Damien Symonds

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?

@PhOtO JuNkie?

How did the calibration go, @MaryR?

No, as I said above ... You'd only use red if red is what it is already. If it's vivid blue, you'd use blue. And so on.

The numbers should work adequately for any photos with a cream-coloured rug like this one had. For a photo with a rug of already-vivid colour, you shouldn't need the Levels layer at all - just add Hue/Saturation and adjust the colour channel which matches the existing colour of the rug. Of course, feel free to start a new thread with your photo any time you're having trouble. No, the Advanced Levels Class. No rules at all. Just have fun!

How did it go?

I forgot to say, the reason you can't simply use a Hue/Saturation layer with "Colorize" checked is the same as I mentioned above - the Hue and Saturation sliders work nicely, but the Lightness slider does not. It makes things look flat and unnatural immediately you touch it.

Download PSD (My masking is rough and hasty, sorry.)