ACR and Photoshop

[bnnrcn]

There are same items like contrast,brightness,saturation in both ACR and photoshop.So what is the proper processing method for a raw image?I mean, for best results which items do I have to adjust in ACR before going to photoshop?I ordered Adobe Photoshop CC Classroom in a Book today but it will take at least a month to arrive in Turkey.So I have started going around the software and watching some videos already.I might as well try to process some old photos for training myself.Your comments are appreciated as always.

[PhotomanJohn]

Binnur - My general rule is I do nearly everything in ACR that can be done there. This is because it is generally faster and editing in ACR is a nondestructive process which makes no changes to the actual file. The "changes" you make are kept as a list of instructions in what is referred to as a sidecar file and only implemented on the actual photo when it is opened in a pixel level editor like Photoshop. For a majority of my photographs, all my editing is done in ACR. The develop module of Lightroom is functionally the same as ACR just with a different user interface and very many photographers only use Lightroom.

John

[Manfred M]

Binnur - I think that this really depends on your work flow.

ACR and Lightroom's Develop module are really the same piece of software, with a different user interface, so anything one would do in Lightroom, you can also accomplish in ACR.

My personal style is that I do my basic prep in ACR; white balance, input sharpening, lens correction, setting the white and black point, tweaking the clarity and vibrance and sometimes I will play with the luminance channels. In other words, I will make some global import calls, but will do all the local edits in Photoshop, using a non-destructive workflow.

What this means from a technical standpoint is that I will use all of the information in the RAW data to prepare the best possible base for more intensive edits.

Once in Photoshop; I do all of my work (as far as possible) using adjustment layers, layer masks, blending modes, clipping masks, smart objects and smart filters. The main advantage of this work flow is I can build up parts of an image and as I continue to build I can go back an undo things in any order, tweak existing parts of the edit to change how they work with different parts of the image. The process is largely self documenting; I can go back at any time to figure out what I have done and either reproduce it in another image or continue to evolve the image as the look I want in my work contnues to evolve.

The downside of this technique is that it results in larger files (do take a bit longer to save and load) and take up more storage space. These techniques can take a bit longer to perform than some of the similar steps in ACR or Lightroom, but can be done with a far higher level of precision.

The bottom line is I can use the full power of Photoshop this way and get images that are impossible to create in any other way. I will save images as psd files and will use these as my master files to finalize for web or print output.

Carefully said, I use this for 1% to 5% of the images that I have. Family shots / snapshots are fine straight out of the camera. Images posted to the web often have no more than a few minutes of work; but the really great captures will get 15 or 20 minutes, and sometime more tender loving care to get the best out of them.

[Brev00]

I use Elements but it is just a stripped down version of Photoshop so I think the basic things apply. I read in a guide that one should do as much as possible in ACR. That one instruction made a huge difference in my approach. I do my best to get every slider where I want it including the sliders in the noise reduction/sharpening page. Since I bought some plug-ins a while back (Nik, Topaz, and now Perfect Effects 8), I find I do a lot more editing after the conversion than I used to, often adding some Tonal Contrast in Color Efex, for example, or Detail in Topaz Detail. But, the basic principle remains the same for me: work my file in ACR as best I can. Good luck. It is all a learning curve that we bend to our own styles.

[bnnrcn]

Thanks all of you,what I understand from your comments is that I have to concantrate on ACR first

[rpcrowe]

Binnur... This YouTube video "Travel Photography" by Scott Kelby shows Scott's workflow when using ACR and Photoshop. He does just about everything that he can in ACR and then turns the image over into Photoshop for final editing...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIt1cDw5lLI

I hope this helps...

[bnnrcn]

Thank you very much Richard,I will certainly watch it

Binnur... This YouTube video "Travel Photography" by Scott Kelby shows Scott's workflow when using ACR and Photoshop. He does just about everything that he can in ACR and then turns the image over into Photoshop for final editing...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIt1cDw5lLI

I hope this helps...

[Manfred M]

Binnur... This YouTube video "Travel Photography" by Scott Kelby shows Scott's workflow when using ACR and Photoshop. He does just about everything that he can in ACR and then turns the image over into Photoshop for final editing...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIt1cDw5lLI

I hope this helps...

On the other hand; Photoshop Hall of Famer (and KelbyOne trainer) Dave Cross advocates a workflow similar to the one I use.

http://www.dcross.com/

[bnnrcn]

Thank you Manfred,I will certainly watch it

On the other hand; Photoshop Hall of Famer (and KelbyOne trainer) Dave Cross advocates a workflow similar to the one I use.

http://www.dcross.com/

[Colin Southern]

Generally anything you CAN do in ACR you SHOULD do in ACR. The main reason is that whilst you're in ACR you're still in linear gamma so all the data is still intact. Once you pass the image through to Photoshop you're in gamma 2.2, so tonal ranges have then been compressed and stretched (ie a lot of information has been thrown away). Once you get into Photoshop "proper" you can still adjust tonal ranges, but it's best practice to only make small tonal range adjustments; if big ones are needed then they should have been done in ACR.

What many folks don't realise is that ACR tailors the single conversion no matter how many things you tweak, eg some folks worry that adjusting too many things will have a cumulative effect on image degradation in ACR, but it doesn't. It's a bit like taking 10 steps forward, 7 steps back, 2 more back, then 14 forward followed by 9 back - when the image has been converted in ACR you haven't taken 42 steps; ACR works it all out an only makes a single adjustment of "6 steps forward" Once you get into Photoshop "proper" then edits to a single layer are all counted as "individual steps". Hope that made sense.

[bnnrcn]

Thank you Colin,I started watching some videos about Photoshop CC and it is said that ' Adobe keeps working on ACR to make it more powerful'.After comments in this thread,I understand better why Adobe is doing that.

Generally anything you CAN do in ACR you SHOULD do in ACR. The main reason is that whilst you're in ACR you're still in linear gamma so all the data is still intact. Once you pass the image through to Photoshop you're in gamma 2.2, so tonal ranges have then been compressed and stretched (ie a lot of information has been thrown away). Once you get into Photoshop "proper" you can still adjust tonal ranges, but it's best practice to only make small tonal range adjustments; if big ones are needed then they should have been done in ACR.

What many folks don't realise is that ACR tailors the single conversion no matter how many things you tweak, eg some folks worry that adjusting too many things will have a cumulative effect on image degradation in ACR, but it doesn't. It's a bit like taking 10 steps forward, 7 steps back, 2 more back, then 14 forward followed by 9 back - when the image has been converted in ACR you haven't taken 42 steps; ACR works it all out an only makes a single adjustment of "6 steps forward" Once you get into Photoshop "proper" then edits to a single layer are all counted as "individual steps". Hope that made sense.

[Colin Southern]

Thank you Colin,I started watching some videos about Photoshop CC and it is said that ' Adobe keeps working on ACR to make it more powerful'.After comments in this thread,I understand better why Adobe is doing that.

I guess that like any company operating in a competitive environment they want to make their products as good as possible. I haven't read m/any of the comments above about it, but (in general terms) many photographers only ever manage to tap into a tiny fraction of it's power. It's also quite common for people to "moan" about "this or that" not realising that the program is already several steps ahead of them (eg not liking the colours that are produced when they're not aware they need to select the most appropriate profile for the type of shot they're processing) (eg a profile for portraits will be different from one for landscapes).