Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Exit
Tanja2014
Enthusiast
Tanja2014
Enthusiast
Activity
Aug 27, 2015
07:39 AM
.... another idea adobe ignores for years.
... View more
Aug 27, 2015
07:36 AM
there is no reason.... adobe is just laughing at people thinking this forum has any influence on decisions made.
... View more
Aug 27, 2015
07:35 AM
add LR5 and LR6...... next to nothing happend.
... View more
Aug 27, 2015
07:34 AM
a book feature nobody with a clue will use.
... View more
Aug 27, 2015
07:33 AM
in 2015 also.... but hey you get crappy mobile support now.
i have yet to find someone who uses the mobile app for something productive.....
it ́s a PITA to use LR mobile on a tablet.
but hey adobe maybe gets some instagram user ....
... View more
Aug 27, 2015
07:30 AM
yeah well... get used to it.
until adobe gets real competition they will do nothing.
... View more
Aug 27, 2015
07:29 AM
adobes focus is on hooking people to the cloud.. making money without doing something in return.
once you are in the cloud you have to pay anyway....
and don ́t get me started with the unusable beta features we get every 6 month.
... View more
Aug 27, 2015
07:27 AM
over 4 years and next to nothing happend.......
... View more
Aug 27, 2015
07:26 AM
and bridge get ́s no love either as you may noticed......
... View more
Aug 27, 2015
07:23 AM
well the request is over 4 years old.
adobe cares a sh*t.... obviously.
every shareware coder could do it in less time.
i mean most lightroom user are on subscription anyway.. so why do something?
a few crappy beta features every 6 month keeps most of the lemmings hooked.
... View more
Aug 04, 2015
03:09 PM
1 Upvote
Adobe Indesign CC – Disable a blank Welcome Screen | UVSAR this and other annoying stuff is only because adobe wants to spy on you and wants you online and in the cloud 24/7. when you care a bit about your privacy you will be in hell with adobe and other companys. stuff will not work or it will take minutes until the damn software has tried all IP adresses and finally gives up.
... View more
May 19, 2015
07:04 AM
unortunatley that seems to be true ....except when i use other programs who don ́t have the issues photoshop has.
i would really advice to rethink this approach and work on making this banding go away. that it is possible are shown by other tools who behave much better than photoshop.
people buy 30inch 2560x1600 pixel monitors and all they see at at fullscreen view in photoshop is some ugly approximation. :(
again im aware that you have to redcuce the resolution when you display a 24 or 36MP image on a 2560x1600 pixel display. the issue i have with PS is the quality in that photoshop does it (as demonstrated above).
this simply sux:
https://d2r1vs3d9006ap.cloudfront.net...
... View more
May 16, 2015
07:16 AM
thanks. i still don ́t get why disabling a preview cache makes the image quality worse. but i have to believe that.
the internal PS calculations (for filters and the healing brush etc.) rely on the cache level for the preview?
so what IS a great idea to get rid of that ugly banding when a higher cache level is used?
i can ́t always zoom to 100% .. it ́s not practical.
with todays photo resolutions you have to zoom out.
and for judging an image i need to see it as whole.
... View more
May 12, 2015
07:16 AM
anyone who can answer the question about this statement in the online help?
"...a cache level of 1 does not yield the highest quality results for some PS functions...."
... View more
May 12, 2015
07:08 AM
2 Upvotes
i guess nothing will change as i did not get an answer to my follow up questions. like what artifacts are introduced by setting cache level to 1 (i refer to the online help). the adobe phone support is non existent.... or better say... they know nothing. i guess it´s outsourced to india.
... View more
May 11, 2015
02:13 AM
Images by Nick schrieb:
Hi Tanja2014
I can record such an action but it seems the discussion has moved beyond that.
yes it´s not needed anymore. it is pretty obvious what photoshop is doing with the image data. sadly it never occurred to me that the cache level setting can introduce such grave banding. i know it was a means to reduce the amount of data.. but i never had thought it has such an influence. also that the photoshop help says a cache level of 1 "does not yield the highest quality results for some PS functions" made me think using higher levels are fine (quality wise). i never changed the cache level before.. always let them at default. even in this thread it was adviced to NOT set the cache level to 1..... so even the MVP+++ member don´t seem to have this issue in their minds all the time. the banding problem the people in this thread have, seem not to be related to "not enough NOISE to break up the banding" ...... instead it is related to the cache level setting in photoshop. yet the only advice was to add more noise....
... View more
May 10, 2015
02:55 PM
"Yes, each part is explained in the documentation, but the documentation cannot spell out all the consequences of all possible settings changes and image editing choices."
can you point me to that?
you don ́t have to explain all possible consequences just the grave ones who causes a lot of confusion would be enough.
what i read is.. "increase cache level for better performance".... the downside.. well i NEVER read that it can increase banding!
in fact the help says using a cache level of 1 does not yield the highest quality results for some PS functions.
what does that mean.. best performance or best image quality?
what quality suffers with cache level set to 1?
setting cache level to 1 sure helps avoid banding, as we have seen.
https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb/...
is there an updated page for CC?
about the quality of the photoshop display....
look at my screenshots from acdsee and photoshop.. tell me photoshop does not look much worse... can you do that with a honest face?
i can give you screenshots from other applications too.
i understand the cause of banding .. what i don ́t understand is why photoshop is using such a image quality decreasing features as DEFAULT.
and as you can see in the thread i linked above (where you did not give this answer by the way.... all you said is "add more noise") many others have the same issues with this photoshop behavior.
" In 8 bit/channel images and 32 bit/channel images this is not a problem"
unfortunately i found this not to be true.
it is LESS visible for 8 bit images but is is still visible.
i can see clearly when cache level is set to 1 or 4 on problematic images.
... View more
May 10, 2015
02:02 PM
unfortunately chris cox makes it look like a feature not a problem: PHOTOSHOP - image cache level setting can make banding more visible in 16 bit/channel images
... View more
May 10, 2015
01:48 PM
"(losing performance, but gaining a little bit in quality depending on the exact image and adjustments used).
"
A LITTLE BIT?
sorry but this is plain and simply unacceptable in my opinion.
where is this written in the documentation?
this info is completely new to me and im using photoshop since version 4. there should be a warning or some info in the preference dialog.
i use PS for editing... and only photoshop ...for years.
i always thought the banding issues had something to do with the tonal range of the IMAGES.... now i learn it ́s in many cases an issue with how photoshop is handling the image data. :(
and nowhere did i read a warning about this behavior.
and when people mentioned this all adobe employees answered was "add more noise",
"The true appearance of the image can only be judged at 100% zoom, for many reasons."
now what has the zoom to do with the cache level settings?
where is this info about cache levels above 1 decreasing image quality? and why is the default a setting that cripples image quality?
how should people know this? i sure don ́t and i read a lot and watched a lot of PS tutorials over the years!
of course i know that i can only judge the image quality at 100%... but it never occured to me that photoshop is destroying image data (when displaying images) in such a massive way when i use these settings.
with todays image resolutions you have to zoom out more often then not. i can work on details at 100% but i can ́t edit 36MP files at 100% all the time. even worse are my rendered image who are 60-80+ megapixel.
i also know that banding is a problem with gradients and smooth transitions. and adding noise can help to avoid banding. i work a lot with CGI files and banding is often an issue.
but this CLEARLY is a photoshop issue!
at least there should be a clear warning about this.
i bet often i did not had to add more noise in the past, if only photoshop would display the actual image data and not some ugly approximation.
i know... i know...when not displayed at 100% it ́s always an approximation. unfortunately for adobe other tools do this better!!
and i can ́t judge, for example, the sky of an 36MP image while looking at a small part of it. but when i zoom out then i see this ugly banding that is introduced by photoshop.
how can i judge what im doing when photoshop is not showing me the actuall image data?
people jump to loops to get 10 bit workflow and then this?
so your claim that 99% of the time adding more noise is not the right solution. not when the image you see is destroyed by photoshops internal data handling.
shareware tools i get for free are doing this better.
ps: it ́s not only 16 bit images.
8 bit images are affected too when zoomed.
not as visible as 16 bit files but the banding of 8 bit files is also noticable increased by the cache level setting.
... View more
May 10, 2015
05:18 AM
Herbert2001 schrieb:
Hopefully Chris Cox will take note.
yeah lets hope so. i don´t want to imagine how many times i was affected by this without noticing it. 😞 i thought it´s a tonal steps problem when in fact it was a problem with the photoshop settings.
... View more
May 10, 2015
04:22 AM
i am using photoshop CC latest version. i also set the cache level back to 4 and voila the severe banding is back. also tried on my notebook with an older nvidia 430 graphics. same results.
... View more
May 10, 2015
04:20 AM
2 Upvotes
input file is a 16 bit tiff file. i just made it brighter in different editing tools. it ́s not a question that even 16 bit files can show banding. the problem is that photoshop, as the most used image application on earth, has some real issues when using the default settings. the results are quite devasting for photoshop. in fact every shareware tool i tested did this better. i don ́t want to imagine how many images i edited where i thought it ́s a tonal problem and i added (unnesessary) noise to the image to get rid of the banding. this is GRAVE GRAVE issue!!! the cache level setting should not influence the appearance of an image! on the left photoshop .. on the right acdsee. when i set the cache level in photoshop CC preferences to 1 the result looks much smoother and cleaner: it doesn ́t matter for the problem if i use "exposure" or a "levels" or "curve" adjustment. i am using: win7 64bit sp1 intel i7 24gb ram nvidia 980 gtx (latest drivers) photoshop is the latest 64 bit CC version. i also tested this on my notebook with a nvidia 430 graphics card. the result was the same. the default cache level of "4" showed massive and ugly banding (i did not test higher cache levels). reducing the cache level to 1 showed much smoother images. all other image editing tools i tested don ́t show this massive banding issues. only photoshop has this problem. this issue was always labeld an "user error" in the past by adobe employees (advice was : add more noise to avoid banding"). this example clearly shows that it is NOT an user error. i can reproduce this behavior on my systems and i asked friends who can also reproduce this with photoshop CC. more info here: https://forums.adobe.com/message/7530... grettings from germany.
... View more
May 10, 2015
04:13 AM
yes cache level in the PS preferences menu. mine was set to 4 and i set it to 1. result was the images looks pretty much like the one edited in acdsee. ps: i had to restart photoshop so the new setting was used.
... View more
May 10, 2015
03:58 AM
ok so i set the CACHE level to 1 and the image looks much closer to the one from acdsee.. cache level definately has an influence on the apperance and banding. thanks for bringing this to our attention!! i agree adobe should have a look on this.. it´s a BUG. i just changed cache level to 1 and restarted photoshop and the result is much cleaner. i did nothing else. my system: win7 sp1 24gb ram nvidia 980 GTX (latest drivers)
... View more
May 10, 2015
03:55 AM
1 Upvote
i edited nick´s image in acdsee 8 and in photoshop CC and i have to agree that the acdsee version looks MUCH better. i just lightend the images up a bit.
... View more
May 10, 2015
03:21 AM
Nick.... the image alone is not much help... can you record an action what you have done and also post the original? you can not 100% avoid banding in "computer generated gradients" especially when using 8 bit files formats.. when i use the gradient features in photoshop (for masking) i often add noise to them. i have to battle them quite often because i do a lot of CGI images and perfect computer generated gradients often show banding after some postprocessing. also when i photograph on a grey background and do postprocessing on these images i notice that banding becomes quite visible. even with 16 bit i often notice banding after editing. part of the problem is sure my monitor as he can only display 8 bit. bust most people don´t have a 10bit workflow at home. ps: adding noise, via the noise filter, is not always the best way to prevent banding. in fact there is a filter called splatter that works better for avoiding banding in blue skys...for example.
... View more
Apr 30, 2015
09:26 AM
1 Upvote
i have the same issues plus these two: BUG: Face Recognition splatters Face Tag rectangles all over my Images LIGHTROOM 6 Facial recognition runs amok LIGHTROOM: facial recognition data not saved - potential data loss and as i wrote in another post.. i agree adobe should get help from google to get face recognition right.
... View more
Apr 27, 2015
12:46 PM
@John R. Ellis
when the KEYWORD is already assigned to the image BEFORE you draw the rectangle the autosave is NOT triggered as i wrote.
please read carefully. i know my english is not good but i tried my best. :)
even when you type in the peoples names in the rectangle in people view but they are ALREADY stored in the metadata, the autosave is not triggered.
and that is something that will happen quite often.
because most people will have name keywords in their old images already.
only when you draw the rectangle, write the name and this name keyword is NOT in the metadata the autosave i triggered.
tested on 3 systems.
... View more
Apr 24, 2015
07:44 AM
2 Upvotes
i have the option to automatically save XMP data into the images activated. so all keywords and metadata changes are not only saved to the catalog but also into my DNG and TIFF images. now this works fine for everything except the new face recognition data. i mean the areas (rectangles) where the faces are. i guess the problem is that the images already contain the keywords (names) of the persons in the images. what i did was using the rectangles to identify the persons in the images. drawing rectangles around their faces and name them. this info about the rectangle positions is NOT automatically stored in the image files. not after hours of letting LR run idle. this info is only stored when i manually save (CTRL+S) the images or do something other to the metadata (like adding NEW keywords to it). so in short: just adding the face region data (the rectangles) will not trigger the automatic XMP save function when the name keyword was already asigned as keyword to the image. that ́s very bad and must considered a bug in my opinion.. i don ́t like to rely on the LR catalog only. it ́s unsave even with backups. i want that the metadata info is stored in the images. also when i give away my images i want that the metadata is in the images. that ́s why "automatically save XMP" is always active and very important for me.
... View more
Apr 24, 2015
07:30 AM
2 Upvotes
to be honest.... that sounds like a bad excuse for not coding it right.
... View more
- « Previous
- Next »
Copyright © 2025 Adobe. All rights reserved.
AdChoices