AFSP: Saved files are fuzzy and tonal range is terrible

[grooveman]

Hi,

I have been working my images in AFS pro (CR2 images from a EOS7D). I get some of these images looking great, just breath-taking. Then I save the image to a file, and the colors get flattened, the detail is terrible (image gets fuzzy) and the whole image just looks flat and lifeless.

I have been saving to Tiff. I have tried both 16 bit and 8 bit, and the result is the same. The same problem also exists when I hit Ctrl+E and pipe it straight into photoshop (cs5). It is infuriating, because once that crispness and depth is lost, there seems to be no way to put it back in.

I am using adobeRGB 1998 in AFSP an in photoshop. In AFSP I have my Batch output settings to:

Image Type: Tiff 16bit
Image Sizing: Normal
Do Not Resize: Checked
Output Color Space: Adobe RGB1998
DPI: 240
Output Sharpening: None (though have tried enabling this as well, with no apparent improvement)

I appreciate any insight on this issue.

Thanks,

G

[spoilerhead]

please provide some samples, but my guess is that it is a color management problem, as all similar problems i ever saw in the last 2 years boiled down to poorly set up CM

As i guess that photoshop is CM aware, please check the following:

- in your output queue, is "embed color profile" checked? if not, PS might interpret AdobeRGB data as sRGB
- are your monitor profiles set up correctly in ASP and PS?
- maybe you just enabled soft proofing to a small color space in PS?

if that doesn't help, just for a completeness, try exporting in ProPhoto and tell us if it makes a difference.

[pesto126]

Would colorspace cause "fuzzy" images?

[afx]

Would colorspace cause "fuzzy" images?

How about screenshots?

cheers
afx

[grooveman]

Okay... I' not so sure now that the problem is with ASP, it is most likely with photoshop -- at least as far as detail is concerned. I'm surprised I haven't noticed this before, but maybe it is just more obvious with certain shots.
I have taken screen shots at 12.5, 25, 50 and 100% in both ASP and PS. I have kept them all at multiples of 1/2, since that seems to be the way photoshop displays best. APS is much better at scaling that PS.

Check this out, ASP is on the left, PS on the right:

At 12.5%:

At 25%:

At 50%:

At 100%:

You can see why I was freaking out... The smaller the preview image in ps, the worse it looked. At 12.5, the image looked so flat and lifeless... By the time I reach 100%, the images look identical (at least in terms of detail, hard to assess tonality at 100%). Problem is, I cannot work at 100% -- or anything near it. I'm not sure what exactly to do about this... My workflow starts in ASP, and ends in Photoshop. I cannot make exceptions for every image I make, it is hard enough to keep things organized sensibly, keep my printer calibrated to my monitor and maximize my time.

So, I don't think this is a problem with ASP after all, more of a problem with Photoshop. I shoot primarily landscapes, perhaps this is why I haven't noticed this before...

I appreciate your responses though, very much.

-G

[andysalay]

Regarding sharpness and details:

you simply cannot consider views at 1/2, 1/4, etc. as crucial, these are just intermediate result, which will never have influence on exported image.

These resize algorithms have to be simple and quick, to place as minimal burden on CPU as possible, because they are used only for viewing purpose. And each software vendor cope with it differently - each algorithm is some kind of approximation.

For judging sharpness and detail you have to view image solely on 100%, because this is how final exported image will look like.

Regards,
Andy Salay

[grooveman]

For judging sharpness and detail you have to view image solely on 100%, because this is how final exported image will look like.

Regards,
Andy Salay

Andy,

I get what you are saying, I do. And for sharpening, yes, I always use 100%. But I cannot work with tonality at 100% when my monitor can only show about 1/16 of the image at a time. A decent overall view is still necessary to get some sort of gestalt of the image. I understand why it is difficult for photoshop to give accurate views when zoomed to odd sizes (It is difficult to illuminate 1/3 of a pixel!). PS always does better at factors of 1/2, and for many images, it does fine.

I printed about a dozen tests of the image above, and I can get it to look pretty decent. It is just disappointing (and infuriating at times) that PS can't do a better job of this -- no matter how many resources I throw at it. After all, Bibble/ASP scale the image with a great deal of accuracy -- even at odd multiples.

I guess what matters most is how it soft-proofs, and ultimately how it prints. I'm just looking to reduce the trial and error and save time, ink, paper and wear and tear on my printer when and where I can. If PS could zoom as accurately as Bibble/ASP, it would go a long way toward this end!

At least I found out that the problem was not as dire as I had first feared.

[andysalay]

I understand.
It is known that human visual system has a tendency to oversaturate/overcontrast with lower apparent sharpness, or oversharpen with lower saturation/contrast than should be, to compensate for the "acutance" of the image.

Surely the situation with uncontrolled resample (after each resampling there is a need of some slight sharpening to compensate softening induced by resample) is leading to more errors than reasonably sharpened preview.

We "fought" in the past, in the days of Bibble 5, for completing the view resample algorithm - it has similair deficiency as you are describing.
Fortunately, Bibble crew was listening.

Regards,
Andy Salay

[cvermillion]

There is a setting in Photoshop that controls the resizing algorithm used - there should be a bicubic-sharper option or something similar. I'm not 100% positive this affects the zooming, but it would make sense to do it that way. You might experiment - in general if you're going from a very high resolution image to something a lot lower resolution, you don't want to do a lot of smoothing before you resample.

-Colleen

[grooveman]

There is a setting in Photoshop that controls the resizing algorithm used - there should be a bicubic-sharper option or something similar. I'm not 100% positive this affects the zooming, but it would make sense to do it that way. You might experiment - in general if you're going from a very high resolution image to something a lot lower resolution, you don't want to do a lot of smoothing before you resample.

-Colleen

Hi Collen,

You do realize that I'm just talking about the "preview" image, right? I'm not talking about making a large file smaller, I'm referring to zooming in and out on the interface.

Cuz, I'm not finding any place to change the algorithm used... I think you might be mistaken here... I've looked high and low for such a setting...

-G

[cvermillion]

There is a setting in Photoshop that controls the resizing algorithm used - there should be a bicubic-sharper option or something similar. I'm not 100% positive this affects the zooming, but it would make sense to do it that way.

You do realize that I'm just talking about the "preview" image, right? I'm not talking about making a large file smaller, I'm referring to zooming in and out on the interface.

Yep, that's why I said "I'm not 100% positive this affects the zooming, but it would make sense to do it that way". To create the preview image, Photoshop has to make a large file smaller. I double checked it and this option does change how the preview is created. I found the option under General - Image interpolation and it looks like it defaults to a bicubic which would cause what you're seeing. I would try "Nearest Neighbor" and if that causes artifacts, step up to "Bilinear".

-Colleen

[grooveman]

Thanks Colleen,

I never would have looked there... I wouldn't have guessed it had anything to do with the problem.

I did try all the different settings, and it doesn't seem to make any difference what-so-ever, unfortunately. But I appreciate you taking the time to do screenshots and everything.

I can't think of anything else to do, I'm still shocked by this, but I guess it is what it is...