Black Point Compensation for JPEG export?

Hiya,
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? Should one use it, if one doesn't know the printer in use?
Thanks in advance for any feedback.
Regards,
Stephan

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

Similar Messages

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

Adobe CMM Black Point Compensation

Hello list members,
I have been trying out the Adobe CMM in combination with Adobe Photoshop.
By testing the Black Point Compensation (BPC) preferences, I get strange
results on my PowerMac. This is not happening on an IntelMac for me.
The discussion started on the ColorSync users group and is still going on there,
so maybe others might report there too.
This is my testing basis (All done with ISOcoated to ISOuncoated, relative colorimetric):
(Abbr. Adobe Photoshop Convert to Profile BPC Setting: PS)
(Abbr. Adobe CMM preferences BPC setting: CMM)
PS CMM Expected Happening
On On BPC taking place OK
On Off BPC taking place NOT Ok, no BPC happening
Off On BPC taking place OK
Off Off NO BPC OK
Any feedbacks are welcomed.
Regards
Rolf Gierling

In rare cases using Black Point Compensation can cause unacceptable results and the effect is usually washed out detail in the very dark regions of the final image. In our experience this problem usually rears its ugly head with some RGB output profiles.
Adobe recommends, and we agree, that in almost all cases, Black Point Compensation should be on when dealing with CMYK files (doing
RGB to CMYK conversions or CMYK to CMYK conversions). In most cases, doing RGB to RGB conversions without Black Point Compensation will produce desirable prints. However, depending on the profile, doing a conversion from RGB to RGB with Black Point Compensation can produce
poor output with washed out blacks.
It appears that this problem with some RGB profiles is dependent
on the software that is used to generate the profile. Apparently there is a Black Tag feature in ICC profiles that in some cases can be used or unused depending on the software that actually creates the profile. For this reason, there is no hard and fast rule that says we should or should not use Black Point Compensation with RGB output. Our recommendation is to turn off Black Point Compensation with RGB output profiles or if possible, try a test with Black Point Compensation
on and off.
There is one other case where you may want to turn off Black Point Compensation. When you want to soft proof output for a printer that has a low dynamic range like newspaper, where the blacks are
usually not very dense. By turning off the Black Point Compensation, the soft proof is more accurate in predicating the effect of this low dynamic range. Black Point Compensation should be turned off
in the CMYK Set-Up. You can view full information for this problem source www.digitaldog.net/files/Black_Point_Compensation.pdf
Sincerely, Shair

Black point compensation

I have a problem with Black Point Compensation in the print dialog when printing my book pages. It almost seems that the on/off toggle is reversed. I usually have BPC on when printing in Photoshop and I can preview its effect there. I use Relative Colorimetric rendering and having BPC on is invariably better. When previewing the effect in Aperture's print dialog window on the other hand I seem to pretty much get the reverse of what I see in the Photoshop preview. In other words now having BPC turned off not only looks better in the preview, it's also better in the actual print. Has anyone encountered this? Is this a possible bug?

Hi Markus,
Not quite - what the article shows is that BPC is generally a good choice if you are moving from a color space or range of colors in your image (Adobe RGB, for example) that are greater than those in the destination space (nearly any print device) because it keeps the tonal range of the shadows in the image correctly related to each other by mapping the blackest black in your image to the blackest black possible on your output device then shifts the other blacks relatively. As John Nate says:
"the maximum black in Adobe RGB will be remapped to the slightly less dense black of the inkjet printer and all of the other tones will scale accordingly"
However, if you then have a situation where you have an image that has a very restricted black tonal range - an image that has already been prepared for newsprint, for example - and convert it to another space - Adobe RGB, for example - then instead of mapping the image accurately as it would appear in newsprint, BPC over-compensates and shifts the washed-out blacks of the 'correct' newsprint image to the deep blacks possible in Adobe RGB. So, if you are trying to get an accurate on-screen or inkjet proof from the newsprint-ready image, BPC will mess things up.
In short, most of the time when you are moving from sRGB or Adobe RGB etc. to inkjet or print, you can fairly safely leave it on. When you are dealing with images already converted to CMYK, and you want to maintain their appearance as it will be seen on print, it is best to leave it off.
Powerbook, Mac Mini (Intel) Mac OS X (10.4.8)
Powerbook, Mac Mini (Intel) Mac OS X (10.4.8)

Black Point Compensation, more detail on what's happening?

Photoshop help doesn't explain much about black point compensation. Can someone provide a complete explanation? I am particularly interested in knowing if the black point is being chosen from the image's source and destination ICC profiles, from the image data itself, or a combination of both. Once the black point(s) are determined, what adjustments are done?
Thanks,
-Chris.

A fair bit has been published online on the subject...
Andrew Rodney did a decent job with it... http://thedigitaldog.com/files/Black_Point_Compensation.pdf
-Noel

Vertical black line artifact on JPEG exports

Tried to export 57 images to original sized JPEGS. Images were shot RAW on a Nikon D80. My problem is that some of the photos were exported with a thin black line down the middle of the image. Strangely, this only happened to my photos that were shot in portrait orientation. This line is not there in the RAW files, or in the Aperture previews. I also exported one of these images to Photoshop CS3 for editing and the vertical black line appeared in that conversion as well. Does anyone have any idea what's going on or how to fix it?
Example here: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1375121/black_line.jpg
I am running Aperture 3.0 and OSX 10.6.2 on a MBP 2.16 C2D with 2GB RAM. Aperture runs slowly, but otherwise seems to be working fine (except for the occasional green screen freakout when I'm using a brush).
Thanks so much,
Austin

AustinFlack wrote:
Yes, the images in question definitely have Noise Reduction. I think I set the value over 1.6. So there's no solution? That's incredibly frustrating.
We only have to wait for a new release!!
I have also noticed that the Noise Reduction seems not to be applied to the exported version, at least not in the same way as it is applied to the master image. Have you noticed this?

Blacks turn dark grey after exporting to pdf from InDeign cs6

Exactly what the title says. The one on the right is from Indesign....the left one is after exporting (the same in preview and acrobat reader).Anyone know why this happens?

In this case it looks like the color change is because the color mangement settings are not sync'd and not a color conversion—if there was a CMYK-to-CMYK conversion on export the image wouldn't show through.
ID, Acrobat, and Preview all display some black CMYK mixes as something other than absolute black, but the preview depends on the color settings so there could be a shift if they don't match.
Different black mixes US SWOP Coated with Black Point Compensation
The same values with an Uncoated CMYK profile without BPC:

Export changes the black point

I've noticed that when exporting from LR4 (and LR3 for that matter) that on certain photos with deep blacks, the black point gets shifted during the export (for lack of a better term)
By this, I mean that on some of my dark (i.e. night and or low key shots) what I see on the screen in the develop module is a nice even gradient from 0,0,0 to whatever comes out of the shadow. When I switch to Library module, the blacks get a little pixelated in some areas in that view. If I then export the photo the blacks are blocky in the rendered .jpeg.
If I take that same photo and export it to CS5 as a 16 bit .tiff, all my smooth tones are preserved. If I save that file from CS5 for web and devices (at the same resolution as I do for LR, i.e. 1024px wide) then what I see in that CS5 rendered export is what I saw on the screen during my editing.
I had/have this issue with LR3, and work around it by exporting those types of photos with CS5, but it would be nice to not have to play that game.
A while back I asked this same Q re: LR3's export behavior and an employee (Ben Warde I believe) asked for some sample files. I sent them along but alas have heard nothing back.
So, um... can we try again? Has anyone else had this issue? Does LR use a different export method/algorythm than PS "save for web and devices'?
I'm 100% certain it's not a corrupt monitor profile or a calibration issue as it happens on both my calibrated Macs (MBPro and iMac), and when I edit, I see nice smooth gradients from black to shadow, and CS5 makes a nice export, it's just LR that pixelates my darks...
I just want my exported jpegs to be WYSIWYG out of LR, just like they are from PSCS5...

I apologize for asking you to do this again, but please send me sample files. You can contact me at [email protected] (personal email); feel free to use YouSendIt.com, dropbox, etc.
(I suspect what you're seeing is the difference between the Ps and Lr JPEG compression system -- yes, they're different.)

Recovery and Black Point on JPEG images

I'm not a big fan of trying to do much editing on JPEG images aside from non-exposure/white balance type stuff. I'll crop and straighten, etc.
My question pertains to (for those in the know) applying slight Recovery and Black Point correction to images that aren't shot in RAW format. A) will applying these slight changes having any effect (hopefully a positive one) on the images? B) if not, will it indeed have a negative effect?
Thanks for your time and expertise.
Mac

Jim,
Thanks for chiming in on a topic where I didn't expect to get many replies. All of your comments are well appreciated. I was basically asking because I was under the impression that unless your master is in RAW format, making adjustments to exposure, contrast and even recovery and black point would not do much and could even be detrimental to things such as skin tone, etc. I like to shoot in RAW for the reason of being able to have more fine control to adjustments, but for everyday shots and portraits I don't always go to RAW format since a lot of the time I have trouble getting the shot right with the manual controls. I also don't want the large RAW files for every shot that I take. Still, a lot of JPEG's need adjustments, even if just minor tweaks. The tweaks I make look fine on the screen, but I wasn't sure if they would look okay when printed out and I didn't want to spend countless hours making adjustments and spend (waste) money on prints that weren't going to come out good.
Anyway, that is the background to my thinking in making this post. Thanks again for chiming in.
Mac

JPEG Export Settings for third party printing.

Hi all,
I'm exporting JPEGS from a recent shoot and I am uploading to photobox.co.uk for printing. My question relates to the JPEG quality slider. I notice that 10 seems to be the default for original size. What export quality does everyone use for print export of JPEG? I've tried 11 and 12. 11 seems to be a very small size compared to my usual photoshop workflow and I'm worried that I am over compressing and will get poor prints. I have also ran 12, but these files seem very large indeed for upload. If I must, I'll use 12, but would like peoples opinion as to if the difference between 11 and 12 is really noticeable.
Thanks
Steve

You should be able to tell by looking at them. If you can't see a difference, then 10 is good enough
Really, I'm not trying to be cheeky. Look at the export files, compare them on fine edges, and see if 10 is sufficient, especially considering your print size. Maybe order 2 prints; one from each size export, at your target size, and see if you can tell any difference. Use it as a learning experience.

JPEG Export Looks Saturated in Internet Explorer

I see this question in many forums and online but without a solution.
JPEG exports (sRBG) look overly saturated when viewed in Internet Explorer browser, including when uploading/viewing in Facebook, etc, etc. In other words, the colors looks different between Lightroom and Internet Explorer. (Colors looks the same between Lightroom and Photoshop though.)
As point of reference, when you download a sample JPEG image from Canon EOS's website (used to show sample images from their cameras) you see that those images also use sRGB profile. They also look exactly the same no matter how you view them (Lightroom, Photoshop, Internet Explorer, Safari, etc.).
What is Lightroom doing to photos upon export to JPEG and you need Lightroom or Photoshop to see the same colors?
I saw some talk about it had to do with Lightroom presets and that you had to zero those out? Any ideas from Windows users?

Have you got Firefox or Safari on your machine? In which case, how do the images look in either of those browsers? Or, if you're using Windows 7, how do the images look in Windows photo viewer?
Also, can you say what monitor you are using please?
I think it might be a colour management issue. Internet Explorer is not colour managed (not even IE9), Lightroom and Photoshop are colour managed, so is Windows 7 photo viewer (but not the XP equivalent), so are Firefox and Safari (but not Chrome). When there's a difference between how something looks in an non-colour-managed program and colour-manged programs then it's worth checking for colour management issues.
If your monitor has a wider gamut than sRGB, then you would expect IE9 and other non-managed programs to look over-saturated.

RAW to JPEG export in Aperture 3

I've imported RAW + JPEG image pairs from my camera, and selected the RAW image as the master. I understand that Aperture uses the JPEG for display purposes. My question is this: when I export (it would be the version rather than the master), as, for example, when I want to send the file to a photo lab for print processing, is Aperture working from the JPEG file it imported, or from the master (RAW)? I've made some adjustments to the white balance and lighting. I noticed that when I export the image after the adjustment, that the JPEG file is the same size as the original JPEG file that was imported as part of the pair (in this case, about 2.5 mb). I bumped up the image quality for the export, which results in a larger JPEG file that is exported (9.3 mb). What I really want to know is, is Aperture just expanding my 2.5 mb JPEG (making a larger file, but still from a lossy format), or is it creating a new JPEG file of larger size from the RAW master (and therefore, less loss)? I hope my question makes sense. I can't find any information on this in the program documentation.

Richard GORRE wrote:
Meaning I dont know the utility to import 2 files at the begining, except using more space.
If somebody can explain the advantage, it will be nice BR Richard
The main advantage to shoot and import RAW + JPEG is for the processed JPEG from your camera.
If your camera has the ability to capture say Black & White and you grab some images that look good in camera, then when you import both into Aperture, you will have that B & W JPEG as well as the full color information RAW. If you like the JPEG enough, then the work is done. If not, you can use the full color data in the RAW and create your own B & W image using Aperture's tools.
The same applies if you like the camera's processing for color, filters, etc. It is a matter of convenience really, not born of necessity.
Hope that helps.

JPEG Export fails in some way

Hello guys,
we have developed a JPEG Export Plugin for InDesign server that worked fine for several years now, never having any problems. Now a strange issue occur and I need some help. When exporting an preview image of one page (containing textframes with text and tables) the preview image is correct if the dpi is smaller than 72 dpi (100% in our application). But when the dpi is equal or greater than 72 the text appears correctly on the image but the tables are missing. This problem occurs on CS4 but not on CS5 server, but there is no difference between the plugin implementation (beside the changes that were obligatory for porting the plugin to CS5). Maybe this is a known issue or someone has solution for it?
Here is the difference between the exported images (smaller than 72 dpi and greater or equal 72 dpi):

I do move some photos to OnOne or PS (for editing), then back to Aperture. In Aperture I would select-all (click) the photos I wanted to send to Sam's for printing then drag the selected items (all at the same time) onto the Sam's web site for processing/priniting. Another thought - on occassion I would have to switch-out flash-cards during shooting.
Ah there you go both pieces of the puzzle solved.
You're getting the Tiff files in Aperture from the use of the external editor. In the Aperture->Preferences->Export window is the settings for what file type to use with an external editor I'm sure your setting is Tiff.
And then by dragging the file out of Aperture rather then exporting it you are getting the Tiff.
IMPORTANT Point:
By dragging the files out of Aperture you are not really exporting them you are getting the Aperture generated preview (or in the case of the Tiff files the original). The settings in the Export window have NO effect on the image when you drag it out. In all likelihood you are not getting the size and/or resolution you think you are.
You should be exporting the versions by using the Export Versions button in the Export window. Once the versions are exported to a folder on your disk you can then drag those to the print web site. This will ensure you are getting the image size and resolution you want.
regards

Jpeg export output is 'smudgy' vs Lr develop display

Hello Gang -
I've been blaming smudged output on facebook & Flickr - but now I've seen the true culprit !
My Jpeg export output is quite 'smudgy' vs the Develop display - and even when I use export "Email" default it is still smudgy while the Develop module displays great detail...
what needs to be tweaked please?
much thanks ~

Hello -
Ok - interesting:
I imported a jpeg into Lr and it looks very good - long story short - Windows Photo Viewer sucks
Viewed in Paint - looks good, viewed in FastPictureViewer - looks good.
Viewed in flickr - Bad. I'm installing Chrome to see if its a firefox issue
I use firefox browser, I use sRGB as the export color space (although I see no difference among the 3 default kinds.
I canot find info as to whether WPV makes use of embedded icc profiles, and after googling and reading - I have not found info as to how I would know if I am "even including an embedded profile with the files"
Flickr and Facebook display my jpegs exactly as I see them in Windows Photo Viewer - which is different from how I see it in Lr's Develop Module - in that dark brown & blacks look smudgy with much reduced detail
Bob_Peters wrote:
Does Win7 "Window Photo Viewer" make use of embedded icc profiles?
What color space are you using for the exported JPEG files? Are you even including an embedded profile with the files?
What do Flickr and Facebook do when confronted with an image containing a color profile?
What browser are you using to view the Flickr and Facebook images?

Some snaps show up as black screens when I try to view them as single pictures.Even when I run them in slideshows they show up as black screens.These are jpeg files.How can I avoid this happening?

Some snaps show up as black screens when I try to view them as single pictures.Even when I run them in slideshows they show up as black screens.These are jpeg files.How can I avoid this happening?

There are several possible causes for the Black Screen issue
1. Permissions in the Library: Back Up and try rebuild the library: hold down the command and option (or alt) keys while launching iPhoto. Use the resulting dialogue to rebuild. Include the option to check and repair permissions.
2. Minor Database corruption: Back Up and try rebuild the library: hold down the command and option (or alt) keys while launching iPhoto. Use the resulting dialogue to rebuild.
3. A Damaged Photo: Select one of the affected photos in the iPhoto Window and right click on it. From the resulting menu select 'Show File (or 'Show Original File' if that's available). Will the file open in Preview? If not then the file is damaged. Time to restore from your back up.
4. A corrupted iPhoto Cache: Trash the com.apple.iPhoto folder from HD/Users/Your Name/Library/ Caches...
5. A corrupted preference file: Trash the com.apple.iPhoto.plist file from the HD/Users/ Your Name / library / preferences folder. (Remember you'll need to reset your User options afterwards. These include minor settings like the window colour and so on. Note: If you've moved your library you'll need to point iPhoto at it again.)
If none of these help:
As a Test:
Hold down the option (or alt) key key and launch iPhoto. From the resulting menu select 'Create Library'
Import a few pics into this new, blank library. Is the Problem repeated there?

Black Point Compensation for JPEG export?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for