Bad Posterization With Onscreen Proofing

Hey Everybody,
I just recently got Aperture and I LOVE it.
I'm only having one problem: I shoot RAW with my EOS 5D and need to output in the sRGB IEC61966-2.1 color space. I know I should have Onscreen Proofing turned on set to sRGB IEC61966-2.1 in order to correctly adjust my images for printing, but when this feature is turned on, the images in the preview pane show SEVERE posterization and poor image quality. Can anyone help me out with this?
Thanks,
Nick
iMac Intel Core Duo 20" Mac OS X (10.4.7)

Thanks for the input so far. The color profile I'm
using for proofing is sRGB IEC 61966-2.1. This is
because I don't print at home and my photo lab
requests all files to be in this color profile.
Even if you submit your files in sRGB for printing, using that for proofing will not help you understand what a print will look like, because most printers do not have as wide a color space as even sRGB. That merely helps them not have to do profile conversion before printing.
You need to either get a profile from them, or figure out what printer they use and find a profile for that yourself.
The weird thing is that when I export the image, it
doesn't seem to have that posterization. It's only on
the preview in Aperture.
I'm not sure why you get this effect, I don't get anything very noticable when I use the IEC61966-2.1 sRGB profile.
If I can think of any reason to proof for sRGB, the only one would be perhaps to see what an image might look like on a web page after exporting to that space. Still you should not see posteization you do not see outside Aperture after exporting.

Similar Messages

Onscreen Proofing Bug

I found a bug with aperture's onscreen proofing. I when enable the app crashes repeatedly. I frustratingly tried to figure out what was causing the crashes until I remembered I had turned on proofing. After disabling it aperture runs fine. I am using a 17" iMac core duo 1.5GB RAM.

I doubt this is a bug; there must be a configuration error on your machine. Perhaps you have a corrupted colorsync profile.
There are problems with onscreen proofing and how it displays for many people, but what you're mentioning (it just flat out crashes all the time) isn't something that's widely reported, and plenty of people have tried it. I suggest you go to /Library/Colorsync/Profiles and see if there's something wacky there.

Onscreen proof very different than photoshop.

I just installed the various ICC profiles for my new Epson R2400 printer that are available on Epson's support web site. When I display a photo and use one of these ICC profiles for Onscreen Proofing as the Proofing Profile the image becomes horribly washed out. At first I thought "oh, you just can't compete with real light RGB" but they were pretty bad. So I opened the photos into CS2 and used the same ICC profile as a Proof Setup and did the same Proof Colors. Now in CS2 there was a very slight change - more of what you'd expect in a true proof. Now I haven't printed yet but I'm wondering if I should do all my printing from CS2 rather than Aperture. Or will the outputs be the same and there is just something wrong with the way Aperture proofs on screen. Thanks.
-Josh

Well I printed my first picture on my new R2400 using aperture directly. I used the Premium Glossy paper that came with the printer and I used the PremGlossyRPM ICC profile. Spectacular. Came out better than I thought, and definitely better than the Apple printed 8x10 I had ordered. So I'll just ignore soft proofing.
I loved Endura surface E. Any paper advice?

Printer Profiles and Onscreen proofing

Is there a way to adjust the options for Onscreen Proofing with ICC profiles in Aperture?
I downloaded and installed the Premium ICC printer profiles for the Epson Stylus Photo R2400 printer and have noticed an issue when I use Onscreen Proofing with these profiles, especially the matte ones. The screen display is muted as if the contrast is lowered and the colors compressed. I viewed the same image in Photoshop with Proof Colors and did not see this problem until I turned Simulate Paper Color on in the Customize Proof Condition dialog. Then the image took on the same appearance. Interestingly, the problem does not occur when I use the Epson profiles that are installed by default with the software that comes with the printer. The images print fine in Aperture (better than from Photoshop) using either the premium or default profile. I just can't use the premium profiles for onscreen proofing.
The bottom line is that the Epson Premium ICC printer profiles appear to be incorrectly built and do not simulate paper color accurately. In addition, Aperture appears to simulate paper color by default and I can't find a way to turn it off. This is unfortunate since the default Epson profiles, which are less accurate for printing, provide more accurate onscreen proofing.
Dual 2.3 GHz PowerPC G5 Mac OS X (10.4.6) 2.5 GB DDR2 SDRAM, NVIDIA 7800GT

I'm having the same issue and would love here a solution.
Tim

Black point compensation for onscreen proofing

Hi there,
In Aperture, is there any way to turn Black point compensation on for onscreen proofing (i.e. not using the export procedure, where this actually is available)? This option is available in Photoshop, for example.

Stephan,
I'd like to print photos via the web, and therefore
want to export the photos as JPEGs. I just checked
the options in the export preset panel, and realised
that one can select "Black Point Compensation" as an
option for the export.
Does anyone have any experience with this setting?
It's a fairly reliable fix if your test prints come back with murky shadows.
Should one use it, if one doesn't know the printer in
use?
I don't know of a good way to optimize files for unknown printers. I'd recommend getting a profile for the printer/paper combo used by your lab and soft-proofing on your Mac. Have you calibrated your screen, etc.?
The soft proof will get you in the ballpark. Definitely order small (8x10 or so) test print before laying out long green for a poster-sized one.
Cheers,
Andreas

Bad experience with Verizon Fios Internet and Customer Service

I had an extremely bad experience with Verizon Fios Internet service and I will never use Verizon again.
In August 2014, I called and installed the Verizon Fios Internet and phone bundle. I asked the customer agent several times if I will be charged anything before the installation of the Internet and phone service. She said, 'No, we will only start charging after the Internet and phone are installed at your apartment'. I went to the store and picked up the router and phone and installed it at home by myself. The router did not work. I called Tech support and they said it will take several days for another available agent to come and look into the issue. I decided to discontinue the service and closed the account that same night.
At the end of the month, I received a bill of $80 of activation fee for the internet service. Nothing was ever activated, my internet router did not work, and I got charged an activation fee for a service that I did not even start using. From August to December, I called customer service over 10 times and some of them said they will waive it while the others said it's a non-refundable activation fee. One lady said, 'Ma'am, the activation fee starts when you placed the order, the warehouse received it and packed the router in the boxes....' Isn't that ridiculous? If that's the case, please ask all your customer representative to say a clause before new customers open their account: Are you aware that you will be charged a non-refundable activation fee once you open the account regardless of whether or not you use the service or not.
So after 3 months (November 2014), I decided to get out of all these troubles and paid off my $80 activation fee. They put the bill in the collection agency and I called them and paid the overdue balance. Then in December 2014, I received a statement saying I have a $3.11 overdue balance. The collection agency told me that they will charge me for the whole activation fee and a $3 transaction fee for the transaction. So now Verizon came back and said I owed them the $3 because I paid the collection agency their transaction fee.
I am very disappointed and furious about the whole Verizon operating system. Charging a customer for an activation fee for a service s/he has not consumed or used does not make any business sense. In addition, they do not know how to coordinate with the collection agency on overdue bills. Give the customer a heads-up that they will be charged a transaction fee on top of the overdue balance, and that transaction fee does not count towards clearing the balance.
I have completely lost my confidence in Verizon albeit the many good feedback from my friends.

Hi crystallau52,
Sorry you are having difficulty. An agent with access to your account will reach out to you directly by email, private message in the Forums and/or the billing telephone number on your Verizon account for more information or to help you resolve your issue.

Hi gurus, can any one explain me about Badi & Bapi with eg.?

Hi gurus,
Can any one explain me about Badi & Bapi with examples.
Regards
Raghu

Hi Raghu
1) Badis means:
The BAdIs of the enhancement concept are not treated as standalone objects, but are integrated in the overall concept. Thus, the tools for defining BAdIs are part of the Enhancement Builder included in the ABAP Workbench.
Transaction SE18, up to now the only entry point for defining classic BAdIs, now manages classic and new BAdIs. When an existing BAdI is displayed or changed, it analyzes whether the BAdI is a classic or a new one, and then switches to the respective tool. In the case of a new BAdI, this tool is the enhancement spot editor
2) Bapis means:
BAPIs can be called within the R/3 System from external application systems and other programs. BAPIs are the communication standard for business applications. BAPI interface technology forms the basis for the following developments:
Connecting:
New R/3 components, for example, Advanced Planner and Optimizer (APO) and Business Information Warehouse (BW).
Non-SAP software
Legacy systems
Isolating components within the R/3 System in the context of Business Framework
Distributed R/3 scenarios with asynchronous connections using Application Link Enabling (ALE)
Connecting R/3 Systems to the Internet using Internet Application Components (IACs)
PC programs as frontends to the R/3 System, for example, Visual Basic (Microsoft) or Visual Age for Java (IBM).
Workflow applications that extend beyond system boundaries
Customers' and partners' own developments
Thanks
Trinath

Post Bankruptcy Charges with no proof or reasons provided

I recieved a charge on my bill called post Bankruptcy charges for 48.00 . I never recieved any notification of said charges , There is no break down of why theses charges have been applied , I then called and was told it was for payments being missed in August but somehow I am unable to view payment history for august or september , My bank statements say dfferent .I want this resolved . I have posted here emailed and sent written notification.
<Attachment removed for containing personal information per the Verizon Wireless Terms of Service.>
Message was edited by: Verizon Moderator

I HAVE !
From: Verizon Wireless Customer Support
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 12:53 PM
To: <Full name removed for privacy per the ToS>
Subject: Re: Post Bankruptcy Charges with no proof or reasons provided - Re: Post Bankruptcy Charges with no proof or reasons provided
Re: Post Bankruptcy Charges with no proof or reasons provided
created by Verizon Wireless Customer Support in My Verizon - View the full discussion
Message was edited by: Verizon Moderator

I Made a bad desinstalation with adobe Illustrator cc, I put it in the trash can!

I Made a bad desinstalation with adobe Illustrator cc, I put it in the trash can!

You cannot remove a PDF file from "adobe" --- there is no computer application "adobe".
There's "Adobe" the software house. There's "adobe" the earthen building material.
Anyway, you've a PDF that must go to the trash can (& not collect $200 when passing GO).
Two frequently used processes are:
Like any file on a computer you can locate it via your OS's file browser, select it then press-release the "Delete" key on the keyboard. The files goes into the "trash can".
Like any file attached to an email you can select the attached file (PDF, etc.) and then press the Delete key on the keyboard. The file goes into the the trash can.
Be well...

Onscreen Proofing issue

I am trying to find a way to use the Onscreen Proofing feature in Aperture in a similar way to the technique that can be used in Photoshop to adjust the proofed image to match the original.
In Aperture I duplicate the version I wish to print.
I select the original and the duplicate versions such that the duplicate is the primary image and both images are displayed in the Viewer.
I choose a proofing profile for the paper I intend to use and enable Onscreen Proofing.
At this point BOTH images change slightly even though I have the Primary Only feature enabled.
What I want is to have only the duplicate version change when Onscreen Proofing is enabled so that I can adjust it to match the original version.
Is this possible?
Paul

No, not possible.
Proofing is enabled (for everything), or proofing is not enabled. It's not set on an image-by-image basis.

I had a very bad experience with apple maps. It is not at all useful. How such application is developed by apple I dont undersatand. Pl help me how to remove it from my Iphone. Vijay from Hyderabad. India

I had a very bad experience with apple maps. It is not at all useful. How such application is developed by apple I dont undersatand. Pl help me how to remove it from my Iphone. Vijay from Hyderabad. India

Tell Apple.
http://www.apple.com/feedback/iphone.html

HT1206 i have had bad luck with computers laitly and have 5 pc allready authorised now i have a new one i cant authorise it so i can not access my itunes account can u deauthroise my pc from my accont so i can access it again

i have had bad luck with computers laitly and have 5 pc allready authorised now i have a new one i cant authorise it so i can not access my itunes account can u deauthroise my pc from my accont so i can access it again
<Email Edited by Host>

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1420

Grey screen issue with 10.5 & 10.5.1 - bad experience with Leopard

Here's a quick overview of my bad experience with installing Leopard:
*1st attempt:* Upgraded Tiger 10.4.10, was greeted with the blue screen. This was an APE issue.
*2nd attempt:* Archive and installed above install. This is where the continuing issue first occurred. The issue being on the first or second reboot after a 'successful' installation, I get the grey screen and spinning gear loop. In verbose mode I see this recurring loop:
Mez com.apple.launchd[1] (com.apple.nDNSResponder |xxx|) : posix_spawnp("usr/sbin/mDNSResponder", ...): No such file or directory
xxx = incremental value, it adds 1 each time the error cycles, which happens roughly ever 10 seconds).
Additionally, Disk Utility reports this error: Error: The underlying task reported failure on exit.
*3rd attempt:* Erase and install. Same issue as 2nd attempt occured.
*4th, 5th, 6th attempts:* Bought a brand new hard drive to replace the old one. This was an idea that was raised on another one of my threads. People thought I could have bad sectors. Tried upgrading and archive install from 10.4, no. Erase and install, no. Same issue as before.
*7th attempt:* Tried swapping out the RAM from a friends MBP (who has successfully upgraded to Leopard). No, same failure as before.
*8th attempt:* Tried using his Leopard disk. NO!
*9th attempt:* My last attempt so far... Erase and install, then applied the 10.5.1 update. It all went well, but it always has, until the point where I reboot. It successfully rebooted once, but to be sure all was fine (before using the migration assistant) I rebooted again... Oh what a surprise, it doesn't work anymore. Same enraging loop.
*Any new ideas people, I have faith that there is some genius out there who can provide me with a solution. I will love you forever if you can help me.*
*Quick question:* Do other people see the dialogue box that appears before the computer restarts...
"Updating Boot Caches - The Boot caches are being updated, the system will shutdown when this task is complete" (It's sort of along those lines. I don't have enough time to write down exactly what it says)??
Oh well, back to my newest backup (10.4.11).
*Fingers crossed for 10.5.2 :D*

THANK YOU!!! At least preliminarily...
I've spent the last three hours researching and troubleshooting my greyscreen dilemma, and your post is the only one that seemed to work so far.
I installed Leopard 10.5 onto my G4 Dual 1.25 Mirror, successfully restarted after the install, then had glitchy problems including being unable to run Software Update or even run the Leopard Update after downloading it from the apple website. So I restarted the computer (after removing the Install DVD and shutting the drive door) and found myself stuck at the grey screen with the spinning ball.
Nothing worked. I couldn't do anything to get it to boot.
After researching, I booted into single user mode and ran mount -o rw,remount / # (from this thread: http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=5796214&#5796214) and when I exited and it began to boot I saw it get stuck at mDNSResponder line prompt, repeating the line prompt every 5 seconds or so and never getting anywhere.
Then I found your post and changed permissions as you mentioned, exited and it booted up successfully. I then immediately ran Software Update and installed the Leopard 10.5.1 update and now all is well again.
Insane for this to be required. I barely know what single user means and would have sent this computer in to Apple if I hadn't found your solution.
Hopefully the next person who searches on this problem will find this and save themselves a horror story too. Thanks again.
Jeff

Onscreen proofing and printing

Apologies if this has been covered previously, but I'm slightly confused about proofing.
Assume for a moment that I have a correctly calibrated screen. Let's say I've noticed quite a difference between the appearance of my onscreen and printed images. Let's also assume that I have a profile which allows me to soft proof the onscreen image to give me an idea of what it will look like when printed - and that this profile better matches what I'm seeing in my printed images. Shouldn't I, therefore, do all of my image adjustment (colour balance, brightness / contrast etc.) with this profile loaded ? It seems obvious to me, but I haven't seen this specifically mentioned anywhere.
Or - am I missing something ?
Paul

Yes, you are correct. If you are targeting a specific output device, it is best to edit the image while soft-proofing to that device. This will allow you to achieve the best results.
Cheers

Studio 12: C compiler generates bad code with -m64 -KPIC -xO2

Hello,
after upgrading my Solaris 10/x64 machine from Studio 11 to Studio 12 some problems were fixed, but others came up; like this one:
I have a code snippet that obviously causes the C compiler to generate wrong code if compiled with options -m64 -KPIC -xO2. If any of these options are missing, it runs fine. Here's the example code:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <strings.h>
static int do_something() { return 0; }
static int foo() {
    fprintf(stderr, "\n!! BUG: BAD CODE! unexpected function call foo()!\n\n");
    return 222;
static int bar() {
    fprintf(stdout, "\nOK: bar() called\n\n");
    return 0;
static const struct {
    const char* name;
    int (*func)();
    int flag;
} tab[] = {
    { "foo", &foo, 0 },
    { "bar", &bar, 0 },
    { 0, 0, 0 }
int main(int argc, const char** argv) {
    int i;
    for (i=0; tab.name; i++) {
if( strcmp(tab[i].name, "bar") == 0 ) {
if(tab[i].flag) {   /* not reached */
if(!do_something()) {
return 2;
return (*tab[i].func)();
return 1; /* not reached */
Many lines seem to be bogus, but they are actually needed to reproduce the problem.
This is what happens:# cc -m64 -KPIC -xO2 bug.c && ./a.out ; echo $?
!! BUG: BAD CODE! unexpected function call foo()!
222
If I compile with debugging information (-g), I get expected behavior, which is:# cc -m64 -KPIC -g bug.c && ./a.out ; echo $?
OK: bar() called
0
While creating the test case I've also seen SIGSEGV at runtime in the bug case - which is probably due to a wrong calculated function address for jmp (just guessing).
Does anyone know if this is a known bug?
Any help is appreciated.
The rest of this posting is information about my system and Studio 12 patch level:# uname -a
SunOS v20 5.10 Generic_137112-08 i86pc i386 i86pc
# /usr/SUNWspro/bin/version
Machine hardware: i86pc
OS version: 5.10
Processor type: i386
Hardware: i86pc
The following components are installed on your system:
Sun Studio 12
Sun Studio 12 C Compiler
Sun Studio 12 C++ Compiler
Sun Studio 12 Tools.h++ 7.1
Sun Studio 12 C++ Standard 64-bit Class Library
Sun Studio 12 Garbage Collector
Sun Studio 12 Fortran 95
Sun Studio 12 Debugging Tools (including dbx)
Sun Studio 12 IDE
Sun Studio 12 Debugger GUI
Sun Studio 12 Performance Analyzer (including collect, ...)
Sun Studio 12 X-Designer
Sun Studio 12 VIM editor
Sun Studio 12 XEmacs editor
Sun Studio 12 Performance Library
Sun Studio 12 LockLint
Sun Studio 12 Building Software (including dmake)
Sun Studio 12 Documentation Set
Sun Studio 12 /usr symbolic links and GNOME menu item
version of "/usr/SUNWspro/bin/../prod/bin/../../bin/cc": Sun C 5.9 SunOS_i386 Patch 124868-07 2008/10/07
version of "/usr/SUNWspro/bin/../prod/bin/../../bin/CC": Sun C++ 5.9 SunOS_i386 Patch 124864-08 2008/10/16
version of "/usr/SUNWspro/bin/../prod/bin/../../bin/f90": Sun Fortran 95 8.3 SunOS_i386 Patch 127002-04 2008/04/16
version of "/usr/SUNWspro/bin/../prod/bin/../../bin/dbx": Sun Dbx Debugger 7.6 SunOS_i386 Patch 124873-06 2008/08/20
version of "/usr/SUNWspro/bin/../prod/bin/../../bin/analyzer": Sun Analyzer 7.6 SunOS_i386 Patch 126996-04 2008/09/03
version of "/usr/SUNWspro/bin/../prod/bin/../../bin/dmake": Sun Distributed Make 7.8 SunOS_i386 Patch 126504-01 2007/07/19

I'm watching Bug ID: [6774287|http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6774287] for quite a while and it seems to be fixed some time ago (State: 8-Fix Available, bug). Does anybody know if the fix made it in some officially available SunStudio 12 C compiler (backend) patch already? I'm using this SS12 patch-level meanwhile:
# /usr/SUNWspro/bin/version
version of "/usr/SUNWspro/bin/../prod/bin/../../bin/cc": Sun C 5.9 SunOS_i386 Patch 124868-08 2008/11/25
version of "/usr/SUNWspro/bin/../prod/bin/../../bin/CC": Sun C++ 5.9 SunOS_i386 Patch 124864-09 2008/12/16
version of "/usr/SUNWspro/bin/../prod/bin/../../bin/f90": Sun Fortran 95 8.3 SunOS_i386 Patch 127002-05 2008/10/21
version of "/usr/SUNWspro/bin/../prod/bin/../../bin/dbx": Sun Dbx Debugger 7.6 SunOS_i386 Patch 124873-06 2008/08/20
version of "/usr/SUNWspro/bin/../prod/bin/../../bin/analyzer": Sun Analyzer 7.6 SunOS_i386 Patch 126996-04 2008/09/03
version of "/usr/SUNWspro/bin/../prod/bin/../../bin/dmake": Sun Distributed Make 7.8 SunOS_i386 Patch 126504-01 2007/07/19

Bad Posterization With Onscreen Proofing

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for