Raw vs. DNG image quality

Operating system is XP
I have a Canon 40D with CR2 files that need to be read. I do not YET have Photoshop CS3. Still on CS2. The advice here has been to download the DNG converter that comes with the camera raw version for CS3.
I downloaded and used the CS3 DNG converter which creates files that you can open in CS2 that are supposed to have all of the information / quality of your original CR2 RAW file.
From what I can see, this is not the case. Converting the CR2 RAW files with the DNG converter appears to to discard color information and introduce artifacts. Here is one example showing the unconverted CR2 RAW image on the left (opened in Windows Live Photo Gallery) and the image after DNG conversion on the right (opened in Photoshop CS2). The color loss is obvious. The artifacts are most evident on the whiskers. I did a screenprint and saved the RAW & DNG together as a JPEG, but you can still see the difference:
http://www.k9tag.com/rawvsdng.html
Is it just me, or am I losing information with the DNG conversion? Would I lose this same information when opening 40D files with CS3 Camera RAW? Is there another utility that I should be using to open / convert my 40D files that will not lose information? I want my digital files to be all that they can be.
-Mark

> if I had CS3 and opened the file in camera raw instead of converting to a DNG, would I see these same artifacts?
Mark, pls make a clear distinction between varying the programs and varying the file format.
ACR in CS3 is not the same as ACR in CS2. See some threads below about the integrated, non-negotiable noise reduction in ACR 4. I have not used ACR 3, but I heard that there are many other differences. So, the result between files created by ACR in CS2 will be different from that created by ACR in CS3.
However, if you process a CR2 file with ACR 4 and a DNG file converted from that raw with the same ACR, the results will be identical.
You are barking up the wrong tree with DNG. ACR delivers different result from DPP, no matter if ACR 3 or ACR 4.
Plus, you are comparing the ACR result with a JPEG created by the camera firmware. The latter has been created by applying the in-camera settings sharpening, contrast, saturation, color tone, and of course white balance. DPP would create almost identical result, because it applies the same settings (they are recorded in the raw file). ACR does not apply these settings, so you need to make the necessary adjustments.
You have to decide, which one you like more (or dislike less): DPP or ACR, but this should be a well-informed decision, based on experience. For example I find DPP's colors better, but ACR's adjustments are superior, and ACR's colors can be enhanced somewhat. Plus DPP has a browse function as well, ACR can't compete with that.
Finally, please note that there is no "correct" rendering of a raw file. There are many *different* renderings. The JPEG straight out of your camera is not the measure of rendering, it is one of them.

Similar Messages

  • DNG image quality in iPhoto

    I have recently acquired a Zeiss Photoscope (in effect, a spotting scope with an integrated camera) which records raw images as either JPG or DNG files or both. (I'm a birdwatcher who likes to take photos of them, not a photographer first and foremost). When I view the images in iPhoto 9.2, the highest quality JPG files are far superior to the DNG files, even though the JPGs are about 2 MB while the DNGs are 14 MB. The DNGs are obviously pixellated even at low ISO settings (50 or 100), while the JPG images appear sharp and show pixellation only when blown up digitally in iPhoto.
    In some cases, I see evidence of chromatic aberration in the DNG images that is less evident in the JPG files, too.
    Is there something about the way DNG files work with iPhoto that causes this? Is there recommended software for looking at DNG files that might eliminate the problem? Any other ideas about how to resolve this?

    Even as an ardent Mac fanatic since 1984, I have to tell you that iPhoto is an unmitigated piece of cr@p when it comes to image quality, though it has certain hand-holding features that make it very attractive to photo amateurs.
    The raw conversion, whether from a straight raw file or from a raw DNG file, will be far superior if you view them after converting/rendering them in Adobe software, either Lightroom or Adobe Camera Raw.  The latter, a free plug-in, can be hosted either by the (very expensive) full version of Photoshop, or by the relatively inexpensive ($99.99) Photoshop Elements, although when hosted by Photoshop Elements it only offers a subset of the controls, adjustments and functionality of the very same plug-in when hosted by the full version of Photoshop.
    https://store1.adobe.com/cfusion/store/html/index.cfm?event=displayProduct&categoryOID=746 5793&store=OLS-US

  • 5D Mark II raw files image quality

    Anyone out there using Aperture to convert their 5D2 raw files? I am trying to but I am having image quality problems. This is a surprise coming from Aperture, which for Sony raw files has produced stunning quality for me in the past. It leads me to believe that perhaps Aperture's 5D2 conversion setup needs work. Here is what I am seeing that I don't see from RAW Developer or Canon's Digital Photo Pro:
    • Rainbow banding in specular highlights
    • Webbing of tree branches, particularly against the sky.
    • Not much "pixel level" contrast.
    • Rather soft over all (I have good L lenses, tripod, and technique)
    • Lackluster color requiring considerable post conversion work.
    • The files tend to be rather fragile with tearing occurring easily if several rounds of sharpening need to be applied.
    • More noise than one would expect, even at ISO 200.
    • Highlights into quarter tones have a slick, almost smeared look (no NR applied in camera or Aperture).
    Also, I really need to convert to 2x the native file size but I am limited by Aperture's current maximum size. So converting to 1.5x might be causing some of what I am seeing due to rounding errors, etc.
    Can anyone (with direct experience) comment?
    Thanks in advance.

    Hi & thanks for your comments. I interpolated 8 images up (for store posters) to 1600mm x 200dpi and still got better results from CPP V Aperture - in SRGB. "Better" is subjective in this case. I will experiment further.
    Yes I understand the principal behind having a flat - hence max detail raw. My first DSLR was a Kodak D200 13 Years ago - it's raws were flat & magenta - as were many cameras Raws in between time (such as the Fuji Fine Pix s2Pro) - the same principal applied to B & W film long slow dev time produced lower contrast neg = more range to work with.
    To me the flat raws are a bit of step backward? The issue is - fast - workflow.
    I found the Nikon D200 & 5D Mk 1 raws through aperture required very little work (if any) to get them ready for next stage of production. I just want to get images as "ready" as the 5D Mk I from my MkII - which is not the case at the moment.
    Any idea how to carry the 5DII preset over & onto the raws in Aperture? That might help speed things up?
    Cheers ADR

  • 5D Mark II raw image quality

    There's been a post by A Museman (earlier this year) on "5D Mark II raw image quality" that attempts to discuss the differences and problems with Aperture with flat / poor quality raw photo's as compared to sharper, clearer, more saturated pictures processed in Digital Photo Professional.
    That thread "seems" to have faded in discussion. I am still having problems with Aperture and raw photo quality from my Canon 5D Mark II camera.
    Can someone shed some light on this subject, in that has the problem been been identified, validate, resolved or does the problem still exist (as it does for me).
    This problem is causing me a lot of frustration since I want to use Aperture because of its organization and potential processing capability. Although I get superior results with DPP, it does cause a lot of file storage requirements by having large raw and jpeg files for the same picture (in essence it doubles the file storage requirements).

    On my end there are no issues. I get absolutely beautiful portrait renderings out of aperture and my 5d2 - the dynamic range is amazing with this combo. I can often adjust exposure 3+ stops if needed before getting into too much noise.
    The best output I've ever had - completely smokes the ACR rendering of skin tones.
    Aperture 2 doesn't apply the "Picture Style" preset to the raw decode like DPP does. This makes raw images look flat in comparison to the camera rendered jpeg - shoot in "faithful" mode and you will have a pretty much exact match.
    So My quick recipe to match the default setting is adding a little vibrancy, definition, and contrast. FWIW I would turn off the auto lighting optimizer, and the highlight tone priority if using aperture.

  • Has anyone had issues with poor image quality when using lightroom to process raw images from Canon 7dmk2

    Hi everyone..
    ..I have been having image quality issues when using Lightroom to process raw files from a 7d mk2... They are all soft with poor clarity.....tonight in despair I tried processing them  using  canon's software and they are totally different..."much better"
    anyone else had similar problems....Andy

    I have a 7D2 and have not had what I interpret as poor image quality that has anything to do with the camera.
    Can you post a screenshot of what you’re seeing and what specifically you don’t like?  Maybe there is something you can do differently or at least there may be an explanation for what you’re seeing.
    And if you have a raw image that you wouldn’t mind sharing in a public forum, upload to http://www.dropbox.com/ then post a public share link to it in a reply, here.
    In other words post a screenshot of what you see in LR, another of what you see using DPP, and a link to the raw file you’re processing.

  • Image quality after opening from camera RAW

    Why does the image quality seem to get worse in Elements 11 once the image is opened up after editing from Camera RAW?  The image looks great in the RAW screen, then once opened in Photo editor it seems pixelated, smooth lines look jagged.  Is it something I am doing wrong?

    Try viewing at 25%, 50% or 75%

  • When using Lightroom Book module for Blurb book making, why do I keep getting a low image quality message if it's supposedly accessing my large raw files in my library?

    When using Lightroom Book module for Blurb book making, why do I keep getting a low image quality message if it's supposedly accessing my large raw files in my library?

    I think I've solved my problem with a Google Search. I came across a free slide show generator
    (contributions requested) that shows much higher quality slide shows than either iPhoto or Aperture 3.
    You click on a folder of jpegs and it almost immediately generates thumbnails and within a few seconds
    I can be viewing a full screen, tack sharp, slideshow of all of the files in the folder. Much sharper than
    I'm used to seeing.
    I think I'll keep the Aperture 3 and use if for the purpose it's intended for in the future. I'll also redo the
    image preview files to the small size it started with and then I'll copy all of the files I'm interested in from
    iPhoto into a separate folder on another disk. I'll use Aperture to catalog and to perform image manipulations
    on but I won't try to use it as an iPhoto replacement. I don't think I'll be using iPhoto much as an image
    viewer in the future either after I finish moving my favorite pictures to the Phoenix Slides folder.
    The name of the free program is Phoenix Slides. It's free to download and try, free to keep (though I
    think you'd want to pay the small amount requested) and fast. My pictures have never looked so good
    before.
    http://blyt.net/phxslides/
    Message was edited by: Jimbo2001

  • Significant reduction in file size from Camera Raw to DNG

    Hi,
    I am currently testing the conversion of Leaf camera raw files into DNGs for a photographer's archive. I am hoping to convert all of the mos files to DNGs because Leaf Capture and the Leaf Raw Converter are not being updated and because the photographer wants to have an Adobe centered workflow. In my testing I discovered that converting mos files to DNGs through ACR 8.4 and LightRoom 5.4 resulted in a reduction of file size by nearly 50%. A 44.5MB mos file became a 23.6MB DNG. From what I've read only about 15-20% of the camera raw file should be lost and all of the data lost should be propietary.
    Here-in lies my quesiton, is there any way that I can track or determine exactly what sort of compression is being done to the mos file and what information is or is not travelling in the conversion to DNG?
    These are the settings I have used for converting raw files to DNGs:
    ACR:
    JPEG Preview: Medium Size
    Embed fast load data
    Don't use lossy compression
    Preserve pixel counts
    Don't embed original
    LIGHTROOM 5.4:
    Only Convert Raw files
    Delete originals after successful conversion
    File Extension DNG
    Compatibility Camera Raw 7.1 and later
    Jpeg Preview Medium Size
    Embed Fast Load Data
    Thanks!

    50%? - I thought we were talking about 15-20%?
    In my first post I questioned why I was seeing a reduction in file size of 50% when according to forums and articles I've read I should only be seing a 15-20% reduction in file size. I then wondered what data I might be losing, which you addressed.
    Same as what? - what were the results.
    I was referring to testing I preformed on camera raw files produced during different years (all mos). I converted all files with the same ACR and LR settings and found that the DNGs always reflected a 50% reduction in file size. This test suggests that any conversion issues is not necessarily related to how the camera raw files might have been differently built across years.
    Adobe's raw data compression is touted by DNG zealots, but I haven't scrutinized it enough to corroborate or refute.., but my experience is that reduction is relatively marginal. All of this assumes original is also compressed - if uncompressed in original source, savings would be large.
    The files I am dealing with are definitely uncompressed which could account for the large reduction in file size. I didn't realize until I posted to this thread that converting to a DNG results in a compression of the original image data. I understand that this compression is supposed to be lossless like a lossless compression to a tiff and thus result in no decrease in image quality or harm to the original image. I am baffled by how it is possible that any compression of a file (especially  by 50%) could not result in a loss of important data but I will accept that it is possible to have a truly lossless compression and that the size reduction I am seeing could be a result of all of the different processes a file undergoes that you have outlined.
    I looked into the effects that backwards compatibility has on the conversion process which might interest you http://dpbestflow.org/DNG#backwards-compatibility
    I also posted to luminous landscape's forums http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=89101.new;topicseen#new
    Although it wouldn't surprise me if the DNG conversion process tossed the xmp-like metadata, and kept the original stuff, but it would surprise me if it tossed the original stuff - but as I said before, I haven't scrutinized for completeness so I don't know.
    I've done testing in which I converted .mos camera raw files with their sidecar xmps and without their sidecar xmps. My tests revealed that the DNG definitely carries over xmp metadata although it is not clear to me exactly how it is carried and if anything is lost.

  • NOT happy with image quality of Lightroom 1.1

    Sure, LR now launches faster and the interface looks a bit nicer. And the more capable sharpening controls and the clarity slider which mimics contrast enhancement with USM are nice additions, but has anyone else notice what happened to the image quality?
    First, while formerly LR and ACR struck a great balance between detail and noise suppressionerring on the side of maintaining detail even at the expense of slightly higher noise levelsit appears the goal for the redesign has been to minimize the appearance of noise at all costs. It just so happens that yesterday afternoon, I'd shot some available light candids (up to ISO 800) of the staff at a local health care facility and was intent on using them as a trial run on Lightroom 1.1. Well, the difference in image quality jumped right out at me: there was no granular noise at all remaining, even in the ISO 800 shots, but neither was there any fine detail. I use a Canon 5D, and while I'm accustomed to slightly higher levels of chroma noise, images up to ISO 1600 in even the worse lighting are always full of fine detail. Fine structures like strands of hair and eye lashes have now lost their delicacy, and have instead become coarse, unnaturally painterly analogs. Looking into shadow areas, I can see the results of what seems to be luminance noise smearing at work, obliterating noise and detail along with it. I never used Raw Shooter because I'm a Mac user (2x2GHz G5 w/2GB RAM and 250GB HD), but if this is the result of incorporating Pixmantic's technology, the result is not a positive one from my standpoint. The images I shot yesterday are to be cropped to 4:5 proportions, then printed 20" x 25", at which size the processing artifacts and lack of fine detail in these LR1.1 conversions becomes even more apparent. I've even tried turning off all image processing options: Clarity, Sharpening and NR (neither of which I ever use in RAW conversion, anyway)... It simply seems this noise smearing is part of the baseline RAW processing, and it really, really bites. Am I missing something? Is there some way to actually turn off this processing that looks uncomfortably like the "watercolor" noise reduction that Kodak and Panasonic use for their compact digicams. Yuck!
    Secondly, is there a way to get back the suppression of hot and stuck pixels that LR used to perform? Now, my high ISO files are riddled with them, the same as they would be when converted with Aperture or Canon's DPP. Default suppression of hot and stuck pixels was a major advantage of LR/ACR, and contributed in no small bit to my adoption of LR as my standard tool for RAW conversion due to the amount of high ISO, low light photography I do. What's even worse, is that the random-color speckles are now smudged into the image along with all the other noise data that's being smoothed out, resulting in images that looks more like impressionist paintings than photographs.
    I thought about reinstalling LR1.0 and just continuing to use that, but if LR1.1 is an indication of the direction Adobe is going to take in the development of the software, I really don't see the point of continuing to use the softwareparticularly when I had a few existing problems with LR1.0 that were never resolved, such as crashing during the import of photos from a memory card and progressively slower preview rendering as the size of my library increased. So, I'm probably going to go back to using Aperture, which is itself not free of IQ foibles, but certainly looks much more attractive now in comparison to LR1.1.
    Anybody notice the same things with IQ? Anybody got any suggestions of how to get more natural-looking conversions before I remove LR and go back to Aperture?

    Jeff,
    I mean no disrespect. But I would like to see samples of 1.1 compared to 1.0 of the same image (ISO 400, and/or 800), because I do not want to convert my library to a catalog until I know whether or not I like the image quality. Why is it so hard to get one good sample. That is all I am asking. I would just rather not jump through hoops to go back to 1.0 if I do not like 1.1....That is all
    And yes, after well over 400 printed articles I can tell what an image will look like in print when I view it 1:1.... I can tell if the eyelashes or pores on someones face, the detail in a rug, or wood grain will be detailed on the off set printed page if I look at the image at 1:1 and see smudging...this means to me that the most detail possible is NOT going to translate to the page. If however I CAN see detail in those types of areas, clearly (ie no smudging), than I know that I will see those fine details on the page. If these fine details were not important than we would all still be shooting with 3 and 4 mp cameras. Those fine details that are only visible to our eyes at a 1:1 preview on screen, are important on the printed page.
    Oh, and I am not chest thumping. You can check my history here, I do not have a history of that type of activity. I am simply asking to see samples before I update....
    I am very discriminating Pro, not some over testing, too much time on my hands, complaining , over paid amateur who only has time to complain that their test chart is out of focus. Or that they can measure toooo much noise at ISO what ever, instead of actually making photos. I actually make my living taking photos. And my clients have come to expect a certain level of quality from me. They comment all the time how much higher quality my images are than some of the other photogs they use. And I am still shooting a D60, where as these others are shooting 5d's and D2X's.
    Jeff, I am not against you or Adobe. Matter of fact, I LOVE LR. It has changed my work flow in a very positive direction. I think it is wonderful. I just want one sample.... I am asking nicely: Please with sugar on top :)
    If you can't give me a sample, than please at least reassure me that it will be easy to go back to 1.0 for the time being. Is it as easy as uninstalling 1.1, reinstalling 1.0 and recovering my DB from a current backup? If so, than fine, I will go this route........... If not, than I am hoping for a sample.
    Thank you very kindly Jeff for engaging in this lively conversation. I do appreciate your comments and participation on this forum. And please note that none of this is said with attitude or malice. I know that some times a writers intent or emotional state is easy to misinterpret in a forum like this. So please know that I am calm and not angry, just curious about image quality.
    Ok. I will shut up now. Thanks again

  • Image quality bad in Web Gallery

    I used the .Mac web gallery feature for the first time yesterday with images that I had edited in Lightroom and then exported to iPhoto for upload, I chose the jpeg compression at highest quality (they were RAW files taken with my Canon 40D) and saved as sRGB optimized for the web. The thumbnails look fine, but the images look absolutely horrible full screen...focus looks blurry and artifacts in some of the shots. Granted, I'm viewing on my 24" screen and it does look better on my other half's 13" MacBook, but still...the image quality should not suffer like this. I can't believe Apple would release a product the renders such poor quality photos.
    Is there something that I'm missing here? Is anyone else noticing this with their web galleries?

    Dave:
    You can replace the 800 x 600 files with your full sized image files. But it would be a manual operation. Each photo in an web gallery has it's own folder with several versions of the file in it. They are located in the iDisk/Sites/Web/_gallery folder. The file titled web.jpg is used for the slideshow. If you replace it with the original file that's been renamed web.jpg, it will be the one used to display in the slideshow.
    HOWEVER, the full sized image file takes a very long time to load when playing the slideshow. If you do that you should use an image resizing application like Resize! to reduce the file size by selecting a higher jpeg compression ( lower quality level) while keeping the pixel dimensions the same. With a 60% quality level and keeping the pixel dimensions the same I reduced a 2816 x 2112 pixel, 2.11 MB image file to 695 KB. The 2.1 MB file took 6 seconds to load, the 695 took 2 seconds and the iPhoto produced file were nearly instantaneous. Resizing down wot 1200 x 900 at 60% reduced the size down to 132 KB, much more manageable for loading and rendering online.
    So you would have to test to see what pixel dimension and quality level would work best for you. But keep in mind that you'd have to manually change each file, rename it to web.jpg and copy up to the iDisk.
    Do you Twango?
    TIP: For insurance against the iPhoto database corruption that many users have experienced I recommend making a backup copy of the Library6.iPhoto 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), 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 08 libraries and Leopard. 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.

  • Poor image quality on exported version

    I am trying to export versions of my photos to a folder on my external drive. Every time I do this the resulting jpg is washed out and has poor resolution + a ton of noise. The resulting image is substantially lighter than the images in my aperture window, yet the histogram does not indicate that the images should be that light or washed out.
    The images are all starting as RAW images. The export settings are for image quality 12, 300 dpi, sRGB, original jpg. I have onscreen proofing turned on and set to sRGB. My print lab said that the image quality could be 10, but when they looked so horrible I bumped them up.
    I had Aperture for a long time before upgrading to Aperture 2 in March. From March to August I did not have any problems, so this is a more recent problem. I have not yet upgraded to Snow Leopard. Please help!!! Thanks!!!

    Hi
    a. make a DiskImage first and test this with Apple DVD-player.
    (File menu and down "Make a DiskImage")
    b. I only use streamingDV - no .m4v or like (may be it works - I don't know)
    else
    *Not knowing the origin to Your problem - General approach when in trouble is as follows.*
    • Free space on internal (start-up) hard disk if it is less than 10Gb should rather have 25Gb
    • Hard disk is untidy. Repair Permissions, Repair Hard disk (Apple Disc Util tool)
    • Delete iDVD pref file - *or rather start a new user/account* - log into this and re-try
    iDVD pref file resides. Mac Hard Disk (start-up HD)/Users/"Your account"/Library/Preferences and is named.
    com.apple.iDVD.plist
    While iDVD is NOT RUNNING - move this file out to desk-top.
    Now restart iDVD.
    • Program miss-match. iDVD 5.0.2, Mac OS X.4.11 AND QuickTime 7.5.5 - is OK - DON’T work under Leopard
    • Program miss-match. iDVD 6.0.4, Mac OS X.4.11 AND QuickTime 7.5.5 - is OK (might work under Leopard)
    • Program miss-match. iDVD’08 v. 7.0.1, Mac OS X.4.11 AND QuickTime 7.5.5 - is OK (might work under Leopard)
    • iDVD (08) v7 Locate theme folder. Move out iDVD1, iDVD 2 and eventually iDVD4 folders to desktop - re-try
    • Try a Cleaning CD/DVD that cleans the laser lens on the DVD burner/player
    iDVD 6.0.4 and iDVD 7.0.1 are compatible with Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard
    Last resort. from Craig. Solved the problem!! Finally!!
    I deleted every iDVD application and folder from my boot drive,
    emptied the trash and then installed iDVD 08 using the customize option
    and I am up and running.
    If You do a re-install be sure to get rid of all iDVD old parts AND then EMPTY the Trash-basket !
    Yours Bengt W

  • Image quality in Viewer vs Full Screen

    I've seen lots of discussions about this in earlier version (pre 1.5x), but they seem to be backward from what I'm seeing. I have an extremely noticable difference in image quality in the viewer vs full screen. At first, I just thought my images weren't any good. Then, I brought the same raw files up in Photoshop and they were pretty good. I looked in Aperture in Full Screen mode, and it was close or equivalent to Photoshop.
    Is anybody else seeing the image be downright bad (looks horribly out of focus) in the viewer but good in full screen? I'm not talking about the thumbnails.
    I'm using an iMac G5 20". I know that my video card is probably underpowered for this, but that should only affect speed (which is mostly tolerable).
    iMac G5 20   Mac OS X (10.4.7)  

    I think I read in the manual that Aperture uses a different type of on-screen sharpening for windowed, full screen, and show master. Probably trying to speed it up in windowed by using a cheaper method.
    They all should look the same when viewed at 100%.
    And for what it's worth, I think Aperture does a lot better job than most programs when viewed at odd sizes. I don't have much to compare it to, but iPhoto and Adobe Elements look awful in comparison.

  • Slideshow image quality/color rendering

    I´m quite frustrated after discovering that some of my images look quite poor displayed by the slideshow module. My situation ist as follows:
    LR 5.2 running on Mac OS X 10.8.5, 1:1 previews are rendered, preview quality is set to high, and I´m using a sample image showing a dark cloudy sky with some fine gradients; my slideshow preset doesn´t use any borders as I read this often causes quality issues.
    When I´m in the Develop module, there is no problem at all, even in fullscreen display mode on my 1920x1200 display the gradients are perfectly rendered.
    In Library module, when displaying fullscreen, quality is okay, but I can see some slight difference compared to the Develop module - which I understand after reading that in Develop the output is based on the actual raw data, and in all the other modules on rendered previews.
    Now, when in Slideshow module, the image quality is significantly lower than in Library and I see some quite obvious banding in the gradients. I don´t have problems with blocking artifacts but the banding/posterization is considerably worse compared to a JPEG export with a quality setting of, for example, 75.
    I can´t imagine LR´s slideshow tool would be working with a lower color depth than the 8 bit as in standard JPEGs, right? Did I miss any of LR´s parameters that influence the image quality of Lightroom slideshows or of the previews used therefore? Otherwise do you have some other explanations or hints for me in order to get this fixed? We do everything to capture our images in the best possible quality so we should also be able to present them properly after all...
    Thanks a lot for any advice!
    Toby

    In-Lr slideshow images look like crap on my system too (dull contrast and de-saturated shifted color).
    My guess is some issue with icc-profile/monitor-profile or something, but I'm not qualified for assessing.. - could just be a bug in Lr that only bites some, dunno...
    I use ShowBiz instead, which works well on my Windows box, and it should also work on your Mac box.
    Rob

  • Please help! Elements 11 image quality poor compared to LR

    Hello, I just started using elements and am very irritated because the image quality is very poor compared to when i am viewing in LR.  Its not the conversion - i have tried pulling directly from the camear.  It looks great in Camera Raw 7.1 but the second i pull it into editor, it lines get jagged.  Adobe help is telling me this is normal.  Surely not??  Something about a halo around pixels?  Image on left is Elements 11, right is Lightroom and Zoomed in so you can see how sharp it is.  PLEASE help.  im so frustrated!

    In the pse 11 editor are you looking at the image at 100% view (actual pixels)?
    (Other viewing percents can be misleading in the pse 11 editor)
    Double click on the zoom tool in the tol box to get 100% view.
    Also you should be on camera raw 7.4 available from Help>Updates within the pse 11 editor.
    Is that lightroom 4.4?

  • IMovie 11 loosing image quality in still pictures

    I shoot RAW photos with a Nikon D300 and import everything to Aperture 3 where I organize, correct and adjust.
    I use iMovie to make slide show sequences - i.e. my daughter's third year - and have found that though the image quality is perfect in Aperture and in any file that I export, there is a loss of quality when the images are brought into iMovie. It is especially apparent in areas that have shadows or are dark - like the skin on an arm that is in a shadow while the rest of the person is in the sun. The shadowed skin looks like it's been pixilated -rather than a uniform transition of colors, it's blotchy.
    I have tried importing the photos from the media browser in iMovie, I have tried dragging them from Aperture, and I have tried exporting them from Aperture to a folder and then importing them from that folder into iMovie. The results are the same - loss of image quality especially in dark areas of the photos. It doesn't matter if I leave it as Fit, Crop or Ken Burns - it's as if the base image information has been degraded for some reason.
    The image quality degradation is clearly evident in the viewer - so it's not a matter of what the intended output / export / share option is or will be.
    I have also found that this happens if I take a video file like a *.m4v file and import it into iMovie - wicked loss of image quality.
    I also find that if I shoot video with my iPhone 4, and then download that into Aperture, I get a nice and crisp movie in Aperture. But when I try and pull up that same video in iMovie 11, again there is a loss of quality. This is especially apparent if I let it do image stabilization as it enlarges the frame a bit. Given that I have a really big monitor I can pull up the same video in Aperture that was not stabilized and moved to the same scene and resize side by side for a direct comparison - clear image degradation in iMovie 11.
    As with the photos for slide shows, the bright areas don't seem to be affected, or if they are it's not as apparent - it's as if some setting is trying to automatically adjust the black point. But I don't know what would do this or how to stop it. Can't find such a setting anywhere.
    Given that the system is a Mac Pro 2 x 2.8 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xenon with 14GB and two 1TB drives it's not, or should not be an issue of the system being overtaxed.
    Hope someone knows how to fix this.

    Hi!
    I'm loosing a lot of video quality when I transfer movie clips from my Iphone 4S to Imovie11.
    Did you find an answer to your problem?
    If so, maybe you could help me out?
    Thanks!!

Maybe you are looking for