Why are iPhotos previews higher quality than my exports?

I have just now noticed this after using it for so long. I was using it to de-noise a photo I took earlier today and turned it up to 100%. I looks clean and smooth like I want, so I exported it first as a jpeg with max quality, but I noticed a lot of noise in it. So I exported it again as an original and it looks the same still. I just exported it as Current to see if there is still noise, and there is. I have exhausted the other formats as well, all export with noise.
I put iPhoto in fullscreen mode and took a screen cap of the photo via cmd+shift+4, and compared the the screen cap to both of the exports and it looks much cleaner, even though its more than half the resolution being displayed.
This is not right, plain and simple.
Here are two links, one to the original export, and the other is a screen cap.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/68608/IMG_0006.JPG
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/68608/Screen%20Shot%202011-08-06%20at%2010.06.48%20PM.pn g
What am I doing wrong? Are my eyes playing tricks?

I just came to my local Apple dealer to get help and they have never encountered this before. Questions they asked that made it less clear for them; they were shot in jpeg and I have exported using every setting all yielding the same results.
This sounds to be a software issue and I encourage Apple's staff to investigate it.

Similar Messages

Any ideas on keeping images on master pages consistently high quality display when exporting to pdf?

Any ideas on keeping images on master pages consistently high quality display when exporting to pdf?

Set up the Preflight panel so it checks image resolution. Ask your printer what the appropriate resolution is for your printing process, and set that in Preflight.

Why are my pictures porer quality ?

Hi ,
I was running out of memory on my computer and decided to put over a thousand photographs onto discs , however now that have an external hard drive ( 1 TB) I have decided to transfer them back from the discs to iPhoto and I am rather upset at the quality of the photos indeed I am angry as the photos are not of the quality I expected them to be all pixelated and blurred , why did this happen and can it be rectified ?
Also how can I prevent this from occuring again ?
Thanks for your help and patience .

When you imported you brought in the Thumbnails, Modified and Originals versions all at one time, and each is treated as an individual image, there is no relationship betwen them.
When to come to dealing with dupes Duplicate Annihilator might help
When in doubt: always keep the largest file size. That will be the best quality.
there are also issues saying that some files are mising or unreadable yet it tells me the files are Iphoto files so some of them cannot be imported - very od
This happens when you try and import files from the current iPhoto Library into itself.
Regards
TD

Why is package access higher priviliged than protected?

Hello,
why is the access level of fields and methods on package level higher priviliged than the 'protected' modifier? I am searching for a general answer to this behaviour, because I am writing my master's thesis about this.
How can I give subclasses access to fields without widing the access protection to the other package members? Shouldn't there be another access level 'in between' of default(package-private) and private, that gives access only to subclasses?
Example:
If you want to let a class be extended, than you have to set some fields from private to protected. Now a subclass has access to this field. Let's imagine a 'EvilClass' that wants to change the state of an object. EvilClass has only be to put in the same package and then EvilClass gains imidietly access to protected fields. The reason is, that protected gives access to subclasses AND to classes in the same package.
Thanks for any comment
Greetings, Timo

TimoMeinen wrote:
Thank you for your replies. But I am still not satisfied with this logic.
In C++ the protected keyword has exactly the meaning of "access to subclasses" becauser there is no "compilation unit"-philosophy like the package system in Java. C++ is using friends-classes for this.So what? This is Java and not C++. Classes in the same package are friends.
And yes, you're obviously right to say, that packages are closer than subclasses, but I think there are a lot of examples, where a stricter access level would be fine.No
>
I think of the "Visitor Pattern" for example, which often has to reduce the access level, so that visitors are able to do their job. Or, OR-Mapping Tools, which aren't allowed to use reflections to fill the private fields of entities. A (friend=hibernate) would be nice. ;-)You can populate a private field using reflection, but I would probably use cglib or asm or any other library to create subclasses during loading.
>
Another 'evil'-idea: What about somenone wants to attack me. He is able to gain access to 'my' protected fields, just by define an 'attackclass' in the same package. So, the only possibilty to deny such attacks is by sealing my jars?Is that an attack? Sounds just like something stupid. It would be much easier to replace your class with another one.

IPhone 1.0 higher quality than 2.0?

From the way it sounds, the yellow tinted screen and the plastic case make me think the 1.0 has higher quality parts. Anyone care to comment?

First off, I totally sympathize with your problem. However 20% is implausible and unless you've asked every iPhone owner, you have no way of knowing how many people this affects.
That said, this is a support forum, and it seems that a lot of people have tried to offer you....support. If you're unwilling to try what they suggest, then I don't know what you expect. Don't complain about something if you're unwilling to try to find a solution. Please don't think I'm suggesting fault, but it's quite possibly a configuation problem, and you might want to take the phone to a store and let them work on it with you.
Apple does not do anything offically through these boards, so you *will not* get an answer from Apple here. All you will get are Apple experts, an maybe an employee or two (working unoffically of course) trying to help you. It's up to you if you want to accept it or not.
Good luck

When I open a photo to edit it; why is it not high quality?

My photo is great when I open or view it in any other application. Why does it look low quality in pse 11? Also when I make edits and save them as jpegs, they look great again outside of pse11. Is there a setting I am missing?

Default shortcut to see an image to 100% is ctrl+1 (on windows) and it will make the image at the 100% size of the image.
At this size you can see the actual quality of image
-Harshit yadav

Video Capabilities -- Confirming Current Limitations (Record + Higher Quality Than Sorenson)

Hi,
Regarding video with Cocomo, I writing to confirm that the
current version does not provide the following two capabilities:
Recording. Acrobat Connect Pro includes record capability.
Am I correct that at this time Cocomo does not (yet) include record
capability?
Video Encoding. Am I correct that at this time Cocomo
supports only Sorenson Spark for acquisition of live video?
(Background: I have two clients seeking integrated video and text
chat applications with higher quality video for the primary
presenter. Flash Player supports playback of video encoded in
Sorenson Spark, On2 VP6, and H.264. For encoding of live video,
Flash Player (and by extension Cocomo) encodes only Sorenson Spark.
Adobe does, however, also support via the Flash Media Live Encoder
(FMLE) live encoding using VP6 and H.264. I assume that Cocomo
currently does not support integration with FMLE or any other
option for higher quality live video acquisition)
Thanks again for your support and this great new
product/service.
I look forward to Cocomo having its official commercial
release here in 2009! :-)
Best regards,
g

Hi Nigel,
Thank you for your reply.
Regarding the use cases ...
1) Union For Regular Member Meetings.
2) Pharmaceutical Training.
The first has looked at Connect Pro and the second currently
is using Connect Pro. Both cases seek both a higher quality video
for the presenter as well as to be able to record (for archive and
for "re-airing" by those unable to join live).
Regarding additional encoder in the presenter's "Player", I
think if just AIR could encode H.264 these client's use cases would
be satisfied. (These clients' goal on video quality fits a
1-to-many pattern. Requiring the presenter only to install AIR
seems a reasonably unobtrusive solution. Then, should attendee
video also be required, Sorenson via Flash Player should suffice.)
For both clients, having the hosted service from Adobe is
also an attraction (depending on pricing ;-)
Again, thanks for the great work of your team and everyone at
Adobe for bringing these solutions to the market.
Best regards,
g

Why is a pdf created by PDFScanLib v1.2.2, so much smaller/higher quality than one made in Acrobat?

I'm currently scanning documents at 600 dpi, compressing to jpeg, and creating PDFs from there. Pdfs are usually 20-30 pages, and are about 20mb. After OCR, and reducing the jpegs to 400dpi, I can get the file size down to about 11mb. However, some pdfs I've found as 'benchmarks' are under 1mb for 15-20 pages. The only difference I can find are that they are produced in PDFScanLib. Is that responsible for the difference?
Thans for any help you can pass along

Hi Bob,
That's the strange thing. When I had both GHz channels working on one SSID, once in a while my iMAC would pick the 5 GHz channel (44 seems the best for me). I always use channel 1 for 2.4 GHz because I get the fastest speeds with it.
When the iMac would pick 5 GHz, the slowdown was very obvious. As I explained in my (long) first post, I immediately felt the difference. Now the $50K question - since the 5 GHz channel at that point was stronger than the 2.4 GHz one, why wasn't the speed faster? Why was it so slow compared to 2.4 GHz? That's what rattling my brain. If the 5 GHz signal's strong enough to get picked by my iMac, then why isn't there a commensurate speed increase? There must be something else going on here besides signal strength. If the 5 GHz spec says that I must have full strength to get 5 GHz speeds, then that makes sense. But I think it doesn't, that's why I believe I have a configuration problem somewhere, or a faulty AEBS.
I might add that my firmware's up-to-date in the AEBS and AX, and Airport Utility too.
I think heading to 4Runner's camp - even with high signal strength (and I would consider 3 of 4 bars high), the 5 GHz speeds aren't showing themselves.
Here's some snap's of my AEBX's setup:
I think my configuration's fine, although I've tried so many different options, I'm a little confused, but I know that changing the Multicast Rate doesn't have any noticeable effect on the speed. I also have "Use Wide Channels" checked, but as I said, the 5 GHz band is awfully slow for using both channels. I have set "N" only, so no "G" clients to slow it down.
Mind boggling!

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.

Is DVD Player higher quality than standalone DVD player?ne

I tried finding an answer to this question with various searches and could not, but I apologize if this is a repeat question.
I'm a teacher and I'm showing DVDs (not Blu-Rays) to my class. I have a fairly new LG HDTV in my classroom. I don' have the model number but it's an LCD, and I think it's a 52 inch. I'm trying to decide whether the picture quality of DVDs will be higher by playing them on my MacBook Pro or on a standalone DVD player. My MacBook is the 6,2 version (15 inch), so I can hook it up to the TV through the minidisplay port with an HDMI converter. I'm just using the DVDplayer software that came with the MacBook Pro.
The standalone DVD player has just standard audio/video connections--no HDMI port, (which I'm assuming doesn't really matter since I'm just using standard DVDs).
Is there really going to be much difference, either visually or auditorially, between these two setups? It's about as easy to use either one, and from a quick visual comparison I can't see much difference, but I want the best quality I can get. So any advice would be appreciated.
Thanks.

No difference or worse from the MBP compared to a Real DVD player.
A Real DVD player is designed to do one thing. That is to send a signal from a DVD disc to a TV screen. This can be done over coax cable, composite connections or HDMI cable. A computer does many things one of them is to play movie DVDs. But first it must go through all the electronics of the computer and then out through only one port and then be changed to a style of port the TV can accept.
Also your MBP will get HOT when you are using it for this purpose. Just load up a DVD and watch how hot it gets displaying in on the internal screen.
So use the Real DVD player.

Why are iPhoto prints now more expensive? (used to be $0.12, now $0.99)

I have ordered prints in the past--normal size (4x6, 5x7) and panoramic--inexpensively, but now the price is significantly higher. When I try to share it to print online this pricing show. I am running Yosemite and iPhoto was updated in the process of that update. What am I doing wrong?
Thanks for any help or ideas...

Only the wallets (4 per print) are $0.99. The other sizes are the same:

Why did iphoto reduce the quality of my photo and turn my videos into jpegs?

I messed up my iphoto library by moving what i thought were the originals to an external hard drive. i've been told that i should have just made a copy of iPhoto file instead of going inside and taking what I wanted. it reduced the quality of all my photos so that they went down from about 3-5 MB each to being 30-50 kb each. The videos have all been changed in jpegs.
Anyway, I only have one back up (for an unknown reason) and the videos in that back up are the proper videos, but the video dimensions are tiny.
Any idea how I can piece it back together again and end up with what I had before?
Thanks,
Tom

Folks, I have the same issue. Here is a sample image: http://i.imgur.com/BkFelpt.jpg
1- this has nothing to do with nikon; I shot that on a Canon camera
2- this has nothing to do with disk space; I have 150GB of free space.
I am running a 2009 iMac (2.66 Ghz Core 2 Duo) runing Mavericks - OSX 10.9.2
I am using "iPhoto 8.1.2 (424)"
This problem happens randomly. There is nothing that my wife or I have been able to determine to be the cause of iphot doing this. The truly annoying thing is that you don't even notice it until you export the photo for use in facebook or some such
The procedure goes like this:
- hook up the camera and import photos
- browse through the photos and edit the photos to touch them up (using "enhance" or "crop" or "adjust") until we're happy with the photo. The photo looks fine at this point.
- finish editting and the photo thumbnail that you see in your catalog of photos STILL looks fine.
- now export the photo and look at it outside of iphoto and discover this horrible vertical affect
- Go back into iphoto and the thumbnail STILL looks fine. But double-click to bring up the larger size image and NOW you see the vertical bar.
We NEVER had this issue before upgrading to Mavericks.
Yes, I could upgrade iphoto. it's not that much money. But the principle of the matter is very irritating. This was caused by Mavericks. It is some sort of a bug!

24"iMAC panel much higher quality than 23" Acd, its the same as Samsung ?

Hi!
According to my research on 24" LCD panels, they almost all use samsungs S-PVA screen, including 244t, Dell 2407WFP , Acer, HP, etc etc..
I notice a huge jump in quality compared to the 20" or 23" ACD, mainly due to the lack of grainy/sparkly/video noise/screen door type layer of the former screens.
Can you confirm that this is indeed a samsung panel?
The ACD's are LG's on IPS.
Well whatever it is, I can't believe how wonderful this display looks, its the first time I can say that a display can replace a CRT. And its much sharper to boot.
I found an almost undying similarity to the 244t by Samsung, and I'm interested in getting that to accompany my MAC pro.

I just came to my local Apple dealer to get help and they have never encountered this before. Questions they asked that made it less clear for them; they were shot in jpeg and I have exported using every setting all yielding the same results.
This sounds to be a software issue and I encourage Apple's staff to investigate it.

Why are still images importing larger than their size?

Per instructions in a thread I had here last week, I created all of my DVD still images at 720 x 534 pixels for Premiere Pro CS5.5. But when they are brought into a DVCPRO50 NTSC Standard sequence, they are being heavily clipped. The original in one example is this:
But when that same images is brought into PP, it is sized up like this:
It's still proportionally correct, but a lot of the top and bottom of the image are gone. The encoded MPEG-2 sequence and disk I've done as a test display just like that.
Why is PP doing this, and how can I get it to use images built to the correct size to be used 1:1 in a sequence instead of being scaled to about 115% of size? Hate to compare this way, but this was never an issue with Final Cut Pro, which I'm switching from. Stills created to the size FCP needed of 720 x 540 displayed and finished exactly as they were made in Photoshop. The only image area lost was the normal bit of overscanning DVDs display at on your TV.

I guess I don't understand. This is an excerpt from the CS help. This seems to be inconsistent with what the last two posts said.
Composition settings presets for square-pixel equivalents of standard definition formats have changed as follows:
format
pixel dimensions in After Effects CS4 and later
previous pixel dimensions
NTSC D1 square-pixel equivalent
720x534
720x540
NTSC D1 Widescreen square-pixel equivalent
872x486
864x486
PAL D1/DV square-pixel equivalent
788x576
768x576
PAL D1/DV Widescreen square-pixel equivalent
1050x576
1024x576

Why are my photos losing quality when they go online. this has started since i have start using lightroom cc

since i have started using lightrtoom cc with photoshop 2014 my photo seems to loose colour quality when they are posted online. they look good on my mac but not online. this is an issue i've been having since stared using the new lightroom. help please

i normally edit my photos in photoshop only but now i've stared using the lightroom cc. I start editing in lightroom then carry on in photoshop. after that i save as a JPEG file. when i look at the photo on the Mac it looks great but when it's on the online portal it looks like the colours faded. For some copyright issues i won't be able to post any photos as they are for clients

Why are iPhotos previews higher quality than my exports?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for