Christina Keddie

Do you mean adjustment layers?  Or pixel layers?  Pixel layers will block all pixels below them, which is why you have to flatten/merge as you go (so you aren't stacking pixel layers and covering the work you did on layers below).  Adjustment layers you can start adding to the stack where Damien indicated in his article, but as he said, it's generally better to do all your pixel edits first and then adjustment layers on top.

Are you sure you're working in sRGB?  http://www.damiensymonds.net/art_tscs000.html

I imagine the Pen Tool would play a role?  This isn't exactly analogous, but it might give you some ideas: https://www.facebook.com/groups/195567190503489/permalink/990379731022227/

Not exactly a rookie mistake -- do take a read of the "Order of layers" article I linked for you.  If you want to do multiple things to a single photo that will require pixel edits, you do need to do them in the right order and flatten/merge as you go -- but very very very carefully, of course, since flattening/merging is destructive!

Crystal beat me to it.   More reading on .xmp files here: http://www.damiensymonds.net/2012/02/what-is-xmp-data-all-about.html

Posting the image here would probably be helpful.   I'm assuming this is the article you're referencing?  http://www.damiensymonds.net/art_skin.html

Your patch layer is completely covered over by the spot removal pixel layer above it.   Maybe go back over the slides in the Layers & Masks class about pixel layers?

And this might also help: http://www.damiensymonds.net/2015/07/order-of-layers-for-complex-pixel-edits.html

Also, do make sure to change these settings: http://www.damiensymonds.net/art_tscs000.html

Can you post a screenshot of your entire PS window when this happens?  (I.e., with the patch tool selected while you're on the background layer, showing us your entire layers palette and options bar and everything?)

Preview isn't color-managed, so you can't use it as a point of comparison.

Lightroom settings.

And a defense of why you should work in sRGB from beginning to end.

And do read the room lighting article Damien linked for you, if you haven't already -- he was asking about your room light as you compare the prints with your screen.

This thread may help!

Which X-Rite calibrator are you using?  Find it on this list and follow these instructions: http://www.damiensymonds.net/calibration.html

And by correct instructions, Samantha means these: http://www.damiensymonds.net/cal_CMD_mac.html

(No rush -- Damien and his family are on vacation for the weekend.  )

It's hard to tell at this small size, but it looks like it's out of focus?

We can't blow it up based on what you uploaded here.  Want to post a 100% crop of what you see in their composite?

Considering that the orbit of the moon means that the same face is shown to the entire earth throughout its orbit, I'd say it's a pretty good chance that someone from the western US would get pretty much exactly the same shot as someone from the eastern US...  

What model screen do you have?  (What company made it, and what are the numbers and letters in the monitor's name?)

Then do a search for that model on Amazon or Best Buy or something similar, and post a link to the monitor's listing there.

That's entirely up to you.  But if you're wanting to apply what you remember from the old Raw class, you'd use the 2010 sliders (for ACR or for LR, since the tools are the exact same in both).

Damien just rewrote the entire Raw class with institutions for the 2012 sliders, just FYI. 

1 minute ago, DonnaJames said:

My prints actually looked closer to the screen before I calibrated.....Can someone else looking at my prints online tell if my monitor has been calibrated?

 

 

What, by taking a picture of your prints and posting them online?  Nope.

So -- how do your prints differ from your screen?  Fill in these blanks: my screen is [warmer/cooler] and [brighter/darker] than my prints.

And what do you mean by "funky colors"?  

No, software calibration is completely insufficient.  You need the hardware (i.e., your Colormunki Display).

How does your screen compare to your prints?

Is there a reason why you're looking at your proof setup?  (I.e., are you trying to soft-proof something?)

If not, then don't worry for a second about that setting.    This is what you need to do to make sure your default color space settings are correct in PS.

Pro tip: next time be sure to search Damien's website, with the resources and tutorials, not just this Q&A forum.   If you put "moire" in the searchbar on his site (which, by the way, is linked at the very top of this page, with the "Search Damien's resources" link next to the searchbar for the Q&A forum), that article I linked pops right up.   

43 minutes ago, branderson said:

Right, I get that. But it isn't particularly the reflection that is making them look unrealistic. Would you agree or disagree with that?

I would disagree.  The fact that the rocks don't have the same reflection as everything else in the photo, plus the fact that you can see the continuation of the rocks below the surface rather than a reflection, plus the fact that the rocks have a soft blurry edge against the water line (rather than the rippling effect that the plugin would have created) -- all of that contributes to the lack of plausibility with the rocks.

55 minutes ago, branderson said:

I probably should have in retrospect. Would that make a large difference in their realism? 

Yes.   That's the whole point of the plugin -- to create ripples and reflections around the objects that are there before you add the water.