Output Quality Discrepancies
Hi all,
I processed an edited raw photo to different output sizes use the same process recipe (the only difference is the output size). However, the shadow area in the foreground turns out to be very different - with the smallest output size photo to match closes to how the photo appears in the C1 editing screen, while the biggest output side photo has the brightest (opened up) shadow in the foreground.
I attach sample of the output photos (of the different sizes) to explain what I mean. I also include the different recipe in this folder to show that the only different is the output size.
This is how the output photo intends to look like - but the larger photos show more detail and brightness in the foreground building shadow areas. Can anyone tell me what did I do wrong? I notice that the larger the processed output photo, the brighter the area in shadows.
Thanks.
Intended Output
Please check out the processed JPG files in the google drive below.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1mlcD-Or8WMv9zyrX-q4SNUdEdlljfb9k?usp=sharing
_Z6A9601.jpg is the smallest file - and closes to my edited photo.
_Z6A9601 2.jpg is the biggest file (and has more details in the shadow areas revealed - and this is the most inconsistent with how I edited the photo)
Any help would be appreciated.
-
Hi,
Your pict on the Google Drive is not public - one needs an access to see it.
0 -
Hi Claude,
My bad. I have updated the access right to the folder.
Just in case, I re-attach the link: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1mlcD-Or8WMv9zyrX-q4SNUdEdlljfb9kThanks,
Patrick0 -
Patrick,
Are sure these are no just the effects of compression?
Have you compared the output files (in a viewer through which they are likely to be viewed) with the edit process image viewed with Output Proofing active and at the 100% scale?
Bear in mind that your full size image will be making use of more of the originally captured data (pixels) then smaller ones.
In photos like the one embedded in the post this will tend, typically, to make the darker areas darker as compression calculations can reduce details to the dominant colours and luminosity as data pixels are discarded (for size and then compression) and the smallest areas of detail that may remain become so reduced in size that the eye can hardly see them or the delivery media cannot display them.
In some situations a different effect appears. For example a large area of grass may appear to be green but is actually mostly shades of colour closer to yellow in colour creation terms. So compressing certain types of image with a lot of greengrass may intensify the colour in yellow areas and thereby render the grass area with more yellow and less green as we "see" it after processing.
In effect that is the opposite of your observation since the darker areas may appear lighter. (Mostly mid tones would be involved) in the areas of grass.
Choices made with output processing recipes (or export parameters)could well have an effect.
If you know all of that and have already taken it into account then it may be necessary to start down the discussion path related to "end to end" colour management. I will leave that to those who have a lifetime commitment to the subject!
0 -
nothing unusual, this effect is caused simply by the resizing algorithm and has nothing to do with jpg compression (could be easy checked by outputting a tiff ) and I doubt you get much better results in other applications using high quality resizing settings like bicubic. the brightest detail in the large image is already very small just 1 or 2 pixel wide so it is no surprise they disappears when downscaled ! but there is a solution for you I would suggest to try out a more simple algorithm like bilinear which does less smoothing, PS or affinity photo can do this.
0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
4 comments