Photos appear much darker in Lightroom than Photoshop or Picassa

Hi
I've just put Lightroom onto my PC but all the photos I've imported look much darker than when I look at them in either photoshop or picassa.
I have to up the exposure and fill light to get the photos to match how they look in photoshop.
Is there something I need to do to rectify this?
Cheers Rob

That definitely indicates the profile is to blame. If you care about your
prints and how your images look to others, it is a very good idea to buy a
hardware calibrator. Even the cheap ones (Huey Pro, SPyder 2, etc) do a
pretty good job. You really need separate hardware to do this. If you run
Windows 7 or Mac OS X there is a built-in software calibrator that uses your
eyes, but these usually do a pretty poor job.
To test the hypothesis and since you're running windows, try the following.
Open up your monitor's properties pane. Navigate to "color management" and
delete the profile you see there associated with your monitor (probably
called Samsung Natural Color something). Apply the changes and restart
Lightroom. You should now get identical (but wrong since you haven't
actually calibrated) color in both apps. Doing this makes Windows assume
your monitor is sRGB, which is rarely true nowadays. This is better though
than using the corrupt profile.

Similar Messages

  • Imported NEF appears much different in LR than exported JPEG

    Hello there, hopefully someone can help me with this issue. I am using a Nikon D200 w/ LR 2.0 on WinXP Pro. The NEF image I am editing in Lightroom appears much different than what is exported from that image into a jpeg (it does not matter whether it is sRGB, AdobeRGB, or ProPhotoRGB). In lightroom the image is darker and more yellowish than what LR exports from this image. Here is a
    link to an image showing exactly what I am talking about. The image on the right is in LR, and on the left is the exported jpeg preview, which looks the same in firefox or windows picture and fax viewer. Just to note, the exported image looks to be correct with what I preview on my camera, LR is what is off. I have also tried all the camera profiles by adobe labs and none of them seem to make things correct. Any help would be awesome, this is driving me nuts because I have no idea what my outputted image is actually going to look like.

    The reason why this happens is that Windows has associated an incorrect profile with your monitor. The only way to get a correct profile is to calibrate but you can also cheat and make windows assume your monitor is sRGB (which it isn't). To do this, go to your monitor's properties page, go to the color management tab and delete any profile shown there. This will make Windows assume you have a perfect sRGB monitor and will make Lightroom appear identical to sRGB exports in every other program (even unmanaged ones). They will all be slightly off colour though, even Lightroom, but will probably look like your friend's monitor. After you have done this as a first-aid measure, go out and buy a real calibrator.

  • LR 4.1 photos (still) MUCH darker than in PS CS5 - why?

    Right: Photo in LR4.1, shown using Process 2010 to be compatible (as good as possible) with PS and ACR 6.7 (a switch to 2012 shows a difference regarding darkness, but not too much)
    Left: Top the same photo opend via LR (it matches the LR version), bottom the same photo opend directly via PS. This bottom version is how it should look like IMO.
    Photo is a Canon .CR2 RAW file. Of course all parameters for the RAW converting process are the same for LR and PS.
    Screen is Eizo CG243W, hardware calibrated with the Eizo Color Navigator (coming with the monitor) and Spyder 4. Win7 64Bit, all currently Adobe Updates installed, no RC versions.
    Simply ALL photos are shown way too dark in LR, not only RAWs but also jpgs. Photos match between PS and e.g. Firefox, which supports color management.
    It is also clearly visible how different the histograms between the two open versions in PS look like:
    Dark version (opend via LR):
    Opend via PS directly:
    No clou what to check anymore, and quite desperate already... it makes no sense to spend a lot of work to improve the photos in LR with high effort (and all drawbacks of going to the limits with Exposure etc.) if this is all only based on some wrong interpretation of LR, which it looks like to me...
    Ah yes, I read about that LR cannot handle V4 ICC monitor profiles correctly, but I checked this, mine are V2.2, so this should be fine... but maybe still some incompatibility between the profiles produced by the ColorNavigator and LR!? I also found the other topics regarding similar problems here in the forum, but as we are already talking about LR4.1 final and ACR 6.7 for PS, it seems like the bugfix mentionend there did not solve this issue...
    Anybody any clou?
    Thanks!
    Klaus
    UPDATE: OK, now it is getting really weird... I just saw that I opend the file with PS as 8 bit only, so I tried to do again with 16 bit. Result is that I now cannot reproduce my screenshot from above at all, no matter if using 8 or 16 bit - but what I can manage is to have the photo opend twice in PS, looking exactly the same, both 16 bit, but with totally different histograms!?

    With Nikon raw files I can't reproduce what you're seeing. 
    I'm also using LR4 (.2RC in my case) and PS CS5. 
    Provided the raw file is set to PS2010 in LR, then it looks the same in LR as in CS5.  CS5 evaluates histograms differently, so they don't exactly compare - but the histogram in LR looks the same as the histogram in ACR. 
    Have you got LR, Catalog settings, Metadata tab, "Automatically write changes into XMP" checked?  If not, you need to right click the image in LR, select Metadata, then "Save metadata to file" to make sure the xmp data that ACR sees in the .xmp file is the same as the edit data LR sees.  And, as you say, set the process in LR to PS2010 or there may be slight differences, even though ACR6.7 is supposed to be able to read PV2012 files (in my experience, ACR6.7 does not render PV2012 files identically to LR4.2RC, or it didn't when I was using them last weekend). 
    Can't help you with the Spyder or Eizo kit - I have two different monitors both calibrated with a ColorMunki Display, set to create v2 profiles.  As everyone says, v4 profiles seem to be more trouble than they're worth. 

  • New PC, reinstalled CS4, photos appear blurry, but only inside of Photoshop???

    I recently upgraded to a new PC, on Windows 7.  I've finally finished reinstalling everything and getting things back to "working order".  But I'm noticing something very troubling.  When I open previously edited photos in Photoshop, photos that I considered "final" (meaning they were print-ready), suddenly appear blurry.  The same photos viewed on my website are crisp and look as I remember them looking...so it's not the monitor.  Which leads me to believe that Photoshop is doing something odd to these pix. 
    Anybody have any ideas as to why the photos would appear blurry, but only in Photoshop?

    OpenGL operation uses a smoother resampling, but if you're seeing it as "blurry" it could be that there are features configured on the GPU that suit gaming or something that are causing excessive blurring.  Normally the differences between OpenGL-based display operations and non-OpenGL are almost unnoticeable.
    Any way you could capture your screen with/without OpenGL and show what you're seeing here?
    Here's the same image screen grabbed at 71% magnification showing the OpenGL / non-OpenGL difference in display on a properly working system.
    If you're seeing more blurry images than the one on the left, then you have a specific problem you should work to get to the bottom of.
    -Noel

  • My printer prints much darker from iphoto than from another program on another computer

    ALL printed photos from this iMac are much too dark when printed but are OK when printed from an older Mac OS 9.2 from any other program.

    and said 'unstable environment'
    What was the original message, in French, I presume?
    Can it be, that you are running out of disk space?  If you have less than 10 GB free disk space, free space, before you start to work with your iPhoto library again.
    Do you have a backup of your photo library?
    If iPhoto has been forcefully quit, you need to repair your iPhoto Library.
    Double click the iPhoto Library  with the key combination⌥⌘  (alt/option-command) held down.
    Keep holding down both the keys, until the "Library First Aid" panel opens.
    Select first "Repair database" from the panel and let iPhoto repair the database.
    If that does not make your iPhoto library readable again, post back.

  • Photos look different on distilled pdf than photoshop edit

    I have a customer who prints her tabloid with us> Yesterday she sent a couple screen shots to show me the difference in her black and white photos
    that she edits in photoshop compared to that edited pic on the finished pdf which she then sends to me.
    She is concerned because the photo in photoshop after she edits it to what she wants it to look like looks considerably lighter on the pdf.
    Anyone know what causes this?
    thanks

    It all depends on the print condition, the accuracy of the ICC profiles, and the accuracy of the display (the monitor needs to be properly calibrated and profiled).
    Black ink only can print pretty dark and rich using a sheetfed press and a #1 coated sheet. So much depends on the characteristics of the paper and the solid black ink density. Still, no halftone can ever print as deep as a black and white image using CMYK, or 2 hits of black.
    Generally speaking the default dot gain 20 is not the most accurate profile for grayscale. The absolute best course of action is to obtain a CMYK profile from the printer or get them to recommend one. Then a grayscale profile can be generated from this CMYK very easily. If you are interested I can tell you how.

  • Iphoto6...all photos appear dark...???

    I shut down the mini last night and everything was fine. When I fired it back up this morning, my desktop background image was gone. Also, when I opened iphoto, all of the pics in appeared much darker than normal. I checked and found out that I was down to about 6 gigs left on the HD. I burned a couple thousand pics and then trashed them which brought me back up to about 11 gigs.
    I also checked the monitor setting...nothing had changed there. Any suggestions?

    Help us to help you: There are 9 different versions of iPhoto and they run on seven different versions of the Operating System. The tricks and tips for dealing with issues vary from version to version and OS to OS. So before anyone can help, they need information to work with. Basic stuff:
    - What version of iPhoto.
    - What version of the Operating System.
    - Details. What were you doing when the problem arose?
    - Did it ever work properly?
    - Are there error messages?
    - What steps have you tried already to solve the issue.
    Anything else you can think of that might allow someone else to understand your issue.
    With this kind of information somebody can develop a starting point for troubleshooting the issue.
    Posts that consist of "iPhoto doesn't work. Help" or "iPhoto won't print" or "Suddenly I have no photos!!!!!!!!!!" mean that any helper is simply guessing. More information means you get better assistance. (And no, more exclamation marks do not get help faster or make your issue seem urgent. They just make it seem like you have a stuck key )

  • Confused about Color Management in CS5 (Photos appearing differently in all other programs)

    I recently noticed this and it's been driving me crazy; when I view photos in Photoshop CS5 they appear significantly lighter/more washed out than when viewed in other programs like Zoombrowser, Digital Photo Professional or just in a regular Windows folder using Filmstrip mode (Windows XP).  When opening the same photo in both CS5 and Zoombrowser and switching back and forth between the two windows the difference is very apparent...for example, one of the photos I compared was of a person in a black shirt -- in CS5 (lighter/washed out) the folds in the shirt were very obvious, but in Zoombrowser (darker, more contrast/saturation) the folds were nearly invisible and it looked like just solid black.  Now, after messing around with the settings in both Photoshop and in Zoombrowser I've found a few ways to get the photos to look the same in the two programs; one way gives them both the lighter/more washed out appearance and another way gives them both the darker appearance with more contrast and saturation.  My problem is that I'm not sure which view is accurate.
    I use a NEC MultiSync LCD1990SXi monitor with SpectraView II calibration software and calibrate it every 2 weeks using these calibration settings (screenshot): http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/8826/settingsx.jpg
    In the SpectraView II Software under Preferences there's an option that says "Set as Windows Color Management System Monitor Profile - Automatically selects and associates the generated ICC monitor profile with the Color Management System (CMS)."  This option is checked.  Also, when I open the Windows' Color Management window there's only one option displayed, which is "LCD1990SXi #######" (the ####### represents my monitor's serial number).
    I assume the above settings are all correct so far, but I'm not sure about the rest.
    Here are my current default Color Settings in CS5 (screenshot): http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/666/photoshopcolorsettings.jpg
    Changing these settings around doesn't seem to make the photo appear much different.  However, when I go to Edit -> Assign Profile, then click off of "Working RGB: sRGB IEC61966-2.1" and instead click Profile and select "LCD1990SXi ####### 2011-06-21 18-30 D65 2.20" from the drop-down menu, the picture becomes darker with more contrast and saturation and matches the picture in Zoombrowser.  Also, if I select "Adobe RGB (1998)" from the drop-down menu it's very similar in terms of increased darkness and contrast but the saturation is higher than with the LCD1990SXi setting.  Another way I've found to make the image equally dark with increased contrast and saturation is to go to View -> Proof Setup -> Custom and then click the drop-down menu next to "Device to Simulate" and select "LCD1990SXi ####### 2011-06-21 18-30 D65 2.20" again.
    Alternatively, to make both images equally light and washed out I can go to Zoombrowser -> Tools -> Preferences and check the box next to "Color Management: Adjust colors of images using monitor profile."  This makes the image in Zoombrowser appear just like it does in CS5 by default.
    Like I said, I'm confused as to which setting is the accurate one (I'm new to Color Management in general so I apologize for my ignorance on the subject).
    It would seem that assigning the LCD1990SXi profile in CS5 would be the correct choice in order to match the monitor calibration given the name of the profile but the "Adjust colors of images using monitor profile" option in Zoombrowser sounds like it would do the same thing as well.  Also, I've read that Photoshop is a color managed software whereas Zoombrowser and Windows Picture and Fax Viewer are not which makes me think that maybe the lighter/washed out version seen in Photoshop is correct.  So which version (light or dark) is the accurate one that I should use to view and edit my photos?  Thanks in advance for any help or info.

    Sorry for the late reply;
    But before we go there or make any assumptions, it's important for
    you to determine whether you're seeing consistent color in your
    color-managed applications and only inconsistent color in those that are
    not color-managed.  For that you'll need to do a little research to see
    if the applications in which you're seeing darker colors have
    color-management capability (and whether it is enabled).
    I opened the same picture in 7 different applications and found that the 6 of the 7 displayed the photo equally dark with equally high contrast when compared to the 7th application (CS5).  The other 6 applications were Zoombrowser EX, Digital Photo Professional, Windows Picture and Fax Viewer, Quicktime PictureViewer, Microsoft Office Picture Manager and Firefox.
    However, at least two of these programs offer color management preferences and, when used, display the photo (from what I can tell) exactly the same as Photoshop CS5's default settings.  The two programs are two Canon programs: Zoombrowser EX and Digital Photo Professional.  Here's the setting that needs to be selected in Zoombrowser in order to match up with CS5 (circled in red):
    And here's the setting in Digital Photo Professional that needs to be selected in order to match up with CS5 (again, circled in red):
    *Note: When the option above "Monitor Profile" is selected ("Use the OS settings") the image is displayed exactly the same as when the monitor profile is selected.  It's only when sRGB is selected that it goes back to the default darker, more contrasty version.
    So with the red-circled options selected, all three programs (CS5, ZB, DPP) display the images the same way; lighter and more washed out.  What I'm still having trouble understanding is if that ligher, more washed out display is the accurate one or not...I've read several tutorials for all three programs which only make things more confusing.  One of the tutorials says to always use sRGB if you want accurate results and *never* to use Monitor Profile and another says that, if you're using a calibrated monitor, you should always select Monitor Profile under the color management settings...so I'm still lost, unfortunately.
    What I also don't understand is why, when the monitor profile is selected in CS5, the image is displayed in the dark and contrasty way that the other programs display it as by default but when the monitor profile is selected in Digitial Photo Professional it displays it in the lighter, more washed out way that CS5 displays it using CS5's default settings (sRGB).  Why would selecting the monitor profile in DPP display the photo the same way as when sRGB is selected in Photoshop?  And vice versa...why would selecting the monitor profile in Photoshop display the photo the same way as when sRGB is selected in DPP?
    I feel like I'm missing something obvious here...which I probably am.  Again, I'm very new to this stuff so pardon my ignorance on the topic.
    By the way, I find that the way that the non-color managed programs (Windows Picture and Fax Viewer et al.) display the photos is more aesthetically pleasing to the eye than the duller, more washed out display that CS5 gives the photos, but ultimately what I want to see in these programs (especially PS5 where I'll be doing the editing) is the accurate representation of the actual photo itself...i.e. what it's supposed to look like and not a darker (or lighter) variant of it.
    So just to reiterate my questions:
    Why does selecting Monitor Profile under the color management settings in DPP give the same display results as the default sRGB profile in CS5 and vice versa?  (CS5 with monitor profile selected having the same display results as DPP with the sRGB profile selected)
    When using CS5 with it's default color management settings (sRGB), using DPP with the Monitor Profile selected, and using Zoombrowser EX with "Adjust color of images using monitor profile" selected this results in all three programs displaying the same lighter, washed-out images...is this lighter, more washed-out display of the images shown in these three programs the accurate one?
    I noticed when opening an image in Firefox it had the same darker, contrasty look as the other non-color managed applications had.  Assuming that the CS5 default settings are accurate, does this mean that if I edit a photo in CS5, save it, and upload it to the internet that other people who are viewing that image online will see it differently than how it's supposed to look (i.e. in a non-color-managed way?)  If so, this would seem to indicate that they'd see a less-than-flattering version of the photo since if their browser naturally displays images as darker and more contrasty and I added more darkness and contrast to the image in CS5, they'd be seeing a version of the photo that's far too dark and probably wouldn't look very good.  Is this something I have to worry about as well?
    I apologize for the lengthy post; I do tend to be a bit OCD about these things...it's a habit I picked up once I realized I'd been improperly editing photos on an  incorrectly calibrated monitor for years and all that time and effort had been spent editing photos in a certain way that looked good on my incorrectly calibrated monitor but looked like crap on everyone else's screen, so the length and detail of this post comes from a desire to not repeat similar mistakes by editing photos the wrong way all over again.  Again, thanks in advance for all the help, it's greatly appreciated!

  • I7 3770K Ivy Bridge Vs. i7-3930K Sandy Bridge for Lightroom and Photoshop

    Hello, I have learned so much from this forum and have a question for everyone. I am working on a custom computer build but I am not sure about the CPU. I was planning on an i7-3930K (3.2 GHz 12Mb Cache) Sandy Bridge with an ASUS P9X79 but after more research I am also considering an i7-3770K (3.5 GHz 8mb Cache) Ivy Bridge with an undetermined mobo. The 3930 has 6 cores and more cache but is a slower chip compared to the 3770K. I have read some articles that Lightroom prefers a faster chip and that the extra cores may not be of great benefit.
    We primarily use Photoshop and Lightroom for image editing and do not do any video editing. We really do more work in Lightroom than Photoshop so designing the system for it would give us the most benefit. Our primary use of photoshop is batching if that helps with our usage of the system.
    Any recommendations would be greatly appreciated. Also feel free to tell me I am over analyzing this and either chip would work great
    Thanks in advance,
    Jonathan

    Jonathan,
    For Lightroom and Photoshop the i7-3770K will do fine. It also is much more affordable than a i7-3930K on  2011 platform, but at the same time much more limited for the future, because of the limited PCI-e lanes on the 1155 platform. The Ivy Bridge has another distinct disadvantage, the Intel supplied thermal paste is lousy, so it runs very, very hot.
    In another place, http://ppbm7.com/index.php/cooling?showall=&start=4 I said:
    Warning: If you are considering a much better affordable system, based on the Ivy Bridge processor, be warned that the cooling paste Intel uses on the Ivy Bridge is no good, especially when overclocking. At stock speed the i7-3770K runs 11 degrees hotter than with Liquid Ultra cooling paste and at 4.6GHz even 20 degrees centigrade. However if you change the cooling paste, you also void the warranty.
    To summarize: the 2011 platform has a better perspective for the future but at a price.

  • I have two printers:  Epson XP-950 and an hp Photosmart 7520.  Both print photos that are darker than they appear on the PC screen.  What can I do to set them to printg what is shown on the screen????

    I use Photoshop Elements 12 for my photos.  I have a constant problem where my photos don't print like they appear on the screen.  They come out darker than the screen shows.  If brighten them in the program, I have to almost make the photo appear "white" in order to look good printed.   ??????  What can I do to fix this problem?? 

    sneakypete1 a écrit:
    I use Photoshop Elements 12 for my photos.  I have a constant problem where my photos don't print like they appear on the screen.  They come out darker than the screen shows.  If brighten them in the program, I have to almost make the photo appear "white" in order to look good printed.   ??????  What can I do to fix this problem??
    I am ready to bet that your display is much, much too bright (like all displays at factory settings.
    Why Are My Prints Too Dark

  • Elements 10, windows 8, 64 bit, epson artisan 835 printer: prints are really dark even after using enhancements like adjusting lighting. Prints are darker than photoshop edit screen. Prints are acceptable using paint, windows photo viewer, or gallery.

    Elements 10, Windows 8, 64 bit, Epson Artisan 835 printer: Prints are really dark even after applying enhancements, like adjusting lighting. Prints are darker than Photoshop Edit Screen. Prints are acceptable using Paint, Windows Photoviewer, or Photo Gallery.

    In general theory, one now has the Edit button for their posts, until someone/anyone Replies to it. I've had Edit available for weeks, as opposed to the old forum's ~ 30 mins.
    That, however, is in theory. I've posted, and immediately seen something that needed editing, only to find NO Replies, yet the Edit button is no longer available, only seconds later. Still, in that same thread, I'd have the Edit button from older posts, to which there had also been no Replies even after several days/weeks. Found one that had to be over a month old, and Edit was still there.
    Do not know the why/how of this behavior. At first, I thought that maybe there WAS a Reply, that "ate" my Edit button, but had not Refreshed on my screen. Refresh still showed no Replies, just no Edit either. In those cases, I just Reply and mention the [Edit].
    Also, it seems that the buttons get very scrambled at times, and Refresh does not always clear that up. I end up clicking where I "think" the right button should be and hope for the best. Seems that when the buttons do bunch up they can appear at random around the page, often three atop one another, and maybe one way the heck out in left-field.
    While I'm on a role, it would be nice to be able to switch between Flattened and Threaded Views on the fly. Each has a use, and having to go to Options and then come back down to the thread is a very slow process. Jive is probably incapable of this, but I can dream.
    Hunt

  • Images seem to print much darker than they appear on screen?

    I have been using iPhoto to create cards and then I later save them as .pdf files so I can take them to another mac connected to an Epson 1400 printer and print them. Prior to making the cards in iPhoto, I do basic levels and auto color adjustments in Photoshop. Some of the cards that I am printing seem to be so much darker than the way they appear on screen. I understand that there is a differene between what is presented on a display and the way something may print, but the difference is so drastic. Is this something to do with iPhoto?
    Thanks.

    rick.pearl
    Because every maker of computer, software and printer have a different definition of the various colors Apple and others got together to agree definitions that would work together. So if you assign a color space to an image - sRGB, say - then any software or hardware that respect the color space will be using the same meaning for 'green' or 'blue'.
    In iPhoto Preferences -> Advanced, check the box for Embed Color Sync Profile, and this will embed a profile on every pic you add from now on.
    As to the one's already in, Old Toad has kindly created an Automator action that will add an sRGB profile to pics already in iPhoto. You can downlaod it from here.
    http://homepage.mac.com/WebObjects/FileSharing.woa/wa/default?user=toad.hall&tem platefn=FileSharing7.html&xmlfn=TKDocument.7.xml&sitefn=RootSite.xml&aff=consume r&cty=US&lang=en#
    Regards
    TD
    as to the points: most everything I do is pointless

  • In terms of organizing photos, what does Lightroom do better/different than Photoshop Elements?

    Hi,
    I recently purchased Photoshop Elements and Premiere Elements 12.  I have many, many pictures from several years on our hard drive and would love to be able to better organize and tag them, etc.  I have recently learned that Photoshop Elements can do this for me.  I have also recently heard that Lightroom is good for this.  Before I start importing thousands and thousands of files into PSE, I figure I should determine if I should use Lightroom instead.  This would obviously come at an additional cost, so I would like this forum's help in explaining how Lightroom might be better than PSE for this function so that I can determine if it's worth the extra cost.
    Thanks!

    The PSE Organizer has fewer features and more bugs than Lightroom, in my opinion
    Lightroom has more features for searching and more metadata fields for your use if you need them
    Lightroom offers the ability to geotag your photos and display them on a map
    Lightroom can streamline your workflow, so if for example you want to do the same things to multiple photos (including applying the same edits), this is much easier in Lightroom.
    In general, my opinion is that Lightroom's Library Module is a superior piece of software than the PSE Organizer. In general, my opinion is that the user interface for Lightroom's Library module is a superior interface than the PSE Organizer. My opinion is that Lightroom's workflow is smoother and more efficient than doing the same things in PSE.
    But some people love the PSE Organizer. It all depends on what you want to do. Your best path forward is to download the 30-day free trial of Lightroom, view some tutorial videos about Lightroom (don't skip this step), and compare for yourself the PSE Organizer to the Lightroom Library Module (and other parts of Lightroom as well).

  • Print much darker than displayed photo

    recently upgraaded to latest Mac system. Using Canon Pixma Pro 9000 printer. When printing image, final print very much darker than displayed on screen!  Using LR 4

    Have a look at this video: http://tv.adobe.com/watch/getting-started-with-adobe-photoshop-lightroom-4/lightroom-4-pri nt-the-perfect-image/

  • Why do iPhoto pictures appear darker than Photoshop?

    Hello everyone,
    I don't print from iPhoto, but in viewing on screen, photos are noticeably darker than in Photoshop. Does anyone know why this is the case, and whether it is possible to brighten the on-screen view in iPhoto?
    My photos appear in a magazine, and are very close to the Photoshop version.
    Thanks.

    Steve:
    See this post by John Collins3: http://discussions.apple.com/message.jspa?messageID=5812540#5812540. It may or may not apply to your case but might be worth a shot.
    TIP: For insurance against the iPhoto database corruption that many users have experienced I recommend making a backup copy of the Library6.iPhoto (iPhoto.Library for iPhoto 5 and earlier) database file and keep it current. If problems crop up where iPhoto suddenly can't see any photos or thinks there are no photos in the library, replacing the working Library6.iPhoto file with the backup will often get the library back. By keeping it current I mean backup after each import and/or any serious editing or work on books, slideshows, calendars, cards, etc. That insures that if a problem pops up and you do need to replace the database file, you'll retain all those efforts. It doesn't take long to make the backup and it's good insurance.
    I've created an Automator workflow application (requires Tiger or later), iPhoto dB File Backup, that will copy the selected Library6.iPhoto file from your iPhoto Library folder to the Pictures folder, replacing any previous version of it. It's compatible with iPhoto 6 and 7 libraries and Tiger and Leopard. Just put the application in the Dock and click on it whenever you want to backup the dB file. iPhoto does not have to be closed to run the application, just idle. You can download it at Toad's Cellar. Be sure to read the Read Me pdf file.
    Note: There now an Automator backup application for iPhoto 5 that will work with Tiger or Leopard.

Maybe you are looking for