the offer of further education.
I'm sorry, when I stated, factually: Of the two of us Ash, one is a professional photographer who with 5 other professional photographers developed a suite of Photoshop plug-in’s, one dedicated to sharpening images (PhotoKit Sharpener),
I was wrong and you are a professional photographer who has worked worked with 5 other professional photographers to develop a suite of Photoshop plug-ins? What's the product named you and the other's produced?
Meanwhile the actual issue of 12.3 being apparently unable to display final output size with sharpening remains.
One that again, you don't understand nor have commented on specifically. I do and can (and may), but I have to address the consistent whining and misunderstandings based on assumptions first.
Yes Ash, you were wrong and I'm a professional Photographer. Your lack of experience producing software, creating release notes and software manuals (or reading them?), as a beta site for Adobe (others?) and your understanding of a sharpening workflow are well established in the forums. The actual question was addressed. One can still preview capture sharpening. The secondary comment was addressed and without the PKS manual, I'm not certain you'll understand it.
Meanwhile the actual issue of 12.3 being apparently unable to display final output size with sharpening remains.
Now do you see the facts that 12.2 is (and not apparently)unable to display final output size with sharpening and wasn't doing this correctly in the first place WHILE 12.3 is (?) fixing this?
1. As I mentioned in the 2nd post of this thread, the only accurate way to view capture sharpening (and that's key to state; capture sharpening) is at 100% preview (Develop in LR, or main window ACR). Odd zoom ratio's greater, depending on display can be iffy.
This is true, but you could use the pyramid Zoom View settings in LR's Library to get a better idea of what the resized image file will look like on export. Granted you can't see the effect of Output sharpening, but it's still useful in my opinion. Notice I said "could" because in LR versions up through 5.7.1 the <1:1 Library module previews were created using bicubic interpolation same as the export module. LR 6 through 9.3 Library module now uses nearest neighbor interpolation for creating the 1:3 and smaller size screen previews and the Develop module uses bilinear interpolation. So effectively there is no way to preview what a reduced size export file will look like (w/o output sharpening) inside LR. This at least appears to be the case on Windows 10 systems with GPU enabled. More at the below link.
Library module now uses nearest neighbor interpolation same as the export module.
Not at all my understanding from engineering (Eric Chan) about interpolation used for output. The interpolation is an adaptive bicubic interpolation that isn't like anything found in Photoshop proper. Adobe Photoshop Lightroom and I believe ACR resampling is a hybrid Bicubic algorithm that interpolates between Bicubic and Bicubic Smoother for upsampling and Bicubic and Bicubic Sharper for downsampling. The algorithm parameters are chosen automatically based on the relationship between the original image size and the final image size. These parameters were determined empirically by doing lots of experiments with photos being resampled to common output sizes, such as web-sized images (800 to 1000pixels on the longer dimension), small prints, and big prints.
Andrew Rodney said "Library module now uses nearest neighbor interpolation same as the export module."
Andrew, bad copy and paste–I never said that!
What I said in my reply above:
"LR 6 through 9.3 Library module now uses nearest neighbor interpolation for creating the 1:3 and smaller size screen previews and the Develop module uses bilinear interpolation."
Please continue the conversation at the problem report link I provided. Thank you.
Library module previews were created using bicubic interpolationsame as the export module.
What export module previews (what export module)? The export dialog has interpolation used for exporting images and again, it's not strictly a bicubic interpolation. It is a hybrid adaptive interpolation as explained.
Responses
dianna_snape
1 Message
•
60 Points
8 months ago
2
0
t_hoover
2 Messages
•
74 Points
8 months ago
0
0
t_hoover
2 Messages
•
74 Points
8 months ago
0
0
tal_wilson
2 Messages
•
110 Points
8 months ago
0
0
JEA
704 Messages
•
9.4K Points
8 months ago
The documentation for Camera Raw only covers versions 12.2 and older, with the exception of a few screenshots.
https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/user-guide.html
It's no wonder users have such hate for camera raw 12.3 when even adobe hardly provides minimal
instructions for all the changes.
0
JEA
704 Messages
•
9.4K Points
7 months ago
7
0
Rikk
Adobe Administrator
•
9.5K Messages
•
130.5K Points
7 months ago
Quality Engineering - Customer Advocacy
2
andrew_davies_j81e7ii2drd2q
21 Messages
•
642 Points
6 months ago
All you have to do is open up a high resolution image in 12.2 and 12.3. Set the output parameters at the bottom to 2560px by 2560px. Now zoom in at 100% with version 12.2 and 12.3.
There is a complete change in the behaviour.
12.2 show the 2560px result at 100% and shows the sharpening at that size. You get to see how the downsizing has affected noise levels. 12.3 shows the full resolution ignoring your output size changes.
The following should be noted...
1) if you like 12.3 behaviour then 12.2 can do that. You just don't change the output params and you can do the output resize in the save dialog or image processor.
Everyone is happy.
2) if you like the 12.2 behaviour, 12.3 has no option for it.
Not everyone is happy.
Should be obvious which of those is better.
Just because someone didn't use the feature (If you use Lightroom then you didn't) it does not mean others didn't know how useful it was.
I'd like to think the team designing the new interface didn't even know the old version worked the way it did, to change it deliberately would make no sense at all.
18
Ash_Mills_Photography
460 Messages
•
9K Points
6 months ago
I'd love to read your manual for PKS, thanks.
Meanwhile the actual issue of 12.3 being apparently unable to display final output size with sharpening remains.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
5
0
todd_shaner_6660895
Champion
•
2.3K Messages
•
38.2K Points
6 months ago
Since this is off topic please provide your comments at the below problem report I created. Thank you.
https://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/library-preview-zoom-interpolation-changed
6
0