Noise correction dissapearence

Noise correction tab dissapeared in the develop module

Right-click on one of the other “tabs” as you call them (Basic, Tone Curve, Split Toning) and put a checkmark back in front of Detail.  You can turn the sections on and off individually if there is one you don’t use very often.

Similar Messages

  • Feature request: local noise reduction...

    I love the local corrections in LR2, and I'm using especially the local sharpening feature a lot. But I'm really missing a local noise correction feature (at least for luminance noise). It's such a shame to be able to do about any correction that I need inside Lightroom, but still having to make a round trip to an external noise editor to remove local noise. Especially since doing noise reduction as the last step doesn't seem to be very efficient at all.
    Local noise reduction would make this already great program so much better (at least, to me).
    Richard

    >My understanding is that sharpening does not add noise, but emphasizes the noise that's already there, making it appear from being insignificant to noticeable.
    We're being overly semantic here of course, but it just depends on how you define it. If you define noise as for example the root-mean square deviation from the "real" image (a very common definition but it ignores the noise's spectral distribution), than absolutely sharpening a noisy image adds more noise. Sharpening operates as a high frequency amplifier, amplifying edges that are just noise instead of real edges, so it basically amplifies the noise that is there, leading to an increase in apparent noisiness. The same is true for clarity. Clarity is basically a sharpening operation at a very high radius. If your source image is noisy (especially if it has a lot of low-frequency noise - i.e. "grain"), it will also amplify it. Conversely, negative sharpening results in reducing high frequency noise. as it is just a small radius blur effectively.
    >Moreover, sharpening in LR develop is considered capture sharpening, where the small loss in sharpness form the RAW format is regained.
    The sharpening brush is different as it is meant to be a creative sharpener. It definitely amplifies noise if you push it. And even so, using Develop's capture sharpening, it is indeed possible to amplify (=add) the noise using the capture sharpening if you use the controls wrong. The capture sharpening has the superb mask generator that can be used to protect areas that are not edges, limiting its tendency to amplify noisiness. However, it will amplify noise near edges, sometimes making them appear as if you have a waterpainting. This is also an example of amplifying noise. Remember, even if these tools are meant to do a certain thing, it doesn't mean they cannot be made to do something else.
    >To just regain lost RAW sharpness at the expense of noise would seem almost like defeating its own purpose.
    Sharpness and noise go hand in hand. There are smarter and less smart algorithms but fundamentally, sharpening always amplifies noise, and noise reduction always reduces sharpness. As I said some algorithms are better and limit the effect, but the bottom line is that there really is no way around this.
    >Or, is it more correct to say that applying -ve clarity/sharpening will make the noise "Appear" less obvious, but not actually get rid of it.
    Appear less obvious is exactly the same as reducing it. Your eye is very good in judging noisyness as it is very good at recognizing patterns and so you can easily see what is noise and what isn't. If an image appears less noisy, it is less noisy. Computers are not that smart yet and if you call a tool clarity, it does not magically know how to not amplify noise or how to not reduce noise when using it negative. Same with sharpening.
    Conclusion: negative sharpness & negative clarity == noise reduction. They are just not as good as some dedicated noise reduction algorithms as they are not primarily coded to do noise reduction. They do have that effect however.

  • Luminance preview not showing in "FIT" view.

    I have noticed more and more that the luminance and other noise corrections changes do not show at all when in the "fit" view mode.  Sure I can zoom in to see the changes, but when I want to view the full image in the screen & see the overall look it takes the changes away.
    What's the deal??

    @Lee Jay
    Not sure what you mean by this.  The option of luminance has always shown for just about every image, but changes made don't show on the "fit" view option.  This is true with both the Develop & Library tabs.
    Can't imagine that it's a performance issue with my system...if it is then Adobe is building their programs now for some really extreme-only machines...mine would be considered extreme by most photographers...I'm running with 8 cores (4ghz) 12g ram & running all adobe programs out of their own dedicated velociraptor drive separate from the boot drive.  Boot drive & image storage drive are also separate WD Black drives (only because they don't have a 2tb velociraptor drive!)  So if it's a performance issue then I'll be really surprised.
    Maybe this was happening all along, I rarely & I mean RARELY have the need for noise reduction...this just happened to be a few shots at the wedding where I used available light only & had my ISO up to 3200.  I want most of the grain left in there since that's what I was going for, but not all of it.

  • Inserting user text into .pdf

    I’m creating an interactive presentation using PowerPoint and Adobe Captivate 4 (I may upgrade to version 5 soon, though). I’d like to create “reflection” slides in my presentation where I pose several questions, and users can type their thoughts into a text entry box. Then, I’d like them to have the option of printing those reflections. Ideally, I’d like the user text to be inserted into a formatted .pdf – meaning that I’d create a .pdf with a title, headers, etc., and the user text would be placed in the appropriate spots. Is that possible? If not, any thoughts on a different way to approach it?

    Thanks, for the reply.
    I figured it out. I just open the old session and go to track 1 where the clips are lined up. At least on my system, I left click the "A" tool beyond the end of track 1 and this "activates" the track for recording. Then I move with the V tool to where I want to add some stuff and start dictating, by pusing the main record button.
    When I'm through, I just selected the clips that were overwritten, and drag them to the right and line them up where I want them (I can move them all just by drag selecting them).
    Then I just bounce to new track to create a new mixdown, noise correct it again, and save over the previous file. Actually, pretty easy, once I figured it out, but as far as I can see, no actual instructions.
    John

  • Weird distortion from scanning??

    Hi. I am scanning some old photos on color negative film on an epson 4990 into photoshop cs2.
    I am getting these weird lines, looks like rainbow wood grain. probably from the slight bend in the negative? Wondering if there is a way to get rid of these in photoshop. I have tried color noise correction, which doesnt do too much.

    jessie,
    Phos has pretty much identified this. Newton rings are related to the phenomenon of rainbow colored swirls seen in a small pool of oil or in soap bubbles.
    The easiest way for you to avoid newton rings is to keep the negative away from direct contact with the scanner's glass so no interference patterns form. You can use a glassless carrier. The biggest problem (particularly with large format film or with older or curled film) is getting it to lie flat so that all of it will be in focus while scanning.
    Alternatively, you can mount the film between two pieces of antinewton ring glass, but be aware its texture would soften image detail.
    Neil

  • Standardizing exposure across multiple images using a gray card

    Hi,
    I am studying chest feather coloration in Barn Swallows, and take pictures of swallow chests against a white background with gridlines, while always including a gray card in the image. In order to evaluate chest color between birds, the lighting, exposure and white balance for all images must be identical.
    I place my tripod in the shade whenever possible and set exposure manually (using the spot meter on a D200) to be 2 stops underexposed, and use fill flash to provide the bulk of the light. This gives me even lighting, but because of the automative flash exposure adjustment, each photo has slightly different luminance.
    I was under the impression that adjusting exposure would be a snap by clicking on the gray card in each image and telling my software to adjust it to 18% reflectance. However, Lightroom does not seem have such a feature. This seems very strange given how frequently one is instructed to standardize exposure with a gray card.
    Adding to the problem is that my gray card (from Delta) has a lot of microscopic variation in its surface in brightness (and hue). While Lightroom gives me a white balance adjustment eye dropper, it seems to be limited to sampling one pixel, rather than averaging values over a number of pixels. Because of the limitations of my gray card, Lightroom's white balance eye dropper is of little use, as the white balance vary dramatically depending on which pixel on the gray card I sample. Is there a way to change the size of the area sampled for white balance purposes?
    Thanks much,
    Gernot

    Gernot,
    I think the thing to do is to use a consistent setup, which means no TTL on the flash and a set distance from the subject, and minimise ambient light effects (small aperture).
    Alternatively you could photograph a "colourchecker" with each bird and use a calibration script on the raw files to sort out the settings each time - a bit lengthy though, expect about 20 minutes a time. However, it would be quite definitive.
    As far as the "single point" problem goes, you could set all the noise sliders to the max to blur out the imperfections in the card, take a sample, then undo the noise corrections.
    I can't help thinking that for reference work like this, Photoshop is the tool for the job and LR will help you get organised into PS, but it won't replace it.
    Damian

  • Is it possible to do multiple recordings with the same session.

    I appologize in advance for this but here goes.  I want to make several background narrations for some video clips.  Using Audition 3, I start out by recording in the multitrack view on the top track.  Because of mistakes, this takes several audio clips.  After finishing, I rightclick on one of the clips, select bounce to new track all audio tracks and this creates a mixdown.  Moving to edit view, I do noise correction, then back to multitrack where I export the mixdown as .wav.
    THen I select the clips in the top track and mixdown in the next track and hit delete.  However, when I hit the arming 'R" and then the record button, the cursor doesn't move more than a milimeter and then keeps going back and forth.
    I was trying to do multiple narrations with just this one session, so is that possible?  Do I have to do a separate session for each separate mixdown?
    If there is something I'm doing wrong, I would appreciate any directions.
    Thanks in advance,
    John Rich

    Blue_Devil1 wrote:
    I appologize in advance for this but here goes.  I want to make several background narrations for some video clips.  Using Audition 3, I start out by recording in the multitrack view on the top track.  Because of mistakes, this takes several audio clips.  After finishing, I rightclick on one of the clips, select bounce to new track all audio tracks and this creates a mixdown.
    Let me stop you right there, for a start, because what you are doing still isn't clear, although I think that I can guess at it...
    Creating a bounce-down is not the same thing as creating a mixdown. If each of these clips you've recorded constitutes a separate file, which it will if you hit the stop button rather than pause - which it sounds as though you have, otherwise you wouldn't be able to separate them so easily - then just double-clicking on the clip will open it immediately in Edit View anyway. And the bounce-down options don't mention tracks, they mention clips - all audio in session, selected range or selected clips. Yes you get one file as a result - but it's literally just the clips as they stand run together not via the mixer, any effects or automation system - which it would have to be if it were a proper mixdown. A bouhce is exactly what it says - just bouncing the clips.
    THen I select the clips in the top track and mixdown in the next track and hit delete.  However, when I hit the arming 'R" and then the record button, the cursor doesn't move more than a milimeter and then keeps going back and forth.
    I was trying to do multiple narrations with just this one session, so is that possible?  Do I have to do a separate session for each separate mixdown?
    Hmm... when I hit the delete key, nothing happens - I have to right-click to get stuff to delete like that. But you most certainly can re-record in a session, yes. If you get the cursor moving just a fraction of a mm, then almost certainly this means that instead of moving the cursor back to the start, you've moved it slightly with the mouse pressed and created a very small range.So before you record, hit the 'Go to Beginning or Previous Marker' key (next to the play looped key) and try again - it should work properly then.
    And of course you haven't deleted all the files - they are still there on your system and will remain so unless you delete them outside Audition, either the hard way, or using MediaSweeper.
    Your workflow is, to say the least, a little strange. If I were recording narrations (which I do sometimes), I'd record in Edit View, and keep just the files or takes I wanted. Then I'd import these into Multitrack view, arrange them, crossfade them, whatever, and then do a mixdown of the result, which would appear back in Edit View for final trimming and saving, and I'd have a file (or files) to use in the final production. This would have the advantage of not creating all these 'take' files that you have to get rid of separately in the first place, and generally keep the workflow down to a sensible number of steps.

  • Same image - different appearance between modules

    I am struggling with migration of my LR2 catalogue etc to a new PC with Windows 7, using the same Eizo monitor. Setting aside annoying discrepancies between original and migrated development histories, I was examining a recent snow landscape scene whose white balance was not as I had adjusted it in 'old' computer. Development history appears to have gone yet the corrections appear to take effect when viewed in the Develop module. Good! But when I then switch to Library mode, the white balance changes slightly. What is going on?
    Can an image with embedded metadata transfer to new computer with the effects of past development work without revealing it in the new history? Certainly it seems so. But why should there be a visible difference when viewed in two modules? More important, where lies the truth?

    With Lr 2 the "truth" lies in the Develop module when image is zoomed so that image is being viewed at 100%. However, it's generally the case that Fit view and 1:1 view will match. The exceptions being when there is a high level of sharpening or colour noise correction.
    Development history appears to have gone yet the corrections appear to take effect when viewed in the Develop module. Good! But when I then switch to Library mode, the white balance changes slightly. What is going on?
    Try zooming to 1:1 in Library module. This forces the preview to refresh.

  • ACR not synchronizing edits

    Hello to all - I'm moving a post from the general PS discussion over to ACR about synchronizations not working. Please see this thread: http://forums.adobe.com/message/6259863#6259863
    The basics are as follows:
    I'm  trying to make batch adjustments to images that have already been auto processed i.e. - when I initially open my images, I went through basic corrections such as lens profiles, auto exposure, auto colour etc. Then I would take the auto corrected files and make my fine tune adjustments. I would then attempt to paste those adjustments to a series of similar images. This does not work for a batch conversion and sometimes it would work for only one image.
    Upon further experimentation I have had success in batch synchronization - If I go back and re-select all my previously auto-adjusted images and change them back to camera raw defaults, I then select my single corrected reference image, and I can copy thoes adjustments and successfully apply those adjustments to the uncorrected images.
    So it appears that the synchronization only wants to work with images that have not ben previously adjusted.
    Is this a bug? or are there any suggestions on how to make the synchronization feature work all the time and every time.
    Cheers

    Nope, sorry, still can't reproduce your problem - see my test below which emulates the conditions you have outlined.
    Just to clarify, in the first line of your post #12, you say that you load everything into Bridge - you mean, of course, ACR, don't you?
    I started with a folder of 27 .CR2 original, unedited, RAW files. Selected all, opened all in ACR 8.3
    Selected 1st file, applied Lens Profile Corrections and Sharpening (100), Luminance (50) and Color (50) Noise Corrections - 4 edits in all.
    Pressed Select All, then Synchronize and OK in the Synchronize dialog box. All 4 edits were applied to the remaining 26 files.
    Pressed "Done" in ACR and returned to Bridge.
    Selected 15 of the 27 (now edited) images in Bridge (1st 3, missed 3, next 3, missed 3 etc until the last 3 were also selected) and opened all 15 in ACR.
    Selected 1st image, applied further edits to it: Exposure -2 stops, Contrast +50, Highlights +50, Shadows +50, Clarity -50 : an additional 5 edits.
    Pressed Select All, then pressed Synchronize, ensured that only the boxes of Exposure, Contrast, Highlights, Shadows and Clarity were ticked, and pressed OK in the Synchronize dialog box.
    All 5 of the the additional edits were applied to the remaining 14 selected files.
    Pressed Done in ACR and returned to Bridge. All 5 additional edits were plainly visible and obvious in the 15 selected files as displayed in Bridge.
    Result: correct, and just as expected.
    Did your approach to synchronization differ in any way from the steps I have outlined?
    Message was edited by: Andrew_Hart

  • Transfer VHS to DVD

    I have an old video on a VHS tape I want to transfer to a DVD, or some other digital format. I was going to use a VHS - DVD Recorder combo, but I heard that there are better ways, and you can get better quality.
    Any suggestions?
    I know this may not be the right place to ask, but with the amount of Video Professionals here, I figure people have experience.
    Thanks.

    If you will be transfering a lot of old VHS tapes and Dont have a good deck with TBC, consider the canopus ADVC 300 AD converter with noise correction. Below is a review i did a while ago...
    Curt Wrigley 
    ==== 
    For me the biggest benefit of the box is doing the color correction in real time as it is captured while cleaning some of the grain at the same time. This is faster for me than correcxting it in PPRO. Also, it is better to attempt the clean up while the video is analog rather in post; there is more information available. I liked the AGC (auto gain corrector) for video and audio. As sceens change it does a decent job making adjustments. (Sometimes the changes are too abrupt, so it depends on the footage) 
    Note; My VCR has a TBC built in. So, it does a pretty good job on its own stabalizing footage ebfore it even gets to the ADVC300. So, the results would be more dramtic if I was using a VCR without TBC. 
    For the curious, below are links to 5 videos I output to WMV showing the videos captured via a DV deck -vs the ADVC (using split screen) 
    My setup is as follows: 
    - Capturing without the ADVC300: 
    JVC HRS9911 SVHS VCR conneted through a sony DSR-25 DV deck via Svideo. The sony DV deck simply provides analog passthru to DV. Of course the deck is connected to my NLE via 1394. 
    - Capturing with ADVC300: 
    JVC HRS9911 SVHS VCR connected to ADVC300 via Svideo. ADVC300 connected via 1394 to my NLE 
    Test 1: Old VHS Beach footage 
    http://www.wrigleyvideo.com/advc300/beach.wmv 
    This was using the default settings of the ADVC right out of the box. 
    Test 2a Home movie with 3d NR filters on strong 
    http://www.wrigleyvideo.com/advc300/home_movie1.wmv 
    This compares original to advc with the 3d NR filters on the strong setting. The 2D filters are off. Note; you will see some of the ghosting problem during the fast movement. 
    My WebpageTest 2b Same Home movie capture showing NR on AND off 
    http://www.wrigleyvideo.com/advc300/home_movie2.wmv 
    Same footage as the previous clip. This time the left shows capture via ADVC300 with NO Noise filters on. Right side is with the same 3D NR filters on Strong. 
    Test 3 Wedding footage vhs dup in EP mode 
    http://www.wrigleyvideo.com/advc300/wedding.wmv 
    Here's everyone's favorite. A VHS wedding copied to another VHS in EP mode. No magic here, but the NR does improve the background quite a bit. 
    Test 4 Old super8 footage that was transfered to VHS several years ago 
    http://www.wrigleyvideo.com/advc300/super8.wmv 
    I encoded these to WMV ata fairly high rate so you can hopefully see the differences. I hope these help others who may be considering this box. It cant fix eveything, and there are tradeoffs to the 3d NR, but my quick testing reveals the box does improve footage. And thats what I was after. 
    Conclusion: If you have a VCR without TBC or are just using a cam Passthr, you will see improvement in the video quality if you route though this box rather than a cam or non tbc vcr. If you do analog xfers alot, this box can really help. If you have a VCR with TBC (or an external TBC) then the ADVC300 will provide SOME improvment, but I suspect the TBC will in itself make a big difference. Not for the casual users as it costs $500. 
    Curt Wrigley

  • VHS to digital conversion

    I've recently converted a few home movie vhs tapes to mpg format. At low resoution the quality is still quite good. However, TVs are much larger today than 15 years ago. I'd like to watch them on my 46" HDTV (4:3 of course). How do I change the resolution to a larger size and maintain the video quality. Currently, the mpg files look terrible when played on my 46" HDTV. I'm told Premiere has a function to up-convert (I hope that's the right terminology) and keep video quality. I'm a noob to Adobe Premiere Pro. I have CS4. Thanks.

    John mentioned the ADVC300.  I did a review on it for a magazine long ago.  Here's a summary with some online demos.
    I dug this up from an old post:
    If you will be transfering a lot of old VHS tapes and Dont have a good deck with TBC, consider the canopus ADVC 300 AD converter with noise correction. Below is a review i did a while ago...
    ====
    For me the biggest benefit of the box is doing the color correction in real time as it is captured while cleaning some of the grain at the same time. This is faster for me than correcxting it in PPRO. Also, it is better to attempt the clean up while the video is analog rather in post; there is more information available. I liked the AGC (auto gain corrector) for video and audio. As sceens change it does a decent job making adjustments. (Sometimes the changes are too abrupt, so it depends on the footage)
    Note; My VCR has a TBC built in. So, it does a pretty good job on its own stabalizing footage ebfore it even gets to the ADVC300. So, the results would be more dramtic if I was using a VCR without TBC.
    For the curious, below are links to 5 videos I output to WMV showing the videos captured via a DV deck -vs the ADVC (using split screen)
    My setup is as follows:
    - Capturing without the ADVC300:
    JVC HRS9911 SVHS VCR conneted through a sony DSR-25 DV deck via Svideo. The sony DV deck simply provides analog passthru to DV. Of course the deck is connected to my NLE via 1394.
    - Capturing with ADVC300:
    JVC HRS9911 SVHS VCR connected to ADVC300 via Svideo. ADVC300 connected via 1394 to my NLE
    Test 1: Old VHS Beach footage
    http://www.wrigleyvideo.com/advc300/beach.wmv
    This was using the default settings of the ADVC right out of the box.
    Test 2a Home movie with 3d NR filters on strong
    http://www.wrigleyvideo.com/advc300/home_movie1.wmv
    This compares original to advc with the 3d NR filters on the strong setting. The 2D filters are off. Note; you will see some of the ghosting problem during the fast movement.
    My WebpageTest 2b Same Home movie capture showing NR on AND off
    http://www.wrigleyvideo.com/advc300/home_movie2.wmv
    Same footage as the previous clip. This time the left shows capture via ADVC300 with NO Noise filters on. Right side is with the same 3D NR filters on Strong.
    Test 3 Wedding footage vhs dup in EP mode
    http://www.wrigleyvideo.com/advc300/wedding.wmv
    Here's everyone's favorite. A VHS wedding copied to another VHS in EP mode. No magic here, but the NR does improve the background quite a bit.
    Test 4 Old super8 footage that was transfered to VHS several years ago
    http://www.wrigleyvideo.com/advc300/super8.wmv
    I encoded these to WMV ata fairly high rate so you can hopefully see the differences. I hope these help others who may be considering this box. It cant fix everything, and there are tradeoffs to the 3d NR, but my quick testing reveals the box does improve footage. And thats what I was after.
    Conclusion: If you have a VCR without TBC or are just using a cam Passthr, you will see improvement in the video quality if you route though this box rather than a cam or non tbc vcr. If you do analog xfers alot, this box can really help. If you have a VCR with TBC (or an external TBC) then the ADVC300 will provide SOME improvment, but I suspect the TBC will in itself make a big difference. Not for the casual users as it costs $500.

  • No Audio from iPod

    I have a 30GB Gen. 5 that out of nowhere refuses to make noise. correction, it still clicks when I hit buttons or use the wheel, but no audio from the music or videos can be played. The timer moves, the progress bar animates, everything looks hunky-dory, but the iPod doesn't work either with headphones or on ANY iPod dock/Dock Cable. I left it at work, but I'm going to restore it tomorrow (soft reset did nothing).

    either your jack is messed up and you need to replace it or your ipod is defected with the same problem MANY people are having. check this thread out
    http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1095417&start=0&tstart=0

  • Sharpening Tips?

    Canon suggests that when using Unsharp Mask to use Amount: 300%, Radius: 0.3 and Threshold: 0 as a rough starting point for quality inkjet prints and of couse adjusting from there to suite personal taste and subject matter, etc...
    I am just wondering....what have Canon owners found is an equivelent setting in Aperture as a rough starting point using sharpening in either RAW Fine Tuning or the Sharpening Adjustments Control, or both.

    Most RAW converters add a little sharpening in the initial RAW conversion before other adjustments are added. This is because the Bayer demosaicing process tends to blur the image a little. But most RAW converters give you no control over the initial "input" sharpening. Aperture gives you that control. (They also give you the same control over color boost (saturation), chroma blur (color noise suppression), and "auto noise correction" (luminance noise suppression). So, by adjusting these input parameters, you can optimize the initial conversion for your specific camera. With my Minolta 7D, I find I have to kick the sharpening intensity up to 1.00, as my images tend to be a little soft coming out of the camera.
    I also find that Aperture's sharpening algorithm in the "Sharpen" tool is quite mild compared to Unsharp Mask. So you can stand to turn the intensity up quite a bit for printing. Think of Sharpen as the last thing you apply prior to printing.
    With all that said, I really wish that Aperture had something more analytic than their current sharpening scheme. There are two functions in Aperture that are usually done by plugins in CS2. However, if you had to take every image into CS2 for just those two functions, you library would balloon with all the Tiff or PSD copies. Either Photokit Sharpener, or nik Sharpener Pro do a better overall job of analyzing the image and applying sharpening than anything in CS2 or Aperture. Basically, they apply more sharpening in high frequency areas with a lot of edges, and no so much in low frequency areas like skies. This limits the amount of noise caused by sharpening.
    The same could be said of plugins like Noise Ninja, which does a much better job of noise suppression than anything in CS2 or Aperture. So my vote is for Apple to either do a much more rigorous approach to noise and sharpening, or to get some sort of cooperative thing going on with the developers of that software.

  • Color Value read out in Library as in Develop

    Some times I need to check color values while culling/organizing in the library module. I don't want to have to switch to Develop just to check a patch of color and then switch back again to library.
    If this is already possible I have missed it.

    ahockley wrote:
    Key point: this isn't just an export problem, I'm seeing it in the app itself (difference between Library and Develop).
    The standard-sized preview in Lr Develop module can on occasions be significantly different in appearance to 1:1 previews in develop module and those in the Library module or even exported photos. The underlying cause is that Lr does not have any sharpening or noise correction applied to standard-sized previews in the Develop module and this results in the image appearing a lot more saturated than it really is. One way to reduce the discrepancy is to avoid over sharpening or applying too much color noise correction to your photos. Other than these there isn't a whole lot more that can be done to fix the discrepancy.

  • Develop module, 1:1 and Export don't look the same, color issues

    Hi everybody
    I'm using the last version of Lightroom (3.6 if I'm not wrong) and I'm facing a very uncomfortable issue with the Develop module.
    I adjusted precisely every color luminance and saturation so it looks rather good in the Develop preview (set to fit), and did an export...
    The preview I worked on and the export simply don't look the same.
    I work with NEF files from my NIKON D3100 DSLR on a Mac OSX 10.7 MBP.
    This cannot be the external display profile not correctly adjusted since I viewed every pictures on the same screen.
    I unchecked every boxes from the presets tab in the settings window.
    Here are some screenshots and exports.
    Fit preview in the Develop module (left) and the actual export of the same picture (right)
    Please note I didn't activated any lens correction option and adjusted any color. This is the RAW file and its direct export.
    Screenshot of the preview window on top of noise correction options (left) and the same area once I zoomed in in the main preview (right)
    I hope this can be corrected or I'm doing something wrong.
    A couple of days before today I was using Camera RAW from PS CS5 to correct my NEF and was only keeping exports in JPEG. I decided to use LR 3 on my entire workflow and I'm being skeptical...
    Oh right and please forget about every single mystake in my post, I'm a french student.
    Thanks !
    EDIT : i can join any required file or screenshot if required. I have some other shots having tthe same issue (a lot of ones indeed...)
    EDIT 2 : i just found out the picture has much more acurate colors (relatively to the export ones) in the Library module in fit preview (Loupe I guess)

    I have the problem on another photo.
    I made a screenshot on the screen of my MBP, but it looks the same on any other screen :
    Here is the export config :
    If you need any other information I can send you them.

Maybe you are looking for

  • Photo not showing correctly after import from iPhone 4

    Hi, Has anyone experienced this issue? https://discussions.apple.com/thread/6065160 If so is there a solution? Thanks

  • IDoc Control Record

    We have an issue with one of our scenarios. We are sending an IDoc into our SAP system but we get the message "EDI: Partner profile not available" Now at first this made sense as our logical system in the Partner profiles was FMS but the SLD had the

  • After clean install, where are my photos?

    I did a clean install because the computer was so slow (iMac Intel-OS 10.8.2). After the clean install I could not find any of  my photos. I checked Library and Application Support. There is no iPhoto file in the Library. I have complete backups on T

  • HT1725 Every time i rent a movie, playback never works! :(

    I rented the hunger games in the itunes store, and it downloaded in about half a minute or so much to my delight. Unfortunately, when i tried to play the movie i got a picture with gray and green boxes and what little image left was completely pixila

  • Netvalue followed by minus sign in standard order

    In my <b>IDES</b>  server , net value is being calculated as a negative value in standard order. It means the standard order is behaving like a credit memo.Accounting entries are also revrsed.Revenue account is being debited and customer account is b