Damien Symonds

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.

Well, don't thank me too enthusiastically too soon. This won't be an easy job at all. Add a Solid Color layer of this colour: R64 G82 B125 Then set that layer to "Linear Burn" blend mode. Then start masking. Very very very carefully.

How about this?

More information? Can you show me the colour you'd like?

Is this what you had in mind, @Beachbum?

Oh, that annoying thing. It's just a glitch, and doesn't usually happen twice in a row. Recalibration should solve it. No, definitely not. The profiles will be VERY different, because the screens are VERY different. It's Monday here. I live in the future, remember?

At least you know you can edit on the laptop screen right away, if there is any editing that urgently needs doing.