576
Replies
Do you see those problems saving at quality 8? I bounce between using 7 and 8 for smaller, lower quality jpegs
I thought this problem with jpeg 7 (or was it six?) was solved long ago?
However, when it comes to small files I prefer SFW for really small sized, but still quality on screen.
And in normal jpeg environment, When it comes to smaller file size I prefer resizing the image itself to smaller dimensions and higher quality jpeg then larger dimensions and lower quality jpeg 
And now we seem to really getting Off Topic…
Omke Oudeman wrote:However, when it comes to small files I prefer SFW for really small sized, but still quality on screen.
And in normal jpeg environment, When it comes to smaller file size I prefer resizing the image itself to smaller dimensions and higher quality jpeg then larger dimensions and lower quality jpeg
And now we seem to really getting Off Topic…
Yes we are. Sorry. I was just curious. But I am especially interested in the matter of checking to save the 100% image in the cache since I think that relates directly to this whole subject of regeneration and whether it is simply better to save metadata in the database rather than as sidecar files that trigger the regeneration.
But I am especially interested in the matter of checking to save the 100% image in the cache since I think that relates directly to this whole subject of regeneration and whether it is simply better to save metadata in the database rather than as sidecar files that trigger the regeneration.
Can't imagine those things are related. 100 % preview is a pure Bridge action and whether you've set this to save always or not, the 100 % build only starts at your command like Robert described in an earlier post.
A side car file or the central database are different animals, containing metadata set in Bridge and ACR settings, no cache data for previews
What I see mostly is two files labeled BridgeCache and BridgeCacheT.
Those files are only generated when you have set Bridge prefs to automatically 'Export Cache To Folders When Possible'.
I long time ago stopped using this option for reason of incompatibility between different version and later on due to a rare bug with the CacheT file being overwritten (or not, forgot about it).
Come to think of this, there are two possible ways to achieve this. The first mentioned above in the Bridge preferences Cache section and the oldest has always been available in the menu Tools / Cache and today still is (the lay out has been different to my recollection - I believe already in the File Browser that came with PSCS 1- but the result is the same).
Build and export cache it is called. By default the option to 'Export Cache To Folders' (for some odd reason most of those commands using capitals for each word…) is set to on but also the option to build 100 % previews cab be checked.
While both options are not very clear about what happens with the 100% previews it is to be assumed that when having checked this option also the data from the folder 'full' is possible to be part of the Cache and CacheT files (by default hidden files)
I also remember that in the past having used the option for exported cache it was very hard to define the amount of files that fitted on a CD because the hidden files where not counted in the total file size, hence the initial folder did not fit on 1 CD due to those hidden files that could grow very large.
Come to think of it, I have had nothing but trouble from the exported cache options, so I definitively will not use them ever again
I discovered he did not know what an .xmp file or a sidecar file was.
If you would have told him that this meant eXtra Money Possibility you might have had more luck…
But seriously, it may be all hard working and nice people out there but the result you described seems common practice. I doubt it would be different in the 'western world', Adobe Apps are that much complicated that any call centre can't answer to anything else then the most obvious common problems I'm afraid.
Then what is the purpose of a technical support department. In the past, when I could actually get someone in the US, my questions...many of them far less complicated than understanding what a RAW file and it's metadata is...were answered. This is unacceptable. As for cloud vs CC. Again, how would I ever know there is a difference? I am NOT a tech person, nor am I supposed to be. I have said this before (when talking about computers, actually) and I will say it again. I am not asked to tear my car apart in these days of complicate parts. There are competent (more or less) repair shops for that. Why am I, someone without any technical education, someone who grew up BEFORE electric typewriters, supposed to be able to dis-assemble my computer or understand the more complicated inner workings of something as complicated as Photoshop. That is what Adobe is supposedly paying people (now in India and who knows here, but apparently, not in the western world) to do for us. If there is a difference between 'cloud' and CC, I sure wasn't aware and, frankly, none of those dozens of emailed spam ads I've been peppered with has sought fit to explain.
Maybe the bug is fixed, now that CC is actually here. And would one of you please tell me what the difference is. What exactly have people been using "on the cloud?" Curt Y, are you saying what was released on the 17th is a totally different program? Not even an update but as different as CS6 was from CS5?
Omke Oudeman wrote:
I discovered he did not know what an .xmp file or a sidecar file was.
If you would have told him that this meant eXtra Money Possibility you might have had more luck…
But seriously, it may be all hard working and nice people out there but the result you described seems common practice. I doubt it would be different in the 'western world', Adobe Apps are that much complicated that any call centre can't answer to anything else then the most obvious common problems I'm afraid.
AdChoices