Image pixelation artifacts on export in lightroom (bug?)

Hi!
I've just noticed that while exporting a picture from Lightroom that the output quality was quite pixelated. I had added a few filters etc so I figured it was because of this. So I loaded (imported) the image as the original and compared it to an external viewer both at 1:3 (300% zoom).
This was the result:
http://adiza.nexticom.net/lightroom.png
Most visible artifact on this picture is if you look at the guy's back where the red and black colors cross. You can se major border pixelation in Lightroom where as the original image displayed to the right does not. These artifacts are actually exported when I save the image from Lightroom.
As you can see I am running the software in QEMU/KVM kernel virtualization. Though I have verified the results in a pure win32 environment aswell. And besides, the image rendering is a software based process as QEMU/KVM will only display the actual pixels rendered by the OS/program (everything else looks quite ok, right? :-))
Got any workarounds? Similarities? :-) The picture looks really bad after exporting. :/
Mikael

Hi again, Tony and Lee. Thankyou for your input. Phyllis: Interesting!
I've conducted an experiment with a few softwares on converting/exporting images and compared the results with LightRoom.
1. To make sure that the image program I was using actually converted the image (applying full export) rather than just copying the file I converted it to a .png lossless file first and verified that it looked OK.
Unfortunatly LR and LightZone could not read .png, but I verified rewritten .JPG file by md5 checksum.
2. The softwares used to load the PNG and then export (resave) it to 100% quality JPEG used was:
LightRoom, F-Photo, LightZone, GIMP, Google Picasa
To address the "interpolated by nearest neighbor" theory while displaying > 1:1 I've taken screenshots of the pictures displayed at 1:1 aswell as 1:3.
3. The viewers used to view the files were (sorry for lack of choices, but should prove the point):
Opera (web browser, but it can show images! ;)), Gnome Eye, GIMP
4. Results! :-)
1:1
http://adiza.nexticom.net/lr_experiment/geye_1_1.png (LR bottom right)
http://adiza.nexticom.net/lr_experiment/gimp_1_1.png (LR bottom left)
http://adiza.nexticom.net/lr_experiment/opera_1_1.png (LR bottom left)
Atleast I see that it's a remarkable difference with the LR export. Looking close at the hat and the coat he is wearing in contrast to the black is far more jagged in the lightroom export.
1:3 (GIMP could just zoom 200 or 400%, so picked 400%):
http://adiza.nexticom.net/lr_experiment/geye_1_3.png
http://adiza.nexticom.net/lr_experiment/gimp_1_4.png
http://adiza.nexticom.net/lr_experiment/opera_1_3.png
Zooming to 300 or 400% in the same viewing program makes the jaggedness show a lot.
Tony: hope this experiments shows what you were referring to.
Though if this is indeed a bug or quality issue of lightroom I would be quite dissapointed knowing that my photos processed through it would be degraded. Especially if I spend $299 on the program.
Thoughts about this test? Anything else I should conduct? Something I have missed?
Even though how it may sound, I would just like this resolved and over with so that I could use LR as it is a great tool :)
Mikael

Similar Messages

Aperture Reduces Image pixels & size when exporting or importing. Why?

For some reason I can no longer find my original "master images" which I imported via a link from my PC.
I scanned the negatives at a high enough resolution/output size for an 11"x14" PRINT.
However, now I have a different version of that scanned image at 1708 x960 pixels.
Why does this happen to all of my exported images, even when I drag & drop these images to the desk top?
Many thanks,
Stressed-out aperture user.

I'm not sure if I understand your post exactly.
What size in pixels were the original scans? - 11" x 14" doesn't tell us much as we don't know how many PPI.
Assuming you are using Aperture to manage your masters (importing them into the Aperture Library) then you should be able to export them at whatever size you want.
Perhaps you were using referenced masters and have lost the external master files? - If so, then I think Aperture will only have "previews" available at whatever resolution you have chosen as the default.

BUG: Indesign CC 2014 - significant image artifacts with 'export as JPG'

Issue
Spreads exported from InDesign as maximum quality JPGs have heavy artifacts not present in PDF's with equivalent image compression settings.
Steps
Export spread to JPG (max, baseline, 300ppi)
Export spread to PDF (image compression set to JPG, maximum)
Compare both files in Photoshop at 100%
Results
Maximum quality JPGs are significantly artifacted.
Expected Results
Maximum quality JPGs should be identical to PDF images with equivalent image compression settings (and should be virtually indistinguishable from original files sized equivalently in Photoshop (and saved via Photoshop's 'Save for Web').
Please Note
I'm very familiar with the limitations of JPG's in pre-press work. Please trust that I have legitimate reasons for needing InDesign to export spreads as JPGs with the same image quality as is possible when exporting as a PDF (or using Photoshop's 'Save For Web' function with the source file sized identically as the spread in question.)
Samples
exhibit A: spread exported as PDF (compression set to JPG, maximum quality)
exhibit B: spread exported as JPG (maximum quality)

Rob,
Thank you for running your test!
Since posting (and just before reading your reply), I discovered an additional constraint on replicating the issue:
–it only appears when the linked image has been upscaled* (in my example, 107.1%)
*keep in mind, the PDF was upscaled to the same degree, ruling out it being solely an upscaling issue
–testing at 'even-magnification' scales (i.e. 150%) simply resulted in increased pixelation compared to the same PDF export (see samples below)
–testing at 'odd-magnification' scales (i.e. 101%) generated random artifacts (like those visible in the samples of my initial post)
–as such, this is likely more of a resampling/aliasing issue than jpg-artifacting.
That is, it would seem that upscaled images seem to enjoy a higher-quality resampling method when exported as PDFs.
I'd be curious to see how your test fared with upscaled images.
samples
image scaled at 150%, exported as PDF (compression set to JPG, maximum quality)
image scaled at 150%, exported as JPG (maximum quality, anti-alias**)
**tested with & without anti-aliasing, results were identical

Why do my pictures become blurry after exporting from lightroom 5?

My pictures become somewhat blurry or not as sharp after I export them from lightroom 5. PLEASE HELP!!!

If you are looking at your exported pictures in preview.app than that is the culprit. It uses an extremely poor downscaling algorithm for displaying large images and will make every large image, no matter how sharp originally, display blurry. In preview you can hit command-0 (that's a zero) to make the image display 1:1 to see the actual detail. Make sure you have it's preferences in the images panel set to "Define 100% scale as 1 image pixel equals 1 screen pixel". I think in older Mac OS X versions, it was called something like ignore image dpi for display or so but I don't remember. You can also make sure to downscale (with correct output sharpening in the export panel) upon export from Lightroom. If the exported image is smaller than the display, Preview should display 1:1 by default upon opening.

Export Error Lightroom 3

Help!
I keep getting error message as follows, when I attempt a bulk export in lightroom 3 from RAW to JPEG:
The first 2 times it worked perfectly and when I tried to export the third batch it said:
An internal error has occured ?:0: attempt to index field '_dataChanges' (a nil value)
Can't find a field titled dataChanges anywhere

Hi Rob,
I rebooted and haven't had a problem since!
No idea what happened or why. Should have followed the age old IT solve all
Cheers
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:17:55 -0700
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Export Error Lightroom 3
    Re: Export Error Lightroom 3
    created by Rob Cole in Photoshop Lightroom - View the full discussion
Hi Chantelle - you're welcome, although I haven't been much help at this point. Which export service, which settings... - if you give me / us more to work with it may be possible some idea is triggered. Is it repeatable? Does it depend on which files are bing exported? OS version, Lr version... Even if still no ideas, Adobe would need such info in the bug report. Rob
     Please note that the Adobe Forums do not accept email attachments. If you want to embed a screen image in your message please visit the thread in the forum to embed the image at http://forums.adobe.com/message/4860029#4860029
     Replies to this message go to everyone subscribed to this thread, not directly to the person who posted the message. To post a reply, either reply to this email or visit the message page: http://forums.adobe.com/message/4860029#4860029
     To unsubscribe from this thread, please visit the message page at http://forums.adobe.com/message/4860029#4860029. In the Actions box on the right, click the Stop Email Notifications link.
     Start a new discussion in Photoshop Lightroom by email or at Adobe Community
For more information about maintaining your forum email notifications please go to http://forums.adobe.com/message/2936746#2936746.

Exported Image Doesn't Match Export Presets After Use of Straightening Tool

Unlike my experience with previous versions, in Aperture 2.1, after applying the "Straightening Tool", I cannot get an exported image to match the dimensions set for "Export Preset." The results are a reduction in size.
It appears that the output is being based within the rectangular confines defined by the out of view corners of the rotated image rather than that of what is actually being displayed.
Is there a new method I am missing or is this a bug?

So, like really, no one has experienced this problem?
The resulting dimensions of the exported image, which was rotated by the "Straightening Tool" are smaller than that of the export image, of the same picture, not rotated, but with the same "Export Preset" selected.
Example:
I want all my exported images to be a dimension of 200 x 300 pixels. Those exported without the "Straightening Tool" applied are exactly 200 x 300. Those, say with a 10º "Rotate" applied to the original and, exported with the same "Export Preset" dimensions, result in an image which is 145 x 216 pixels in dimension.
This is very unlike Aperture 1.5.6, in which the exported output of both image versions would be identical, at 200 x 300 pixels in dimension.

How do I export from Lightroom 3 to an Ipad 2 for the purpose of showing pictures?

I want to use my Ipad 2 to show people pictures that I have taken. I am not certain as to the best workflow for doing this. I store all my pictures on external hard drives and am hoping to avoid bringing processed photos onto my computer hard drive. I have done a search on the forum and have not seen a recommended work flow. I would greatly appreciate some advice on this.

Have a look at this Russell Brown video tutorial that go into a fair amount of detail of how to go about exporting images for iPad
http://tv.adobe.com/watch/the-russell-brown-show/exporting-adobe-lightroom-3-images-to-an- apple-ipad-portfolio-/

JPGs exported from Lightroom 5.6 will not open in other applications

Recently I have noticed that jpgs exported from Lightroom 5.6 can not be opened in Canon DPP 3.14 and can not be resized using Image Resizer plugin. Both of these I use frequently.
I have seen mention of this issue re other applications also. Does anyone know if there is a solution?
I am using Windows 8.1 64bit. 5D Mark ii

This was an issue with 5.5 (the placement of some of the internal headers of the jpgs was changed and some other applications, including DPP, could not open them), but was corrected in 5.6. I just checked on it by exporting a jpg and opening it with no problem in DPP 3.14.15, Windows 7 x64. Are your jpgs old ones from LR 5.5?

Image Rotation Option in EXPORT

I would like to see the EXPORT function have the ability to optionally rotate an image 90 degrees or -90 degrees if the image is the user's choice of either landscape or portrait orientation.
I frequently use Lightroom to create a gallery of pictures that is then sent over to my iPad. If landscape orientation images are mixed in with portrait, they are shown on the iPad rotated 90 degrees and only take up a fraction of the screen. Therefore my preference is to rotate all landscape images 90 degrees so that everything is the same orientation, then lock the orientation on the iPad to portrait mode. Then the images will use the entire screen.
Currently I have to manually rotate the images prior to export, do the export, and then rotate them back. It's a PITA and I would much rather check off a box in the EXPORT dialog and have it do the rotation automatically as required.

Rob,
I appreciate the suggestion, but it would not work as-is because not all images are in need of the rotation. I only need to rotate landscape images. Doing it after the fact would require either that I separarate the landscape images manually or that the post-processing tool (exiftool) is capable of detecting them and conditionally acting on them only.
Currently, the way I do it is like this: first I use a SmartCollection to isolate the landscape images and then apply a "Landscape" tag to identify them.
Then I create another smart collection for the "Landscape" tag so that I can do "SELECT ALL" and rotate everything.
Then I export everything, go back to the smart collection, and undo the rotation.
The main reason this is a pain is because the group of images I want to export might be based on a smart collection in the first place, and may have some combination of PICK, Rating, COLOR, or various keywords. To create the smart collection for making the tag, I have to replicate all that first then add the condition for detecting landscape images.
If you could create smart collections that inherited from other smart collections it would be much easier, and in fact that's another feature suggestion worth making.
I was not familiar with exiftool but I just found the website and it seems that it can probably do the conditional processing... I may give it a try, but I still think the rotation would be so much easier as a built-in export option.

Trouble exporting from Lightroom 4

While trying to export from Lightroom 4, I was getting the error message "An internal error has occurred:WIN32 API error 2, etc. Others have asked about this and the solution offered was to check "Do Nothing" in the post processing box, which I have done. Now I can export, but the image is severely downsized from being a full sized jpeg. How do I get it to export at full size? All was working fine with exporting until today

Thanks...the quality slider was at 60 - moved to 100 and it solved the problem. Simple - Thank you for suggesting - I was getting a headache trying to solve my issues today!

Book Module: exporting from Lightroom as a 2 page spread

Hello Lightroom people,
I have begun to create my albums in the lightroom book module, and I am about 85% happy with it. I have one major complaint, and I'm wondering if it can be corrected:
My album company wants me to submit my album pages as two page jepg spreads. For example, if I am making a 10" x 10" book, rather then submitting pages 1 and 2 as two 10" x 10" jpegs, they require a single, 10" x 20" jpeg that is then printed as pages 1 and 2.
When I export from lightroom, it exports instead as single pages (to use the example from about, two 10" x 10" jpegs for pages 1 and 2). I've noticed that if I design a 2 page spread--then it will export that the way I want it, but obviously no album can have all 2 page spreads.
My work around for this is to import the jpegs in photoshop and lay the pages together the way my album company likes, but this is somewhat time consuming.
Is there a setting in the book module I am missing that could correct this?
Thanks,
Ellen

JimHess wrote:
The book module is designed specifically to work with Blurb.
Which was the biggest error in decision making Adobe made in going forward with the book module ... it should have never been tied to ANY single vendor ...
JimHess wrote:
I just export copies of my images and use the software provided by the book company to create my books.
Yes, there is always a workaround, though Lr was supposed to simplify the process, not create more work ... though if we were discussing having to export images ... THEN ... send them to a printer instead of printing them directly in Lr ... there would be much more discussion about the problems the Book module poses for many users ...
If I must export images and use outside software to finish the job (InDesign or otherwise) I may as well give up Lightroom as a "workflow solution" ... I could get the same job done working with Bridge/ACR/Ps workflow ... however ... I bought into the paradigm of Lr being the answer for RAW processing to output workflow ... though Adobe seems to pick and choose which features they really care about ... If Adobe is going to include a Book module, and expect me to financially support the effort ... they could at least offer a module that is functional without being tied to a single vendor ...

Saturation Loss When Exporting from Lightroom.

This happens to me when exporting from Lightroom 2 or 3. It happens regardless of the color profile, file format, bit depth, image size, compression, or the method of export. I regularly profile my one-year-old iMac monitor with an Eye One Display 2. My working color space for Photoshop CS4 is ProPhoto. After exporting, I am viewing the images in Photoshop, Safari, Firefox and Apple Preview, with the same result. I have used pretty much all the available export methods in Lightroom, including exporting with Lighroom ad-ons such as SlideshowPro. And, conversely, if I edit an image to my liking ourside of Lightroom, there is a saturation increase when I import it into Lightroom. The effect tends to be most obvious and bothersome with shots taken outside on sunny days, with lots of blues and greens. I am shooting raw files with a Canon 5d II and I use the Adobe Standard profile in Lightroom.
There is a section at the back of Martin Evening's Lightroom book where he talks about the Lightroom color space and Lightroom versus Photoshop curves, which seems to relate to what I am seeing, but I have the feeling that what I seeing is more pronounced than what he is talking about there. It is a real dullng of the look, not merely a slight difference in how the colors are rendered.

Looks like Lightroom doesn't like your display profile.
Try removing the profile (don't know how to do it on a Mac) to leave your display uncalibrated. Are the colors still different in Lightroom and Photoshop?

Saving PSD files after exporting from Lightroom saves incorrectly

I've only recently moved to Lightroom from using Photoshop/Bridge together, so I'm not 100% sure how saving files exported from Lightroom should go. But here's what I experience:
Base edit of file within Lightroom
In library view, right click on image -> Edit in -> Open as Smart Object in Photoshop
Perform all my necessary edits and such
File -> Save As, and save it to another location as a PSD file (totally different HDD)
Perform more edits....
Shortcut CTRL+S to save, and it saves it as the TIFF file under the location it was originally in within Lightroom
Eh...? Am I missing something. It should just save as the original PSD I created when I went "Save As". I have seen on a few occasions, immediately after "Save As", the file name resorts back to TIFF and not as PSD.
My settings for External Editing in Lightroom are as follows:
File Format: TIFF
Color Space: ProPhoto RGB
Bit Depth: 16 bits/component
Resolution: 300
Compression: None
Does anyone have any ideas what I'm doing wrong? Also, to note, that sometimes I double click on the Smart Object within Photoshop to load Camera Raw and perform some edits, but not often.

Modesto Vega wrote:
Replying to your last 3 posts.
Re Camera Raw being used to pass an image to Photoshop
a) I am assuming this is independent of the Compatibility level in Preferences\File Handling DNG creation.
b) Does the same apply to other photo editing software made by Adobe like Elements?.
Reply: Yes, the principle is the same. Photoshop Elements cannot read raw data either. That's why it has to be converted before it's opened.
c) Assume that I have LR 5.7.1 and CS5. Is Camera Raw is still used to pass an image to Photoshop? If so, why is there a need to get LR to behave differently?
Reply: Camera Raw is used IF you choose the option to open anyway. Then Camera Raw will be used to convert the image that's opened in Photoshop. But since it is older than Lightroom some of the new adjustments might not be transferred to Photoshop. That's why there is a need to let the user make the choice.
d) Sometimes it does seem as if Adobe might be using Camera Raw updates and process version updates to get consumers to change their habits, this includes having to buy subscriptions or having to change workflow to some ideal that somebody at Adobe or working with Adobe might have in mind.
Reply: The fact is that in the past, when a new version of Photoshop is released then all support and updates cease for the previous version. Since the introduction of the creative cloud, at least users of Photoshop CS6 get support for new cameras. They just don't get the new features. Yes, there's motivation to upgrade. Adobe is a business. What do you really expect?
Re stacks
I find impossible to see collapsed stacks on the film strip. Stacks are only visible on the Library module and using a grid view; I don't say clearly visible because they are only recognisable by the label at the top left corner with the image count; I don't even think it is possible to change the colour of that label or the grey colour surrounding an image. Also I cannot name stacks. If I could name stacks, see them as virtual folders underneath a library folder and make them glaringly visible I would use them extensively.
Reply: The only reason I can think of that you are unable to see collapsed stacks on the filmstrip is if you have the filmstrip reduced in size to the point that Lightroom can't display all the icons. I'm able to see the collapsed stacks in the library grid view and on my filmstrip
Re storing your Raw files and processed files in separate locations
Assuming Raw files are negatives and Photoshop files are transparencies or prints, would you want negatives being handled/read on a regular basis? If anything happens to your negatives, you would never be able to produce another print or another transparency again.
Reply: The raw files or the negatives, as you put it, are never modified by Lightroom. They always remain in their pristine state they were in when they were imported. If I have a backup of that raw file then I can do whatever I want to the one in my working folder. Resetting that raw file so that it looks unaltered is just a click away.
I have worked extensively with databases and database systems, it is a standard feature of database systems to be able to choose where to store different database objects. I don't see why LR cannot do the same, it is a database after all. I do agree with both the OP and photo.
Reply: Well, I won't argue that point. If that's what you really want than lobby for it. It just won't get my vote because I don't see any real advantage.
If you read back through this quoted message you'll find that my replies are included. I don't know how to separate them out so they are highlighted properly. Read through it and think about it. But personally, I don't want to waste anymore time on this discussion because it isn't accomplishing anything in my opinion.

Prints exported from Lightroom consistantly 1 stop dark!

I calibrate my monitors regularly and currently have my two monitors set to the absolute lowest brightness point they'll go.
Everything's calibrated and my histograms look good yet, every time I try to send something out for printing, it comes out at least a full stop dark.
Conversely, if I print on my own Canon Pixma printer and allow the "printer to manage colors" - things are spot on.
I don't want to always have to print every little thing at home. I'd like to send things out sometimes.
I do not have this problem with files exported from Photoshop. Only files exported from Lightroom. Yes, I know I can fool around with making a brightness preset but why do I have too?? What is going wrong here?
This is making me crazy. Help Please!

IF you're working with an outside lab that doesn't supply an ICC profile for soft proofing, you can pretty much forget about getting a match. Further, the lab has to be using that profile (or let you use it) or again, you're dealing with a lab that has a half baked color management workflow. No wonder you are having good luck printing yourself, you're probably doing everything correctly.
That's absolutely right. The only consumer oriented big box local lab I have found that does this correctly is costcos and then I understand you need one where the operators have a clue and not every location is good and keeps their machines consistent. The other labs I mentioned all do a great job color managing and I have never had "too dark" prints. The fact that your own printer works fine makes me think that this is indeed very likely a lab problem (not at all uncommon). I would recommend that you print to your own printer while having Lightroom color manage as you should get better quality in subtle color gradients but only do this if you understand the weird codes Canon uses for their profiles and you understand how to turn off color management in the driver.
That said, you can do a quick sanity check of your calibration by using a printer test file. Andrew has one on his site here that will work fine: http://www.digitaldog.net/tips/ and a nice one from inkjetart can be found here: http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/tech/4800test.jpg
Load these into Lightroom. Do not touch any develop settings and see if the images make sense on screen. Skin color should look great (not too bright), you should see nice saturated colors and no plugged up shadows. Export these files to sRGB jpegs (they are in a different color space as downloaded so you need to convert for most labs) from Lightroom and send those to your lab. If your prints from these testfiles come back dark, stop using them as they don't calibrate their machines correctly. Well-calibrated machines should give very good prints with tone and color very close to what you see in Lightroom. You can get somewhat better results if the lab provides icc profiles but in my experience, if the machines are tuned correctly you will have a hard time distinguishing profiled images from sRGB images if you don't use a good viewing station.

Corrupted EXIF data in photos exported from Lightroom CC

After upgrading to Lightroom CC EXIF can't be read by some apps. "Re-saving" a file in Photoshop fixes the problem. I'm using Mac OSX 10.9.5. Are there any plans to update and fix the EXIF data generated when exported from Lightroom CC?
Also, this command fixes the issue with Create Date part of EXIF.
#!/bin/sh
exiftool -AllDates="$(exiftool ${1} | grep 'Create Date' | awk '{print $(NF-1), $NF }')" -overwrite_original ${1}
The reason I'm asking is because we run a site where "Create Date" read from JPG's EXIF is crucial and it's a matter of letting users upload the pic or deny uploading.
So again, any plans on the fix?
Regards,
Pawel Kadysz

I confirmed that the Exiftool command line:
exiftool -m -all= -tagsfromfile @ -all:all -unsafe file.jpg
removes the ICC Profile, which could account for significant color differences, considering that the profile is Adobe RGB. I think this may be a bug in Exiftool, so I filed a bug report. (But it might be that Exiftool just can't handle the non-standard layout of LR's JPEGs.) The author is typically very responsive.
I tried some alternate Exiftool command lines that touch as little metadata as possible, and this one seems to address both of LR 6's JPEG problems:
exiftool -m '-exif:datetimeoriginal<exif:datetimeoriginal' -xmp-crs:all= file.jpg
The -m option ignores minor errors and issues, in particular, when there are more than 1000 entries in the XMP metadata.
The '-exif:datetimeoriginal<exif:datetimeoriginal' option sets the EXIF Date Time Original Field with its current value; this tricks Exiftool into rewriting just the EXIF metadata without touching the other metadata segments (e.g. the ICC profile), addressing the first JPEG problem. (You could use any EXIF field that's present -- I picked DateTimeOriginal since every camera adds that.)
The -xmp-crs:all= option option deletes all of LR's develop settings from the XMP metadata, addressing the second JPEG problem.That metadata is not ready by any programs other than LR, as far as I know.
I've tested this new command line on a couple of pics, including the example you provided above, and it appears to work correctly. But given that we're dealing with buggy output from LR that doesn't conform to the de facto and de jure standards, it's hard to have high confidence without testing on dozens if not hundreds of pics.

Image pixelation artifacts on export in lightroom (bug?)

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for