|
Post by michelb on Mar 8, 2019 10:23:29 GMT
Paul, An album is nothing like a folder, it does not indicate a location. So 'moving' a file from another to another is nonsense. I do hate the word 'album' which is misleading.
What used to be 'collections' in older PSE versions (and which are still 'collections' in Lightroom) are not storing locations. They are simple lists of items in your catalog; they are 'playlists'.
Any photo file can be included in any number of albums/collections without anything moving. Only the list is updated.
So, what you may want to do is to include a given photo to a new album, with or without deleting the file from the old album. Remember that albums are meant to keep lists of a set of files for a given purpose: printing, showing, preparing a project, selecting files for different types of export. So it's extremely common to include the same file into different albums for different purposes. Nothing is moved or copied in the process.
Tip: Since what you really want is to include a file an album and remove it from another one (two separate actions), you can: - select (highlight) the file or group of files shown in an album. - drag and drop the new album name from the left panel to one of the highlighted files. That will add them to the destination album - right click on one of the selected files and select "remove from album".
Anyway, assigning or removing files from albums only change the listes, that does not move or delete files in your catalog or computer.
|
|
|
Post by michelb on Mar 6, 2019 13:45:17 GMT
A personal opinion which is based on my own use case: mainly editing at home on a desktop with PSE (no videos with PE). - I totally agree with the need to get a lot of RAM, especially with PSE2019. - The processor is very important, especially for a raw workflow and for advanced editing filters.
So, where is it possible to accept compromises? 1 - The graphic processor is practically never used with PSE.
2 - SSD: I think that 256 GB is really minimal. Good if you are able to manage your drive space between two internal drives. Otherwise, I would be happy with a 512 one plus another internal conventional drive. 3 - Display size: A very personal choice. The comfort if you have to do long edits asks for something like a 17 " display. I would never use any kind of HiDpi display for image editing, but there are other qualities to search for.
|
|
|
Post by michelb on Feb 23, 2019 20:19:39 GMT
In the 'convert' dialog, is the checkbox 'Show previously converted catalogs' ticked? (in the bottom left line).
|
|
|
Post by michelb on Feb 21, 2019 14:37:19 GMT
Unfortunately, there is no magical solution to reconnect so many missing files in one batch. But the reconnect option is apt to reconnect whole folders with subfolders when you correctly guide the search to the real location. You don't have to reconnect files one by one, but you may have to reconnect folder by folder. In your case, the only positive piece of news is that most files are connected, and they keep your albums, stacks and version sets. The main issue which prevents the logical solution to delete all missing files from the catalog is the inability of the organizer to delete a big quantity of missing files at the same time (a few thousands maximum in one batch, depending on your PSE version and available RAM. Otherwise, that would have been the way to go; delete from catalog, thein reimport from the various drives.
A backup in your case will let you restore the catalog with the same number of missing files; obviously, it will skip the media files themselves.
No, the drive identification is not a criteria. The two images must have the same size in kilobytes and same date_taken. Otherwise, they are not duplicates and they are not candidates for reconnection.
So, I would recommend keeping what you have now to start with. A backup would not hurt. Then, it's important to try to find which folders or drives are not recognized. The folder tree in tree view might guide you to find where the organizer 'thinks' the images should be. Deleting by smaller batches is possible as well as reconnecting by folders. You might progressively solve your problem. After deleting a batch, you might even test reimporting from the supposed real location. That should not create duplicates. Anyway you need to train to delete reasonable batches on missing files and to reconnected files folders by folders.
|
|
|
Post by michelb on Feb 21, 2019 14:13:55 GMT
Sorry for the 'add-on' . . . can someone tell me what the difference is between a 'non match' and one of those 'disconnected' files? I have always enjoyed photography but I am about ready to give up on this PSE . . . The 'Gurus' and such make it look 'easy'. I am not finding that to be the case. UGH. Thanks. 'Non match' files are shown after the result of a search is displayed.
The search results in finding all the stacks or version sets whih may include files fulfilling all the search criteria. But within those stacks or version sets, one or several items may not 'match' all the search criteria. For instance, a keyword is missing, the star rating is missing...
One long-standing issue in the organizer is that there is no way to select only the close match items out of a search when they are mixed with non match ones in stacks or version sets.
|
|
|
Post by michelb on Feb 13, 2019 20:20:47 GMT
Fauxtoto, Many thanks for allowing me to get your image and the comparison screenshot.
I'll start with two major points: 1- Contrary to our previous tests supposing a file with a ProPhoto profile, I am seeing exactly what you are seeing. There is a distinct change when seen in Photos and it's questionable that Photos is correctly colour managed.
2 - I have no idea why Photos does not recognize the sRGB profile. Other softwares like FastStone, Irfanview or OnOne do much better. Does Photos try to 'enhance' automatically?
However, we can now get answers about questions which have been raised in this discussion.
- History: The file taken in jpeg sRGB from a prosumer camera has been opened and saved in Lightroom. The Information panel shows the details of the 'raw' section: no significant change has been applied (WB, tone curves...). The file has been exported with the sRGB profile choice. Note that the raw settings in that information panel are there only for historical info, they are not to be applied by an Adobe software.
<crs:HasSettings>True</crs:HasSettings> <crs:HasCrop>False</crs:HasCrop> <crs:AlreadyApplied>True</crs:AlreadyApplied> External softwares ignore the raw section. If opened in LR/ACR the settings are also ignored in this case. If "Already applied" was false, that would mean that LR/ACR would take the edits into account (the settings would not be 'baked in' the RGB numbers). That would happen for jpegs only edited in ACR/LR without exporting ('Done' in PSE) in a parametric/non destructive workflow.
- Colour properties: The image is a nearly monochrome one in golden tones which fits easily even on a narrow gamut like sRGB. No risk of 'out of gamut' parts.
I have tried the irrealistic hypothesis of the file having had its profile removed then converted to sRGB. There is a very slight color change after removing, no further change when converting to sRGB. Suggestion: the display profile may play a part here. How to define the color shift with Photos? There, I maintain that it can be the result of increasing saturation by 16-18%. It's also possible to get the same result by altering very slightly the WB or the tint. If we compare the results by displaying the H,S,L values of a layer with Blur>>average, we get practically the same values from both methods and the same look than the Photos result.
So much for today!
|
|
|
Post by michelb on Feb 12, 2019 8:50:19 GMT
[/offtopic] Fauxtoto, your answer to the question Michel asked (which I second) will definitely help with the troubleshooting.
...was it exported in ProPhoto or aRGB, sRGB? It's easy to check the profile when opening the file in PSE, PS or LR. With properly tagged Prophoto, no issue in Photos for us. Thank you for recognising the concern I originally raised earlier. Hopefully you will find the solution to Fauxtoto's issue. [/offtopic] I have always taken that into account.
Today I wonder: - I have tested all the various export options in LR: They are all recognized in my version of Photos, even if the profile is removed. - Exporting from LR always embbeds a profile. That explains LR recognizes all the export options.
- If the profile is removed (from PS or PSE for instance), I get the same result from either LR or Photos, same change of look, especially with ProPhoto.
- If the profile which is removed is ProPhoto, the change of look by assuming sRGB results in strong desaturation, not color shift or oversaturation.
You are right in asking if we are using the same versions of LR and Photos. I am on the latest versions for both.
|
|
|
Post by michelb on Feb 11, 2019 20:27:14 GMT
Fauxtoto, We are not forgetting the issue. I must say that the way Microsoft manages colours in Photos and Windows Viewers is still mysterious for me, even after spending some time to understand what is said about it in the Internet and by testing by myself and checking profiles in the files themselves (exif tool). What I can say from your Windows screenshots is that you have the default settings, which should be ok. I had found a tutorial in French about the best settings... which I can no longer find now!
The advice was this setting:
We all agree that the files exported from LR and reimported are fully recognized, no information about the color profile is lost. Sepiana and myself find that Photos shows a correct (if not strictly identical) look of the Prophoto file. Nothing like the discoulored result from non colour-managed browsers in this case. You find a distinct colour shift from yellow to red (is it also more saturation?) Why would Photos show differently in your computer than with ours?
My first question is to check the LR option in the export: was it exported in ProPhoto or aRGB, sRGB? It's easy to check the profile when opening the file in PSE, PS or LR. With properly tagged Prophoto, no issue in Photos for us.
I was wondering about the lack of calibration in your case. You are right it should not explain the difference between LR and Photos. For further tests, I have used PS which offers many more options than PSE to convert or assign profiles. For instance this test: conversion of the prophoto test image to aRGB - remove profile - assign aRGB or my monitor profile: no visible colour shift, even if my monitor is not wide gamut. Tip: we can work with the test file by Andrew Rodney:
In my experience, the only situation in which I find a very significant oversaturation in conversions/assignment from an original ProPhoto is when: it has been converted to another space like aRGB, Display or sRGB and then assigned a ProPhoto profile. That is equivalent to applying the conversion twice.
To summarize: we could work on the same test ProPhoto file, we need to be sure what profile is embedded (tagged) into your resulting LR export.
|
|
|
Post by michelb on Feb 10, 2019 15:19:50 GMT
Have a look at my answer in the Adobe Feedback forum:
Please come back here if you want more help.
|
|
|
Post by michelb on Feb 9, 2019 21:08:27 GMT
The choice of the 'No color management" has a result I did not expect. It automatically assigns the monitor profile when converting from ACR. That may be ok for you, since you have a similar gamut than the aRGB profile. I am pretty sure mine has a narrower colour space, so that can't be an advantage for me and most other users in this forum.
I don't want to take the risks of that option.
If I open a ProPhoto file, PSE will edit in the much wider color space as the working space. The file is already tagged and will keep its profile when saving, unless I choose to convert to sRGB or aRGB depending on the final output.
|
|
|
Post by michelb on Feb 9, 2019 20:40:52 GMT
"No color management": You should have stated that before. It's the first time I see someone advising to choose "No Color management". I can see how you can live with that in your own workflow, but all the advice I have seen is never to use that option except when you master all your colour parameters. That's why I had never tried how to work in Elements with that option. That made me discover why you insist on 'embedding' the profile. Without that option, you can't include the display profile when saving from Elements (something you can do from Photoshop).
The problem I have with the "No color management" option is the following. Since I can't output a file in ProPhoto from the ACR module (you get either sRGB when you optimize for screen and aRGB when you optimize for print), I have to use either a ProPhoto sample file or create one from Photoshop. The ProPhoto profile is recognized by PSE from the profile tag like the other profiles known to the full Photoshop. The working colour space is now ProPhoto, and the profile is tagged automatically when saving the file.
Now, I set the option to "no color management". When I open the photo, the embedded ProPhoto profile is discarded. The photo looks awfully discolored, which is normal since the ProPhoto space is much larger than sRGB or my calibrated display profile. If I want to save the result, I can tick the option to embbed my display profile... which does not help at all in this case.
Before that experiment, I thought that your choice of embedding the display profile was that discussed in that thread: So, I checked what is recommended by Ian Lyons: As you can see, the general consensus by experts is definitely not in favour of your advice.
|
|
|
Post by michelb on Feb 9, 2019 19:46:18 GMT
Thanks, Michel. Just a quick note of appreciation. We are leaving in a few minutes for my granddaughter's gymnastic meet. I will gladly add the links when I get home later today. I echo your thanks to all who worked on this challenge. Thanks for inserting the links. I can't leave this challenge without a personal touch, a small sketch:
|
|
|
Post by michelb on Feb 9, 2019 10:31:07 GMT
Creative Effect Challenge No. 92 - RAW Challenge Night Scene - My choice.
Many thanks and congrats to all who participated! Don't take my choice too seriously, I have enjoyed every submission and all the comments, and I can tell that everyone has been able to take advantage of the raw format to extract what is needed to achieve their own, personal vision.
So, my personal vision is biased because I was able to be there and then... We always enjoy the rich and monumental Place Stanislas in Nancy. What was 'special' was that it was a moment after some rain, with less people than usual, but with some peaceful life. Interesting light sources and mysterious zones of shadows. This view is full of intersting lines and perspective, but is free of the rich and monumental golden grids and fountains around the place.
That's why I have especially appreciated those who were very near my own realistic vision.
Nr 1 - Helen, especially the B&W version: (Very convincing other submission, like Bailey's)
Nr 2- Among those who created compelling artistic visions, Billie Jean, with the first submission of outlines. Nr 3 - For the detailed workflow in LR, and the totally mastered result, the submission of Fauxtoto.
There has been a lot of very useful comments, so I only want to add that I did like all efforts to restore every bit of the light sources, the wealth of solutions from cropping, the various ways to also render the mystery of shadows, the interest in monochrome versions. I have a feeling that the best realistic renderings were already enhanced in some way, which is exactly what I would have tried to do... Another note about perspective. It seems that everyone has felt the need to correct the slant on the arch. However, the shot was taken with the camera strictly vertical (vertical lines in the far left and right of the photo are really vertical). The original perspective is true... but disturbing, since the arch is not strictly perpendicular to the axis of the photo. Since I can't correct that visually in the PSE ACR, I have used the distort menu in the editor.
Maybe Helen can include the links to the three images by the winners?
|
|
|
Post by michelb on Feb 8, 2019 21:03:02 GMT
Let's start from the beginning.
What's your working colour space? I mean, the numbers defining the RGB values for each pixel. For instance, if you have converted a raw file in ACR or LR, that could be sRGB, aRGB, ProPhoto... or your display profile. If the last choice, there is no way another user can know the colour space reference if you don't embed the display profile. If the profile is not embedded, external software will consider the pixels values as if they were sRGB. A color shift is to be expected, but probably less dramatic than editing in ProPhoto as working color space and 'removing the profile' in the file. If the display profile is embedded, that will be fine for you, probably fine for other users if they are using PS or LR, even PSE. You can't be sure with many other editing softwares. Furthermore, before being sure to say that you must always embed the profile in this case, you have to consider the advantages of using other colour spaces. Anyway some users might wrongly think that your display profile will have something to do with their own display profile. As you have explained, your display profile has become your working colour space. The embedded profile is expected to enable the colour management process to translate into the device independent (Lab...) profile, then translate it to their own display profile.
I think you'll agree that if your working space is not your display profile, embedding the display profile would be meaningless. So, we could concentrate on discussing the option of the display profile as the working space. I don't discuss that such an option requires embedding the profile.
Since this forum is centered around Elements, I want to say a few words about colour management in PSE, its limitations and the protection those limitations give to the typical users. I believe the colour management engine is the same than in Photoshop, but that many options in the menus have been masked to avoid a lot of traps. I'd like to detail those differences in another post, but for instance, the option to use the display profile as the working space is not available.
|
|
|
Post by michelb on Feb 7, 2019 22:59:05 GMT
Hi Sepiana,
Are you using the default colour space for your screen set by Windows 10 or are you using some other profile or your own calibrated profile?
The reason I ask is even if both you and Fauxtoto both use the same colour space in LR, say ProPhoto, if you are using different screen profiles then that could be contributing factor to Fauxtoto's colour mismatch issue.
It is unlikely your screen colour space will have as wide a gamut as ProPhoto.
I can speak for myself. I would NEVER use my calibrated display profile as output choice for LR or PS. I use standard profiles to manage and share files. Remember, we are discussing comparing viewing two sources on our own, same display. Calibrated or not, we expect to get the same look.
Do you really believe there exists a display which can display more than a part of the ProPhoto gamut?
|
|