Exporting JPEG = loosing Noise reduction and sharpening, poor quality compare to RAW

Hi guys,
I bought LR 5.0 not even a month ago and I was so excited to use it.
Now that I am done working on my projects I exported them as JPEG into my hard drive. This is a disaster. My pictures are amazing in my lightroom as RAW now you should see what they look like in JPEG. I can't believe it. I obviously did something wrong but I can't figure what it is. My JPEG pictures looks extremely grainy. I did shoot at a High ISO for most of them. It is probably the real problem here but there's certainly a way to make it work in JPEG since it looks good in RAW. Please tell me what to do from there. How can I keep the same quality in JPEG than I already have in RAW? I choose JPEG - quality 80% or 100% (tried both) - sRGB. Should I resize the image too?

Are you applying export sharpening, which would exacerbate any remaining noise-grain?  Are you judging the sharpening and noise-reduction at 100% 1:1 zoom?  You have to, otherwise, the resampling-for-display algorithms in LR and your OS viewer might be doing something completely different.

Similar Messages

  • Any chance Photoshop itself will get Camera Raw's noise reduction and sharpening?

    I would love to have the noise reduction and sharpening from ACR 6 in Photoshop itself for JPEG, TIFF, and PSD files. Yes, I know I can open those files in ACR, apply noise reduction and sharpening, and then have it then open the files to Photoshop. But it would be so nice if we could do that without having to go through Camera Raw.

    Matt Howell wrote:
    Yes, I am absolutely saying that the noise reduction and sharpening of ACR 6 is vastly superior to any filters in Photoshop CS5.
    For those who only work only with RAW files this is a non-issue, but I sometimes prefer to use TIFF files generated by CANON DPP software or occasionally even JPEG's straight out of Canon DSLR's. Going through ACR just for noise reduction causes unnecessary color space conversions, as well as just a needlessly complex workflow.
    Perhaps you should ask Canon to make DPP noise reduction better.  I also do not think is a good idea to get too aggressive with noise reduction  and sharpening when you first bring a image into Photoshop unless you only use the image single use for a particular output device.  Your better off working with a somewhat soft image till you ready for output and then sharpen for the output devive being used.  If you use strong sharpening and NR up front sharpeing again for your output device may produce unwanted sharpening and NR artifacts...  There are several third party noise reduction and sharpening plug-ins that are better then Adobe Photoshop built in ones.  Noise reduction has to be balanced too much will loose detail masking detail is important. ACR noise reduction provides masking adjustments and works well. Third party plug-ins offer offer advanced masking features also. Photoshop noise reduction filter has a basic preserve detail slider which I presumes does some kind of masking but this is not as good at ACR masking and third paty masking.  You can of course add you own masking before using photoshop noise reduction filter. Sharpening also needs masking for sarpening will sharpen noise as well as detail.
    IMO your better off with third party plug-ins that are designed to be the best. They keep getting better there is no clear winner for all images. I'm been satisfied with NeatImage and I have only had to pay for two upgrades.  I had to pay for the addition the 32 bit plugin then and  for the addition a 64 bit plugin.  All other updates to NeatImage has been free of charge even the lates version 7 of the 64 bit plugin was no charge for me.

  • Noise reduction and sharpening in LR4

    Am I the only one that feels that the LR4 NR is inferior to that of LR3? I swear the only slider that does anything is the luminance and it is not as precise or powerful as LR3. The detail and contrast slders don't seem to do anything?? And as for the sharpening, the radius and detail seem to not do much as compared to LR3. Is it just that it is slower than LR3? I just feel as if I can't dial in things as precise. I am using RC1 with 5D3 files. Should I go for RC2? I heard is was even slower. Thanks

    As far as I know, nothing was changed in the sharpening and noise redution between LR 3 and LR4, so I think you are "seeing things" that aren't there...and yes, PV 2012 takes more processing than PV 2010 but the image detail (sharpening and noise reduction) should be the same...

  • Sharpening, noise reduction and blurring (general)

    Sharpening, noise reduction and blurring ...
    I need to read an extensive and up-to-date reference about these topics in digital imaging.
    I would like to learn your book advises ...
    Thanks a lot.
    PS. It can be technical.

    Thanks Jeffrey,
    I want to learn all the sharpening algorithms in the digital imaging world today (and also for NR and blurring, as they are closely related subjects with each other).
    Indeed, I'm trying to understand the PS and LR tools.
    And, in order to understand their tools completely,
    I think I should have a solid background on these subjects ...
    For example ...
    I could not understand yet how the detail slider works in LR.
    It is said that it uses deconvolution algorithm ... but if you ask me it looks like a smart sharpen applied to the high frequency.
    Is smart sharpen deconvolution?
    Looks like ... but I don't know.
    Like this ...
    Of course, I can use them without knowing them so much,
    Just "need for knowledge"
    I read Jeff's book, but I think I need more.

  • Noise Reduction and RAW

    I use a Rebel T4i, but the model really should not matter I think.
    When Hi ISO or Long Exposure Noise Reduction is set does it apply to RAW?
    I am under the impression that RAW get no additional processing. But I'm learning to look at my images in new ways. Something doesn't add up. It seems like the noise reduction is applied to RAW images. My mind is going to explode pretty soon if somebody doesn't set me straight.
    Solved!
    Go to Solution.

    Long exposure noise reduction is applied directly to RAW.  It's "destructive", burnt into the file.  It takes the noise readings from the second "dark" shot and subtracts them from the first image, and creates a single RAW out of it.
    High ISO noise on the other hand is just listed as a setting.  Programs like Lightroom will ignore it, but some programs, like Canon's DPP will apply it on import.  I don't use it so I can't say for sure, but I'd imagine that you can adjust it since it's just a setting.

  • I am using IDVD to make slide shows.  The pictures are clear and of good quality.  When I burn the slide show to a disk, the pictures are blurry and of poor quality.  Is there a setting for quality of picture in burning a disk?

    I am using IDVD to make slide shows.  The pictures are clear and of high quality when viewed on my computer.  When I burn the slide show to a disk, the pictures are blury and of poor quality.  Is there a setting adjustment to correct this problem?

    I would re-post in the iDVD forum.  You are likely to get a faster answer there.  Good luck.

  • I am using using IDVD to create slide shows.  When viewed on my computer the pictures are clear and of high quality.  When I burn the slide show to a disk and play it back, the pictures are blurry and of poor quality.

    I am using IDVD to create slide shows.  When viewed on my computer, the pictures are clear and of high quality.  When I burn the slide show to a disk and play it back, the pictures are blury and of poor quality.  Is there a setting that controls the quality of the burn and if there is, where do I find it?  Thank you.

    The Mac software - iPhoto, iMovie, and iDVD are not the best with the Ken Burns effect (zoom in/out effect), so you might want to minimize that effect; also, if your subjects are wearing stripes for instance, that will have an effect if you zoom. There is better software available for slideshows; however, I do not know of any that is free (and does a good job). I've used Photo to Movie for some time; it does a fine job even in HD, but you have to pay for it. I use iDVD extensively, but only to add a menu, theme, special effects, etc. and then to burn it.

  • Export jpeg ignores 300dpi setting and becomes 72dpi

    When I’m exporting my file (1200 x 1200 pixels) to jpeg, the final jpeg is only 72dpi even though I pick 300dpi and max quality from the JPEG options window. The original file I’m using is large enough 3366 × 2476 pixels with 300 dpi. Help anyone?

    I open it in Preview. Then Tools > Inspector. I attached a screenshot of what I see. Thanks for trying to help.

  • MEMS accelerometer: noise reduction and improve resolution

    Hi to all, I hope to post in the right place.
    I have a 14 bit MEMS digital accelerometer, I need 100 sps output rate.
    I would like to start tests with LabView before move to microcontroller but first I have these doubts:
    First step: sensor could  work up to 1200 sps, so I'm thinking about reading data at 1200 sps to increase resolution.
    Is there any suitable algorithm specific for this case or just oversample then avarage results to 100 sps?
    Second step: I've heard it's possible to use multiple (2-3) sensor at same time to reduce noise (Kellman filter?), right?
    If so I haven't found examples on the net, just using sensors grid (isn't my case).
    Is there available any example?
    Thanks. Michele.

    At the end, my final application is measure signal with maximum pk-pk value of 1-1,5g, maximum bandwidth 50Hz.
    Target accelerometers has got about 300ng PSD value, at 24 bit resolution, I would likr to know what can I do with commercial accelerometers.
    Hi, I've take as example application note AN4075 from Freescale:
    - sensor MMA8451 14 bit digital output, +/- 2g fullscale, 0,25 mg/count
    PSD = 85ug/SQRT(Hz)
    Signal bandwidth = 200 Hz
    Sample frequency = 400 Hz
    RMS noise = 1,2mg (on 200 Hz bandwidth)
    pk-pk noise = RMS noise * 4 = 4,8 mg
    I have 2,8 mg of noise where I have a resolution of 0,25 mg/count, so I got at the end efective resolution of 11,05mg.
    Other sensors could be BMA180 from Bosch or LIS3LV02DQ from ST (both digital output).
    1) can I improve performances of these sensors?
    I've read I can increase resolution with oversampling, but I think I would be limited to the maximum sample rate of sensor (1200 SPS for BMA180 or 1600 for LIS3LV02DQ)
    If oversampling would be correct way, I think I could use external ADC (due to high SPS I can reach in this way, digital sensors has got maximum SPS up to 1600) to increase SPS value.
    But if I increase resolution through oversampling (let's suppose I can reach 24 bit resolution), which would be efective number of bits?
    2)I can place sensors much closer, so I think I can get same acceleration reading from 2 (or more) sensors. In this case I would reduce noise throu Kelman filter.
    But examples I've fond on the net are based on "estimated" value I suppose, and on "real" value I read from sensor.
    So I have no idea how implement Kelman filter.

  • Bridge CS4 looses my labels and ratings if edited in Camera RAW

    Hi there. This is my first post here, so please forgive me if I make any errors of normal posting procedure. I'm hoping someone might be able to identify this problem please.
    I am using Bridge CS4 v.3.0.0.464 and Photoshop CS4 v.11.0 and Camera RAW 5.0.0.178
    On Windows Vista Home Premium 64 Bit service pack 2, and working mainly with jpg files from a Nikon D300s
    I've noticed recently the following behaviour. If I label and/or rate some photos in Bridge, and then open those photos via Camera RAW, and then make adjustments to those photos in Camera RAW and open them directly from there into Photoshop, then the original file in Bridge looses all it's rating and label info, and shows a new modified date and time as of that moment.
    This only seems to happen if I actually edit the photo in Camera RAW, I do not ask to save it (and remember these are JPG files so as I understand it any changes in Camera RAW would not be saved unless I ask to resave the file itself) but to open it directly into Photoshop (and I then save the finished work as a copy to a different place from Photoshop) but the act of making an edit in Camera RAW seems to affect the original file settings in some way, and that looses the labelling etc.
    However, just a couple of days ago something even odder happened. I opened Bridge, navigated to a recent (and recently labelled) folder to browse some photos (at this point I had not opened either Camera RAW or Photoshop and was not doing editing of any sort). When I got to the folder I wanted and Bridge started to display the thumbnails, I immediately heard my hard drive working very hard, and watched as over the course of a few seconds all my labels, ratings etc, were erased from the files in that folder, you could actually see it happening in real time in the filter pane as the number of red-labelled photos counted down from 30 to 0, and the modified dates for those 30 shifted from two days before to the current time/date. it only happened for the labelled and/or rated photos, the others remained unchanged, with their modified dates still the same as when I created the folder a few days before. This has so far happened to me just once, a couple of days ago, it was as if Bridge was somehow refreshing a cache or something, and that caused it to to clear all the changes I had made.
    Anyway, I couldn't really find any reference online or on these forums to that specific behaviour. After reading some slightly similar problems online I tried a few changes to settings. Allowing Bridge to automatically export the cache to folders where possible, and making sure that the main Adobe cache location is writable (not read only) in windows folder settings. However, although I have not yet had a repeat of the weird incident above, that hadn't happened before either so I cant really claim that I've cured it. But moreover the issue of loosing labels/rating when editing with Camera RAW still persists consistantly even after those changes, so that is definitely still a problem
    Can anyone shed any light please? if it's a known problem, a flaw, or maybe (hopefully) can be sorted with some settings that I have missed.
    Thanks for any help
    Best regards
    Will

    Welcome to the froum.  Your submittal was great.
    I don't know if this will fix your problems, but you need to update to the current versions and see where that takes you.  Click on Downloads/updates at top of page.
    You have Bridge CS4 v.3.0.0.464 and Photoshop CS4 v.11.0 and Camera RAW 5.0.0.178.  Don't know what current version of Bridge is, but you need PS v. 11.0.1 which fixed a number of mistakes.  Also, the current RAW is 5.6 I believe.  I am still on CS3.
    eatfirst wrote:
    This only seems to happen if I actually edit the photo in Camera RAW, I do not ask to save it (and remember these are JPG files so as I understand it any changes in Camera RAW would not be saved unless I ask to resave the file itself) but to open it directly into Photoshop (and I then save the finished work as a copy to a different place from Photoshop) but the act of making an edit in Camera RAW seems to affect the original file settings in some way, and that looses the labelling etc.
    Edits, keywords, and rating can be stored in the XMP file.  This has the same name as the file and needs to move with the file or you will loose info.  If you move or rename the file, and don't use Bridge, this file could be left behind.  You can see this file in Bridge, if you have show hidden files clicked in View.  You can look at it in Windows Explorer if you have "show hidden files".
    Check to see if you have an XMP file in the new location.  If not then do you workflow in stages and see if you have an XMP file after edits before you save it to another location.
    Hope this helps.

  • Exporting movie 2nd time has resulted in poor quality picture...

    Hi,
    I edited my holiday video in iMovie HD and exported as "Quicktime-Full Quality" and it made a large DV file which looks great.
    i tinkered around with project in iMovie as needed to add/remove a few things and exported again on same setting as above, but it now looks pixellated and nowhere near as sharp as the first copy.
    Any tips on whats gone wrong? the only other thing i did in between these steps is also export it to iDVD for later burning, if that helps.
    Thanks.

    Hi
    YES - the only thing You did was using Share/Export to iDVD.
    That's the problem. This is destructive ! ! !
    iMovie rendering in this process gives a lousy result BUT ALSO HARMS THE ORIGINAL.
    Medicine (but a bitter one).
    • Re-import the photos to Your movie project (the old ones are damaged)
    • Re-edit them to their propper places and duration
    • NOW - When done. CLOSE iMovie
    • Open iDVD and import Your movie project. Now iDVD will do the rendering and so much better.
    Yours in Your Pain Bengt W

  • Photo To Movie and iMovie: Poor quality movies

    I am using Photo To Movie, iMovie as well as Keynote.
    I am finding that when I burn PTM to movie either Quicktime or iMovie the quality is very bad, in particular on slides that have colors and text on them; these are distorted, while the actual photos are grainy.
    I export (Make Movie) from PTM to Quicktime - DV(NTSC), High quality, 720x480, 29.97 fps, 16 bit stereo, 48,000 hz.
    All photos are high quality ranging from 2 to 4 megs.
    Any idea what could be the matter?
    Thanks,
    Tek

    Thanks.
    Didn't think of that because I'm new at using QT in this capacity.
    It's always so simple.
    Hope that's the problem.

  • I exported a project to QuickTime and the video quality is a bit shimmery, and grainy.

    Did I do too much color correcting (too much saturation)? Or might it have something to do with the Broadcast filter? Or might it have something to do with what CODEC I used? I'm stumped.

    What is the format/codec of the clips you are using?   That would help us figure out what easy setup would best match.
    Also, don't copy/paste the old sequence into the new sequence.  Select all the clips in the old sequence and copy/paste them into the new sequence.  (There is a difference.)
    If you have 1280x720 clips, then it would appear you shot 720p video.  The corresponding easy setup would be HDV Apple Intermediate Codec 720p30 (North America) or 720p25 (Europe).

  • RGB poor quality compared to CMYK

    I have a vector map which was brought from iStock and changed the color on it. The edited version is in CMYK format and I need both a CMYK version for print and RGB for screen.
    The map needs to be used in PowerPoint and I have tried to zoom in quite far onto a specific country. I found that when zooming the CMYK map was absolutely fine, but I needed to use the RGB version. When I inserted the RGB the quality was significantly poorer than the CMYK one (see maps below) and I can't work out why!
    Unfortunately, the map needs to be in jpeg or png format for PowerPoint, as it won't support EPS's or PDF's. I converted the map to png, which was slightly better but still not as good as the CMYK version.
    Both the RGB and CMYK maps are exactly the same size (document size, file size, dpi etc). I changed the colour profile when converting to RGB (File -> Document Colour Modes -> RGB), when exporting it to JPEG I ensured that RGB was selected. I just cannot work out why the CMYK is perfect and RGB isn't and I've never had this issue before!
    Any help would be greatly appreciated!

    Thank you for your responses.
    Mylenium - I dont think it is an issue with PP, I wondered that before and zoomed right in on the jpeg of both the RGB and CMYK in Window's Photo Viewer. As in PP the CMYK zoomed in quite far and looked clear before eventually pixelating, but when I zoomed in on the RGB, it began to blur and pixelate quite soon.
    JET - The idea of the screenshot is good, but it's a shared corporate PP that a number of different people will be using, I'm the only one with access to AI to actually open and screenshot the vector. We really need to have the whole map in there any just move it and crop to the relevant location, if that makes sense?
    I take it that there aren't any settings that I need to change, or should ensure are set? I just can't understand why the CMYK version is ok and does what I need it to do, but the RGB version is awful!
    I also increased the DPI from 300 to 400dpi and it made no difference
    I am working in Illustrator CS6 and PP is Windows 2010. Also, I'm woking on Windows 7PC.

  • How do PS CS3 Noise Reduction Filters compare with dedicated third-party plug-ins?

    Am I missing something by not installing a dedicated Noise Reduction application into my PS CS3? Can Neat Image, Noise Ninja, Noiseware Pro, etc. do something that the PS CS3 Noise Filters can't do? Do these third-party aplications do it better?
    Since I like flashless photography, and I generally carry with me small-sensor compacts when I travel, I'm frequently confronted with the problem of digital noise. I've always wondered how the third-party noise reduction applications perform in comparison with the Photoshop Noise Filters. I hope someone in this Forum has been able to acquire direct experience on this topic and will be kind enough to share this experience with us.
    Kindest Regards,
    Conrad

    Conrad,
    ACR 4.3 has better NR (noise reduction) than previous versions and can handle NR in most normal situations. However, available light photography with a small pixel sensor may require more NR and the specialized plugins such as Noise Ninja, NeatImage, and NoiseWare Pro can do a better job. I have all three and they do an excellent job, but I currently use NoiseWare most of the time.
    Here is a demonstration of NoiseWare vs ACR NR, using 100% crops of an image taken with the Nikon D200, 1/320 sec at f/2.8. The image is reasonably sharp at normal viewing conditions, but has quite a lot of luminance noise. It was rendered with ACR and the settings were exposure +0.85, brightness +60. One thing you learn early in this type of shooting is to expose to the right to reduce noise, but this may conflict with stopping action and reducing camera shake. More exposure would have helped this image, and one should try to avoid exposures requiring this amount of positive exposure adjustment.
    The results are shown below, followed by some discussion. Other comments are welcome. Color noise is not prominent in this image and I left color NR at its default.
    ACR, No sharpening, no NR
    ACR, Luminance NR 53, no sharpening
    ACR, No NR, No sharpening, NoiseWare default, no sharpening
    Noise reduction and sharpening are antagonistic processes. It is important that NR is applied before sharpening--you don't want to sharpen noise. Following NR there is an inevitable loss of detail, and some sharpening is necessary to restore the detail, but this also brings back the noise. One can use masks and blend if sliders in Photoshop in both NR and sharpening to mitigate some of these effects, and Bruce Fraser discusses the details in his excellent book on sharpening.
    If you use an add on such as NoiseWare, you should turn off luminance sharpening in ACR. In doing so, you lose all those nifty sharpening features that have recently been added to ACR. I leave color NR at the default. It has a minimal effect on detail.
    In adjusting the NR in ACR at 100% viewing, I estimated that a luminance setting of +53 was optimal. Beyond that, blotchy artifacts appear in the image.
    For NoiseWarePro, I used the default settings with no sharpening. The NR effect is dramatic, but detail is lost and some sharpening is needed. This could be applied in NoiseWare or in Photoshop, perhaps with a plugin such as PhotoKit Sharpener. Personally, I have found that PK does not work well with this type of image because it bring back noise and produces artifacts.
    In all of these examples, sharpening is needed following the NR. One could try to use surface masks to keep sharpening in Photoshop with the unsharp mask away from the edges. However, I find it is difficult to get a good surface mask, and I don't take the trouble.
    For now, I use the sharpening built into NoiseWare. I don't know how it works internally, but it does have a slider for detail protection, and you can play with this to get the best result. It would be best to have the robust NR of the add ons built into ACR much like NoiseNinja is built into Bibble Pro. However, this is an ACR forum and I would expect that ACR is the preferred raw converter of those who frequent this forum.
    After expending this much effort on the post, I hope to get some helpful feedback.

Maybe you are looking for