Image Export Question

I need to export images from A3 to give to a client. The client purchased rights to a hi Res (300 dpi) and a web (72 dpi) image. Here is my question based on how I have my library set up. I have been setting everything up as a separate project. SO for this one, it is team name, with a folder inside with numebr and name, then an album, then the images....
RCBasketball>02 Thacker> 02 Thacker Album / image versions
I have 15 players (replace 02 Thanker with 03 Poindexter, etc...)
How do I set the export options to do this into a folder called RCBBALL/HIRES/PLAYERNAME (02 Thacker)/ IMAGEname (58BY2001.jpg)

Howard Lucas1 wrote:
I need to export images from A3 to give to a client. The client purchased rights to a hi Res (300 dpi) and a web (72 dpi) image. Here is my question based on how I have my library set up. I have been setting everything up as a separate project. SO for this one, it is team name, with a folder inside with numebr and name, then an album, then the images....
RCBasketball>02 Thacker> 02 Thacker Album / image versions
I have 15 players (replace 02 Thanker with 03 Poindexter, etc...)
How do I set the export options to do this into a folder called RCBBALL/HIRES/PLAYERNAME (02 Thacker)/ IMAGEname (58BY2001.jpg)
It's a little difficult to make out exactly what you're going for here but in general when you export an image the *Folder Nameing* preset popup will appear. You can then design the folder structure you want to use for the export.
Also you can go to *Aperture->Presets->Folder Naming...* and create the preset these before you do any exporting. You can also save the preset you make so you can use it at a later date.

Similar Messages

Could work an animated flash bitmap image exported in html 5, in DPS ?

I'm new in DPS, just started for a couple of weeks and I need to use a image in an animation.
I created the animation in inDesign exported in .fla, used de toolkit js, load it in a container with web content overlay, and when I preview it with Adobe Content Viewer it doesn't work, it apears a blank screen. Neighter of animation from that stage won't work.
To be very precise any animation works fine, when I test the html in a browser, the problem appears only in the content viewer.
The animation is very simple: smal logo entering in the stage from the right, not very complex.
I tried in flash with other images in a test file and loaded in inDesign, and still don't work. Other vector animation works well, no problem. I saw that if I have an image in library in flash and export a simple animation with a vector ball, won't work in indesign preview, with content viewer.
My question is, Could work an animated flash bitmap image exported in html 5, in DPS ? If so, what should I need to do ?
Thank you in advance.

Two possible solutions I was considering:
1) In my index/first page, have all the swfs present (scaled to 1x1, behind something, or invisible) and have a preloader code on that first page... so all the content gets loaded before continuing onto the rest of the site. That would certainly work in making the site run quick... but would mean a relatively lengthy wait at the start. Luckily, unlike my current site, all the actual site content (aside from the header/nav interface) is HTML... so the bulk of the site's content is in the HTML pages, not as part of the Flash header... so it probably wouldn't be too horrific a wait. However, it would be loading EIGHT of these swfs, since there are eight pages... so then maybe it would be....
2) Have an swf that consists of just the 'draw up' of the interface, and it's idle state... then when each button is pressed, load a new swf to replace the main one, which has the specific page's animated title sequence, and ends with the code to load the html page. So, each separate HTML page would have embedded into it only the main swf, and the title animation swf would be swapped in when a nav button is pressed. Main issue here is each button press would envoke a preloader sequence (kind of tedious)... and unfortunately all the 'main interface' elements loaded in with the main swf would have to be loaded in again at the start of each animated title swf (although none of the draw up... just the loading of the interface and buttons). For highspeed users, it should be okay, I guess....
Thoughts or better ideas?

Poor quality images exporting from InDesign to PDF

We are having an issue with poor quality images exporting to PDF from Indesign (CS6). It makes zero difference whether the images are Ai images or PDF. They look perfect in Ai, perfect in the InDesign document, but appalling in the exported PDF. If the PDF document is printed, they print fine, but as a web based pdf document it is not publishable. We must use compression on export to keep the file size small enough for web/email use, but even with compression turned off on export there is no improvement in the PDF quality with a document ten times the size.
Any help would be appreciated?

I appear to have answered my own question, but will place it here to hopefully help others.
On comparing another InDesign document that appeared to export to PDF ok, we noticed that the type of frame makes a huge difference to image output quality. In the suspect document the frames with the images in them were " [Basic Graphics Frame]+ ". When I changed the frame (or made a new frame) to " [None] "; not only were the images a lot clearer in the InDesign document but they exported to PDF perfectly. Something so simple!!!!

Best image EXPORT settings for best quality

What should i have my export settings at when exporting to a jump drive to give to clients for web and printing use???
When i see my images uploaded on Facebook for example, the qulity looks poor which worries me that when printing the quality will be poor as well. Am i missing something in the setting for exporting? What is the proper way to export for the best quality image? HELP!
My settings now under Aperture>Presets>Image Export:
JPG Original size
300 dpi

t_hall10 wrote:
The information provided was helpful, but did not completely answer my question...
Are there specific settings with-in Aperture I can set for exporting so that clients have the ability to print as wanted and post on the web as wanted whithout losing any major amount of photo quality?
No, not for one size fits all.
I do appreciate this may be a frustrating answer, but non-the-less, that's how it is.
t_hall10 wrote:
Should I be gving 2 folders of pictures, one for web use and one for printing use? If I were to do that, what should the exporting setting be set for both folders?
Maybe, it's your choice.
Let's go through the settings.
The only real quality setting is for JPG compression. 12 is virtually no (lossless) compression but gives huge file sizes which may breach a websites limits.
A 16MP images on quality 12 will be about 22MB. 11 brings it down to 8MB and 10 down to 7MB. You'd be very hard pressed to see the difference between a 12 and a 10. But if you want to feel you are giving the best quality without the extreme file size, go for 11.
The the vast majority of web sites, like facebook, will either resize uploaded images and/or re-compress them. They may also crop them to a different aspect ratio to fit their browser software.
Many report the best size for upload to facebook, for small images is 960 pixels on the long side. For large images it's 2048. For different websites it may be different. It is discussed on many photography sites and blogs. You will find some promoting the 960 / 2048, and others with their own preferences. Here's a good one which also shows you many ways FB will mess with the images:
http://havecamerawilltravel.com/photographer/images-photos-facebook-sizes-dimens ions-types
The safest colour space is sRGB (Mac profile: sRGB IEC61966-2.1) as it will more often be right than wrong. You should preview your images on screen with this profile to get a feel for how it will look and avoid unexpected colour shifts in your files. Ideally your screen should be calibrated so you know what you are giving them is accurate.
To understand the printing issue, try this exercise:
If you have a printer installed on your Mac, it probably also installed some printer profiles. In Aperture, look at one of your nicer vibrant images. From the view menu turn on 'Onscreen Proofing' and then from the 'Proofing Profile' sub menu, select one of your printer profiles and look at how the onscreen image changes. Repeat with each of the printing profiles and see how the image changes each time.
This is only a fraction of the colour shifts that will be occuring after you give your file to someone and they print it on their own uncalibrated system with their uncalibrated printer.
Many photographers don't offer full size images to their clients. They will usually give them smaller versions for their own use, which may include small size printing.
They will either do the main printing themself on their own calibrated printer, or work with a print shop, and may have installed calibrated profiles on their system for the shops printing equipment so they can use onscreen proofing to gauge what the pictures will look like when printed on that equipment.
But if you are just giving a file to someone, you lose all control of how they will print it. Even experienced photographers and computer users can struggle to make the prints match close to what they look like on screen.
Most often photos will appear too dark, or the colours look wrong, or it lacks sharpness. There are some settings on the export presets for gamma and blackpoint compensation. Gamma will brighten the image for when it's printing too dark, and blackpoint will try to stop the shadows turning black (within the chosen colour space). But as you don't know in advance whether the images are going to print too dark, or the shadows are turning black, you can't really set these for a one-size fits all scenario.
So there are not many settings to help you here.
You are actually moving into the realm of defining your product. You could, for example, ask the client which site they intend to publish the photos on, research that site and produce files optimized specifically for that site.
You also need to decide what size (resolution) files to give them for printing and whether you are happy giving away your full size images.
These choices will lead you to a number of a different files sizes as 'your product', all should be in sRGB colour space, and all with quality 10 or 11. For any client's who know how to make use of a wider clour space like Adobe RGB for printing, they will probably ask you up front to supply the print versions as such.
Next, for each size and usage, you now need to sharpen these images.
This is because sharpeing is best applied to images that have been resized to their intended output size and should be sharpened in accordance with how they will be viewed. Images displayed on computer screen generally need less sharpening than those that will be printed. Depening on the printer, the images may need some oversharpening in the file, in order to appear crisp and sharp in the print. As you won't be controlling the printing process you should probably avoid oversharpening. The bottom line is, if people are taking on the task of their own printing, they'll need to figure out what they are doing to get good results, or use a commercial printer.
Andy

Get Rid of the Text-as-Image Export

For the life of me I can't figure out why Adobe would add such an irritating feature and not allow it to be toggled.
Come on Adobe developers, exercise some intelligence here.
I am aware there are potential licensing issues but let's review:
You cannot use system fonts that are not considered 'web safe' without them exporting as image, even though 99% of Windows users will have them and Mac users will have no trouble with them being substituted.
It makes manual CSS font stacks useless since Muse abandons this possibility when it goes the image route.
There are plenty of TypeKit fonts available through Creative Cloud that are accessible when synced, yet many of them are not in Muse's library so will also force image export. If it synced through CC and is licensed for web use then there are no licensing issues. Export as text and let the user drop in their TypeKit code.
Many users will use Google/Typekit web fonts perfectly fine but downloading and self-hosting the font files just to use them in Muse is a waste of time and not necessarily possible.
The workaround is to use a completely different font, thus upsetting the page layout, just so that it exports as text and a simple find and replace can be used to change font-family.
I can't even use Open Sans without it exporting as an image. Seriously? Likely the most widespread web font in existence and you force an image export. That's just bad.
Please get rid of this... allow users to turn image exports off and handle font styling ourselves or remove it entirely.
It was fine beforehand when you could use any font installed locally, including CC synced Typekit fonts, with only the Muse fonts triggering placing of a Muse Typekit code.
This resulted in users having to intervene post-export to have web fonts render properly if they weren't available through Muse which was perfectly reasonable.

Feature Requests
1. Provide access to the complete Typekit font offering.
2. Provide the ability to define and use your own font fallback stacks (aka Web Safe font definitions)
Possible Misconceptions
1. Open Sans isn't readily available as a Web Font in Muse
2. We've changed something in the generated code that makes it more difficult to manually edit the output.
You're correct. The paid Typekit library is not currently easily available from within Muse. We continue to lobby the Typekit team for changes required to enable paid Typekit in a seamless UI within Muse, but thus far we have yet to reach the top of their development team's priority list.
If you're familiar with font stacks you're aware there are very few truly "web safe" fonts. In most cases using a "web safe" font means settling for one of a handful of fonts depending on the OS or device being used to view your site. That font variation means variations in the line breaks within text frames and thus changes to text frame heights which are likely to result in changes to the overall layout of your pages. In most cases a Web Font is a much better choice if the visual fidelity of your design is an important part of your site. It's unlikely Muse will provide the ability to define arbitrary font stacks. Given the target market of Muse and our small development team, future additional font support will likely continue to be in the area of Web Fonts.
If you select "Add Web Fonts" in the Web Fonts section of the Fonts menu you can browser a library of 500+ font families that are provided for free and hosted on Adobe's Typekit service. This set of free fonts is marketed as "Edge Web Fonts." The Edge Web Fonts offering started as the set of public domain fonts hosted by Google with a small number removed due to quality issues and a small number added from the set of fonts Adobe wholly owns. The majority of the ~650 web fonts now hosted by Google are part of the 500+ web fonts readily available within Muse.
Open Sans is one of the font families in the Edge Web Fonts library. Go to "Add Web Fonts" in the Fonts menu, type "open" in the search field of the Web Fonts dialog, click on Open Sans and it will be added to the Web Fonts section of your Muse Font menu for easy future use. On your site the font will be provided via Typekit without any page view limits or requirement to be a Creative Cloud subscriber.
To my knowledge there have not been any changes in Muse output that should impact your ability to use a Web Safe font in Design view, then alter the generated code to replace that font with a font from some other source (i.e. paid Typekit, Fonts.com hosting, etc.). It's never been possible to use a System Font in Muse and then alter the output code to replace the font, since the output for a text frame that uses a System Font has always been an image.
Thank you for taking the time to voice your opinions and provide feature requests.

Still images exported to DVD look deinterlaced and flicker on TV monitor

Hi,
I have tried tried almost everything and I still have issues with the still images exported to DVD as sequencefrom FCP 7.0 by using Compressor are deinterlaced and flicker on TV monitor. Please help remove the annoying flicker.
My FCP Timeline Sequence settings match the image resolution:
Frame Size: 1024 x 682 (double of 720 x 480 standard DVD res)
Pixel Aspect Ratio: Square
Field Dominance: None
Compressor: Photo JPG (also tried, DVCPRO-NTSC)
I cropped the original images in Photoshop to the 1024 x 682 and saved as tiffs. They still look deinterlaced in FCP timeline and exported to DVD on my iMac computer monitor.
Final output of DVD will be on this monitor:
Specifications:
Ikegami
Model: VCM-2101
Resolution: 450 TV Lines (Horizontal)
Should I crop the images to 450 horizontal pixels or the double of that 900?
How can I match the sequence or the images settings to avoid the flicker and deinterlaced look on that monitor? I am not able to test the image by having the monitor next to computer.
Compressor:
I used custom DVD settings in Compressor for 90 min best quality DVD. Tried the Porgressive and "Same as Source" in Output field.
In "Crop to" and "Padding" I set for preserve source aspect ratio and letterbox area of source.
I followed the advices from below and I still did not resolve the problem. Please is there anythign else I can try?
Thanks a lot..
Re: Poor Quality Stills
Dec 19, 2006 4:08 PM (in response to Steve Braker)
Things to try (In increasing order of image degradation)
- (in FCP) field order>none
- (in FCP or Photoshop) reduce whites by 10% - reduces overly bright areas
- (in FCP) flicker filter - minimum
- (in Photoshop) motion blur>vertical> .2 - .5 pixels - blurs vertically only
- (In FCP or Photoshop) Gaussian blur> .2 - .5 pixels -blurs both horizontally as well as vertically
- (in FCP or Photoshop) deinterlace - throws away half the image and is generally not appropriate on scanned images

Dear Russ,
Thank you very much. Yes, there is something else in the sequence, old documentary, 768 x 570 (no field dominance, 25fps, Apple ProRes 422) but the images are more imporant.
make a progressive sequence with square pixels. (I am partial to 720P, 1080 should work – or 540). Choose Pro Res 422
Do you mean that I should make a sequence in FCP with these settings? If yes, how can I set a "progressive" sequence? I dont see a setting for output field in FCP sequence settings, lnly in customizing Compressor output DVD format.
Also: "720P, 1080 should work – or 540" are you talking about Frame size? If so, to set in Compressor or in FCP?
If you have interlaced material, then de-interlace before you bring it in. If you don't have interlaced clips, don't de-interlace.
The images are not interlaced after I crop them, apply motion blur filter in Photoshop but look interlaced in FCP timeline after I import them and even to the same as photos sequence in FCP timeline.
Please help and thank you for your comments.

Watermark not showing correctly on image export

I've come from Aperture 2, and when I exported jpegs I had a small watermark - a 15 x 18 png file - that I added to my exports. When I upgraded to Aperture 3 I did it by creating a new library and importing the Aperture 2 library. My existing image export presets appeared, but with the watermarks missing. I added the watermark using the preset dialog. When I tried to change the position of the watermark in the dialog, the watermark did not move in the preset dialog. When I printed the picture the *watermark was scaled up* to fill the whole picture. This makes the watermark unusable.
Anyone else come across this? Any work-arounds?

Same problem here. They really mucked this up.
It needs to work EXACTLY the way it did in 2.x, because the way they do it now we can't get a pixel for pixel watermark exactly where we had it in 2.x.
I'm guessing most of us had a fixed size watermark with transparent padding to push it away from the "edges" that it was set to, set to not scale so we had direct control over the WM's size.
Regardless of how you set it up now, it scales, and you have no control over how much. If I'd have wanted a buggy windows product that knew more about what I wanted to do than I did, I'd have bought Office 2008.

Image Printing Question

Hello,
Bottom line summary: How do I use the Media and Quality setting to get a good image?
I have an image printing question for an HP 8600 Office. I am trying to get a decent quality image to print
on regular paper. I gather that I will not get the quality of a photo printer. I gather I'm supposed to use
HP glossy paper. Please read on ...
Images come out grainy (rastery) when embedded from an MSPaint project, and if I use Word. However when I printed just an image from image viewer it came like a photo ... but I can't remember what I did. It definitely is capable of printing better. My cartridges all check out, etc. I did the Print Quality Report ... I sure wish I could get that quality when I print other things.
I tried messing with different settings from the Print - Preference. The Quality (Best, Normal, Draft) doesn't effect the outcome. I tried going into Print - Preference - Media and it makes a difference. I can't figure out which is the best setting for plain paper ... but it's not plain paper. The image rendering algorithm appears to be different for different Media settings. I also tried setting the Advanced Resolution to Maximum DPI. I haven't been totally methodical about this as I was in a rush.
I see that the printer is being "smart", perhaps a little too smart.
So my question is multipart:
- Is there documenation on the what the Print - Preference - Media settings do?
- How do I get it to not use grainy/rastery image method, but use the nicer photo method?
- Should I print Maximum DPI?
Thanks,
- Dave -

Hi @DaveGold , and welcome to the HP Forums!
I hope you had a great holiday!
I see you're looking into photo setup options. I'd like to help!
First I'd recommend this document on Changing Print Settings in Windows 7. This document should show all the settings you're looking into.
Also, another thing to keep in mind, when you select 'best print quality' and 'photo paper'. It will only be as good as the source image.
Good luck and please let me know the results of your troubleshooting steps. Thank you for posting on the HP Forums!
Please click “Accept as Solution " if you feel my post solved your issue, it will help others find the solution.
Click the “Kudos, Thumbs Up" on the right to say “Thanks" for helping!
Jamieson
I work on behalf of HP
"Remember, I'm pulling for you, we're all in this together!" - Red Green.

Have been trying to export versions to a friend in the UK as JPEG. He receives them as bmp and no Metadata. Tried all the JPEG settings in Image Export with no success.

Have been trying to export "versions to a friend in the UK as JPEG. He reseives them as bmp with no Metedata. Have tried all the JPEG settings in Image export with no success.
Nelson

Ernie-
Thanks for responding...but still have a oroblem. Here's what I'm doing:
In Aperture I choose a "version" that has been Adjusted (croped, etc.).
- Go to "File"...'Export"..."Version"
- In next window for "Export preset" I choose "JPEG-Fit within 1024x1024"
- Click on "Export version"
The exported version then showes up in "Finder" under "Pictures"
- Next I open "Mail" (version 5.2)
- Adderss email to friends in England.
- Click on attachment (paper clip)
- Choose my "version" from "pictures"
- Back in Mail, click on "Format"..."Make Plain Text"
- Send
My friends receive it as "bmp", not JPEG, with no Metadata.
If I do the same procedure but under "File" choose "Export Master", they receive it as JPEG and also the Metadata.....BUT, of course, no Adjustments, such as croping, that were made to the "Version".
What am I doing wrong? Is there any way to save the "Version" as a "Master" and then send it as a "Master"?
Thanks,
Nelson

When I start MacBook Pro13 shows gray Screen and flashing file Image with question mark

When I start MacBook Pro13 shows gray Screen and flashing file Image with question mark , it's brand new I just receive it from Apple Store .

Startup Manager to select Startup disk.
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1310
Repair Disk
Steps 2 through 8
http://support.apple.com/kb/PH5836

LR 2.6 images exported as JPEG cause Photoshop to Crash

I have just found that if I export an image in jpg format (50% compression) then Photoshop Elements (3, and yes I know it is an old version, but that should not make any difference surely) cannot open that file. Everything is OK if the file is exported as a TIF.
JPGs exported from LR2.4 are OK.
Anyone else had this effect?

Hi SSPrengel
OK - maybe this will shed some light
Try changing the size to something very small.- see below
Try changing the compression. Not affected by the level of Quality (2% 50% or 100%) - all fail to load
Try changing whether a color-profile is embedded or not. Not an option AFAIK in LR Export
Try changing if the metadata is minimized or not. Not an option AFAIK in LR Export
Try changing if the JPGs are exported relative to the source image or some fixed location. Exported to a specific location.
If I use the Image export resize option it loads OK (resize to 1000*673 from 3916*2634).
Older exports (from LR2.3 and earlier, of the same size image, and source DNG are OK)
A centre crop from the Image (1205*691) is OK. A marginal crop (2 edges) (3838*2552) is OK whereas a very slight crop at (3693*2614) FAILS
The camera is Leica M8, images is in Leica RAW format (DNG).
It appears to be function of Image export size (reduced either by Cropping or by 'Resizing on Export'
Looks like a bug in LR2.6
Message was edited by: V64
PS I am using a G5 PowerMac with Tiger OSX

Images exported using Leopard are soft compared to Tiger.

I've been working on exporting images for client preview and noticed that the images I'm exporting under Leopard seem a bit soft. I checked my export settings and everything looks the same as it did under Tiger.
For comparisons sake, I exported several images that had previously been exported under Tiger and there is a definite difference. Side-by-side, the images exported using Leopard are much softer than the images exported using Tiger. The edits on these images were all previously done using Tiger.
Has anyone else noticed this?
I'm using 1.5.6 on 10.5.1.
Thank you!
Cheers,
Anthony
Message was edited by: Barbatto - Fixed Subject Line

Janet Taylor wrote:
Everything looks fine for me from Aperture and LR. I did a clean install of Leopard and all my apps on a Macbook Pro. Are you looking at images in photoshop to compare them? Preview is not a reliable way to check for sharpness right now, since some rocket scientist decide it would be cool if you couldn't scale in set increments anymore, and the randomly scaled rendition can be very soft. As a follow-on to that thought, are the images on your web site displaying at the size you exported them at? If they're being scaled on the web page, and safari is using the same rendering engine as Preview, it's possible that it's making the images look soft.
hope i said something useful.
Hi Janet,
Hmmm, perhaps the fresh install is the way to go? I'm using Photo Mechanic view the exported images, not Preview or Safari. I only mentioned Preview in an earlier thread because in other discussions I've found, Preview appears to exhibit some of the same softness that myself and a few others are experiencing with our Aperture exports.
Here's a screen grab of two images rendered side-by-side in PhotoMechanic. The top image was exported using Tiger while the bottom image was exported using Leopard. The actual edits on the image (white balance, sharpness, etc) were done previously in Tiger. The only thing I did to the image in Leopard was export it.
http://www.barbatto.com/misc/comparison.jpg
In this example, it's pretty obvious that the image exported with Leopard is much softer. Also note that the file size is slightly smaller for the Leopard exported image.
As for the images on my website, most of them were exported with Aperture under Tiger. Since I've upgraded to Leopard and have been experiencing soft images, I've been using Canon's Digital Photo Professional to export any newer shots I've placed on my site.
Regarding Lightroom, I installed the trial and its exports were flawless. They don't exhibit any of the softness I am experiencing with Aperture.
So, right now, I'm at a loss. I experience this softness on both my MacPro and MacBook Pro. It should be noted that both machines were upgraded. Perhaps I should take some time and do a clean install on one of the machines and see if my results are any different. Or keep my fingers crossed that 10.5.2 will solve my problems
Thanks for your comments!
Cheers,
Anthony

Oracle Outside In Image Export SDK API - DAInit() crashes

Hi,
We use DelayLoad concept to load Oracle Outside In Image Export SDK DLLs when it is required. If the necessary DLLs are not present, the DAInit() function call crashes. Is there any other way that it can throw exception and we can catch it and handle it? Or Is there any other method to detect that the necessary DLLs are not present? Kindly help us in this regard.
Thanks
Revathi

Thank for the update.
But I know this link and I searched there for Outside In Technology. No match.
I did try the obvious things, else I wouldn't ask here.
And what about the broken download ? Does nobody from Oracle read this ? Or does nobody care ? Does anyone know where I can mail the broken link ?
Regards
Kai

Add image to question

Is there any way to add image to question? For example, a gui
button or just a screen shot?

Hi mruan
While editing the question slide, click Insert > Image...
Works for me... Rick

Error in Export "EXP-00091: Exporting questionable statistics "

when i execute export on server having RAC DB R10g R2 on Linux 4 it return error , nobody has changed it's characterset .
how to fix this error, CAN THIS ERROR CAUSE BIG DESASTER TO DB IN FUTURE
C:\>exp hst/hst file='/home/oracle/expdat.dmp
About to export specified users ...
. exporting pre-schema procedural objects and actions
. exporting foreign function library names for user NRI
. exporting PUBLIC type synonyms
. exporting private type synonyms
. exporting object type definitions for user NRI
About to export NRI's objects ...
. exporting database links
. exporting sequence numbers
. exporting cluster definitions
. about to export NRI's tables via Conventional Path ...
. . exporting table TABLEA 0 rows exported
EXP-00091: Exporting questionable statistics.
. . exporting table TABLEB 0 rows exported
EXP-00091: Exporting questionable statistics.
Kindly Help be ho can i fix this error
Thanks in advance

Hello,
You wrote:
CAN THIS ERROR CAUSE BIG DESASTER TO DB IN FUTUREThe error message EXP-00091: Exporting questionable statistics just warns you that the statistics
were exported but these statistics may be not useable.
So, if you have to import these Tables, you may have to collect again the statistics of these Tables.
It's not relative to this problem but why don't you use DataPump (expdp/impdp) ?
Please find enclosed a link about DataPump, it's much more powerful than the classical export/import:
[http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B19306_01/server.102/b14215/dp_overview.htm#i1009203]
Best regards,
Jean-Valentin
Edited by: Lubiez Jean-Valentin on Feb 6, 2010 12:56 PM

Image Export Question

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for