Ugly Colors

Hi,
the following picture is directly from my Canon EOS 5D MKII. After importing the RAW-File it looks like this:
I don' t unterstand why Aperture processes the Image like that because the JPEG-File from the Camera looks like this:
Any Ideas?
Sorry my english is just a piece of sh..
Thanks a lot
Werner

werner.d wrote:
My problem is, that the picture looks right until Aperture applies its default RAW settings. After that the picture looks like above.
What you first see when Aperture imports images is the camera generated JPEG - which is why it looks the same as… the camera generated JPEG.
As pvonk said it's just an issue of RAW interpretation changing from one app to another. Lightroom uses camera presets that try to come closer to the original camera settings. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
You can create your own RAW presets in Aperture but I've found I usually need more than the settings offered in the RAW Fine Tuning pane to get what I'm after. It is a starting point though.
Looking at your picture I'd try lowering the Boost slider in RAW Fine Tuning. It should help with the overly clipped highlights and crushed shadows. Adjusting the Black Point and Exposure sliders should then get you pretty close.
If you have a lot of shots to process the same way you can use the Stamp tool, just make sure you check RAW Fine Tuning in the HUD since it's off by default. You can also create a basic preset that will be automatically applied on import.
Hope this helps. You're not that far off

Similar Messages

  • Ugly colors in InDesign but not in Illustrator

    When I import a picture in InDesign the colors gets very wimpy (ugly and not so nice) but when I import the same picture in Illustrator the colors  is ok.
    What can be the problem? I have not change the settings in InDesign
    Thanks in advance!
    //Bee

    Hi Bee
    You can try this
    http://help.adobe.com/en_US/creativesuite/cs/using/WS37C6D4EA-9407-4954-9A03-92735E070188. html#WSA0A53A1F-BF46-4624-82C6-340A70EFB8C4
    It's sometimes a good idea to do this.
    Others will tell you differently - but I think it meets your needs.
    I'm sure some of the colour experts will be right along to give you a better overall way of setting up your colour profiles.

  • Ugly colors in gimp [FXx]

    These weird colors also show up in mozilla.
    Gimp is almost unusable because of the colors.  Try calling up the sharpen filter.  The view window is so bad that judging the sharpness effect is a guess.
    I upgraded my system 3/21/04 late in the day.
    TIA
    Bill Barnes
    Found a fix in gimp, at least.  Set display colors to minimum of 27.  Now looks much better.
    Noticed also that invoking realplayer renders distorted colors in the background screen.

    it sounds to me like you have your video card set to 256 colors.
    go to your /etc/X11/XF86Config file and in your "Screen" section you should see "DefaultDepth", it is probably set to 8.  try bumping it up to 24, if that does not work go to 16.
    you will have to restart X once the change is made.  you can either log out and back in or hit cntl-alt-backspace.

  • Colors are displayed not correct

    Hi!
    I use lightroom 3.4.1 on Windows Vista 64bit with a Iiyama PRO LITE E2407 HDS monitor and a ATI Raedon HD3600. The colors of some images that I imported from my Canon EOS 500d into lightroom are "strange".
    If I display the same image with another program, e.g. XNVIEW or windows-live-photo-gallery the colors looks totally different. You can see the differece here:
    (http://wipux2.wifo.uni-mannheim.de/~kesnw/download/HPB/Farbwiedergabe_Lightroom_vs_XNView. PNG - larger)
    The ugly colors appear on both, RAW images and JPG images.
    Where can I influence the colors?
    Thanks,
    Peter

    "The default in Lightroom is ProPhoto RGB color space."
    You can set the choice of color space that's passed to CS5 in Edit menu, Preferences, External editing. That can be anything you want. So I'm assuming you've set ProPhoto RGB.You’re the expert here.  I just installed the product and the default was ProPhoto RGB.  I was just expressing my experience with the default install
    "Right click a file and select "Edit In" CS5."
    So LR passes the file to CS5 in ProPhoto, if you've set that in the preferences
    Once again I just installed Lihtroom with defaults.  Unless a user is made aware of the ramifications of default settings they will not necessarily discover it on their own
    "Do all your edits in CS5 and then "Save As" JPG."
    If you don't alter the colour space in CS5 (Edit menu, Convert to Profile...) then it will still be in ProPhoto, so that's how it will be saved in CS5. So this is not clearly described when using both products.
    "Use a broswer or any other 3rd party viewer and you will see the colors are washed out."
    Only if your browser color management isn't working. Either you don't have appropriate profile for the monitor, or you're not using a colour-managed program to display the image, in which case the colours look very washed out. If you have a calibrated and profiled monitor, and use a colour-managed program to view the image, then it doesn't matter what is the colour space of the image, colour management will sort it out and it will display correctly. The assumption is that JPG will be used on color profiled display is not consistent with the default save options.  Why would a “save as” color space be deferent from the export to JPG file?  They are both sRBG files and not consistent or clear to the end-user. 
    "In CS5 use the "File/Save for Web & Devices" and save a JPG version the colors are more accurate in the JPG"
    Yep, because save-for-web converts to sRGB. Normal monitors are approximately sRGB, so even if colour management isn't working (no monitor profile, or using unmanaged software) then when you display an sRGB image on a normal monitor, colours will be approximately (though not necessarily exactly) right.    Yes.  So the “Save As” option does state sRGB and does not distinguish any color spaces or differences in the menu.  So until you post or email the files, a user will ot see the effects of the settings.  Have you tried this?
    "If you then change the default in Lightroom to sRGB and run through the same sequence you get a better color match in the (step 2) “File/Save As” JPG."
    Again, I assume you mean changing the Edit menu, Preferences, External Editing and change the colour space used with CS5. If you set that to sRGB then, without having to do a conversion in CS5, the image is already sRGB, so if you save it then it will still be in sRGB, and it will display correctly on a monitor without a profile or using unmanaged software. Yes, but the “Save As” does not distinguish between sRGB or ProPhoto.  For example if I used a 3rd party asset management product to export the file to CS5 and used “Save As” in CS5 it would create a JPG file viewable in a unmanaged monitor/software/display more accurately.  I have been a long time Photoshop user, but new to LR.  These issues or lack of understanding on my part only occurred after I installed LR 3.  I'm assuming Adobe would like to have both LR and CS5 to work seamlessly together or is that a bad assumption?

  • Window Background Colors

    I found an earlier post, but couldn't reply, so here goes...
    When I select a background color for a view window in finder, it changes to a completely different (and often much uglier) color when I re-open Finder. I tried deleting the launch services cache files, but that didn't help at all.

    The earlier post from Feb 2006 is here:
    http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=3346400&#3346400
    and describes the issue perfectly.
    We had just tried deleting all .DS_Store files using Cocktail and deleting all finder .plist files but the problem returns as soon as you change a windows color.
    Here's my post on the issue to another venue:
    My wife's new MacBook Pro Core2Duo has begun playing with her an not in a good way.
    On her previous G4 PowerBook she had set the colors of several of her Finder windows to be various pastel shades so they were easily distinguishable at a glance.
    She did the same on her new MacBook Pro, but after she closed any of these windows the next time they were opened they were assorted eye-tearing shades of green, violet and magenta. She would reset each one to a pastel shade and the next time she opened it they were yet some different blazing color. She has given up and has set all to the default white.
    I'm glad she had not set the backgrounds to be muted pictures of puppies and kittens - they would probably have re-opened as autopsy and roadkill photos.
    She has had this machine for less than a week. It has all the Apple updates. Disk was verified as fine in Disk Utility and AppleJack cleaned its caches, checked prefs, re-prebinded (?) and repaired permissions but she still had these inconstant folders.
    Seems unlikely to me that the .DS_Store file in every single folder she opens would get instantly corrupted.
    G5 2x2, G4 AGP, 17" MBP-C2D   Mac OS X (10.4.8)  

  • Magenta color cast problem on canon 7d raw files

    when i import canon raw files (cr2) into lightroom 3, i get a magenta color cast over the whole image. the thumbnail image looks fine, but when lightroom opens up the image, it get's a magenta color cast over the whole thing. i shot raw+jpeg mode too, and there's a huge differnce in color between the two. the jpeg looks like how i shot it in camera but the raw image has the ugly magenta color. not only do i get this ugly color, but it seems like there's added noise compared to jpeg image.
    i tried converting the cr2 into a dng. but when i open that in lightroom, i get the same problem.
    i use aperture 2.1 (i only use the lr3 trial so far), but i have the same problem there.
    i use cs3 but i downloaded cs5 trial.
    acr i have is 6.1
    help.
    thanks.

    Go to develop and the callibration tab and change it in the pull down menu to a canon default like 'Neutral' and not the adobe one which is made by somebody totally colour blind or obviously a Nikon fan.
    Although this is weird as the problem for me has always been canon JPG's with the cast and not the RAW.
    Also check your white balance cause Lightroom seems to change it whatever..  'AS SHOT' is a big fat Adobe lie so use a preset from your camera in the drop down box.. Why?  I shoot with Canon's flash WB setting which i know to be 5500k with the tint at zero.  On import, Lightroom changes it to 6150 and adds an amazing +7 on the magenta tint, if i chose 'FLASH' things suddenly turn to what i see on the camera LCD..  I'm sure that is where the big fat tint has come from since day one.

  • Does spotify have a new logo color or is this a bug?

    Heyhey, After I auto-updated my Spotify application suddenly got an annoyingly ugly color of it's logo in the taskbar. Is this new or a bug in the Spotify update? I'm running Spotify on Windows 10 10166Spotify 1.0.9.133.gcedaee38 Here is a screenshot of the issue, which is also going on in the statusbar of Spotify itself: [img]http://i.imgur.com/zxRVfLC.png[/img][img]http://i.imgur.com/zXxbriV.png[/img]

    I talked with one of the staff. They want you to try another reinstallation using these steps.
    https://support.spotify.com/us/learn-more/faq/#!/article/reinstallation-of-spotify
    When that's all done we also need to know what version of Spotify you have. Inside of the Spitify program on the top left go to Help > About Spotify.

  • How do you chance the color and style of my iPad upgrade yesterday?  The new change is awful.

    The changes made to the layout of my iPad are just plain yucky.  I will not be upgrading my other iPad if this is what the future is.  The calendar and all the other applications are just plain bad.  Too much white and ugly colors.  What can be done to fix this.

    It is quite a shock.
    If you're having issues with the fonts, etc, you can look in the settings. You can change font sizes and under accessibility you can make fonts bold and tweak the contrast. I've also found that using a dark wallpaper helps with all the white on the screen and makes the names of apps more readable.
    If there are some apps that you really can't stand, there are probably paid or free apps that can replace them, such as for the calendar or notes or whatever else you may not care for.

  • Where is the color palette for the chosen Keynote theme?

    Each Keynote theme has its own look and its own colors, right? And if you create a bar chart, all the colors of the different bars will nicely match the chosen theme.
    So, shouldn't these few theme-compatible colors be listed somewhere in the color chooser? If I want to draw something using a few objects (or if I want to highlight some text using color), I want to choose from exactly those few theme-compatible colors.
    Is that possible? I'm really confused as to why such a list of colors is not readily available as a palette in the color chooser?! Or is it, somewhere? I don't want to choose some ugly color that doesn't match the theme!
    Thanks!
    Markus

    I demonstrate some of iWork's great color capabilities in my EmpowerCast series here:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERC_9eiX-Ek
    Have a look and drop me a line. I just posted Episode 7!
    Enjoy!
    Pete

  • Approximate color match?

    Hello all: I'm having trouble getting a color to display. I know there are built-in issues as to how color displays in a browser, but am wondering is I can fine-tune this any more than I have so far.
    The issue: page in question has an illustration on it, which contains a shade of red. I'm creating jpegs of text headers in PS, and would like the text to appear in (as nearly as possible) the same red.
    I've opened illo in PS, selected the color with the eyedropper, noted the hex number and the RGB settings.
    Created new PS files for text heads and used this info to color text in those files. Everything looks fine in PS, color match looks correct - until I go to Save for Web, at which point in the Save for Web window, the color changes dramatically to a darker red. The resulting jpegs also show the wrong color in GL and when live.
    Both files (original illo and text head) are RGB mode in PS. Both have embedded profiles for Adobe RGB. Color settings in PS set to Adobe RGB.
    Illo red looks fine, both in PS and on web. When I send illo to Save for Web the red remains the same and looks fine.
    Text file looks ok in PS until I go to Save for Web, at which time red displays as dark brownish ugly color.
    Checking or unchecking Only Web Colors in the Color picker window makes no difference.
    Again, I understand that web color is not exact, and there are limitations on what colors can display. But since the red in the illustration displays just fine - in PS, GL, and on the web - it seems like it should be usable in the head jpegs as well - but it doesn't. What am I missing? Is there a way for me to come close to matching the red in the illustration in any way?
    thanks
    L

    Both have embedded profiles for Adobe RGB. Color settings in PS set to Adobe RGB.
    That's your problem.
    Either set your working space to sRGB for new graphics, or convert them to sRGB when you save for web. The convert to sRGB option can be checked either in the save for web dialogue, or in the save for web dialogue flyout menu (to the right of the preset drop down menu), depending on your PS version.
    This is a color management issue, and has to do with how your browser interprets color. You can enable color management (google it) using Firefox and might find your results more predictable.

  • CS4 Color looks too saturated on Screen?

    Hi all, not sure why but my color in CS4 Photoshop look oversaturated.
    When I view them with ACDsee viewer or Canon software they both look the same. But when I use photoshop the images look too saturated. It's not easy to edit my photos, as the out put does not look the same as when I am editing.
    Any help or suggestions would be appreciated.
    Thanks in advance, awaiting any messages that may help out.
    Coolpix

    What are your colour management policies in the Color Settings panel? And do you calibrate your monitor?
    You can get increased saturation -- actually ugly colors -- if assigning a higher gammut profile to an image tagged with a lower gammut profile, e.g. assign AdobeRGB to an sRGB image.
    (Note that 'Assigning' a profile gives far different results than 'Converting to' a profile.)

  • Cross Post: Approximate color match?

    Hello all: I'm having trouble getting a color to display correctly. I know there are built-in issues as to how color displays in a browser, but am wondering is I can fine-tune this any more than I have so far.
    The issue: creating art for a GL page. Page in question has an illustration on it, which contains a shade of red. I'm creating jpegs of text headers in PS, and would like the text to appear in (as nearly as possible) the same red.
    I've opened illustration in PS, selected the color with the eyedropper, noted the hex number and the RGB settings.
    Created new PS files for text heads and used this info to color text in those files. Everything looks fine in PS, color match looks correct - until I go to Save for Web, at which point in the Save for Web window, the color changes dramatically to a darker red. The resulting jpegs also show the wrong color in GL and when live.
    Both files (original illo and text head) are RGB mode in PS. Both have embedded profiles for Adobe RGB. Color settings in PS set to Adobe RGB.
    Illustration red looks fine, in PS, in GL, and on web. When I send illo to Save for Web the red remains the same and looks fine.
    Text file looks ok in PS until I go to Save for Web, at which time red displays as dark brownish ugly color.
    Checking or unchecking Only Web Colors in the Color picker window makes no difference.
    Again, I understand that web color is not exact, and there are limitations on what colors can display. And this does not have to be an exact match; only an approximation. But since the red in the illustration displays just fine - in PS, GL, and on the web - it seems like it should be usable and display correctly in the head jpegs as well - but it isn't. What am I missing? Is there a way for me to come close to matching the red in the illustration in any way?
    thanks in advance -
    PS 8.0/CS1
    GL 7.0.2/CS1

    Both have embedded profiles for Adobe RGB. Color settings in PS set to Adobe RGB.
    That's your problem.
    Either set your working space to sRGB for new graphics, or convert them to sRGB when you save for web. The convert to sRGB option can be checked either in the save for web dialogue, or in the save for web dialogue flyout menu (to the right of the preset drop down menu), depending on your PS version.
    This is a color management issue, and has to do with how your browser interprets color. You can enable color management (google it) using Firefox and might find your results more predictable.

  • The look of ios7 - UGLY

    Okay... the featuers of iOS7 are GREAT!  Love the new features, but am I the only one who thinks the iPhone now looks like a Pfisher Price toy phone?  It's an odd mix of metal and glass to look like 8-bit graphical icons with ugly colors!!!
    Who signed off on this? 
    The keyboard is hard to see, and why different keyboards.  The one with the search feature is nicer than the one used for email and texts.  Why can't was be given the option of how the keyboard at least looks?  I can't see the letters, and can't even read the text messages?  That choice of blue and green bubbles with thin white font? Did the guy who designed this at least take off his reading glasses?  Now I definitely have to carry around glasses to see the screen. 
    This thin font, colors and theme are a big miss for Apple.  Build new features which we love. Leave the look alone or at least give us the option to keep the classic!
    Hopefully this will all be corrected in an update hopefully released next week!!! 

    This is a user to user technical support forum for users to ask other users questions to help diagnose problems with their devices. Apple does not read these forums, so venting here does not help you at all. If you want Apple to understand your frustrations, you need to go to the feedback page. That is what they read. www.apple.com/feedback and click on the appropriate link.

  • Best Iphone 3g Protection which doesnt make your iPhone Bulky / Ugly !

    Hi,
    Im trying to find the perfect protection for my iphone... In general, i really dont like the big ugly colored hard cases, or the soft one either ( it makes ure iphone harder to slide out of your pockets ) ... not only do i find them ugly, but they add bulk to the iphone, which is already a bit big to my taste ive always had thin and slim phones before... Anyways i guess hard/soft cases main advantages is providing protection against falls...
    Since i want my iphone to look like and iphone ( not like an ugly case ) i think what i need is a protection "skin" and after some research i think ive found the best one : http://www.zagg.com/invisibleshield/apple-iphone-3g-cases-screen-protectors-cove rs-skins-shields.php
    the invisibleshield ... it covers the iphone completely and looks pretty efficient against scratches...
    However i dont know if it makes the iphone touch screen less responsive, also i dont know if it needs to be replaced often or if it leaves stickyness or marks when removed. finely its a bit pricey , 25$ , but still within my budget...
    Can anyone help me choose some protection for my iphone 3g
    Thanks

    hi thanks for the link,
    however there is no clear all around winner...
    If i could, id keep my iphone naked, but, i dont want to be paranoid all the time about how and where i put my iphone.
    So to sum it up, ive got 5 choices :
    Best Skin Ever skin
    Cost : 8$
    notes : Apparently this one is ok, it has front and back coverage. however i dont think i like the way the corners are being covered, it seems very obvious that there is a "skin" on and i am guessing that dirt can collect easely on the corners like that.
    http://www.bestskinsever.com/servlet/the-88/iPhone-3G-Skin/Detail
    Power Support Crystal Film Set
    Cost : 15$
    Notes : Only has protection for the front ( screen ) , and it comes with 1 antiglare film and 1 normal "clearer" film. Apparently it is somewhat "hard" being compared to thin plexiglass material as opposed to the other skin material which are more like plastic skins...
    http://www.powersupportusa.com/products/iphone_filmset.php
    InvisibleShield
    Cost: 25$
    Notes : Apparently the back side is very hard to install, very often the corner will not be good and look ugly, also the texture of the material is not the clearest and it is also more "rubbery" adding grip, it has a somewhat noticable "orange fruit peel" skin texture under certain angle... on the other hand it is very very resistant and long lasting, does not leave any residu when removed. has lifetime waranty. It also has the best coverage apparently.
    http://www.zagg.com/invisibleshield/apple-iphone-3g-cases-screen-protectors-cove rs-skins-shields.php
    BodyGuardz
    Cost : 25$
    Notes : this one is apparently good, apparently it is clearer than the InvisibleShield and easier to install. It cover front and back. and comes with 1 replacement set.
    http://www.bodyguardz.com/AppleiPhone_3Gp/nl-baip-0608.htm
    FullBodyFilm
    Cost : 17$
    Notes : Apparently the clearest and smoothest and overall best according to iLounge. Their website is HORRIBLE however, it looks like a scam. It covers the whole iphone, you have 2 face piece, one is glare resistant and the other is normal.
    http://www.fullbodyfilms.com/Home_Page.html
    My Options :
    Currently im thinking, maybe i should go with the fullskinfilm.
    OR
    Maybe i should get the back side from either BestSkinEver or from InvisibleShield ( you cannot order the back side only from the other brands ) and then buy the front from the power support crystal set.
    What do you guys think ?
    Message was edited by: Louno
    Message was edited by: Louno

  • New Update Feedback [Constructive]

    When my girlfriend called me and woke me up saying how much I would hate the new guide I was immediately intrigued.  After 2 minutes with the guide I agreed.  It was ugly, there was less information immediately available, my eyes had to adjust every time I paged down, I was not happy. 
    I was ready to call in and complain immediately but decided to fully educate myself on the update before doing so.  After 30 minutes with the system I've come to the conclusion that there is good and bad with this update. 
    But I do have some feedback that I hope is taken seriously:
    Firstly, my favorite, the new DVR network.  The ability for us to now watch what is on EITHER DVR in any room is fantastic.  It's a simple process, the menu is useable, and the ability to custom name the DVRs is great.
    The ability to set a recording from any room on either DVR is also great.  This will make things simpler because our main multi-room DVR is in the basement.
    Unfortunately that's about it for the good, now for the bad constructive:
    The guide is ugly.  Mainly the color scheme is too soft.  In addition to a strange choice of colors, there are too many colors.  Not only do we have different colors for each type of program (which is fine) that color is modified when you hover over it to a very soft version of that color effectively doubling the amount of ugly colors we are forced to look at.
    Too much empty space.  One of the things that made the old guide so loved was how effectively it used screen resources.  There was no space between channels like there are now.  I understand your trying to make the guide look graphical but by giving each program rounded edges and putting a gap between programs your not using the space we're given to it's full potential.  This also goes back to my previous gripe: too many colors, the gap between each program adds yet more color our brains need to process.
    PIP on the guide covers the top channel number.  I'm sure your team came to the conclusion that we would be able to figure out what channel that is easily, but why?  This is one more calculation our brains need to make and is just plain frustrating that you would think this was okay.
    The main piece of information people want access to is the program name.  There is zero need to put info in the center of the screen with the program.  The old guide did it correctly, put all the programs as close together as possible for easy flipping, and have the info on the side near the PIP (which should be back where it was) where we can look if we choose to.
    HD Guide is 4:3.  I thought you had fixed that?  Why is the new guide incapable of displaying in 16:9?
    OnDemand featured movies list.  I know this is from a previous update but it's been bothering me.  When browsing the featured new releases OnDemand, it is very hard to tell what every movie is without hovering over it.  The title of the movies is very truncated and we're forced to know what the movie is by the picture.  The old list of featured movies allowed for easy browsing by title and still gave us the image to look at.  Primary focus should be on the title and the image should be an after thought.
    When browsing through the DVR schedule, the list skips very strangely when you flip to a new date.  I understand that the rows the dates occupy are not selectable and it's centering the first program from the new date you scroll to in the middle, but it's very strange.  It's confusing frustrating when you were looking further down the list just to find the show you were looking at is not where it should be after scrolling one position.
    Companies spend hundreds of thousands of dollars optimizing the way things look to allow their end users the least frustration and confusion, I don't feel your designers got it right.  In the IT industry a big thing these days is to track what a user hovers over with their mouse in effort to track the path they took to where they actually wanted to go and then optimize the website in order to reduce the amount of time it takes to go one click.  The features you provide us should focus more on productivity not on them being "shiney".  I sincerely hope that the user interface gets another upgrade to improve the look and feel, while making the process as simple as possible.
    Please feel free to /sign this thread if you agree with my points.

    Apparently you need the latest verizon hardware to fix some of the display issues related to font and maybe colors, but I don't think anything is going to change the awful interface & layout ratios that were chosen for this update.
    Overall, i'd have to agree with your opinions after playing around with the new interface for 15 minutes this morning before work. I'm hoping they can either roll the patch back for everyone who doesn't have the new hardware or at least offer to replace the equipment that originally came with the installation with the latest hardware.

Maybe you are looking for