In order to receive these updates your computer must be on, connected to the internet, and your host applications must be closed. A silent auto-updater that only requires an internet connection? I don't even allow my OS to do that <note to self: don't go anywhere near Nik> ... View more

Andrew Rodney wrote: Take a look at say the work of Greg Gorman A useful reminder. Those blacks make my hair stand on end, but...it sort of works   (just kidding; great shots) (incidentally, those movie posters pop up in the Photoshop forum all the time: how do I get this effect...and they all start talking about HDR). Goes to show how paradigms change. This is pretty much the same effect as the old Kodachrome / underexpose trick. The colors would just explode, with blacks that nothing could penetrate. And that was perfectly OK. Of course back then you coudn't have both, so you picked the part of the dynamic range that the film could reproduce, about 5 stops for transparency film, 4.5 for Kodachrome. Today the sensor records up to 12 stops, so we feel we have to use them all. Anyway, black clipping is one thing, gamut clipping another. The latter often gives a heavy-handed, unpleasant effect lacking in "air" and light. ... View more

And just to add that proofing to sRGB is generally a waste of time unless you have a wide gamut monitor. If not, what you see on-screen is already soft proofed to sRGB (or something so close to it that the difference doesn't matter). If sRGB really was your target, just look at the screen. ... View more

I landed here because Configurator 4 panels don't seem to work properly in Photoshop CC - certain operations become laggy and non-responsive. Switching between layers or channels take up to a full second. In 14.1 I was able to restore normal operation by removing the panel and re-exporting it. But 14.2 is no go. A google search revealed others with the same problem. So that's it, then. I suppose there's no point in looking for a fix. ... View more

No, that's an Illustrator feature. Used to be called Live Trace; now Image Trace. Sometimes it works very well, but I doubt there would be any point in this one. There would be so much cleanup that doing it from scratch would be much quicker. You can of course make a path from a selection in Photoshop, but that's not quite the same thing. ... View more

I think this was done by hand, the artifacts and general dirt in the original would throw off auto trace immediately. There are just some things the brain does better. The pen tool is pretty darn quick when you get the hang of it. Keep one finger on the alt key and one on the ctrl key. I'm not saying I could do it, but I think it's eminently possible to do this in 40 mins (remember LPs? nah, you probably don't... ). Drawing on top of the original it's easy to miss a couple of crossed lines. ... View more

OS X 10.9 users who also have Photoshop - could you try with OpenGL turned off? That should return Photoshop to the same modus operandi as Lightroom. I think trshaners theory sounds very plausible. Under Windows all color management is performed by the application code (unless farmed out to the GPU), but under OS X the actual conversion is handed over to ColorSync (for which there is no equivalent in Windows). So I think this could explain it all. ... View more

I should add that I'm one of the apparently few who aren't too concerned with the gamut limitations of Adobe RGB vs. ProPhoto. I know it's there, of course, but I actually prefer to work in Adobe RGB whenever I can. The reason is that ProPhoto is so compressed in the shadows that I find it difficult to do subtle adjustments without spilling the whole can, so to speak. Just a matter of taste. At the same time I hate clipping on principle and go to great lengths to avoid it. So it's a rock and a hard place... But as for the finished result, it's my philosophy that if pressed, I could do whatever I want inside sRGB. It's not the absolute saturation as such, it's the relationship between colors that give an impression of rich color. And that's final I'll stop rambling and go to bed now. ... View more

Trevor.Dennis wrote: What is your experience?  What do you work in? I suppose it depends on the nature of the business. What I do usually ends up in an InDesign file, and photos stay in Adobe RGB throughout, until press-ready PDF export. We outsource "heavy" design work to an agency, and they specifically want photographic material (which I usually supply) in Adobe RGB, because they may need to make last minute changes. We also produce a lot of stuff in-house, in which case we send CMYK directly to a printer. But the basic procedure is the same - Adobe RGB placed in an InDesign file, converted on export. We usually get a PDF job options file from the printer, which specifies not only CMYK profile but also all other PDF export settings. Knowing the target CMYK, I soft proof the material, but it stays RGB. In general CMYK is a can of worms. Total ink limit, overprint and knock-out issues, there are many potential stumbling blocks. I've scr**ed up more times than I like to think about, but you learn as you go along... ... View more

Frankly I don't know. US Web Coated (SWOP) is the Photoshop default, so I suppose that tends to get used automatically a lot. But don't assume anything, always ask. (BTW "Web" has nothing to do with the internet; it refers to printing from large rolls. As opposed to sheetfed). ... View more

LukeW wrote: The 'hack' works, the only thing that does not work is the icons which are blurry. No, it doesn't, not if the image is scaled along with the UI. That defeats the whole purpose of a high-resolution display. Yes, I understand that it makes the application at least useable, which it otherwise isn't, but that's precisely what defines it as a "hack" and not a "solution". ... View more

StrongBeaver wrote: With regards to CYMK, I haven't needed to send anything to a professional print shop, so I'm in the dark with what color profile for CYMK to use, although soon I may have to. CMYK is generally best left to prepress, so it's always recommended that photographers submit RGB files for offset print. Repurposing for different press conditions should be done from the original RGB file to avoid troublesome CMYK to CMYK conversions. If you have direct instructions from the printer as to which CMYK profile to use it's a different matter (but the conversion itself should always be done as the very last step). Which one specifically depends on a lot of things, not the least where in the world you are. In the EU zone, ISO Coated v2 300% (eci) is currently more or less the industry standard for books, magazines and so on, and the safest choice. But note that it is not included in the Photoshop installallation, and has to be downloaded from ECI. Adobe RGB is a particularly good match for ISO Coated, it can usually be converted with little clipping (and sometimes none). So in Europe at least, Adobe RGB has become the de facto standard for submitting photographic material for offset print. A more specifically tailored RGB space called ECI RGB is in use here and there, but to my knowledge it hasn't gained much traction. A wide gamut monitor is very useful in this context, since it covers both Adobe RGB and ISO Coated (for all practical purposes). This means you can soft proof the file very reliably. ... View more

That's what I said (...unless you want to go all out and do a full reconstruction...) 🙂 ... View more

Rob Cole wrote: Photoshop has better tools for this job than Lightroom. Actually, not really (unless you want to go all out and do a full reconstruction). The highlight slider in Lightroom is still the best bang for the buck anywhere, since it has access to the full raw data. It is possible to eliminate glare completely, at least in a studio situation: Use a polarizer on the lens, and cross-polarize the light source(s). Not much glare will survive that. But even in natural light a single lens polarizer will work wonders and it should always be in the camera bag (not very flattering to skin tones, though...) ... View more

station_two wrote: there's absolutely nothing you can do to a single image in LR that you cannot do in Photoshop, while there are a gazillion things that you can do to an image in Photoshop that you couldn't even dream of doing in LR. Correct, but missing the point. Lightroom is about workflow organizing. You'll learn to appreciate that when you process several hundreds of shots, on a tight deadline, on a daily basis. If you do one by one, correct, there's no point in Lightroom. And there's another thing. I'll make myself the most unpopular person on this forum with this, but I think I can handle it. Here's something I recently wrote on the Lr forum: If you consider yourself primarily a photographer, sticking to Lightroom only will probably improve your work. The problem with Photoshop is that it becomes all too tempting to think "I'll fix that later" instead of getting the shot right to begin with. If you take a look over in the PS forum you'll see lots of threads like "how do I remove these reflections", "how do I clean up this shot", or the all-out "how do I fix this picture". In all cases, almost without exception, the answer is take ten minutes extra and do it right the first time...Photoshop encourages laziness and bad habits, by its very nature. <ducking and running> ... View more

No Linux, it's a marginal market. And generally, people who switch from one platform to another because they believe it's "better" are in for a disappointment. Getting a new computer may sometimes help, though If you have specific problems I'm sure there are people here who can help you with that. ... View more

The serial number is what you pay for, not the software (which is just a trial away). So it just never occured to me to not have a txt file with all my serial numbers. Getting backed up with the rest of course (considering when it's likely to be needed). I mean, glad you got it worked out, but... (edit: ...and that was obviously directed at the OP, not elie-d) ... View more

Interesting test. Here's mine: As a 50+ male that's supposedly pretty good, but still it's interesting that the errors are lumped in the same part of the spectrum. (I did get distracted by the fact that some of the patches are noticeably darker than their neighbors, and that threw me off a bit). ... View more

I hear a Kraftwerk soundtrack to this: we are the robots... ... View more

This turned up in the Photoshop forum, don't know if it's any help to anyone- http://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/policy-pricing/account-password-sign-faq.html ... View more

Ah, sorry, missed the part about different sign in name (which you said in post #15). Is there any help in the "lost password" link on the sign in page? I've always had just one single login name for everything  (luckily the associated e-mail address is still "live", meaning I can access it even if it's no longer the one I normally use). ... View more

How do you reset the Adobe Forums Password? I followed the link in the mail and reset once - the new password works everywhere: forums, store - and CC sign in. ... View more

It*s random. Each time you try, you're either in or out, that's all. Clearing out cookies (or cache) seems to make no difference whatsoever and has no bearing on the outcome next time. ... View more

I'm getting it too, and if you check into "forum comments" a lot of others do as well. To me it seems simply intermittent. Clearing the cache sometimes works, sometimes not. Clearing out cookies ditto. And if I just wait and try later, that works too sometimes. I use Safari (Windows) as second browser (anything to avoid IE), and haven't seen it there. ... View more

I've no experience with spot, so others will have to chime in there. What I've said above is about general principles of color management. But specifically, as far as CMYK is concerned, you can't just use default settings, there's no reason to assume that will be correct. As I said, you need to get a profile from the printer. (100K black is a black that prints only on the black plate, like text. As opposed to a black that prints on all four plates). ... View more

Don't worry about how it initially looks with the different settings. In fact you can build a profile based on any of those settings, and they would all be valid as long as the display is kept at that setting. The point is that you want the monitor's initial state to be as "unrestricted" as possible. Even the Adobe RGB setting will limit the gamut a little bit, since the native gamut is a slightly different triangle, with the three primaries shifted a little. And now an important distinction: We speak routinely of "calibration". But it's actually two things; calibration and profiling. They are not the same. Bear with me: CAL 1 and 2 means you can save your calibrations. I'm not sure how changing calibration on the fly is supposed to work, because there's a second part to this: the monitor profile. The profile is a complete and detailed description of the monitor's behavior, in its now calibrated state, and this profile is what a color managed application like Lightroom uses to display the image. In short, the image is converted from the source profile, to the monitor profile, as you adjust the image. So changing calibration invalidates the profile. IOW, the color management chain hinges entirely on the profile. The calibration is  just a basic adjustment to make the monitor slightly more well-behaved, and is not part of color management as such. With a good monitor you can skip calibration altogether and just profile it. All right. Just clearing the concepts a bit. Did anyone bother to read all that...? What I'm getting at is this: Within a color managed application, anything you throw at the monitor is remapped into the monitor profile, and as such represented truthfully. Adobe RGB, sRGB, ProPhoto, it'll all look as it should. What proofing does is to introduce another link into the chain: the proof profile. So now it goes source profile > proof profile > monitor profile (I'm sure that's not how it actually works, but it's a good analogy). The end result is the same as it would be without the proof profile, with one exception: the gamut is now limited to the proof profile. So what you now see on-screen is how it would look if the file was indeed in the proof color space, in this case sRGB. ... View more

If this is press-ready CMYK, you need a profile that reflects the actual press conditions. So you need to get a profile directly from the printer and use that. Standards vary around the world. Converting CMYK to CMYK should be avoided. Things like 100K blacks turning into four color blacks is one of the things that can happen. For files that are to be repurposed for different uses, working in an RGB color space would probably be better. EDIT: When pasting from an RGB file to a CMYK file it will just get silently converted to the working CMYK space, so there normally should be no color shift. If there is, it's because of gamut limitations (color clipping). Not much to do about that except reconsider the colors. ... View more

If it's only this one gradient rectangle, converting on paste should do it. But I don't recommend doing that wholesale on a larger scale, it could have several unwanted and unexpected side effects. So I suggest clearing the underlying issue first: What profiles should the designers use, for different scenarios, when setting up new documents? IOW, leave the documents in their present profiles for now, but convert on paste to solve the immediate problem. ... View more