Christina Keddie

Hi Beth, First, can you verify that this file (and any others that give you this error) still exists on your hard drive where it's supposed to? And then, check to make sure that you have read/write access to those folders. Often this error results from a permissions error.

Hi Judy, have you had a chance to read through the posting guidelines for this section? You'll need to post a similarly-lit and -composed photo of your own as well. Thanks!

That's the default with El Capitan (and also I think with Yosemite). There's no way to bypass that without going into Terminal and mucking about with your system boot settings. Just close Photos every time.

May I recommend going through this entire article to make sure all the rest of your LR settings are correct? http://www.damiensymonds.net/color-space-settings-for-the-lightroom-user.html

While we're waiting for Damo to wake up -- do you have access to the original print? It would be best if you could ensure that it was scanned in properly. If all you have is a digital file -- what are its pixel dimensions? And it might also help to include a 100% crop of the file so we can see better what you're working with.

Can we also just confirm -- the files you sent to your print lab had the sRGB color profile embedded in them, right?

Remember, too, that things get lost in translation between your camera's proprietary raw data and Adobe's rendering of it. *And* the numbers for white balance are different when you're talking about setting it in-camera vs. correcting it in post-processing software.

Could you post a 100% crop of the nail polish, please, like this? http://www.damiensymonds.net/2013/09/grabbing-700x700px-100-crop.html

And can you also post a screenshot of one of these images open in PS, with your entire PS window visible?

What seems to be the problem? Is ACR up and running (and can you follow this tutorial to get your color space correct)?

It's not a rule -- it's a simple fact of nature and computers and life and the universe and everything. Unless and until you've done your raw processing, Damien literally cannot advise you on what PS work to do, because what raw processing you do first impacts what you would do to the file in PS. For instance -- removing the noise changes the makeup of the skin and glasses and eyes here and impacts whether and how you would clone or otherwise replace the information currently lost in the glare. That's to answer the question you asked. If you want to ask the question of if it's even worth trying to do basic raw processing, then ask that question.

Oh man -- you have got to stop with "final tiny tweaks in LR." ALL your raw processing first, and then all your PS edits. When you tweak an edited-in-PS file in LR, you're trying to do raw processing edits on a non-raw file. And you run into all these problems thanks to this messy workflow!

No, but you absolutely must do all your raw processing before you start doing anything in PS. The raw processing obviously impacts what you can do in PS and how you can do it. And all noise removal must be done in raw. So finish your raw processing and post the 100% crop again, and then Damien will be able to weigh in on the best way to remove the glare.

I think you would have to send them all into PS via the "edit in" function so they're all open in PS at once, and then run Image Processor on all open files to apply the action? That's not a terribly efficient workflow, though. Is there a reason why you can't do all your raw processing and individual PS edits on the files, export them out of LR as JPGs, and then batch run the action on those finished JPGs? What is the purpose of this action?

Much too cold, with much too much clipping. Take a look at how Damien processed your raw file -- that's the best way to save highlights like this, giving yourself the best possible raw processing base to begin with.

Did you by chance shoot this in raw? If so, go ahead and do your raw processing first and then try posting again.

Poor kiddo! Damien will probably want to see a 100% crop: http://www.damiensymonds.net/2013/09/grabbing-700x700px-100-crop.html

Remember, too, that FB bands the crap out of everything, due to its intense compression algorithms. You can control how an image displays on your own website and in print, but FB is generally a lost cause. But yes, I agree with Samantha. If you're seeing a ton of banding on that bottom image on your screen (outside of FB), then you may have a screen issue?

Don't just do 300ppi because you think that's a good number. What resolution does your print lab require? Use that number when prepping files to send to print at that lab. And yes, you would use the crop tool, set to WxHxResolution, and you would put in the width, height, and resolution you need for that specific output file. More reading on output files, and how you need to create one for each specific output use (specific sized prints, specific sized web displays, etc.): http://www.damiensymonds.net/2010/02/trash-those-jpegs.html

Why are you changing the resolution? Note that the resolution number means DIDDLY SQUAT unless and until you're defining the width and height parameters in terms of inches -- PPI stands for "pixels per inch," and there ARE no "inches" until you define them as such. So the default resolution number of 72 means exactly nothing. If you need something to be in 300ppi, that generally means you're prepping something for print -- i.e., doing something where "inches" actually means something. And it's also likely that you're going to need to change the SHAPE of the file as well as the size -- your files are in the 2:3 aspect ratio coming out of your camera, which is the same shape as a 4x6 or 8x12 or any other multiple of 2:3, but is a different shape from, say, an 8x10 or an 11x14 or a 30x40. If you need to change the shape as well as the size, the Image Size dialog box won't work for you. You need the crop tool to do that. And since you're often going to need to change both the shape and the size, you may as well always use the crop tool. This way, too, you are always aware of both the shape and the size of your output file.

There's no need to change it. It's an infinitesimal difference and has no bearing on your file -- and you really should get out of the habit of using the Image Size dialog box to make any changes to your file sizes.

That's exactly right, for a file you're sending to a client.

You're still in the Image Size dialog box. Close that box (use the little X at the top right there), and select your crop tool instead.

Some reading to reassure you: http://www.damiensymonds.net/2015/08/about-jpeg-file-size.html

Why are you trying to change the size using the Image Size dialog box? Use your crop tool instead, as recommended in the article Samantha linked. And here's a step by step on how to use the crop tool: http://www.damiensymonds.net/2011/09/cropping-tutorial.html