Damien Symonds

I'm not new to InDesign, nor entirely to yearbooks, but I've never done this before either. Can you link me to the instructions you're following?

Huh. Sorry, I don't know why it would do that, it didn't do it for me. Mind you, I used Google Sheets instead of Excel, maybe there's a difference.

Sorry, I don't understand the question. Where are you seeing this?

Just drag and drop the folder onto an empty Firefox tab. That will give you a text list, including a file size column, date created, and stuff. Then copy and paste that list into an empty Excel or Google Sheets document, and the filenames should fall into a neat column (beside the other columns with file sizes and stuff). I'm not sure if it works with other browsers. I tried it with Edge and it didn't work (not surprisingly).

The rule is VERY simple - there must be NO noise. This is better, but still noisy. Keep going. https://www.damiensymonds.net/2015/10/noise-reduction-and-sharpening-leap-of.html

What size did you decide to go with?

Did they like it?

@Shsp00?

@vbunnell?

There's a video here. And more comprehensive info in the Layers & Masks Class.

As I said before, the resolution is completely irrelevant, that's why I didn't mention it. That article is very old, before Facebook even became a thing. 800 is no longer relevant. Oh no. My action takes "easy peasy" to a whole new level, trust me. You must use it.

This is such a fraught issue. It's so hard to be sure what happened. It's perfectly possible that she'd somehow re-saved your files at lower resolution before she posted ... or attempted some cropping ... or even tried running an awful snapchat filter or some shit, and ruined it that way. Did you actually get to see the photo she'd posted?

Remember that for web, the resolution doesn't matter a single bit. It could be 300, or 72, or 1000000000, or 12. It's completely irrelevant to the file. The three standard Facebook sizes are 720, 960 and 2048. 720 is very small for these modern times, and I don't think anyone uses it any more. 960 is also a bit on the small size, but is still adequate for most browsing, and of course is quite quick to load. Also, it's too small for anyone to steal and print (print nicely, anyway). 2048 is big enough for everyone's screen, no matter what size, but of course it takes the longest to load, and it's VERY printable, so if you choose 2048, make sure you watermark prominently.

But the blunt truth is, if you left that clutter in your frame in camera, it sounds like you need the space around the subjects. So no, you wouldn't crop at all. You'd fill the space with new background.

Well crap, you DEFINITELY wouldn't do 11:15 for that. Just crop just enough to get rid of that clutter.

Whoa. Wait, wait, wait. This sentence sounds like you crop during editing? You must NEVER do that.

Hi Valery, you forgot the noise removal. Can you do so, and repost the 100% crops for me? (I don't need the whole photo again).

Gosh, I think it's looking really good! If I was looking at this photo for the first time, having never seen any other version, I wouldn't think anything was amiss.

Let it use both C and D, I reckon. Yeah, that's how I have mine set up, and it seems to be working fine.

Great! Then you don't need to do anything in Color Settings. Leave that window alone. Now that you've saved the ICC file in the library, just soft-proof as normal: https://www.damiensymonds.net/2010/03/bit-about-soft-proofing.html

Can we discuss it in the White Balance class area first?

Yes, I know. Earlier in the thread you said that they don't require you to convert your files - you can send them in sRGB as normal. Is that still the case?

Right. Remind me why they've sent you this file? Just for soft-proofing, not conversion?

It must be a different file type, in that case? What is its filename extension?

Yeah.