Damien Symonds

For the old files, yes. What about the new ones?

HOORAY!!!!!!!!!!!!! In that case, then you'll probably find the new problem is here.

The same as the old print of the same photo, do you mean?

Good guess

It's called "Chromatic aberration", and you can fix it like this: https://www.damiensymonds.net/2014/12/fixing-chromatic-aberration.html It happens, sometimes, on edges of high contrast, and I believe some lenses are more prone to it than others. Some really good info about CA from Brian in this post.

No really, I need the EXACT SAME FILE printed again.

Oh, hooray!!!! You're welcome.

Darn, I was afraid of that. May I see it?

That would be great, thanks. I think you just answered my next question, too - you've gone from one iMac to another one, is that right?

Is it too late to ask you to take a photo of the two prints side by side (old and new from that file) to show me?

That's critical to our troubleshooting. New files don't count right now, only old ones do. Go ahead and print one now.

But you're saying that if you re-print one of those old photos now, with exactly the same settings (as far as you know) that you used with the old computer, the print outcome is different?

Ok. And does the new screen match the old prints?

Hi Rocklyn, which X-Rite do you have?

Now, can you post the actual raw edit in the Raw Class for me?

In the Lens Corrections tab in raw, there's a Lens Vignetting slider. That's the one to try. It doesn't work perfectly every time, but it's worth a shot.

Have you tried uploading it to Facebook, to check?

I have to head out and do the grocery shopping now. Funny how the family insist on being fed. I'll check in when I get back.

Because if the bigger FB size (2048) works ok, that would solve that problem immediately, yes?

We already know that 1500 (the size of images on this forum) works ok, because the very first version you posted looked fine.

Out of interest, can you also try the 2048 size, and see if it's any better? Don't post it for me, just let me know.

This might interest you too: https://www.damiensymonds.net/client-photoshop That's still 900.

By the way, regarding the action, have you seen this super-duper one? https://www.damiensymonds.net/act_web.html

It's ok, you're welcome to stick to the 11:15 shape. What you say makes sense. I just wanted to make sure you understood that it didn't HAVE to be 11:15 for Facebook. So, back to the topic at hand. Can you crop one to web size (let's use 960) and post it here for me so I can see the moire? Don't do the smart object thing at this stage, I just want to see the issue as it stands.

The Facebook sizes are 720, 960 or 2048 pixels on the long edge. Those are the sizes that FB advise for best quality. Nobody uses 720 any more, it's just so small. 2048 is lovely and big, if people are viewing on big screens, but overkill of course for people viewing on phones, which is most people now. Plus 2048 is printable, so it's dangerous from a piracy point of view - you need to make sure you've watermarked carefully. Do you add a watermark? 960 is pretty good. But of course watermarking is a good idea all the time anyway. The 11:15 shape is only for images which you're selling. For Facebook, you don't need to restrict yourself that way - you can crop to any shape that suits your photo best, you know?