Ramon there is no doubt that you are correct and your advice was extremely helpful....the fact was it was too late to solve my problem and with help from another forum user I thought I knew where to put it..I put it in the wrong place, I think you have made that point...but it DID process the files and get me out of a problem..I am a working photographer and apparently a clueless software downloader but I have to be adaptable to get things to work....now please calm down as there are a lot of people with problems out there....Geof
>now please calm down as there are a lot of people with problems out there
It is precisely because
"there are a lot of people with problems out there" that your posts were reprehensible, Geof.
You failed to read the instructions, you failed to post initially in the most appropriate forum, subsequently you failed to heed the explicit advice to post there, you failed to believe me from the start and you still do not grasp why your solution was/is a huge mistake even if it sort of
"worked" for you.
And don't try to blame this on
"another forum user".
No one told you to install the ACR plug-in in a folder inside the CS4 application folder.
I didn't blame anyone else it was their post that got me working even though I made an error. Ramon just for a minute look sideways out of your ivory tower and realise that a lot of people use digital as a necessity not choice and do not have your super human understanding.I will guarantee that I will not be the last poster to have the same problem.
Pleeese look at others point of view for a moment.Your post was also incorrect but hasn't been removed. It is possible to run Photoshop with 2 camera raws in different folders that is contrary to what you said..Geof
Just about everything Ramon wrote here apart from providing the correct Mac path is exactly that. A complete waste of bandwidth.
I'm against it in principle, but to save having to wade through such sanctimonious piles of waffle in future I'd like to plonk Ramon. Can anyone remind me of the link that describes how to do that, please?
>I'm against it in principle, but to save having to wade through such sanctimonious piles of waffle in future I'd like to plonk Ramon. Can anyone remind me of the link that describes how to do that, please?
Actually, it's much nicer (IMO) to be plonked by Ramon. Then you can still read his sanctimonious BS and respond to it over here in the land of Plonk. Not that I have any real responses to his posts, especially since I sent him my regards about his daughter's recent problems with cancer, only to be plonked.
Ramon can go plonk himself, after which we won't be bothered by him at all.
> Okay thats enough. dont jinx things. and keep your fingers crossed for good measure.
Man, no kidding. You know Wade will be back, though, if only to make YOUR life miserable. 8)
Of course, that will be after he returns from his most recent trip to fantasy land, where he was hired to shoot really ****** fantasy photos for fantasy clients.
>It is possible to run Photoshop with 2 camera raws in different folders that is contrary to what you said
OK, now I know you are a complete nitwit.
If you visited the ACR forum you would find:
* numerous instances of posts by Thomas Knoll, the creator of both Photoshop and Camera Raw, warning users
never to have more than one instance of ACR per version of CS3; and
* many posts by users who were having trouble with ACR who fixed their problems by following Thomas Knoll's and Jeff Schewe's (who literally wrote the book on Camera Raw) instructions to delete any extra copies of ACR.
Believe what you want, but
STOP disseminating bad information.
>Indeed, if I put someone who might be making untrue statements about me, or posting incorrect information about matters on which I am knowledgeable, on a technologically implemented ignore list, that would appear to be kind of counterproductive, as I would then be unable to put matters straight
You have a point there.
I might just unplonk the only two lowly individuals that I suspect would take advantage of not being seen, Decker and Nirque. The rest of the individuals in my current plonk list I hold to be honorable individuals (as are all other posters other than the aforementioned brace), even if their posts are simply a waste of time.
There are plenty of talented folks around here who give great advice who never berate and namecall at the hint of a disagreement. The more people Ramon plonks, the more pleasant this virtual place becomes. I simply don't see the level of disrespect at other sites that I routinely find here, and I think it's because there are moderators with balls enough not to let a few overbearing individuals stink up the room.
Thank you for posting the link to the ACR download page and for including the text of the instructions contained therein (post #116, which I just read two minutes ago). No reasonable, prudent person could have missed them, but this just might convince the incredulous that they were in fact there, where I said anyone can find them.
What did you think of the Williams-arranged piece played at the inauguration today? I wonder if any of the four musicians was embarrassed
That's hilarious. Maybe you will need to walk the plonk...
The Yo Yo Ma/Perlman performance was astounding. What great music, sound, performances, musical chemistry and arrangement in a very high pressure environment. I can't imagine why anyone would even hint at any possibility of musical embarrassment. It was a joy to listen to.
I agree with peter, and go a step further and point out that they were the only musicians who played in sync and in tune. Of course, lay that to the cold weather. Those brass instruments had to be really cold!
The four instruments on which the quartet played had to be conditioned to the cold, and yet, the intonation was damn near perfect.
I heard strains of Aaron Copeland's arrangement of "A Gift to Be Simple" in that work, which, of course, Copeland invoked for Appalachian Spring. KBPS, the marvelous classical music station here, actually picked up the performance and played it as a selection several hours later. In that presentation, I could listen to it without the inauguration intruding and found it a bit too dry. I hope they do a studio recording soon.
Dark fade refers back to film. Some films would fade even when stored in dark containers. I don't know if this applies to printing and whatever technololgy is used to produce the swatches in the Color Checker.
OK, thanks. I think of the Color Checker more as paint or ink.
Actually, I seldom use my Color Checker. Neutral gray card seems to work fine for me. But, if you need to calibrate your camera, or whatever, it seems to be the go-to requirement. Myself, I'm not a big proponent of camera calibration, for reasons that you can read about all over the net.
Any entity that manufactures printed color swatches for calibration purposes will tell you to replace them at specified intervals. This ensures color accuracy for the user and continued cash flow for the producer.
My Pantone swatch books are about 8 years old and they look fine to me. Like John, I'm too cheap to buy new and compare.
I think not just some films. From reading Wilhelm Research, it seems that all color emulsions, film or print suffer dark fading. It's just to what extent for which substrate.
Remember Kodachrome is extremely resistant to dark fading but show visible deterioration after only a few minutes of slide projection. Ektachrome is not nearly as dark fade resistant, but many times more light fade resistant, making it a much better choice for projection.
Print emulsions, and anything with pigments or dyes will suffer some fading no matter how they're stored. Freezing in the dark is probably the best storage, but not always practical.
As far as ColorCheckers are concerned, if you're using it as only a visual reference, then a little fading will not matter too much. If you're using it for measured profiles, it's not that big a deal to measure it again with a spectrophotometer and generate a new data set.