This is pointless if you don't have a very tightly controlled print process, with the correct icc profile for the printer/ink/paper, and your printer is really capable of reproducing subtle tonal gradations correctly. If this is grayscale, high end printers will have 3 or more grayscale inks for this purpose (black - gray - light gray).   You also need to make sure the lighting/viewing conditions are identical - and if this is a colored liquid, it will presumably be at least partly translucent. So how thick will the column of liquid be? ... View more

Just open them in the new PS version. The files are on disk where you last saved them. ... View more

If sort order doesn't stick (whichever one), it's corrupt Bridge preferences. Hold ctrl+alt when launching to reset.   Set sort order to manual when renaming files. Then they stay in the same place. ... View more

This is probably the one you want: ... View more

It depends on whether it would ever need to be scaled in any way. QR codes, barcodes etc need to be perfectly crisp and sharp, and if it's a pixel image any scaling will blur it. Vector data, OTOH, are always sharp at any reproduction size. ... View more

100K applies to CMYK, so PNGs can't be used. PNG doesn't support CMYK. Once you have a CMYK document it's simple. Just make sure it's 100% in the K channel, and zero in the other three.   That said, a QR code should normally be made as a vector object. Anything involving vector elements and text shouldn't be made in Photoshop in the first place. Then you make it in InDesign, placing elements created in Photoshop or Illustrator as needed. ... View more

Bojan is correct. A long as there is a mask, it masks the image - unless you disable the mask. ... View more

Not a stupid question at all.  We are many.   Whenever you pick a Photoshop tool that has a Firefly component, optional or otherwise, you will be asked to accept the terms and conditions. Just do not accept.   The tools with optional AI, like the Remove tool, will have a rolldown in the options bar where you can disable the AI component. This choice sticks.   This works well for me and I'm not bothered with any suggestions. ... View more

Yes, we seem to be saying the same thing. While you could pursue this as a theoretical exercise, in reality we are on a whole other and much lower level of precision. The added precision is an illusion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_precision  ... View more

With a color space as big as ACES AP0 - half of it is imaginary colors outside the visible spectrum - I can imagine that 32 bit depth could be a sensible safeguard against quantization.   With that said, I think all of this is massive overkill. If these are color transparencies, it will be well contained within Adobe RGB. If color negatives, you might need ProPhoto just for processing headroom (not the finished result).   In reality, film technology is severely limited compared to modern digital sensors, both in terms of color gamut and dynamic range. In other words, any current workflow for digital cameras will handle film with no problems (tone curves are quite different and its own separate problem, but you don't need a bigger color space because of that).   Don't know if you're scanning or photographing, but the latter is often much easier to work with if you have a good repro setup. ... View more

That's a defective monitor profile, most likely from the display manufacturer distributed through Windows Update.   The proper way to deal with this is to use a calibrator to make a new profile, but if you don't have one, use a standard profile that corresponds with your type of display. That's sRGB IEC61966-2.1 for a standard display, Adobe RGB for a traditional wide gamut display, or Image P3 for a DCI-P3 type display.   You set this up in Windows Settings > System > Display > Color Management.   Relaunch Photoshop when done, it loads the monitor profile at application startup. ... View more

I did not see this at 100% By @kkrip   That's the giveaway.   Whenever something seems to change when merging layers, it's because you are not viewing at 100%. The merged result is correct. The preview is misleading and incorrect. 100% has nothing to do with size. It means one image pixel is represented by exactly one physical screen pixel. For performance reasons, all blending and adjustment previews are calculated on the on-screen sample of the image. When you are zoomed out, that means a resampled and softened version of the image. Pixel levels are averaged out. You get a lot of intermediate values that aren't there in the full original data. When you merge, commit an adjustment etc, the numbers are re-calculated on the full original data, pixel for pixel. Viewing at 100% is the only way to avoid this, and get an accurate preview of the final result.   There is a feature request to calculate all blending and adjustment previews on the full pixel data. The problem is that this slows Photoshop down considerably, and would lead to a load of other customer complaints. So what we want is an option, transient and non-sticky, that allows this while also stating clearly what the implications are. ... View more

@IncredibleHat  "4 is aweful and 5 is too large"   Jpeg file size is more than anything determined by image content. Flat areas compress much more effectively than busy high frequency detail. It can be a factor of 10x or more.   If file size is critical, the level of sharpening plays a huge part. Dial down a little bit on the sharpening, and you can cut size in half.   Here's 48 kB vs 426 kB - exact same dimensions and compression level: ... View more

As the others say. The 4060 is perfect for Photoshop. Performs extremely well at a reasonable price. You might want to see if its possible to stretch it to 12 GB VRAM, though.   The higher model numbers will be faster, but for Photoshop use it's not worth the rapidly increasing price.   Stay away from Intel GPUs. Yes, they make splendid CPUs, but their GPUs have never been up to the standards needed for serious advanced use. ... View more

You need to post a 100% screenshot so that it's possible to read the UI. ... View more

Settings are stored under your Windows user account (not in the program files). Photoshop needs to access these settings to operate properly, and needs full read/write privileges to every relevant folder.   ... View more

Yes, I posted an old screenshot, the panel is slightly changed now. Anyway, I retested and it still works without issue on a7r v raw files.   What is your GPU status  in ACR preferences > performance? ... View more

@john sanderl65775692  Does it look like this in ACR? Or is it grayed out?   Also, double-check the raw file type. That's the only thing I know of that will prevent reflection removal from working. ... View more

It still sounds like permissions - but one other possibility, assuming you're saving to the desktop:   As far as I know, it is now possible to have your desktop in the Microsoft/Apple cloud. This is something you set up when you install the operating system (and I always make sure to avoid that). The marketing fluff is that you can then access your desktop from any unit.   If you're saving big files to the desktop, it's easy to see how that could fail.   Unfortunately, the Photoshop Save dialog will just identify "Desktop" as the save path, it doesn't give the full path. So try to save a small file to the desktop, and then look for it in Windows Explorer, under your user account. If the desktop is on your local physical drive it should look like this: ... View more

These are totally different processing engines, so this is an impossible and unrealistic ask. Camera matching profiles is already stretching it (and I never use them for this reason).   Keep in mind that anything you see on the camera screen is the result of raw processing. The raw sensor data are exactly the same in both.   If you prefer the Sony rendering, you just need to use Sony's raw processor. As long as you use Lightroom/ACR, you need to accept that this is different raw processor. It's up to you to weigh the pros and cons of each processor. In principle, anything you see on the camera can be replicated in LrC/ACR.     ... View more

I don't think this is about color management. The way the OP describes it is entirely consistent with preview rendering at less than 100% view, on a very noisy image. This effect is well defined and well documented. ... View more

That looks like the red channel, with a gradient map on top.   The effect at the bottom is probably just a drop shadow and reduced opacity. ... View more

It has always been like this. But as I said, you only notice it on a certain type of images.   BTW - this isn't a bug, it's normal behavior (irrespective of whether one thinks it's desirable). Can a moderator move this to "Discussions"? ... View more

You get this dialog if you hold shift as you launch Photoshop. Perhaps your shift key is stuck? ... View more

Yes, you do have a point - but to be realistic, there is no such thing as "accurate" below 100%. Pixels have to be resampled on screen, there is no avoiding that. A group of pixels have to be reduced to 1 single pixel.   Where I do agree with you, and this has been requested many times, is to give us an option to do all preview calculations on the full pixel data instead of the screen sample. The answer we usually get is that this would slow Photoshop down unacceptably. That is probably true, it most likely would - but if it was an option with all implications clearly stated, and it was a one-off, non-sticky setting, I don't see why not.   Many versions ago it was possible to do this by setting cache levels to 1 in Preferences. That is no longer possible.   In a "normal" photograph this isn't a problem. This happens with very noisy or binary data where you have sharp pixel-level transitions. It's these transitions that are averaged out to middle values that aren't really there in the data.   In practice, I live quite well with this, but it's important to understand what's happening and why it's happening. ... View more

Whenever something seems to change when merging layers, it's because you are not viewing at 100%. The merged result is correct. The preview is misleading and incorrect. 100% has nothing to do with size. It means one image pixel is represented by exactly one physical screen pixel. For performance reasons, all blending and adjustment previews are calculated on the on-screen version of the image. When you are zoomed out, that means a resampled and softened version of the image. Pixel levels are averaged out. You get a lot of intermediate values that aren't there in the full original data. When you merge, commit an adjustment etc, the numbers are re-calculated on the full original data, pixel for pixel. Viewing at 100% avoids all this and renders the whole issue moot. You see every pixel before and after, and so nothing changes. ... View more

Well, this is relative, I suppose. I have a lot of custom settings in Photoshop, and it takes me perhaps ten minutes at most to set it up. But it must be said that I'm very familiar with all those settings and know where to go.   Still, I think that's ten minutes well spent.   Just me. ... View more

It also goes into detail about how to completely disable the integrated GPU when necessary. That's basically only applicable with laptops where the screen is hardwired to the motherboard, and the GPU configuration set by the laptop manufacturer, inaccessible to the user. On a desktop it's not an issue. ... View more