Resolution difference between Bridge and Photoshop

I have a jpg image that has a reported dimension of 2592px x 3456px and a resolution of 180ppi.  This data is from the Metadata panel in Bridge.
When I open the image in Camera raw or photoshop the resolution is 1024x1356 at 72 ppi.  Why aren't they the same?  What is happening?  Shouldn't Camera Raw just use the same dimensions and resolution as the original file?  It does it on every image.  If I open it directly into Photoshop the original dimensions and resolution are not effected.
Using Photoshop CS3 in WinXP Pro.
Thanks

nevermind...figured it out.
Thanks

Similar Messages

  • Difference between InDesign and Photoshop PDFs for printing?

    Hi, rather new to the whole printing business, forgive me.
    I have both InDesign and Photoshop, but I am better versed in Photoshop. Is there a significant difference between the capabilities for saving a PDF for print between the two? Also, would someone else be able to tell which program I made the PDF with?
    Thanks in advance.

    Like most operations, one tool or the other is more appropriate according to the makeup of the task. It's not just about which PDF is somehow "better," (there are many ways to produce PDF's, and the quality of output isn't necessarily directly dependent upon the originating application), but rather which tool is the correct one for the job.
    For instance, a movie poster can certainly be done completely in Photoshop to good effect. But, if I was laying out the pages of a textbook, where images and longer passages of paragraph-based text were to be mixed, the typographical and document assembly capabilities of InDesign would be indispensible. That's just an example. The very essence of art and design is learning and devising ways to use the available tools alone and in combination to produce a particular result, effect, or solution.

  • 3D Differences between Illustrator and Photoshop

    I created a 3D file in Photoshop and decided to create a vector version instead in Illustrator. When I tried to do the same thing in Illustrator, I got a different outcome. Photoshop has a base plane where Illustrator does not.
    How can I create a similar 3D render in Illustrator?
    Here are the samples so you can see the difference.
    Photoshop 3D render
    Illustrator 3D render (notice the shadow below "YEARS")

    What do you expect from an upward view?
    You need to look at it from the front, only slightly below

  • Difference between bridge and local mode with wlc 5508

    Hello,
    Now i have wlc5508 with few ap 11xx 12xx in local mode. All work correct. I will have to add few ap1552 in bridge mode ( i have to wait for wlc upgrade to change ap1552 to local mode). My question is that all ( local and bridge mode) will work correct together for my clients: rfid readers, laptop, computer in a,b,g,n mode ? What about roaming  and other feature ?
    thanks for help
    Peter

    If you plan on not doing MESH, then you set these 1552's in local mode and they will perform the same tasks as any other AP's in local mode.  When you want to do MESH, then that is when bridge mode comes into play and you have to define your RAP's and MAP's.
    Roaming, clients devices, doesn't matter if your using local or bridge.  roaming depends on your device and coverage and rfid, also depends on triangulation with the coverage you have now.
    Thanks,
    Scott
    Help out other by using the rating system and marking answered questions as "Answered"

  • Compatibility between Yosemite and Photoshop / Bridge CS5.

    I am concerned about the possibility of incompatibility between Yosemite and Photoshop / Bridge CS5 so have delayed updating my Mac. Has anyone updated, experienced problems and found solutions? What does  Adobe have to say in this regard?

    I'm not sure I know enough to answer the question.
    The images are on my G5 on a second internal hard drive (not the boot drive).
    They are in a folder with a lot of images from the same shoot.
    That folder shows up in the Library in Aperture, also. I think I imported them. But, as best I can tell, they do not "only exist in Aperture" because I can see them, and their .xmp files in the original file on the second internal hard drive.
    Thank you so much for trying to help.
    sjh

  • Difference between bridge-group and VLAN

    Hi all,
    I don't understand very well the difference between bridge-group and VLAN...
    Could someone explain me or give me a site which could help me?
    Thx U by advance!

    Khay
    bridge-group is used on a router to enable bridging on an interface. In terms of functionality a bridge-group is very similar to a VLAN. For example if you create bridge-group 1 and assign it to interfaces FastEthernet 1/0 and 2/0 and you create bridge-group 2 and assign it to interfaces FastEthernt 1/1 and 2/1 it is like creating 2 VLANs. Devices in bridge-group 1 (interfaces 1/0 and 2/0) can communicate with each other but not with devices in bridge-group 2 (intefaces 1/1 and 2/1).
    HTH
    Rick

  • Looking for new laptop what are the differences between pro and air? Besides size. Does the air preform like the pro?

    Looking for new laptop what are the differences between pro and air? Besides size. Does the air preform like the pro?

    The NEW macbook Pro and Air are EXTREMELY close in form factor
    The newest macbook Pro is essentially a larger macbook Air with Retina display and options for speed in increasing prices up to an independent graphics and quad core processor.
    both Air and new Pro now have PCIe SSD and permanent RAM.
    The Air is the lightweight portable form factor, fast to boot and shut down, but with longer battery life than any of the macbook pro in 13"
    Now the new macbook Pro and macbook Air are extremely close in form factor and nature.
    both have 802ac wifi
    both have permanent RAM, no superdrive
    both are slim profiles and SSD
    The only real differences now are (in the most expensive Pros) faster processors and quadcore processors and top end model autonomous graphics.
    ....and of course the retina display
    both are now "very good for travel"
    Other than features the form factor of the Air and Pro are VERY close now,....so now its merely a matter of features and price more than anything.
    You need an external HD regardless of what you get for backups etc.   Drop into an Apple store and handle both and make your choice based on features, such as Retina or non-retina, .... both at a distance now look like the same computer.
    The Pro weighs more, ....but nowhere near what it used to just a month ago on the older macbook Pros
    The NEW macbook Pro is a different creature entirely than the older macbook Pro, .....the new Pro is thicker than the Air, but id frankly call the NEWEST Pro a "macbook Air with Retina display" , or
    Maybe a “macbook Air PRO with Retina display” 
    Instead of Air VS Pro now,.....its really a smooth transition from Air to pro without comparing say, 2 different creatures, now its like contrasting a horse from a race horse.
    Either one in 8gig of RAM (preferably)... the 4gig upgrade costs very little,  the I7 you will notice only 15% faster on heavy applications over the I5, and NOTHING on most APPS.....I5 has longer battery life.
    As you see below, the non-Retina 13" AIR is 82% of the Macbook with Retina display in resolution
    there is no magical number of pixels per inch that automatically equates to Retina quality.
    http://www.cultofmac.com/168509/why-you-might-be-disappointed-by-the-resolution- of-those-new-retina-display-macs-feature/
    A huge internal SSD isnt a game changer for anything, you need an external HD anyway
    what you WONT READ on Apple.com etc. is that the larger SSD  are MUCH FASTER due to SSD density
    "The 512GB Samsung SSD found in our 13-inch model offers roughly a 400MB/s increase in write speeds over the 128GB SanDisk/Marvell SSD"
    http://blog.macsales.com/19008-performance-testing-not-all-2013-macbook-air-ssds -are-the-same
    Here is an excellent video comparison between the 11” I5 vs. I7 2013 Macbook Air.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDqJ-on03z4
    http://www.anandtech.com/show/7113/2013-macbook-air-core-i5-4250u-vs-core-i7-465 0u/2
    I5 vs. I7 performance 13” Macbook Air 2013
    Boot performance
    11.7 I5 ……11.4 I7
      Cinebench 
    1.1 I5….1.41 I7
    IMovie Import and Opt.
    6.69 I5….5.35 I7
      IMovie Export 
    10.33 I5…8.20 I7
    Final Cut Pro X
    21.47 I5…17.71 I7
      Adobe Lightroom 3 Export 
    25.8 I5….31.8 I7
    Adobe Photoshop CS5 Performance
    27.3 I5…22.6 I7
    Reviews of the newest Retina 2013 Macbook Pro
    13”
    Digital Trends (13") - http://www.digitaltrends.com/laptop-...h-2013-review/
    LaptopMag (13") - http://www.laptopmag.com/reviews/lap...play-2013.aspx
    Engadget (13") - http://www.engadget.com/2013/10/29/m...-13-inch-2013/
    The Verge (13") - http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/30/5...ay-review-2013
    CNet (13") - http://www.cnet.com/laptops/apple-ma...-35831098.html
    15”
    The Verge (15") - http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/24/5...w-15-inch-2013
    LaptopMag (15") - http://www.laptopmag.com/reviews/lap...inch-2013.aspx
    TechCrunch (15") - http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/25/lat...ok-pro-review/
    CNet (15") - http://www.cnet.com/apple-macbook-pro-with-retina-2013/
    PC Mag (15") - http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2426359,00.asp
    Arstechnica (15") - http://arstechnica.com/apple/2013/10...-pro-reviewed/
    Slashgear (15") - http://www.slashgear.com/macbook-pro...2013-26303163/

  • What is the difference between Lightroom and Elements?

    I'm trying to decide between Photoshop Elements and Lightroom--both for a Mac. They seem to have very similar photo editing features. Could anyone tell me some of the differences so that I can see which would be better for my work? One feature that I have to have is the ability to add text to a photo. In Photoshop I can do this with the text tool and layers. Is this a feature of Lightroom too?

    Ligtroom is far more like a cross between Bridge and Camera RAW than anything like Elements. LR is designed to work with and process larger quantities of RAW files. It also works with TIFF and jpeg but these are secondary to RAW. LR has some local adjustment ability, with limited brushes and tools. LR has sophistocated databased library structure that allows search and keywording functions even when images are off line. LR allows easy batch editing and synching of RAW settings to multiple files and the creation of multiple 'recipies" in RAW conversion without the need to create multiple files. You don't need to make jpegs to create a simple web page or print files from LR. It will do these directly from the RAW files. LR is completely non-destructive. Exporting an image will make a new file with the changes you specify. Nothing you do will alter the original file.
    Elements is for pixel pushing. It allows far more local controls, and manipulation at a pixel level compared to the mostly global controls of LR. In other words it's easier to work on individual parts of an image in Elements. Elements is designed for you to spend more time on an individual file compared to LR which is designed to work on larger quantities of files in a less intricate manner. Cloning, etc are easier/more powerful in Elements. Elements supports stitching and layers. Elements lets you work with text and images. LR does not in any meaningful way (except maybe adding a watermark). Making changes in Elements and then saving the file will permanently change it.
    In a nutshell if you're working with larger quantities of images you may prefer LR. However you'll probably still need a pixel editor (like Elements) occasionally. If you work in lower image quantities then Elements is the way to go. You'll still have Bridge to find files/process raw files, but not files that are *offline*. I would suggest Elements first and then add LR when you need its powerfull organisational/search/RAW conversion/non-destructive workflow abilities.
    Gordon

  • What is Difference between SXMB_MONI and SXMB_MONITOR?

    what is Difference between SXMB_MONI and SXMB_MONITOR?
    Can any explain to this question.please?

    Hello,
    Both are same.
    SXMB_MONI is area menu which will contain all multiple transactions pertaining to monitoring.
    SXMB_MONI contains some functions viz monitoring for Bridging, Archived Msgs, Job overview, persistence layer analysis.
    SXI_monitor directly leads to the message monitoring for the IS, which is part of the SXMB_MONI.
    SXI_MONITOR directly executes the monitoring report.
    Thanks,
    Satya

  • 1)Now I use Lightrom 5.7 how to upgrade to 6 or CC? 2) What is the difference between 6 and CC vercion? 3) When I used lightromm 3, I could see inEXIF the distance in meters till the object I took, in the later virsions that function disappeared, it is ve

    1)Now I use Lightrom 5.7 how to upgrade to 6 or CC?
    2) What is the difference between 6 and CC version?
    3) When I used lightromm 3, I could see in EXIF the distance in meters till the object I took, in the later virsions that function disappeared, it is very sad  I am stiil waiting and hope that it would be possibble in the new  versions. Or this indication may  possible by setting?

    1)Now I use Lightrom 5.7 how to upgrade to 6 or CC?
    Purchase the standalone upgrade from here: Products
    Download CC version from here: Explore Adobe desktop apps | Adobe Creative Cloud
    2) What is the difference between 6 and CC version?
    See this comparison chart: Compare Lightroom versions | Adobe Photoshop Lightroom CC
    3) When I used lightromm 3, I could see in EXIF the distance in meters till the object I took, in the later virsions that function disappeared, it is very sad  I am stiil waiting and hope that it would be possibble in the new  versions. Or this indication may  possible by setting?
    Rob Cole's ExifMeta plugin displays the Subject Distance field (and much more).  Unfortunately, his Web site appears to be down again.  He used to be very active here, but he hasn't posted in several months.

  • Difference between logical and virtual terms

    Hello,
    This is not purely oracle question; but in documentation so many times we find 2 terms:
    A. Logical
    B.Virtual.
    So what is the principle difference between logical and virtual? As I know physical is that which I can see and touch; while logical/virtual is that is imaginary. We say tablespace is logical not virtual; while Java Virtual Machine; not Java Logical Machine. So I want to know; what is the principle difference; why two words for an imaginary thing. Before posting question; I searched in google as “Difference between virtual and logical” but I couldn’t found the answer.
    Please quote your comments.
    Thanks & Kind Regards
    Girish Sharma

    Girish,
    I wont say that I am correcting you as this is like that half glass full/empty thing.May be what I see is half empty , you would see the same as half full.
    Well now coming to the explanation.I am saying honestly , I got more confused after reading your definitions.What do you mean by saing that tablespace is not virtual.I see it as purely virtual.We don't say it as virtual tablespace or logical tablespace but it is actualy logical/virtual, having no existance but just the definition right?
    How can you say that the size of virtual is larger than logcial?The size of tablespace is actualy the sum total of size of datafiles.So it actualy becomes very larger right?Much larger than JVM which is of few megs only.
    The point 3 totally knocked me out.I have no idea what you said.
    Ok I tell you this.Just remember the definition that Hans gave already.If you ask me than its the best definition that we can have. Just remember this and if some one asks you more further than give them your point 3 definition and tell them understand this ;-).Please don'tmind I am just kidding. Its just semantics.Don't get lost into it.You will find many people using both the terms interchangibly. So its ok.I shall stick with Hans's defintion,simple and concise.There are lot more other topics to dig upon in oracle.I can mail you lots of them.Spend time on those.Don't think that I am demotivating you.I understand you asked only because you have a doubt.But we got a good resolution of it and beyond that, its not of much use to dig it atleast not in the technial terms.
    Cheers
    Aman....
    PS:Are you on oraclecommunity.net?

  • JPG images not displayed correctly in Bridge and Photoshop (Mac OS)

    (Note: I have copied the content of this query from the Creative Suites forum where I originally opened it.)
    I am using CS4 under OSX 10.4.11 on a PowerMac G5 Quad with 23" Apple cinema display. Images which have been captured as JPG are displayed fine by Preview, but when opened in Bridge, Camera Raw or Photoshop. the colours are all "washed out". The attached screen capture should give an idea of the difference, with the upper being Camera Raw (image settings) and the lower being Preview. My monitor has been calibrated and I'm using sRGB IEC61966-2.1 colour space in Camera Raw and Photoshop. The colours displayed by Preview are pretty close to "real life". I find it virtually impossible to adjust the colours in Photoshop to get back to anything similar.
    After opening the image in Photoshop without adjustment, and Save As JPEG with embedded color profile, Preview displays the new image the same as Photoshop. Save As JPEG without embedded color profile, and Preview displays this copy just like the original. It seems that Photoshop is making different (incorrect) assumptions about what color space to use when there is no embedded color profile. Shouldn't it assume sRGB like virtually everything else (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRGB)? Or is its interpretation of sRGB incorrect? How can I fix this?
    Re: JPG images not displayed correctly in Bridge and Photoshop 

    xxxxyyyyz wrote:
    …If there is someone out there who has experience of obtaining decent colour management in CS4 on a Power PC, I would really like to know how you achieved it.
    That would be yours truly, and I hasten to reply because I may have some insights that can help you too.
    Just get it it out of the way, here's my setup:
    Photoshop 11.0.2 ("CS4"); VersionCue disabled and uninstalled.—2.5 GHz Power Mac (PPC) G5-Quad; 16GB RAM; mutant, flashed 550MHz nVidia GeForce 7800GTX 1,700MHz 512MB VRAM; ATTO ExpressPCI UL5D LP SCSI card; Mac OS X Tiger 10.4.11 and Leopard 10.5.8 boot drives; Spotblight, Dashboard and Time Machine permanently disabled; dual 22" CRT monitors; USB wireless 'n' available but connected to the Internet via wired Ethernet; 1 FW flatbed scanner; 2 SCSI scanners (one tabloid-size transparency scanner and a film scanner); various internal & external HDs; FW Epson 2200 and Ethernet Samsung ML-2850ND printers; 2 X Back-UPS RS 1500 XS units.
    I can unambiguously and in good faith represent to you that my color management, from capture to print, is as spot-on as anyone with any kind of setup can hope to achieve.  Unequivocally and without qualifications.
    Now, first things first:  Forget about trying to synchronize color management across the point applications lumped together only by Adobe marketing fiat into a variety of meaningless "creative suites".  Concentrate on Photoshop.  Do not try to use Bridge to synchronize anything.
    The "suites" are a totally artificial construct created by Adobe bean counters and marketing types.  The point applications (i.e. the individual programs clumsily bundled together, e.g. Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, etc.) are developed independently by separate engineering teams that are not only not in the same building, but in different cities, different states of the American Union, and even in different countries.  They have very little communication among them, if any, as evidenced by repeated posts in these forums by Photoshop engineering staff urging us, the end users, to let the other teams know in their own forums that a given problem exists and is actually affecting our work.
    Enough said about the cause of the problem.  The end result is that Color Management is at very, very different levels of progress and sophistication in each individual point application, with only Photoshop fully entitled to be considered state of the art.
    Secondly, a disclaimer:  I have been hanging on to my CRT monitors and take care of them as Jascha Heifetz used to take care of his Stradivarius.  I don't know what I will do if I manage to outlive the usefulness and accuracy of my CRTs (unlikely at this point).  I have despaired in futile efforts to bring the luminosity of any LCD monitor down to where I would feel comfortable calibrating and profiling it.  I believe my monitors are the foundation of my color management efforts.
    Especially if you have one of the extreme wide-gamut LCD or LED monitors, you'll face an uphill battle. 
    Be careful to avoid any version 4 icc profiles, whether canned or generated by your calibration software.  Stick to version2 icc profiles.  Ask the manufacturer of your calibration software/hardware if in doubt.
    Here are some not-too-recent, but thoroughly representative screen shots of the calibration results I obtain with my monitors, which I calibrate and profile often and regularly (I validate the calibration at least several times per month).
    In a nutshell, my color management practices and settings mirror those described by Bruce Fraser, Jeff Schewe, Andrew Rodney and Gary Ballard's site.  I have learned from all of them.
    My working color space is ProPhoto RGB.  I choose to work with PSD and PSB files.  As a long-time, rabid JPEG hater, I only rarely deal with JPEGs, using them sporadically to illustrate a point in this forum or elsewhere in the web.  My main output consists of prints.
    I only deal with tagged image files (files with an embedded color profile) and often recommend beating up with a baseball bat any moron that hands you an untagged file—figuratively of course, but I find the expression gets my point across unambiguously.
    Following is a screen shot of some of my pertinent settings:
    Note that I have never bought into the "suite" concept myself.  I do have and routinely use Adobe Illustrator 10.x, InDesign 2.x and Acrobat Professional 8.x, but they are all older, independent versions of each point application, licensed at different times.
    Be further advised, that the answer to many problems offered by Adobe engineers often is not to install VersionCue, or uninstall it, or at least disable it.
    Also, as outlined at the beginning of this post, concentrate on Photoshop, not on synchronizing applications that can't really communicate with each other, despite the claims of Adobe marketing hacks to the contrary.
    One big caveat, do not fall into this trap:
    xxxxyyyyz wrote:
    …I believe my problem has nothing to do with my monitor profile, for several reasons, but…
    …It seems extremely unlikely to me that…
    You either want to learn, or you don't.  You either want to solve your problems, or you don't.
    When you start arguing instead of studying, questioning advice instead of following it and detecting where you went wrong, you're on the right track to nowhere.  That attitude will get you there fast.  Remember you are the one with the problem, and only you can acquire the discipline to learn how to solve it.
    Go ahead and ask me anything that is not clear, just don't argue with me please, and don't tell me why you think Fraser, Rodney, Ballard and I are wrong.  You see, I am not experiencing any problem that needs fixing.  I have an interest in helping you, but not in hearing about your speculations, theories or conclusions.
    Good luck.
    Wo Tai Lao Le
    我太老了

  • Differences between standard and pro versions

    I was reading the comparision of these two Acrobat versions and for Pro it says:
    Edit and enhance photos to add to your PDF communications with Adobe Photoshop® CS5.
    Quickly transform static PowerPoint slides into compelling, interactive PDF presentations with Adobe Presenter       
    Rapidly combine screen recordings, narration, video, slides, and more into a rich media experience with Adobe Captivate® 5
    Does that mean that the Pro version includes Photoshop, Presenter and Captivate programs as well? Or, what are the differences? As an aside, the new look and feel of the Adobe website is confusing at best. Seems geared to being flashy, not useful.
    Regards, David

    Acrobat does not included those other packages. One of the pages that always struck me funny (maybe I have a twisted mind) but has this artistic background is the updates page. The background looks like a lacy bra to me. It is the first thing that comes to mind every time I see it. That is a problem with abstract images (that are typically unnecessary and waste bandwidth), that a lot is in the eye of the beholder. Actually, I have heard from many others that also see the bra.
    OK, back to Acrobat. There are several aspects of Acrobat that allow you to have links to the other products built in, but they are not included. The page at http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobatpro/buying-guide.html?promoid=JIJYS provides some info, but a lot is missing. For instance there are differences with PDF Optimize and Reduce File Size I think (sorry, I do not have Std to check). One important one that is part of pro is the preflight option. Apparently Std does not include portfolios or allow PDF comparison according to the chart.
    If you are into forms, then Std apparently will do them as AcroForms (my preference, partially because of familiarity), but does not include Designer if that was your preference. Some of the enabling for Reader is not available in Std. Also, Std does not allow embedding Flash. Std is limited for some of the products that include PDF Maker (not a big one for me, but might be important to you).
    That is a quick summary based on the chart. However, be aware there are some other features that the chart does not seem to cover. For the difference between Std and Pro, I would suggest getting Pro. The big hit is the initial cost of the product, not the step up to Pro. In a business plan consider the time that might be wasted trying to do some of the things in Pro that are not in Std. Those are the types of issues to consider. Many folks consider the cost to be large, and for a small business it is. However, in the long term it may be worth the cost.
    Keep in mind that many large CAD packages in engineering run about $30,000 for a single license, half the cost of the engineer that would use it. Some other tools are about $15,000. In that view, Acrobat is cheap (except for cheapskates like me).

  • Regional Settings differences between 2008 and 2012

    Hi There,
    Can anyone explain why some of the regional setting details have changed with Win 2012?
    Example: Dutch (Belgium) - nl-BE
    The 'Digital Grouping Symbol' has changed from a DOT to a WHITESPACE.
    2008 - €1.000,00 whereas 2012 - €1 000,00
    If the settings are changed on the servers will they persist after OS updates etc?
    Rgds,
    Frank

    Hi Vivian,
    I see no reference in the KB article to modifications for the CET timezone nor any reference to the resolution of culture format info discrepancies.
    A further issue is that the active regional settings on our PRD servers will be set to United States and it would appear that any modification to the Belgium locales (i.e. nl-BE, fr-BE) are not persisted once you switch to United States as the
    active setting.
    The knock on effect of this is that for our PRD web-applications (which are active across many regions), we have to write code to override the OS information. .NET uses the OS info to populate its Culture information.
    Could you confirm if the differences between 2008 and 2012 are the result of a bug or are the changes planned? Based on communication with some of our customers in Belgium, they are of the opinion that the 2008 (and Win 2003) settings are per their expectations.
    I really do not what to have to handle these situations across our application landscape and am sure that other people with globalized applications will also hit problems.

  • No difference between High and Normal output sharpening

    I was going to post a topic about how small is difference between screen output sharpening settings, when some tests revealed that in fact the difference is nil.
    b Can anyone see any difference between Normal and High screen sharpening in applied at export?
    I even stacked the two versions in Photoshop with the Difference blending mode on and a Levels adjustment layer amplifying the difference, and even the histogram was showing that I'be got big plain black rectangle.
    Sharpening for paper seems to work fine.
    Lightroom 2.3 Windows.

    Just took the time to test this on my 'calibration' image and there is indeed no difference in Standard and High sharpening for screen.
    Same result with and without resizing image; with and without jpeg compression; with both tif and jpeg files.
    Lr 2.3 on XP.

Maybe you are looking for