Damien Symonds

No, honestly, both the X-Rite i1 Display Pro and the Spyder 5 Elite work great. Choose whichever one you can find at the best price.

That looks to be the one from the master file. May I also have the one from the print file?

This is a BAD idea. PNG is a pixel format.

Good job.

Firefox needs its colour management to be turned on: https://www.damiensymonds.net/2012/01/web-browsers-and-facebook.html

Oh yeah, you mustn't use Chrome! It's not colour-managed. Only use Firefox, or Safari is moderately ok too.

PLEASE post some photos in class, @SueR

Hi @Teekay, That's correct, but there's a little more to it than that. You must only compare to prints from a reputable pro lab, whom you can trust has calibrated THEIR equipment to the "world standard" that your correspondent mentioned. Yes, there is a world standard. If you calibrated to get a match to prints from a cheap lab in your local shopping centre (or even worse, a home printer), you're likely to be in trouble, you see? It's difficult to trust the cheaper labs, and impossible to trust home printers. As you probably know, even the very good labs print a tiny bit differently from each other. The "world standard" is genuinely hard to comply with. But they do their best. When you're calibrating and comparing, remember that your room light plays a heck of an important role. They are reckless. They definitely should be checking against prints to confirm their calibration. This might not be a calibration problem. It's more likely that she is editing in the wrong colour space. If she's editing in Adobe RGB, or even worse in ProPhoto RGB, this can happen. Do you know, or can you find out? However, it could also be a viewing problem at your end. Which web browser do you use?

Lol, yeah, that's really surprising if you're not expecting it! What a silly setting.

What this might mean, though, is that you'll need to keep two PSDs. One with your fonts still embedded, in case you need to change things later. And one for sharing, with no fonts in it.

Just before you save the final version, go to Layer>Type>Convert to Shape. This will mean your text layer is still a vector (infinitely scalable) but no longer editable as text, and doesn't need fonts.

Glad you like it. I know you'll love that class if you take it in the future. Shouldn't you mask it off the little emblem, though?

I don't understand why you need the font in the template. Surely you don't want to allow people to change the word "Joy" to something else?

Try this Channel Mixer layer: R 0, +100, 0, +5 G 0, +100, 0, 0 B 0, +100, 0, +8

Well, I've seen some people say that it's better than the results with the real (manufacturers') software. But I take that with a grain of salt, because I suspect those people didn't know how to use the software properly.

I've never tried the DisplayCal software, so I have no idea how it works. I probably should do that some time.

No, as far as I've heard, he's exactly right. He's not saying you don't need a device. He's saying that this software replaces the software that comes with the device.

That focus looks excellent. Please read the bolded paragraph about 2/3rds of the way down this page.

Both equally perfect, I assure you. Can you show us some "real" photos where you've noticed a problem?

That focus is exquisite to me!

Then that suggests that there was a problem with the printing of the last batch, doesn't it? A problem at the lab end, I mean? Well, I guess your new test prints will help confirm that.

Well, what about the older prints? Are you getting a better screen-to-print match with them than with the last batch?

Huh? I thought you said you'd finally got a calibration that gave you a print match?

Oh wow Jamie, that's amazing!!!!!!!! I love it!

Well, it would be a good idea to get their soft-proofing profiles and check that, I guess.