Upsizing files in LR

One of the great features of ACR is the ability to upsize digital camera files to, say, meet standard photo library submission specs - not to mention specifying colorspace and resolution. As far as I can see there is no way to do that within LR 1.0, which means you have to add another step to your workflow outside LR to embed that instruction in the RAW/DNG file - kind of a nuisance. Or am I missing something?
Mac OSX

Knew there had to be something - thanks for that.

Similar Messages

File size when jumping to Photoshop

When I open a NEF raw file from my Nikon D700 in Photoshop as 8 bit it opens at 49.5mp, but when in Lightroom, after working on the same file, if I jump to Photoshop, using Command-E, then the file opens at 32.5mp. Any idea why this is, and how can I get the file to 49.5mp when opening it through Lightroom. Thanks, Neil

Alamy's size requirement are rather outdated these days, but is based on the standard sizing for a image printed as a double page spread in a magazine as a guidance for what could be achieved by a scan of a 120 negative or transparency and high quality 35mm negatives. They have never updated it for digital files and just expect people to interpolate from most cameras (which natively produce smaller files) As they offer a range of sizes for all there files they set this as a minimum. The quality control checks then examine for all other factors.
I think Alamy stick with them as it is a good test of the submitting photographers understanding of image formats. I understand from the quality control people that large numbers of people try to upsize files as jpgs until they get to 40 odd MB (which is massive) and then get annoyed when they won't upload! Lots of files also get rejected due to a failure to understand the no sharpening rule and switching off input sharpening......rather than output sharpening.
Alamy sells to a wide range of clients and I suppose many don't want to interpolate themselves.
It is still far more sensible than agencies that still insist on such and such dpi!
By the way, the 95% setting for jpg output with a decent file will always produce a jpg small enough to upload to Alamy and any other agency without any potential deterioration in image quality if correctly processed, so I would suggest this as your standard setting when sending file to agencies. A 50 MB file compressed at 95% in LR will be between 4.5 and 7 MB dependent on the complexity of the image.
I submit to several agencies, magazines and newspapers. All have their own requirements, which I just meet every time. The customer is always right as long as they pay the bills. After a while most agencies know your work meets their quality thresholds and don't bother checking. Alamy is unusual in that the size thing is determined by software, so if this is wrong it doesn't even get to go to quality control. On your first hundred or so submissions every file is checked by a human being. Once you have regularly met the standards they don't usually bother checking any more and just pass the uploads; but I understand they still make the occasional check on random files to make sure. As they are a nice source of regular income and don't undercut proper agencies (unlike the open to all type agencies) I am OK with Alamy's quirky rules. There is even a plug in which does it all for you!

Upsize D3 NEF image -- what's the best way?

Hi,
I have to resize a few Nikon D3 NEFs to 57"x38" wide at 300 dpi. I have one approach from a LR-guru/friend, but I'm wondering if others might have other suggestions. I am using LR 3.4.1 and PS CS5 in Windows.
Here's what I'm doing now:
1) Make image adjustments in LR.
2) In LR, Photo > Edit in > PS. Note that I have LR Pref > External Editing set to PSD, ProPhoto, 16bit, resolution 240.
3) In PS, Image > Image Size, change Document Size to my desired size (57x38"), Resolution=300, Resample=bicubic smoother.
4) In PS, change Image > Mode to 8bit (because the file size is so huge at 16bit and I'm sure the printer for this project wants 8bit).
5) In PS, apply sharpening.
6) In PS, Save As TIFF for my client.
While this is of course a big enlargement, it looks pretty good.
I would be most grateful for any workflow suggestions that might improve my final image quality.
Thanks very much.
John

Thank you, Geoff....
My client is a graphic design office and they have asked for that file size. They will be using the file in a poster layout with other elements, including type and a logo. (I am not sure if they are doing their layout in PS or in a design application.)
So, you think that simply using the LR Export menu is better than going from LR to PS and using the PS upsize algorithm? I will give that a try.
Regards,
John

How to optimize file size when opening RAW in Bridge?

I seem to recall opening RAW files through Bridge and into Photoshop a couple of years ago and I was always given a choice of file size options. What has happened to these options? can someone please help me get the biggest file size out of a RAW (DNG)? thanks!

J Maloney wrote:
Sure. If you open a RAW file in camera raw, at the bottom of the camera raw window you adjust the settings. I'm sure this is equal to or better than opening at the native resolution and upsizing in PS.
According to the book*, upsizing in Photoshop is better and the best method is Bicubic Smoother.
*Real World Camera Raw by Bruce Fraser and Jeff Schewe.

Is it viable to use Aperture to upsize images?

Hi All,
I have recently needed to produce some larger JPEGS (for lab printing) so have used Aperture 2's export functionality to produce 10x8 JPEGS (300dpi). It seems that Aperture will happily upsize my images, some of which are small-ish selective crops.
My question for anyone who has the relevant experience is how sophisticated is the algorithm that Aperture uses to perform this upsizing?
Currently I don't have Photoshop (otherwise I would use bicubic option), neither do I have any specialist resizing software like Genuine Fractals. Does using Aperture to perform this upsizing produce comparable results? Would you say that upsizing in Aperture is a viable tool? Or is it more like a primitive last resort?
Looking at my output, there appears to be some artifacts in some images but without reference to images produced by other programs, I cannot identify whether this is because of Aperture's algorithm or whether my original image is just too small.
Any advice much appreciated.
Brian

It would be preferable to let the printer driver, or better yet a RIP if you have one, to upscale the file for the printer. Print labs hate it when they receive upscaled images, because it's rarely done right and their RIP will do it perfectly. If you need to, and don't have upsizing software, in Photoshop (or GIMP or Pixelmator), you can upscale and make subtle sharpening adjustments (best done in the Lab Color Space luminance channel) to avoid artifacts and halos.
- Bert Pasquale
LifeStoryImages.com

ACR v4.1: Canon files being overly smoothed?

Hello,
I prepared a long knee-jerk post about having the ability to completely disable luminance noise-reduction in ACR, as one was (presumably) able to in previous versions of ACR. After working with numerous files from my Canon 30D and Pro1, I noticed that even with all noise-reduction and sharpening sliders at zero, ACR v4.1 still seems to do some significant luminance smoothing, especially on higher ISO files from my 30D and even ISO 50 files from my Pro1 P&S.
I was quite upset by what I had seen and took this as a fundamental change in Adobe's philosophy to raw processing. However I now do believe this to be (mostly) a bug, oddly enough Canon specific, since I have now tested ACR v4.1 with higher ISO shots from numerous other cameras - Nikon D2X, Hasselblad H3D/39 (DNG export from FlexColor), Leica M8 and a Fuji S5 Pro - and found this problem to be nowhere near as dramatic and, indeed, at times not even noticeable at all. In fact, on many of these other tests, files from the H3D/39 in particular, I feel ACR v4.1 is actually doing fantastic job!
Granted, I don't have anywhere near the selection of shots from these other cameras as I don't own them personally (I just have many tests from ones I have access to at work), however I am reasonably sure ACR v4.1 does not have the same problem with those cameras as with shots from the Canons I do own. Again... hoping this is just a bug.
I will be following this post with my original (long) knee-jerk response as I think it is important that Adobe hears such feedback in any case, whether this issue with Canon files is a bug or is intentional.
So, you are warned... the post following this one is long!
Best Regards,
Mike Mander

Hello,
[ Before reading this post, please make sure you have read the one immediately preceding this! ]
First off, apologies, as this is quite a long post. System info: MacBook Pro C2D (3Gb RAM), OS X v10.4.9, Photoshop CS3 with ACR v4.1, Lightroom v1.0. Tests done with Canon EOS-30D & Powershot Pro1.
While there are a lot of things I really like about the image processing in the new version 4.1 of ACR, like the new optional edge-defringing, the more flexible sharpening controls (with no black halos around specular highlights!), less white-speckling in dark areas of higher ISO shots etc., I have come across a very disturbing fact which I believe has already been noted by a few others as well.
The fact being that v4.1 of ACR is now seemingly applying a certain degree of luminance noise-smoothing to raw files that is camera and ISO specific and, as far as I can tell, cannot be turned off. In my humble opinion, this is a bad bad thing! ACR has been known in the past as having one of the most "hands-off" approaches to raw image processing and this new smoothing effect is going against the grain! Pardon the pun... :-)
I first noticed this when I was processing ISO 50 files from my PowerShot Pro1. Being a P&S, even at ISO 50, there was a certain amount of noise texture which I found rather pleasing but with ACR v4.1, even with all noise reduction and sharpening set to zero, images that I post-sharpened in Photoshop had a certain watercolor-like look, somewhat similar to what, for example, Genuine Fractals might give one upon upsizing an image. When I went back to the Lightroom processed versions, which is using the older raw rendering engine, I did not see this effect and indeed, there was a dramatic difference between the two.
I had extensively tested ACR v4.1 with ISO 100 files from my EOS-30D and 20D, and did find that with certain settings, the new sharpening controls would render a similar watercolor type look when one is viewing files at 100%, but when sharpening was dialed right down and the image was post-sharpened in Photoshop, the differences between the old and new ACR, while visible, were not too dramatic and I did actually prefer the slightly cleaner rendering of skies and shadow areas in v4.1.
However after seeing what v4.1 ACR did with my Pro1 files, I decided to look at some ISO 1600 shots from my 30D and compare them to the previous version of ACR. Whoa! What a dramatic difference! There seems to be a considerable amount of luminance smoothing going on, even with all sharpening and noise reduction controls at zero, which wipes out subtle surface textures and can make edges of fine detail sort of "blend" together. Please do note that I realize that on anything other than the biggest prints or enlargements (or viewing at 100% zoom), one probably would not notice the effect of this new image processing, however...
I primarily do landscape photography and for me, preserving every last bit of texture detail is very important in making an image look natural. I much prefer a more "film-like" rendering of a raw file, even if that means a bit of graininess, rather than a smoothed image that looks artificial and more processed. In addition, this new image processing in ACR v4.1 limits the amount of post-sharpening that can be done to an image since too much sharpening starts to bring out edge-artifacts where ACR has made "decisions" on what was legitimate detail and what was sensor noise.
What I will say, is that this new processing in ACR v4.1 actually seems very sophisticated, and reasonably benign in many cases, low ISO digital SLR shots for example, so for certain types of images and applications, it may well be a very good thing, however certainly not for everything. So this brings me to my request...
I humbly request that the developers of ACR put in the option to turn any and all noise smoothing off in the next version of Camera Raw. Just a checkbox in the Detail Pane labeled "Preserve All Texture" maybe, or have luminance smoothing truly at zero when the slider is at zero. As I mentioned, I think the new processing might be preferable for certain types of images and workflow, so I don't want to completely go back to the old system, but I really do want the option to preserve as much image detail as possible when needed. I expect that there are many pros out there that will agree with me.
As a bit of background, I have been working in the professional imaging industry now for well over 10 years, having started off back in the days of the Kodak DCS-420 and Nikon E2. I manage the digital imaging department in a high-end professional camera shop and have extensive experience with all manner of digital SLRs, medium format digital backs, film scanners and so on.
I always have been a strong proponent of shooting raw and, in the past, have always felt that Adobe Camera Raw gave, by far, the best looking rendering of raw files when it came to detail and a general lack of demosaic artifacts. I have experience using a large number of other raw conversion programs available (Capture One, Raw Developer, Canon DPP, Nikon Capture, Hasselblad FlexColor, SilkyPix, LightZone, Aperture etc.), and while I haven't always found the color rendering to be best in ACR, as far as image detail and creating a clean, natural looking file that doesn't look "digital", I have always found ACR to be absolutely top-notch. Color rendering one can fix in post... however when a raw converter does detail destroying smoothing, creates nasty demosaic artifacts that pop out when sharpening etc., well that is something than cannot be fixed or recovered in Photoshop afterwards! Well, at least not without an inordinate amount of work or trying to mask the effects by adding noise etc.
In fact, a number of revisions ago (maybe v3.4?), Adobe subtly changed the raw rendering of ACR and noted at the time that the demosaic algorithm had changed in order to create slightly sharper looking images. At that point, I already felt that a slight step backward had been taken (with respect to generating the most "natural" looking digital images), however with judicious adjustment of my post-sharpening technique, I was able to accommodate that change in my workflow and I think many others did not even notice it. This new version of ACR, however, has gone too far IMO...
Since I have recently dedicated myself to using Adobe Lightroom, I am also quite concerned that the next version will have this same new raw rendering engine. After recommending LR to many other professional photographers, I am now worried at this development since with a new version of LR, there will probably not be any way to downgrade the raw engine as one can with the plugin architecture of Photoshop.
I may not have time to check this forum on a regular basis, so if anyone from Adobe would like further clarification regarding my opinion on this matter, please feel free to email me directly. An email link can be found on my personal website:
http://www.sublimephoto.com
or just email "mander" at the above domain.
Thanks for letting me rant on about this!
Best Regards,
Mike Mander

16x9, 300ppi, 75mb tiff file, LR converts to 1mb jpg. Export in LR 5 is being done at 100%, no file size reduction.

I've got a 16x9, 300ppi, 75mb tiff file that LR converts to 1mb jpg. Export in LR 5 is being done at 100%, no file size reduction. Can't figure out why it is downsizing so small? Even upsized to 420ppi in PS and the export was still only 2mb. Stock agency wants 3mb .jpg minimum. Any help appreciated. Thanks.

Using PS CS6 with NO changes applied to the original TIFF the JPEG file size is 8.686 MB. The slightly larger file size is due to metadata differences between LR and PS.
Both Adobe applications (PS CS6 and LR 5.71) are producing near identical and much larger highest quality JPEG files. PS 12 Quality is the same as LR 100.
SUGGESTION:
1) Close LR and rename your LR Preferences file by adding the extension .OLD to it:
Mac OS X
Preferences
/Users/[user name]/Library/Preferences/com.adobe.Lightroom5.plist.OLD
Windows 7 & 8
Preferences
C:\Users\[user name]\AppData\Roaming\Adobe\Lightroom\Preferences\Lightroom 5 Preferences.agprefs.OLD
Reopen LR and it will create a new Preferences file. Try the JPEG Export again using the same settings as I have posted.
2) If still no change I suggest uninstalling LR, delete the new LR Preferences file created in step #1 above, keep the .OLD Preferences file, and reinstall LR 5.71.
3) If all is well now close LR and try restoring you original Preferences file by renaming the new Preferences file something like .OLD.OLD and removing .OLD from the original file.

Export file size?

In Bridge I can export the RAW in one of several pre determined sizes. It is my understanding that this is the prefered way to do it rather than upsizing in photoshop later. Can this be done in Aperture? I normally export images(not all of them mind you, just ones that are to be worked on specially) at the largest size in Bridge as 16bit files, do the work on them and then downsize and save smaller versions as needed. This way I have the a large version should my clients want it. (I have scads of storage space so I dont really care how much I use.)
It seems that in Aperture it exports as 9x14 inch tiff at 250dpi. Are there ways to change this?
Thanks
Craig

In Bridge I can export the RAW in one of several pre
determined sizes. It is my understanding that this
is the prefered way to do it rather than upsizing in
photoshop later. Can this be done in Aperture?
It can't be done in Aperture. But to be brutally honest, you will never be able to tell the difference between upsampling during the conversion and using a suitable interpolator in Photoshop.
As a general rule, the only time you should bother upsampling images is if there is a risk of it pixellating at the desired print size - otherwise all you are doing is making the file bigger for no benefit.
Actually, another time it's needed is when outputting to a printer that needs a specific PPI, but that's pretty rare.
Ian

ACR INTERPOLATION UPSIZING

ACR INTERPOLATION UPSIZING (is it better?)
I have been off the subject for a couple years but the controversy seems to be about the same. I am a professional, high end, fine art, landscape photographer/print maker and I really want to ensure that my interpolation method is as BEST AS IT CAN BE for very large, high resolution gallery prints (usually the Canon 1DS Mark II or III). I did a very comprehensive research effort last time and basically found a lot of CONTRADICTORY info out there. I then tried all the up-sizing methods and then settled on PS Bicubic SHARPER (a tip by a very reputable fine artist/photographer and also mentioned in a KELBY book). Yes, I know this is unorthodox and controversial!
As I have gone through the database here on this forum I have all kinds of contradictory answers.
Some say ACR interpolation creates artifacts.
Some say it is the SAME as PS Bicubic Smoother.
I have also read DEKE say it is a "more sound algorithm" to interpolate in ACR at the RAW stage. This I also have found a few saying; that is is best done in ACR for quality, but the improvement is only slight (slight is good for me).
I am trying to produce some of the best, large, fine art landscape prints I can with my equipment (printed on Fuji Flex paper and printed on either a Durst Lambda or an Oce Lightjet) and I now want to re investigate this subject and get down to the bottom of it (again).
So... please throw out anything you know here! Is there a benefit to up-sizing in ACR, in terms of sheer quality large prints? Maybe JEFF SCHEWE would even throw in his perspective (again)?
Thank you for whoever participates in this beat to a pulp controversy. I just want to find out, if in two years, the subject has settled, or the answers changed?

OK, I finally did my first ACR interpolation VS PS Bicubic SMOOTHER interpolation "test" (previously posted the ACR VS Bicubic SHARPER results on this thread)...
Clearly not a scientific test, but very interesting (to me) for sure.
I took that same aforementioned (in this thread) image that has a ton of high to mid frequency areas (aspen trees in Glacier NP). It was cropped in ACR to a native 12.8 MP (a Canon 1DS Mark II file) and interpolated it as high as ACR would go to 19.4 MP and brought it into PS as an Adobe RGB file where it was converted to LAB and then sharpened with a global USM on the L channel at 500 amount, 1.0 Radius, and 0 amount (the image uniquely looked pretty good that way).
I then brought the native resolution 12.8 shot into PS and interpolated it to 19.4 MP using PS Bicubic SMOOTHER, then did the same LAB conversion and LAB sharpen.
I then slapped these on to each other as separate layers and looked them over very carefully in many different frequency areas.
I did this same test with the UNSHARPENED versions as well.
Interesting!
Still quite a noticeable difference at 200% zoom (but not nearly as much as the difference between ACR and Bicubic SHARPER). To my eye, the ACR image still was a tad "tighter" so to speak. In the sharpened versions, there was a noticeable "ultra fine detail" almost like an "ultra fine sharpening - minus any sharpening halos" in the ACR version (in the entire image). Almost like a very, very slight graininess, but not a "graininess" I would consider negative or a minus to an images overall quality. Maybe the type of "graininess" that would make an image appear less "digital" if you know what I mean. Although the "graininess" was SO fine I'm not sure it would make any noticeable appearance in a print (after the averaging that takes place turning pixels into a continuous tone print). I do wonder though, if it might be a touch more ultra fine DETAIL being preserved? I also wonder if the increased "tightness" would give the appearance of a slightly more detailed print in high to mid frequency areas?
In the UNSHARPENED versions the ACR image looked significantly "tighter" with a slight more ultra fine detail, but ONLY in the higher frequency areas. To my eye the mid and low frequency areas looked identical to the SMOOTHER version.
In the SHARPENED versions I did try to mimic the ultra fine detail (found in the ACR version) by adding just a bit more sharpening at the lowest radius possible on the L channel of the BICUBIC SMOOTHER version, but nothing I could do would make it look the same as the ACR version. Although I could get it fairly close, there was a slight increase of edge halos on the SMOOTHER version caused by the sharpening, that were not present in the ACR version.
Now I know this is not an exhaustive or scientific test whatsoever, but if I HAD to make my own personal conclusions or judgement based on this test alone... it would lead me to believe that I should interpolate using ACR as much as I can. Then If I needed an even bigger print than ACR can produce, I could then take the interpolation further in PS using Bicubic SMOOTHER. I also would guess that on large prints the overall print difference would be slight but noticable to a careful eye. My guess would be that small to mid sized prints may not make any discernible difference at all (say up to 18 or so inches).
Maybe more personal tests will are in order!

"process mutiple files" freezes computer when resizing images.PSE3

This function has always worked perfectly for me for years. It started about 2 weeks ago and I have no clue why it is doing this.
Whenever I try to resize a folder containing mutiple or even single images, it freezes the program and computer until I restart everything.
More specifics;
files are being downsized not upsized.
the original image loads into the program, then as it is being resized, it freezes up at the same point each time. This is when the "progress bar" (not sure of exact name) at the bottom of the page shows about 25% progress.
I have cleaned up the hard drive and done a file reorganization.
I have uninstalled and reinstalled the program.
I can resize images directly through the image/resize function one at a time. The problem is that I frequently have to resize large batches of images.
Thanks for any help.
Dave

Dave
This has caught other people. Check you Resize Image box to see if some strange value has been entered. One user had accidentally entered 4 pixels instead of 4 inches so all his pictures came out really small. I wonder if you have the opposite problem and are resaving to some extremely large size that Elements does not like.
If not post back.
Additional question-are you having problems with the same set of pictures? If so, could you run a test on a second set of pictures. Perhaps there is something strange in the source files.

Best way to enlarge raw files?...

I want to increase longest side to 17'' on many raw files : these are nef files
what would be best way to maintain file quality...
Do my raw develop work, including capture sharpening, and on export increase largest side to 17"?...or the pixel equivalent...
Would it be better to do my pp work, set capture sharpen to zero, export to photoshop and enlarge with bicubic smoother and then apply capture sharpen?...
or is there a different, better way?...
thanks for the help...oh, i'm using lr2.6 and photoshop cs3...
M

Hmm, that looks bad indeed. I have mostly compared prints and I thought they
looked quite a bit better upsized in Lightroom than in PS using bicubic
especially with sharpening thrown in the mix. What looks best in print is
often not what looks best on screen as you know. Also, I simply cannot get
my LR 2.6 or 3 beta to do this with very similar images. Curious as I know
LR used to do stuff like this badly in older versions.
2010/2/23 Dorin Nicolaescu-Musteață <[email protected]>
Lightroom's scaler now gives better results than bicubic in PS CS3 and
also has built in output sharpening.
I might be doing something wrong, but my tests show the opposite:
http://forums.adobe.com/servlet/JiveServlet/showImage/20561/Resize.jpg
Click to zoom to 100%.
>
This is a 10mpx file resized to about 1 meter on the long side at 180 ppi.
I can see a lot of stair-stepping in Lightroom's version compared to
bicubic smoother, which is, well, a lot smoother.
>

Problems locating my .mdb file

I have a SQL server with tables I use in my reports. I was handed an access DB (.mdb file) on a flash drive and told to incorporate that data into my reports along side the data from the tables on the SQL server.
The guy that set up the tables and the server is no longer at my company so we have no idea where we need to put this .mdb file so that Crystal Reports can access it. Our reports are run by users outside of our office via a VPN so the file cannot be local but on the server. We have put it on the SQL server in many different places/folders but when I use the database expert in CR and try to create a new ODBC(RDO) conection the .mdb file is not listed.
Does anyone know where this file should be located??

Aminah,
Since you were handed the .mdb file on a thumb drive, it's probably a safe bet that all of the data on it is now static (no longer being updated by users). Based on that, I would use Access's Upsizing Wizard to migrate the data to your SQL server.
You will see MUCH better performance from your report and you will not have to worry about report users or CR Server having access to the network share file where you would otherwise have to place the .mdb file.
If you don't have write access to your SQL server, ask your network admin of DBA for help on this.
Jason

Help! Took photo at small resolution; need to upsize

I goofed! I took a team photo of my son's indoor soccer team which we planned to give to the parents when the boys get their trophies on Friday. I had been shooting for the web and forget to change my camera back to the large setting so the photos I have are not optimal for print. I recall reading somewhere that if you upsize incrementally it could be done with decent quality but cannot locate that article.
Can anyone offer advice on how to accomplish this in PSE4? Ideally I'd to get a 5X7 print.
Thanks in advance,
Barb

Well, you probably won't get a great image, but you can try sizing it up using bicubic smoother, which is what Adobe recommends for upsampling. In recent versions of PS/PE many people say that going by ten percent increments isn't necessary anymore.
BTW, if you have a new, good quality photo printer, you might want to try printing from what you've got. Print from the editor and use printer color management. I suggest this, because I tried not long ago to get a really bad print from my i9100 to use to demonstrate why you need a certain minimum resolution. So I printed a file at 72 ppi and was very surprised to see that the printer interpolation was so effective that I got a very useable print. It was a bit softer than it would have been at a decent resolution, but you would have had to compare the two side by side to really see the difference.

Delete File From Mounted Volume

Hey,
I am trying to delete the "Calendar Cache" files on both my laptop PowerBook G4 and the Mac Pro Quad that I sync my calendars with. I am using ChronoSync and the individual calendars sync fine, but there is a little house keeping needed with the cache file. They need to be deleted on both systems in order to "refresh" the views of the calendars.
So after the sync of calendars, I have the software initiating an AppleScript that deletes both. Here's the script:
+(* PowerBook Files / delete cache file *)+
+(* Please note that both systems have the same username. This may be arise a conflict *)+
+tell application "Finder"+
+ activate+
+ tell application "Finder" to delete file "Calendar Cache" of folder "Calendars" of folder "Library" of disk "useranthony"+
+end tell+
+(* Mac Pro Quad/ delete cache file *)+
+tell application "Finder"+
+ mount volume "afp://10.10.10.1/anthonyabraira"+
+ tell application "Finder" to delete file "Calendar Cache" of folder "Calendars" of folder "Library" of disk "/volumes/useranthony"+
+end tell+
I am having trouble addressing a deletion on the networked Mac Pro Quad.

why send it to the trash just delete it...
(* PowerBook Files / delete cache file )
try
do shell script "rm -rf /Library/Calendars/Calendar\\ Cache"
end try
you may need a delay for the Mac Pro Quad to mount
( Mac Pro Quad/ delete cache file *)
--the mount and then the delay
delay 4
try
do shell script "rm -rf /THE-CORRECT/PATH-HERE/Library/Calendars/Calendar\\ Cache"
end try
Tom

How Open And Print Proc C Genrated Text File Based Report ON Browser

Dear Sir
I have my old 6i forms from which i runs some Pro*c programmers with the help of HOST() command ,and then that generates a normal text file as a resultant report like file name "kha10"
which i can easily open with any text client ,,,
now what i want is that, to open this file on browser like web Report on my forms 10g like report builder 10g
can anyone help me as it will be a gr8 help otherwise i would have to develop approx 100 reports.....
any solution or any technique plzz help me

bro my work is almost done apart from this virtual directory , how to make a virtual directory so that is dosent comes under
http://........../form/
i mean where to put my
<virtual-directory virtual-path="/procrepo" real-path="c:\" />
as my original file looks like bellow
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE orion-web-app PUBLIC "-//ORACLE//DTD OC4J Web Application 9.04//EN" "http://xmlns.oracle.com/ias/dtds/orion-web-9_04.dtd">
<orion-web-app
     deployment-version="10.1.2.0.2"
     jsp-cache-directory="./persistence"
     temporary-directory="./temp"
     servlet-webdir="/servlet/"
>
<context-param-mapping name="configFileName">D:\DevSuiteHome_1/forms/server/formsweb.cfg</context-param-mapping>
     <virtual-directory virtual-path="/html" real-path="D:\DevSuiteHome_1/tools/web/html" />
     <virtual-directory virtual-path="/java" real-path="D:\DevSuiteHome_1/forms/java" />
     <virtual-directory virtual-path="/webutil" real-path="D:\DevSuiteHome_1/forms/webutil" />
     <virtual-directory virtual-path="/jinitiator" real-path="D:\DevSuiteHome_1/jinit" />
     <session-tracking cookies="disabled" />

<security-role-mapping name="administrators">
</security-role-mapping>
</orion-web-app>
plzzzzzzzzzzz help

Upsizing files in LR

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for