Image Export

Hello
When using Acrobat 9 Pro to export a JPEG at high resolution (e.g. 600DPI or more), I often get the error message "The image is too wide to output. Please crop it or reduce resolution and try again."
This means I end up with a JPEG of much lower resolution than I wanted.
Is this a software or hardware limitation, or a configuration setting I can change?
Many thanks.

Bill, I am having the same issues, the major problem is the output using 300 DPI is fuzzy at best... see attached screen clips.
I will attempt to describe the process I used to get the results using Adobe Acrobat X, Version 10.1.7
starting with a 30" x 42" blueprint in .PDF format created by AutoCad (Newer Version).
FILE - SAVE AS - IMAGE - TIFF, MONOCROME SETTINGS, (see screen clip below)
When save it as TIFF with the monocrome settings at 300DPI , it works but the quailty is unacceptable. if i change the resolution to 600 pixels i get the error message below...
Acrobat could not save a page in this document because of the following error: The image is too wide to output. Please crop it or reduce resolution and try again. (Page 1)
I really need to know how to make a clear (readable) output from these PDF douments?
Save as Settings...
Screen Clip from PDF file at 800% magnification, crystal clear
Screen Clip from TIFF output file at 200% magnification, yuck!

Similar Messages

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.

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?

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.

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

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

Collaps of notebook during image export after a certain amound of pictures

When I try to export a bigger collection of pictures, my notebook collapses a getting of after a certain amount of pictures. I have tried it two times and the amount of images when appears the collaps is the same.
It looks like, that export of images is very limited on my notebook. I am using LR 5.5, the notebook has SSD harddisk with anough free space.
Has anybody an idea what could by the reason?
RFA

Hello dj_paige,
I made the following two tests:
   1. export of total 276 images, size 4608 x 2592 pix, export to harddisc,
   size after export 4608 x 2592 pix, 240 dpi, 24 dpi, collaps after 123 images
   2. export of total 276 images, size 4608 x 2592 pix, export to harddisc,
   export parameters picture size max 1080x1080 pix, pictures size after
   export 768 x 576 pix, 240 dpi, 24 bit, collaps after 212 elements
How does the collaps look like: when collaps appears, the power of the
notebook is just switching off. No error message, no warning - just getting
OFF. After restart of the notebook, the only hint is, that windows asks
wheather you will start on normal way or in safety mode. That all.
According to my opinion, there is a problem like LR handles the RAM. Even I
would increase the RAM, if I will export accordingly more images, the same
will happen.
Regards fom Czech Republic
RFA
Reinhold Fr. AUER Dipl. Ing. (FH)
Chudčice 273
CZ-664 71 Veverská Bítýška
telefon: +420 605 553 852
mail:     [email protected]
2014-07-01 15:04 GMT+02:00 dj_paige <[email protected]>:
    collaps of notebook during image export after a certain amound of
pictures created by dj_paige <https://forums.adobe.com/people/dj_paige>
in Photoshop Lightroom - View the full discussion
<https://forums.adobe.com/message/6512897#6512897>

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!!!!

Over sharpening on image export.

I’m using Aperture shooting RAW with a 5D. When I export images (jpeg) they appear to be sharpened far too much. I’m experiencing jagged edges and an artificial look to the exports.
Is there a way to control the sharpening and other setting when doing an export to JPEG?
Ken

Hello, Ken
Quote: "Is there a way to control the sharpening and other setting when doing an export to JPEG?"
The export settings are located in Aperture>Presets>Image Export choose the preset you want in JPEG.
How are you editing the RAW files? How are you exporting the RAW image?
Using the defaults I have been exporting RAWs to JPEG and the edges are sharp and not over focused.
love & peace,
victor

Image Export Presets won't save

Hey folks, since I've upgraded to Aperture 2.1, I hadn't setup any new export presets since using Aperture 1.5 and noticed that my export behaviour is all messed up.
Specifically - if I try to add my own preset, upon hitting the OK button and revisiting the image export preset screen, my added presets do not persist!
Even more surprisingly, if I delete many of the existing presets (say all the TIFF presets) when I come back to the Image export presets the deleted presets have returned from the dead.
Can anyone provide some insight on this? I can't find any other place in Aperure or the OS that governs the preset settings.

Fyi - if you run into this problem completely un-installing and re-installing Aperture seems to have fixed it.
I'm not clear on what lead up to the issue tho.

Failed to export image in image export (ix-8-5-1-linux-x86-64)

Hi,
I am trying to use Oracle OIT Image Export to convert EMF/WMF files to png. And I am trying to run the example "ixsample" in the downloaed SDK.
I got "No valid fonts" error while running the example as below:
./ixsample "../samplefiles/black_shapes.wmf" "../result/test.png"
Creating file: "test.jpg"
EXRunExport() failed: No valid fonts found (0x0B03)
It works if the sample file is "jpg", such as "oivt.jpg" provided in the SDK samplefiles. Anything else should I do to make "wmf/emf" work?
OS: Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 6.3 (Santiago)
Thank you.

Hi
This error is arising out of library issue. As per the OI documentation https://docs.oracle.com/outsidein/851/supportdocs/ds_oitfiles_8_4_1.pdf these formats are supported. I have not worked these conversions before; but, searched a bit and found that these fonts are very machine dependent.
Approach 1: Identify the fonts required for WMF and EMF, Find linux compatible version of those and then run the conversions
Approach 2: Run the IBR instance on those windows machine where these fonts are available
Or you can go with other converter's like ImageMagick for conversions
Installing GraphicsMagick
ImageMagick: Advanced Unix Source Installation
You can try these installations
EMF: libEMF: Enhanced Metafile Library
http://www.csn.ul.ie/~caolan/Packages/libwmf.html
This might provide you some pointer
http://www.rohde-schwarz.com/en/faq/fsiq-fonts-for-wmf-files-faq_78704-30023.html

FCP 6 Still Image Export HD squishes

I work at a professional facility that just "upgraded" to FCP 6. Looked good when I first saw it but there is a flaw in the still image export. This is something I am required to do often. We are working with HD footage DVCPRO HD 1080 23.98. Exporting a still that maintains aspect 16:9 was tricky but in FCP 5 we found that if you export QT conversion - Still image - PCT and step in to the options to use the DVCPRO HD codec we would get a true 16:9 image. Not so any more. In FCP 6 this no longer works - the image comes out squished into 4:3. NOT GOOD. If i export a qt movie of the same frame then open that qt in Quicktime and then export movie to picture it works fine. PLEASE address this.

I usually export stills using the export queue, and I too have noticed that FCP6 now seems to de-interlace and resize the stills to square pixel dimensions automatically. I can't find any way to control or deactivate this option - anyone know?

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

Image Export

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for