Reduced Jpg Version Export Quality

Has anyone else experienced diminished sharpness in exported jpg versions from Aperture?
I recently tried the automator script for exporting images directly to Keynote, what should have been a great facilitator for developing slideshows. I noticed softness in the keynote rendering, so I went back and exported master tifs from Aperture and then ran them through the image processor script in Photoshop CS2. Even when both programs have identical output parameters (jpg, fit to 1024x768, quality 12), the Photoshop image holds sharpness better through the process.
While the difference is not staggering, it is there to the critical eye. I'd be happy to share an example image comparison, but I'd also like to hear if anyone else notices this difference when they reproduce the comparison. (make sure you go to Manage Presets in Aperture and set quality to 12 for the jpg output and use the same setting in image processor for consistency).
Thanks,
Mark

I uploaded a side-by-side compare of Preview showing the exported image and what A2 shows with softproofing set to sRGB. The exported file was done with JPG, sRGB, original size, and max quality. There is clearly something wrong. I've tried export TIFF and other variations but can't get better results. If you click the below then select "All Sizes" at the top of the page the difference is totally obvious.

Similar Messages

Aperture 3.6 not exporting jpg versions at 300dpi despite preset selected

Hi, Aperture 3.6 is not exporting jpg versions (of Nikon RAW) files at 300dpi despite 300dpi being selected in the preset.
Jpgs are being exported at 72dpi although Tiffs are being exported correctly.
I'm guessing it's a recurrence of the previous Aperture bug but while we wait for a fix, does anyone have a solution please?
I'm currently exporting Tiffs and then using a Photoshop batch action to save as jpgs - not a great workflow!
TIA
Steve
PS: Aperture 3.6, Yosemite 10.10.1, 27" iMac, 32Mb RAM

See Problem with Aperture 3.6 preset exports

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:

How to reduce jpg file size, not pixel dimensions?

I am preparing images for the web and I really have 2 questions: one about gifs, and one about jpgs.
My standard procedure is to reduce the image to the desired pixel dimensions at 600 dpi
That gives me a crisp small image. then I either use it as is if the file size is low enough (I try for under 600 kb) or convert it to a gif with the save for web and devices tool.
So here are my 2 questions (I will count this solved with either answer)
1) When I convert to a gif I have the 4 boxes: one with original size, the other 3 with options but often the options are too low res for me How do I change my 3 options to start at a higher gif res?
2) If I try to reduce the file size of the jpg in the image size box I set the resolution lower ( 400, 300), which lowers the pixel dimensions and the filesize, but I don't want to cahnge the pixel dimensions. And If I reset the pixel dimensions back to the size I want them, even though it is a lower resolution the file size doesn't change. How to reduce jpg file size using only the resolution, not pixel dimensions? PS I have tried messing with checking and unchecking the 3 little boxes( scale styles, constrain proportions, and resample) but nothing has worked.

Gif is not a great filetype, especially if you want a crisp image. What are your pixel dimensions?
For web, it makes no difference what the dpi is, only the final pixel dimensions so once you have that as you want, use 'Save for Web and Devices' and you can lower the quality - 100% being max and 0% being lowest. I wouldn't save anything below 55%. For a 600kb image, your dimensions must be rather big.

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.

How do I transfer a set of jpg versions of photos to dropbox?

How do I transfer a set of jpg versions of photos from Aperture to dropbox?

File -> Export. Choose your preferred export preset and export them to folders on Dropbox

Retouch photo without reducing the file size/quality?

I have been retouching some pictures for use in a photo book but notice that each time I do so, the file size decreases fairly significantly e.g from 4MP to 2MP.
Is there a way I do minor retouching to a photo without reducing the file size/quality?
Thanks in advance

Where are you seeing this size reduction? What format are the original photos?
For example when you edit a RAW photos you create a JPEG modified version which is much smaller - one I just did went from 17 MB as RAW to 4.4 as a JPEG -- you could save as a TIFF but to me that is not worth the space loss - I seriously doubt that you will ever do anything that you can see the difference in quality between a TIFF and JPEG of yoru images
LN

How do I rank or rotate a raw and jpg version (combo?)of the same photo with 1 click in Lightroom 4?

Hi, i am new to this forum
I did some searching, but could not find the answer.
I only make stacks of exactly the same photos, but with different formats, mostly 2 jpg versions and a raw. If i change photos further, i unstack that photo, to see the different photos right away.
So, i always want to apply changes to all the photos in a stack, because all basic versions have the same rank, should have the same rotation, and other exif data that i change.
Does anybody know how to always change all photos in a stack in Lightroom?
Thanks!

Hi,
If you shoot RAW+JPEG, there is a spechial option in LR (Preferences>General>Treat JPEG files next to raw files as separted photos) which teats both as one item (unchecked).
All your metadata change is appliled to both, but you do not see the JPEG in LR.
I started with this setting on. But after a while, I recongnized, that I do not want the JPEGs anylonger. Why? Because I did two things:
1. I tried to develop the RAW in a way it looks like the JPEG. Well, O.K. This is only usefull for a very limited number of images (low light, high light) where you have to rescue information from the RAW that is lost in the JPEG. For all other images, it is easier to use the JEPG
2. I developed the RAW in a way that it looks different from the JPEG. I did so, because I want to show this version to others, not the JPEG. Therefore I deleted the JPEG.
There is no way in LR to apply a function / preset to a stack. Only the marked images are affedted. This is the problem with stacks. E.g. you go into a folder with stacks, select all, export all selected and notice, that some images are missing (the ones in the collapsed stack). Every time I got into a folder with stacks and do not want to organize the images, I select "Expand all stacks" from he menu.

Converting RAW masters to jpgs without exporting, deleting and importing...

Is there a way to convert my RAW files that I already imported into Aperture libraries, now into JPGS without exporting versions, then deleting the RAW-master originals and then importing the jpgs again? I would like to save some disk space, after having chosen some RAW files to keep and now wanting to downconvert the rest to jpgs. Thanks for the answers!!

No, there is not, for the reason Ernie stated. Although I find the "library" metaphor ill-selected, it may help illustrate the point. You RAW files should be thought of as First Edition Hard-cover books. JPGs derived from the RAW originals are later editions. Some of them may closely simulate the first edition; some may be cheap paperbacks designed to be read once and discarded -- none of them is a First Edition.
What you want to do is somewhat tantamount to carting all the precious First Editions out and leaving them by them curb, and replacing them with smaller, lighter paperbacks.
You can do this, but Aperture makes sure you actually have to do the lifting and the carting.
If all you want is a Bookmobile, Aperture is not a good vehicle.
Fwiw, the User Manual recommends creating additional Libraries when you Library becomes too large. (I was 100% certain the User Manual recommended converting some Image's Masters from Managed to Referenced when your Library file became too large, but today I can no longer find the reference.) IME, you are much better served having one Library with your Image's Masters Referenced than having multiple Libraries.
Message was edited by: Kirby Krieger

16x9, 300ppi, 75mb tiff file, LR converts to 1mb jpg. Export in LR 5 is being done at 100%, no file size reduction.

I've got a 16x9, 300ppi, 75mb tiff file that LR converts to 1mb jpg. Export in LR 5 is being done at 100%, no file size reduction. Can't figure out why it is downsizing so small? Even upsized to 420ppi in PS and the export was still only 2mb. Stock agency wants 3mb .jpg minimum. Any help appreciated. Thanks.

Using PS CS6 with NO changes applied to the original TIFF the JPEG file size is 8.686 MB. The slightly larger file size is due to metadata differences between LR and PS.
Both Adobe applications (PS CS6 and LR 5.71) are producing near identical and much larger highest quality JPEG files. PS 12 Quality is the same as LR 100.
SUGGESTION:
1) Close LR and rename your LR Preferences file by adding the extension .OLD to it:
Mac OS X
Preferences
/Users/[user name]/Library/Preferences/com.adobe.Lightroom5.plist.OLD
Windows 7 & 8
Preferences
C:\Users\[user name]\AppData\Roaming\Adobe\Lightroom\Preferences\Lightroom 5 Preferences.agprefs.OLD
Reopen LR and it will create a new Preferences file. Try the JPEG Export again using the same settings as I have posted.
2) If still no change I suggest uninstalling LR, delete the new LR Preferences file created in step #1 above, keep the .OLD Preferences file, and reinstall LR 5.71.
3) If all is well now close LR and try restoring you original Preferences file by renaming the new Preferences file something like .OLD.OLD and removing .OLD from the original file.

IMovie vs FCPX export quality

Afternoon/morning all.
Question I have is regarding the export quality of FCPX vs iMovie!!
I've been using iMovie for over a year now but only recently started to publish my work.
I get on with iMovie great but the one issue that let's it down is the export quality, it's been driving me crazy but after finally looking into it seems that iMovie is the problem and reduces the footage quality.
I'm just thinking about upgrading to FCPX the extra editing features and functions will be great too.
I just want to know that the exporting footage in FCPX won't reduce the quality of the footage!
Can anybody help!!
Thanks

'quality' is a very complex issue.
Most consumer IMPORTS do look nice, when the cam is connected straight to a telly.
… but those recordings contain tons of 'flaws'. (low bitrates, artefacts due to wrong exposure etc)
the difference, how iMovie and FCPX handle that:
• iM uses as intermediate AppleIntermediateCodec - which does marvel with all the diff. flavors of video, a consumer wants to edit ... but it is far from perfect.
• … and iMovie deinterlaces interlaced material = reducing vertical resolution by half
• FCPX transcodes to proRes or even handles codecs 'natively' - which reduces transcoding errors (dramatically)
on export, both apps use the same Quicktime-engine, I dare to say no difference.
using the wrong export settings, multiplies bad imports …
the 'hurt' is done on import, …
and most damage, in terms of quality, is done on recording ....

Trouble with JPG version of RAW in email, web

Hi,
Im new to this forum and relatively new to Aperture. Im hoping maybe someone can clue me in as to what is going on here:
I shoot in RAW (Nikon D80). I do all my editing in Aperture, and everything works and looks great. Now say I want to email a smaller JPG version. I do an export version, which I look at on my computer (Macbook Pro), and it looks fine. I email the JPG, and somewhere in the email process, something happens to my colors. The email is received on the other end and the colors have faded drastically. I also have had the same problem when uploading JPGs to a site to order prints from. This problem only occurs with RAW, and not if I shoot in JPG. I do have Aperture 2.1, and OSX 10.5.2. Thanks for any help/suggestions.
Gregg

Hi Gregg,
You need to check what colour profile is being attached to the exported JPegs. It sounds like they are being exportd with Adobe RGB profile. That will look fine on your Mac as the Mac applications are colour profile aware; but because other browsers (on PCs for instance) are not colour profile aware, the JPegs will be displayed on the assumption that they are in sRGB profile. This will produce exactly the situation you describe - faded and desaturated colours. For any web work, you must export them with sRGB profile.
Hope this helps,
Simon

Dumping the RAW, and keeping just the JPG Version for some images ?

I shoot RAW almost exclusively. Even my snapshots. I like the flexibility, and I have a lot of storage space (I'm spoiled).
However, I've identified big batches of "snapshots" that I really don't want the big file anymore. There is NO way I'm going to do any further (or any at all) retouching.
This may be a simple thing but... how do I best go about dumping the RAW Master, and keeping only the JPG Version?
tia,
e

Yeah, I realize that.
Until Aperture 3 I used a split workflow: Aperture for my "award winning artsy photos" (lol) and iPhoto for my snaps –many of which were actually very good .
That grew out of using iPhoto for the first years I had my Mac AND my little Lumix snapper Camera. I had a Nikon F2 (slides), but I used Photoshop for scanning and retouching the TIFs.
Then, a few years ago I got my Nikon DSLR and Aperture.
Hence, the divided workflow.
Now I'm importing all my old snaps from iPhoto (jpg), and aside from keywords and GPS, it's not a problem, aside from being tedious.
Now my NEW photos (2008-now) are all RAW, including my "snaps". And I'm just trying to save space where possible.
Oh well. I guess I'll just have to be REALLY careful about which snaps I:
a) keep
and
b) export/import as JPG

What's the difference between PNG and JPG for exporting .idea files from the Adobe Ideas app?

What's the difference between PNG and JPG for exporting .idea files from the Adobe Ideas app?
What situations are better to export to to .PNG or .JPG?
J

iPad apps are designed specifically for the iPad and will not run on the iPhone or iPod Touch. iPhone/iPod apps will run on the iPad, but will only take up an iPhone sized portion of the iPad screen (though you get a 2x button which effectively doubles each pixel in both directions so may appear pixelated). There are also 'universal' apps (which have a '+' symbol against them in the store) which have processing in them to recognise the device that they are on and will tailor the display accordingly (so will make use of the iPad's larger screen).

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.

Reduced Jpg Version Export Quality

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for