# Resolution Problem



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

Hi Friends
I've been taking some product shots for friends' websites, and I've run into a problem, but with a strange, work-around solution. 

I'm wondering if you can provide me with a more elegant solution.

I'm shooting these hand-made bags, and in RAW within Aperture, they look great. 
To export them, the choices are, jpeg, tiff, or png.

After they're exported, no matter which file type I choose, they have a very pronounced light-pattern showing. (I'm not sure the terminology, maybe "moire"?)

I'll show you the problem here, and in the comparison, I'll also show you my clumsy work-around.

The first photo will show what the good, original RAW file _looks_ like. 
The way I can show you here, is by doing a screen capture of the picture in Aperture. 
So what you're seeing in the first picture, is the clumsy work-around to get the good-quality _look_.

In the second photo, you'll see the distracting light pattern I get when I export the photos in any format allowed by Aperture.

Obviously, I can just do screen captures in this case, because these photos are for a website.
But there must be a better way to export the photos, if I needed them for a more critical purpose, or in high quantity.

Ideas?

Thanks!

Picture 1. Captured within Aperture by Shift+Command+4
Picture 2. Exported from Aperture, no matter what format.

_(Canon 5D MKII, Aperture 3 - latest version, MacBook Pro 2.5, 4GIGS RAM, FW External Drives)_

Okay, curiouser; When I previewed my post here, I clicked on the poor-quality photo #2, and it downloaded to my desktop, but it opened on my desktop in excellent quality, without the light-pattern.
Um ...


----------



## pcronin (Feb 20, 2005)

Solar flares? Gnomes?

Some kind of video driver oddness? That's about all I can think of that would be going on here... have you tried putting the exported image out to flickr or another host?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I'll guess that it's the way Aperture renders the preview to screen. The actual file should be ok. Check Apertures preferences if you can render full res previews. Lightroom has this preference.

Photoshop also does the same at different magnification on screen. For example, PS will render an image perfectly at 25%, but crap at 50%, fine at 66.6%, but crap at 75%...you get the idea.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Looks like a fingerprint on your lens to me


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

kps said:


> I'll guess that it's the way Aperture renders the preview to screen. The actual file should be ok....


I burned the files (as tiffs) and loaded the disc back onto my MBP. The burned tiff files showed the light-pattern, when viewed with regular ol' Apple Preview. So would that mean it's not an Aperture-rendering-the-preview thing?

I'll give the problem disc to my friend, and see if he has the same results.

I'll also burn him another disc of files that I'll create by screen capture.

I hope I don't have this problem very often.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

SoyMac said:


> I burned the files (as tiffs) and loaded the disc back onto my MBP. The burned tiff files showed the light-pattern, when viewed with regular ol' Apple Preview. So would that mean it's not an Aperture-rendering-the-preview thing?
> 
> I'll give the problem disc to my friend, and see if he has the same results.
> 
> ...


Hmmm, first thing I'd do is go over all the Aperture preferences, to be sure something that should not be checked is checked. Especially the export options and preferences.

Since these are intended for the web, I'd export as png or jpeg at 72 or 96 ppi and see what they look like in various web browsers. You may also try printing the tiffs and see what comes out.

If your client wants full res tiffs, create them in Photoshop and then burn to disc.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

Odd question - were the photos shot in Adobe RGB? Are you exporting using Adobe RGB or sRGB? My initial impression is that of a mismatch in colour gamuts.

EDIT: Since you're using a Canon you'll see the file name is _MG-xxxx.CR2 instead of IMG-xxxx.CR2 if you're using Adobe RGB versus sRGB.


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

Chealion said:


> Odd question - were the photos shot in Adobe RGB? Are you exporting using Adobe RGB or sRGB? My initial impression is that of a mismatch in colour gamuts.
> 
> EDIT: Since you're using a Canon you'll see the file name is _MG-xxxx.CR2 instead of IMG-xxxx.CR2 if you're using Adobe RGB versus sRGB.


Yes, Chealion, I have my camera set to shoot on Adobe RGB. 

I see what you mean by a colour mismatch.
Interesting, because both images are the same file. 
But explained I think, by the fact that one file is an export of the original file, and one file is a screen capture of the original file.

I checked Aperture to see what my export options are set at. 
Here's the result: 
(These are the default, as I never changed these from how Aperture came to me):

Would you suggest different export settings?
kps, I'll also try the settings you've suggested.
Thanks!


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Chealion may be onto something, but I've never ran into this issue at the level you mention.

sRGB is best for web and even commercial printing (Costco, Walmart, etc.) as most of the equipment is set for that colour space. The web, definitely sRGB.

You can work in Adobe_RGB in Photoshop but if you want to export to high quality jpg for printing, convert to sRGB.

Here are my export prefs in Lightroom for the web. The arrows point to colour space, resolution and sharpening. In the last, it's set to sharpen for the screen (display monitor).


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

kps said:


> ...Here are my export prefs in Lightroom for the web. The arrows point to colour space, resolution and sharpening. In the last, it's set to sharpen for the screen (display monitor).


Thanks, kps! Very helpful!


----------



## Guest (Jun 26, 2010)

That pattern is called moire and is typically an artifact that happens when a very small pattern, such as the texture of the side of the bag, requires smaller dots than what you are able to display with. It's very common in video but I've never seen it happen with a photograph export before! It's quite possible that this is some sort of sharpening artifact ... But that's just a wild guess. It is most definitely moire though.


----------



## Guest (Jun 26, 2010)

After just looking it up it seems that this may be the result of an improper downsampling of the image at export time. I would suggest exporting full res tiffs and then using sometig else to do the downsampling, this smells like an Aperture bug to me ...

Moiré pattern - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

mguertin said:


> After just looking it up it seems that this may be the result of an improper downsampling of the image at export time. I would suggest exporting full res tiffs and then using sometig else to do the downsampling, this smells like an Aperture bug to me ...
> 
> Moiré pattern - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


mguertin, your posts here make a lot of sense. I've seen this moire thing before, and I've shot and edited a lot of video, so that's probably where I've seen it. (I think I corrected it by de-interlacing.)

I'm going to experiment with the output settings that have been suggested in this thread.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

mguertin said:


> That pattern is called moire and is typically an artifact that happens when a very small pattern, such as the texture of the side of the bag, requires smaller dots than what you are able to display with. It's very common in video but I've never seen it happen with a photograph export before! It's quite possible that this is some sort of sharpening artifact ... But that's just a wild guess. It is most definitely moire though.


See that all the time on TV when some guy wears the wrong tie. It's even worse when the whole suit "shimmers". LOL

The only time I had a similar issue was with a scanned document. Linky


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

I shoot a lot of video, when someone shows up in clothing that causes a moire I will sometime adjust focus to get rid of the issue. It doesn't work every time. Perhaps there is a filter that can correct for this in PS?


----------



## Guest (Jun 27, 2010)

It's not uncommon for moire to show up in scans, it likely means that the original was half toned or otherwise screened, and there is a descreen filter in photoshop that helps with that, not sure that is the right solution to use for those images though. ... Again I will suggest that they get output in full res and a different application is used to downsample, like PS or preview.


----------



## ScanMan (Sep 11, 2007)

kps said:


> ...PS will render an image perfectly at 25%, but crap at 50%, fine at 66.6%, but crap at 75%...you get the idea.


Be my guess.


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

Stranger and stranger.

I imported the offending files into iPhoto, and from within iPhoto, they displayed perfectly.

Then I burned the photos to disc from within iPhoto.

When I loaded the burned disc back into my computer, and viewed the photos that I'd burned on to the disc out of iPhoto, they were now atrociously moired!

My quick and dirty solution will be to do screen captures of the original photos.

Luckily, there are only 39, and they're for buddy's website, so resolution should be more than adequate.


Weird, eh?


----------



## Guest (Jul 5, 2010)

Very bizarre ... something that Apple is using internally in those apps are doing bad downsamples :/


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

Okay, I screen captured (shift>command>4) all of the shots I want.

After I burned them and then loaded the disc back in to my computer, i viewed them from the disc. 

A couple of the shots once-again show significant moire.

There are enough clean shots to keep my friend happy, but I don't know what I'd do about this for a serious, professional client. 

I'll deliver to buddy, all the discs I've burned.

There's still a chance buddy's _display_ might not show the moire.

We'll see.

Thanks, All!


----------

