Image in CS4 looks lighter than in CS3?

I just started to use CS4, set up all of my color preferences and opened up an image. I thought that it looked a little bit lighter than what I remembered so I opened up the same image in CS3 and it does look different. The 3/4 tones to the shadows all appear slightly lighter than in CS3. I checked the soft proofing in CS4 and I found that when I select the Monitor RGB and apply soft proofing, that fixes the issue. But as soon as I try and select any other profile the image appears lighter than the same soft proof in CS3. Any ideas? And yes my monitor is calibrated, I have the Eizo CG 241 and I am using and 8 Core Mac Pro with 18gb ram and running OS 10.5.5.

Well when I first posted this issue I was looking at a photo, and if you read my first post I said 3/4 tones to shadow. Since then I did some more testing to rule out that the problem wasn't image specific. I thought that the best way to rule that out was to create a new document in both apps, then fill them with 0,0,0. In both CS3 and CS4 the color reads 0,0,0, but when you open up the screen grab in PS the left side is now 18,18,18. So, yes, this image has nothing to do with 3/4 tones, but the point was to show that you can clearly see that left side is lighter than the right. I am not sure that showing a gray ramp would really tell us anything more. I have been using PS since 2.0, and I make my living with it, so I think I have some idea of how PS and color management work. Lundberg02, If you open up the screen grab I posted and the tone on both sides look the same or you think that they are blue, you need to get a better monitor or check your calibration. Also, if you have read all of my post I stated that I also installed CS4 on another machine that already had CS3, and on that machine everything was fine. Today I did a clean OS install on another drive of the 8 Core, then I only installed PS CS3 and CS4. Did the same comparison as before and everything is fine. Obviously I have some conflict with some other software or utility. I installed ColorNavigator, created a new target, calibrated my monitor, saved the file profile, then quit the application. Checked PS again and everything is fine. Previously I had some issues with ColorNavigator not saving my targets, again I thought maybe it was some conflict with some other apps I had on my system, but this time all I had on my OS was PS CS3 & CS4. So I opened up CN again I noticed that the target I just created was gone. When I looked in the display preferences I could see that the profile that CN created was still there. So now I have to try and deal with that issue.
Thanks,
Steve

Similar Messages

Why do images I export look darker than they do in Aperture?

I'm using Aperture 3.2.3. Onscreen Proofing is on and set to sRGB IEC61966-2.1. In my image export settings, I've also selected sRGB IEC61966-2.1 and Gamma Adjust is set to 1.0 (which should mean no change, right?).
If I export an image and then view that image outside of Aperture (using Photoshop, Preview, even just selecting the image in the finder and pressing spacebar to view it), the image looks darker than the same image looks in Aperture. But I'm using the same Onscreen Proofing and image export setting of sRGB IEC61966-2.1. What's going on here?

Thanks Leonie, the second part revealed that I have been an idiot, although the behaviour is still surprising. The folder has a mix of DMC-G3 raws, Fuji X10 raws, and DNG files produced from both. For the Fuji X10 files, the DNGs produce images and the raws produce the "Unsupported file format" message. The latter is not surprising, the former a little surprising (as I've heard that DNGs only work when the associated raw works). The last two remarks don't directly address my problem (or perceived problem), but they perhaps set the frame for my expectations.
For the G3 files, when I look at it more closely, the G3 raws DO display correctly, while the G3 DNGs give "Unsupported file format". I had managed to fool myself into thinking it was the other way round (Aperture does rather hide the full file name).
So I was completely wrong, Aperture does support DMC-G3 raw, it's just it's DNG support that's a bit weird. However, it's on my side if I need to use X10 raws (via the DNG step). In fact so far I've given up the latter, as the noise levels are so much greater than in Fuji's in-camera JPEG conversion.
So, thanks very much for your help. Now I remember the first rule of system support: never trust what the customer tells you! (I know you're not really customer support, but I guess the same rule applies.) Thanks again

Image in Photoshop looks smaller than in a viewer. Please help!!!

When i view an image in PS CC in looks 2 times smaller than in Mac OS Preview or in any other viewer. I tried it on another computer - same thing. (Photoshop CC, 15 inch Macbook Pro with Retina display)
Moreover, while the image looks sharp in photoshop, in viewer it looks like it's been magnified to 200%. So i create an image in photoshop say 300x300 pixels, 72 dpi, save it as jpeg, open in Preview at 100% and it looks twice as big as in photoshop and blury. if i post this image to the website, it looks exacly as in viewer, but not like in photoshop. Don't know what to do. Please help

You do not understand some things. Any image DPI resolution is meaningless when it comes to displays. Displays are normally run are their native resolution which is not 72DPI. Retina displays are high resolution displays and many applications user interfaces were designed for display with low dpi resolution like 96DPI. So their user interfaces will display very small on high resolution displays. So Apple Mac OS may have to scale up some application their User interface so the will display the same size as the would on a low resolution display to be useable. It is also possible that the Mac viewer may also scale up things so the look like the would on low resolution displays. Photoshop would most likely display images on a retina display without scaling things up. So the would smaller and sharper in Photoshop. It all about resolution. A pixel has no size till there is a DPI association. DPI defines pixel size for example 300 dpi with square aspect ratio would mean there are 9000 pixels per square inch each pixel would be 1/300"x1/300" At 100DPI each square inch contain contain 1000 pixels each would be 1/100x1/100inch an image with 1200x1800pixels would print 4"x6" at 300dpi and would print 12" x 18" at 100DPI the 300dpi image is smaller and sharper then the 100DPI image.
Web pages are normally design to fit on displays. Displays have a limited number of pixels, So web pages are design for the mythical standard display. In the past displays all had low resolution and the number of pixel they had were typically 640x480, 800x600 then 1024x768 all had 4:3 aspect ratios. That changed some displays showed up with 5:4 aspect ratios then in 2001 IBM showed up with LCD 22.2" 9.2 MP 16:10 204dpi and 3860x2400pisels. The marketplace was not ready at that time. Even now the marketplace is not ready. They are making 10" tablets these days with 2560x1600 pixels with a 300DPI resolution. Web pages these days need versions for high resolution mobile devices like laptops and tablets as well as for desktops on old devices. Other solutions are being worked on to dynamically alter web a page on servers and devices for the display the user is currently using.
Bet you still do not know what to do but perhaps you understand what is going on.

Images in CS4 are Brighter than LR 2.4

I'm using both CS4 and Lightroom 2.4 on a Mac with an external (calibrated) monitor. Images opened in CS4 are significantly brighter than the same ones in Lightroom. What could cause this?
Thanks

There is a bug in CS4 that causes PS to use the wrong profile on external displays in certain circumstances. You can test whether this is the problem by disabling the OpenGL acceleration. To do this, go to Preferences->performance and disable the openGL checkbox. If this fixes it, check in the advanced checkbox whether color matching is enabled and if not, enable it and reenable openGL acceleration. This bug doesn't always show up and for some reason it has not been fixed yet even though Adobe is well aware of it.
Lastly, you indeed need to calibrate both your screens with a calibrator, but you already knew that I am sure. LUT based profiles have some minor issues (most notably shadow posterization) in Lightroom as the other poster noted but you are unlikely to notice it.

Quick preview looks better than processed raw image...??

Hey all, probably a bit of a "newb" question here... so forgive me, and thank you...
Using a D7000 and often times when I shoot - the preview image on the camera looks BRIGHT, VIVID and ROBUST ... after import however - when reviewing my shots, JUST as I arrow over to the next shot - many of the preview images tend to look better than the processed image that aperture displays once it's done spinning it's wheels.
Perhaps I've messed up a Raw Fine Tuning setting?
When I click on quick preview and browse through an import, the pictures truly look nicer to me than the when aperture processes them.
Without question, the display on my acer monitor is a far cry from the miniature compressed image on the back of my nikon, however the more i shoot, the more I realize a disconnect between what I think I should see, and what I'm ultimately seeing in Aperture.
Are their specific settings to fine tune the import of raw d7000 shots?
Thanks much.. gk

I take it you're shooting and processing RAW images?
It's worth remembering that if you have a picture style selected (i.e. vivid etc), your camera might be applying extra contrast and saturation etc to the image you see on the back of the camera. Camera manufacturers do this so that we can give our pictures some extra punch and colour automatically.
I'd also be wary of comparing what you see on your camera to what you see on your monitor. Unless both are calibrated, you shouldn't trust either of them 100%. The best example of monitor calibration is going to look at TV's in an electronics store. You'll probably notice that in a wall of TV's, some pictures will be darker, some lighter, some more vivid, some more saturated. Using a calibration tool adjusts the picture your screen and monitor displays so that it is 'accurate'.
It's a bit like having a room full of scales and adjusting them so that they all read 1 kilogram when a 1 kilogram weight is placed on each of them. Calibrating monitors will mean that when you display an image on it, it will always look the same rather than getting the some light/some dark problem you saw in the TV store.
It's a tricky subject to explain (don't worry if it doesn't make sense), but you might like to have look around YouTube for videos on the subject.

My InDesign program is printing my placed images lighter than illustrator.

I am trying to print a colour logo in Indesign with black type on my inkjet printer. The colours are appearing fine on screen and so is the black but when I print everything is washed out. I tried just printing a black box and it appears black on screen but in print it is grey. I have tried changing the preferences Appearance of Black to rich and accurate but that did not make a difference. Do I need to do anything in color management I am using Indesign CS2. How can I solve this problem?

Acrobat worked, thanks for that advice. I set my Convert to Profile under the Edit Menu to Color
Match RGB. That helped a little bit but it is not printing like the
pdf. I would like to get this problem resolved. I normally use
illustrator most of my work. But I would like to have InDesign working
properly as I need it to do other jobs.
Take Care,
Jen
Take Care,
Jen
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:24:47 -0600
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: My InDesign program is printing my placed images lighter than illustrator.
Jen,
This is a problem that you have no time to fool with, correct?
When printing from InDesign and all looks hopeless, export to PDF and print from the PDF.
Why?
I don't know for sure but it seems all printers made recently accept PDF better than straight from InDesign. It could be the printer driver and it could be InDesign but you don't have time to mess with it now. Wait for some free time to sort it out, but for now output to PDF and print from Adobe Reader or Acrobat.
>

.swf image comes out lighter than the source

I'm creating a simple animation in AE from a jpeg image. I bring up some text on the image. When I create the .swf file, the background that the text appears on is lighter than the original jpeg in the Safari browser. Since this animation "tiles" into the page with other jpegs sharing the same background image, the light background produced by the .swf stands out from the rest of the page.
This only seems to appear in the Safari browser under OSX. FireFox doesn't have this problem. However, since I need this to work across all browsers, I need to solve this issue.
If I make a .mov file instead of a .swf, it also appears lighter than the source.
In fact, if I simply take a jpeg image and create a 1 frame .swf from it, it comes out lighter than the original. I'm not doing anything to the image (as far as I know) that would make it lighter.
Any insight to what is causing this problem would be greatly appreciated.

It's ColorSync and how it is used throughout your system, even if only for on-screen Gamma correction. In so many words: There's nothing you can do about it but to reset your settings and turn it off wherever that is possible. Not on my Mac ATM and not using Safari anyways, but I'm reasonably certain there's an option for using the system color settings somewhere. Depending on how you process the JPEG you may also need to fiddle with the color settings for the Adobe suite. Flash itself is not color profiled, but it will respect embedded proviles by ways of its image loaders that it shares with Photoshop and al lthe other apps. Beyond that I wouldn't get too crazy over it: Color mismatches and shifting alignment are a natural bane of all web development, and even if you get it right on one machine, the next day another user will tell you that it looked crap on his machine in Konqueror on Linux.... More than anything else, webdesign is a matter of using the design to cheat around these limitations, unfortunately. Perhaps you can use a large background Flash file instead of the original JPEG and then put your HTML content onto a separate DIV layer...? ;-)
Mylenium

My IP 4500 is printing lighter than the screen image.

My IP 4500 is printing lighter than the screen image. I've run the cleaning tool and the nozzle check is OK the colour of grass is too yellow and the picture looks washed out. I've used this printer for some years and have had no problems but now I'm stumped. Anybody help?

Are you sampling all layers in a document in which you have an adjustment layer active?
-Noel

Need help The image I saw on the LCD looks different than the actual photo

i had canon camera and had problem The image I saw on the LCD looks different than the actual photo.any body can kelp me
[IMG]http://tralalatrilili.ga/thanks.png[/IMG]

Do you capture in RAW or JPEG? What software do you use to view your image? Is your monitor calibrated? What is the brightness level on your camera LCD? All of these information can affect your image. And keep in mind that image on the back of the camera is often brighter and more saturated.
Weekend Travelers Blog | Eastern Sierra Fall Color Guide

InDesign CS4 treats corner effects differently than in CS3

Hello,
I need to fix 4000 inline graphic boxes because InDesign CS4 treats corner effects diiferently than in CS3.
See the problem here: http://indesignsecrets.com/cs4-treats-rounded-corner-objects-differently.php
Because the designers used this trick, I need to fix all the inline graphic boxes in CS4 for a reprint. I'm sure many more designers are going to open their old documents and find the same thing. All my inline graphic frames are suppose to just have one corner that is rounded. Short of selecting every frame individually and converting it to a rectangle, then running the Corner Effect Script on each one, I was wondering if Adobe planned on fixing this issue in a future release.
Thanks,
Rob

Hi Bob,
A script or Find/Change will work fine for one small book, but in checking with some other editorial departments, we have the potential for tens of thousands of pages we will have to adjust, and since these boxes appear every few pages (and most of these pages are seperate documents), you can imagine the impact on production time and cost. We really need something that is a more formal fix.
Going back to CS3 is currently not an option here at McGraw-Hill, as we have just finished the upgrade process for hundreds of users.
Rob

Output jpeg looks different than edited RAW image

I just got CS6 and have been working on some new images in RAW. Once I finished the editing I wanted to do in RAW, I saved the image as a jpeg, then clicked "open image" at the bottom of the RAW window. The image that came up in Photoshop looked nothing like my edited RAW image. It's as if none of the edits ever occurred. I've looked on the internet and tried figuring it out on my own. I'm at a loss and would appreciate the help.

Noel - first of all, thanks much for taking the time to respond to my question. You helped me realize (and I should have realized this last night) that my question and problem statement lacked a lot of detail. I'm new to Photoshop, but I've learned a good lesson. Here's some more details: I use a Nikon D700, WIndows XP OS, and CS6. After taking the images from my memory card directly into Bridge, I can see that the images look "good", meaning they match what I was seeing on my camera display. The metadata for my photo of interest states that the color profile is RGB, and I assume this is sRGB? I open the .nef file directly into CS6 RAW. Once again the image in RAW looks just like it did in Bridge and on my camera display. I like how it looks in general, but I make the manipulations I want in RAW (removing blemishes, softening skin, etc). Prior to saving the manipulated image, I click on the Workflow Options link below the image and choose 8-bit, sRGB, then save it as a .jpeg. Photoshop's color space has also previously been set to sRGB, so the two match. If I open the image from RAW directly into Photoshop or open the newly created .jpeg from Bridge into Photoshop, the image no longer looks like what I saw in RAW. The image looks sort of hazy, the black background that was completely black in the RAW image is now visible in the Photoshop image, and the model's skin, which looked nice and smooth in RAW, now looks pixelated.
You suggestions about color management make sense, and I bet I'm still making some sort of mistake in that regard. Any ideas?

Opening an image from LR 2 in CS5 results in an image 2-3 stops lighter

When I open an image from Lr2 into CS5 or CS3 the image is 2-3 stops lighter than what it was in Lightroom. My color settings for the working space and the image profile are ProPhoto in both LR and PS. Does any one have an idea of what is causing this?
Thank you

Take a look at this FAQ regarding associations and Bridge, it may help with Lightroom also.
FAQ: What do I need to know about file associations when I load the Photoshop CS6 beta?

DVD Movie is "lighter" than the M2v File - ?????

Hello Board,
I need help . . . . again!
I used the NTSC monitor to color and export the my short film and it looked FINE. Many of the scenes were dimmed (darkened Intentionally) intentionally to create and omnious effect.
I had to take the monitor back but everything seemed fine. I exported the project via Compressor - Best - 90 minute setting.
I watched the M2V on the computer and it looked great, so I imported the M2V into DVD pro and created a very basic DVD.
I burned the DVD pro project to DVD using Toast Titanium 6.
Now here's the twist. When I watched the DVD on TV, the images were significally ligter than in the M2V file and the DVD SP viewer.
I said ok, let me put the DVD into the computer and see if it looks different on the computer LCD and it did not, it was still lighter.
I then did a side by side comparison - with the M2V screen up on the left and the Mac DVD player screen up on the right. I went to the same frame in both and behold, the DVD version is noticable ligher. Things that are concealed by Shadow in the M2V can be seen in the DVD version.
Is it possible that something in the burn process did this. Or could it be that I saved the file a certain way in DVD SP and that did it?
I don't think it's an issue with Compressor, because why didn;t the M2V file look light on the computer.
Any insight would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Lin

It's probably not a problem with Toast or DVD SP. It's the same old display and TV calibration issue that many complain about. Try this with Apple's DVD Player -- switch to an NTSC display profile and see what the DVD looks like then. However, the latter is not a "fix," just an example of how display gamma and calibration can affect results.
I'd suggest that Lin review the following tutorials on color and brightness adjustments:
http://www.signvideo.com/dv-black-levels-dvd-authoring-mpeg-2-part-1.htm
http://www.kenstone.net/fcphomepage/video_levelsnattress.html
You might also find some useful information in the following thread:
Waymen, "DVDSP 3 adds ten pounds of brightness on formatting!!!" #16, 03:08pm Sep 13, 2005 CDT<small><hr width="75%"><small>If this suggestion helps in any way, a confirmation or acknowledgment would be appreciated, since that would also help others who may be having the same difficulty. Do for others as you would have them help you.<center>Thanks for sharing, Waymen.</center></small>

Print part of image in CS4?

I recently upgraded from CS3, and I seem to have lost the ability to print part of an image.
I'm sure that in CS3, if you tried to print an image that was larger than the paper, you got a warning saying it would be cropped, but you could still move the image in the print preview to get the part you wanted. How do I do this in CS4, without cropping?

You can still do this in CS4.
In the Print dialog, Center Image and Scale to Fit Media must both be unchecked, and Bounding Box must be checked.
Then you can slide the image around in the preview window as much as you like.
You can also drag the corners of the bounding box in the preview to manually scale the image.
Unfortunately, many printers will not print an image that extends past the printable area. If this is the case, you'll be able to go past the warning message, but the page will probably come out blank. If you can set your printer to print bleeds, then you can probably print the portion of the image that falls within the printable area.
(I was also going to explain how to set a pre-sized selection and then print just the selected area, but the "print selected" checkbox in the print dialog seems to be broken at the moment. So here's a pretty useful work-around that you may need to use if bleeds are a problem.)
1. Select the Crop tool (C / Shift-C) and enter the width and height of your printer's printable area. You can enter "8.27 in" or "2750 px" etc. If you don't know your printer's official printable area, just allow about 1/4 to 1/2 inch of border (e.g., 8 in x 10.5 in for letter size).
2. Then, in the settings bar, enter a reasonable pixels per inch for your printer (300 should work fine) in the Resolution field.
3. Then drag the crop marquee over your image and position or size it as you like. Because the Width and Height are not blank, the crop area will retain the correct proportions. Note that whatever size crop area you create, the crop operation scales that portion of your image to the specified Width and Height.
4. Then press Enter or Return or click the big checkbox on the settings bar. Don't save your document!
5. Print the cropped document as usual, and after the print dialog closes, press Ctrl-Z (Command-Z) or choose Edit / Step Backwards to undo the crop.

The way Aperture renders my Nikon RAW (NEF) files look different than...

The was Aperture renders my NEF files looks different than NX...
Ok so I use all the in camera setting/tools to the best of abilities to try and cut my editing down as much as possible but when shooting RAW I end up having to tweak every images to get them back to what they really look like... I shoot often RAW and JPG combined and when I open a NEF in NX and a JPG in PS they are identical and need very little work, when I use Aperture the NEF files are very different looking from the JPG (or NEF in NX) and every single one needs tweaking (I get more redish/pinkish skin, often a hint of green cast to (slightly off WB/tone thing) and more contrast.
Below is screenshot showing the difference between a JPG (or NEF in NX) and a RAW file in Aperture
[img]http://www.pbase.com/ray645/image/120052970/original.jpg[/img]
This is just a silly snap shot in very flat overcast light, and has the least amount of shift or difference of any image type so far, when I use strobes, shoot for a more contrasty image, gel for color and manual WB the differences are huge almost to the point that you would think you where looking at two completely different images and not the same NEF opened in different software.
How do I go about getting Aperture to render my NEF's more like what I shot like NEF in NX, JPG in anything, and even the back of the camera screen?

Thank you, that seems like will work, just having the boost turned down a bit on import has helped tremendously but I cant stop feeling like I am moving towards the "Fix it in post" mentality
I will need to get better at tweaking my images... No matter how I try I cant kill the pinking skin or the very faint green glow in blond hair or bright neutral tones without affecting other areas of the image.. I am sure I will figure it out but anyone having any tips or links that could speed up my process I would appreciate it.
The green is weird its like someone snuck a small florescent light into all my shoots without telling me, not major but enough to be annoying.
I shoot a ton of motor sports (3000 images a weekend) and shoot JPG and have gotten good at using in camera pre sets, knowing what I got and getting it right in the camera, I wish Nikon would give up the code or whatever is needed for all the info to be carried over to Aperture..... I would pay the $100 or whatever to use the NX engine in Aperture

Image in CS4 looks lighter than in CS3?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for