Damien Symonds

Ok, give this a go: First, add a Channel Mixer layer, go to the Blue channel, and set it to 0, +91, 0, 0. Then add a Levels layer, and clip it to the Channel Mixer layer. Enter these values: Red 49/1.00/255 Green 64/1.00/255 Blue 56/1.00/255 At this point the whole photo will be an odd colour. So return to the Channel Mixer layer and invert its mask to hide it. Then carefully paint it on to the glare area.

I'm going to pretend this raw edit isn't abhorrent, and press on with the glare fix. Give me a few minutes.

Yeah, that should be fixable, at least to a degree. Go ahead and do the raw processing then show me again.

That's what the Deluxe Class is for, yes.

Please read the Bridge Class through again. I fear some of it has slipped your mind.

I don't know about this, sorry. As you might know, I use CS5, so I also have to convert raw files to DNG. I edit photos from people with all different cameras, some of them very new, and I've never had a problem with the conversion as long as I keep the DNG Converter version up to date.

https://www.damiensymonds.net/batch-processing-in-acr/

Then why on earth would you want to batch edit in ACR? Of course you can, but it's not efficient.

How far through the Bridge Class are you?

Oh, I'm so glad!

Where are you at with this, @Kathy1?

If it was me I'd probably leave it alone.

Are they the same prints that you had used for comparison in previous months?

Yeah, gosh, what an unpleasant result Is this your first time ever calibrating this laptop?

It's probably just ok.

Yep, that'll sharpen up ok.

No, sorry It's close, but not quite passable.

Gee, that looks NOTHING like mine, and nothing like the sample one you gave me.

I figure you'd start with a Hue/Saturation layer on "Hard Light" blend mode, with its Saturation slider all the way down to -100. Then you'd vary the opacity of the layer to taste, I think around 60% works ok. Then add a Levels layer on top, with these values for the Output sliders: R 0/210 G 5/215 B 0/215

Well, I was just thinking about all that wasted light coming through the round lens, you know?

Fair enough

Brian, out of interest, why are cameras still taking rectangular photos? I understand it was a necessity from the film days, but surely it's time to capture the whole circular (or hexagonal) field of light that comes through the lens, to give more compositional options in post-processing? Just throwing it out there.

I'm afraid I don't know how to fix the knot, but I think this makes the tie look much better: https://max.mailbigfile.com/90d94e66f7ad333fc13db7fe4c5651d8/listFiles.php

I get that you don't want to show me his face. But is there more of the tie?

Oh gee. May I see the whole photo for context?