Colours look better in iphoto than on desktop

Hello all,
I am new to Mac. I'll try to be short.
I used a photo as my desktop background on my macbookpro. However, when I opened the same photo in iphoto, it looks much sharper and the colors are much more vivid than on my desktop background.
I noticed the same thing with all other photos. They look better in iphoto than in Preview for example.
Could someone explain why this is so?
thanks a lot,
JM

JM:
Go to the Monitor section of the System Preferences and see what the color profile the monitor is set to. You can change it to whatever you find via Terence's post and see if it renders more accurately. You can change it to one of several to get what looks best to you.
Do you Twango?
TIP: For insurance against the iPhoto database corruption that many users have experienced I recommend making a backup copy of the Library6.iPhoto database file and keep it current. If problems crop up where iPhoto suddenly can't see any photos or thinks there are no photos in the library, replacing the working Library6.iPhoto file with the backup will often get the library back. By keeping it current I mean backup after each import and/or any serious editing or work on books, slideshows, calendars, cards, etc. That insures that if a problem pops up and you do need to replace the database file, you'll retain all those efforts. It doesn't take long to make the backup and it's good insurance.
I've written an Automator workflow application (requires Tiger), iPhoto dB File Backup, that will copy the selected Library6.iPhoto file from your iPhoto Library folder to the Pictures folder, replacing any previous version of it. You can download it at Toad's Cellar. Be sure to read the Read Me pdf file.

Similar Messages

Images display better in iphoto than Aperture2

Has anybody an explanation why photos in iphoto and Quick Time look sharper than in Aperture2 ?
Somebody asked this question in 2008 but no solution.
Here the link:
file://localhost/Users/wolfzum/Desktop/Images%20display%20better%20in%20iPhoto%2 0than...:%20Apple%20Support%20Communities.webarchive
Thanks Wolf

One logical reason would be because iPhoto shows JPEGs that have been modified by in-camera adjustments like sharpening whereas Aperture normally shows unadjusted images from RAW which by definition does not include in-camera adjustments.

Quick preview looks better than processed raw image...??

Hey all, probably a bit of a "newb" question here... so forgive me, and thank you...
Using a D7000 and often times when I shoot - the preview image on the camera looks BRIGHT, VIVID and ROBUST ... after import however - when reviewing my shots, JUST as I arrow over to the next shot - many of the preview images tend to look better than the processed image that aperture displays once it's done spinning it's wheels.
Perhaps I've messed up a Raw Fine Tuning setting?
When I click on quick preview and browse through an import, the pictures truly look nicer to me than the when aperture processes them.
Without question, the display on my acer monitor is a far cry from the miniature compressed image on the back of my nikon, however the more i shoot, the more I realize a disconnect between what I think I should see, and what I'm ultimately seeing in Aperture.
Are their specific settings to fine tune the import of raw d7000 shots?
Thanks much.. gk

I take it you're shooting and processing RAW images?
It's worth remembering that if you have a picture style selected (i.e. vivid etc), your camera might be applying extra contrast and saturation etc to the image you see on the back of the camera. Camera manufacturers do this so that we can give our pictures some extra punch and colour automatically.
I'd also be wary of comparing what you see on your camera to what you see on your monitor. Unless both are calibrated, you shouldn't trust either of them 100%. The best example of monitor calibration is going to look at TV's in an electronics store. You'll probably notice that in a wall of TV's, some pictures will be darker, some lighter, some more vivid, some more saturated. Using a calibration tool adjusts the picture your screen and monitor displays so that it is 'accurate'.
It's a bit like having a room full of scales and adjusting them so that they all read 1 kilogram when a 1 kilogram weight is placed on each of them. Calibrating monitors will mean that when you display an image on it, it will always look the same rather than getting the some light/some dark problem you saw in the TV store.
It's a tricky subject to explain (don't worry if it doesn't make sense), but you might like to have look around YouTube for videos on the subject.

Why does a DVI or VGA look better than HDMI for 2nd Monitor

Why does a DVI or VGA connection for a program monitor look better than HDMI. I've tested this on several systems with CS5x and CS6. The full screen output from premiere definitely looks worse with HDMI.
I can often see visual differences with the Windows GUI as well, over sharpening of text and lines, harsh rendering of gradients. It looks like a VGA signal displayed on a television.
I've looked at the NVidia stetting and it appears to be set to 1920x1080 at 60hz either way, DVI or HDMI. On one Acer 20 inch monitor the was VGA, HDMI, Composite, Component, and Digital Tuner, but no DVI. The program monitor has always looked blah from the HDMI. So I recently switched the connection to a DVI to VGA adaptor, and now the video looks so much better.
Any thoughts or explanations?

Just because the monitors accept a 1080P signal doesn't mean their native resolution is 1920x1080. At 20 inch they very likely can scale that signal down to the native resolution of the panel which may be 1600 x 900 or another resolution that is 16 x 9 resolution. That scaling can be done by the GPU or firmware on the Monitor depending on the video driver options and the firmware options. That scaling is also the most common cause to text and icon blurriness you are talking about. As an example there are Pro monitors that accept a 4K signal but scale it down to 2.5K or 2K on the actual panel. You might try going into your video card settings such as Nvidia control panel and look for the scaling options. Select GPU scaling and see if the preview is better. If that doesn't work select no scaling and see if it's better if the monitor firmware handles the scaling.
Eric
ADK

Why do my DV files look better when played in MPEG Streamclip than iMovie?

My home movie DV files look washed out (compared to what my tapes looked like I played them on the TV years ago) when played with both iMovie '06 and iMove '11. The claim has been made that if I retransfer my tapes using iMovie '06 (rather than '09, which I used last time, or '11), there will be a dramatic improvement in the visual quality (and there will be some unspecified benefits if I set the dial to 48K audio). HOWEVER, if I play the files I already have in MPEG Streamclip, the visual quality improves substantially without any retransfer. Here is my question: Why? Why do my iMovie-imported files look better in MPEG Streamclip than in iMovie?
Here is my layman's answer: algorithms. When MPEG Streamclip encounters the exact same arrangements of molecules (or whatever), it has some plan for what to do with them that is smarter than what iMovie does. Is this another sign or way that iMovie is not well suited for DV?

Please go to my website where I have posted new instructions on working with DV.
This keeps both interlaced fields from FireWire capture through to a DVD. All the lines means no lost quality when editing DV or Digital8.
It also solves the washed-out color problem.

Page preview looks better than live site? Whats wrong? Please help

Hello to all,
I am having problems with viewing dreamweaver pages with Internet Explorer.
My site is
allspecialtybuildings.com
When I go to the preview in IE its looks ok, yet in firefox it looks better as I have little arrows for a list effect.
Yet when I view it live it does not keep thw effect. It flows outside of my container.
I have deleted the root files and re uploaded them on the server, yet still nothing.
I am curious if there is any simple answerws for this?
Any help is appreciated. You can notice th list towards the bottom of the page.
Chris

The problem I have with your site is that when text size is increased in browser (Zoom, text only), content spills out of division containers. Best to avoid using height values. Better to use min-height: for Firefox and conditional commented heights for less than IE7 browsers. Also, IE6 doesn't support transparent PNG without a JavaScript fix. Google search for IE PNG Fix.
IE CSS bugs that'll get you every time.
http://css-tricks.com/ie-css-bugs-thatll-get-you-every-time/
Nancy O.
Alt-Web Design & Publishing
Web | Graphics | Print | Media Specialists
www.alt-web.com/
www.twitter.com/altweb

FLV quality looks better than F4V, what am I doing wrong?

Hi,
I exported a small clip as a on2vp6 flv, a h.264 f4v, and a h.264 mp4 file with the adobe media encoder cs4. Each file is the same clip, exported with pretty much the same settings. Resolution: 640x480, 0.5mbps target bit rate, 29.97 fps.
Everything I read says that for a given file and a given bitrate, h.264 should provide better video quality when compared to a h.263 flv file. I would like to know what I am doing wrong, because the h.264 files look worse than the flv file. I have provided download links for a short demo clip in each format.
fl7756n_29_640x480_500kbpsbr.f4v
http://www.filefactory.com/file/af5gc7b/n/fl7756n_29_640x480_500kbpsbr_f4v
fl7756n_29_640x480_500kbpsbr.flv
http://www.filefactory.com/file/af5gc7e/n/fl7756n_29_640x480_500kbpsbr_flv
fl7756n_29_640x480_500kbpsbr.mp4
http://www.filefactory.com/file/af5gc71/n/fl7756n_29_640x480_500kbpsbr_mp4
Why does the clip look better in h.263? It seems that everything I encode at low bitrates looks better in h.263 which leads me to believe I am doing something wrong.

Okay, that is true, they are different codecs. But even adobe says:
Q: How does H.264 compare with the current video formats supported in Flash Player?
A: Flash Player supports the Sorenson Spark video codec (based on H.263) and On2 VP6. H.263 is the predecessor of H.264 and was designed for teleconferencing applications, at 64k rates. H.264 delivers even higher quality at lower bitrates. H.264 will deliver the same or better quality when to compared to the same encoding profile in On2. Factors you should consider when choosing a format include the complexity of the content, the desired reach, ability to archive, and licensing considerations.
at
http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Flash_Player:9:Update:H.264#Q:_What_is_H.264.3F
Are there any tricks to getting the h.264 to look "better" than the h.263? Like, the h.264 version of the video doesn't even look close to as good, and I think that the f4v version looks worse than the mp4, which I don't really understand since they are both h.264 files. The footage is from a canon XL2 and the original source is ntsc 720x480. Is there anything special I should be doing for encoding in h.264 instead of h.263. The video is going to be only for the web.

I exported a iphoto slideshow to desktop, converted it to mpg file by using BURN app, burned to DVD and exported to a USB flashdrive. The DVD looks great but flashdrive is extremely fuzzy. What is the difference and how can I make flashdrive sharper?

I exported an iphoto slideshow to desktop, converted it to mpg file by using the BURN app, burned it to a DVD and exported it to a USB flash drive. The DVD looks great and very sharp but the slideshow on the USB flash drive is extremely fuzzy. What is the difference and how can I make the slideshow on the flash drive look as sharp as the DVD?

Export the slideshow out of iPhoto as a QT movie file via the Export button in the lower toolbar. For iPhoto 9.4.3 and earlier select Size = Medium or Large. For iPhoto 9.5 and later selct 480p.
Open iDVD, select a theme and drag the exported QT movie file into the open iDVD window being careful to avoid any drop zones.
Follow this workflow to help assure the best quality video DVD:
Once you have the project as you want it save it as a disk image via the File ➙ Save as Disk Image menu option. This will separate the encoding process from the burn process.
To check the encoding mount the disk image, launch DVD Player and play it. If it plays OK with DVD Player the encoding is good.
Then burn to disk with Disk Utility or Toast at the slowest speed available (2x-4x) to assure the best burn quality. Always use top quality media: Verbatim, Maxell or Taiyo Yuden DVD-R are the most recommended in these forums.
If iDVD was not preinstalled on your Mac you'll have to obtain it by purchasing a copy of the iLife 09 disk from a 3rd party retailer like Amazon.com: ilife 09: Software or eBay.com. Why, because iDVD (and iWeb) was discontinued by Apple over a year ago.
Why iLife 09 instead of 11?
If you have to purchase an iLife disc in order to obtain the iDVD application remember that the iLife 11 disc only provides themes from iDVD 5-7. The Software Update no longer installs the earlier themes when starting from the iLIfe 11 disk nor do any of the iDVD 7 updaters available from the Apple Downloads website contain them.
Currently the only sure fire way to get all themes is to start with the iLife 09 disc:
This shows the iDVD contents in the iLife 09 disc via Pacifist:
You then can upgrade from iDVD 7.0.3 to iDVD 7.1.2 via the updaters at the Apple Downloads webpage.

HT201365 the activation screen(set up screen) for ios 5 and 6 kinda looks better than ios 7 and 8

the activation screen(set up screen) for ios 5 and 6 kinda looks better than ios 7 and 8

So what? Do you want a prize for posting such an illuminating comment?

Why is elements better at photomerge than CC- CC does not appear to automatically fill image based on content but elements does when merging a panorama. Also the stitching is visable in CC but almost perfect in elements- why?

I took 6 panorama shots of a scene and used CC to Photomerge them as one. Couldn't see where to automatic blend the edges and there was 'stitch' lines when the images were merged. So i did the same in Elements 11 and it was perfect. Am i doing something wrong in CC or perhaps not doing something at all?
Any help, please?
Dave

Hi - Thanks for taking the time to reply and i appreciate the remarks- if a little harsh- we all have to start somewhere and i am fully aware of the limitations of Elements which is why i decided to add CC to my software. I can only say that if an inferior quality software from Adobe does the job well then CC must also be suited to doing the same which is why i can only think, from your comments, that i have not done something simple- however- following tutorials to get to the end result should have sufficed- it didn't so perhaps i will consider posting the difference between the two applications- and, perhaps suffer a few more 'harsh' comments. The learning curve is quite steep and i am a visual learner, but i'm also not totally incompetent:)
Kind Regards
Dave Munn
Original message----
From : [email protected]
Date : 02/02/2015 - 06:45 (GMTST)
To : [email protected]
Subject : why is elements better at photomerge than CC- CC does not appear to automatically fill image based on content but elements does when merging a panorama. Also the stitching is visable in CC but almost perfect in elements- why?
why is elements better at photomerge than CC- CC does not appear to automatically fill image based on content but elements does when merging a panorama. Also the stitching is visable in CC but almost perfect in elements- why?
created by station_two in Photoshop General Discussion - View the full discussion
First a clarification: you are not addressing Adobe here in these user forums. You are requesting help from volunteers users just like you who give their time free of charge. No one has any obligation to answer your questions.
I'll give it my best shot anyway.
Few folks in this forum are really familiar with Elements, for which there's a dedicated, totally separate forum.
Different engineering teams, also.
From this perspective, it will be difficult to give you a direct answer to your "why?" question.
Personally, I blend very large panorama shots in Photoshop proper since I can't even remember when without any issues whatsoever, up to and including in Photoshop CS6 13.0.6.
Without being at your computer and without looking at your images, I couldn't even begin to speculate what you are doing wrong in Photoshop, which I suspect you are. The least you could show is post examples from your panoramas that have gone wrong.
I can tell you that panorama stitching requires significant overlap between the individual shots, besides common-sdense techniques like a very solid tripod and precision heads.
The only version of Elements I have ever used for any significant time was Elements 6 for Windows, which I bought in 2008 to use on a PC (I've been an avid Mac user for 30 years). I found Elements so limited and so bad that I successfully demanded a refund from Adobe. IU mention this only to emphasize that I can truly only address your question from a Photoshop (proper) and Mac user point of view. I couldn't care less about Elements, but if you have comparison examples of panoramas processed in both applications, by all means post those two.
Generally speaking Photoshop is a professional level application that makes no apologies for its very long and steep learning curve, while Photoshop has many hand-holding features for amateurs and beginners.
Perhaps the bottom line is that you should stick with Elements if you personally manage to get better results there.
If the reply above answers your question, please take a moment to mark this answer as correct by visiting: https://forums.adobe.com/message/7152397#7152397 and clicking ‘Correct’ below the answer
Replies to this message go to everyone subscribed to this thread, not directly to the person who posted the message. To post a reply, either reply to this email or visit the message page:
Please note that the Adobe Forums do not accept email attachments. If you want to embed an image in your message please visit the thread in the forum and click the camera icon: https://forums.adobe.com/message/7152397#7152397
To unsubscribe from this thread, please visit the message page at , click "Following" at the top right, & "Stop Following"
Start a new discussion in Photoshop General Discussion by email or at Adobe Community
For more information about maintaining your forum email notifications please go to https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1516624.

Jpegs look 'darker' in PSE8 than they do in other programs.

I have started to have problems with Photoshop Elements 8. It used to display jpegs exactly the same as when viewed in other programs, such as Preview and Canon DPP. Then the other day I opened a jpeg in PS8 and it looked a lot darker than I remember, so I opened it in Preview to find that it was OK. Switching back to PSE8 and it was definitely much darker, so I tried DPP as well, again the jpeg looked fine in DPP.
In the end I reinstalled PSE8 and all returned to normal then today when I launched PSE8 it froze on me and I had to do a Force Quit. So I then rebooted launched PSE8 opened a jpeg and its darker than it should be? Opening the same file in Preview, DPP, iPhoto, Image Browser and bizarrely Adobe Bridge CS4 and the jpeg looks correct. It is only PSE8 which is wrong?
I have trashed all the preferences I can find for PSE8 but that did not help.
I suppose I could reinstall PSE8 again but seems a bit of a palaver to have to do this every time.
Any thoughts out there?
MacBook Pro 2.66GHz, 4 GB ram, 10.6.2
Phil

I use Adobe RGB for my image settings and I use a Spyder 2 to calibrate my display.
All was perfectly OK in that no matter which program I viewed the jpegs in be it Digital Photo Professional, Preview or PSE they always looked the same. Even when I printed them out the printed result was as far as I was concerned the same.
Then something happened and jpegs started looking darker in PSE, but looked the same as they always did in Preview, DPP and even Adobe CS4 Bridge, it was only PSE that they looked underexposed.
I cured the problem by reinstalling PSE but then it went again, I have reinstalled it again and so far things are OK.
I am sure the problem lies in PSE and something goes awry with the program. As all the other programs continue to display the images as I expect them to look and they print out as I expect as well.
Phil

NEF(raw) photos turn into jpg when i drag from iphoto to my desktop?

why do my NEF(raw) photos from my nikon D90 turn into jpg when i drag them from iphoto to my desktop? i can not work on them in PS unless i dig into the original files in the masters list. i download them from the card, both go in, and if i look at the info it says that they are both there one in jpg and one in raw format side by side. what am i missing and how can i drag the raw photo onto the desktop keep it in that format so that i can then put into PS.

thank you just tried and worked just fine, did not set any advanced options but opened up in PS any way.
well i have one other q that maybe you can answer, when i send photos to folks from iphoto, through macmail, no one can download the photos and keep on their 'puter. several years ago this changed and i have never found the answer. i will put on my desktop zip the photos and send that way. is their another??

Why does De-interlacing looks better with MPEG StreamClip?

For our client we need to render 1080i for TV and 1080p for WEB. After creating graphics in AE we add final touch and audio in PR.
If we make it progressive in PR (CC2014.1) the zoom in the packshot does not look good.
However if we make the 1080i ProRes progressive in MPEG Streamclip the zoom does look great.
How is it possible a freeware swiss army-knife makes a better progressive export than commercial software?
Or is there something we do wrong?
Herewith links to the ProRes material:
1 1080i rendered from AE: http://gvs.ftpaccess.cc/_q8w_U9SXYWR6tR
2 1080p rendered from AE: http://gvs.ftpaccess.cc/_WSw7A_kh-W66sR
3 1080p rendered with PR: http://gvs.ftpaccess.cc/_dAxuZAvbVWP6AR
4 1080p rendered with MPEG StreamClip: http://gvs.ftpaccess.cc/_nQwqP-HqMWz6FR
Please do not use this material elsewhere except for testing purposes.
Thank you in advance!
Ivery Barel
Gooi & Vecht Studio - Netherlands
OSX 10.9.5. Mavericks

ok
just to illustrate the problem a little better, here's the actual difference
this is what I have in Lightroom after editing:
and here's what I get after exporting

If I host with Business Catalyst, will search engines fine me any "better" or Worse than go daddy?

If I host with Business Catalyst, will search engines fine me any "better" or Worse than go daddy?
I am new to Muse and love it! Not sure if the hosting site matters one way or the other.

Liam has some great points. Some other things to consider is that google (just talking one search engine at the moment) more than likely know what a BC site looks like and is made of and would know the best ways to index it assuming you use some of the features of BC and not just straight up HTML.
Godaddy is straight up HTML so as far as indexing goes I think BC has an advantage as it is a known system much like wordpress.
As far as IP blocks, bad neighbours, etc only google will know that information and it's not easy to say which is better.
For example if someone on BC spam's there website everywhere or engages in dodgy SEO practises, spambots etc. Their site is going to be pushed down, if you happen to be on the same IP or close to that site you will be in a "bad neighbourhood" and it may affect your site in the short term. This is the case for ANY hosting solution, so take it all with a gain of salt.

Just how much better is nattres than compressor in converting pal - NTSC?

I am on the verge of buying the Nattres plugin but before i do i would like to know how much better it is than compressor. I did some test with compressor and the results are unacceptable. I have to send some stock footage to America from here in South Africa. The footage im trying to convert is half Betacam half DVCPROHD.
Thanks
Andre
I have posted this thread in the compressor forum but didnt quite get the answer i was looking for, although it was helpful

I don't think Natress is over $75.
Natress is the only plug-in or software that has given us consistent results.
It also does PAL to NTSC or NTSC to PAL.
Rendering can take a while depending on the length of your sequence.
Edit in PAL and when you are done duplicate your sequence and make an NTSC version. You can then avoid having to convert footage that doesn't end up in your final sequence.

Colours look better in iphoto than on desktop

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for