Degradation in image sharpness in LR 2.7 64

I am running LR 2.7 64 bit on Windows and experiencing an odd behavior regarding degradation of image sharpness over increased access. For example, I will transfer images from a shoot and begin my first pass review process. That process looks at a number of image critical factors, especially sharpness of the eyes. Well, I selected one of them that showed very sharp on the screen. It then became my standard for using the compare mode for subsequent similar images. Then I came across a diffent subject and restarted the same routine. Eventually I came to some ones that were similar to the first one that I picked as a standard. To my surprise it now looked soft. After looking at it in other applications, the image looked fine. I then went back into LR and it still was soft. I then went to “edit-->Catalog Settings-->General-->Relaunch and Optimize” and ran it. After this the images looked sharp. After a whiel the same issue reoccured. Any suggestions?

I am not happy to have this problem but am glad to find that I am not an isolated and unique case. Thanks for your response. Speaking of that I was hoping though that someone from Adobe would have provided some input. It just seems to me that having to go through these gyrations when one is processing 500 or more images is quite laborious. I am thinking of going back to using BreezeBrowser Pro for the intial sharpness and composition evaluation. It is considerably faster than LR in terns of screen refresh. After that I will then head back into LR to finish my workflow. I will also give what you suggested it will be quicker than my method, but still nonetheless adding considerable time to image processing. By the way, I am sitting with 8 Gig of ram as well. Thanks again for your feedback and inputs.

Similar Messages

How to prevent degradation of image quality when pasting for collage?

I am trying to do a collage (of family heirloom old pharmacy jars and bottles) from – eventually – about a dozen separate images in Photoshop CS6. (A variety of sizes, resolutions, qualities and file types will go into the collage, but I wish to retain the image quality of each component at its original level or very close to the original level, even those in some cases the original quality is marginal.)
I have set up in Photoshop a “background document” at 300 dpi of the right dimensions to paste into my InDesign document (5.1 X 3.6 cm)
I have tried >six approaches, all of which have resulted in a degradation of the subsequently pasted-in image (not just slight, but very obvious).
Clearly I’m missing something fundamental about image quality and handling images so that degradation is minimised or eliminated.
(1) (1) Using an internet video as a guide – using Mini Bridge to open all the images in PS6 as tabs along the top of the workpage. Then dragging the first one into the base document. It comes across huge – ie I only see a small fraction of the image. Any attempt to Edit/Transform/Scale (to 14% of the pasted image, which in this case is a jpg of 3170 x 1541 at 1789 dpi, 4.5 x 2.2 cm) results in an image that looks horribly degraded compared with what I pasted (open in another window).
(2) (2) Same thing happens if I have each image as a new layer on top of the base document.
(3) (3) I tried changing the image that I had put into Layer 2 into a Smart Object and then resized it. No further ahead – it still looks horrible.
(4) using a different image [an 800 dpi JPG 3580 x 1715 Pixels, print size (from dpi) 11.4 x 5.4 cm which despite those parameters is of barely acceptable quality] I have tried (a) changing the resolution to 300 dpi, (b) keeping the number of pixels the same (which results in a dpi of over 3000 but doesn't fix the problem; (c) changing the dimensions to a length of 3 cm [about right for the collage] .... but no matter what I do, by the time the image is positioned correctly on the layer, the image quality has gone from barely acceptable to absolutely horrible. That usually happens during the final resizing (whether by numbers or shift-dragging the corners of the image).
Grateful for any step-by-step strategy as to how best to accomplish the end – by whatever means. (Or even in a different program!). Basically, even though I've used images for many years in many contexts, I have never fundamentally understood image size or resolution to avoid getting into such messes. Also, I'm on a very steep learning curve with Photoshop, InDesign and Illustrator all at the same time - these all seem to handle images differently, which doesn't help. [Not to mention MS Publisher, which I'm locked into for certain other things...]

For the individual images, don't worry about the ppi or as you call it dpi (ppi is the correct term BTW) only worry about the pixel dimensions. If the pixel dimensions gets too low, it will look horrible as there is not enough data to work with.
Therefore the final document that will house all the other images must be large enough in pixel dimensions to handle the smaller images at a high enough dimension that they will look good.
That being said, if you can load your images in as smart objects as any scaling that takes place samples the original sized document. Making it possible to scale it down to a size that is barely visible and then reset the size back to where it was and have no loss of data.
Where the ppi will come into play is when you are ready to print the final document, that is when the ppi will tell the printer at what size to print the document on the page.
If your collage will span more than one page, you may want to do this in InDesign. All images are linked to their respective container (similar process as smart object in theory) Though I beleive smart objects are embedded which is debatable.
In both InDesign and Illustrator, scaling the image in the document affects the ppi of the image, scaling down would increase the ppi whereas scaling upward would decrease the ppi as the number of pixels (the pixel dimension) has not changed.
With photoshop, you have a choice, when scaling the entire document, you have the option to resample the image, doing so affects the pixel dimension and in that instance would degrade the image when scaling downward and bluring the image when scaling up. As photoshop is removing pixels when scaling down and guessing the neighbor pixels should be when scaling upward.
But, when resampling is off, the pixel dimensions do not change and therefore there is no degration or bluring.
Why this happens has to do with simple math.
inches x ppi = pixels
Knowing any two of the above forumula will give you the third.
When resampling is enabled, the pixels can change and when it is disabled, it is fixed so only the other two values can change.

IPhoto 11 slideshow mode decreases the image sharpness and quality

The images that weight over 5 MB and are fine and sharp become somewhat blured when displayed in the iPhoto '11 slideshow mode. The loss of image sharpness is just too big. The pictures look like they were made with a 100$ camera or even worse. I know the images are fine and big enough. I used picasa slideshow mode just to check. I saw a much better image quality and no noticable lose of sharpness.
Anyone has an idea why the iPhoto 11 slideshow mode looses so much image sharpness?

We all like iPhoto and its ease of use, good looks and fancy features.
However Aplle must concentrate on the core .... sufficient quality of the displayed images. The colors, sharpness, tones - the essence of photography
I understand that iPhoto is not the Aperture. But if the Slide Show mode virtually washes the sharpness away from the pictures than something is not right! Picture that is not sharp is worth the trash
If picasa slide show can do it I am sure iPhoto slide show can do it even better! We are waiting for the upgrade

Save metadata in LR - degrade JPEG image quality?

Hi:
Does anyone know whether using the 'save metadata' feature in LR to save changed metadata to a JPEG file will result in a resaving of the entire file and/or otherwise degrade the JPEG image quality?
If it does not degrade the image quality, how does this feature work?
Many thanks for the help

Each pixel remains unchanged in this process.
I was under the impression that any re-saving of a jpeg image results in a slight loss of quality, regardless of whether there have been changes to the image
This is true for other editors, such as Photoshop or Photoshop Elements, but it is not true for Lightroom because, as explained, LR does things differently than other software.

Photoshop Help | Adjusting image sharpness and blur

This question was posted in response to the following article: http://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/adjusting-image-sharpness-blur.html

I have installed Adobe Illustrator CS 4 . I have two types of effects in this menu.
1. Illustrator Effects
2. Photoshop Effects
I see this option Unsharp Mask Effect menu ,Photoshop effects category under Sharpen Sub Menu.
My question is is Adobe Illustrator CS4 equipped with the Photoshop effects also?

Nattress pal to ntsc degrading the image

Hi everyone,
I'm trying to use Nattress's Pal to NTSC converter & the clip got more blurry & degrading than the original PAL source. Has anyone has this same problem?
My setting:
put the source field order as UPPER & destination as LOWER
De-interlace option as NORMAL. (also tried SMART too)
Gconverter also add in the fields SHIFT direction, I chose: +1 for the first attempt, -1 for 2nd, & non for the 3rd, but still get the blurriness look (kind like degrading the image)
Is it because of the FIELD order, or De-interlace OPTION?
or should I try PROGESSIVE OUPUT option too?
I left the pulldown offset as 0
thanx
JP

Remove the Apple shift fields filter - let the plugin handle all the field stuff.
PAL to NTSC shouldn't be blurry - are you viewing out of the NTSC monitor, not relying on the FCP preview? NTSC to PAL can be a touch soft, and with that I normally drop the motion blur to around 15% to get it looking better.
For upper to lower field conversion, you should be using 2.5.2 for best results, which we'll get for you via email.
Graeme

How to make fonts and image sharp?

I download Federation, Halo fonts and they have jaggy edges. Image is a an gif, but doesn't look sharp! Am I suppose to configure Livetype, how to make it sharp?
Thank You
Luis

The easiest method is to type Command + and that will make make the image larger. However you can also go to System Preferences - Displays and adjust the display resolution too. Finally, you can use Mavericks zoom capabilities as explained in:
http://support.apple.com/kb/PH14358

Why pictures are blury in firefox ? other browsers show images sharper !?

Hi!
I don't know why picture quality in firefox is low !
I Know that firefox had resizing problems before with SVG images that now fixed , but my question is not
about some specific image types , my question is why all pictures specialy smaller Thumbnails are blurry !
for example ,see these Thumbnails in this page:
> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/themes/?sort=popular
Open this page in different browsers (ie , chrome) and you can see that Thumbnails are so good and sharp
in other browsers like ' chrome '. i'm really like firefox and using it for a longtime but why firefox users don't deserve
a clear and sharp image !?
At last you guys can apply some Sharpening filters to images and make them so much better and sharper .
i'm just curious no one noticed this difference before !?
In the end pardon me because english isn't my first language ;)
THX Very mUcH For your time.

Hi Mooory, there isn't a setting for this. The way Firefox zooms PNG images is not as attractive as it could be in Firefox 24, no matter how you change your settings. I don't know whether someone is planning to improve it in a new version of Firefox, but hopefully so, and you can add your input using the Submit Feedback feature.
Meanwhile, it probably would give you the best results to reset the layout.css.devPixelsPerPx to the default (you can right-click > Reset that preference in about:config).
If you would like to do further research, you also can look on Bugzilla to see whether a specific "bug" has been filed to improve how images are resized. You might find several.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/
Regarding the bug tracking system: it's generally not helpful to add comments to bugs (unless there is a call for test cases), but you can register on the site and "vote" for them to be fixed. See:
* [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/page.cgi?id=etiquette.html Bugzilla Etiquette]
* [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/page.cgi?id=voting.html Voting]

MobileMe Gallery - image sharpness

I'm noticing that when I create a MobileMe Gallery from Aperture 3.0.3 the images look unsharp and fuzzy. The same images look perfect to me on-screen in Aperture and when printed to my Epson 3800.
I have even adjusted some test images and set the sharpening to it's max value but don't see any noticeable difference on MobileMe.
I've searched here and Google but can't see any mention of this problem - surely it's not just my images that look unsharp ?
Mark

It's understandable that photos in your Mobile Me galleries look soft, and as if they need additional sharpening. The root cause, however, is that the displayed image is just too low resolution if you try and display anything near full-screen on a reasonably-sized monitor.
When you build Mobile Me galleries with a hi-res .jpg file, the Mobile Me server makes up to 4 copies of it:
large.jpg (Optimized or Actual size, if specified)
medium.jpg (427 × 285)
square.jpg (160x160)
web.jpg (1024x640)
The largest image the Mobile Me servers will ever display in a web page is the web.jpg version, even if you specified Allow Downloading of Actual Sized images in your Mobile Me gallery settings - that setting only applies to images you download, not display. No amount of pre-sharpening will make that image look sharp if you display it larger than 1024x640 in your web browser.
(This resolution limit is one of the reason I mostly gave up on Mobile Me galleries except for those quickie "fun photos for friends and family" slideshows - which, in fairness, is really the application that Apple intended for these galleries. Though I've mostly switched to Flickr galleries, they're actually not that much better...)
-Steve
http://www.flickr.com/steve_hoge

Degraded Text Image Quality with Reader 9

I upgraded to Adobe Reader 9, which I use to open an online daily publication. However, with Reader 9, print quality of this publication (an online newspaper) is now severely degraded, to the point where I have to enlarge the image to about 400% in order to make it legible. Before contacting the publication, (whom, I'm sure, will say it isn't their problem), I am posting the question here to find out if anyone else is experiencing this same issue and, if so, is it something which can be fixed?

Unfortunately, it's a subscription-only publication, vailable only by online ID and password

Straighten tool reduces image sharpness

Has anyone else found that when rotating JPEG images using the straighten tool, there is a loss in sharpness in the rotated image? I am using the straighten tool on a 100% zoomed image, so this isn't an artifact of cropping/resizing. Even at 100% zoom, any image that has been 'straightened' appears softer compared to the master (when I'm clicking 'M' to switch back and forth between master and straightened image).
This does NOT have something to do with how Aperture simply DISPLAYS 'straightened' images in real time, because if you open the straightened image in an external editor (Photoshop), it STILL appears soft! However, if you perform the same rotation on the original image withing Photoshop, the image remains sharp!
Aperture's rotation/straighten algorithm is seriously flawed?!

This is true. Rotation DOES result in loss of sharpness because of interpolation, etc.
HOWEVER, the loss in sharpness under Aperture is UNACCEPTABLE. The loss of sharpness under Adobe Photoshop, on the other hand, is ACCEPTABLE.
Here is a self-explanatory image showing the UNACCEPTABLE loss of sharpness upon rotation of images under Aperture vs. Photoshop.
http://web.mac.com/rishisanyal/iWeb/Homepage/Sharpness.jpg
Apple, step it up. Or else I want my money back. Aperture, in my eyes, is no longer valid software for a 'professional photographer'.

Image Sharpness ?

I've been goin' around with this NEW computer for weeks now and NO end in sight with the problems... I first started to do this project with iMovie and the Ken Burns curse. We won't go there. So, then I thought I'd give iPhoto a try. Same troubles.
My end product ? I want a DVD I can pop into any standard DVD player and view my images !
The problem, every thing works fine until I burn the project to a DVD. When played back the images they have turned to goo !!! Soft-out of focus junk !
When I play or preview my slide show in iPhoto it looks great ! The effects ( fades, and others) look great ! I think the DVD burn is doing something BAD with the encoding part ?
Here is what I'm doin'. Photoshop CS2 - Size and color correct all images and save as jpeg images. Use Photoshop's Widescreen HD frame. All photos are made to fit into this frame ! Import images into iPhoto. Arrange all images into the order I want and add effects. Send slide show to iDVD and burn to DVD. End product = Junk ! Oh yeah baby... Help !

Rick:
Are you using any KB effects? If not then I suggest you don't create the slideshow in iPhoto but in iDVD. iDVD will do a much better job of rendering stills than iPhoto or iMoive(which does is for iPhoto when you send it to iDVD from iMovie). Arrange your photos in an album in the order you want. Open iDVD, create a slideshow in your menu and enter the slideshow edit mode. Then locate the iPhoto album under the Media section of the Customize pane and drag into the slideshow bin on the right. Then you can select the transition to use and add your playlist and burn. You'll get much sharper images than having iMovie/iPhoto do the assembling and rendering.
I've not used widescreen but it should be the same regardless of the format. Also be sure to select Best Performance if it's under 60 minutes as I read in the iDVD forum that that does a better job on stills than Best Quality. You can check out the forum for further suggestions.
Hope this has been of some help. Good luck.
OT

High degradation of image quality dropping SnapzPro mov file into iMovie HD 6.03

I'm using the older version of iMovie HD 6.03 because it is much easier to work with in syncing audio to images.
I'm making a music video shot on my Nikon. The AVI files look alright, but when I drop a movie file captured with
SnapzPro, the quality degrades terribly, really unusable. The Ambrosia folks tell me there is an automatic conversion
from the mov file to DV taking place which doesn't happen in later versions of iMovie. I really prefer the interface on
the older version and am seasoned with it. Is there a way to bring in the mov file without degrading it?

Is your goal to create a DVD? PAL or NTSC? Then capture with Snapz Pro at the resolution Karsten told you (that's the first two he mentioned.)
If your goal is larger definition than a DVD, then capture in one of the two last resolutions Karsten mentioned.
If you only want computer screen viewing, then I recommend a 720p project in iMovie and a 1280x720 pixel capture.
If you only want to burn a Bluray disc and watch on a HD-TV, then I recommend an 1080i project and a 1920x1080 capture.

Does screen saver degrade jpeg images used

The screen saver app on my iMac uses the images stored in an Aperture library. The images are typically jpeg. Does their display in the screen saver effectively open the image then close the image thus degrading the jpeg file every time this is done?

No. In addition, just opening a computer file almost never degrades it.
(85737)

Why iphone 6 front camera get better image (sharp and vivid) compare to 6 plus?

i compare my 6 plus with my wife iphone 6 front camera quality, and i found that iphone 6 front camera was more sharp and vivid compare to my 6 plus. is it normal or something wrong with my phone? i just bought it 2 weeks back.

Something is wrong with your phone.

Degradation in image sharpness in LR 2.7 64

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for