B&W Images Look Flat on Export?

Hi...
For some reason, when I export my images...especially my black and whites...they have a flat quality to them. I have to open them up in PS and work Levels or something to make them look as good as in LR. There's always blank space at the right end of the histogram that I have to crop.
Any ideas why? I really like the idea of doing all my post in LR now.
Thanks!

My B&W exports always look exactly like they do in LR. Are you viewing them in a color managed application? What color space are you exporting to? For B&W there is no reason to use anything else than sRGB. ProphotoRGB has a gamma of 1.8 (instead of 2.2 for sRGB and aRGB), so if you export to prophoto and you view it in a non-colormanaged app, your exports will look flat.

Similar Messages

  • How can I make my images look good when exporting to PDF document?

    Hello! I'm struggling here with a PDF Brochure that I need to create (intended for web only, not print).
    There are two images that look horrible and pixelated when I create my PDF file. I have tried everything, making the images bigger and smaller, using 72 dpi images and 300 dpi ones. Everything results the same way... It looks perfect in my InDesign file, but in the PDF it looks all damaged. Here are two screen shots, one of how it looks in the PDF and one of how it looks in InDesign.
    Could you please tell me what I need to do to guarantee that the image looks good quality in the PDF? (My document is 40cmx20cm, I don't not if using cm is affecting the document).
    To export to PDF I'm using the option: Adobe PDF pressets --> Smallest file size.
    If you can help me I would really appreciate it!
    Thank you,
    Nataly.

    beer and no prepress schrieb:
    If it's for the web, why not export to JPEG?  Why PDF?
    Terrible idea. In a JPG the text will not be alive, you loose all interactivity.
    And making JPGs with InDesign is not what the program is meant to make.

  • Imported image looks different than Export

    When i import DNG picture in lightroom it looks like it has some filter on it and when i export it it looks normal so i cant see the real changes while editing the picture
    You can see it clearly on this example, same picture, no edit. just exported

    Your monitor profile is corrupt as is clear from the color cast on the histogram. This happens a lot on windows installations. You need to recalibrate your display. Best is to use a hardware calibrator. Second best (but very far removed) is to use the built in visual calibration tool in windows or mac os X.

  • My images look blurry when I export or publish my site from Muse. Why and how do I fix it?

    My images look blurry, jagged, pixelated and low quality when I publish or export my site from Muse. Is there any way to avoid or fix this problem?

    The primary cause of blurring images is the less than Photoshop-quality image downsampling algorithm currently used in Muse (that was compounded in early betas due to a bug in the JPEG compression library we were using at that time). Due to work we've done for Beta 7 to improve image encoding performance we now have the infrastructure in place to enable us to take a much better image resampler/resizer (after Beta 7), so this source of blurring will be addressed.
    The other source of blurring is unique to opaque images containing line art or otherwise containing hard edges and large areas of solid color. When an image is opaque Muse will encode it as JPEG (if it's altered in Muse is a way that requires re-encoding). For line art this will introduce JPEG compression artifacts that can be noticeable depending on your eye and the specific image involved.
    There are (at least) to ways to avoid these JPEG compression artifacts:
    Resize your image before placing and avoid applying any effects (rounded corners, drop shadow, etc.) or doing any cropping or resizing in Muse. If the image is unaltered your original JPEG, PNG or GIF will be passed through unaltered.*
    Put at least one pixel of transparency in your original image. (It could be a single 99% opaque pixel.) This will force Muse to encode as PNG. PNG compression is lossless and thus doesn't introduce any compression artifacts. However, an average PNG can be 5 times the size of a JPEG for the same image, so there is an impact to webpage download performance.
    *For PSD files Muse has to encode the original PSD data into some web-friendly image format. If an image is resized in Photoshop and placed Muse won't resize/resample the image data, but it will encode it as JPEG or PNG depending on whether it contains transparency.

  • Exporting images looks really bad!

    Forum,
    I am exporting images for a slideshow to make in DVD Studio Pro for my final outputted project.
    The problem is that the images look really choppy and very bad. They look interlaced.
    I'm working with NTSC DV. Is this normal?
    Would it help is I made a Freeze Frame in FCP, then exported it as an image?
    System:
    OS X 10.4.5
    FCP 5.0.4
    QT 7.0.4
    Thanks

    hi fcp - I take them straight off the tl and go into photoshop with them to tidy them up. Use the deinterlace filter in ps.

  • H264(Youtube/Vimeo Preset) export looks flat and desaturated- H264 Gamma?

    All my h264 output both quickitme and mp4 looks flat and desaturated after export compared to to the program window.This happends with both cs5.5 and cs6.
    I know there is some h264 bug with Quicktime but  its flat on Youtube also( in Safari) I thought this gamma issue has been sorted out?
    How can I output my files to youtube so it looks the same as my Program monitor on youtube? I know all screens are different and you need a color calibrated montior( I have that) but why the shift?
    It just does not seem that anyone has an answer. x264 does not work... anything else? QUickitme x does not have the ability to do the "opacity fix"
    How will i get that my output on my client screen will not be so flat. ( I know it wont be exactly the same (as TVs in a showroom) but the difference between the video inside premier and outside is VAST!
    I dont want to "fix" it by addinga contrast and saturation layer and them on a Windows machine maybe its then overly contrasty?
    I'm on 17" MAcbook PRo Using anexternal calibrated NEC Monitor.
    Did I miss a major answer on the web somewhere?

    So what do you guys do? Just add an extra layer of process ( I have added a fast color correction Adjustment layer and clipping the black at 10 and the highlights at 245 and putting the saturation at 120. Its a thumbsuck though...
    How on earth do  people who colour grade on Davinc or Lustre etc output there stuff to Vimeo.(Yes I know it goes to film or TV , but what about thier showreel?) It also uses H264? Is there ANY codec I can use to upload to Youtube that will look like my program monitor?
    It is facinating how these companies provide all these wonderful tools and in the final polished output you cannot get it too look llike it looked inside the product! Baffling!
    If I had a Windows machine would I have this problem?

  • Why does my RAW image look grainy when I export it in to Photoshop CC from Lightroom for editing?

    Why does my RAW image look grainy when I export it in to Photoshop CC from Lightroom for editing?
    Checked LR's setting for Ps export and they haven't changed since it was OK a few days ago? It is OK if you zoom in but in 'fit page' it looks terrible!

    I have exactly the same problem and it has got worse today as the photos also now open in smaller windows for some reason

  • When converting an image from raw to jpeg , the jpeg can look flat compared to the original raw image . Is there anything I can do about this ?

    When converting an image from raw to jpeg , the jpeg can look flat compared to the original raw image . Is there any way to prevent this ?

    Hi Joe , Thank you for your quick response . I am viewing the jpeg in Microsoft Picture Manager and Flickr. It 's not always really noticeable , but for example if I shoot into the light with dew on the grass , the dew glistens in LRoom and I'm happy with the shot but when I convert it to jpeg ,it looks dull. I have changed the setting to sRGB - from Adobe 1998 ,but don't see much difference.  Kind regards   Alberto.

  • Exported images looking different in different browsers

    I've just published a set of images to my website using a publishing service from Lightroom 5, sRGB. The images look different when viewed in Chrome and Firefox browsers, Chrome looking fine but Firefox displaying them with a red cast. The also display with the red cast in some parts of the OS X Finder but not in Lightroom or Photoshop.
    I've run one of the images through Jeffrey Friedl's online exif viewer and it's telling me there's no colour space metadata or embedded colour profile in the images ( http://goo.gl/Ouqkis). this would make sense as far as the strange colour goes but I thought Lightroom always embedded a colour profile?
    I've had a couple of suggestions that revolve around changing firefox settings but really I just need for the images to work in any browser, without visitors having to care.
    Does anyone have any thoughts
    Sample screen grab, Chrome to the left, Firefox to the right.

    kimaldis wrote:
    Firefox and OS X's Cover Flow view both showed the red cast until this am. Now neither of them do.
    Ah ... hang on, I had a second, wide gamut monitor attached to the computer yesterday, mirrored display. Now it's not. I'd been mostly viewing in the main monitor (Macbook Pro), that was the one that was out and I wasn't checking the second monitor much after uploading. I'm willing to bet that was it. Second monitor affecting colour management on the first .....
    This is what you are seeing and why everything now looks fine on your MacBook's display, which is NOT wide gamut:
    http://www.gballard.net/photoshop/srgb_wide_gamut.html
    Here's a screenshot of an sRGB profile ColorChecker image file with and without the profile in FireFox and Chrome browsers. All four browser images look identical on my non-wide gamut display...what do you see?
          With sRGB Profile embedded                 Without sRGB Profile
    As long as the images are sRGB profile it doesn't matter whether the color profile is embedded or not.

  • ProRes renders look flat compared to timeline

    Hi There,
    My rendred ProRes 444 files look flat when viewed in Quicktime compared with the timelines in both DaVinci and Premiere.
    The footage went from a Canon 5DIII 14bit raw (ML Hack) –>CinemaDNG –>DaVinci Resolve –>ProRes 444 –>Premiere –>ProRes 444 export
    The rendered ProRes files  from both DaVinci and Premiere look flat when viewed in Quicktime (or the finder) so assume this is a Mac OSX or Quicktime issue - has anyone else seen this?
    Cheers
    Ben

    Hey Kevin,
    Thanks heaps for the reply, not sure exaclty which systems details you're lookoing for but here are the basics:
    - MBP 15" Retina
    - 10.9.1
    - NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M 2048 MB
    I discovered that my sequence wasn't set to ProRes 444 but still see the same issue after fixing this - see below for screen shots. I'm sure the forum will compress the example images (and change the colour) but hopefully you'll see that the Premiere (and DaVinci) screen grab is slightly richer and warmer in the red of the cup, the coffee and the drop focus background.
    Cheers
    Ben
    Premiere:
    Quicktime:

  • How do I make the images look clear in PDF when converted from MS Word?

    Hi
    When I convert an MS Word-2010 file (which  contains  images also) to PDF through Acrobat X Pro, some images which are of bigger size do  not look very clear. Is there any workaround for this problem? Please  reply. It's quite urgent.
    Thanks

    In my experience (not necessarily the best), I find it best to rescale image copies with a graphics package before importing into WORD or whatever. Resize and then set the resolution to about 600 dpi before you import. The issue of using the clipboard appears to be an issue with WORD 2007 and such. I clipped a 300 dpi image into my technical word processor and then back to a graphic editor and all was preserved. I did the same with WORD 2007 and everything got messed up and the resultant image looked terrible. In fact, in WORD I got the same result if I imported the picture or clipped it from my graphics package. So it appears there are some strange issues with WORD itself.
    I am not trying to make any claims here, but just making an observation. The original image was at 300dpi. WORD also changed the 8-bit B&W photo to a 24-bit photo and reduced the number of pixels from 774 per width to 252 per width about a factor of 3 reduction in pixel resolution when clipped. When I expanded the image size in WORD, then the clip size increased also. When I do the same expansion of the image size in my word processor and then clip back to IrfanView, the original image is retained. My only conclusion is that OFFICE 2007 plays around with graphics and it does not seem to make any difference if you clip the image into WORD or import it, WORD still messes around with it. My guess this is just a general MS thing.
    Some folks a year or 2 ago got me to looking at nice sunsets in PPT. There were all sorts of issues with creating the PDF (AA8) from the PPT to get a reasonable result. The image obtained from the MS converter seemed to keep the picture nice. The images obtained from PDF Maker and printing to the Adobe PDF printer gave slightly different results and tended to break the image into smaller parts that often left little lines in the picture if you zoomed in. Folks were blaming this on Acrobat and yet using the same version of Acrobat with OFFICE 2003 the sunset came out great.
    This post is a bit jumbled, but the jist is that a lot of the graphics issues with WORD files seem to go back to WORD itself  and possibly with hooks MS put into OFFICE (OK, no proof on that and probably impossible to prove) to mess up Acrobat conversions. It would be interesting to see if the same result for the PDF is obtained from other converters, or if it is just something that OFFICE 2007 does "nicely" for Acrobat.
    Sorry for going off the deep end, but I just have a major annoyance with OFFICE starting with 2007, particularly for things like this. They couldn't get equations right either, just one more thing that they messed up. As far as I am concerned, a lot of the issues stem from MS and not Acrobat.
    Just for the heck of it, I ran the PPT picture through Open Office and used both the PDF export and the print to the Adobe PDF printer. Both retained the full image. However, when clipping from OOP to Irfanview, the resolution was 96dpi. The result seemed to be dependent on the zoom. So there are definitely some issues with copy and paste, at least with how some packages handle it.

  • Bug? Images look different in photoshop

    Hi,
    Am hoping somebody can help me as I must be doing something really stupid here. I'm currently evaluating various workflow products, and really like Lightroom but find that whenever I import an image into LR the tones, particular shadow tones, look way too dark. They look kinda posterised.
    My monitor is color calibrated with a spyder. I am running Windows XP.
    I've attached a link to an image to demonstrate. I took an sRGB JPEG and imported into LR. I then edited a copy in PS (exported as ProPhoto - converted in PS to Adobe 1988 colorspace), another copy is shown exported to Capture NX (also Adobe colorspace).
    http://www.hamiltonconsulting.net/strange%20tones.jpg
    if you look at the shadow tones in the folds of the jacket you can see a minor difference between PS and Capture NX but you can see a clear difference in LR. The shadows are way darker.
    The image opens fine it every other application I have tried, including the free XP viewers. LR is doing something strange to the file but I cant work out what.
    I first noticed the problem occuring in Beta 4.1 and am now getting the same issue in the new Lightroom demo ( I had hoped it was a bug that would have been fixed). I have been installing all sorts of evaluation software of late, so maybe something hasnt been cleaned out of my registry, or something is clashing.
    So far, I've tried lots of different images (all with the same problem). Recreating an image database. Reinstalling LR (countless times).
    Does anyone have any ideas as to what I can try or do I need to reinstall my entire PC

    Yeah dude, that totally makes sense.
    "I notice blocking... that... really is a function of lighting..."
    Is that some sort of new-age yet-unheard-of phenomenon? If so, please elaborate by all means.
    The point is that the image looks like crap displayed in the 'Library' module of LR, but looks fine in any other program. Because no other program is content with sitting around and displaying to you a low quality JPEG preview of your, say, high quality 16-bit uncompressed TIFF image.
    That's why there's no blocking in the image loaded up in Photoshop. Yet it's there in LR because LR doesn't bother to render the image 'on-the-fly' until you step into the 'Develop' module.
    You don't believe me? Then be happy in your ignorance.
    On another note, though, instead of jacking it up to 400% when it's clearly evident at 100%, try calibrating your monitor with a hardware profiler so dark parts of images don't become a muddy mess of blacks. Be forewarned though that it's a double-edged sword: on the one hand, after calibration, you suddenly begin to see details in shadows that you may never before have seen; on the other hand, JPEG artifacts & noise in dark portions of images (inherent to JPEG compression) also become as apparent. Hence, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and figure you just can't see the blocking due to your monitor.
    Finally, on a LR-unrelated note, why don't you come back to these forums when you're ready to write posts free of cheap ignorant insults?

  • Bug? Corrupt Tones / Colours - Image looks different in photoshop

    Hi,
    Am hoping somebody can help me as I must be doing something really stupid here. I'm currently evaluating various workflow products, and really like Lightroom but find that whenever I import an image into LR the tones, particular shadow tones, look way too dark. They look kinda posterised.
    My monitor is color calibrated with a spyder. I am running Windows XP.
    I've attached a link to an image to demonstrate. I took an sRGB JPEG and imported into LR. I then edited a copy in PS (exported as ProPhoto - converted in PS to Adobe 1988 colorspace), another copy is shown exported to Capture NX (also Adobe colorspace).
    http://www.hamiltonconsulting.net/strange%20tones.jpg
    if you look at the shadow tones in the folds of the jacket you can see a minor difference between PS and Capture NX but you can see a clear difference in LR. The shadows are way darker.
    The image opens fine it every other application I have tried, including the free XP viewers. LR is doing something strange to the file but I cant work out what.
    I first noticed the problem occuring in Beta 4.1 and am now getting the same issue in the new Lightroom demo ( I had hoped it was a bug that would have been fixed). I have been installing all sorts of evaluation software of late, so maybe something hasnt been cleaned out of my registry, or something is clashing.
    So far, I've tried lots of different images (all with the same problem). Recreating an image database. Reinstalling LR (countless times).
    Does anyone have any ideas as to what I can try or do I need to reinstall my entire PC :-(

    The image on the left in PS looks the same in Picasa Image
    Viewer (I selected it to be color managed based on the monitor profile), looks the same in Windows Image Viewer, and looks the same in the thumbnail.  The image on the right in LR is how the picture looks when I look at my image in Firefox but in Internet Explorer and in Chrome, the image looks like the image on the left in PS.  The image below shows how the thumbnail looks different from the actual picture when it's double clicked and viewed in Picasa.  The thumbnail (which shows the subjects having green skin) would be how I saw it online while the double clicked version is how I saw it in PS, even though it was sRGB (I checked the image properties to make sure of the color space).
    I have a ATI 5470 GPU on my ASUS 17.3 inch laptop.  Not sure about the drivers.

  • Images appear faded when exporting to pdf

    Hello, I have .png images in my document; and regardless of the blend space I choose, or pdf export settings, the images appear faded when I export to pdf. I noticed that when I print the file as a pdf, the colors don't change, it only happens when I export, so I'm assuming it's related to pdf export settings? any help would be appreciated. another thing that might be relevant; in the document, when it's just a single image on the page, it doesn't appear faded in the exported pdf. but when there are several images together, overlapping on the page, fading occurs. also, if I select compatibility as acrobat 4, images are not faded in the pdf, although they do appear lower quality. but i can't set compatibility at 4 because i have several movie files and hyperlinks embedded, which 4 doesn't allow. hope i've made sense, i'm new to indesign, using CS3.

    Hi Peter, I changed the colorspace in acrobat to the same as indesign, sRGB... + US web coated v2.. then I exported again, but still have faded text in text boxes as well as faded images (.png files). I notice when i zoom in and out quickly, the images flicker a bit and look how they should but when I stop they stay faded. I'm just curious if anyone were to place a .png image in their indesign + export to pdf, whether they'd get the same result.
    as far as the monitor goes, to be honest, im not sure if it's calibrated. and i feel bad asking what that means

  • Images look different in Lightroom than in Windows viewer

    I just bought a new NEC monitor, but had this problem with my old monitor too.  I'm actually guessing its not a monitor issue at all.
    When I view and edit an image in Lightroom then export it as a JPG it looks way more red and more saturated in windows viewer than in lightroom.  My monitor is calbrated using a Spyder2.  Is there a way to make my windows viewer have the same color?  I hate having to open another application to review the edits.
    Thanks
    Chyna

    Lee Jay wrote:
    thedigitaldog wrote:
    The Windows viewer, unlike Lightroom (or Photoshop and others) is not color managed. The previews in that app are incorrect. No, there is no way to make a stupid non color managed app, color managed.
    Well, yeah, but you could export in sRGB and get a lot closer.
    What’s the old saying? Close only counts in atom bombs?
    Saving sRGB may get “closer” but it doesn’t ensure a match. Only using ICC aware applications can get us to that goal. And assuming someone, like myself is using an extended gamut display, something far closer to Adobe RGB (1998), an sRGB image in a non color managed app will look butt ugly. So no, this is not a solution. Using ICC aware software to view your images IS!

Maybe you are looking for