Your Lightroom Classic Tips and Tricks...

[Archibald]

Fixing Masks

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

Ya, I've done edges of masks this way and similar ways. If the brush and feather are set just right, it can be very effective.

 

[ctitanic]

I succumbed to LrC. There were many things that stopped me from using it, the biggest one was the use of a Library. I hate the concept, I'm used to have a NAS with a folder structure that I know and a folder name convention that I know, and even when I recognize how good in finding photos is to have a library with tags, I still hate the concept and just because of that I was not even thinking about using LrC.

The second point stopping me from using it was the Subscription. I was used to buy and own the software and pay for updates and upgrades as needed. The problem is that updates and upgrades have started to get costly in the last 10 years. I own Corel PaintShop Pro. An upgrade cost me around $60~$70 mostly every year. So at the end is like some kind of subscription I have. And this made me rethink my position with subscriptions. If I can pay few dollars yearly that impacts me less than paying a big junk whenever a new version is released.

So I succumbed to LrC, I installed the trial and I'm really impressed with what I can do and how fast I can do it. I still use some plugins with LrC like Luminar AI, Topaz denoise and sharpness and Radiant. But I find myself using them less and less. At this point I import, "Develop" and once I export delete the photo from the library. In this way I'm not using the "hated by me" library concept. My exports go to my loved Folder Structure System that I have.

I still convert everything from Cr3 to DNG using DxOPureRaw and after that import to LrC. I have seen some good reviews about the Adobe Denoise option in the Enhancement feature of LrC so I still have to experiment with that and compare it to what I get from DxO. Can you apply the Adobe Denoise AI in an import Preset? I'm talking about the one included in the Enhancement feature?

I'm glad that I found this this thread.

 

[Only RF]

Over the years I've read about the dislikes about using a catalogue system. I'm not convince you to like it. This may or may not help. Not sure how this affects NAS. I store my files on an external drive which is backed up daily by CCC to another drive. My catalogue is on the HD. That gets backed up to the HD whenever I shut down LrC. My HD is backed up to a 3rd drive using Mac's Time Machine.

A few things about the catalogue system is it is just a mirror of your OS folder structure. The only reason for importing is so LrC's catalogue can read the files metadata but most importantly so it knows where the files are located. I can make changes to any one the following folder structures and the others will auto update.

The only thing to remember is if you move a folder outside of LrC you just have to let it know where you moved it. I call that simple maintenance. That is why always move folders using LrC because I never have to worry about it. Even simpler. That's really all that there is to it. I run a tidy house. 12 years of Lightroom version upgrades which at times included catalogue upgrades and never a single issue. The first few days of setting everything up is important. After that it's a breeze.

The collections you can create and key word searching really adds to the whole thing. All your edits are there forever so never have to keep your exported files. I have wedding folders going back ten years and they live as RAW files. I don't have a single Jpeg saved.

Here is my LrC folder structure.

These are Canon's DPP and OS structures. The only reason that years 2006 to 2010 are missing in the LrC folder structure above is because I didn't start using Lightroom until 2011. I could open DXO PL, C1 Pro or any other software and see the same thing.

The advantage of importing and LrC reading metadata. In Canons' DPP I purposely underexposed a file. As you can see it didn't affect the file in LrC. DPP is a non destructive editor. I have not tested this with a destructive editor. I think in LrC you get a warning which would ask if you want make changes to the metadata.

 

[Only RF]

Also I've only ever had one catalogue.

 

[PKM-UK]

I succumbed to LrC. There were many things that stopped me from using it, the biggest one was the use of a Library. I hate the concept, I'm used to have a NAS with a folder structure that I know and a folder name convention that I know, and even when I recognize how good in finding photos is to have a library with tags, I still hate the concept and just because of that I was not even thinking about using LrC.

The second point stopping me from using it was the Subscription. I was used to buy and own the software and pay for updates and upgrades as needed. The problem is that updates and upgrades have started to get costly in the last 10 years. I own Corel PaintShop Pro. An upgrade cost me around $60~$70 mostly every year. So at the end is like some kind of subscription I have. And this made me rethink my position with subscriptions. If I can pay few dollars yearly that impacts me less than paying a big junk whenever a new version is released.

So I succumbed to LrC, I installed the trial and I'm really impressed with what I can do and how fast I can do it. I still use some plugins with LrC like Luminar AI, Topaz denoise and sharpness and Radiant. But I find myself using them less and less. At this point I import, "Develop" and once I export delete the photo from the library. In this way I'm not using the "hated by me" library concept. My exports go to my loved Folder Structure System that I have.

I still convert everything from Cr3 to DNG using DxOPureRaw and after that import to LrC. I have seen some good reviews about the Adobe Denoise option in the Enhancement feature of LrC so I still have to experiment with that and compare it to what I get from DxO. Can you apply the Adobe Denoise AI in an import Preset? I'm talking about the one included in the Enhancement feature?

I'm glad that I found this this thread.

Hi Frank,

Welcome to LrC! A fair bit to unpack and respond to, so bear with me if I don’t cover all your points (hopefully others will chip in).

Firstly, everyone will have their own workflow and if it works for them, it’s the right one for them. So, my workflow is different from yours (and it works for me) - in fact I have several different workflows which I generally bend and adapt depending on where I’m taking an image. However, I hope we can agree we are both ‘right’!

So, bearing all that in mind, to address your points -

I’ve only ever known and used LrC as my image processing and library hub (I’ve never had any major problems). The Catalogue is (basically) a database, it doesn’t contain the image files. My Catalogue sits on an external SSD and points to/ interfaces with and reflects the folder structure sitting on multiple SSD's which contain my image (and sidecar) files. My Catalogue/ images are backed up to different SSD's (both internal, external - and off site).

(I still occasionally lose stuff, but that's because I'm a klutz).

I used to have a ‘perpetual LrC licence’, only upgrading to the subscription model when I moved to the R System. I don’t have a major problem with the subscription concept - in the UK (and Europe) Amazon have regular Adobe Creative Cloud package sales during which I’ve picked up annual licences for as little as £46.72 (/ 12 = £3.89 p.m.). These licences can be stacked/ banked. This provides me with regular updates and user benefits across a range of excellent Adobe software products. By comparison, I also use DxO and Topaz Labs products which have theoretical ‘perpetual licences’ - but to get the big feature updates I have to pay as much (or more - depending on their BF sales) to each of them as I do to Adobe. Having said that, I don’t mind - I appreciate they have to pay their software engineers and I want to use the latest software for my hobby. (My money, my choice!).

I also use various plug-ins with LrC/ Photoshop (and DxO PhotoLab Elite). I retain our raw files and final *.jpegs (occasionally - but rarely - some of the intermediate DNG’s/ TIFF’s). The files sit in the folders on my SSD’s, but I can still readily browse/ search/ filter - or re-edit them via the LrC Catalogue.

I did trial the first iteration of DxO PureRAW, but chose to buy the full PhotoLab Elite package (with the tipping point coming after DxO 'kindly' offered me a worthwhile discount!). In terms of NR, where detail and colour retention are paramount and particularly with higher ISO files, I would (personally) rank the offerings - DxO, Topaz, Adobe (though all can produce very good results!). Which products I use - and in which order - very much depends on the image file and intended outcome.

I don’t believe you can include/ apply Adobe Denoise in an Import Preset - or via Develop/ Sync Settings - and I would recommended against this as the Denoise function is neither automatic, or adaptive - the ‘best’ settings will depend on each file/ user experience. As far as I know Adobe Denoise will not currently work with *.jpgs or *.DNG’s. (However, you can use the Topaz apps to ‘polish/ refine/ correct’ DxO *.DNG’s).

Phil

 

[Only RF]

I succumbed to LrC. There were many things that stopped me from using it, the biggest one was the use of a Library. I hate the concept, I'm used to have a NAS with a folder structure that I know and a folder name convention that I know, and even when I recognize how good in finding photos is to have a library with tags, I still hate the concept and just because of that I was not even thinking about using LrC.

The second point stopping me from using it was the Subscription. I was used to buy and own the software and pay for updates and upgrades as needed. The problem is that updates and upgrades have started to get costly in the last 10 years. I own Corel PaintShop Pro. An upgrade cost me around $60~$70 mostly every year. So at the end is like some kind of subscription I have. And this made me rethink my position with subscriptions. If I can pay few dollars yearly that impacts me less than paying a big junk whenever a new version is released.

So I succumbed to LrC, I installed the trial and I'm really impressed with what I can do and how fast I can do it. I still use some plugins with LrC like Luminar AI, Topaz denoise and sharpness and Radiant. But I find myself using them less and less. At this point I import, "Develop" and once I export delete the photo from the library. In this way I'm not using the "hated by me" library concept. My exports go to my loved Folder Structure System that I have.

I still convert everything from Cr3 to DNG using DxOPureRaw and after that import to LrC. I have seen some good reviews about the Adobe Denoise option in the Enhancement feature of LrC so I still have to experiment with that and compare it to what I get from DxO. Can you apply the Adobe Denoise AI in an import Preset? I'm talking about the one included in the Enhancement feature?

I'm glad that I found this this thread.

Sorry I forgot to answer this part. No you cannot apply Denoise AI as an import preset yet but you can batch Enhance. Here is an article and at the end he talks about future plans.

https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2023/04/18/denoise-demystified

FIY. When Adobe Denoise was first released (v12.3) the DNG files were huge. Since LrC 13 they are ⅓ the size.

 

[Only RF]

Hi Frank,

Welcome to LrC! A fair bit to unpack and respond to, so bear with me if I don’t cover all your points (hopefully others will chip in).

Firstly, everyone will have their own workflow and if it works for them, it’s the right one for them. So, my workflow is different from yours (and it works for me) - in fact I have several different workflows which I generally bend and adapt depending on where I’m taking an image. However, I hope we can agree we are both ‘right’!

So, bearing all that in mind, to address your points -

I’ve only ever known and used LrC as my image processing and library hub (I’ve never had any major problems). The Catalogue is (basically) a database, it doesn’t contain the image files. My Catalogue sits on an external SSD and points to/ interfaces with and reflects the folder structure sitting on multiple SSD's which contain my image (and sidecar) files. My Catalogue/ images are backed up to different SSD's (both internal, external - and off site).

(I still occasionally lose stuff, but that's because I'm a klutz).

I used to have a ‘perpetual LrC licence’, only upgrading to the subscription model when I moved to the R System. I don’t have a major problem with the subscription concept - in the UK (and Europe) Amazon have regular Adobe Creative Cloud package sales during which I’ve picked up annual licences for as little as £46.72 (/ 12 = £3.89 p.m.). These licences can be stacked/ banked. This provides me with regular updates and user benefits across a range of excellent Adobe software products. By comparison, I also use DxO and Topaz Labs products which have theoretical ‘perpetual licences’ - but to get the big feature updates I have to pay as much (or more - depending on their BF sales) to each of them as I do to Adobe. Having said that, I don’t mind - I appreciate they have to pay their software engineers and I want to use the latest software for my hobby. (My money, my choice!).

I also use various plug-ins with LrC/ Photoshop (and DxO PhotoLab Elite). I retain our raw files and final *.jpegs (occasionally - but rarely - some of the intermediate DNG’s/ TIFF’s). The files sit in the folders on my SSD’s, but I can still readily browse/ search/ filter - or re-edit them via the LrC Catalogue.

I did trial the first iteration of DxO PureRAW, but chose to buy the full PhotoLab Elite package (with the tipping point coming after DxO 'kindly' offered me a worthwhile discount!). In terms of NR, where detail and colour retention are paramount and particularly with higher ISO files, I would (personally) rank the offerings - DxO, Topaz, Adobe (though all can produce very good results!). Which products I use - and in which order - very much depends on the image file and intended outcome.

I don’t believe you can include/ apply Adobe Denoise in an Import Preset - or via Develop/ Sync Settings - and I would recommended against this as the Denoise function is neither automatic, or adaptive - the ‘best’ settings will depend on each file/ user experience. As far as I know Adobe Denoise will not currently work with *.jpgs or *.DNG’s. (However, you can use the Topaz apps to ‘polish/ refine/ correct’ DxO *.DNG’s).

Phil

Thanks Phil. I was an about to add the part about the catalogue and files being separate. When I first installed LR5 in 2011 it took a few weeks to realize this. When you see the word catalogue you can first assume that would be your files. Maybe not everyone but it happened to me. I really like this video from post #7.

https://rfshooters.com/threads/your-lightroom-classic-tips-and-tricks.2826/#post-13302

A good link as well.

Lightroom Classic Catalogs - Top 10 Misunderstandings | The Lightroom Queen

Lightroom Classic has two primary functions - organizing your photos and editing them. Although its organizational tools are powerful, they're also the

www.lightroomqueen.com

 

[Only RF]

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

 

[ctitanic]

Thanks for the replies guys, @Only RF , there is nothing in the Earth that can convince me to use a Catalogue/Library or whatever anyone wants to call it. I do not keep my RAW files and I know that many will jump to kill me for that but, hey, I'm a hobbyist and once I edit my photos and save them as JPG I'm happy enough with them. May be for a Pro all those concepts of catalogues and saving RAWs make a lot of sense but they are not for me, at least at this point of my life. To be honest, I'm extremely happy that I found a way to use LrC keeping the catalogue empty.

@Only RF I really appreciate the fact that you went the extra mile showing me what the Catalogue system is all about. I really do. Thanks!

@PKM-UK sorry, like you said, we both agree that everyone has it's own workflow and if it works for that person there is nothing wrong with that. I worked as Database developer and Administrator for over two decades and probably that's one of the facts and reasons why I do not want to deal with catalogues. I was trying to simplify the whole "Denoise" workflow. Like you depending on the noise I play around with the Denoise method to use. Right now when I comeback from a taking pictures I pass everything through DxO and later if I still some more "denoising" I add more with Topaz. Since I use DxO and LrC I'm using more Topaz Sharpening. Thanks for sharing your Work flow. You always learn from others' experiences.

 

[ctitanic]

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

Good video, one problem that I have is that even using a CR3 file, the Denoise AI is not enabled. Why is that?

 

[Only RF]

Thanks for the replies guys, @Only RF , there is nothing in the Earth that can convince me to use a Catalogue/Library or whatever anyone wants to call it. I do not keep my RAW files and I know that many will jump to kill me for that but, hey, I'm a hobbyist and once I edit my photos and save them as JPG I'm happy enough with them. May be for a Pro all those concepts of catalogues and saving RAWs make a lot of sense but they are not for me, at least at this point of my life. To be honest, I'm extremely happy that I found a way to use LrC keeping the catalogue empty.

@Only RF I really appreciate the fact that you went the extra mile showing me what the Catalogue system is all about. I really do. Thanks!

@PKM-UK sorry, like you said, we both agree that everyone has it's own workflow and if it works for that person there is nothing wrong with that. I worked as Database developer and Administrator for over two decades and probably that's one of the facts and reasons why I do not want to deal with catalogues. I was trying to simplify the whole "Denoise" workflow. Like you depending on the noise I play around with the Denoise method to use. Right now when I comeback from a taking pictures I pass everything through DxO and later if I still some more "denoising" I add more with Topaz. Since I use DxO and LrC I'm using more Topaz Sharpening. Thanks for sharing your Work flow. You always learn from others' experiences.

NP. Replies not always just for the person asking as you never know who else may get something out of it. Just in case others are reading this you can't use LrC without importing files. It won't see them in the OS, etc folder structures.

 

[Only RF]

Good video, one problem that I have is that even using a CR3 file, the Denoise AI is not enabled. Why is that?

I'm not sure. What is yours showing? This is mine.

 

[Only RF]

Example of the file size with LrC 13. Using LrC 12 that DNG would have been around 200 MB.

 

[Archibald]

Frank, I think you made a good move to go with LrC.

I have used Lightroom for many years and tend to think of it as easy software. But that is now, and it was different in the past. When I think about it, it took me a long time (years) to get comfortable with it.

Back in the early years, Lr was a cataloging app. It was to help you keep track of your pics and organize them. Photoshop was for editing, Lightroom was a cataloguing database. I had no use for the cataloging, so had little interest in Lightroom. But I did have a look at it and found it had simple editing tools. You could quickly change the exposure, crop, etc. and zoom 100%. It made it the best culling program. I started to use it for that, comparing similar shots, fixing the view to enable better A-B comparisons, and deleting all but the selected pics. I ignored the cataloging function.

I did my editing in Paintshop Pro and Irfanview, not in Lr.

Then as the different Lightroom versions were issued over the years, the editing tools were greatly enhanced. I started to use Lr more and more for editing. I still shunned the cataloging. Finally I found myself relying almost totally on editing in Lr.

And little by little I also started to do cataloging. I had tens of thousands of photos. I needed a way to find things back. At first it was simple, to separate family photos and nature photography and other broad categories. But it got more involved with time. It took a lot of effort to set up initially but now is easy to maintain. Somewhat easy. Lol.

It's been many years and I am pretty good (and fast) at editing in LrC. But I am STILL discovering things I didn't know about Lightroom. It is a very complicated piece of software. So obviously it will take time to learn and find your way in it, and everybody will find different work methods that are useful to them.

 

[ctitanic]

Ok, I found how to get Denoise AI enabled, I'll to experiment now with this option! I'm a happy camper.

 

[ctitanic]

Example of the file size with LrC 13. Using LrC 12 that DNG would have been around 200 MB.

View attachment 22237

I just keep the jpg after editing and I keep them less than 20MB. Yes, DNG files are super big.

 

[PKM-UK]

Thanks for the replies guys, @Only RF , there is nothing in the Earth that can convince me to use a Catalogue/Library or whatever anyone wants to call it. I do not keep my RAW files and I know that many will jump to kill me for that but, hey, I'm a hobbyist and once I edit my photos and save them as JPG I'm happy enough with them. May be for a Pro all those concepts of catalogues and saving RAWs make a lot of sense but they are not for me, at least at this point of my life. To be honest, I'm extremely happy that I found a way to use LrC keeping the catalogue empty.

@Only RF I really appreciate the fact that you went the extra mile showing me what the Catalogue system is all about. I really do. Thanks!

@PKM-UK sorry, like you said, we both agree that everyone has it's own workflow and if it works for that person there is nothing wrong with that. I worked as Database developer and Administrator for over two decades and probably that's one of the facts and reasons why I do not want to deal with catalogues. I was trying to simplify the whole "Denoise" workflow. Like you depending on the noise I play around with the Denoise method to use. Right now when I comeback from a taking pictures I pass everything through DxO and later if I still some more "denoising" I add more with Topaz. Since I use DxO and LrC I'm using more Topaz Sharpening. Thanks for sharing your Work flow. You always learn from others' experiences.

Hi Frank,

Another thought/ option is that if you don’t want, or need, the catalogue features of LrC possibly consider using Photoshop instead - you‘d still be able to use plugins and you’ll gain access to things like layers, neural filters and blend modes, plus more advanced healing tools (by far), while still having the camera raw filter to your edit images with (it has identical editing features to LrC).

Also have a look at Bridge (which I don’t use, but I think it’s an image orientated file browser - as opposed to being a ‘catalogue’).

Phil

 

[ctitanic]

Hi Frank,

Another thought/ option is that if you don’t want, or need, the catalogue features of LrC possibly consider using Photoshop instead - you‘d still be able to use plugins and you’ll gain access to things like layers, neural filters and blend modes, plus more advanced healing tools (by far), while still having the camera raw filter to your edit images with (it has identical editing features to LrC).

Also have a look at Bridge (which I don’t use, but I think it’s an image orientated file browser - as opposed to being a ‘catalogue’).

Phil

Hi Phil, PaintShop Pro is very similar to Photoshop. What I'm liking from LrC is the simplicity yet power of the editing tools. Specially masks. In almost 10 years using PaintShop Pro I think that I have used layers only few times. I'm trying to get most of the stuff done in the camera and post editing just to make it look even better but I'm against tweaking pictures to the extreme (like using AI to generate stuff, etc). LrC is doing basically what I need and if I need something deeper I still have PaintShop Pro, Luminar AI and Luminar 4. BTW, Luminar is special for Sky replacement and other tricks. I also have Radiant which allows you to apply presets, eyes enhancements, etc. Luminar allows you to even replace the eye colors, with simple clicks.

 

[ACEkin]

Example of the file size with LrC 13. Using LrC 12 that DNG would have been around 200 MB.

View attachment 22237

I am having a related problem, I think. Adobe seems to have changed the DNG compression, resulting in files I cannot view outside the Adobe ecosystem. I tried Windows File Explorer, FastStone, and XnViewer image viewers and none could display anything meaningful. My only DNG files, thankfully, are those that I merge into panoramas. Everything else is in their native formats.

 

[Only RF]

I am having a related problem, I think. Adobe seems to have changed the DNG compression, resulting in files I cannot view outside the Adobe ecosystem. I tried Windows File Explorer, FastStone, and XnViewer image viewers and none could display anything meaningful. My only DNG files, thankfully, are those that I merge into panoramas. Everything else is in their native formats.

They went from JPEG to JPEG XL compression. I'll have to check that out.

JPEG - JPEG XL

jpeg.org

From the Lightroom Queen's site

This is a little slower, but the quality is just as good, and the space savings are huge. This also affects files produced by the Enhance tool (Classic & Desktop), as well Merge to HDR and Panorama (Classic only… Desktop to follow), resulting in much smaller file sizes.

 

[Archibald]

I am having a related problem, I think. Adobe seems to have changed the DNG compression, resulting in files I cannot view outside the Adobe ecosystem. I tried Windows File Explorer, FastStone, and XnViewer image viewers and none could display anything meaningful. My only DNG files, thankfully, are those that I merge into panoramas. Everything else is in their native formats.

Interesting, never noticed that before. My recent DNGs show with a heavy blue cast in Irfanview and are all wrong in FastStone, but seem to display fine in MS Photos.

 

[Only RF]

Mine works fine with Mac Preview and Photos. I don't have any other viewers. Are yours the latest versions?

 

[Archibald]

Mine works fine with Mac Preview and Photos. I don't have any other viewers. Are yours the latest versions?

Not sure - will have a look.

 

[ACEkin]

They went from JPEG to JPEG XL compression. I'll have to check that out.

JPEG - JPEG XL

jpeg.org

From the Lightroom Queen's site

This is a little slower, but the quality is just as good, and the space savings are huge. This also affects files produced by the Enhance tool (Classic & Desktop), as well Merge to HDR and Panorama (Classic only… Desktop to follow), resulting in much smaller file sizes.

Yes, indeed. I can view the old DNG files, but not the new ones. This may be a Windows-related problem as a Mac user reported not having experienced it.

 

[ACEkin]

Mine works fine with Mac Preview and Photos. I don't have any other viewers. Are yours the latest versions?

All my applications are up to date, I double-checked and updated as needed. There is another odd behavior. Some DNG files do not display at all, some show a tiny thumbnail, some a little larger image, yet others may display in full but with the wrong colors. Even this varies from one app to another.

I also do not understand compressing RAW image files with "lossy" compressing. Do they still retain the color depth, color space, and "RAW" format with compression? Since I use DNG only when I stitch images into panoramas, I may end up doing them in Photoshop or an external software like PTGui.

 

[Archibald]

OK, I updated Irfanview, and it now displays the photo - but it is a small version, around 1024 px wide (it varies a bit). And Photos seems to do the same.

 

[Archibald]

Now after the Irfanview update, the association of JPG with Irfanview has been lost. I can't set it again either because when I go into PC Settings > Apps > Default apps, the JPG file type is missing. Always hassles with Windows (11).

 

[ACEkin]

Now after the Irfanview update, the association of JPG with Irfanview has been lost. I can't set it again either because when I go into PC Settings > Apps > Default apps, the JPG file type is missing. Always hassles with Windows (11).

Maybe you can try a workaround:

1. In Windows File Explorer, right-click on a JPEG file
2. Select "Choose another app"
3. Select your app and click on "Always"

 

[Archibald]

Maybe you can try a workaround:

1. In Windows File Explorer, right-click on a JPEG file
2. Select "Choose another app"
3. Select your app and click on "Always"

Thanks, I appreciate the suggestion, but that does not work, not in my case anyway. I don't claim to fully understand it, but Microsoft has rigged things so that MS Photos hogs the most popular image file types, and therefore they are not available to other apps.

It seems that if one has upgraded from earlier versions of Windows, and Irfanview was already installed and set up, it is able to retain its file associations. But with new installations, as my upgrade was, the file associations are lost and can't be created again, at least not with a default system.

The solution is to remove the app package for Photos. There is more info at

Win11 bug: Cannot change association of jpg files to Irfanview - IrfanView Support Forum

I got a new Windows 11 machine. I tried to install Irfanview 4.60 64-bit. The I tried to use Iview to associate jpg files with it. But it didn't work. What happened was now I can no longer associate JPG files with any app since there is no JPG file entry in the control panel for default app file...

irfanview-forum.de

Microsoft is being extremely aggressive in steering users to its own software.

 

[PKM-UK]

Want to use LrC Denoise and Super Resolution on the same image when LrC only allows you to choose between one or the other? Here's how.

(I know that, as with most things, there are other software workflows but for people who want to do this 'impossible' LrC double-act - it works... ).

Phil