Lightroom 4.4 jpeg export watermark issue

Not sure abbout the older LR versions because I only tried this on LR 4.4.. After I edited my Raw images shot by Nikon D600, I'd like to export them to Jpeg format with my watermark. The watermark will not show if I exported the images in original size (6016 x 4016) as shot. However the watermark works fine if I resize the images to a smaller size, such as 1200 x 1024. Has anyone experienced the same issue? How can I work around it?

Irrespective of the rights/wrongs about exporting full resolution jpegs, the problem you describe sounds like the long-standing watermark bug. Basically there are certain circumstances whereby a text-based watermark will not show on the exported jpeg, and the factors that influence this are as follows:
The font being used for the watermark.....only certain fonts may be affected, e.g. Lucida Calligraphy is one. But even then the bug may not occur, as it also depends on:
a) The pixel dimensions specified for the output file. The larger the pixel size, the greater the risk that the bug will bite (as you have already discovered).
and/or
b) The proportional size as specified in the watermark editor....again the larger the size, the more likely the bug will bite.
So the workarounds are:
1) Try a different font.
2) Try reducing the pixel dimensions for the output file.
3) Or try reducing the specified proportional size.

Similar Messages

Aperture vs Adobe Lightroom (Beta 3) JPEG exports

I've been beta-testing the Adobe Lightroom product and comparing it to Aperture. I'm using Aperture 1.1.1 on a MacBook Pro.
Lightroom has some intriguing features, but I've noticed a wildly different color when exporting the same image to JPEG format from Lightroom and Aperture.
I took the same RAW image from a shot I took with my Nikon D70 and exported a JPEG from Aperture using default settings with no color adjustment. In Lightroom I exported the same image to Photoshop, and then exported a JPEG with default settings and no color adjustment.
Look at the difference:
https://www.carsonmedia.com/projects/softballphotos/phototests/photocomparison.h tml
Can anyone explain the difference? Aperture seems to export a JPEG that resembles the original.
I'm perplexed at the difference.
--Brandon
15" MBP 2GB RAM OSX/XP Mac OS X (10.4.6)

Yeah, looks like a colorspace issue -- I'm guessing Pro Photo, but it might not be LR's fault. Last I checked, LR actually exports PSDs, not JPEGs, in Pro Photo space to PS. So 2 possibilities:
1. LR incorrectly tagged the PSD output, so PS doesn't realize it's Pro Photo.
2. You didn't do a colorspace coversion in PS before saving the JPEG. Try using 'save to web' in PS -- it usually takes care of the sRGB conversion for you. Does it look correct in PS before the JPEG export?

Lightroom 4.4 jpeg export VERY noisy...HELP!

Hi all,
I have Googled and quite aware of the noisy jpeg output for v5 onwards.
But I'm still using 4.4 and all I found on Google is threads for v5.
Has anyone experienced this noisy jpeg export issue?
Here's a screengrab comparing the two.

If you're seeing a reduction of noise in the Export when you increase the Lum NR slider, then it's not a bug preventing the Lum NR from being applied.
Besides increasing the noise-reduction and not sharpening the remaining noise during Export, the other thing to do is use sharpen masking to prevent non-edges from being sharpened. You use the Mask slider in the sharpen section to accomplish this.
If you hold down the Alt key while moving the Mask slider you can see what areas will have sharpening applied. Make sure that it is only the edges, not the areas between where noise is the only detail or texture. The mask slider will probably be close to 100 for optimal results with a noisy image.
You should expect there to be a little grain left in the image.

Lightroom 5.5 jpeg export problem

I am using jAlbum to create photo albums on the web with images exported with Lightroom. Since I am using Lightroom 5.5 for the export I am get an error message whenever I create an Album with jAlbum which says "inconsistent metadata read from stream". As jAlbum uses Java the Java version may aslo matter. I am using the latest Java update from Oracle on a Windows 7 Professional x64 machine. With images exported with Lightroom 5.4 there is no problem. Also changing metadata options in Lightroom's export dialog did not help.
Is there a known problem with the Lightroom 5.5 export?
Wolfgang

Same here with LR 5.5. Just generated a few hundred jpegs to further process them in web applications for some online albums. One example is a QNAP NAS that has to generate smaller jpegs. It was working perfectly with LR5.4 and all older versions of LR. But as soon as I exported jpegs from LR 5.5 only grey rescaled images with some "noise" are depicted/generated. Had to go back to LR5.4 and it is now working as expected.
Adobe: Please do not try to fix something when it is not broken and get a fix for the "fix" ASAP. This is not acceptable for the prices we pay as we are not talking about freeware or shareware where somebody is programming in his free time. Most likely these guys would have already posted a fix for the issue.
Do your homework and please do it fast!

Lightroom's Slideshow Module export quality issue

When I export a slide show, the resulting quality of the photos in the pdf is much below that of the photos I see in the Library module. There is a high degree of aliasing (jagged edges) and if I export the slide show at less than 100% quality or at a screen size smaller than my client's, the pixelization renders the slide show useless.
I am using a Mac with the latest OS with a 256mb video card, 2GB RAM, and plenty of harddrive space.
I have confirmed with two other experienced photographers that this is also happening with them.
I have resorted to using Fotomagico as a slideshow software vs. Lightroom for the results from Lightroom are too unprofessional to show my clients.

Pat,
I just checked my slideshow output and it looks good. I can only suggest [and you probably have tried all of these: 1] Make sure your photos look good to start, high res etc. 2] make sure you have the latest Adobe Acrobat Reader [8 I believe] 3] restart LR [I hesitate to even say this]
Beyond that I don't have much to offer.
Good luck
Mel

Lightroom Drop of quality exporting to jpeg

Good Evening,
I'm facing an issue with Lightroom 5.6. When I develop a photo and I export it to jpeg the result is far from the original Raw.
There is a loss of quality, particularly in term of noise reduction and sharpening. It seems that Lightroom doesn't take into consideration the changes made in these parameter.
I always export with all the metadata and sRGB Jpeg 80%, but I also tried 100% or Tiff and the result is always the same. When I export photos whitout changes in noise reduction and/or sharpening everything is ok.
I have many photos to be exported jpeg in order to share them with my family but if I touch the noise or the sharpening I'm lost.
Do you have any idea why is it happening?
I don't know if it is related, but it sometimes happens also when I open a photo fullscreen in the Library module. In order to show it properly I have to switch to fullscreen in the Develop module.
Thank you
Alessandro

Thank you both for your replies.
I'm sorry I think I don't understand what you are trying to explain to me.
When I work in Develop I make my changes and from time to time I switch to fullscreen to better check the results of my changes because the loupe view is too small (I use a laptop).
Sometimes it happens that if I go to Library and I watch the same picture fullscreen it is full of noise and/or pixels. It seems it happens after I work for more than one hour or so, in fact when I start working on Lightroom there are not differences in watching pictures fullscreen in Library or Develop modules.
Regarding the Jpeg Export issue, the “bad result” is visible in Lightroom or any photo viewer.
I have several jpeg pictures where the noise/sharpening issue is more visible because I used very high noise reduction values, but they are family pictures with children and I prefer not to put them in a public forum
Please follow the links below to see two samples related to difference in sharpening
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wc50noae6f8na0j/Compare%20Raw%20vs%20Jpeg.jpg
https://www.dropbox.com/s/onvvidl0hyligox/Raw%20vs%20Jpeg.jpg
The “select” is the Raw and the “candidate” is the Jpeg.
I guess it better to download them to appreciate the difference in sharpening.
Details:
Windows 8.1
Nikon d7000
First image:
ISO 100
Sharpening 150, Noise Reduction untouched
Export file settings: Jpeg, quality 80, Color sRGB, Limit file size unchecked.
Image sizing: Resize to fit unchecked
Output sharpening unchecked
Second image:
ISO 1600
Sharpening 60, Noise Reduction Luminance 41
Export file settings: Jpeg, quality 80, Color sRGB, Limit file size unchecked.
Image sizing: Resize to fit unchecked
Output sharpening unchecked

Lightroom JPEG export VS Photoshop Image Processor

Hey guys:
Long time photoshop and lightroom user (long time user of all things Adobe). First post here in the forums. I did a search for my question but I think it was too specific, so it returned zero results.
My question is about Lightroom's JPEG export vs Photoshops Image Processor. When I export a RAW file to JPEG from Lightroom, the file size is freaking huge. The JPEG is as big as my original RAW file (~25mb). Settings are set to default - 100 quality. Everything else remains untouched.
However, when I use Photoshop's image processor (I launch it through Bridge, easier that way for me) and process the RAW images that way, my JPEGs are roughly 5-10mb in size. Settings in Image Processor are quality 10 and thats it. No actions being run or anything.
Can anyone shed some light as to why Lightroom exports JPEGs that are roughly 2-4 times the size of Photoshop's JPEGs? My initial thoughts are that the 100 quality setting in Lightroom is more like Photoshop's quality 12 (that always makes me think of Spinal Tap - "Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?" "These go to eleven.") Ideally, exporting out of Lightroom would be much easier for my workflow.
Thanks in advance.
-The Doctor

DrMilesBennell wrote:
Can anyone shed some light as to why Lightroom exports JPEGs that are roughly 2-4 times the size of Photoshop's JPEGs? My initial thoughts are that the 100 quality setting in Lightroom is more like Photoshop's quality 12 (that always makes me think of Spinal Tap - "Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?" "These go to eleven.") Ideally, exporting out of Lightroom would be much easier for my workflow.
You are correct: LR Quality 100 = PS Quality 12
Despite LR having 101 Quality settings (0 to 100) it actually only has 12 Quality settings the same as PS 'Baseline Standard':
JPEG Quality Setting Comparison
PS
LR
LR Range
Typical Reduction
0
0
0-7%
11%
1
10
8-15%
23%
2
20
16-23%
14%
3
30
24-30%
14%
4
35
31-38%
16%
5
40
39-46%
24%
6
50
47-53%
4%
7
55
54-61%
27%
8
65
62-69%
25%
9
70
70-76%
31%
10
80
77-84%
35%
11
90
85-92%
41%
12
100
93-100%
I keep a small copy of the above table taped to my monitor. I chose the numbers under the 'LR' column for the 12 steps (not AA's) to make it easier to remember. In actuality ANY number in the LR Range column will produce the same results for each step.
Under the 'Typical Reduction' column notice the small amount of reduction for PS 6 (LR 47-53%) Quality setting. If interested why AND why you probably shouldn't use PS 7 (LR 54-61%) Quality setting see this post:
http://forums.adobe.com/message/5641903#5641903

Lightroom vs jpeg export

Hi,
My images do not look the same as the way they appear in lightroom. Seems like they are loosing contrast/shadows.

Yes I am using sRGB color profile when exporting.
This is my screenshot of the image in Lightroom vs Jpeg Export on the right.

JPEG Export Looks Saturated in Internet Explorer

I see this question in many forums and online but without a solution.
JPEG exports (sRBG) look overly saturated when viewed in Internet Explorer browser, including when uploading/viewing in Facebook, etc, etc. In other words, the colors looks different between Lightroom and Internet Explorer. (Colors looks the same between Lightroom and Photoshop though.)
As point of reference, when you download a sample JPEG image from Canon EOS's website (used to show sample images from their cameras) you see that those images also use sRGB profile. They also look exactly the same no matter how you view them (Lightroom, Photoshop, Internet Explorer, Safari, etc.).
What is Lightroom doing to photos upon export to JPEG and you need Lightroom or Photoshop to see the same colors?
I saw some talk about it had to do with Lightroom presets and that you had to zero those out? Any ideas from Windows users?

Have you got Firefox or Safari on your machine? In which case, how do the images look in either of those browsers? Or, if you're using Windows 7, how do the images look in Windows photo viewer?
Also, can you say what monitor you are using please?
I think it might be a colour management issue. Internet Explorer is not colour managed (not even IE9), Lightroom and Photoshop are colour managed, so is Windows 7 photo viewer (but not the XP equivalent), so are Firefox and Safari (but not Chrome). When there's a difference between how something looks in an non-colour-managed program and colour-manged programs then it's worth checking for colour management issues.
If your monitor has a wider gamut than sRGB, then you would expect IE9 and other non-managed programs to look over-saturated.

JPEG Export fails in some way

Hello guys,
we have developed a JPEG Export Plugin for InDesign server that worked fine for several years now, never having any problems. Now a strange issue occur and I need some help. When exporting an preview image of one page (containing textframes with text and tables) the preview image is correct if the dpi is smaller than 72 dpi (100% in our application). But when the dpi is equal or greater than 72 the text appears correctly on the image but the tables are missing. This problem occurs on CS4 but not on CS5 server, but there is no difference between the plugin implementation (beside the changes that were obligatory for porting the plugin to CS5). Maybe this is a known issue or someone has solution for it?
Here is the difference between the exported images (smaller than 72 dpi and greater or equal 72 dpi):

I do move some photos to OnOne or PS (for editing), then back to Aperture. In Aperture I would select-all (click) the photos I wanted to send to Sam's for printing then drag the selected items (all at the same time) onto the Sam's web site for processing/priniting. Another thought - on occassion I would have to switch-out flash-cards during shooting.
Ah there you go both pieces of the puzzle solved.
You're getting the Tiff files in Aperture from the use of the external editor. In the Aperture->Preferences->Export window is the settings for what file type to use with an external editor I'm sure your setting is Tiff.
And then by dragging the file out of Aperture rather then exporting it you are getting the Tiff.
IMPORTANT Point:
By dragging the files out of Aperture you are not really exporting them you are getting the Aperture generated preview (or in the case of the Tiff files the original). The settings in the Export window have NO effect on the image when you drag it out. In all likelihood you are not getting the size and/or resolution you think you are.
You should be exporting the versions by using the Export Versions button in the Export window. Once the versions are exported to a folder on your disk you can then drag those to the print web site. This will ensure you are getting the image size and resolution you want.
regards

Jpeg export output is 'smudgy' vs Lr develop display

Hello Gang -
I've been blaming smudged output on facebook & Flickr - but now I've seen the true culprit !
My Jpeg export output is quite 'smudgy' vs the Develop display - and even when I use export "Email" default it is still smudgy while the Develop module displays great detail...
what needs to be tweaked please?
much thanks ~

Hello -
Ok - interesting:
I imported a jpeg into Lr and it looks very good - long story short - Windows Photo Viewer sucks
Viewed in Paint - looks good, viewed in FastPictureViewer - looks good.
Viewed in flickr - Bad. I'm installing Chrome to see if its a firefox issue
I use firefox browser, I use sRGB as the export color space (although I see no difference among the 3 default kinds.
I canot find info as to whether WPV makes use of embedded icc profiles, and after googling and reading - I have not found info as to how I would know if I am "even including an embedded profile with the files"
Flickr and Facebook display my jpegs exactly as I see them in Windows Photo Viewer - which is different from how I see it in Lr's Develop Module - in that dark brown & blacks look smudgy with much reduced detail
Bob_Peters wrote:
Does Win7 "Window Photo Viewer" make use of embedded icc profiles?
What color space are you using for the exported JPEG files? Are you even including an embedded profile with the files?
What do Flickr and Facebook do when confronted with an image containing a color profile?
What browser are you using to view the Flickr and Facebook images?

Lightroom 5.7 not applying watermark to all images

I am having an issue with Lightroom not applying my text watermark to all of my images. It seems to happen randomly. Some of the time it works and others it does not. I have tried checking for updates and there are none available. Is anyone else having this issue? Any ideas on how to fix?

First off I ask why you want a watermark on All Images. I only apply a watermark to images I post online in public galleries. What if you want to Print an image for display on your own home/office wall, do you still want to see a watermark on that image (I wouldn't)?

KIMYONG : basic Export / Attachment issues 가이드

Purpose
======
이 문서는 Support Analayst / DBA에게 Export /Attachments issues 발생시
조치할수 있는 기본적인 Troubleshooting Guide를 소개하고자 합니다.
Explanations
======
Export Analysis
Turn on export debug,
Go to Help -> Diagnostics -> Examine
Set Block = GLOBAL
Set Field = FND_EXPORT_DEBUG
Set Value = TRUE
Then export and observe the messages that are generated during the export process
Important Parameters.
set serveroutput on
declare
plsql_agent varchar2(200);
web_server varchar2(200);
dad varchar2(200);
gfm_agent varchar2(200);
protocol varchar2(200);
database_id varchar2(200);
jsp_agent varchar2(200);
check_enabled varchar2(200) ;
begin
plsql_agent := fnd_web_config.plsql_agent ;
dbms_output.put_line('PL SQL Agent ->'||plsql_agent);
web_server :=fnd_web_config.web_server ;
dbms_output.put_line('Web Server ->'||web_server);
dad := fnd_web_config.dad ;
dbms_output.put_line('DAD ->'||dad);
gfm_agent := fnd_web_config.gfm_agent ;
dbms_output.put_line('GFM Agent ->'||gfm_agent);
protocol := fnd_web_config.protocol ;
dbms_output.put_line('Protocol ->'||protocol);
database_id := fnd_web_config.database_id ;
dbms_output.put_line('Database Id ->'||database_id);
jsp_agent := fnd_web_config.jsp_agent ;
dbms_output.put_line('JSP Agent ->'||jsp_agent);
check_enabled := fnd_web_config.check_enabled('FND_GFM.GET') ;
dbms_output.put_line('FND_GFM.GET ->'||check_enabled);
end ;
Examining SQL Trace for the sequence of events that happen in the Export process
SQL >alter session set events '10046 trace name context forever, level 12';
Then run the following block of pl/sql code
set serveroutput on
declare
db_file number;
mime_type varchar2(255) :='text/plain' ;
out_string varchar2(32767) :='Just some plain text that is stored' ;
web_server_prefix varchar2(500);
url varchar2(500);
begin
db_file :=fnd_gfm.file_create(content_type =>mime_type,program_name=>'export');
fnd_gfm.file_write_line(db_file,out_string);
db_file :=fnd_gfm.file_close(db_file);
url:=fnd_gfm.construct_download_url(fnd_web_config.gfm_agent,db_file,TRUE);
dbms_output.put_line(url);
end;
Exit the sql plus session and study the sql trace file as being there in USER_DUMP_DEST
$ ls -lrt
Refer to Note # 282806.1 Performance Tuning Approach for Oracle(8.1.6 - 9.2.0.5) on
UNIX for more information on how to obtain sql tracing .
Example of download URL :-
http://finance.sriratu:8001/pls/SR/fndgfm/fnd_gfm.get/776537528/202595/fnd_gfm.tsv
http://aoltest2.idc.oracle.com:8000/pls/VIS/fndgfm/fnd_gfm.get/820067633/298941/Screen_shots.doc
Example of Upload Attachment URL:
http://aoltest2.idc.oracle.com:8000/pls/VIS/OracleSSWA.Execute?
E=%7B!2DAF44968EBBEC83211B5D5F27F58334FBFB2B90E38AD205&P=%7B!BEFD8114A932C86A1548EC73FFCF6EADB4F7826B217EDCE92719B62BDA9FF0AF193DC7BC64A2C60AFC5123B50C8C78F9E6807695ED9A7FE7AE87F8E49E80807223756706B3FC777F645FA5A07C7A467B
http://aoltest2.idc.oracle.com:8000/pls/VIS/OracleSSWA.Execute?
E=%7B!2DAF44968EBBEC83211B5D5F27F58334FBFB2B90E38AD205&P=%7B!BEFD8114A932C86A5525987DB9C8D9785657497306AAE1FD25D1CC352ADF38DFD69C21355096CBC38D285B083D24F261701F5F278E199044D603A5A8B1D588292099782AC4AF3D97E23B95936809D280
To check the row being created in the table FND_LOBS during Export or Attachment
SQL>create table fnd_lobs_bak as
select file_id,file_name from fnd_lobs ;
SQL>select * from fnd_lobs
where file_id not in
(select file_id from fnd_lobs_bak );
SQL>select * from fnd_lobs
where to_char(upload_date,'DD/MM/YYYY')=to_char(sysdate,'DD/MM/YYYY')
Analysis on an Attachment
Help -> Diagnostics -> Examine
Block : DOCUMENT_HEADER
Field : ATTACHED_DOCUMENT_ID
Note down <Value>
SQL>select document_id
from fnd_attached_documents
where attached_document_id=<Value>;
SQL>select media_id
from fnd_documents_tl
where document_id=<document_id>;
SQL>select *
from fnd_lobs
where file_id=<media_id>;
SQL>select *
from fnd_documents_short_text
where media_id=<media_id>;
from fnd_documents_long_text
where media_id=<media_id>;
SQL>select *
from fnd_documents_long_raw
where media_id=<media_id>;
FND_LOBS stores information about all LOBs managed by the Generic File Manager (GFM).
Each row includes the file identifier, name, content-type, and actual data. Each row also
includes the dates the file was uploaded and will expire, the associated program name and
tag, and the language and Oracle characterset.
The file data, which is a binary LOB, is stored exactly as it is uploaded from a client browser,
which means that no translation work is required during a download to make it HTTP compliant.
Therefore uploads from non-browser sources will have to prepare the contents
appropriately (for instance, separating lines with CRLF).
The program_name and program_tag may be used by clients of the GFM for any purpose,
such as striping, partitioning, or purging the table if the program is de-installed.
They are otherwise strictly informative.
These columns and the expiration date are properly set when the
procedure FND_GFM.CONFIRM_UPLOAD is called. If not called, the column
expiration_date remains set, and will eventually be purged by the procedure
FND_GFM.PURGE_EXPIRED.
FND_DOCUMENTS_LONG_RAW stores images and OLE
Objects, such as Word Documents and Excel
spreadsheets, in the database. If the user elects
to link an OLE Object to the document, this table
stores the information necessary for Oracle Forms
to activate the OLE server, and it saves a
bit-mapped image of the OLE server's contents.
If the user does not elect to link an OLE Object,
the entire document will be stored in this table.
FND_DOCUMENTS_LONG_TEXT stores information about
long text documents.
FND_DOCUMENTS_SHORT_TEXT stores information about
short text documents.
To know which Forms provide Attachment feature
SQL>select *
from fnd_attachment_functions
where function_name like '%FND_%';
Examining FND_LOBS tablespace
SQL>select tablespace_name
from dba_tables
where table_name='FND_LOBS';
SQL>select *
from fnd_profile_options_tl
where profile_option_name='FND_EXPORT_MIME_TYPE';
SQL>select a.tablespace_name TABLESPACE_NAME , a.bytes TOTAL_BYTES,
sum(b.bytes) FREE_BYTES , count(*) EXTENTS
from dba_data_files a, dba_free_space b
where a.file_id = b.file_id AND A.TABLESPACE_NAME=<TABLESPACE_NAME>
group by a.tablespace_name, a.bytes
order by a.tablespace_name ;
Examing Profile Option value
SQL>select *
from fnd_profile_options_tl
where profile_option_name='FND_EXPORT_MIME_TYPE' ;
SQL>select b.profile_option_name,level_id,profile_option_value
from fnd_profile_option_values a, fnd_profile_options b
where a.application_id=b.application_id
and a.profile_option_id=b.profile_option_id
and b.profile_option_name in ('FND_EXPORT_MIME_TYPE') ;
Procedure FND_GFM.GET ANALYSIS
http://aoltest2.idc.oracle.com:8000/pls/VIS/fndgfm/fnd_gfm.get/560074272/298951/fnd_gfm.doc
access
SQL>select substr('/560074272/298951/fnd_gfm.doc',instr('/560074272/298951/fnd_gfm.doc','/',1)+1,instr('/560074272/298951/fnd_gfm.doc','/',2)-2) access from dual ;
560074272
file_id
SQL>select substr('/560074272/298951/fnd_gfm.doc',instr('/560074272/298951/fnd_gfm.doc','/',2)+1,(instr('/560074272/298951/fnd_gfm.doc','/',-1)-instr('/560074272/298951/fnd_gfm.doc','/',2)-1)) from dual ;
298951
Profile Options being referenced in the package FND_GFM
FND_EXPORT_MIME_TYPE
FND_NATIVE_CLIENT_ENCODING
Lookup Type Being used in the package FND_GFM
SQL>select tag,lookup_code,meaning
from fnd_lookup_values_vl
where lookup_type='FND_ISO_CHARACTER_SET_MAP';
Reference
========
Note 338651.1

High Watermark issue with monitoring Service Manager 2012 R2

Hi,
Our customer has a Service Manager / Operations Manager 2012 R2 environment where SCOM will regularly generate an alarm related to High Watermark monitoring on the Service Manager data warehouse - not every day though. The alarm looks like this:
Value of 3559 is not higher than 3559
This value hasn't changed for weeks.
Having done a lot of searching we have found nothing but reference to the same recurring flow of information where people keep mentioning different values but there is no conclusion of what this might be caused by and how to solve it. The solutions
have become outdated anyway. Here is one example:
http://social.technet.microsoft.com/forums/systemcenter/en-US/889af8f3-cdf8-4d88-ae99-5dbe18d529ef/service-manager-2012-data-warehouse-high-watermark-monitor
The Service Manager Database Account in SCOM is our service account that has sysadmin in SQL. Basically, with regards to the security configuration, our customer should be covered.
To my knowledge agent-based and agentless monitoring have both been supported since SCSM 2012 SP1. Also, we have the latest management pack for Service Manager monitoring in SCOM, at the moment this should be
7.5.3079.0.
As mentioned above the value has not been changing for quite some time and nor has it in the database.
My questions are the following:
- Is there anyone that has found a solution in the meantime, especially with regards to R2?
- What is the purpose of High Watermark monitoring for the data warehouse? Why does this need to be monitored?
- We would like to understand the nature of this value better. Should it be higher each day compared to the day before?
- Could it just be overriden in SCOM?
Many thanks in advance!

Rather unexpectedly, the SCOM alarm disappeared overnight and when checking the workflow in the incident that was generated from the alarm, the incident got a Resolved status right before midnight at 23:59:58. We have a ConfigMgr connector that is scheduled
to run at 23:00 which we had disabled a day ago to check something else. But I don't think it had anything to do with this. As the alarm has disappeared from the SCOM console, we have also checked the registry values. Now, instead of "3559 3559 3559"
it says "3559 3559 3585". We have had the 3559 value since 18th July, and out of a sudden something must have been triggered, causing the value to increase. What was triggered and how, no idea... Not sure either what it means that only one of the
Three numbers have been updated with a new value. When talking about the DW jobs, using the SMlets we can see every day that, MPSync, DWMaintenance and the ETL jobs are working well. What we have had though for a longer time is that the cube processing
tends to have issues once a week, where processing won't finish and the cubes get hanging in a running state. We can fix that manually every time and often we don't even have to touch DWMaintenance or the ETL jobs, we don't need to go beyond manually
working with the cube processing jobs themselves. So it might not have an impact on the ETL jobs themselves. Occasionally we do find ourselves in a situation where we we need to play around in the SQL database and manually set the required value (can't
recall if it's 3, 6 or 7) cause we get an error in the DWMaintenance batch, but even though that's an occasional issue it's not constant and also something we can solve, and furthermore it's another known issue outside of the high watermark issue. So
we are a bit uncertain but can at least see that something works sometimes that sometimes increases the high watermark value :). In our case.

JPEG exports - "optimize to file size"

just saw this tucked away in somebody's lengthy post, but i think it merits its own thread.
it would be very useful, and isnt very difficult, to implement a jpeg export option for auto-setting the quality slider based on "desired file size".
for instance, my web products need jpegs w/ a max of 800k. in PS, i have to dork around w/ the preview sliders to get this. in LR, there isnt a way. preferred for both would be UI for inputting the desired size and let the cpu do its job.
this would rock.
thanks
matt

Yes. Generally speaking, would be nice to know the exported file size in terms of MB / KB, in addition to pixel dimensions which are already there.
Gilles.

Lightroom 4.4 jpeg export watermark issue

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for