What's not "inevitably subjective and ambiguous" about keywords? Why would a folder name be any different from a keyword in this respect? Anyway, I'm not here to argue. My whole point was that this is something there really is no reason to argue over. ... View more

What's wrong with having the best of both worlds? Files organized in a folder structure and organized by metadata? I can't think of a single problem with that, in fact it renders this whole discussion moot. When you import it has to go into some folder or another. Whether that folder is a fishtank or a dedicated folder with a name, sitting in a tree, is honestly not of any practical consequence. You still keyword the same way. What does make a difference is that the files are easier to find if for example the keywords you first assigned aren't quite functional. Or a thousand other reasons. Knowing where the files are physically makes me sleep better. ... View more

Viewing angle isn't about where your head is. It's about the top of the screen being too dark, and the bottom washed out. Don't even consider TN as long as you have a choice. As I said, and I repeat it here, gamut is the least of your concerns. And that goes for any display. Calibrate (and calibrate to a workable luminance, somewhere around 100 - 120 cd/m2), and you'll be fine. ... View more

Go down to Color Management Policies and choose "Preserve Embedded Profiles". Then the document will open using US web coated SWOP, since that's the embedded profile. The .csf color settings file is just a preset of choices for working spaces/icc profiles. You can choose whatever you like and save that as a new preset. The real solution is to know the exact printing conditions and use the correct CMYK profile (which may not be US web coated SWOP). ... View more

If you can return it, do so. Color gamut is really the least of your concerns - a good standard gamut display beats a mediocre wide gamut one any day. I'm  wondering how important 95% color gamut is when I don't know at exactly  what angle I'm actually seeing the colors at their most accurate  rendering. You hit the nail on the head. This really sums up the whole question. TN panels are not suitable for photography work, they're for gaming and office use. I have wide gamut at work and standard gamut at home, and I work between them without missing a step. Wide gamut is nice as an added bonus, but by no means necessary. The important thing is that you calibrate, so that the colors it can display are accurate. ... View more

Yes, I did that later when I found out about it (because I always insist on having a backup installer handy in case I have to reinstall) - but it's not exactly obvious, is it? I find it very strange that I have to go to a third-party site for this. ... View more

BTJ wrote: I then deinstalled Photoshop CS6 and that is when I noticed the problem. This is an installer bug that has existed with all Photoshop Windows versions at least since CS2 > CS3, when I first encountered it. Uninstalling an older version may mess up file associations in the new version, and there is no easy way to fix it. It happens often enough to be a regular and recurring question in the forums, and certainly often enough to qualify as a bug with flying colors. And yet I see Adobe officials repeatedly state here and elsewhere that it's perfectly safe to uninstall CS6 after installing CC. Well, it isn't. I cringe when I see that. This is what happens. A bit late for those affected here, but the general advice is to always uninstall everything in reverse version order, then reinstall the new version. ... View more

When you do, keep in mind that it's all actually quite simple. A lot of people tend to overcomplicate it (none of those present here, I hasten to add), and in forums you often get answers such as "it's too complicated to explain here". That doesn't help any, it's just the signal to noise ratio rapidly deteriorating and adding to the general confusion. The mechanics may be complex, but in use it's very simple. The profile connection space is a key concept. That's where all the numeric values in different profiles are defined as actual, specific colors. Lab 59/62/70 is a particular orangy red, the same everywhere. It translates to 217/85/20 in Adobe RGB, but 247/90/36 in the particular monitor profile I'm using here. That's how an Adobe RGB document displays on this particular monitor. The numbers would be different with another monitor. And for proofing to sRGB on this monitor, it would go an extra round into sRGB to limit the gamut, and then into the monitor profile. ... View more

Basic display color management goes like this: Document profile > Monitor profile. That's it, it's no more complicated than that. Photoshop working space doesn't enter into it, that's just a default if there is no embedded profile in the document. Technically, it goes like this: Document profile > Lab/CIE XYZ > Monitor profile.  The Lab/XYZ bit is the profile connection space; that's internal under the hood and not visible to the user. For proof, it's a little more complicated: Document profile > Lab/XYZ > Proof profile > Lab/XYZ > Monitor profile. The extra round limits the gamut to the proof profile. And I have to repeat this: No monitor ever made matches sRGB completely. It doesn't have to. ... View more

You need to uncheck "preserve RGB numbers". This is the equivalent of convert to monitor RGB. Checked, it's the equivalent of assign. ... View more

Your specific question here has already been answered, but I assume this is connected to your other recent thread. So I just want to say this: If you are using a laptop screen for image editing, the gamut of that screen compared to sRGB (which is what you're trying to find out, right?) is the least of your concerns. Laptop screens are usually cheap TN panels with a host of problems: Very limited viewing angle, to the point where the top of the screen is dark and the bottom washed out. Only a thin stripe across the center of the screen will be theoretically correct - if you can find it. Uneven illumination in general. Very poor highlight and shadow separation. Anything above 240-245 will appear white, anything below 10-15 will appear black. 6-bit color depth (with some tricks to simulate 8-bit). That means color and brightness banding/posterization. In short, a laptop screen simply can't be trusted to be accurate. Calibration will improve it, but there's still a way to go. So don't spend too much energy on the gamut issue - it's a red herring (lovely expression BTW : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring ) In that article you linked to in the other thread, the author seems to consider display gamut the final word: "If you find that your monitor can't even adequately encompass the sRGB space, it's futile and dangerous to work in Adobe RGB". When I read something like that, I simply don't know where to start. I can only attribute it to extreme ignorance. Should you throw all that information out just because you happen to have a shitty monitor this month? That's ridiculous. Don't trust everything you read on the web. Including this ... View more

If I may be blunt, Robs and Jeffs' versions are the only ones so far who managed to make it look natural and credible - even if it isn't. In my book, edits shouldn't be visible. There are many other interesting interpretations here, but to me they don't make it because burns and dodges and graduated filters are too obvious. No disrespect to the others, this was a tough one. I'm not too happy with my own contribution either. ... View more

Yeah, I lost some detail in the moon. Probably because I made a point of not bringing this into PS, where it's easy to fix (all done in ACR 7.4). I like frans' pale moon version too (except the too-obvious burning in the lower half of the moon). Just thought I'd do something slightly different. ... View more

Whoa...very weak black level in the one I posted above. It was done with blazing sun outside. Forget that one, here's how it was meant to be: ... View more

Here's my bid. Now I'm curious to see how others will interpret it, I'm sure it will be very different... I'm in a sort of purple mood today, so...what the heck. I'll probably hate it tomorrow. ... View more

All right. All these things considered, how about simply splitting the problem in two? First develop for the full image, with all the special tricks necessary for bringing out the mountains, while ignoring the moon (and glare). Then a second development for the moon. Since George has Photoshop, this should be a fairly simple masking job there (but I would still keep the moon in the upper range, close to blow-out). I'm just throwing this out since I still don't have the original. BTW I thought I saw a subtle glow on the peaks in George's second example, which is what made the shot "snap" for me. But maybe it was just an artifact from extreme development. ... View more

Well, much better than mine, obviously, but I still think the highlights are a little flat... But of course we're talking near impossible dynamic ranges here, so compromises have to be weighed against time spent. Who can spend a week on a single image? I used to, but simply can't anymore ... View more

That's a potential trick I was indeed unaware of. I'll take a look. Thanks. ... View more

Have you ever been able to get anything sensible out of HDR? I haven't and have frankly given up on it. All I get are these drab, flat images that are completely devoid of any sign of life: (ignore the ghosting, this is just an illustration) I do much better on my own: I think the basic problem with HDR is that it just compresses everything, indiscriminately. So you lose all local contrast. Are there any tricks I'm unaware of? This is PS CS6, and I tweaked the controls the best I could. ... View more

The strong blue shadow cast was confirmed by applying an extreme curve to the version on rob's site (linked above): IME shadow casts can ruin an image completely - and be b*stards to nail down. But once you're on to it, a lot of things fall into place. Nice image, and one worth spending some time on. The glow on the snow-covered peaks has potential for a great shot, if you can keep the moon from blowing out. I think it should be possible. ... View more

Rob Cole wrote: there is a nasty blue color cast to deal with That's probably mainly in the shadows (IOW most of the image). This is a case where histogram-peeping can actually help, because you can see the shadow blue cast there: I strongly suspect that neutralizing the black point with split toning can correct most of that. Just an observation in passing - I don't have the original. ... View more

BWBergi wrote: Today it should be no problem (for adobe) to get the new RAW-algorithms BEFORE the cam is avaiable for any customer. Cam-manufacturers should have an intrest - like adobe to - in applying new cam-dates as close to the new modell releasedates! Yes, in an ideal world. But that's not the way it works. The Lr team has to buy a camera off the production line just like everyone else - thanks to Nikon. And if Nikon decided to support DNG - the only thing with potential for becoming an actual industry standard - the whole problem would go away, just like that. ... View more

Yes, you can soft proof to sRGB on a wide gamut monitor. The point of having a secondary "sRGB" monitor is to check how the images look in a non color managed environment. With Lightroom or Photoshop that point is moot. --- Although I see this is an old thread revived, I'd like to add something to the original question. In terms of a monitor's usability, the sad state of affairs is that the really important properties of a monitor are never measured, and not part of the official specifications. First among these is panel uniformity. You'd think that was a given, but it's not. The Dell U2410 and the infamous red/green issue is already mentioned. I got one of those too, and returned it within 24 hours. It still amazes me that they even thought they could get away with it - the thing was essentially an expensive doorstop right out of the box. Dell got an enormous amount of bad press over this, but it wasn't just the 2410, the whole Ultrasharp line was basically a lottery. When pressed, a Dell representative on their forums admitted that they only measured the central spot of the screen, and if that was within spec, they shipped it. (And of course it isn't just Dell, that's only an example. Apple Cinema displays - and presumably iMacs - are reported affected by this too). The thing is that IPS panels (and wide gamut backlights) are pretty expensive compared to ordinary TN panels to begin with, and the target market is pretty small as it is. So to sell a "reasonably priced" IPS monitor like the U2410, some corners have to be cut. Tight tolerances are first to go. Actually, the panel in the U2410 is the same used by Eizo in their 24" Color Edge models at four times the price. Which isn't to say that all reasonably priced IPS monitors are bad. Most of them are perfectly fine - it's just that you have to be careful, and if possible try it before you buy. The risk of getting a lemon is definitely there. So given all that, I would say that wide gamut or standard gamut is way down on the list of priorities. Get a monitor that is basically healthy, that's the main thing. A good standard gamut monitor beats a wide gamut one that turns out to be practically useless. ... View more

This could be a camera limitation. I just tested with a D800, and the camera's live view function is disabled as long as the USB cable is connected. It doesn't matter whether Lightroom is open or not. Live view is supposed to work with HDMI (at least for video), but I have nothing that will accept a HDMI input on my computer, so I can't try that. ... View more

What the heck is that supposed to mean It means you look at what the real situation is, and make your plans accordingly. No tethering support for the D600? OK. What are the options? D800? Wait and use my old camera a little longer? Use other software? Gee whiz ... too bad you and Keith weren't around 38 years ago when I opened my studio That would have been, let's see...around 1975...no, I wasn't around then. It was about five years later that I got the Nikon F2, and then the F3, F4, the Mamiya RZ67 (still around)...granted, things were much easier back then. A roll of 135 Tri-X fit the Nikons, but not the Mamiya. That was about the extent of compatibility issues. ... View more

what I did when I needed to tether with my D600, I fired up Aperture 3 and shot the job Well then, excuse me, but what is the problem? You have tethering software, fine. You do know that Nikon's offering, Camera Control Pro or whatever it's called, is not exactly free either? You really need to take responsibility for your own working environment instead of blaming everybody else. ... View more