InDesign output less saturated than Photoshop

I am printing a series of images in InDesign CS4. The images had rich blacks and good contrast when printed in Photoshop CS4, but when printed in InDesign, the same images (placed from Photoshop) not attain the same depth of color (blacks appeared significantly grayer). All profiles are set to Adobe 1998, and the source files are RGB in .psd format. I tried synchronizing with Bridge, to no avail. Any advice?

Here is the settings you should be using when printing RGB images from Indesign.
Make sure Transparency Blend Space is set to RGB.
Under Edit/Assign Profile to your document. This (RGB) should be the same as working profile assigned to your image. Choose the rendering intent of your liking but most likely Perceptual.
Now in the ID print dialog.
Output Color: Composite RGB
Graphics Send Data: All
Color Management Print: Document should be selected. Make sure the profile listed is the working space assigned to your image.
Color Management Options: Color Handling: Let InDesign Determine Color. Printer Profile: Choose your Printer Paper Profile.
Advanced: Pre 10.6.2 select Print as Bitmap
Now to Printer driver settings.
Under Color Matching select Vendor Matching or what ever the HP driver calls it. Just make sure ColorSync is not selected.
Again not sure what setting are in the HP driver but you want to make sure color management is turned off in the driver.
Post screen shot of the HP driver setting if you are confused.

Similar Messages

Images look less saturated in Photoshop CC 2014

I import my RAW images into Lightroom 5 and make some basic adjustments. Then I edit the image in Photoshop with the Lightroom adjustments. I clean up the images and crop to the size I like and then I use the Perfect Effects 9 plugin to do some more edits. I finish my edits in Perfect Effects 9 and save them which brings me back into Photoshop CC as a new layer. In Photoshop the image looks less saturated than it did in Perfect Effects 9. I then save the Photoshop file and exit. When I look at the PSD file in Lightroom 5 browse window, it looks the same as it does in Perfect Effects 9. Why does it look less saturated in Photoshop CC 2014?
Here are my colour settings:
Lightroom 5:
External Editing:
     Edit in Adobe Photoshop CC 2014:
     File Format = TIFF
     Color Space = AdobeRGB(1998)
     Bit Depth = 16
     Resolution = 240
     Compression = zip
Additional External Editor:
    Preset = Perfect Effects 9 Suite
    File Format = PSD
    Color Space = AdobeRGB(1998)
    Bit Depth = 16
    Resolution = 300
Perfect Effects 9:
General:
     Working Color Space = sRGB IEC61966-2.1
Files:
     Copy Options:
     File Format = PSD
     Color Space = sRGB IEC61966-2.1
Plug-ins:
     Lightroom:
     File Type = PSD
     Color Space = Adobe RGB 1998
Photoshop CC 2014:
    Color Settings: Custom
    Working Spaces:
    RGB = sRGB IEC61966-2.1
    CMYK = U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2
    Gray = Dot Gain 20%
    Spot = Dot Gain 20%
What color settings do I need to use so that the images have the same saturation look in all three programs? How do you know which image in which program is showing as the correct saturation?

No, just keep it at sRGB. As long as you have the "preserve" policy, the working space actually isn't all that important. The embedded document profile will always override it (as it should).
I had to read this a couple of times to follow the trail properly. Leaving Perfect Effects (which I don't know at all) out of it - does the very same file iteration, with the same edits, look different between Photoshop and Lightroom? Did I get that right?
In that case you have a bad monitor profile. This can sometimes throw off one application but not the other. Recalibrate, or if you don't have a calibrator go into Windows color management and set sRGB IEC61966-2.1 as default display profile. When done relaunch all applications so that they can pick up the new profile at startup.

Bridge/PS CS3 display less saturated than other apps?

For a while I was sure I was seeing the dreaded "red color cast" on converting extended-gamut documents (ProPhoto, aRGB) to sRGB. But a little experimentation has revealed that the problem is not in conversion, it's in how Bridge and PS display the images.
For an example of what I'm talking about, look at http://www.jhmg.net/misc/sRGB/colorShift.png This is a screenshot with the same image file opened in both PS and WIndows picture viewer. As you can see, the one on the right (Windows Picture Viewer) is slightly more saturated and has a significant red color cast compared to the same file displayed by PS. My first thought was that I had accidentally set the advanced "desaturate colors" option in Color Settings, but that's not the case (see http://www.jhmg.net/misc/sRGB/colorSettings.png).
This color shift happens no matter what file format I use (PNG, JPEG, BMP, GIF). When the file displays in PS it looks like the one on the left, but in Windows or in a browser (Firefox, IE8) it has a red cast. This happens on ALL images.
I have also checked to make sure the formats that support embedded profiles (PNG, JPEG) have the correct profiles. For BMP and GIF, when I open the file in PS and assign sRGB, the image looks like the one on the left (less saturated).
Windows and PS/Bridge just don't render the colors the same way, and this is 100% reproducible.
Note: My monitor is calibrated, and I have a custom monitor profile installed at the OS level. I can't find any way to specify a monitor profile in PS so I assume it will use whatever the OS provides.

J Maloney wrote:
If you ASSIGN your monitor profile to an image already CONVERTED to sRGB in PS, it looks like Windows viewer. This is because Windows viewer is not color managed
If I understand you, then any sRGB image displayed on my monitor in a non-color-managed app will be more saturated and redder than it should be because its pixel values are being interpreted as if they were in my monitor's custom wider-than-sRGB colorspace when in fact they're not. When displayed in PS, Photoshop "knows" that they're in sRGB and my monitor isn't, and adjusts accordingly. Right?
Here are some shots from the MS Color control panel applet comparing my monitor's gamut (color shape) to sRGB (white/gray shape):
From "below":
From the side:
From "above":
This explains why there's more red, but curiously I don't see the same effect in the green, which has an even wider gamut as shown below. Maybe the green levels in this image aren't high enough to be shifted appreciably?

Photoshop document images displaying less saturated in Photoshop only

Hi there,
I seemed to have either clicked on an icon or pressed the wrong shortcut somewhere but now my photoshop documents are displaying less saturated or sometimes psychadelic in Photoshop. Here is an example:
(the first pic is the way it is meant to display, the second is how it is displaying..
When I use the colour picker to select a colour from anywhere inside the picture it does pick up the actual colour and not the desaturated/strange colours. Also when I save the document out as a jpeg or anything and open it into something else other than Photoshop it displays correctly. Whatever it is is making Photoshop display ANY document that I open in that way. Really frustrated please help!!!!
Kind Regards,
Michelle

Hi there,
Thank you for your replies. Here is the screenshot: How do I replace the display profile?

H.264 export image brighter, less saturated than final edit

When exporting out of fcp, whether using quicktime conversion or compressor, the image is altered from the final edit. It sems the black and mids become raised during the export. Maybe there is a bit of desaturation as well. Does anyone else have this problem? or a solution?
I can't imagine this is acceptable for anyone that has this problem. Overcompensating in the final edit does not seem practical either.
I appreciate any and all comments. Thanks!

I'm still in Compressor 2 world, but read here in the forums that new Compressor 3 has a new *Color Tab in the Inspector* to *select and adjust color space settings*. You can read about it in the [Compressor 3 Release Notes|http://www.apple.com/support/releasenotes/en/Compressor3.0rn>.
Hope that helps !
Alberto

Illustrator vector object becomes less black in Photoshop

I drew an object, all black, in Illustrator, then placed it into Photoshop, the vector become less saturated than it was in Illustrator. Can anyone help me solve this problem?

Sulaco wrote:
You might also want to check "Edit/Preferences/Appearance of Black" in Illustrator. To deepen the black when printing (CMYK) you mix other colours into it, creating something called Rich Black. The mix could be something like C=50,M=50,Y=50,K=100, this will produce a blacker black than C=0,M=0,Y=0,K=100 (called 100K Black) when printing, it's desirable in certain situations.
Now "Appearance of Black" controls how black is displayed/printed/exported in Illustrator and I think that the default setting is "Display All Blacks As Rich Black" which means than if you use 100K Black in Illustrator and then transfer it to PS it might look less black in PS, depending on your settings.
It's one of those things that, even if new to CMYK, 100K black would look so wrong, you'd have to look into it and find out what the heck was going on
Sulaco, useful tip about pasting into Photoshop.

Images appear with less saturation in PS CS4 than Lightroom, etc.

Images processed in Lightroom 2, LR Beta 3 and Capture One 5 opened in PS CS4 show less saturation and appear a bit flatter (could be just the lower saturation) than they do when displayed in the application that processed the raw files. Tifs and Jpegs appear the same in both LR and PS. I am using OS 10.5.8 and the current versions of the other three apps. Prophoto is selected as the working space for all the applications. Shouldn't the images displayed in LR look the same as they do in PS? I am missing something?
Thanks

No, that option is not selected, though If I do boost the saturation by 10% with an adjustment layer it comes close to matching. Perhaps the question is better but as why does LR (and Capture One) output a files that doesn't match the preview? Is it the raw conversion itself, or how PS displays something?

Looking for a less expensive program other than Photoshop CS6

Looking for a less expensive program other than Photoshop CS6 and was wondering if Photoshop Elements is the answer. Does Photoshop Elements read PSD files, create layers, can you change the levels and color balance?

drumford65 wrote:
Looking for a less expensive program other than Photoshop CS6 and was wondering if Photoshop Elements is the answer. Does Photoshop Elements read PSD files, create layers, can you change the levels and color balance?
Yes, and much more.
Why not try the 30 days trial version which has all the features of Elements ?

Why aperture rather than photoshop? Please help!

Hi everybody, I have a noisy question in my mind. Today I have bought an apple pro training manual for Aperture. I work with photos, I am a photographer and today I have done my first steps into the world of aperture.
I was happy using it, learning lesson by lesson but than my friend asked me : "I do not know photographer who use Aperture. they just use Photoshop, why do you want to learn it?". I said "well...."
Now the question is : why shall I use Aperture rather than Photoshop? what does it gave me more or different than Photoshop? I know that I can easily handle RAW formats and I know the "nondestructive" thing, but...
I really would like to have an opinion from you.

rmrpix,
i have read your "5% photoshop theory" before in some
other threads, and in my (humble) opinion, this is
wrong. for me, only the combination of both, aperture
AND photoshop make it work. aperture is perfect for
managing the images etc. however before any of our
photo is used/released/printed, we run it through
photoshop. even a near perfect image can be improved.
and such changes can (to use your 95/5% theory) in
95% of the cases only be achieved with photoshop.
so for me it's the combination of both - and on a
personal note - i love aperture, but couldn't work
without photoshop.
Steebow,
Neither could I work without Photoshop, and I agree that any image, no matter how perfect, CAN be improved in Photoshop. But my point is why do that unless the image absolutely needs it? Where does a little image improvement cost too much in post-processing time and effort? Let me give you an example:
Let's say I have a shoot of 250 photos from a corporate or community event. I shoot a lot of events like golf tournaments, community and corporate functions, so that's what I'll use as my example. I recognize this size shoot (as well as the client requirements) may be far less than some posters shoot for typical weddings or other assignments, but it's still a decent batch of images.
Out of these 250 images, I might throw out 40-50 at image ingestion - they are too flawed to merit ANY post processing.
Out of the remaining 200 or so I might find 50-60% that are not "proof image quality", either because:
1) they have some flaw that is not bad enough for discard, but not good enough for "proof quality"; or
2) they are near duplicates of the same image, taken to make sure no one is blinking, or to bracket exposures, or as part of a sequence to catch a candid action/facial expression, etc.
I don't discard these images, documenting them with metadata and keeping them in Aperture for a complete record of the shoot. But I don't perform ANY post processing on them, in either Aperture or Photoshop.
The remaining 80-100 images will be submitted to the client as proofs. For proof purposes - and I make this clear to my clients - I perform ONLY global image processing - straighten the horizons, globally adjust tones and colorcast, occasionally adding a bit of highlight-shadow adjustment or sharpening (over the default Raw Fine Tuning paramaters if the image needs it.) All of this can be done quite adequately in Aperture. The proofs are submitted as low res images on contact sheets, CD/DVD, or - more and more frequently - on a private access web page. Why should I "Photoshop" the images more at this stage? What value does that add for the time expended?
A typical client for my practice is using the images for flyers, newsletters, perhaps an occasional annual report. So the client select rate is perhaps 1-in-5 to 1-in-6, possibly lower. In this example that's maybe maybe 15-25 images out of 250 taken. Many (but not all) of these client selects may require Photoshop to produce finals, depending on the clients output needs. (If they only need 1/4 page B&W images for a newsletter, I will usually do this in Aperture.) So for this type of shoot I hit Photoshop for maybe 6-10% of the original images. Even then I make extensive use of batch processing actions to minimize Photoshop "mouse time".
Everyone's business (or personal style) is different, but I'm convinced that careful workflow/digital asset management will in the end reduce, not expand Photoshop processing time. Having, like most, started out trying to "Photoshop" everything I shot, (the "After all, that is MY IMAGE and I want to make it perfect" syndrome), I learned long before Aperture was released that careful image capture, even more careful image evaluation, and always thinking about efficiency of workflow, is the best way to spend less time in front of the monitor so I can spend more time behind the camera. To me, and for my uses, that means using Photoshop when I need it and not a minute more. But YMMV.
Mike
PowerMac G5 Dual 2.0GHz, Radeon X800XT Graphics Card; MacBookPro 2.0Ghz Mac OS X (10.4.6) iMac800 and Powerbook G4 also in household

Nothing simpler, smaller, less expensive than Apple's DVI to ADC adapter?

My 2001 vintage 466 MHz PowerMac G4 with 15" Studio Display has served me well over the years. But, alas, she's running Panther (10.3.9) and lacks the requirements to move on to Leopard, which I'm ready to do. So, I decided to upgrade the machine. Since the other parts of the system (monitor, keyboard, mouse & printer) were just fine, I decided that a new Mac Mini would fit the bill nicely. (I'm also a Scotsman, always looking for ways to save money. Perhaps that's part of the problem. )
I received it yesterday and wasn't expecting the ADC-monitor to DVI-computer dilemma. (Which shows you just how out of touch I am with technology's incessant march forward.) So, I investigate solutions.
Imagine my surprise when I discover that the only solution out there is by Apple, in the form of a brick almost as big as my Mini! And, another $100 to boot! I did find a third party solution through a link on Apple's website, but that's $150! (Thanks for the referral, Apple!) My mind is boggled - there must be other available solutions but, if there are, they are evading me.
Does anyone know of any solution that is simpler, smaller and less expensive than Apple's DVI to ADC adapter?
Thanks for any and all info.

The Apple adapter is the only solution if you really want to keep that display. It might be a good time to look for a larger display, with DVI.
I am using the Apple adapter with my seven year old 22" display, but I wouldn't want to run OS X on anything smaller.

Syncing to iPod Touch results in the display of 1 less playlist than synced

I just restored my iPod Touch 2G which successfully resolved a double event issue in Calendar. However, now my iPod is displaying 1 less playlist than it should. It doesn't seem (at this point) to follow any stringent pattern of the playlist which is not displayed, but all of the songs are synced correctly.
If I sync 10 playlists, it syncs the songs for 10, but displays 9 playlists in the playlists tab in Music. When I uncheck a playlist in iTunes and sync to my iPod, it reduces the # of playlists by 1. So for "n" playlists, the iPod correctly stores "n" worth of songs, but displays "n-1" playlists.

No. Use the Disk Utility on the Mac OS X 10.6 DVD to create a blank partition for Mac OS X 10.6(or install it onto an external drive) if you need software which won't run in Mac OS X 10.6.
At this point, purchasing Mac OS X 10.5 is generally only useful for people with PowerPC G4 and G5 Macs.
(67439)

Lock Up Your Data for Up to 90% Less Cost than On-Premises Solutions with NetApp AltaVault

June 2015
Explore
Data-Protection Services from NetApp and Services-Certified Partners
Whether delivered by NetApp or by our professional and support services certified partners, these services help you achieve optimal data protection on-premises and in the hybrid cloud. We can help you address your IT challenges for protecting data with services to plan, build, and run NetApp solutions.
Plan Services—We help you create a roadmap for success by establishing a comprehensive data protection strategy for:
Modernizing backup for migrating data from tape to cloud storage
Recovering data quickly and easily in the cloud
Optimizing archive and retention for cold data storage
Meeting internal and external compliance regulations
Build Services—We work with you to help you quickly derive business value from your solutions:
Design a solution that meets your specific needs
Implement the solution using proven best practices
Integrate the solution into your environment
Run Services—We help you optimize performance and reduce risk in your environment by:
Maximizing availability
Minimizing recovery time
Supplying additional expertise to focus on data protection
Rachel Dines
Product Marketing, NetApp
The question is no longer if, but when you'll move your backup-and-recovery storage to the cloud.
As a genius IT pro, you know you can't afford to ignore cloud as a solution for your backup-and-recovery woes: exponential data growth, runaway costs, legacy systems that can't keep pace. Public or private clouds offer near-infinite scalability, deliver dramatic cost reductions and promise the unparalleled efficiency you need to compete in today's 24/7/365 marketplace.
Moreover, an ESG study found that backup and archive rank first among workloads enterprises are moving to the cloud.
Okay, fine. But as a prudent IT strategist, you demand airtight security and complete control over your data as well. Good thinking.
Hybrid Cloud Strategies Are the Future
Enterprises, large and small, are searching for the right blend of availability, security, and efficiency. The answer lies in achieving the perfect balance of on-premises, private cloud, and public services to match IT and business requirements.
To realize the full benefits of a hybrid cloud strategy for backup and recovery operations, you need to manage the dynamic nature of the environment— seamlessly connecting public and private clouds—so you can move your data where and when you want with complete freedom.
This begs the question of how to integrate these cloud resources into your existing environment. It's a daunting task. And, it's been a roadblock for companies seeking a simple, seamless, and secure entry point to cloud—until now.
Enter the Game Changer: NetApp AltaVault
NetApp® AltaVault® (formerly SteelStore) cloud-integrated storage is a genuine game changer. It's an enterprise-class appliance that lets you leverage public and private clouds with security and efficiency as part of your backup and recovery strategy.
AltaVault integrates seamlessly with your existing backup software. It compresses, deduplicates, encrypts, and streams data to the cloud provider you choose. AltaVault intelligently caches recent backups locally while vaulting older versions to the cloud, allowing for rapid restores with off-site protection. This results in a cloud-economics–driven backup-and-recovery strategy with faster recovery, reduced data loss, ironclad security, and minimal management overhead.
AltaVault delivers both enterprise-class data protection and up to 90% less cost than on-premises solutions. The solution is part of a rich NetApp data-protection portfolio that also includes SnapProtect®, SnapMIrror®, SnapVault®, NetApp Private Storage, Cloud ONTAP®, StorageGRID® Webscale, and MetroCluster®. Unmatched in the industry, this portfolio reinforces the data fabric and delivers value no one else can provide.
Figure 1) NetApp AltaVault Cloud-integrated Storage Appliance.
Source: NetApp, 2015
The NetApp AltaVault Cloud-Integrated Storage Appliance
Four Ways Your Peers Are Putting AltaVault to Work
How is AltaVault helping companies revolutionize their backup operations? Here are four ways your peers are improving their backups with AltaVault:
Killing Complexity. In a world of increasingly complicated backup and recovery solutions, financial services firm Spot Trading was pleased to find its AltaVault implementation extremely straightforward—after pointing their backup software at the appliance, "it just worked."
Boosting Efficiency. Australian homebuilder Metricon struggled with its tape backup infrastructure and rapid data growth before it deployed AltaVault. Now the company has reclaimed 80% of the time employees formerly spent on backups—and saved significant funds in the process.
Staying Flexible. Insurance broker Riggs, Counselman, Michaels & Downes feels good about using AltaVault as its first foray into public cloud because it isn't locked in to any one approach to cloud—public or private. The company knows any time it wants to make a change, it can.
Ensuring Security. Engineering firm Wright Pierce understands that if you do your homework right, it can mean better security in the cloud. After doing its homework, the firm selected AltaVault to securely store backup data in the cloud.
Three Flavors of AltaVault
AltaVault lets you tap into cloud economics while preserving your investments in existing backup infrastructure, and meeting your backup and recovery service-level agreements. It's available in three form factors: physical, virtual, and cloud-based.
1. AltaVault Physical Appliances
AltaVault physical appliances are the industry's most scalable cloud-integrated storage appliances, with capacities ranging from 32TB up to 384TB of usable local cache. Companies deploy AltaVault physical appliances in the data center to protect large volumes of data. These datasets typically require the highest available levels of performance and scalability.
AltaVault physical appliances are built on a scalable, efficient hardware platform that's optimized to reduce data footprints and rapidly stream data to the cloud.
2. AltaVault Virtual Appliances for Microsoft Hyper-V and VMware vSphere
AltaVault virtual appliances are an ideal solution for medium-sized businesses that want to get started with cloud backup. They're also perfect for enterprises that want to safeguard branch offices and remote offices with the same level of protection they employ in the data center.
AltaVault virtual appliances deliver the flexibility of deploying on heterogeneous hardware while providing all of the features and functionality of hardware-based appliances. AltaVault virtual appliances can be deployed onto VMware vSphere or Microsoft Hyper-V hypervisors—so you can choose the hardware that works best for you.
3. AltaVault Cloud-based Appliances for AWS and Microsoft Azure
For organizations without a secondary disaster recovery location, or for companies looking for extra protection with a low-cost tertiary site, cloud-based AltaVault appliances on Amazon Web Services (AWS) and Microsoft Azure are key to enabling cloud-based recovery.
On-premises AltaVault physical or virtual appliances seamlessly and securely back up your data to the cloud. If the primary site is unavailable, you can quickly spin up a cloud-based AltaVault appliance in AWS or Azure and recover data in the cloud. Usage-based, pay-as-you-go pricing means you pay only for what you use, when you use it.
AltaVault solutions are a key element of the NetApp vision for a Data Fabric; they provide the confidence that—no matter where your data lives—you can control, integrate, move, secure, and consistently manage it.
Figure 2) AltaVault integrates with existing storage and software to securely send data to any cloud.
Source: NetApp, 2015
Putting AltaVault to Work for You
Four common use cases illustrate the different ways that AltaVault physical and virtual appliances are helping companies augment and improve their backup and archive strategies:
Backup modernization and refresh. Many organizations still rely on tape, which increases their risk exposure because of the potential for lost media in transport, increased downtime and data loss, and limited testing ability. AltaVault serves as a tape replacement or as an update of old disk-based backup appliances and virtual tape libraries (VTLs).
Adding cloud-integrated backup. AltaVault makes a lot of sense if you already have a robust disk-to-disk backup strategy, but want to incorporate a cloud option for long-term storage of backups or to send certain backup workloads to the cloud. AltaVault can augment your existing purpose-built backup appliance (PBBA) for a long-term cloud tier.
Cold storage target. Companies want an inexpensive place to store large volumes of infrequently accessed file data for long periods of time. AltaVault works with CIFS and NFS protocols, and can send data to low-cost public or private storage for durable long-term retention.
Archive storage target. AltaVault can provide an archive solution for database logs or a target for Symantec Enterprise Vault. The simple-to-use AltaVault management platform can allow database administrators to manage the protection of their own systems.
We see two primary use cases for AltaVault cloud-based appliances, available in AWS and Azure clouds:
Recover on-premises workloads in the cloud. For organizations without a secondary disaster recovery location, or for companies looking for extra protection with a low-cost tertiary site, AltaVault cloud-based appliances are key to enabling cloud-based disaster recovery. Via on-premises AltaVault physical or virtual appliances, data is seamlessly and securely protected in the cloud.
Protect cloud-based workloads. AltaVault cloud-based appliances offer an efficient and secure approach to backing up production workloads already running in the public cloud. Using your existing backup software, AltaVault deduplicates, encrypts, and rapidly migrates data to low-cost cloud storage for long-term retention.
The benefits of cloud—infinite, flexible, and inexpensive storage and compute—are becoming too great to ignore. AltaVault delivers an efficient, secure alternative or addition to your current storage backup solution. Learn more about the benefits of AltaVault and how it can give your company the competitive edge you need in today's hyper-paced marketplace.
Rachel Dines is a product marketing manager for NetApp where she leads the marketing efforts for AltaVault, the company's cloud-integrated storage solution. Previously, Rachel was an industry analyst for Forrester Research, covering resiliency, backup, and cloud. Her research has paved the way for cloud-based resiliency and next-generation backup strategies.
Quick Links
Tech OnTap Community
Archive
PDF

You didn't say what phone you have - but you can set it to update and backup and sync over wifi only - I'm betting that those things are happening "automatically" using your cellular connection rather than wifi.
I sync my email automatically when I have a wifi connection, but I can sync manually if I need to. Downloads happen for me only on wifi, photo and video backup are only over wifi, app updates are only over wifi....check your settings. Another recent gotcha is Facebook and videos. LOTS of people are posting videos on Facebook and they automatically download and play UNLESS you turn them off. That can eat up your data in a hurry if you are on FB regularly.

How to set up the interaction between InDesign CS6 8.0 and Photoshop CS 6 - if Photoshop is installed and the 64 and 32-bit?? default InDesign refers to the 64-bit version of Photoshop and scripts do not work.

how to set up the interaction between InDesign CS6 8.0 and Photoshop CS 6 - if Photoshop is installed and the 64 and 32-bit?? default InDesign refers to the 64-bit version of Photoshop and scripts do not work.

Nice of you to point it out here as I at least don’t follow Mr.Nash’s blog regularly.

Hi - for any photo, info in mountain lion shows a different file size than Photoshop does. I've tested with CS3 and CS6 and get the same problem. Doesn't happen with CS3 and OSX10.4 or any previous versions of Photoshop and OSX. Anyone know why?

Hi - for any photo, info in mountain lion shows a different file size than Photoshop does. I've tested with both CS3 and CS6 on 10.8.2 and get the same problem. This doesn't happen with CS3 and OSX10.4 or any previous versions of Photoshop and OSX. Anyone know why?

this one is actually a really rare symptom of a flaky connection to the ipod on a Windows PC. there's more going on in terms of hardware on nanos and 5th gens than in the earlier models ... so if the connection is flaky to precisely the right/wrong degree, itunes will see the ipod, but misidentify it as an earlier version of ipod.
tracking down the cause of the flakiness can be tricky ... as you already know ...
just checking. have you tried connecting with a different (known-good) USB cable? does that seem to have any impact on the rate of occurence of the problem?

Elements 10, windows 8, 64 bit, epson artisan 835 printer: prints are really dark even after using enhancements like adjusting lighting. Prints are darker than photoshop edit screen. Prints are acceptable using paint, windows photo viewer, or gallery.

Elements 10, Windows 8, 64 bit, Epson Artisan 835 printer: Prints are really dark even after applying enhancements, like adjusting lighting. Prints are darker than Photoshop Edit Screen. Prints are acceptable using Paint, Windows Photoviewer, or Photo Gallery.

In general theory, one now has the Edit button for their posts, until someone/anyone Replies to it. I've had Edit available for weeks, as opposed to the old forum's ~ 30 mins.
That, however, is in theory. I've posted, and immediately seen something that needed editing, only to find NO Replies, yet the Edit button is no longer available, only seconds later. Still, in that same thread, I'd have the Edit button from older posts, to which there had also been no Replies even after several days/weeks. Found one that had to be over a month old, and Edit was still there.
Do not know the why/how of this behavior. At first, I thought that maybe there WAS a Reply, that "ate" my Edit button, but had not Refreshed on my screen. Refresh still showed no Replies, just no Edit either. In those cases, I just Reply and mention the [Edit].
Also, it seems that the buttons get very scrambled at times, and Refresh does not always clear that up. I end up clicking where I "think" the right button should be and hope for the best. Seems that when the buttons do bunch up they can appear at random around the page, often three atop one another, and maybe one way the heck out in left-field.
While I'm on a role, it would be nice to be able to switch between Flattened and Threaded Views on the fly. Each has a use, and having to go to Options and then come back down to the thread is a very slow process. Jive is probably incapable of this, but I can dream.
Hunt

InDesign output less saturated than Photoshop

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for