Mary,
I am still having an incredible time trying to understand.
First which RAW converter?
Most RAW converters ( Adobe 6.1 the latest version is excellent) have some default adjustments. You can turn these off and start with no adjustments.
Second I can't can't make heads or tails over grabbing, not grabbing the top bar of an image. My grabbing, not gabbing, zooming, any size does not make any difference in image quality?
I just tried a screen grab of your first dog image, saved it and opened in CS5. It looks the same as what I see on my web browser (FireFox). The whiskers are smooth, no jaggies.
Also not understanding your work flow. Using ZB as a proof, culling tool seems logical. I use lightroom for this and find that LR many other features are well worth the cost. But after that why use DPP at all?
Just finished taking a closer look at a photo I played around with. This photo was edited in raw - a little on the extreme side on darkness. I don't edit in Raw so that was my first time playing around with it. I wanted to check the whiskers. The whiskers always help me on knowing if I was sharpening to much or not.
I wouldnt look at the wiskers, because it dosnt look like you were focusing on the wiskers, because the end of his nose looks to be the edge of what was in focus when you took the photo. It looks like you had focus on the eyes, so when you are sharpening I would think it would be a good idea to go by the important parts of the image, that you are totally sure are in focus. When looking at a portrait, people naturally look at the eyes and disregard the other 75% of the image, so as long as the eyes are sharp, the rest of the image could be blurry. The first shot looks good to me, the eyes are sharp, and the rest is softer.
The second shot, the dog looks sick, not only because the sharpness is off, but probably also because taking the screen capture, then posting it, and then viewing it in a browser, etc, probably dropped and changed a good bit of picture info
Second photo is a screen capture and crop at 100% while holding onto the top bar of the photo. The whiskers are jagged which can happen when over sharpened. Again with my CL turned on.
Like I said previous, since the holding onto the top bar like you do to drag the image, since that will pop up the preview image, you cant go by that. No wonder why the second looks so bad, it was a preview rendered with probably 1/8 the pixels as the original, captured with a screen capture, then posted online... your lucky it looks that good
We all knew there was a difference, but I was surprised at how much with the whisker check.
so to recape, I wouldnt go by the wiskers in that image, the grabing the top bar will make a bad looking preview(and photo), use the top menu bar to zoom while sharpening a image, and what you did in the first photo looks good to me!
Does Raw do some sharpening automatically?
Unless you changed the sharpening setting, it will add 25% as default (third tab in on camera raw). Since a raw image has no sharpening applied to it at all, they are usually very unsharp looking, so to be able to work with the image better, most programs will add some sharpening to it by default. I usually leave it at 25%, then if it need a little more sharpening, I up it a little, but if it needs a lot more sharpening, I leave it at 25% then at some USM sharpening in PS. Some times, when you shoot a high ISO, and the photo has a bunch of noise, I will turn the sharpness off, add NR, then sharpen with USM.
Like I said though, I am no expert on this, so others might know better ways
There is a great tutorial on how to sharpen a photo in PS here on the forum http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=9541
It will give you much better results then using DPP for many reasons. DPP will only give you basic sharpening, and learning how to sharpen in PS, will set you up for learning more advanced sharpening techniques, like selectivly sharpening certain areas of a photo (definantly cant be done in DPP)
racer -- off to take a look at bridge now. Been a busy day today so I've not had a chance yet to do it. New puppy...he keeps me runnin'
At first, it might not look like much, but you can change everything around, all the boxes, change what info it is showing, etc, organize your photos, delete the dumpers, edit the good ones, add watermarks, etc, and a double click on any image will open it in PS.
If you find you like bridge, you would probably really like Lightroom then!
Mary,
I am still having an incredible time trying to understand.
First which RAW converter?
Most RAW converters ( Adobe 6.1 the latest version is excellent) have some default adjustments. You can turn these off and start with no adjustments.
Second I can't can't make heads or tails over grabbing, not grabbing the top bar of an image. My grabbing, not gabbing, zooming, any size does not make any difference in image quality?
I just tried a screen grab of your first dog image, saved it and opened in CS5. It looks the same as what I see on my web browser (FireFox). The whiskers are smooth, no jaggies.
Also not understanding your work flow. Using ZB as a proof, culling tool seems logical. I use lightroom for this and find that LR many other features are well worth the cost. But after that why use DPP at all?
I wish I could help more. :cry
Sam
I'm sorry Sam .. I really don't mean to make this hard. It's just something that seems to of hit a "nerve" with me. I expected more from this software and was really surprised when I saw this "softness or blur" show up.
Raw converter I use says Camera Raw 6.2 in Adobe -- just did an update on it today.
As for "grabbing" -- I've attached a screen shot of where you grab hold of the photo. If you take it and click down on it the photo will appear sharper then what you see when your not clicking down on it. So..just open up a photo and then grab hold of it there and hold down your mouse...you will see it sharpen up. When you let it go..you will see it go softer. At least that's what I do.
I'm using Firefox too. Maybe it's just me. I know racer see's it too, but that doesn't mean everyone will see it. Maybe it is just computer ability or maybe it's just what one person's eyes see. I did notice that when the photo is at 100% the jagged edges on the whiskers weren't there. At 66% they were.
Reason for me using DPP for sharpening only...no editing...I have a hard time seeing sharpness in the photoshop programs. Tried to do it, but just couldn't see it clearly enough.
Don't have LR -- tried the trail version and just didn't like it as much as the CS3 I was using.
I don't know Sam.....maybe just let it be as is and I'll deal with it. Or just go back to using CS3. Still tho...I'm back to the same question...what is "the real photo" that I'm looking at?
My poor dog -- she's does look sick in that photo :cry
Ahhhh....all that you said makes sense to me.
I just checked my Raw and the sharpening says "none". I see it can be set to paper type. I'm I working on a different Raw then other people?
I'll read the thread on sharpening. I know it's something I should learn and selective sharpening is something I'd like to learn. There's been times I had wished I knew how to do that.
Thought I'd get a chance to try Bridge then company stopped by. I need to just lock myself in a room and try this out.
Thanks racer -- I don't feel so alone on this In fact...how are you dealing with the "blur"? Just letting it go...know what zoom to have it at when editing, etc?
Mary, in ACR/Lr - there are two sets of sharpness controls.
The first "input" sharpening is on the detail tab, this is for "capture sharpening".
Then there is a preset "output" sharpening for inkjets, with paper type and three levels of strength.
The two are intended to be used together.
If you are using other software to sharpen your raw files, I presume that you are saving out a TIFF file and sharpening that in the other software. Only Adobe products understand the various Adobe raw controls on the raw file, so if you were working with the raw file on other software, it would ignore all of the Adobe Camera Raw or Lightroom raw adjustments.
If using other software to sharpen, you may wish to compare the end results by turning off both the detail capture sharpening as well as the output sharpening. The capture sharpening may or may not be "helping" the sharpening used in the other software. I would test both. The final proof with print output is with final prints, not the monitor.
Mary, in ACR/Lr - there are two sets of sharpness controls.
The first "input" sharpening is on the detail tab, this is for "capture sharpening".
Then there is a preset "output" sharpening for inkjets, with paper type and three levels of strength.
The two are intended to be used together.
If you are using other software to sharpen your raw files, I presume that you are saving out a TIFF file and sharpening that in the other software. Only Adobe products understand the various Adobe raw controls on the raw file, so if you were working with the raw file on other software, it would ignore all of the Adobe Camera Raw or Lightroom raw adjustments.
If using other software to sharpen, you may wish to compare the end results by turning off both the detail capture sharpening as well as the output sharpening. The capture sharpening may or may not be "helping" the sharpening used in the other software. I would test both. The final proof with print output is with final prints, not the monitor.
I see now (just looked) where the input is set to 25%. Never looked at that before since I never do my editing in the Raw converter. Know it's something I should start to learn, but just haven't yet.
All my sharpening is done on jpegs of the photos. I don't save my work as Tiffs unfortunately. Something again I should start. I save them as psd. then make a jpeg for posting or saving. Its on that I do my sharpening in DPP.
So from what I understand....the second setting in the Raw converter is to be set to what kind of paper I'll be printing my photo on. Does that need to be set? I understand what you mean about them working together. That makes sense to me, but what if I'm sharping my jpegs for my smug site and printing from there? I never know what kind of paper I'm going to be picking nor what customers will pick. Granted I'm my biggest customer But there has been others Or is that as you mentioned...just for inkjet printers like what I use at home?
I'll start saving my photos to Tiff instead of psd's. Can I go back and open up a psd and then change it to a Tiff? Or is that over-kill and not something that's good to do?
Gotta ask you this Do you see softness or blur when you open a photo in CS5 -- that is if you have it.
In practice there is little difference between TIFF and PSD for most photographers, if you were using Illustrator or InDesign then things may be different. The key point is that PSD is lossless when compared to JPEG...so stick with PSD if you like, don't go to TIFF on my say so, I was just pointing out that most export out from raw to a lossless format for further editing - rather than going to a lossy format such as JPEG.
I have CS5 on my notebook, so no OpenGL, I will have a look and let you know as I have CS, CS4 and CS5 on the same box.
I think I get the jest of it now. For what ever reason your computer / monitor / graphics card / settings is not, or can not use open GL in CS5.
Hence it will not, can not provide you with a clean image at odd zoom percentages. This was normal with my old computer, but with my new wiz bang Mac Pro it doesn't happen and images are clean at any viewing percentage.
Viewing at 50% should give you a good idea of what the image will look like when printed. I would use this as your standard.
It looks like your card is supported, but there may be other issues with your operating system or drivers. Try updating your graphics card driver, and go to the Adobe web site and research known problems with your OS.
In practice there is little difference between TIFF and PSD for most photographers, if you were using Illustrator or InDesign then things may be different. The key point is that PSD is lossless when compared to JPEG...so stick with PSD if you like, don't go to TIFF on my say so, I was just pointing out that most export out from raw to a lossless format for further editing - rather than going to a lossy format such as JPEG.
I have CS5 on my notebook, so no OpenGL, I will have a look and let you know as I have CS, CS4 and CS5 on the same box.
I think I get the jest of it now. For what ever reason your computer / monitor / graphics card / settings is not, or can not use open GL in CS5.
Hence it will not, can not provide you with a clean image at odd zoom percentages. This was normal with my old computer, but with my new wiz bang Mac Pro it doesn't happen and images are clean at any viewing percentage.
Viewing at 50% should give you a good idea of what the image will look like when printed. I would use this as your standard.
It looks like your card is supported, but there may be other issues with your operating system or drivers. Try updating your graphics card driver, and go to the Adobe web site and research known problems with your OS.
Sam
It was confusing wasn't it More confusing for you if your system is working in tip top shape since you couldn't see it.
I'll get my graphic card updated. I downloaded the update, but haven't downloaded it...if that made any sense
Vista...wonder if Vista is a problem along with me not running the 64 bit. I'll check out everything. And I'll do the 50% to check out my photos.
When I open a photo into RAW and then open it to CS5 -- what's it opening as? A jpeg or psd?
none , its all in memory
it will be a jpeg or psd when you save it as jpeg or psd , but not before that
psd is a paintshop-extension , it also holds the layers and so , so you can continue work on it
jpg is a flattened image extension [ compressed ]
use only as final
tip
make it a habbit to save regularly during your work
use save as but with different name [ like 1 , 2 , 3 etc ]
this serves as backup , but it also free up memory
you discard 1 2 3 etc when finished
Vista...wonder if Vista is a problem along with me not running the 64 bit. I'll check out everything. And I'll do the 50% to check out my photos.
Thanks Sam
vista is no problem , but win7 is way much better
but , if you are not in a hurry , within 3 years windows8 should come out
and , 64bit is better than 32bit , but , you need a 64bit computer for it
untill then ; install your driver , adjust it , and see what happens
meantime , the change you see when clicking top-bar is normal , other applications have it too ;
windows changes the image so it stays visible while dragging it [ is saves on your graphic card ]
when you release it , its normal view again
Thanks Bas and Sam -- I finally have a clearer picture on all this.
I did download an update for my graphic card and I'll be darn...at 50% I notice no difference There is hope
Not a clue how to adjust my graphic card. Does that need to be done?
Here's a doozie -- In CS3 I would edit a photo and save it as a psd file and actually label it either 1, 2 or 3 or give it a name like Orton, HDR, Family, etc. Worked good. With CS5 -- it will save looking like a white sheet of paper if I write anything by it before saving it like I did in CS3. Finally I figure out when I went to "save as" and then put my info in the line I had to delete the .psd after my photo number before adding my info for it to save looking like a nice blue psd file. Hope I made sense with this...if not I will try to clarify it better for you.
Thanks to all of you that have helped me out. I know I've been a pain in the rear, but it was just bugging me so much. Kinda like buying something you need to put together and find your missing parts to it. Your patience has gotten me through all this
Not a clue how to adjust my graphic card. Does that need to be done?
apparently not , but if you want to experiment , right-click on desktop => nvidia contol panel
Here's a doozie
sorry , makes no sense ;
white and blue files ?
I know I've been a pain in the rear, but it was just bugging me so much. Kinda like buying something you need to put together and find your missing parts to it. Your patience has gotten me through all this
calm down , thats exactly what forums like this are for
Thanks Bas and Sam -- I finally have a clearer picture on all this.
Here's a doozie -- In CS3 I would edit a photo and save it as a psd file and actually label it either 1, 2 or 3 or give it a name like Orton, HDR, Family, etc. Worked good. With CS5 -- it will save looking like a white sheet of paper if I write anything by it before saving it like I did in CS3. Finally I figure out when I went to "save as" and then put my info in the line I had to delete the .psd after my photo number before adding my info for it to save looking like a nice blue psd file. Hope I made sense with this...if not I will try to clarify it better for you.
I have always put full file names in before the .psd .jpg or what have you extension. For example in the one you have circled would be IMG_8299 DUCK.psd. But. . . I am using an absolutely ancient version of PhotoShop (6.0.1 I think it is — an updated version of 6).
I have always put full file names in before the .psd .jpg or what have you extension. For example in the one you have circled would be IMG_8299 DUCK.psd. But. . . I am using an absolutely ancient version of PhotoShop (6.0.1 I think it is — an updated version of 6).
Hi Jane ...
I thought of that and it's a good idea. Might need to do it that way. In my CS3 tho I could just type at the end of it. Strange how things change
I have always put full file names in before the .psd .jpg or what have you extension. For example in the one you have circled would be IMG_8299 DUCK.psd. But. . . I am using an absolutely ancient version of PhotoShop (6.0.1 I think it is — an updated version of 6).
correct
its ######tyler.psd , not ######psd,tyler
everything you type in the name must be in front of extension , thus left of .psd or .tiff or .jpg
yes, I have noticed that also, but you can also erase the file extension (".psd") also, and it will work fine. The name of the file dosnt need a file extension, but if you do add one, it must match the type of file your adding it to, if not, it will break the file. Normally the extension in the file name of the icon, of most files is ignored, so you can name them how you like, and is the reason you could add to the end of the extension in CS3. Not sure why it has changed with this version, seems like a bug to me
Monk is a TV character. He a quirky detective with OCS, but he is also very likable and a crime solving machine. Because of his OCS he sees things that others ether don't see or ignore.
Now that you have brought this to my attention, I see it also.
go to ; Control Panel\Appearance and Personalization\ Folder Options
in View-tap , put a check-mark at ; Hide extensions for known file types
now in CS5 , the extension dont show by default anymore
it only shows again when you want to save in another file-type [ format ]
I went to do it and it's already checked
Did notice tho that sometimes when I go to save a file it can be written different then others. I wonder if it has to do with some files I have are CR2 and some are DNG.
Comments
I am still having an incredible time trying to understand.
First which RAW converter?
Most RAW converters ( Adobe 6.1 the latest version is excellent) have some default adjustments. You can turn these off and start with no adjustments.
Second I can't can't make heads or tails over grabbing, not grabbing the top bar of an image. My grabbing, not gabbing, zooming, any size does not make any difference in image quality?
I just tried a screen grab of your first dog image, saved it and opened in CS5. It looks the same as what I see on my web browser (FireFox). The whiskers are smooth, no jaggies.
Also not understanding your work flow. Using ZB as a proof, culling tool seems logical. I use lightroom for this and find that LR many other features are well worth the cost. But after that why use DPP at all?
I wish I could help more. :cry
Sam
The second shot,
Like I said previous, since the holding onto the top bar like you do to drag the image, since that will pop up the preview image, you cant go by that. No wonder why the second looks so bad, it was a preview rendered with probably 1/8 the pixels as the original, captured with a screen capture, then posted online... your lucky it looks that good
so to recape, I wouldnt go by the wiskers in that image, the grabing the top bar will make a bad looking preview(and photo), use the top menu bar to zoom while sharpening a image, and what you did in the first photo looks good to me!
Unless you changed the sharpening setting, it will add 25% as default (third tab in on camera raw). Since a raw image has no sharpening applied to it at all, they are usually very unsharp looking, so to be able to work with the image better, most programs will add some sharpening to it by default. I usually leave it at 25%, then if it need a little more sharpening, I up it a little, but if it needs a lot more sharpening, I leave it at 25% then at some USM sharpening in PS. Some times, when you shoot a high ISO, and the photo has a bunch of noise, I will turn the sharpness off, add NR, then sharpen with USM.
Like I said though, I am no expert on this, so others might know better ways
There is a great tutorial on how to sharpen a photo in PS here on the forum
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=9541
It will give you much better results then using DPP for many reasons. DPP will only give you basic sharpening, and learning how to sharpen in PS, will set you up for learning more advanced sharpening techniques, like selectivly sharpening certain areas of a photo (definantly cant be done in DPP)
At first, it might not look like much, but you can change everything around, all the boxes, change what info it is showing, etc, organize your photos, delete the dumpers, edit the good ones, add watermarks, etc, and a double click on any image will open it in PS.
If you find you like bridge, you would probably really like Lightroom then!
I'm sorry Sam .. I really don't mean to make this hard. It's just something that seems to of hit a "nerve" with me. I expected more from this software and was really surprised when I saw this "softness or blur" show up.
Raw converter I use says Camera Raw 6.2 in Adobe -- just did an update on it today.
As for "grabbing" -- I've attached a screen shot of where you grab hold of the photo. If you take it and click down on it the photo will appear sharper then what you see when your not clicking down on it. So..just open up a photo and then grab hold of it there and hold down your mouse...you will see it sharpen up. When you let it go..you will see it go softer. At least that's what I do.
I'm using Firefox too. Maybe it's just me. I know racer see's it too, but that doesn't mean everyone will see it. Maybe it is just computer ability or maybe it's just what one person's eyes see. I did notice that when the photo is at 100% the jagged edges on the whiskers weren't there. At 66% they were.
Reason for me using DPP for sharpening only...no editing...I have a hard time seeing sharpness in the photoshop programs. Tried to do it, but just couldn't see it clearly enough.
Don't have LR -- tried the trail version and just didn't like it as much as the CS3 I was using.
I don't know Sam.....maybe just let it be as is and I'll deal with it. Or just go back to using CS3. Still tho...I'm back to the same question...what is "the real photo" that I'm looking at?
www.Dogdotsphotography.com
My poor dog -- she's does look sick in that photo :cry
Ahhhh....all that you said makes sense to me.
I just checked my Raw and the sharpening says "none". I see it can be set to paper type. I'm I working on a different Raw then other people?
I'll read the thread on sharpening. I know it's something I should learn and selective sharpening is something I'd like to learn. There's been times I had wished I knew how to do that.
Thought I'd get a chance to try Bridge then company stopped by. I need to just lock myself in a room and try this out.
Thanks racer -- I don't feel so alone on this
www.Dogdotsphotography.com
The first "input" sharpening is on the detail tab, this is for "capture sharpening".
Then there is a preset "output" sharpening for inkjets, with paper type and three levels of strength.
The two are intended to be used together.
If you are using other software to sharpen your raw files, I presume that you are saving out a TIFF file and sharpening that in the other software. Only Adobe products understand the various Adobe raw controls on the raw file, so if you were working with the raw file on other software, it would ignore all of the Adobe Camera Raw or Lightroom raw adjustments.
If using other software to sharpen, you may wish to compare the end results by turning off both the detail capture sharpening as well as the output sharpening. The capture sharpening may or may not be "helping" the sharpening used in the other software. I would test both. The final proof with print output is with final prints, not the monitor.
Best,
Stephen Marsh
http://binaryfx.customer.netspace.net.au/ (coming soon!)
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx/
http://prepression.blogspot.com/
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx/
http://prepression.blogspot.com/
Hi Stephen -
I see now (just looked) where the input is set to 25%. Never looked at that before since I never do my editing in the Raw converter. Know it's something I should start to learn, but just haven't yet.
All my sharpening is done on jpegs of the photos. I don't save my work as Tiffs unfortunately. Something again I should start. I save them as psd. then make a jpeg for posting or saving. Its on that I do my sharpening in DPP.
So from what I understand....the second setting in the Raw converter is to be set to what kind of paper I'll be printing my photo on. Does that need to be set? I understand what you mean about them working together. That makes sense to me, but what if I'm sharping my jpegs for my smug site and printing from there? I never know what kind of paper I'm going to be picking nor what customers will pick. Granted I'm my biggest customer
I'll start saving my photos to Tiff instead of psd's. Can I go back and open up a psd and then change it to a Tiff? Or is that over-kill and not something that's good to do?
Gotta ask you this
www.Dogdotsphotography.com
I have CS5 on my notebook, so no OpenGL, I will have a look and let you know as I have CS, CS4 and CS5 on the same box.
Stephen Marsh
http://binaryfx.customer.netspace.net.au/ (coming soon!)
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx/
http://prepression.blogspot.com/
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx/
http://prepression.blogspot.com/
No need for any apology! I volunteered for this.
I think I get the jest of it now. For what ever reason your computer / monitor / graphics card / settings is not, or can not use open GL in CS5.
Hence it will not, can not provide you with a clean image at odd zoom percentages. This was normal with my old computer, but with my new wiz bang Mac Pro it doesn't happen and images are clean at any viewing percentage.
Viewing at 50% should give you a good idea of what the image will look like when printed. I would use this as your standard.
It looks like your card is supported, but there may be other issues with your operating system or drivers. Try updating your graphics card driver, and go to the Adobe web site and research known problems with your OS.
Sam
When I open a photo into RAW and then open it to CS5 -- what's it opening as? A jpeg or psd?
www.Dogdotsphotography.com
It was confusing wasn't it
I'll get my graphic card updated. I downloaded the update, but haven't downloaded it...if that made any sense
Vista...wonder if Vista is a problem along with me not running the 64 bit. I'll check out everything. And I'll do the 50% to check out my photos.
Thanks Sam
www.Dogdotsphotography.com
What ever you specify. You set the bit depth, color space and file format, and ppi.
OH and it won't really effect how it looks on screen.
Sam
What are the "right" settings?
I have mine set to sRGB -- 16 bit -- 240ppi -- 10.1mps --- I can't find the file format :cry
www.Dogdotsphotography.com
it will be a jpeg or psd when you save it as jpeg or psd , but not before that
psd is a paintshop-extension , it also holds the layers and so , so you can continue work on it
jpg is a flattened image extension [ compressed ]
use only as final
tip
make it a habbit to save regularly during your work
use save as but with different name [ like 1 , 2 , 3 etc ]
this serves as backup , but it also free up memory
you discard 1 2 3 etc when finished
/ɯoɔ˙ƃnɯƃnɯs˙ʇlɟsɐq//:dʇʇɥ
but , if you are not in a hurry , within 3 years windows8 should come out
and , 64bit is better than 32bit , but , you need a 64bit computer for it
untill then ; install your driver , adjust it , and see what happens
meantime , the change you see when clicking top-bar is normal , other applications have it too ;
windows changes the image so it stays visible while dragging it [ is saves on your graphic card ]
when you release it , its normal view again
/ɯoɔ˙ƃnɯƃnɯs˙ʇlɟsɐq//:dʇʇɥ
I don't think there are any real right settings. There are different settings for different reasons.
OOPS!!!! there is no file format choice out of the RAW converter. You chose that when you save the file.
I use LR3 cataloging and RAW conversion and when I open a DNG file from LR3 in CS5 it will open using the Pro Photo color space, 16 bit, and 300 ppi.
Sam
I did download an update for my graphic card and I'll be darn...at 50% I notice no difference
Not a clue how to adjust my graphic card. Does that need to be done?
Here's a doozie -- In CS3 I would edit a photo and save it as a psd file and actually label it either 1, 2 or 3 or give it a name like Orton, HDR, Family, etc. Worked good. With CS5 -- it will save looking like a white sheet of paper if I write anything by it before saving it like I did in CS3. Finally I figure out when I went to "save as" and then put my info in the line I had to delete the .psd after my photo number before adding my info for it to save looking like a nice blue psd file. Hope I made sense with this...if not I will try to clarify it better for you.
Thanks to all of you that have helped me out. I know I've been a pain in the rear, but it was just bugging me so much. Kinda like buying something you need to put together and find your missing parts to it. Your patience has gotten me through all this
www.Dogdotsphotography.com
sorry , makes no sense ;
white and blue files ?
calm down , thats exactly what forums like this are for
/ɯoɔ˙ƃnɯƃnɯs˙ʇlɟsɐq//:dʇʇɥ
Are you related to Monk?
I never noticed this until you posted this.
I will find some time to look into this.
Sam
Who's Monk
Here's what I do: I write down either what the photo is or give it a step # and then save it and get this.
1 -- Writing down what it is for reference.
Then I get this ugly white file and not the pretty blue file if I don't remove the .psd first in the line I just circled above.
www.Dogdotsphotography.com
Hi Jane ...
I thought of that and it's a good idea. Might need to do it that way. In my CS3 tho I could just type at the end of it. Strange how things change
www.Dogdotsphotography.com
its ######tyler.psd , not ######psd,tyler
everything you type in the name must be in front of extension , thus left of .psd or .tiff or .jpg
/ɯoɔ˙ƃnɯƃnɯs˙ʇlɟsɐq//:dʇʇɥ
So nice to know others have experienced what I have. I don't feel so alone in this big world
www.Dogdotsphotography.com
Natural for me was after the extension -- but I've always been told I do things backwards
www.Dogdotsphotography.com
in View-tap , put a check-mark at ; Hide extensions for known file types
now in CS5 , the extension dont show by default anymore
it only shows again when you want to save in another file-type [ format ]
/ɯoɔ˙ƃnɯƃnɯs˙ʇlɟsɐq//:dʇʇɥ
Monk is a TV character. He a quirky detective with OCS, but he is also very likable and a crime solving machine. Because of his OCS he sees things that others ether don't see or ignore.
Now that you have brought this to my attention, I see it also.
I will try and play with this today.
Sam
I can probably answer that for Dogdots, as I can bet with 99% certainty that the box is already checked to hide extensions
I went to do it and it's already checked
Did notice tho that sometimes when I go to save a file it can be written different then others. I wonder if it has to do with some files I have are CR2 and some are DNG.
www.Dogdotsphotography.com