The answer is right there at the bottom of the window - Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) "...which lets you import and enhance raw images ..." When you try to open any raw image in Photoshop, the first window tha appears is ACR. You can make many initial adjustments in ACR before handing the image over to Photoshop. After leaving the ACR screen and working in Photoshop you are no longer editing the raw file, as such. Photoshop is a pixel editor, not a raw editor. You can, however, while working in Photoshop, bring up many of the tools found in ACR - look under the Filter menu for the ACR Filter.View attachment 230515 View attachment 230516 View attachment 230517
There is no piece of software called Adobe CC. Adobe Creative Cloud https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud.html is an entire suite of applications designed to create and edit "content." CC includes
View attachment 230515
and
View attachment 230516
Not shown in those screen shots, but a part of CC is
View attachment 230517
So which one or more of these applications to you use to process Nikon NEFs. When you can, please post screen shots of your workflow.
I appreciate all these points, but that still doesn't address the core issue here. That core issue is whether ACR can import a NikonScan NEF file as opposed to a Nikon DSLR NEF file. I have found several different web posts that state that ACR cannot in fact import a NikonScan NEF file. BMBikeRider claims he can do that successfully. Also, his reference to "Adobe CC" is ambiguous. What is why I have asked for screenshots of his workflow.The answer is right there at the bottom of the window - Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) "...which lets you import and enhance raw images ..." When you try to open any raw image in Photoshop, the first window tha appears is ACR. You can make many initial adjustments in ACR before handing the image over to Photoshop. After leaving the ACR screen and working in Photoshop you are no longer editing the raw file, as such. Photoshop is a pixel editor, not a raw editor. You can, however, while working in Photoshop, bring up many of the tools found in ACR - look under the Filter menu for the ACR Filter.
You might say Lightroom IS ACR with a much expanded interface and many additional features. Because Lightroom is a raw editor, there is no two-step process like with Photoshop.
It is electronic data that cannot be read as an image without using some sort of conversion into an imaging format like TIFF.What's a RAW image from a scanner?
If you want what the scanner scan without adjustments, just scan flat and save it as a tiff. Then adjust it in post with Lightroom, Photoshop, or any other image processing program you wish. Converting it to a proprietary file after the scan doesn;t improve it. It just modifies it to make it proprietary. There's no point in doing that.It is electronic data that cannot be read as an image without using some sort of conversion into an imaging format like TIFF.
Scanners don't output in TIFF - they output a RAW file, with the characteristics of that RAW file being proprietary to the scanner manufacturer.If you want what the scanner scan without adjustments, just scan flat and save it as a tiff. Then adjust it in post with Lightroom, Photoshop, or any other image processing program you wish. Converting it to a proprietary file after the scan doesn;t improve it. It just modifies it to make it proprietary. There's no point in doing that.
Scanners don't output in TIFF - they output a RAW file, with the characteristics of that RAW file being proprietary to the scanner manufacturer.
If you want to use that RAW file, you need to convert it into something. Often people use scanner software to do that initial conversion to something like TIFF.
That conversion is an interpretation - it changes things - and the quality of that interpretation varies with converters.
By accepting the interpretation imposed by your scanner software when it does the conversion from the native RAW to TIFF, you may be compromising on the available quality.
If you want what the scanner scan without adjustments, just scan flat and save it as a tiff. Then adjust it in post with Lightroom, Photoshop, or any other image processing program you wish. Converting it to a proprietary file after the scan doesn;t improve it. It just modifies it to make it proprietary. There's no point in doing that.
While the output from the scanner's sensor is raw, I believe most scanners typically convert the raw output to a TIFF or JPG when the file is saved. There may be exceptions, so correct me if I am wrong. And unless the scanner can be set to save a raw file as such, then it is impossible to set the scanner to scan "without adjustments" - because even if the user has not made any adjustments, the scanner software did apply some default interpretation to the raw data when it was saved as a TIFF file.
You got me on that one!Ha, ha - "simply" and "Color Management" used in the same sentence - ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha .......
In the digital world, it is an article of faith that you should set your camera output RAW files, if possible. Generally speaking the discussion is around RAW vs. JPG.From what I can tell, RAW converters are a source of some consternation in the digital world
Au contraire!In the digital world, it is an article of faith that you should set your camera output RAW files, if possible. Generally speaking the discussion is around RAW vs. JPG.
Phil
Exactly - you may be hobbling the result because you are limiting yourself to just the software that Epson supplied.Matt: My Epson V600 using Epsonscan software outputs the following scan choices. There doesn;t seem to be a RAW output.
Matt,Exactly - you may be hobbling the result because you are limiting yourself to just the software that Epson supplied.
Don't get me wrong, there is a decent chance that the Epson software gives you perfectly acceptable results, and may be the most convenient to use.
But it helps to understand that that software is doing a lot of work on what comes out of that scanner's innards, and there are many choices being made when that work is being done, and in many cases the results of making the different choices that may be made by different software may actually be to your benefit.
If you don't think that the scanning software is being extremely active in the process, I suggest using two different pieces of software to try to make unmodified scans of the same original, using the same scanner. You will likely be surprised at how different the results can be.
I would think it would also be desirable to set your scanner to output RAW files, if possible. The question is, Is that possible, using "Nikon Scan, Silverfast or Vuescan for Coolscan 5000" which is what the OP is most interested in? And if so, how is it done?In the digital world, it is an article of faith that you should set your camera output RAW files, if possible. Generally speaking the discussion is around RAW vs. JPG.
Phil
Yes and no.Matt,
Have you actually tested different scanning software to see which one provides the most user options, or makes the fewest "choices?"
Did you read KINO's post #40 and the link he provided?Can someone answer my post#39.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?