john_wheeler6

<p>Hi Jon - Could not find the particular post to which you referred. Here is a link to a post I made on the topic a few weeks ago. http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1293749/1#12346921<br> Not sure that covers what you needed yet thought it was worth mentioning.</p>

<p>Besides having the most recent version of camera control pro 2 I suggest that you verify you have the most recent firmware for the camera and any OS updates.<br> If you have camera control 2 then the order that is in the manual is:<br> 1) Make sure camera control pro 2 is turned off and the camera turned off<br> 2) Connect the USB cord to camera and computer. The D610 control panel should show "PC". Note that they indicate the USB connection needs to be direct into the computer and not through a hub.<br> 3) Turn on the camera control pro 2<br> 4) This is when it should be recognized<br> ---------------<br> I don't have the Nikon software yet the D610 is listed as supported by camera control pro 2. <br> This very well may not be you issue yet thought that following the detailed instructions would be worth trying sooner rather than later. </p>

<p>Thanks for the correction</p>

<blockquote> <p>......YES this image was shot using f/8 and I just felt more of the face should have been in focus.</p> </blockquote> <p>Just as an FYI ara, the metadata embedded in your image indicates that<br> 1/200 Shutter Speed<br> f/4.0 Aperture<br> 200 ISO</p> <p>So being at f/4.0 instead of your stated f/8 might explain part of the issue.</p>

<p>HI Ara<br /> Lenses can have problems yet the first two primary issues are<br /> - Camera Shake/Motion. The camera shake filter does not do well very often unless you really have camera shake. Here is a link with just the auto settings of camera shake: http://jkwphoto.smugmug.com/Other/Photonet/41170890_tSbB5W#!i=3281028621&k=xTxkPV4&lb=1&s=O<br /> - You also have the focus set in front of the eyes. From my calculations, you took the shot at about 10 feet with your camera and at f/4 that wold be a total depth of field for a 8x10 print viewed at 10 inches. That means only 6 inches in front and behind the ideal focus point.<br /> - Other tips, if you are using a tripod turn off vibration reduction<br /> - If hand help did you leave vibration reduction turned on<br /> - Did you buy the lense new or used. Used always has some risk of prior issues coming along for the ride.<br /> </p>

<p>I agree with Greg. I have had a very similar issue when I calibrated and profiled my monitor and ended up with a bad profile. I am not familiar with which OS you have yet I examined the monitor ICC profile and and the ICC tone response curve was jagged and not smooth. In my case I discovered that the calibration puck was not tightly held against the monitor and produce a bad profile. I leaned back the monitor a bit so I ended up with a better seal with the monitor and created a new profile. Problem was then gone.<br> Not sure this is your issue yet hope it helps.</p>

<p>For #3 here is the Aodbe link to purchase CS6: http://www.adobe.com/products/catalog/cs6._sl_id-contentfilter_sl_catalog_sl_software_sl_creativesuite6.html<br> <br />Note: Make sure you click the buy link and not the underline of the product (sends you to CC products). From the buy link you are given options on upgrading etc.<br> Hope that helps.</p>

<p>Hi Andrew<br> Details of the advantages are documented in this link:http://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb/optimize-performance-photoshop-cs4-cs5.html#main_Purge_Undo__the_Clipboard__and_History_states<br> This link covers CS4 thru CC so CS3 may be different yet don't think so.<br> The linked page specifically covers turning off Export Clipboard and independently covers the advantages of drag and drop vs copy and paste:</p> <blockquote> <h3 id="main_Drag_and_drop_between_files">Drag between files</h3> <p>Dragging layers or files is more efficient than copying and pasting them. Dragging bypasses the Clipboard and transfers data directly. Copying and pasting can potentially involve more data transfer and is much less efficient.</p> </blockquote> <p><br />Again just a different way with pros and cons. Drop and drag can involve repositioning the image in the target new document where copy and paste to the new document does not.</p> <p>As an aside, another way is to create a totally blank metadata template and apply it in the Get Info panel. The main downside to that approach is you may destroy the only copy of metadata you have.<br> <br />Also, for smaller files when your target is a JPEG, you can use Save for Web and use the option to remove metadata. Not the preferred approach if starting with JPEGs as it causes another compression cycle and additional image degradation yet it is quick and easy.<br> <br />Yet this is all a bit off track because not sure removing the metadata solves Matthew's issue until he gives one of the approaches a try and we hear back.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Image>Duplicate will duplicate the metadata. Best way to do this with no metadata is:<br /> 1. Open problematic document. <br /> 2. Select <em>New Document.</em> With the New Doc dialog open, select the <em>Window</em> menu, and then the open doc name which should be seen at the bottom of that menu. That will '<em>paste</em>' in the file size exactly along with the bit depth. Select the correct working space (default is RGB working space set in Color Settings which may not be what you wish). <br /> 3. Go back to original problematic document. Select All, Copy. <br /> 4. Make new document active window. Paste. Save as JPEG.<br /> Update: In newer versions (CC for sure), the open documents are listed in the P<em>reset</em> popup menu within the new doc dialog. Selecting this copies everything correctly, including the color space. Don't think you'll find that in CS2-CS3.</p> </blockquote> <p>Thanks for that clarification Andrew.<br> On your steps 3 and 4 one alternative is to drop and drag the flattened (or stamped) layer from the source document to the new document. I believe this performs the same function as the copy/paste yet does not eat up the memory in the clipboard buffer and subsequently no need to purge the clipboard to recover the memory either. Not better, just tradeoffs in approaches.</p>

<p>Hi Matthew<br> Photoshop CS2 and I believe CS3 had an issue where if certain metadata was stored in the file that there were issues trying to save a JPEG and yielded the issue you see. The easy answer is to delete the metadata which Andrew mentioned in his link and also the process that Geoffrey mentioned might also work.<br> I had not heard that you tried either of those suggestions so will repeat the link here (same as Andrews): http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/photoshop-help/28811-unable-save-file-jpeg-totally-baffled.html (post 7 or 10). I believe you also get rid of all the metadata by using the Image > Duplicate command and then saving the duplicate (not 100% positive on that one since going from memory).<br> Hope you get the issue figured out.</p>

<p>You're welcome Gerald.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I noticed that JPEG version 9.1 was available and wondered if any one has tried using it?<br /> Are there any benefits for using version 9.1? (I never use JPEG when taking picture for myself).<br /> Just curious.</p> </blockquote> <p>Hi Gerald<br> I have not tried JPEG 9.1. I think it will take software and hardware manufacturers incorporating the new standard for it to be more widely used (e.g. cameras upgraded to JPEG 9.1 and Photoshop/Lightroom incorporating that standard in their software). Hard to know when that would happen as JPEG2000 has been around for a while and that really did not see any wide spread adoption. If JPEG 9.1 does get adopted, it would probably be driven by the present JPEG only products (smart phones and tablets) and the associated software that with the improved screens and fancier photo editing apps are are finding their quality being limited by the present JPEG standard (bit depth and lossy compression). The incoproation of JPEG 9.1 will be driven by customer need/benefit not just because a new standard was created. "If" and when JPEG 9.1 becomes widely adopted is when it really becomes a standard.<br> That certainly could have some advantages with lossless removing the present JPEG artifacts, the 12 bit depth giving more latitude in photo editing, plus the advantages of not needing an updated raw converter to get every new camera to work.<br> If JPEG 9.1 gets adopted in such JPEG only products it will probably come along for the ride in DLSRs etc as a substitute for the present JPEG standard and not as a replacement for raw formats. <br> An in camera move to JPEG 9.1 losses some information from demosaicing, potentially a smaller color gamut (unless the camera allows ProPhoto RGB and not just Adobe RGB and sRGB - JPEG 9.1 does allow for wider gamuts), as well as potential loss of shadows and highlights from the auto-processing in camera algorithms.<br> And believe it or not, though I have not personally tried it out I don't see how a 12 bit lossless mode RGB JPEG 9.1 file will be smaller than than a 12 bit raw format lossless compressed file. The reason being is that the raw file data from the sensor would be 12 bits per pixel as each pixel is either R, G, or B and not all three in the vast majority of sensors. So only 12 bits to compress. If you want a lossless compression of a 12 bit RGB file then you have 36 bits to compress. I have not studied the standard so I could be way off base on these file size comments yet it will be interesting to see once some tests have been done yet am skeptical about any file size advantage until I see more testing done.<br> <br />And as for the side discussion of RAW vs raw I will make sure I will use "raw" and that makes sense. What I found interesting is that even though Adobe's John Nacks 2005 blog saying that they will use "raw" at Adobe, I have seen Adobe use RAW multiple times in the last couple months including in their blogs announcing new versions of ACR as Adobe Camera RAW and similar misuse in Adobe TV. So not so sure how strict even Adobe is being about this (unless those just qualify as the same as typos).<br> <br />Just my perspective of course.</p>