digitaldog

<blockquote> <p>Or until you get a camera not supported by an abandoned application.</p> </blockquote> <p>Convert to DNG should work in Aperture. My copy of Aperture has no issues importing DNG's that I've got cataloged in Lightroom and which converted the proprietary raws to DNG. <br> You'll need a newer machine that can run a newer version of the DNG converter (or Lightroom).</p>

<blockquote> <p>When using adobe camera raw, it has been my understanding that the default settings are intended to give your image a little pop, straight out of the box.</p> </blockquote> <p>Not necessarily. If you were to implement for example, proper exposure for raw (ETTR), the default settings would look awful. Adjust and they look great. </p> <blockquote> <p>By proceeding with the +50% brightness, +25% contrast, and a slight s-curve (etc, etc) I thought that this would not be giving you an accurate (for lack of a better word) representation of your scene and you would be deviating from your metered exposure.<br /></p> </blockquote> <p>Nope, has nothing to do with the actual scene. All the processing in ACR is output referred not scene referred (see: http://www.color.org/ICC_white_paper_20_Digital_photography_color_management_basics.pdf)<br> Raw is linear data, no equivalent to film which has an H&D curve so be careful here in trying to link the two. </p>

<p>The only thing fragile is the <strong>proprietary</strong> processing every company has. Raw is raw (DNG is raw), edits are proprietary. There's nothing Adobe can do to migrate Apple's proprietary metadata edits to LR. The same would be true going the other way. Some of the data will move (metadata that isn't proprietary like keywords). IF you have Aperture instructions but not a rendered image, now might be the time to save off a TIFF, but the original raw will be just fine in LR or C1, you'll get to start the parametric edits all over again. <br> Nothing new here really. It's a shame some people who rely on the software will have to migrate. Maybe Apple's got a newer replacement in the wings. <br> History repeating itself again. Color Studio, Xrex, Live Picture, College and now add Aperture to the list of solutions that went up against a Photoshop product and ended up in the waste heap of software solutions. The market speaks again. </p>

<blockquote> <p>I have run disc utility a couple times since deleting files.</p> </blockquote> <p>You might want to try something a bit more heavy duty depending on how comfortable you are using Single User Mode on the Mac. It looks odd but can really help and it's free. <br /> Reboot into single-user mode (hold down command+s during boot). You'll see an ugly black screen but don't panic, just let all the text update. When prompted, type:<br /> fsck -y<br />[repeat until it no longer says that the Filesystem was modified]<br />mount -uw /<br />cd /var/db/<br />rm .AppleSetupDone<br />cd netinfo<br />mv local.nidb local.nidb.bak<br />exit</p> <p>IF that's a bit too much, download the free AppleJack (http://sourceforge.net/projects/applejack/)<br /> It too runs in single user mode but after one prompt, it runs and does a number of UNIX clean-up's on the Mac which should be done from this single user mode. Easy to install AppleJack, useful every now and then to ensure the OS is up to snuff.</p> <blockquote> <p>If I make the jump to PC, what else should I expect?</p> </blockquote> <p>Fustration, virus and money to spend</p>

<blockquote> <p>Stick with what you already know. No sense trying to setup a new computer while also learning the new OS.</p> </blockquote> <p>+1, sounds like someone's more interested in buidling a new computer than solving the big problems. As other's have said, buy a new Mac. KISS <g><br /> Cleaning up language files and older cache files and the like can save a lot of HD space. Another option is a product called TidyUp (http://www.hyperbolicsoftware.com/TidyUp.html) that can do this. Just the language files you don't need can add up to many hundreds of meg's or more. Even less expensive but not as complete is Macaroni (http://www.atomicbird.com/about/mac-apps). It runs every day without user intervention which is nice.</p> <blockquote> <p>Windows is the number one platform for a reason.</p> </blockquote> <p>Like MacDonalds hamburgers are the number one selling burgers in the world. Far from the tastiest. Or healthiest, or biggest, you get the idea?</p> <blockquote> <p>They'll be just fine and pop-up on your windows desktop just like they do on your mac.</p> </blockquote> <p>Depends on how the drive is formatted, that's not an accurate statement. </p>

<blockquote> <p>I'm trying to find out if it is possible to save changes made to an open PSD file back to an ACR raw file.</p> </blockquote> <p>Raw files in Adobe raw processors are treated as read only, there's nothing to write back to the raw itself unless you've converted it to a DNG. There are sidecar files which contain the proprietary instructions that could be used to render that raw to pixels that could be saved as a PSD or TIFF or JPEG. In Adobe raw processors, short of using DNG, the instructions have to be 'bonded' or synced with the raw but that raw itself isn't touched. </p>

<blockquote> <p>My 3880 has been indestructible</p> </blockquote> <p>Ditto, best printer they've ever made (and I've owned the 7800, 4900, 2200 and printers dating back to the 1200). The 4900 was just awful in terms of clogging while the 3880, 15 feet away has been flawless. And I can go months without printing on it and no clogs. </p>

<p>It's odd that <em>Convert to Profile</em> works, indicating the profile itself is OK at least in PS. You could try doing that, then the issue is printing without color management again. You have CS4, so if memory serves, there's still a "<em>No Color Management</em>" option in Print. You can convert the data, then use that option since the data is now color managed. See if that works. But it's odd that only the profiles you mention do this, not others. I suspect the profiles are iffy. </p>

<p>And how's the effect of the preview on the LCD, with the same image in:<br> Sunlight<br> Total darkness<br> Under Fluorescent's<br> You get the idea. The ambient conditions, viewing angle, illuminant all play a role. The camera LCD is absolutely not the product or tool to evaluate color (or tone), a well calibrated display in a controlled environment is. </p>

<p>OK so you CAN print using Application (Preview) Manages Color WITH the suspect profiles in Preivew? But not Photoshop? Can you <em>Convert to Profile</em> using the suspect profiles in PS? <br> Also run the Profile First Aid within the ColorSync utility and see if it reports anything wrong with those profiles. It could be PS is picky and barfing on those profiles because there's something wrong (hence the <em>Convert to Profile</em> test). </p>

<blockquote> <p>For instance, Silverfadt and Vuescan save the infrared channel somewhere in their 'raw' tiffs, but They do it differently, SF can't read Vuescan's, and no one else can read either.</p> </blockquote> <p>TIFF does support private tags:<br> <em><strong>Private TIFF tags</strong> are, at least originally, allocated by Adobe for organizations that wish to store information meaningful only to that organization in a TIFF file. The private tags listed here are the ones that found their way into the public domain and more general applications, and the ones that the owning organizations documented for the benefit of the TIFF community.</em><br> http://www.awaresystems.be/imaging/tiff/tifftags/private.html</p> <p>DNG which is a cousin of TIFF (based on TIFF EP) also allows private tags. So if some company wishes to store some secret sauce in the container, that's allowed. </p>

<blockquote> <p>No, my monitor is not calibrated</p> </blockquote> <p>That would help. </p> <blockquote> <p>I'm using my lap-top right now, but even when I was using my NEC calibrated monitor it still did not match the look of the LCD on my camera.<br /></p> </blockquote> <p>In theory, one could attempt to calibrate the NEC to better match the LCD but what's the point? That LCD isn't correct. It's not calibrated, and if you're working with raw data, the preview is completely incorrect. </p> <blockquote> <p>I would think by now Photoshop or somebody would emulate that effect.<br /></p> </blockquote> <p>Again, it's not necessarily correct unless you shot JPEG in sRGB and that LCD is also producing sRGB which is kind of questionable. There are tasks the LCD on the camera is good for (focus, composition etc) and tasks it's awful for (accurate preview of the data). </p>

<blockquote> <p>The link you gave me takes me to the Epson site where the procedure to download the printer driver is to use my Mac's Software Update.</p> </blockquote> <p>It shouldn't, it should just download their installer. You're getting a Mac update? That's usually the kiss of Epson Printer death. <br> Again, is this ONLY in CS4? Can you print out of say Preview? </p>

<p>Well António, there you have it. After 31 posts on topic and about file formats, right on queue Eric posts nothing on the subject and instead slings mud, <strong>his MO.</strong> There's a name for people who enter forums, attempt to incite and have nothing useful to contribute, I'm sure you and everyone other than Eric understand that:<br> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)<br> In <a title="Internet slang" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_slang">Internet slang</a>, a <strong>troll</strong> (<a title="Help:IPA for English" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English">/</a><a title="Help:IPA for English" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key">ˈ</a><a title="Help:IPA for English" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key">t</a><a title="Help:IPA for English" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key">r</a><a title="Help:IPA for English" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key">oʊ</a><a title="Help:IPA for English" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key">l</a><a title="Help:IPA for English" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English">/</a>, <a title="Help:IPA for English" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English">/</a><a title="Help:IPA for English" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key">ˈ</a><a title="Help:IPA for English" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key">t</a><a title="Help:IPA for English" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key">r</a><a title="Help:IPA for English" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key">ɒ</a><a title="Help:IPA for English" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key">l</a><a title="Help:IPA for English" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English">/</a>) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,<sup id="cite_ref-Campbell-Trolls_1-0" ><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)#cite_note-Campbell-Trolls-1">[1]</a></sup> by posting inflammatory,<sup id="cite_ref-2" ><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)#cite_note-2">[2]</a></sup> <a title="wikt:extraneous" href="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/extraneous#Adjective">extraneous</a>, or <a title="Off-topic" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-topic">off-topic</a> messages in an online community (such as a forum,<a title="Chat room" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chat_room">chat room</a>, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an <a title="Emotion" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion">emotional</a> response<sup id="cite_ref-PCMAG_def_3-0" ><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)#cite_note-PCMAG_def-3">[3]</a></sup> or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.<sup id="cite_ref-IUKB_def_4-0" ><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)#cite_note-IUKB_def-4">[4]</a></sup></p> <p>Anyway, it does appear you did gain some insight about file formats, what TIFF offers etc. Not a complete loss till you know who showed up! </p>

<p>I'd try downloading from here:<br> http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/jsp/Pro/Home.do?BV_UseBVCookie=yes<br> That's still an old OS, maybe that's the issue, time to upgrade. <br> Is this only an issue in CS4?</p>

<blockquote> <p>When I attempt to print with <em>Photoshop Manages Color selected, </em>the paper goes through the printer as if it is printing but it comes out blank.</p> </blockquote> <p>Do the full Epson enema: <br> Delete <strong>all</strong> instances of Epson printers from System Preferences>Print & Fax.<br /><br />Then go to /Library/Printers and toss the whole Epson folder.<br /><br />Toss LFP Remote Panel (IF you are using this utility for your printer).<br /><br />Then reinstall drivers from Epson (never Apple). <br /></p> <blockquote> <p>But the printer works fine if <em>Printer Manages Color </em>is selected.<br /></p> </blockquote> <p>Which expect for ABW is what you want to be using. </p>

<blockquote> <p>While I'd love it if Andrew turns out to be 100% correct,</p> </blockquote> <p>It's quite easy for you to test on your end (as I've done). Again, I've got TIFFs and identical PSD's and I have software products that can open a layered TIFF but not it's PSD cousin. Try it for yourself. You don't need the latest version of Photoshop either. In a TIFF or PSD with layers and other proprietary Adobe technology, you have the option and you should pick it, to save a flattened version of that data in the file structure. Check your General Preferences>File Handling. CS4, CS6, CC-2014, doesn't matter, the properly saved PSD and TIFF are on equal grounds in terms of what and how non Adobe app's can access that data. And again, it's simply a fact that there are more TIFF readers than PSD readers! As for speed, on this end, saving a TIFF with ZIP compression versus a PSD, the two files open about the same (129mb file reported within PS). And if the TIFF took another second? Big deal. As for size on disk, PSD is a smaller on disk (43.mb) while the TIFF with comperssion is 80mb. Again, big deal. I'll take a bigger file that may open a tad slower but can open over a document <strong>I can't open</strong> any day of the week. </p> <blockquote> <p>- Ps will remember your selection of TIFF as the format to save new files. But will it not also remember the selection of other formats, not all of which are reported to be able to save everything? If it doesn't, then the fact that it does remember TIFF will be very significant (but vice-versa).</p> </blockquote> PS settings are sticky. Save a JPEG, you'll get that option next time IF JPEG is appropriate. 16-bit data, forget that sticky setting as you can't save JPEG in high bit. Nor layers. So if you're working with layered data and the like, you've got few choices and those you make are sticky so pick TIFF and be done (unless you instead what a JPEG, or GIF). <blockquote> <p>Will Ps give a warning (cf MS Office) when you try to save a file, that some features may not be preserved? Namely, will it warn you that Duotone work will not be correctly saved in TIFF? If it does, then we may reasonably be confident that we run no risk of having stuff lost when saving to TIFF (but vice-versa).</p> </blockquote> <p>Yes, it pops a warning about maximize PSD compatibility but the user can dismiss it and set it not to ever show again. In terms of Duotone, this is again like the JPEG analogy above. IF PS can't save in a format, it will not allow you to select something it can't support. Again, you can easily test this on your end by making a Duotone and attempting to save it. Examine the options in the dropdown menu for file format (you'll see no TIFF or JPEG etc). </p> <blockquote> <p>- What does it mean that 3rd party software will open Ps TIFFs as flattened?</p> </blockquote> <p> It means the proprietary layers are <strong>not</strong> accessible and as far as you are concerned, this image is the equivalent of flatting all the layers in a PS doc and saving it as such. You see the same color appearance you did in PS but all layers are gone. That's proprietary Adobe processing. Same with Smart Objects and a huge list of unique Adobe features. </p> <blockquote> <p> Whether by reverse engineering or some agreement, 3rd party programs that are able to read PSD are able to read a lot of proprietary Adobe features.</p> </blockquote> <p> There is a difference betweeen reading and editing that data! It is possible that 3rd party app's with PSD support can show you the layers intact but you can't edit them, that's Adobe's domain. For all practical purposes it behaves as flattened. After all, the entire idea behind layers is to control editing of those pixels from the other's. Proprietary processing is just that, proprietary. As soon as you leave Adobe land, you leave their proprietary processing and start afresh with new proprietary processing (in the new app). </p> <blockquote> <p>TIFF is open as a container whereas PSD is not, but there is little to be done at the container level, so the fact that TIFF is open doesn't necessarily gain us that much.</p> </blockquote> <p> It gains wider support and thus longer archival properties. If you are sure you'll NEVER leave Adobe processing OR hope to open the data outside of an Adobe app, you can stick with PSD. But why? There's NO advantage other than a smaller document after which there are only disadvantages. </p> <blockquote> <p>TIFF may have rules on what it accepts as a payload and how certain things must be done, but that doesn't mean it mandates the whole logic of it, and that's where proprietariness can come in.</p> </blockquote> <p>Both TIFF and PSD are totally controlled by Adobe. As of today, the differences are TIFF doesn't support Duotone, Adobe could change that if they wanted to (as if anyone really uses that). It's an open format which means proprietariness(?) is documented while with PSD you still have to pay a licensing to Adobe to use it. </p>

<p>I don't know of an article that talks about the two paths specifically. The data path is the most important because you're editing that data and due to rounding errors, reducing it's numeric accuracy. If you want to send the best 24 bits to an output device, you start with more bits which fortunately our capture devices provide. <br> Viewing that data is a separate path in terms of bit depth. About the only time it's an issue is if you see banding on-screen from high bit data. That implies the banding is on-screen, not in-data. </p>

<blockquote> <p>Is there anyway to get that bright back light look that you see on your camera's LCD, but when you down load the picture it looks dull as hell ?</p> </blockquote> <p>Could be a lack of proper display calibration. See: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml<br> Also, what you see on the back of the LCD is the JPEG the camera builds from raw data using it's proprietary process. IF you shoot raw, it's very likely they two will not match. So the question is, are you shooting JPEG and are you seeing a big difference between the JPEG on the computer versus the LCD? If so, it's the display. But if you shoot raw, it could be a combo of display and the difference in how the raw converter initially builds a preview of the raw. That too can be 'fixed' depending on the converter. </p>

<blockquote> <p>Now, when I select "Photoshop manages color" and go to the last print dialog box, under printer settings the menu that selects color or adv. black & white is greyed out so I can't make a choice.</p> </blockquote> <p>ABW is grayed out IF you select an ICC profile in Photoshop (<em>Photoshop Manages Color</em>). Select <em>Printer Manages Color </em>instead, <strong>then</strong> in the driver, select <em>Epson Color Controls</em> from the Color Matching popup menu. Then you'll see the option for ABW. </p>

<p>I used to use Pictopia who did the real, full CMS path but alas, they are out of business. Maybe NancyScans? http://nancyscans.com/2d-printing</p>

<blockquote> <p>What happens if I convert to paper profile and then sRGB?</p> </blockquote> <p>Bad things <g>. You don't want to do that. You have to send them sRGB or better, Adobe RGB (1998). But you can forget about the profile, it's useless. You convert the data using the profile that respects those output conditions of which it was built. The lab isn't providing that profile. </p>

<p>The problem is they are giving you a profile but not letting you use it, making it very questionable if they are too. With what rendering intent? With Black Point Compensation? It's just a kludge, half baked workflow that doesn't embrace color management fully or correctly although the lab's doing this would like you to think they are color managed. Personally I'd just say: <em>Send us sRGB or Adobe RGB and you're done.</em> Or <em>Here's a profile, soft proof and use it to convert the data</em>. But nothing in between. It's just dumb. </p>

<blockquote> <p>I am not familiar with Mac software...</p> </blockquote> <p>You don't have to be, the TIFF open's, the PSD's don't. You can try the same test on your end with whatever applications you have that can open a TIFF. There's simply no question that<strong> there are far more TIFF readers than PSD readers</strong>. And considering there is zero advantage to the PSD, <em>why</em> save in that format and limit the ability to send raster data to more places? Now IF you had some compelling advantage of PSD yet defined, or said you have plies of Duotone work, that be a different story. PSD isn't the '<em>native</em>' format of Photoshop from the first time you ideally save a layered document as TIFF. There simply isn't anything PSD brings to the party.</p> <p>Jeff said it best: There is no reason for anyone, ever, to use PSD.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I did run idiagnostics and the device passed so the hardware seems to be okay.</p> </blockquote> <p>That's good news. I'd try tweaking the calibration options to get closer to a match. The issue is that depending on the software, you're given crippled 'tools' if I can be so kind, for setting the critical aimpoints; white point and backlight intensity. You don't need to force a low backlight onto the process as long as you can control print viewing conditions. </p> <blockquote> <p>I have paper profiles which I soft proof with. I don't have output profiles for conversion or is that the same thing?<br /></p> </blockquote> <p>It <strong>is</strong> the same thing unless a color management cluless lab provides the profiles only for soft proofing and not for producing the output values (they don't allow you to convert the data). If they force you to send them sRGB, the alarms should go off. </p>