Damien Symonds

And that means, of course, that you can still apply batch processing to them, to a degree at least, using Bridge. PLEASE don't wait any longer to take the Bridge Class, it's so cheap and SO useful.

Of course. As I said, EXACTLY the same as you always do, exactly as I taught you in class. Actually, I would suggest still using ACR, at least for noise and white balance, and maybe a little bit of basics eg Exposure. https://www.damiensymonds.net/2010/05/jpegs-in-acr.html

No, of course not! This changes absolutely nothing, I promise. Edit your photos as usual. The PPI values (72, 300, or anything else) is completely irrelevant while you're editing. Then when you're preparing the files for print, again, absolutely nothing is different. You still do things exactly as I taught you in the Print Sharpening Class. One more time I say: DON'T DO ANYTHING DIFFERENTLY.

... which is 22 megapixels. That's HUGE. Of course you're going to have trouble editing these photos, not having the flexibility of the high-quality raw data. But if you can successfully work your way past that, you've got nothing to worry about regarding print size.

The PPI value is completely irrelevant. Only the size matters. What are the height and width in pixels of the files?

I'm so sorry, I don't see any way of achieving it. If it was a bit more out-of-focus it might have been possible. But it's just too distinct here.

The first module of the Bridge Class is free. It will take you through installing it, and you can have a look around and see how it feels.

Your screenshot says it's looking for a jpeg. Jpegs can't have layers, only PSD files have layers. So yes, that's certainly a problem, though it doesn't explain the missing-ness of the files. Bridge is a free program now, so is available for Elements users too. So awesome. Let's ignore Organizer for now (and forever more) ... can you simply search your hard drive for the files?

Where you went wrong was using Organizer. That thing is so terrible. Please don't wait a moment longer to take the Bridge Class. It's only $10 and it will change your life. A message like this means that your file isn't where it used to be. This could be two scenarios: The file was on an external disk drive, and you don't have that drive plugged in any more; or The file was on your internal hard drive, but you've either deleted it, or moved it to another drive.

Add a Channel Mixer layer, and go to the Blue channel. By default its settings will be 0, 0, +100, 0. Change its settings to 0, +93, 0, 0. Then mask it to the glasses area. I'm fairly sure you won't have to be overly precise with your masking. That should take care of most of the problem immediately (magically!). And to be honest, it should enough. But if you wanted to tidy up the tiny bits of leftover glare, use the handyman method.

Did you ever manage to take a photo of people wearing light-coloured clothing so we could try this, @daisydoo?

Are you still there, @calliechinen?

It's absolutely the correct path, yes. Get the calibrator first, if you can't buy both at once. That way, you can calibrate your laptop screen and get cracking with editing right away.

I dunno if he was yanking your chain trying to make you buy a whole new computer; or maybe he's just a dunce. Those specs look good.

This looks absolutely fine. It probably wouldn't handle a massive 4K or 5K screen, but any normal screen it'll cope just fine. Do you have a screen (or even a TV) around the house that you can plug in and check?

In this context, no, three years shouldn't be an issue.

Gosh, this would only be true if your laptop was VERY old and VERY cheap. What kind of laptop do you have? Can you give me a link to details about it? The manufacturer's website or whatever?

Hi Callie, yes, it should be. For some reason your closeup doesn't match the whole photo. Could you take the 100% crop again, using this method? https://www.damiensymonds.net/2013/09/grabbing-700x700px-100-crop.html

Maybe it was this article? https://www.damiensymonds.net/cal_starthere.html

That's right.

When you look around the photo, can you find any areas that are more in focus than the eyes? Or is all the focus pretty much like this?

No no no. This smart object technique is done during output. All your edits should already be done, and safely saved.

https://www.damiensymonds.net/what2buy_cal.html

Yep, I think that looks plausible.

Yep.