alan_cox3

Frans, if you are on the Windows platform and haven't done a lot on the computer since the original was over-written, there are a couple of potential solutions. Both are long shots and a little messy. But if it was really important to me I'd try first looking in the Recycle Bin. If not there then I'd try using a program like "Recuva" -- a free utility that can locate and in some cases recover "deleted" files. (This could take quite a while and you'd have to sort through a lot of other trash.) The success of both of these depend on how much you've used the computer since the errant over-writing.

Irregardless of what folks at the "Adobe Community" agree is the "correct answer", there is no debating whether LR wrote into several years worth of my raw files.. So my own personal choice is to continue marking all my raw files as R/O. My files, my choice, YMMV.

This is not the first time Adobe has written into Raw files. They are not truly read only unless you use some command/tool to mark them that way. Having learned my lesson about Adobe software quality in the past, I ALWAYS import my camera raw files manually and immediately mark them as R/O before I ever let Adobe even look at them.

Just as an aside, the reason heat is not an issue for me is that I mount with PMA and not a heat press. But good point. The heating and cooling I suppose could cause microscopic cracking or separation of the lacquer layer. Good luck.

After. The print will be flatter during spraying, so easier to see exactly what you are doing.

I usually place prints on a 30 degree angle. I use a light a few feet in front of me that reflects off the print. It gives the best view of where and how much I'm spraying. As Ed has said, spray lightly, using overlapping passes. Start and end past the edges. Use multiple coats, turning 90 degrees each time. I use 2-4 coats, depending on the effect I want (and how brave I'm feeling). ALSO, it's VERY important to let the prints fully cure for a day or two BEFORE spraying. Otherwise you will get fogging from within the blacks due to out-gassing.

<p>Hi Kier,<br> I suppose it's possible that in doing ETTR you over-saturated the blue channel. It's just a possibility. It's not quite as common as blowing out the red channel on flowers, etc. But I've still seen it happen. Were you using an RGB histogram when setting ETTR? Gray histograms will not alert you to the potential problem. Check the blue values in the brightest areas. If there are none close to max value, you are OK.<br> When doing ETTR, over-saturating a few specular highlight pixels in detail areas will generally be OK. Doing so in larger smooth areas will quickly show up as banding/mottling.<br> Some folks I know actually have a style setting that increases the contrast when doing ETTR. That way the blinkies are an "early warning" for how close you are getting. (Blinkies are determined by the JPEG setting, ie the style combination.)</p>

<p>Bill, I just replaced my old laptop this year with an Asus Zenbook. It very light, and has a 3800x1800 resolution 13.3 screen. I calibrated it with my ColorMunki Photo, and use it for Photo presentations, and while travelling. If you haven't tried one, you might give them a look.</p>

<p>Also be aware that if you do go to psb files, that Lightroom will not even acknowledge that they exist. It's stupid I know, but it seems that the code shared with PS does not support them, so LR just pretends they aren't there. That's a big potential problem if you start out needing just psd files, and then save as psb's as they grow later. So be sure you are working with the latest version, which by then is the psb! Otherwise you will waste a lot of time working with an old version later. (Don't ask how I learned this!) Thank you Adobe! </p>

<p>Tim, OP posted the original image and stated that one option was to reshoot it. But he had reservations about it looking the same or as good. As several have stated, what he has should scale up fine. I was just encouraging him to use the opportunity to print something as large as 40 x 50 to do even better.</p>

<p>There are advanced techniques that can recover the image to eventually be "acceptable". However, you know already there is an upper limit on the resulting quality of what you are putting out there. While I too love technical challenges like this, my advice is that it's not a problem that needs to be solved.</p> <p>I suggest spending the same time and effort reconstructing it, and it has the potential to be even better than your original raw, and outright AWESOME! That should be your goal in this case -- not taking on restoration of a jpeg. Don't mess around just attempting to "get on base", when you have the potential to knock it over the fence! Don't sell yourself short. (You ask for our advice. That's mine.)</p>

<p>I can't imagine that any of us that used to skip every other upgrade are happy with the current marketing model. To attempt to convince us that we should be happy with it, since others like the idea, is rather pointless. (My one and ONLY comment on the subject.)</p>

<p>I think at this point we are saying the same thing. No problem in original data or high quality output. Potential problem with down-sampling to low bit per pixel output. Obviously if you are not having such a problem, then good. Best regards.</p>

<p>The potential trap is in the handling of the round-off errors during the down-sampling process. As long as all the errors are distributed to neighboring pixels during the process it's OK. But if it's not done well, or the emphasis is on speed over quality, then the errors are discarded as in display algorithms and hardware conversions. That's when the banding shows up. It depends on the implementation, and most are much better than they used to be. Obviously your images have all been faithfully down-sampled.</p> <p>Note that I was just alerting to a potential issue, and attempting to explain why adding noise sometimes helps a banding problem. </p>

<p>The problem in the skies isn't just clipping. By being almost perfectly smooth, it's a waiting trap when collapsing it's values down to just a few. ETTR and low ISOs, while helping shadows, also takes a slight bit of noise out of the skies. It's all OK in the original capture, but in collapsed jpegs (and screen displays) -- not so much.</p>

<p>This should also be a warning about what you are attempting. When you see problems on the screen you may be getting close to other problems in the real image.</p> <p>Since posterization is the opposite problem of noise, having less variation than what is there. Noise has too much (artificial) variation due to imperfect reproduction. So ETTR or optimal exposure, while reducing the noise in shadows is also risking the opposite problem in the lightest continuous areas of a scene. When it comes to skies, a little noise is your friend as Andrew has pointed out. Before collapsing a high quality image down into a low quality one (like say Jpeg), consider adding noise, or at least not removing it in the first place.</p>

<p>In addition to Tim's wonderful example, plan on working both the Highlights and Shadows sliders quite a bit. I second the Nik SEP suggestion too, as well as JUDIOUS use of Photomatix. If you try Photomatix, convert to BW first in ACR and save as 16-bit TIFF, to bring into PM, then use one of the more conservative modes such as Contrast Optimizer, (but stay away from the grunge stuff and Details Optimizer where the noise will drive you crazy).</p>

<p>You might also consider an Asus Zenbook. After a lot of study, (including the Surface), I just picked up a good used one which the original owner only had a month or two. As you likely know the Asus laptops can be reset to factory condition in a few minutes, so there's little difference in getting a new one -- except the price. I got an i7 with 12GB of RAM, a 256GB SSD and a 3800x1800 screen ... for $500. I installed Windows 10 and second copies of all my photo software. They look great on that screen, and I'll just carry a small 2TB USB drive with all my photos and LR catalog when on the road or out giving presentations. Just another thought. Good luck.</p>

<p>Karen,</p> <p>Problems are always best solved by starting with something that is WORKING rather than jumping around blindly trying random suggestions to see if anything works. That's why Bill, and others of us suggested at the beginning that you FIRST do the live-view test at 5.6, (and on a tripod please). Your 1.4 lens should be VERY sharp at f/4 - 5.6 , so that's your best shot at quickly getting the a known starting point. (In the very center of the frame it's best at f/4.) THEN you can gradually change things more the way you prefer to work and apply some of the many suggestions. Along the way you will discover where you are picking up the softness.</p> <p>(Live View focusing bypasses the normal "ought-to-focus" mechanism, and uses the actual imagery from the sensor to EXACTLY focus where you've chosen. It is always your best method of focusing!)</p>

<p>I'm with Bill. Start by expecting a sharp image using f/5.6, focused using Live View, zoomed on a face with highlights in the eyes. The square should go green indicating that the image-based focusing has locked in. If that does not work, then you may have a lens problem, or recheck your camera settings that you are not asking for some sort of noise handling etc. that's softening the images.<br> (Tripod? I'm assuming you are using one, with a cable release is even better.)</p>

<p>Tyler, too bad you didn't share this new information with us to begin with. We all responded to the information you provided at the time. So I could only guess about your motives in stating "money is not a factor". It seems now that was not totally true, and your updated inquiry makes more sense. Hope your new machine works out.</p>

<p>If money is truly not a factor, then don't fool around getting random opinions! Hire an expert to research and suggest the best solution that's tailored to how you work!</p> <p>(When I see questions posed like this, I always suspect someone is doing it for the purpose of entertainment or starting arguments.) </p>

<p>BTW Renee,<br> That (over)saturation that you are seeing is something that happens a lot in an HDR workflow. That's another reason to delay the choice of settings until you are processing the scene in the computer. Then you can dial the saturation back to the way you like. In recent times, saturation is one of those things folks like to crank up as high as they can get away with. That exact point is hard to predict in advance.</p> <p>Alan</p>

<p>Hi Renee,<br> I certainly wouldn't discourage you from attempting to use an HDR workflow in similar situations in the future. Waterfall scenes are one of those cases that have the potential for an extreme range of light values to be recorded. It's hard to say what the exact range was on the day you shot it. I always shoot to be sure I capture the whole range in cases like this, using multiple exposures, but not using the HDR setting in my camera. It's the same argument as shooting in RAW. Delaying the final processing decisions allows you to try different settings and combinations to exactly arrive at the result you prefer.</p> <p>To specifically address your question about the color artifacts in the highlights, I believe they are in fact due to the dynamic range being even greater than what your exposures and HDR settings could handle in the camera. I'm guessing even your shortest exposure still blew out a channel or two of the highlights. So when the HDR elves in the camera tried to assemble a final image, the were confused about what color the highlights should be.</p> <p>I don't think you misunderstood what an "HDR image" is. In fact I don't care much for the terms "HDR image" or "HDR look". I prefer to think in terms of an "HDR workflow" and "grunge" for the look we sometimes see. By the time we see a final "image", it isn't technically a high dynamic range image anyway. That's the whole point -- to take a high dynamic range scene, and to use various workflow techniques to capture all the light values and compress them down into something we can view. Depending on our choices, we can end up with a normal looking photo, or something totally unnatural and surreal.</p> <p>Keep at it Renee. Just sort through some of the suggestions here and see what works for you. </p>

<p>Ditto what Robert said. I have LR and CS6. Been doing it for several versions of LR.</p>