Photoshop CS2 Raw Auto Settings

[drisley]

One of the cool new features in Adobe Camera Raw 3.0 found in Photoshop CS2 is that it has AUTO settings for the Exposure, Brightness, Shadow and Contrast settings.
I'm still debating the quality of the output using this method. Below are 2 comparisons. First, is the image I created last week using PS CS. Next is the same image using AUTO settings in CS2. Which one do you think is better?

Mine:
http://images2.fotop.net/albums/sharpnsmart/fitness2005/IMG_8025.jpg


PS CS2 AUTO:
http://images2.fotop.net/albums/sharpnsmart/miscellaneous/IMG_8025.jpg

[kawter2]

I would NEVER go by a software's AUTO feature.. I think it is an AWESOME feature, but only because it is a better starting poing, vs a be all end all processing function.

[BlueTit]

I would prefer the first one, the second I think looks a little washed out and not as sharp.

[embdaw]

I like the first one..looks more natural...the second one just LOOKS edited and TOO colorful :D

[clickit]

I like the first one also. I've tried the auto setting on the demo version of CS2 and didn't like the results in any case. I been using CS and don't see any need for the auto function of CS2.

[neil_r]

#1 all the way.

To help with my decision, can you give me 3 reasons why I should upgrade from CS?

Many thanks

N

[ChrisNardone]

As I suspected the second one is brighter. I find that no matter how much I try to color match etc. I always end up with dark prints on the first try. I agree with everyone else that the first one looks better on the screen, I suspect the second one will make a better print though. Have you tried printing them?

[drisley]

Thanks, I agree. The Auto function really likes to boost the brightness, and tends to wash out the image in my opinion. I haven't tried printing the Auto version, but I have printed the first one and it looks almost exactly as it does on screen. I find that too many people out there have their monitor's brightness turned too high, and that may be why your printed versions look darker. I never turn the brightness on my CRT monitor above 50 (out of 100).
Neil, there are some improvements, and new features in CS2 that are nice, like built in noise reduction, and smart sharpen (which is like a lite version of Focalblade). The spot heal tool is very nice, but nothing I couldnt do with the old heal brush and a bit more time. The Bridge browser is nice, but quite a resource hog.
Overall, CS2 is a nice improvement, but it can really bog down your system. I'm running a state of the are Athlon 64 system (3500+), on an NForce 4 SLI board with a 6600GT PCI Express card, and 1GB of high quality dual channel memory. Running both CS2 and the Bridge browser at the same time can still feel a little sluggish. I constantly seem to be bumping into the 1GB memory limit when editing my 20D images, and my poor harddrive (SATA) is thrashing quite a bit. I'm already contemplating getting another 1GB of memory which should help things alot.

[kawter2]

Thanks, I agree. The Auto function really likes to boost the brightness, and tends to wash out the image in my opinion. I haven't tried printing the Auto version, but I have printed the first one and it looks almost exactly as it does on screen. I find that too many people out there have their monitor's brightness turned too high, and that may be why your printed versions look darker. I never turn the brightness on my CRT monitor above 50 (out of 100).
Neil, there are some improvements, and new features in CS2 that are nice, like built in noise reduction, and smart sharpen (which is like a lite version of Focalblade). The spot heal tool is very nice, but nothing I couldnt do with the old heal brush and a bit more time. The Bridge browser is nice, but quite a resource hog.
Overall, CS2 is a nice improvement, but it can really bog down your system. I'm running a state of the are Athlon 64 system (3500+), on an NForce 4 SLI board with a 6600GT PCI Express card, and 1GB of high quality dual channel memory. Running both CS2 and the Bridge browser at the same time can still feel a little sluggish. I constantly seem to be bumping into the 1GB memory limit when editing my 20D images, and my poor harddrive (SATA) is thrashing quite a bit. I'm already contemplating getting another 1GB of memory which should help things alot.

Please don't take this wrong, I am really not trying to be an a##

I still don't under stand the purpose of the thread? Are you trying to prove that you can take an image and get it to look better by manually tweaking it in ACR than ACR can do in "AUTO" mode?

[rfreschner]

I would NEVER go by a software's AUTO feature.. I think it is an AWESOME feature, but only because it is a better starting poing, vs a be all end all processing function.

I agree. I just attended a PS seminar in Boston, MA the other day taught by Ben Willmore and he showed a couple of examples where the Auto features of PS really did provide a good starting point. Your first photo is definitely better.

[drisley]

Kawter, no, I was just not sure if Auto mode is producing better images than I could myself.
I think the auto can be a very good starting point too.

[kawter2]

Kawter, no, I was just not sure if Auto mode is producing better images than I could myself.
I think the auto can be a very good starting point too.


Gotcha.. again I am sorry, If i came accross wrong, i was really just lost. I respect you a lot as a member and don't like to piss people off, but when i looked back at my post i just thought it might be taken diferently than i had in mind

[drisley]

No, your warning in your thread made things clear.
I just wasn't sure if the Auto mode was better than mine or not, and I questioned changing my workflow.
Perhaps with images that have less contrast, the Auto mode may work better. I kind of look forward to seeing what happens with future pictures.
One thing about CS2 that I don't like... Roger Cavenaugh's awesome script Velvia Vision no longer works :(. But luckily Mr. Cavenaugh said he will try to get it working asap :)

[tim]

First, for sure, the 2nd is overexposed to my eye. The auto works ok on some pictures, but not on others. It's a good photo, but I really, really don't like the subject.

[drisley]

Tim, I think it is overexposed too.
And you've made your feelings clear about the subjects of my pictures a few times