Exported JPEGs colour different in Flickr

I've noticed the topic of colour difference in images come up a lot but after a cursory search, I couldn't find anything on my particular problem.
I shoot in RAW, colour correct and then export to JPEG. The changes show up fine in my mac's standard applications but then when uploading to Flickr, the colours become dull and not as I adjusted them.
Is this to do with my browser or Flickr or what? How can I change it, or at least when I make adjustments in LR how can I see what it would look like when I upload it? And finally, does everyone who sees my Flickr photos see the same colours or will some browsers show the colours as I intended them and some not?
Thanks :)
-Daniel

>There are several factors involved for which screen profiling has nothing to do with the overall underlying process, because it is not a visual issue.
Actually it is crucial.
>There is currently no way in LR to predict what the output image will look like when converted to a different color space. When it comes to the final image, it may look almost identical, or it may look very different. If the image starts in ProPhoto and contains a color range that fits within sRGB, then a conversion to sRGB will not look very different. But if the ProPhoto image contains colors outside of sRGB, the conversion will result in many color changes.
Sorry Edward but read up on this. This is NOT true. If you do not have an ultrawide display, you CANNOT see the difference between the original in prophoto and the sRGB conversion even if the original has colors outside sRGB. This is because there is only one intent in sRGB and since the display profile is smaller than sRGB, the conversion to sRGB will result in the exact same image being displayed.
>Jao, you lost track of the thread. The original poster stated that the image looked the same in a color managed browser, but then it was pointed out that he was accidentally uploading and viewing a non-sRGB image, so yes, the browser was an influence. As soon as he went back to uploading an sRGB image the problem came back.
No the image looks exactly like the original in a color managed browser, even in sRGB. It ONLY looks different in a non-managed browser just like you expect since the display is not precisely sRGB. This is simple color management stuff. The lady's red coat in Daniel's image for example is not at all outside of sRGB and still the color changes when viewed in a non managed browser. This effect is simply due to the monitor profile being less wide than sRGB.
>It all boils down to this: in this case the original image does not convert very well between a wide color space and a narrow color space. In order for the image to look better when brought into the narrow color space, it may have to be tweaked once it is in that secondary color space so that it looks closer to the original. And a correctly calibrated and profiled monitor should be used throughout the process.
This is all true, except for the fact that you're going to a space wider than the monitor profile, so you simply cannot see it! This space also does no real perceptual rendering. No tweaking is necessary since the result looks EXACTLY like the original as long as you view it in a color managed app. If you use non-managed apps, all bets are off and you cannot trust anything you see, except when your monitor is precisely sRGB. The worst thing you can do is try to make an image look good in an unmanaged app. You will only make matters worse.

Similar Messages

LR exporting jpegs completely differently all of a sudden?

I have noticed within the last few days that all the jpegs I'm exporting are suddenly completely different than what shows on screen in the develop module. The are exporting way over-sharpened and with too much contrast. To my knowledge, I didn't change any settings and the Export gui looks the same as it always has (set to export at 100 quality, 300 dpi). I have been using Lightroom for years and never had this problem before. Any ideas??

Here is an example. I've also looked through other photos I've shot and edited in the last month (that exported from Lightroom correctly at the time) and they are now displayed differently in Lightroom vs the jpg. So I think Lightroom must not proprerly applying/displaying the edits I'm making in the develop module. But it's only happened in the last couple days and I have no idea why. Is there a solution?

Imported NEF appears much different in LR than exported JPEG

Hello there, hopefully someone can help me with this issue. I am using a Nikon D200 w/ LR 2.0 on WinXP Pro. The NEF image I am editing in Lightroom appears much different than what is exported from that image into a jpeg (it does not matter whether it is sRGB, AdobeRGB, or ProPhotoRGB). In lightroom the image is darker and more yellowish than what LR exports from this image. Here is a
link to an image showing exactly what I am talking about. The image on the right is in LR, and on the left is the exported jpeg preview, which looks the same in firefox or windows picture and fax viewer. Just to note, the exported image looks to be correct with what I preview on my camera, LR is what is off. I have also tried all the camera profiles by adobe labs and none of them seem to make things correct. Any help would be awesome, this is driving me nuts because I have no idea what my outputted image is actually going to look like.

The reason why this happens is that Windows has associated an incorrect profile with your monitor. The only way to get a correct profile is to calibrate but you can also cheat and make windows assume your monitor is sRGB (which it isn't). To do this, go to your monitor's properties page, go to the color management tab and delete any profile shown there. This will make Windows assume you have a perfect sRGB monitor and will make Lightroom appear identical to sRGB exports in every other program (even unmanaged ones). They will all be slightly off colour though, even Lightroom, but will probably look like your friend's monitor. After you have done this as a first-aid measure, go out and buy a real calibrator.

RAW and Exported Jpegs in same catalog

I use lightroom to import raw files from my Nikon. Then i edit them and export the good ones to jpeg on my network share for viewing. When i import jpegs from my compact camera i import them directly to my network share. Before i always had the jpegs in to the same catalog just under the other path. But now with face recognitioning i get the face from both places with the exported ones. Is there a way to stack the jpeg with the raw file so that they only show once?

Raw and Jpeg next to each other can be treated as the same file, but only if they are in the same physical folder and have the same name.
Are your exported Jpeg files then re-imported into LR in a different folder? That's a problem for what you want to do (and in general I don't recommend reimporting duplicate images).
LR could do a great job of managing your network share using a published folder, if you included the Jpegs from your compact camera on the loca folder along with the raw images. With publish services and a published folder, LR will create (and remove) Jpeg images in a managed location you choose, and you don't need to worry about reimporting duplicates.
mh++

Exported JPEGs Distorted in Shadow Areas

I own a Nikon D7000 and I shoot 14bit RAW.
In Lightroom 3.3 the preview images were distorted, only in development mode the images were fine. I reported to Adobe on this and they seem to have fixed this issue.
In Lightroom 3.3 -- and still in 3.4 -- the exported JPEGs are distorted when the exported image is resized:
A lighter version of the same crop (for illustrative reasons):
As you can see, the gradient has serious artefacts, especially when going from green to black. It is a 90% JPEG quality exported of 1050px width. I have seen this for different image qualities (80-100%), though. This does not occur when the image is exported full size.
Can anybody confirm this?
It seems that this only happens for dark shadows.
I had a Canon G9 that I used with Lightroom and I have never seen a behaviour like this. Right now the export is useless to me.

I've had some discussions about this with Adobe folks during the LR 3 beta phase, but that is all behind a wall now. I think they did put in the dithering into Lightroom now. I still think it is your monitor profile. Also realize that the displays in laptops including the MacBook Pros are not actually full 8-bit displays and you will always see some banding in them. See for example this page: http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/gradient.php My guess is that that will show banding on your machine in the shadow areas. Also another issue is that you have to look at these displays at precisely the right angle because you will get raised shadows by quite a bit if you look at them just a few degrees off. One thing to do is to use a test image ( I use monitor_test_txt22.png from this page: http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html ). When you squint the image should be uniform. If not slant the display until it looks uniform.

Exported jpegs unable to open on some TVs: need to pen in MS Paint and then save again!!! (Noooooo!!

I export jpegs from InDesign to be displayed on flat screen TVs for a client. On some TV models they are unable to load the jpegs and the only work around is to open them in MS Paint (I am on a Mac so boo!) and save as a jpeg again.
Can someone please advise what the problem is and how I can fix this, rather than having the client use MS Paint to fix?
Many Thanks.

My best guess is that you have exported your JPEGs in CMYK colour space and your TV does not understand it. Make sure you have chosen RGB as Colour Space in Export JPEG window.
There´s some other options too that you could try to toggle (like Format Method and Simulate overprint which may cause troubles in some special target devices)

Aperture Exporting JPEG's from RAW: file size and quality questions?

Hey Everyone,
So, I'm using Aperture 2 and I've got some questions about exporting from RAW to JPEG. I shoot with a Nikon D70 so original RAW files are 5-6mb in size. After doing some basic post processing when I export the pics at "full size" with picture quality of 11 out of 12 then the resulting JPEG is about half the file size of the original RAW file. For example a 5.6mb RAW becomes a 2.6mb JPEG. The resolution in pixels per inch and and the overall image size remain unchanged. Have I lost picture quality due to the exporting JPEG being smaller in file size?
My friend who works with me prefers to edit in Photoshop and when he follows the same workflow his saved JPEG from the identical RAW file in Photoshop is minimally smaller in file size, say 5.6mb to 5.3mb. He's telling me that my Aperture edited photos are losing quality and resolution.
Is he right, are my pics of lesser quality due to being a smaller file size? I've always been told that the quality of a picture is not in the mbs, but the pixel density.
I've bee told that Aperture has a better compression engine and that the resulting files are of the exact same quality because the PPI and image size are the same. Is that what explains the much smaller file sizes in Aperture?
I tried changing the picture quality in the export menu to 12 out of 12, but the resulting JPEG then becomes larger than the original RAW at over 7mbs.
Can someone please help me understand this better? I don't want to lose picture quality if that is indeed what is happening.
Thanks in advance for your help.

mscriv wrote:
So, I'm using Aperture 2 and I've got some questions about exporting from RAW to JPEG. I shoot with a Nikon D70 so original RAW files are 5-6mb in size. After doing some basic post processing when I export the pics at "full size" with picture quality of 11 out of 12 then the resulting JPEG is about half the file size of the original RAW file. For example a 5.6mb RAW becomes a 2.6mb JPEG. The resolution in pixels per inch and and the overall image size remain unchanged. Have I lost picture quality due to the exporting JPEG being smaller in file size?
JPEG is a "lossy" file compression algorithm. Whether Aperture or PS, *every time a JPEG is saved some loss occurs*, albeit minimal at the 11 or 12 level of save, huge losses at low save levels. Some images (sky, straight diagonal lines, etc.) are more vulnerable to showing visible jpeg artifacts.
My friend who works with me prefers to edit in Photoshop and when he follows the same workflow his saved JPEG from the identical RAW file in Photoshop is minimally smaller in file size, say 5.6mb to 5.3mb. He's telling me that my Aperture edited photos are losing quality and resolution.
*Both of you are losing image data when you save to jpeg.* IMO the differences between the apps is probably just how the apps work rather than actually losing significantly more data. The real image data loss is in using JPEG at all!
Is he right, are my pics of lesser quality due to being a smaller file size?
I doubt it.
I've always been told that the quality of a picture is not in the mbs, but the pixel density.
The issue here is not how many pixels (because you are not varying that) but how much data each pixel contains. In this case once you avoid lossy JPEG the quality mostly has to do with different RAW conversion algorithms. Apple and Adobe both guess what Nikon is up to with the proprietary RAW NEF files and the results are different from ACR to Apple to Nikon. For my D2x pix I like Nikon's conversions the best (but Nikon software is hard to use), Aperture second and Adobe ACR (what Photoshop/Bridge uses) third. I 98% use Aperture.
I tried changing the picture quality in the export menu to 12 out of 12, but the resulting JPEG then becomes larger than the original RAW at over 7mbs. Can someone please help me understand this better? I don't want to lose picture quality if that is indeed what is happening.
JPEG is a useful format but lossy. Only use it as a _last step_ when you must save files size for some reason and are willing to accept the by-definition loss of image data to obtain smaller files (such as for web work or other on-screen viewing). Otherwise (especially for printing) save as TIFF or PSD which are non-lossy file types, but larger.
As to the Aperture vs. ACR argument, RAW-convert the same original both ways, save as TIFF and see if your eyes/brain significantly prefer one over the other. Nikon, Canon etc. keep proprietary original image capture data algorithms secret and each individual camera's RAW conversion is different.
HTH
-Allen

Lightroom 4.1 exported JPEG files are not recognized by Apple Preview App

I just started using Lightroom 4.1 Trial version (coming from Aperture). I exported JPEG versions of some images using an ICC profile. On my iMac running Lion 10.7.5 the pictures do not show a thumbnail, the file on the desktop just shows "JPEG". I could not open the file with the Preview App, but I am able to open it with DPP (Canon software)? Also the file shows that it has 0 x 0 dimentions when I click Get Info even though it is about 25 Megs in size?
The message I get is
"The file “Edit-739820120223Canon EOS 7D.jpg” could not be opened.
It may be damaged or use a file format that Preview doesn’t recognize."
Does anyone know why this is hapening?
Is it a know issue between Adobe and Apple?
Is there a fix for this?
Thanks for help in advance.

25MB is quite a large filesize for a JPG, and this might be either quite a lot of pixels saved at a very "high" quality (not very much compressed), or it may be an extremely large number of pixels saved with medium compression.
While the technical spec of the JPG format imposes an absolute limit on maximum width and height pixel dimensions, some software employs a lower limit above which it considers the file to be invalid. Different programs, different limits, sometimes.
I have encountered this (for example) with pano stitched images using the full resolution of a large number of component shots - where JPG output could not be made, or if made, could not even be viewed as a whole by my standard image viewer (though TIFF was still OK even at still larger sizes).
If Lightroom has been set to a large printed size AND to a high ppi resolution, it is easy to get into very high numbers and very large output files. One should IMO at least question the utility and benefit of using very high ratios of upsampling from a standard digital photo - which may happen in some cases as a result of using the same output settings regardless, when spreading the same data across both small and large scales. If the file that was imported into LR really does provide an unusually high number of pixels expressing lots of detail, then that will better deserve such a capacious output file. Otherwise, each part of the file may merely show a very highly detailed representation, of a very blurry nothing-much-in-particular.
If the JPG has exceeded the viewer's size limits, a reported width and height of 0 may represent an error message, in effect - not actual reality.
regards, RP

Quality loss exporting jpeg and PDF to jpeg

Mac OS X Version 10.6.2/2.66 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon/Snow Leopard
Creative Suite 3
Trying to get an understanding on why the difference in quality when creating a JPEG from InDesign using 2 different methods.
1st Method (best quality—Sharp & Crisp):
InDesign/Export JPEG
Export settings:
Quality: Maximum
Format Method: Baseline
Resolution (ppi): 300
Open in PhotoShop/ Save as JPEG
2nd Method (looks washed out):
InDesign/Export PDF [High Quality Print]
Open PDF and Save As JPEG
I used default settings except changed
Conversion:
Colorspace: RGB
Resolution: 300 pixels
Thank You to all responding!

Just thought i might add that i have encountered this same problem and that if i want a high quality jpeg i save as pdf then, open and re-save as jpeg in photoshop.
I never knew my jpeg's weren't top quality until a customer informed that my jpegs were not of as good quality as jpeg's received off other designers they use.
Unfortunately i have no fix for you, but thought it may be of interest to know its not just you!
Andy Barrington

How to restore a single table from a DP Export from a different schema?

Environment:
Oracle 11.2.0.3 EE on Solaris
I was looking at the documentation on DP Import trying to find the correct syntax to import a single table from a DP Export of a different schema.
So, I want to load table USER1.TABLE1 into USER2.TABLE1 from a DP Export.
Looking at the REMAP_TABLE options:
REMAP_TABLE=[schema.]old_tablename[.partition]:new_tablename
OR
REMAP_TABLE=[schema.]old_tablename[:partition]:new_tablenameI can't see where to specify the target schema name. The examples had the new table name residing in the same schema with just a new name.
I looked at the REMAP_SCHEMA but the docs say that will import the entire schema into the new schema and I only want one (1) table.
Any suggestions are most welcome!
-gary

I thought I tried that combination and it seemed to me that the REMAP_SCHEMA somehow over-rode the TABLES= parameter >and started loading all the objects.If it does fail (and it should not) then please post the details here and I will try to see what is happening.
Let me get back into the sandbox and try it again. I admit I was in a bit of a hurry when I did it the first time.We are all in a hurry, no worries. If it fails, please post the details and the log file.
Does it make any sense that one parameter would override another?No, this should never happen. We have tons of checks to make sure the job can't have multiple meanings. For example, you can't say
full=y schemas=foo --- Which do you want, a full export or a list of schema exports, etc.
Your suggestion was the first thing I thought would work.This should work. If not, please post the log file with the command and the results.
Dean
Thanks again for the help and stay tuned for my new attempt.
-gary

Exporting Jpegs from Lightroom - DPI question

When I export Jpegs from Lightroom, I set the dpi to 300 pixels per inch. I do not specify a max width or height. When I view these files in Adobe Bridge (CS2 or CS3) the file info says 300dpi. However, when I open the files in Photoshop and select image size, It says 72dpi and has the document size set to very large. I realize that I can enter 300 dpi and uncheck the resample box, I am just confused as to why this is happening.
My concern is, that I upload my images directly to my lab after exporting from Lightroom. Will this cause problems?
Thanks in advance!
David

the image resolution is a combination of the two parameters you mention: size and dpi. a very large size at 72 dpi is equivalent to a small size (like 3x5) at very high dpi. for printing you want at least 240 dpi at the largest size that allows you to keep that resolution. for screen presentations or your web site you want jut 72 dpi. 72 dpi and 2x3 inches will require a very small file size.
I suggest you to export images at TIFF and not JPEG as that will allow you to preserve the image quality when doing editing in PS.
In my case I export TIFF for PS (when I need PS editing) and 72 dpi JPEG for my web site (that way if somebody downloads my image illegally thy get a poor resolution copy). But since LR works very well for me 90% of the images re just kept in raw mode and I print from LR.

The difference in sharpness and overall contrast between LR5 and LR4 low res. export JPEGs

Installed the evaluation copy of the LR yesterday and as always compared with the previous version (4.4) of the program. The first and not very pleasant difference was the sharpness of the exported JPEGs in low resolution. In full resolution exports it is not that much noticeable. As you may see on the below photo LR4 export is noticeably sharper than LR5. All the export settings were the same in both versions. I used my saved export preset for both JPEGs. The LR5 exported JPEG is slightly lighter than the one in LR4.4. Both photos look the same in develop mode screen, so the difference is in export processing.
Would be great to know hear the experience, thoughts and comments of others about it.

Rufat Abas wrote:
I also hope that it'll be fixed soon.
Yeah, all other bugs in Lr5 I've been able to find acceptable workarounds for, but I'm not sure what to do about this one for the mean time - any ideas?
If no acceptable workaround can be found, then +1 vote: 5.0.1 in a hurry.
Rob

What's the deal with large white blocks in exported jpegs

I just exported my first job I ran through Aperture. Out of 736 files, 9 were flawed. When opened, the exported jpeg had a missing section of the photo, that was all white. The white block appeared in random spots but always on the edges. The problem didn't occur the second time around with the same 9 files/ this time processed in a batch of 9.
I need to know how to export files reliably - in my workflow, I don't have time to double check file quality.
Has anyone seen this issue? I've seen it with 1.1.1 and 1.1.2.
I'm shooting with a 1ds mrkII.
MacBookPro Mac OS X (10.4.6)

i've seen this too, in other odd ways. it seems to affect the images that i've spotted (with the patch tool) and have other corrections/adjustment applied. its almost like the GPU gets too overloaded to accurately recreate all of the image mods. the image seems to be segmented into smaller rectangular sections that probably get loaded into the video card's memeory and the adjustments and corrections are applied on smaller, more managable sections. when the image is stitched back together something goes horribly wrong!
the sections tend to be mis-matched with some completely black, some that have black spots where the patch tool was applied, other sections have what looks like a white overlay that's 50% opaque. sometimes even my thumbnails come up with the same results as these malformed exports. i've been able to shake them back to normalcy by toggling one of the corrections (spot/patch, highligh/shadow, etc). after the thumbnail updates properly, the export usually works fine.
this is definitely a bug with aperture and i would report it as such. attach and send the image to the bug report if you can!
scott
ps: for what its worth, i'm usually shooting with my Nikon D200 these days.
PowerMac G5 2.5GHz Mac OS X (10.4.7) MacBook Pro 2.0GHz

Artifacts on exported JPEG

One of my exported JPEGs has three or four vertical lines across it, like scratches on old movies. Has anyone else seen this? Is it worth keeping the evidence, or should I just re-export and hope the problem never recurs?

Not sure what happened to my last attempt at posting, but anyway, this already came up on the forum yesterday - the thread can be found at http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=672936&tstart=75 .
Apparently it only affects Intel macs and only when 'fit to dimensions' is used, and only with images from certain cameras. Still not good, though. I'd suggest submitting feedback and sample images via the Aperture feedback page at http://www.apple.com/feedback/aperture.html .
Ian
G5 2x2GHz, tiBook 1GHz 15", MBP 2GHz 15" Mac OS X (10.4.6)

PC based client cannot see keyword tags on my exported JPEGs, PC based client cannot see keyword tags on my exported JPEGs

Hey,
Im having a very wierd problem that I can't quite get my head around and would appreciate some help!
I am delivering exported JPEGs from Aperture to a client workning in a PC environment. These photos are all Keyworded, and these keywords show up when i click the "get info" button on the exported files. Also, I was asked to double check using Adobe bridge, and low and behold, all tags are there, I can see them, and so can anyone else with a mac. (and yes I did select the embed metadata in exported files button on export!)
The problem is that when they move to the PC environment, noone can see these tags. This is a huge problem, as I am delivering around 1,000 photos to be archived in a smart database that uses the tags to sort the photos.
HELP!

The Keyword, as with Captions (Description in Photoshop) is not found in file properties, but must be seen with true photo app. OSX does provide that in a Get Info window, but that will not necessarily be true in other operating systems. Knowing the apps they have used to search for the Keyword is important.
Ernie

Exported JPEGs colour different in Flickr

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for