Lightroom CC HDR - changes resolution in final HDR image

OK running into this odd problem on using LR CC this morning. Yesterday performed two or three HDR combos and everything worked well. This morning, combining 7 NEF files from my D810 produces a final HDR image in low resolution - about 1000 pixels long side. I can find no menu setting that might affect this, so no idea how or why LR CC HDR is lowering the resolution in the combined image it creates.
Any thoughts?

Here are the two results. First is Lightroom resulting aspect, second is Photoshop and matches original ARW files.

Similar Messages

Image automatically changing resolution with HDR and Photomerge in CS4

I am trying to create Hi Res Panoramas and HDR images using Photoshop CS4. It seems that the resulting image is a much lower resolution than I expected (ie the image has been downsized by 50% and changed to 240 dpi). I can do the smame thing on my laptop with no problem but can't figure out why it will not work on my desktop.
Is there a preference that I have missed?
I am using DNG images processed in lightroom.
Creating the Photomerge / HDR from Photoshop using the automate option.
Thanks

Chris you have saved my bacon - I have never used ACR on
this computer, so it must have been at default settings. Thankyou

I have Lightroom 5 and am trying to create some HDR Images for my Real Estate Business. I do not have the option to even be able to stack my photos. My headings are: Lightroom- File-Edit-Window-Help. Why does it not give me the option to be able to Stack?

Can i stack JPEG images or do they have to be Raw Files? The other help videos I have seen have the shortcut CommandG to stack, mine does not respond that command nor do i have a heading labeled Photos.

In order to stack images they must be all highlighted as a group. And the group must be contiguous, in other words next to each other. However, if you are talking about stacking images for the purposes of creating an HDR image, that cannot be done using Lightroom. You will need Photoshop or some other software with HDR capabilities in order to do that. It is possible to stack any file type or combination of file types, including virtual copies.

Where does Lightroom put HDR in the grid view? Is there anyway to have Lightroom stack the HDR file with the source files?

I can't decipher where (and why) the program is putting the HDR image in the grid. I stack all of my HDR source images so they are easy to track and manage. Other apps/plugins allow you to stack resulting images with their source image. That would be great if there's a way to set that in LR preferences.

Thanks, but this doesn't really answer the question about stacking the HDR file with the source files. Yes, it does put the file in the same folder, however many of my folders have 100s of images (that often look similar) and as far as I can tell, LR places them randomly in the sort order. It doesn't appear to put them at the beginning or end of the sort (usually by date), but somewhere randomly in the middle. Even if it could be made clear what method it is using to sort them, that would help locate one file among hundreds.
Ideally, however it should allow you to stack with the stacked source files. Is there anyway to do this? If not, is it a feature that could be requested?

I use a mac ios and shoot raw in a cannon 5d mark ii and shortly upon import of my images lightroom darkens and changes my images. This has happened before but not every time. The strange part is my last shoot had the same camera setting but this did not

I use a mac ios and shoot raw in a cannon 5d mark ii and shortly upon import of my images lightroom darkens and changes my images. This has happened before but not every time. The strange part is my last shoot had the same camera setting but this did not happen. The images i have now i can not use after lightroom has automatically altered them even if i try editing back to how they looked upon import

First thing to do is to change the default camera profile applied in Lightroom to camera standard (assuming that you shoot Canon or Nikon). Also make sure that your camera is NOT set up to use any of the HDR modes. Nikon calls those Active Dynamic Lighting. On Canons you often see things like highlight priority mode or "Auto Lighting Optimizer". Make sure that the picture style is set to standard and that for newer Canons the HDR mode is turned off. Most of the HDR modes simply underexpose the image and then add an instruction in the raw file to compensate for this to prevent highlights from being blown out. This causes more noise in the shadows and if you know what you are doing there is no point to this as you should simply expose correctly and get the highest quality raw.
Lastly, make sure that in Lightroom you have not checked "Apply Auto Tone Adjustments" in Preferences->Presets. This should make the default rendering of the raw files the same as the in-camera jpeg (what the camera shows on the back even if you shoot raw) but still give you all the latitude of raw files.

Why can't LR read HDR images created in Photoshop CS4ext?

I recently created an HDR image out of two images in CS4 extended for use in a slide show I produced in LR. However, LR cannot read or import any HDR images from CS4 ext. Now what? LR will read any other image edited in CS4 ext. but not any HDR image created in the same program! Any ideas anyone? I have tried changing color spaces and TIFF settings. I have tried to import it as both a TIFF and a PSD image. Absolutely nothing works. And does anyone have any idea why Photoshop cannot export an image as a JPEG? We pay enough for these programs as it is, and it can't even handle this simple basic routine?

does anyone have any idea why Photoshop cannot export an image as a JPEG?
You first need to downsample to 8-bits before you can save as jpeg (image->mode->8bits/channel).
I have tried changing color spaces and TIFF settings. I have tried to import it as both a TIFF and a PSD image. Absolutely nothing works.
You probably are still in 32-bit/channel linear. You need to downsample to 16 or 8 bits, otherwise Lightroom cannot read the tiff or psd. So you need to tone map using one of the HDR conversion options you will see when selecting 16 or 8 bits.

32bit output from ACR when processing HDR images

As said above, why does ACR not support 32bit output for HDR images that are processed in it?
I read this discussion too, but since the situation changed now, it would be nice to have 32 bit output from ACR.
Is there still anything that speaks against it?

The way in which I manage this is to batch-convert a series of progressive exposures in ACR 7.1;
Select all of those files in Bridge and use Tools/Photoshop/Merge to HDR Pro and
Save as 32-bit.tif (floating);
Then open that Tiff in ACR 7.1 to refine the editing (making full use of the Adjustment Brushes);
Finally, I open the file directly from ACR into Photoshop CS6 as a ProPhoto RGB 16-bit Smart Object and finish the image.
This works beautifully and produces very smooth and wide DR images without those horrendous HDR grunge haloes.
While you could do part of this in LR 4.1 if you wished, you do need Photoshop CS6 for some of the steps.

New HDR Image darker than preview

Today I was using Adobe Bridge to combine sets of 3 photos with different exposures to create HDR images and sending them to Photoshop. So far today I made 20+ such images and successfully saved them into PSDs.
I just ran into an odd problem. After clicking 'Merge to HDR' in the Bridge -> Photoshop option, Photoshop did it's thing of merging my 3 images. The preview window came up, it looked perfect, so I clicked 'Ok'. Then it created an Untitled document (as it always does), except that this image is much darker than what was shown in the preview. I tried doing some light adjustments, can't get it to be what I saw in the preview window.
All of my other HDR creations were exactly the same as I saw in the preview window. What's going on?

One important thing to keep in mind is that what you see on screen when working with 32-bit images IS NOT the actual image. There are no monitors at least consumer priced monitors that can show 32-bit's of data. What you are seeing is a faked representation. You will only see the real image when you convert out to 16-bit or 8-bit. Also, many video cards allow you to set 32-bit color in the control panel (Windows, can't speak for the Mac) this is NOT the same thing as a 32-bit HDR image. The 32-bit color is the number of colors NOT the dynamic range from darks to lights it is this dark to light data that can't be seen on monitors. BTW I just recently learned this from a podcast from the digital photography connection. The have Lightroom and Photoshop podcasts and just recently covers HDR for both programs, this was covered as was PhotoMatix. <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected].. > Once you hit okay in the preview window and Photoshop creates the 32-bit > image, you may want to try going to your view menu and adjusting your > 32-bit viewing options. > > [edited by host] > > Hope this helps! > -Kurt

32 bit HDR Images (Edit in) problems

I'm using Lightroom 4.3 and Photoshop CS5 12.0.4 64x on a 27" iMac with 16GB RAM.
I have used the 'FILE - PLUG IN EXTRAS - MERGE TO 32BIT HDR' (Photomatix plug in) command to create a series of HDR images, which I have subsequently tone mapped in Lightroom.
Now I want to merge the resulting .tif files in to a panorama, I have tried 'PHOTO - EDIT IN - MERGE TO PANORAMA IN PHOTOSHOP' and 'PHOTO-EDIT IN- OPEN AS LAYERS IN PHOTOSHOP' but neither work.
Lightroom appears to start the process as I get the RAW 7.3 Warning box, I click 'OK' and then the Photomerge dialogue box opens in Photoshop with my .tif files selected. I again click OK but nothing happens.
I have tried closing down and restarting both Lightroom and Photoshop, I have rebooted my iMac but still nothing.
Can anyone offer me any advice or assistance please?

...well I suppose Adobe have to try and keep the money rolling in somehow
That is correct, and I like your attitude .
People who pay thousands of dollars on hardware should not complain too much about hundreds of dollars in software. Complex software takes a huge amount of time to develop and maintain - companies that produce it must get paid for it... - it ain't charity work... profit margin is very thin, not fat (has to be that way to remain competitive). Adobe makes good money by selling a lot of copies, but rest assured: they could not price things much less or accept less income in one place without getting more in another - otherwise they'd go out of business.
Movie and sports stars have fat profit margins - not software companies...
Cheers,
Rob

Improve HDR images in Aperture

Hi,
I've recently been trying HDR photography, and so far the results have been pretty poor. I'm currently using the Photomatix HDR Tone Mapping plug-in for Aperture 2.0.
Every time I produce an image, they come out very cartoony, and not at all like the beautiful landscaped examples you see on the net. I've also had a bash with Photoshop's HDR tool, with similar unsatisfactory results.
Can anyone give me some thoughts as to where I may be going wrong? Is there a limitation to this particular plug-in? Or is there a problem with my technique. (At present I'm only using 3 exposures. Would going to 7 produce more natural looking final images)?
So far, I've found that shooting raw and adjusting highs and lows carefully is producing better results than HDR for me.
I have a job coming up which is for a bar in a skyscraper and I want to produce some really spectacular shots, with good range in the interior and exterior areas.
Any help or thoughts would be fantastic.
Thank you.
Richard

Most times when HDR images come out cartoonish the fault is in trying to do to much. The results are usually better if the HDR effect is kept to a minimum.
Another thing to keep in mind is that not all scenes lend themselves to an HDR interpertation. And the correct exposure series can have a huge effect on the final result. While the software will make creating an HDR image easy the final result, as you are finding out, is still in the hands of the photographer.
You might also want to chack out NIK Software's HDR plug-in. They have a free trial. They also have a number of free online seminars and instructional videos. See Nik Software

Can I perform masking & layers for HDR image in Aperture 2 _RAW images

Hello
I own Aperture 2.
Can I do post processing such as masking & layers like one do to to create HDR image.
If so...
I generally take in RAW format. In Photoshop or Photomatix the HDR post processing is done in JPG. [I do not own Photoshop or Photomatix]. Do I have to save it as JPG or take my photos in JPG to get the above done in Aperture 2?
Will Aperture 2 handle JPG to create HDR image?
Regards

yo,
i only very recently paid for photomatix (pmx) and started to use it....... i like it
eish, paid $129 from their website.......... see it (essentials?) is 29$ from app store
"real" hdr multiple exposures are possible with pmx as well as single image "tone mapped" files
aperture 2 or 3 do not offer hdr post processing, i think, photoshop *** compared to pmx (more tweaking possible)
if you use pmx one can use raw or jpg files, i do not think it makes a difference to the outcome
i use it as a stand alone app, BUT i think it could be used as a plug in... why bother?
one can save pmx files as tiff or jpg
you decide
let me know
ps- do not destroy the original files!, it's easy enough to re-convert them to hdr/anything again later
pps- you can download pmx as a try out for free, but they post a watermark on the final result, it's worth the experiment, at least you know what you are dealing with.... (available from their website), but it looks like the app store option is cool!... check out both

CS3 and 32-bit (HDR) images

I picked up a book last week about true HDR images - how to make them, how to manipulate them, the pros & cons, all that... The author uses CS3 Extended for his demonstrations. All he really does is use layers, filters, and some of the tweaks in the Image menu - nothing fancy. When I tried my own HDR, merged in Photomatix (basic) and saved, then opened in PS for the fun part, I noticed I didn't have the option of layers at all. I did have the image adjustments and the filters, as I expected. It's just only now occured to me as I'm writing this that the file format (OpenEXR, .exr, using ZIP compression) which I used might not support layers. I can't test that until tonite when I'm home. However, the author does recommend using the .exr or .hdr file formats for the 32-bit images and makes no comment about having to convert to a different file format to manipulate in his CS3 Extended (or at all).
Does anyone here have any experience with the 32-bit mode and "plain vanilla" CS3 - not Extended - and/or those file formats? Is it the file format, or is it a limitation of CS3 basic vs. Extended that I don't have access to layers?
Thanks!

In 32-bit color space you have very limited options in Photoshop. The vast
majority of features aren't available. There is nothing wrong that is just
how it is. Either use the limited tools available or convert the image to
16-bit or 8-bit. HDR technology is still in its infancy. Photoshop with each
version has expanded what you can access in 32-bit mode. But, it is still a
work in progress. Part of the consideration is that a 32-bit image is nearly
twice the size in memory as a 16-bit image and four times the size of an
8-bit. With most computer systems being limited in the amount of memory
available, at least for right now Adobe can allow you to add layers and
stuff that are going to eat up RAM. You are using most of the RAM now just
for opening and basic editing of the 32-bit image as it is.
Once we get in to full 64-bit OSes, lots of memory and real 64-bit
applications things in this area should really change.
BTW the book you mention, cutting and pasting various parts of images to
make one is not a true HDR. A true HDR is one thing and one thing only and
that is a single image made up of several images with different exposures.
Now this may sound like cutting and pasting but it isn't. The end results
look very different. The fact that so many companies and user's choose to
call everything under the sun that evens out exposure in an image an HDR
image doesn't make it so. Taking a single RAW file and adjusting the
exposure to create 4 or 5 different images with what the user considers
different exposure and then using them to create a single image isn't a real
HDR image either. The software from the single oridginal file already saw
the data that was there even if the user couldn't see it. So creating
several images from one is not going to show the software anything that
wasn't there to begin with.
Robert

Before/after: LR4.1 for 32-bit HDR images - wow!

I have given the new support in LR4.1 for 32-bit HDR images a try. I'm very impressed.
Here's an old version (Photomatix I think) of an HDR I shot a few years ago:
Not so bad, huh?
Now look what I could do after creating a 32-bit tiff and importing into Lightroom:
The new defringing is awesome to have. The fringes can become so very visible otherwise when making HDR.
I've got all the gory details of how I did this on my blog:
http://davidnaylor.org/blog/2012/05/lightroom-4-32-bit-hdr-editing/
Anyone else who has given this a spin?

Actually, I think I may have been wrong there. I believe I actually used
Photoshop to develop the old version. Even so, I prefer Lightroom's output
to anything Photomatix would produce.
Den 3 maj 2012 00:46 skrev "Susan S." <[email protected]>:
Re: Before/after: LR4.1 for 32-bit HDR images - wow! created by Susan
S. <http://forums.adobe.com/people/Susan+S.> in Photoshop Lightroom - View
the full discussion <http://forums.adobe.com/message/4375488#4375488

External Monitor changing resolutions on Macbook

I have seen several people ask this question, but I haven't found a suitable answer. I have a MacBook running 10.6.8 at school. I teach and move from room to room hooking up to different projectors and monitors. The set up is just very unstable. Despite its supposed ability to remember settings, it rarely does and the resolutions are messed up as well as the display callibrations. I have an external monitor on my desk. Yesterday, I set the resolution to the native 1280x1024, when I plugged back in, it was back to 1024x768. For some reason, the higher resolution wasn't even appearing on the list until I fiddled with it.
Why is this so buggy on this MacBook running this OS? Is there a way to force it to remember display settings better? Any tips?
I know that other teachers have more problems than I do because they don't even know how to change resolutions or anything like that.
Thanks for any tips, tricks or helpful comments.

Try doing a Parameter RAM reset - hold down command/option/p/r keys at start up and wait for three chimes before releasing the keys.

How do I resize/change resolution of photos from iPhoto when used in iWeb

I am shooting with a 7.1 Mega Pixel Canon to get enough quality to crop and print high quality pictures of my baby daughter and her adventures in the world.
I have a website up made with iWeb, but when I select the photos in iPhoto and go Share / Sent to iWeb / photo page - I get a nice layout of the photos but at full resolution when the thumbnails are selected or the slide show is run. Although nice and sharp, this is a pain for anyone looking at the site even with high speed access.
There must be some way to resize photos, but I have yet to figure that out with iPhoto, let alone iWeb. And as one photo at a time is a pain, there must also be a way to rescale a whole selection of photos that I want to use for a page - say her Disneyworld trip. I can't be the first person to run into this, but I have not found anything out there to point me in the right direction.
Ideally I wold like to create a resized set from the originals - so I can still print and crop in high qulity. I also am not really sure what resolution would be best or easy viewing and download - that's probably subjective. 1200x800 comes to mind but I am open to suggestions.
Perhaps resize is not the right term - changing resolution is probably more accurate, but there too I have not found an answer.
Appreciate the help and suggestions.

dan28088,
Tried your site on two different browsers, using highspeed broadband; the site is, indeed, extaordinarily slow. We can dissect the thing down to the last file, but it won't change anything, as far as I can see. If it were me, I would host the site on another server. The .Mac servers are just plain slow, period. I think that is the primary problem here. Just my opinion, others may disagree.
I created a new site this past weekend for a new project, and published it to .Mac. It contains a lot of jpeg files in slideshows (along with the usual png suspects!) . After reviewing it a few times, and not being satisfied with page-load speeds, I published to a folder and uploaded the site to space on 1&1 WebHosting.
The page-load speeds TRIPLED. That's right...3X as fast page-load speeds. Even large, linked to files, 3MB+, load within a reasonable amount of time. (seconds)
I still will keep a .Mac subscription, as I like and use all of the other features of the iDisk. But for serious website hosting, I think you will be better 'served' with a remote host. Your money with .Mac is certainly not wasted; the syncing services and other features of iDisk space that integrate with your local files are well worth the yearly fee. Again, only one user's opinion, based on experience.
Mark

Lightroom CC HDR - changes resolution in final HDR image

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for