Damien Symonds

No, not exactly. You wouldn't make a copy of the file to edit. You'd simply make sure you had the jpeg file (that you sent to the lab) safely stored in a folder somewhere. Then you can start editing your raw file again as you always would. You definitely wouldn't have two copies of the raw file, nor of your PSD. Right.

I think you said you have a Spyder5Pro, is that right?

Did you ever find a link to the exact bulbs you already have in the room? I'd be very interested to see that.

That's right.

Download PSD

Well, personally I guess I've always thought of "moody" as "dark and undersaturated". This is the former, but certainly not the latter. But hey, I have no idea what I'm talking about.

Those two links are very different, and neither are entirely suitable for your photo, but I had a play with the first one, what do you think?

Oh! Wow, have fun!

It's actually very difficult to have a room that's too bright. But if you're concerned ... I dunno, maybe go for 80s? But don't risk being still too dim.

K is the temperature. The colour of the lights. They should all be the same.

Sorry, yes, that's right.

@Alessia? Are you still there? Have you fixed your colour space problem?

This is a biggish file (sorry) but well worth a look: Download PSD

By the way, if you'd like to smooth the bumpiness of the blanket in this photo, I urge you to try my cellulite action.

The baby is off-centre. Yet another reason not to make an action. You wouldn't use a uniform blur around an off-centre baby.

If you are going to defy all logic and press ahead with this action or action pair, don't forget the noise layer clipped to the blur layer. There's a big risk of banding with such a large blur.

This is ridiculous. Even if it did look ok, how many times is exactly 250px going to work appropriately?

The hell it does.

I am completely flabbergasted that you're even considering this. Blurred vignetting is every bit as bad as selective coloring. No self-respecting photographer should be considering it. The notion that an award-winning baby photographer would even use this method once is astonishing. The notion that you would be considering using it so much that you need an action for it is sickening.

If you made it, or it was a legitimately free one, then yes. If a paid one, no.

Sorry, I've never found a way. You would have to make it as two separate actions ... eg F3 duplicates the layer then chooses the Marquee Tool for you. Then you do your selection. Then you hit F4 to run the second action to do the feathering and blurring.

Yeah, I reckon 100W, in that 4000-5000 range.

Again, this statement points to the bigger problem. You definitely need a brighter room for your editing. So maybe you need to see if there are 100W bulbs available for your fittings?

Hang on, you should turn them off for calibrating. Then turn them back on for print comparison, and your usual editing work. Is that what you meant?

Yes, I think it's important to know what they are, so you don't make the mistake of just getting the same again, you know?