Damien Symonds

Are you still there, @PSikes?

The answers to your questions lie, most likely, in resolution (PPI). No it doesn't. Increasing the size of a photo makes it neither worse nor better quality. It just makes it larger. If you had a print of a photo, and looked at it at arm's length, and it looked good, you'd be satisfied. If you then held that same print REALLY close to your nose, it would be much bigger to your eyes. Would you complain that it was suddenly a bad print? Of course not - it's exactly the same print, you're just looking at a much closer view. No it doesn't. The only possible explanation for this is that you're viewing at greater that 100%. Never do that. Good. Never use anything else. Right. And this is the clue. This statement is why I suspect you're messing up the resolution (ppi) when resizing. So, talk to me about your process. Firstly, what resolution does your lab require for prints?

Definitely haven't changed my mind. https://www.facebook.com/damien.photoshop/photos/a.183682458346830.39021.183680248347051/1711588222222905/?type=3&theater

Bit depth isn't really related to panoramas. I mean, if you like using 16-bit, and have sufficient computer power to do so, there's no reason not to. However, if you're a good photographer, there's really no benefit to it. High-bit data is necessary for photos where you need to make large tonal shifts (eg aggressive Levels or Curves) in Photoshop. As long as you manage your light well, shoot in raw format, and edit your raw files properly before taking the photos to Photoshop (or any other pixel editing program), 8-bit should be perfectly fine. May I know a bit more about your editing workflow? How do you make your panoramas?

Have you read that one, @kellyjonesphoto?

It can mean that, but it definitely doesn't automatically mean that. In fact, sometimes smaller jpeg file size actually means BETTER print quality, because it indicates a less noisy file. So, I hope the article has helped you understand why your jpeg files are much smaller than the raw files. That's very natural. One aspect that the article doesn't discuss, however, is the loss of quality each time you save another jpeg. And this is where you fucked up. It's because of Lightroom, of course, and I sincerely hope that you will abandon that shit very soon. Next, please read this article and let me know when you have done so.

Have you read it?

You have screwed up to a degree, but it's not too serious. Lots and lots of people make the same screwup. We'll discuss it once you've read the article.

Ok, this is good news. Now, read this article, and let me know when you have done so.

That is 22 megapixels. That's still 6 megapixels shy of what you told me your camera captures?

Well, choose the one that's closest to the normal size of the files that come out of your camera.

Gosh. And all the files, regardless of size, open into ACR ok?

No, PLEASE forget about the file size (in megabytes) at the moment. It is not important right now. You need to find out where and why the pixel dimensions of your file has been reduced.

No, there is no need for an alternative. Bridge is free, and works with Elements just the same as Photoshop. I discuss its installation and setup in the free module here. PLEASE don't wait a moment to take the Bridge Class.

What file formats are they?

What did you discover?

Ok, time to put on your Sherlock Holmes hat and investigate this. You need to find out what are the pixel dimensions of your raw files; and where in your workflow the size is being reduced.

Ok, so where did the pixel reduction happen? Through cropping at some stage, I assume?

That's about 21.5 megapixels. How many megapixels does your camera capture? Presets are just presets. They work in ACR too.

Oh my goodness. My eyes are watering reading this. Can't you see, from your own description, how awfully complicated this is? https://www.damiensymonds.net/examining-the-complexities-of-an-acr-workflow.html Please please PLEASE take the Bridge Class. It's only ten dollars, and it will change your life in SO many ways. The file size is important, but not as important as the pixel dimensions. Can you tell me the pixel dimensions of one of these 3MB files?

I'm so sorry Emily, I don't know how to do it either

Before you start cloning, you should select the text layer, and go to Layer>Rasterize>Type. This will essentially turn the layer into a dodge-and-burn layer. Then you can paint with a small black or white brush to correct some of the misaligned edges of the type.

Right. Well, go ahead and use those correct ones and let me know how it goes.

I guess it goes without saying that you would have more control over the outcome if you used Channel Mixer instead of Levels for the first step. But that extra degree of complexity shouldn't be necessary for a lot of photos.

You're not going to attempt to clone the rest?