dotlyc

Honestly, I think this feature is kind of essential and should be given more urgency. Are we really going to be expected to reinvent the wheel with every new MAS and every new Beta? At least the brushes and styles can be exported and imported, although I agree with Lojza that it would be a hassle having to do this with every iteration. Unfortunately, there does not appear to be any way at all to export and import presets -- at least none that I have found so far. I have several presets in Developer Persona for tweaking my RAW files and several in Export Persona for saving PNG and JPG files in various formats. Am I really going to have to re-do all of these with every new update?

I've asked about this issue in a couple of other threads but there's been no feedback so I thought I'd try putting it in a new thread. When I was using Beta 1.4.1, I changed some preferences and created some presets and a custom brush. When I downloaded the MAS 1.4.1 version, they were all lost and I had to spend a lot of time recreating them. Now, with new Beta versions on the horizon, I'm wondering what to do about these things. Should I make any future changes to prefs and presets in the current MAS version, rather than the newer Beta versions? Will the next MAS version then pick up these changes? If not, can I make a copy of the prefs file from the old MAS and insert it into the prefs folder of the new MAS? Will this take care of the presets too or are they stored somewhere else? I discovered I can export and import brushes, so I presume that's one way to handle brush changes, but it would be more efficient if the brushes were picked up automatically too. Any help with this would be appreciated.

It's more than just the preferences. All of my presets disappeared after I switched from Beta 1.4.1 to MAS 1.4.1. It took quite awhile to restore them and I don't have that many of them yet. It will be interesting to see if the next Beta will pick up the pref/presets from the current MAS. If not, it's going to be incredibly tedious updating these things with every iteration of the program. I'd like to know if there's any way to avoid this.

I just installed the MAS 1.4.1 version and found that all my presets and preferences from the previous MAS version were lost. I just spent half an hour reinstating them and I don't have that many yet. I was using the 1.4.1 Beta and had changed most of the preferences and presets in the Beta version. Is this why the new MAS didn't pick them up? If so, what happens when new Betas are released for this version? If I update the prefs/presets in a future Beta, will they again be lost when I install a future MAS after that? It will be incredibly tedious if this will be happening with every new update.

MBd and James: Thanks very much to both of you for giving me this information about the DPI issue. I appreciate the assistance.

Questions answered...

James: Thanks for this very useful information and the video. I learned a lot from it. I tried the techniques it mentioned and found that I can indeed process even a "dark and muddy" RAW image to my liking. I was just worried that the way AP was importing the RAW images was causing them to lose information but you've reassured me on that point. Regarding DPI, I confess I'm no expert on this subject. I struggle to understand the best choices when it comes to resizing, resampling, uprezzing etc. I'm curious to learn more about why you suggest that converting the RAW images to 300 DPI would be making unnecessary work. My concern is with the quality of the final JPGs that I produce for different purposes once the RAW images have been processed and saved in lossless PNG format. Some of the JPGs are high res (300 DPI) for printing or for clients. Others are lower resolution images (usually around 72 to 150 DPI with resampling) for displaying on the web or for other situations in which I don't want to use high res images. If I leave the RAW image at 96 DPI and create a processed PNG image at 96 DPI, will there be a loss of quality when I convert the PNG to JPGs of various resolutions? I realize that JPGs are lossy so there will be some loss of quality making that conversion in any event. What I'm not sure about is whether there'd be an additional loss of quality related solely to converting a 96 DPI PNG to a 300 DPI high-res JPG or a lower-res 72 DPI JPG. This is why I've opted to convert to 300 DPI at the RAW stage and save the PNG at that level. Am I mistaken about this?

Hi, James: Your test images were pretty close to each other and that is not what I was seeing originally when I imported ORF files into AP. I only just started using AP so I didn't test a lot of images but I did try several different kinds. All the ORF files looked "muddy and dark" when I imported them but the ones that were naturally darker were worse than the ones that were naturally lighter. Things improved considerably when I changed the "tone curve" settings in the Developer Assistant from "take no action" to "apply tone curve. I could make further improvements by tweaking the following settings in the right-hand panel: Exposure/Black point and Enhance/Contrast-Clarity-Vibrance. I created a preset for these but they can be adjusted with each image. I've attached a PDF showing three images. The first is what I see in Olympus Viewer 3. The second, which looks quite similar, is what I get with the preferences and exposure/enhance adjustments in AP described above. The final image is what I was getting before making those adjustments. You can see it looks dark, soft and washed out -- like it has a dirty gray layer on top. This was a light image; the results were even worse with darker images. ORF test images.pdf I haven't found a way to get the files imported at 300 DPI. It's not a big deal to change it but I have to make sure to remember to do so before I process and save the files to another format.

Thanks for this information. I only use the Natural picture mode in the E-M1 and I have all the settings for sharpening, contrast etc. set to zero. I only shoot RAW, not JPG. So I assume the camera is imposing very minimal, if any, processing on the images. From reading these forums, I discovered the Develop Assistant and when I changed the settings to enable "tone curve", that took care of the "muddy and dark" problem. A few adjustments of black point, contrast and clarity in a preset took care of the rest. The pixel dimensions of the imported RAW files are correct, even though the DPI is set to 96. The files I've processed so far seem to be turning out okay.

Thanks for your response. Based on a comment made in another forum thread, I was able to solve the "dark and muddy" problem by changing the RAW engine settings in the Develop Assistant and tweaking some of the Exposure and Enhance settings with a preset. I can now get imported RAW images that look very close to what I see in Olympus Viewer 3. However, the problem with the RAW files being imported at 96 dpi remains. I still have to change them to 300 dpi using the Resize menu. I do this without resampling. Am I correct that this retains the quality of the image?

I'm evaluating the trial version of AP to see if it will free me from PS Elements. One problem that's really bothering me is the poor quality of the ORF RAW files imported from my Olympus E-M1. They're dark and muddy looking -- they look nothing like what I see in Oly's Viewer 3. Is this because I'm still using the trial version 1.4. (If so, it's not a feature that encourages someone to buy the program.) Will it be different if I buy the program and get the latest updated Beta version? If not, has anyone found a solution to this problem? I read a previous thread that said the problem was fixed but it's not fixed for me. I also just discovered that the ORF files appear to be imported at 96 DPI, despite the fact that a resolution of 300 is set in the camera. I saved some processed files before I realized this and now I have to do them over again. Why does this happen and how can I make sure imported RAW files are the correct resolution? Also, why is it not possible to see the image resolution anywhere in the UI? I had to use the Resize Document menu to see that the resolution is 96 DPI and change it to 300 DPI.