There is a very good chance that they will be fine with the tiff. It sounds like you were rasterizing all of the content of your original design anyway with your PDF settings. A need to retain vector content would be the only reason I could see for using PDF over TIFF to begin with. Let us know what your printer tells you. ... View more

GPU acceleration is still not working with Lightroom 6.1 update. Graphics Processor Info: Check OpenGL support: Failed Vendor: ATI Technologies Inc. Version: 3.3.13293 Core Profile Context FireGL 14.502.1019.0 Renderer: ATI FirePro V5800 (FireGL) Graphics Adapter LanguageVersion: 4.40 ... View more

Excellent. Thank you EDIT: the "thank you" was for Madison, but goes for Jerry's poem as well. That's almost uncanny... ...come to think of it, there may be yet another account...no. Stop that thought. ... View more

Don't get anything less than a 2.4ghz cpu with 8gb ram....you'll just be frustrated with the creative experience with anything less. ... View more

It's okay to ask questions. But it's also okay to choose a different profile as the default for a camera. There can be slight differences in sensors between your camera and the one Adobe used to create the profiles. As I indicated previously, there is no "right" profile. If the camera standard profile works better for the D600 then I would go ahead and create the defaults for that camera using that profile. I'm sure you understand that you can set camera defaults for every camera that you are using. In other words, changing the D600 default to using the camera standard profile isn't going to change anything for your other cameras. The default settings for each model are completely independent. ... View more

ok.. so once i restarted, same problem. back to square one. disabled both graphic cards, then enabled the NVidia.. now ok.. this is getting irritating.. it's definitely an adobe problem ... View more

Another issue with but Adobe and others are not taking into quality of Internet connection or lack thereof. Sadly The US is not number one in the world when it comes to Internet. 85% of the US either don't have Internet (in any form), have dialup (PPP) on Copper lines put in just after WWII, DSL over Copper (served by those same Lines put in just after WWII) Or cable connection that haven't been updated since the late 70's. Only the other 15% in large Metropolitan areas, (Chicago, New York City, Dallas Fort Worth Area, Almost all of California and Washington State, etc) have the top of the line systems often driven by FOIS.  For Subscription to work especially the Phone home systems they use now. The Connection has to be almost perfect 24 hours a day. The least glitch in you connection and your deactivated. And without a Connection you have an expensive Door Stop. I see these sudden deactivation issues all the time both at Adobe and to some extent about office365 at MS. Adobe don't take into consideration these problems and therefore unless you live in the right area and have tons of money, you are left out. ... View more

adobe-admin wrote: Deactivated. Appreciated. I was distinctly uncomfortable with this one. And this "following" business felt like someone was standing outside my bedroom window. I did not like that. There must be some way to stop that - ??!? What is it anyway and what's the purpose? ... View more

I also remember that post #21, Claudio, and I have looked at Last logged in with growing concern. ... View more

Thanks 21, I'll follow the tread you posted for updates. http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1439164?tstart=0 Never opening creative cloud seemed to be one of the workarounds. ... View more

I dont know if you solved but i have the exact same one. In my cs6 works just fine, but in CC there is terrible lag. Even the liquify tool behave with lag. And both CS6 and CC works on the same machine. ... View more

sRGB is going to be my go-to workflow for the foreseeable future as well...it simplifies a lot of this. ... View more

One hint I got from Deke McClelland is to add a Brightness/Contrast adjustment layer starting with a Brightness value of 40 and a Contrast value of -40 before printing. It can be adjusted for best results. It works best for those of us with consumer inkjets, canned profiles and sub $1000 monitors, but you might try and see if works for you. Gene ... View more

Thanks all for suggestions and  "rats"  There was me thinking there might be some kind of whizzo package just sitting out there waiting for me to exploit it and, suddenly, all thoughts dashed! So someone with a fleet hand probably retraced it. Ah well, back to the drawing board. And yes I did work on a drawing board so yes I do remember LP's thankyou "twenty-one" I can vaguely remember em' but only when the memory serves!  Anyhow, must go, the nurse is here to push my bathchair out onto the veranda! ... View more

Ton, thank you !! ... View more

Much late reply here for anyone trying to reduce glare.  Lightroom 6 CC (CC only) has a dehaze feature, that when used either on the overall image or as part of a local adjustment, can be very effective toward solving glare problems, assuming the highlights aren't blown out. A good article here, blow up the images to see the difference clearly: https://photofocus.com/2015/12/27/removing-glare-from-eyeglasses-in-lightroom/ ... View more

There was a similar request to convert PSD files to TIFFs with Image & Layer ZIP compression, so I modified it here for use with LR 'Edit In Photoshop.' ZIP Compress Lightroom 'Edit In Photoshop' Layered TIFFs with Image and Layer Compression You can do this using a PS Action with an Automate> Batch command to process ‘Open Files’ in PS, a folder, or folder tree with subfolders that contain the files needing ZIP compression. Create the Action 1) Send a file from Lightroom to Photoshop using ‘Edit In Photoshop.’ 2) Open the Actions panel and click on the 'Create New Action' button, name it something like 'Save As TIFF with ZIP+ZIP,' and hit the Record button. 3) Next go to File> Save As> Select Format 'TIFF,' select Image Compression ZIP, Layer Compression ZIP, Save Transparency, and any other settings you want to use,  click OK. 4) Hit the square 'Stop Action' button. Automate Batch Processing 1) Go to File> Automate> Batch 2) Select the action just created (Save As TIFF ZIP+ZIP) in the 'Action' drop-down list if not already selected. 3) Under 'Source' select ‘Open Files’ to process ‘Edit In PS’ files. You could also select a specific folder, or a top level folder with subfolders that contain the files you want to process. Also check 'Include Subfolders' if you want the subfolders to be processed. 4) Check 'Override Action "Save As" Commands' so that it ignores the filename and destination folder used to create the action. 5) If you want the files to be saved in the same folder as the original LR file set ‘Destination’ to ‘Save and Close.’ 5) Click OK to start the batch process. 6) The PS processed TIFF file(s) will appear inside LR in the same folder as the original file. Create Keyboard Shortcut   Go to Edit> Keyboard Shortcuts> Application Menus> File> Automate> Batch and assign an unused Keyboard Shortcut, which you can use in the future. I used ‘CTRL + /’ ... View more

I usually keep every electronic receipt that I receive and those are backed up on my RAID 5 NAS setup, so give me a bit of credit.   Unfortunately, I never received an email confirmation from Adobe when I purchased the LR5 upgrade and the order didn't even show up under My Orders on the portal site.  I did write down the serial number on a sticky note, but I think that got chucked when I was cleaning out the office and I blew away the system before realising I didn't have the key (thankfully I kept a backup image - though apparently I didn't need it after all.)  Believe me, for someone that is usually very meticulous when it comes to this sort of thing, I feel pretty dumb.  I'm still shocked that the CSR from Adobe's semi-automated chat (come on, it is pretty bad) actually got back to me.  In dealing with other outsourced support (e.g. Dell, HP, Bell, Rogers) I've never had an agent follow up, so I've got to give credit where it is due. All in all, everything worked out.  ... View more

My original Forum 'Sign In' trshaner has been restored. The solution was to assign a new unique email address for the Forum Sign that would not conflict with my other exisitng Adobe accounts. Special thanks to Adobe Staff Beverley Gray for making it happen! ... 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

I agree, this post is losing its focus with too many different subjects being discussed! That said I'll try to address some of the issues. howdego wrote: Well this is certainly a different approach than I have been using.  I am under the impression that PS has the best downsizing algorithms so that is what I have been using for that step.  Also, the leading writers say that we should downsize first, then sharpen, and that PS has excellent sharpening algorithms...... If you're going to do "additional editing" to a LR image inside PS why throw away file resolution you may need in the future by downsizing the image. LR's Output Resizing and Sharpening tools are as good as PS's, at least for a slideshow that will be viewed on a 1080p TV screen. howdego wrote: In addition, I was told by Photodex help desk a while ago that while the lightroom plugin can reduce the size of photos it processes, if that option is chosen, it does not do any output sharpening.  Only the export command, which you are using, can do output sharpening.  So, If I use the plugin, whichj makes building the show easier, I will not have any output sharpening, just resizing.   And if I don't resize in PS, and sharpen in PS, than I am not using the sequence recommended by Schewe, Kelby, etc.  So that is a dilemma.  Perhaps some testing on my part might help resolve this. I confirmed that the Proshow plugin does not add any sharpening to resized images, which is a huge oversight on their part! They also use a "fixed" 60 JPEG Quality that equates to the dreaded PS 7 Quality setting. I have never used the Proshow plugin from day one, maybe just instinct. It seems very restricting and offers  little benefit to my preferred workflow. Either way you need to create resized and sharpened JPEGs saved to a separate folder, which can be done very easily using the LR Export module. ALL of the other functions provided in the plugin (and more) are available from inside Proshow. In light of this information I'd steer clear of the Proshow plugin. howdego wrote: However, your recommendation for the resize settings is a revelation for me.  I used 1920 X 1080 from PS in my last video, and felt there was something wrong when I displayed in on my new 1080p LED tv. That could be the problem, along with a bit too much sharpening in PS or LR.   I will definetely do a test using 2800 by 1575 from PS to see if there is a difference in quality (more like the 16 X 9 aspect ratio of the TV than 2800 X 2800). Don't concern yourself with the aspect ratio unless your trying to completely fill the 16:9 screen with a 16:9 cropped  image. 1920 x 1080 resize width & height works fine with all aspect ratio images if you aren't using any zoom effects in Proshow. For normal crop DSLR (2:3) aspect ratio images try using 2430 x 1620 width & height settings in LR. This will restrict portrait images to 1620 long side, which makes them 1.5x larger (same as 2430 landscape images). I use Screen Standard or Low for Output Sharpening in LR for 1080p Proshow videos, but do your own tests! howdego wrote: But I guess I should do the calibration first. If necessary please put your results and issues in a new post and put a reply in this thread with the link. That's a whole other can of worms that needs to be addressed separately! ... View more

Having read through this whole thread, I notice that it bounces back and forth between Lab and Printing Press/Advertising printing. As has been discussed, the print press guys change the color space to CYMK (which I believe should always be left to them as the presses are all so different and minor adjustments can cause major differences in the final alignment of the colors), but do professional Photo Labs (Bay Photo, Nations Photo Lab, MPIX...) ever change the color space or prefer a certain color space. I assume that the really good labs have very experienced print makers, so they can handle whatever is thrown at them. Just want to make sure those reading this thread realize that there are two different kinds of print houses, and that they do very different things with the files. Dan ... View more

Why did you need to reinstall it? you got any error? ... View more

YEY, THANK YOU!! ... View more

Sorry for the delay in response. The info was a bit overwhelming (good stuff) for me to digest, so I had to step away from it for a bit.  I still need to digest it, but wanted to say thanks for the info guys. Even without going through the volume of info yet, I'm wondering if I simply need to be looking for an antiglare, IPS with a gamut approximatley equal to aRGB (rather than the need for 95% gamut) ... wondering at available 14" IPS, antiglare laptops options.  Again, I still need to digest the info, but wanted to say thanks, lest you think otherwise. Okay ... so I got through the video and it would seem that it still suggests that if we are working in ProPhoto, we aren't able to necessarily see what we are doing if our display is only sRGB capable with regard to ProPhoto areas that are outside of sRGB.  This puts me back to the perspective of 95% gamut for display in order to see what we are working on in "full". Also, the concept that gamut can be greater than 100% (DreamColor reports 120%) is also confusing.  The short of it is that I'm capturing RAW, in my case from Kodak SLR/C most often and bringing it into PS.  What display targets/parameters @ gamut will most show me the full color of my image?  I spoke with Lenovo earlier today, they said they make no 14" anti-glare IPS displays.  But then, the rep also said the T430 had no gamut. Why does this issue of IPS and gamut have to be such a secretive parameter.  Add to that the % Area vs. % Coverage vs. NTSC vs. ??? this is a pain to figure out. Why can't it be simple like 100% of CIE = human vision, 90% of CIE = ProPhoto, 70% of CIE = aRGB, 50% of CIE = sRGB (or whatever the numbers actually are).  This is such a convoluted issue, I don't know how anyone can discern from one mfr's data to another. if they are using differing parameters @ Area vs. Coverage vs. NTSC vs aRGB, etc. Anything that can provide objective/equitable clarity would be appreciated.  It seems as there has been no industry standard established and they can spec (or largely omit spec) without specifying which reference spec they are actually using. Anyway, thanks, but I'm still no closer to really knowing the objective diff @ one MFR's monitor than another.  All I want to have is a display that I can trust (once calibrated) to show me what I'm working on accurately ... is that too much too ask? ... View more