Lightroom 1.1 = horrible export quality

Lately I've been noticing pics I've taken that are saved on my computer don't look so well... After some trial and error I figured out when I export pictures form Lightroom ii .jpeg files at 100% quality into folders on my computer there is a HUGE lose of quality. The pictures look grainy, the color is off, the bright colors are dully to a muddy neutral colors. Perfect example... click the link
http://www.s120895520.onlinehome.us/Lightroom.bmp
Don't mind that it says posted on the net, that was my original problem, low quality pictures when putting them on the internet, that was before I realized the problem with the exporting pics from lightroom. But either way you can see a big difference is color and quality.
Last night I took some pictures right as the sun over the horizon with the sky showing up a brillant blue color, after exporting them form Lightroom the blue was now a pixelated looking dark purple, I was not happy.
After some thinking I realized this was never a problem before and they only thing that has changed is going to Lightroom 1.1. So I uninstalled Lightroom, and reinstalled version 1.0, took the same pic imported it, exported it and it came out perfect. The picture looks exactly how its surpossed to look. Just to verify that 1.1 was the problem I reinstalled the update and tried again. And once again with 1.1 the image quality is garbage.
Whats the problem? Should I say screw it and just wait for 1.2 to eventually come out?

No, I really meant to say that Photoshop is not easier to work with if you're not (consciously) using color management. Photoshop is *always* using color management, even if you select 'don't color manage' upon opening files. In that case, it simply assumes the image is in your standard color space. That will often be sRGB or Adobe RGB, but the user can make it anything he/she likes (and in doing so, can easily make matters worse).
The closest thing to 'no color management' in Photoshop is when you select your monitor color space as RGB working space and open all files 'without color management'. Then, the numbers will be sent straight to your video card. However, this brings you back to square one, with color unreliable as ever - but it *is* consistent with unmanaged browsers.
I think it is impossible to get both 'good' and reliable color without some color management effort from either the user, or the hardware and software developers. The only way to get an unmanaged browser/system to show images similar to PS/Lightroom (and not botch up color management in the process), is by exporting images to the target monitor's profile. Unfortunately, monitor responses are all over the place, so sRGB is your best bet. It then all depends on how closely your particular monitor resembles the sRGB model.
Simon

Similar Messages

Adobe After Effects CS3 horrible export quality

I made an intro for my Youtube channel using Adobe After Effects CS3, in the preview and whilst I was rendering the video quality was remarkable, no flaw in it. But after it rendered and I exported it as a .flv file the quality was horrible and grainy. Since I'm starting a serious channel my videos have to be high quality, including the intro. Is there any way to make it better quality, perhaps a free program that converts it into a better quality extension, or anything. I appreciate any feedback since I really need this intro in high quality.
Here's the video link as you can see it's grainy as hell, even when put at 720p(HD):
As I mentioned before in the preview and whilst rendering the quality was one of the best I've ever seen, no grain or anything, it was flawless, but when I exported, the quality turned to s***. Please help.

Well, straight to the point: Read YouTube's requirements! FLV? They don't even recomemnd it themselves and in the last 3 years nobody serious has used it. There are enough free H.264 encoders based on ffmpeg. Download one and render an uncompressed movie from AE to be used for final output.
Mylenium

Lightroom's Slideshow Module export quality issue

When I export a slide show, the resulting quality of the photos in the pdf is much below that of the photos I see in the Library module. There is a high degree of aliasing (jagged edges) and if I export the slide show at less than 100% quality or at a screen size smaller than my client's, the pixelization renders the slide show useless.
I am using a Mac with the latest OS with a 256mb video card, 2GB RAM, and plenty of harddrive space.
I have confirmed with two other experienced photographers that this is also happening with them.
I have resorted to using Fotomagico as a slideshow software vs. Lightroom for the results from Lightroom are too unprofessional to show my clients.

Pat,
I just checked my slideshow output and it looks good. I can only suggest [and you probably have tried all of these: 1] Make sure your photos look good to start, high res etc. 2] make sure you have the latest Adobe Acrobat Reader [8 I believe] 3] restart LR [I hesitate to even say this]
Beyond that I don't have much to offer.
Good luck
Mel

Horrible export quality in FCP for web

We just exported our video in final cut pro for the web, on the highest settings and are very disappointed.
Is there anyway to get a better quality for youtube?
This is how it looks now
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmUbJvc7TuQ
we would like to keep the high quality how do we do this? We are using a sony hdv 1080i

Michael Trauffer wrote:
You still haven't answered David S.'s questions.
One can only assume capture/sequence settings are for sony hdv 1080i as mentioned in OP. Given that information...
piff aroni wrote:
I followed the directions at
http://www.kenstone.net/fcphomepage/you_tube_reduxgary.html
and this is what it produced
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NdMzokWuhI
still horrible quality
piff,
You have "_watch in high quality_" link on your YouTube video page. There's a lot of sudden movement and color change in your video which could affect quality upon encode. YouTube is free and you get what you pay for. In all honesty it is not going to get any better than what you presently have uploaded on YouTube. If you want a high(er) quality video on the web encode respectively and host independently.
hth

Is there some way to tell lightroom to just re-export the previously exported files?

Shot a celebration (Park, Mass and Party), went home and processed the raw files in Lightroom, Exported them into 3 folders.
Then I proceeded to edit the files in photoshop, first folder that consisted of the park went well. Files looks great, even after compressing them again.
Then up were the Mass pictures and that's where it all went down hill. When I loaded up the first image it was compressed to hell All the black areas were all pixelated, so I went into lightroom and sure enough it changed the quality from 100% down to 60%!
All my other settings were the same so I didn't accidentally reset the whole thing. Not sure why or how Lightroom did this, I've had it on 100% for the past 2 years!
Now I have to export them all over again, the trouble is there was 800 that I culled down to just 150. I really don't want to hand pick them all over again.
Is there some way to tell lightroom to just re-export the previously exported files?

The short answer: no.
Lightroom remembers recently imported files in a collection, but does not remember recently exported files.
That said, you could use the SQLiteroom plugin (free, by me) to round up a collection of *all* exported files, which might help.
Rob

Export quality issues

When I export from Lightroom 4 my image quality changes dramatically between the Lightroom image and the exported image. I have my export settings at 1500x1500 and 240 pixels per inch. Any ideas on how I can keep the exported image the same as the one in lightroom

I don't know if you can see the difference between the two, where I really saw it was when I opened the exported image on a larger PC screen. I do my editing on a Mac screen, but when I opened the picture on the larger screen it was very grainy in the front person's face and you could see where I used the brush around his head, which you can't see in either of these images. Here are my other settings

So what's the export quality like???

Hi, after the 'pain' of i-movie 8, what's the view on the export quality in 9?
Does it export high enough quality to look good when burnt to dvd and played back on tv?

Welcome to Apple Discussions!
It looks the same as iMovie 08.
I did a compare one day using the same clip burned to DVD from iMovie 06 and from iMovie '08.
The iMovie 06 clip looked like it came from the DV camera directly and the iMovie 08 clip looked much worse. The difference is the single field processing used by iMovie 08/09 and the fact that it throws out every other horizontal line.
Because the two softwares handle the imported video differently - single field processing is how iMovie 08 / 09 handles the video, meaning that one of every two lines of the image is ignored. iMovie 06 uses ALL of the image to form the video.
If your primary workflow is editing DV clips and making DVDs, iMovie '06 is better suited. Your movie will arrive at iDVD in DV format, which is an ideal match for making a DVD: same resolution, same pixels aspect ratio, and original quality. If you share your movie from iMovie '08 / 09, it gets re-rendered at 640x480 or less, and then iDVD upscales it back to 720x480. The end result is obviously not as good.

Export quality grainy for TEXT / TITLE

Hello there,
Am kind of a newb, but am getting used to the basics and am happy with the video export quality. For some reason, the TITLE objects are coming out grainy, even when viewed at 100% size. I tried different output types, bitrates, changed fonts, font size, position, etc. Put black background behind, removed background, no matter what am still getting the fonts looking crappy once exported.
Some screenshots of what I see in the Premiere Pro output preview / workspace, and then a second shot showing the resulting output (same result in diff bitrates, just chose one as example)
In Pro:
http://fms.whoajack.com/textIssue01.png
Exported:
http://fms.whoajack.com/textIssue02.png
Any ideas?
Thanks for any suggestions,
Greg

DV is far from the best codec for text. But the real problem is that you're using FCP's built-in text generators. Instead, use the Boris Title 3D and Boris Title Crawl generators. They produce much cleaner vector-based text and have a ton of more options for creativity.
-DH

Poor export quality Aperture 3

I've been searching all over the internet and can't seem to find any answers in regards to export quality in Aperture 3. When I finish editing an image and I export it in either TIFF, JPEG or PNG all of them look the same regardless of if I change DPI, File size etc and none of them look even close to as detailed as the original. I'm exporting "version" and changing the options in presets with no luck.
Can someone help me? I can't accept the poor quality of the exported images as they make my portraits look fuzzy and not sharp (when they're very sharp and vivid in Aperture!). Is it possible to get the same quality in an exported image as I see in Aperture. It seems like it should be a no brainer!
Thank you!

I had the same problem. While in a One-to One the Creative told me to do this. What ever you are planning to export the file/files to have pluged in (flash drive, hard drive) or loaded (DVD/CD) before you start the process.
Chose the file or files by highlighting them then choose File - Export - Version. In the center of the window that will pop up there is a "Export Preset"" tab. He told me to choose TIFF- Original Size (8-bit). He did say that any higher than 8 bit is pointless. I did this and it worked great. I had a large beautiful file that I was blowing up to 30 by 20 and it looked so bad printed before I learned this trick. I printed it again after exporting the new way and it really looked great!
I hope this solves your problem, it was VERY frustrating for me also.

Is Your Footage Suffering from the Massive Difference in Export Quality Between FCPX

I read this article today and considering I do all my rendering through Premiere or AME it made me a little concerned. What does Adobe think of this? and has any else experienced this problem?
Cheers,
Moja.
I took this article from: Is Your Footage Suffering from the Massive Difference in Export Quality Between FCPX & Premiere?
A rational person might assume that the program from which you export your media wouldn't have a noticeable impact on the quality of the final image, especially if the export settings are identical in both programs. A recent test by filmmaker Noam Kroll might just teach us to think twice before making assumptions.
First, a little bit of background on Kroll's test. Having noticed that exporting from Adobe Media Encoder yielded quicker results than using the same settings and exporting from FCPX, he tended to use Media Encoder for the bulk of his exporting. When a recently exported project came out with some nasty compression artifacts, blocky rendering of certain areas, and a noticeable change in color quality, Kroll put on his detective's hat and tried exporting again from FCPX. To his, and soon to be your, surprise, the exported result from FCPX yielded significantly higher image quality with the EXACT same export and compression settings.
Don't believe it? Have a look for yourself. According to Kroll, "both FCP X and Premiere Pro were set to output a high quality H.264 file at 10,000 kbps." The image on top was exported from FCPX and the bottom was exported from Premiere Pro.
Exported from FCPX
Exported from Premiere Pro
In the shots above, you'll notice more blocky compression artifacts in the version exported from Premiere, especially on the lower part of the woman's face, and there's a fairly significant reddish hue that's been introduced into the midtones and shadows of the Premiere export. Here's a version of the same shot that is cropped in on the woman's face by 400%. This is where the difference between the two starts to become painfully obvious. Again, FCPX is on top, and Premiere on the bottom.
Exported from FCPX
Exported from Premiere Pro
Here's the conclusion that Kroll came to in his post.
After seeing this I can confidently say that I will not be compressing to H.264 using Premiere Pro or Adobe Media Encoder any more. [sic] The image from Premiere is so much blockier, less detailed, and muddy looking, not to mention that the colors aren’t at all accurate. In fact I even did another output test later on with Premiere Pro set to 20,000 kbps and FCP X only set to 10,000 kbps and still the FCP X image was noticeably higher quality, so clearly something is up.
It's really difficult to speculate as to what's going on behind the scenes that's causing such a drastic difference in results between the two programs. However, what is clear is that you should take caution when exporting to h.264 from Premiere and Media Encoder. Regardless of the program that you're using, perform your own tests and make sure that the export process is leaving your media with a visual quality appropriate for the delivery medium.
The good news here is that Adobe is extremely receptive to feedback from their user base, and their Creative Cloud subscription model allows them to roll out updates with a much higher frequency than they could with the boxed version of the Creative Suite. If more people are experiencing these problems and reporting it to Adobe, chances are that we'll see an update with fixes sometime in the near future. With that said, I have no idea how Adobe handles the technical process of exporting, so it could very well take a complete overhaul of how the program encodes h.264 to fix the problem.

Well, I did my own little comparison with a shot from my A7s (XAVCS 50mbps) and seeing as I don't have FCP X I used FCP 7. The AME H264 looks nicer than the FCP one in this instance.
Dropbox - WALKING 444.jpg
Pro Res 444 from Premiere
Dropbox - WALKING AME.jpg
H264 from AME at these settings:
Dropbox - WALKING FCP.jpg
H264 from FCP 7 at these settings:

Setting default export quality for PDFs in Pages 5.0

Hi,
Anyone know if it is possible to set a default export quality for PDFs in Pages 5.0. Even if it remembered the last used setting that would be helpful.
Thanks,
Nick

OK, I have managed to get higher quality images from the PDF renderer. Here is what I have found:
1) The PDF renderer in Reporting Services 2005 will size all images that it is given at 96 DPI no matter what DPI the image is when you pass it to the renderer. That means that a 300 DPI image or even a 600 DPI image will be sized in the PDF as if it is only 96 DPI. That means your high DPI image will render much larger than you expect.
So you might expect a 300 DPI image that is 6.5 inches wide to render properly at 1950 pixels. Yet, the PDF renderer will size it as it were 96 DPI which would make the image 20.3 inches long!
2) There is good news though. Despite sizing the images as if they were 96 DPI, the PDF renderer appears to render higher DPI images at a higher quality than 96 DPI. So despite the sizing being wrong, the image actually is rendering at a higher quality.
This means that you should size the image to the proper number of inches based on 96 DPI calculations. Then you can use Bitmap.SetResolution to set your images to at least 300 DPI. That should give you a higher quality image that is the proper number of pixels to fit properly in your report.
I am able to do all of this sizing dynamically because I am using objects as my data sources, but I am sure there are VB functions you could use in the report itself to accomplish the same task.
It is late, and I've been at this project all day long, so forgive me if I have explained anything poorly or gotten any concepts long. Yet, at this late hour, I believe this is what the renderer is doing.
I hope this helps someone else in the future, or at least points them in the right direction.

Export quality in After Effects

I'm using After Effects CS4 and have exported as an MPEG-4. The quality of the final movie is very poor. It looks like a low quality JPEG. In After Effects preview, it looks fine.
I'm familiar with exporting quality videos out of Premiere. Is the usual workflow to open AE projects in Premiere and use the options there to export? Or am I missing something in AE?

That may be, but I'm just not a fan. I did some tests a few years ago and decided that Animation
wasn't worth it and that it was in fact creating artifacts in my renders.
Just to show my work, I am pulling some info from wikipedia as a reference:
"For complex 3D rendered scenes or digitized film of real-world footage, it barely compresses at all and also can add visible noise."
Now I know, wikipedia isn't highly reliable, anyone can edit it, blah blah blah, but this statement runs congruent to my own findings. Add to that the weighty file size, and then the fact that this codec is officially my ENEMY because my students, who are instructed to use Sorenson 3, often forget to change the codec for their .mov renders, and so sometimes I get these bloated files that I have to trash and they have to re-render, and I just don't really care for this codec at all.
I just don't render video any more. Haven't for a long time now. So many advantages to using img sequences, I haven't looked back to big bloated video files.

Lightroom 5 won't export pictures and photoshop CC won't save or merge layers.

My lightroom is having trouble exporting pictures, an error occurs very often and it is making it very difficult to export and my photoshop CC will not save pictures and has had minor errors occur often.

http://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb/cc-applications-crash-immediately-launch.html

Youtube Export Quality

Is the youtube export quality improved in iMovie 09? Is 640x360 still the maximum size for direct upload to youtube?
Thanks,
Shawn

Is the youtube export quality improved in iMovie 09?
iMovie has little to do with the end quality of files other than determining the size/duration/quality of the files sent to YouTube. All files sent to YouTube are converted to FLV by Youtube. This conversion by Youtube itself determines the final resolution/quality of your files. If quality is what you seek, then it is probably best to create your own website and post your video at the resolution and level of quality which you can manage yourself. YouTube and similar sites aim for compatibility of viewing -- not quality.
Is 640x360 still the maximum size for direct upload to youtube?
I don't believe there are restrictions on resolution -- just duration (10 minutes) and file size (1 GB). Whatever you upload will be re-compressed to fit in the 1 GB file size limit. Higher quality means shorter times. Larger files usually mean more compression to fit it within the YouTube file size restriction. Your best bet is to review the Help resources area at Youtube.

Export quality of CS6 compared to CS3

Having had Premiere Pro CS3 for about 5 years I recently upgraded to CS6 but immediately found problems achieving the same kind of export quality I had before. Initially I was testing with a project created in CS3 but then simplified the matter by creating a new project in CS3 and entering a single piece of text and exporting as a single tiff frame and doing exactly the same in CS6 and attached is the comparison. I can't of the life of me figure out what the problem is, hopefully someone can help.
Thanks,
Keith.

Okay, thanks for the further input, I've made progress with it, I've discovered it's to do with the field order setting. Basically my knowledge of video editing and video standards is rather limited and the kind of work I've done in the past has mostly been to produce animations from 3ds Max which are simply shown as demonstrations to people on a PC or laptop, and so when setting up a new project in Premiere I always selected "Desktop" editing mode, changed some settings and left others as default such as Fields: Lower Field First, mainly because I didn't know what it meant.
When exporting the finished video the default would be Progressive Scan and everything fine, so never touched it. With CS6 if I do everything the same way I get the problem described above, but if for new projects I select Progressive Scan in the setup then everything is fine. (Similarly with lower field in setup and export).
However I still have a problem with imported CS3 projects. In CS6 if I simply open the project and select Lower Field on export, or start a new project with Progressive Scan in setup and import the project, the fuzziness I had before is gone but now I get the effect in the following attached image (a print screen from a paused video, left one exactly as I expect):
I have found a work around though, which is to start a new CS6 project with progressive scan in setup, import the project, then create a new sequence and copy the contents of the imported sequence into it and that exports fine, although I suppose it could get complicated when there are sequences inside sequences. I'm sure there is still something simple I'm missing to do this in a more seamless manner, if anyone has any ideas please let me know.

Lightroom 1.1 = horrible export quality

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for