images look horrible different with 2 editing programs??

[sandra_peul]

<p>Hello,<br>

I don't know what happened. But I always use Corel Paint shop and pse with NIK.<br>

Now I have a black background to darken it since the backdrop look tacky.<br>

Anyways, I use both programs since some settings are easier there, then the other and also more fun then the other...<br>

however, I always finish my images with corel by putting watermarks and such. And it always looks CLEAN, no noises.<br>

Now this is what it looks if I open it with windows images view or facebook...</p>

<p>any ideas what happened? And advice how to keep it clean without making the image look over''shopped'' or cheap?<br>

It drives me nuts :(</p>

<p> </p>

[sandra_peul]

<p>Sorry that was the colored version....here comes the back and white version....</p>

[sandra_peul]

<p>The picture above was originally taken with a black backdrop, after lesslo tool (to change sheet color and keep everything else black and white) I had to blacken it out a little more (using the filling tool) and it LOOKED super clear and clean while using software...<br>

after saving and looking at it now, it looks like crap ..<br>

im truly lost at this point.</p>

<p>Thanks for your time</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Can you be more specific about what you don't like? We don't know what look you were trying to achieve (how contrasty, etc). <br /><br />Also: are you only disliking it when it's scaled down for typical web viewing? Or are you also not liking it at full resolution? I'm not seeing any noise. Just a lot of contrast.<br>

EDIT:<br /><br />What color space are using? Adobe RGB? sRGB? If you're editing in Adobe RGB, but displaying on a typical browser or other non-color-managed program, be sure to convert to sRGB on those output files.</p>

[sandra_peul]

<p>Matt,<br>

This images is just a test run. The contrast I can easily fix. What I can't fix at this point is, the black background, it shows .hmmm like texture and just not smooth black. (English barrier)<br>

I am using windows images view (just for looking at pictures) and after I uploaded this picture, I see all the background mess...</p>

[patrickwells]

<p>Have you tried to print a copy to rule out your imaging program? I looked at the B/W copy in windows photo gallery ,and PSE., the background is smooth with no texture nor discoloration visible.The same as if my monitor is turned off. I only have the copy you uploaded to work with. The only thing showing up is what appears as shiny areas below the models feet where the flowers were removed. Unless you want a gloss black background I not seeing with my monitor what ever you are .<br /> A thought just occured to me .I have some photo's that are uploaded here and on facebook, that look pixelated (dark areas have white splotches all over) they look awful until viewed larger/ full size . Could that possibly be part of the problem? your program having trouble when resizing for viewing. For some reason I do not have this issue with all my photo's just a couple.</p>

[charlie_novice]

<p>I read pixel RGB values at random in the background of the black and white you posted. They were (1, 1, 1) to (4, 4, 4) along the diagonal. On a scale of 0..255 that is effectively black, no?</p>

[Jeff Lear]

<p>Yes, I did the same as Charles and found pixel variance from 1,1,1 to 3,3,3 while the color version showed a uniform 1,1,1 [black]. I cropped a section of backdrop from each photo and enlarged it 200% so that others can see it and offer their opinions as to how it might have happened in the conversion process...</p>

<p><img src="http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r34/F1Addict/Miscellaneous%20Crap/Sample_Color.jpg" alt="" /><br>

^^^This is from the color version Alisha linked^^^</p>

<p><img src="http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r34/F1Addict/Miscellaneous%20Crap/Sample_BW.jpg" alt="" /><br>

^^^and this is from the black and white version^^^</p>

[dan_south]

<p>The first photo looks fine to me except that your watermark has a gray background instead of a black background. The mix of B&W plus color doesn't appeal to me in the second image, but that's purely a matter of taste. I don't see any particular technical problems.</p>

[Jeff Lear]

<blockquote>

<p>hmmm like texture and just not smooth black. (English barrier)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wouldn't have guessed that English wasn't your first language. The background in your black & white edit looks mottled, it is <em>not</em> uniformly black. However, the background in the color version <em>is</em>.<br /><br />I can think of a few possible reasons. One is that when going between different editing applications, one application reads the data differently than another. Two is that, as a jpeg is edited, then saved, then edited, then saved, it begins to degrade and that degradation shows up in the data. Your photo is, after all, just a bunch of numbers until it's printed. Have you ever heard that fable about whispering a story to someone who then whispers it to someone else and so on? By the time the story gets to the last person it's completely different. JPEGs represent those stories and your software plays the role of the people who passed it along. Another possibility is that at some point in your editing, while converting to black & white and then selectively revealing the color in her drape you inadvertently (or intentionally) adjusted the brightness or changed the black level slightly and applied it to the entire photo rather than masking the area you were working on.</p>

<p>Just some ideas.</p>

[Jeff Lear]

<p>I mistakenly wrote...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the color version showed a uniform 1,1,1 [black].</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Black is 0,0,0... not 1,1,1.</p>

[daniel_david1]

<p>this might help.. corel paint or corel software itself uses cmyk colors much benefit in printing. adobe on the other hand uses RGB as default which are used in web. these two gamut shows different color channel. this might explain why your watermark looks invicible when viewed at facebook. i used corel before either i change the cmyk to rgb or manually encode the color code to pallete.</p>

[john_deerfield]

<blockquote>

<p>Black is 0,0,0... not 1,1,1.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>But black with <em>detail</em> could be 1,1,1. I can't imagine a visible difference between 0,0,0 and 1,1,1! The trick is to <em>light</em> black to achieve 1,1,1. Otherwise, as discovered, it is simply no light creating black and that can be... messy.</p>

[jason_hall5]

<p>I personally would like to see the original image file unedited. A close look at the subject suggest soft focus (in its self would not cause your issue) and a bit of noise. What ISO was this and what camera are you shooting with? I assume you shot JPEG and not RAW. JPEG can be just fine but, has much tighter limits as to what you can do in post and a somewhat less dynamic range. But really I would like to know what ISO this is and the noise level of the original image.</p>

<p>If you ask me, that will tell the tale on the end result. Also, how did you handle the file? Do you still have a copy of the original? If not you may want to make that a step in your work flow in the future.</p>

<p>I am currently stuck using a crappy laptop and I am not able to see anything in the background on either image. </p>

<p> </p>

[Jeff Lear]

<p>I played with the sample I took from Alisha's background, adjusting the levels to an extreme value. When I did the same with the sample I cropped from the background in the color image she posted the entire sample became lighter or darker, there was no mosaic, just uniform shading.<br /><br />Patrick, the shot details are:<br /><br />Nikon D300<br />1/60 sec @ f/5.6 ISO 400. I'm guessing it was shot using either a Nikon or Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 with flash (either pop-up or hot-shoe). Unless the image was badly under-exposed (and I have no idea if any additional lighting was used), ISO 400 on a D300 shouldn't present an issue, especially since the backdrop appears uniformly shaded in the color version and mottled in the black & white. The issue appears to be related to editing or editing software. I think the CMYK/RGB issue brought up by Daniel is worth investigating.</p><div></div>

[jcuknz]

<p>I would hope that the OP was using pspimage rather than jpg in the editing process. It can take you right up to making prints if required or until the final compression for web use.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>Opening your second file, color and B&W, in PSPX and magnifying it up to 2000% I can see only pure clean black. Obviously you can see a problem but I cannot on my set-up. Perhaps you should stick to one programme, either PSP or PSE, but not both when you strike problems? I would expect to be able to do the complete edit with PSP without any problem, don't know PSE.<br>

Since PSP can handle psd files but Photoshop cannot handle pspimage file your operational choice could be to work with a tiff file ... but definitely not jpg ... as you change between programmes if you feel you have to. I stick to PSP and rarely use PS, but that is me and my preferences :-)</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>Correction .. it was 5000% not 2000%, I expected to see pixels but didn't.</p>