Today’s Question: I always wondered if the Camera Raw filter in Photoshop is the same as adjusting in Camera Raw to start with. It seems that Camera Raw would be better as its adjustments are applied directly to the rendered raw file instead of applying to an image layer.
Tim’s Quick Answer: The primary disadvantage of the Camera Raw filter compared to Camera Raw is that not all adjustments found in Camera Raw are available for the filter. There are also some theoretical benefits to applying adjustments as part of the raw processing rather than after, but in most cases these would translate to very modest changes that would not be easy to see.
More Detail: Overall, the adjustments available with Camera Raw versus the Camera Raw filter in Photoshop, although there are some exceptions. Those exceptions are the primary disadvantage of using the Camera Raw filter rather than using Camera Raw, although in most cases the features missing from the Camera Raw filter are available elsewhere in Photoshop.
There are also some potential advantages to using Camera Raw rather than applying adjustments on an image layer in Photoshop, but in most cases these would be very minor and difficult to see in the image. That’s especially true if you’re working with a 16-bit per channel image in Photoshop for the Camera Raw filter. There is also a slight risk of image degradation (especially with 8-bit per channel images) if you apply the Camera Raw filter multiple times to the same image layer.
The features that are available in Camera Raw but not in the Camera Raw filter include crop and rotate tools and the Enhance features, which include Denoise, Super Resolution, and Raw Details. But you can obviously crop and rotate an image using the Crop tool and Transform commands in Photoshop, so the absence of these in the Camera Raw filter isn’t a major issue.

