Lightroom 5 - Output Sharpening and Noise Reduction not working.

  • 15
  • Problem
  • Updated 1 year ago
  • Solved
  • (Edited)
Just installed Lightroom 5 final. Output Sharpening and Noise Reduction does not work. Whole story here:
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1229132
Photo of Aurius Paskevicius

Aurius Paskevicius

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes

Posted 3 years ago

  • 15
Photo of Lee Jay

Lee Jay

  • 976 Posts
  • 126 Reply Likes
Noise reduction is working for me, but output sharpening at 1200 pixels (long edge) is not.
Photo of Hans van Eijsden

Hans van Eijsden

  • 30 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
The output sharpening seems to start working at 1791px long side. At 1790px long side, the exported files are identical, no matter which output sharpening I select.



Full 1:1 resolution here: http://www.hansvaneijsden.nl/test/lr5...
Photo of Eric Chan

Eric Chan, Camera Raw Engineer

  • 600 Posts
  • 102 Reply Likes
Internally we've found the root cause of this issue. In a nutshell, images exported at less than 1/3 of their original size may not retain output sharpening / noise reduction settings. We'll fix this.
Photo of Denis de Gannes

Denis de Gannes

  • 20 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
When it's been two weeks since acknowledged? What' up.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 343 Reply Likes
Eric,

What exactly do you mean by "less than 1/3 their (original) size".

Are we talking "width x height", i.e. pixel count, or long dimension, or...

And is it "1/3 or less", or really "less than 1/3".

Thanks in advance,
Rob
Photo of Lee Jay

Lee Jay

  • 976 Posts
  • 126 Reply Likes
Long dimension. I don't know if it's before or after cropping.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 343 Reply Likes
After cropping, and since aspect ratio is preserved, either long dimension or short dimension can be used.

i.o.w.

long dim exported / long dim cropped < 1/3

or

short dim exported / short dim cropped < 1/3

R
Photo of Gisela M Cerutti

Gisela M Cerutti

  • 15 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
You have set a deadline for this?
Photo of Brice Robert

Brice Robert

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Sur Lightroom 5, si vous exportez des photos en dessous de 1200 pixels en bord large, avec des fichiers de 5d mkIII pris à 3200 iso ou plus, la réduction de bruit de couleur est désactivée à la sortie !
On LR5 if you export a picture taken with a 5d mkIII at 3200 iso or more, resized with less than 1200 pixels on the long edge, the color noise reduction is deactivated on the final output...

This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
LR5 noise reduction problem.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 337 Reply Likes
hmm 1200 is *more* than 1/3 of 3200.
Photo of Petr Diviš

Petr Diviš

  • 6 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
you better release the fix quick, it is really disappointing!
Photo of Gisela M Cerutti

Gisela M Cerutti

  • 15 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Yeah!
Photo of Denis de Gannes

Denis de Gannes

  • 20 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Need a prompt fix, please.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 343 Reply Likes
I'm quite sure many people would like to know if the fix will be in the normal release cycle, or earlier. - is there any good reason to keep that a secret? do you really not know?
Photo of Gisela M Cerutti

Gisela M Cerutti

  • 15 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I contacted support and they did not know the problem. Strange!
Photo of Arnold Bartel

Arnold Bartel

  • 83 Posts
  • 13 Reply Likes
This bug is also very annoying exporting web galleries, Cause there you always have picture sizes below 1/3 of the original size and any workaround (like exporting the affected pistures separately in LR4) causes a huge amount of extra-work.
Photo of Eric Chan

Eric Chan, Camera Raw Engineer

  • 600 Posts
  • 102 Reply Likes
Rob, at present it looks like it will probably be "weeks". That's not the answer I want to give, and I'm not sure if it helps you, but there it is. :-(
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 343 Reply Likes
Thanks Eric - it does help some of us, to plan... - good luck with it.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 343 Reply Likes
Here's two workarounds for the meantime:

In cases when this bug bites (e.g. low-enough rez).

1. Use Lr/Mogrify (export without resizing in Lr's Image Sizing section, then downsize using Mogrify Resizing Options).
2. Use PreviewExporter.

R
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 343 Reply Likes
This will fix it right up, no fuss / no muss...

Lr5.0 Export AutoFix
Photo of Gisela M Cerutti

Gisela M Cerutti

  • 15 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Will it work if I just use plugin "LR / Mogrify 2" just to resize? Thus the bug does not occur?
Photo of Gisela M Cerutti

Gisela M Cerutti

  • 15 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
Sharpness and noise reduction are not applied at the output..


Adobe Photoshop Lightroom is 5 problems in jpeg export. Sharpness and noise reduction are not applied at the output. Now, what to do!? Thus'm serious productivity problems.
Photo of Steve Sprengel

Steve Sprengel, Champion

  • 2322 Posts
  • 236 Reply Likes
This is a known issue that Adobe has promised to fix for the next release, with a time-frame of "weeks". The specifics are that sometimes LR doesn't apply NR or sharpening when the output image is less than 1/3 of the original size.

As far as what to do, another forum user has created a plug-in that uses another LR plug-in, Mogrify that you'll also need to get, to do the resizing and output sharpening after LR is used to do the NR and capture-sharpening at full-size.

See the reply in the merged thread just above for a link to the "LR5.0 Export AutoFix" plug-in: http://www.robcole.com/Rob/ProductsAn...
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 343 Reply Likes
To be clear: Lr50 Export AutoFix does not need/use/rely-on any other Lr plug-ins.

Lr50 Export AutoFix can use another non-LR 3rd party application - ImageMagick (which includes the mogrify command-line utility).

Also, Lr50 Export AutoFix can be used without mogrify (and without anything else - i.e. completely stand-alone/independent), with some caveats.
Photo of Gisela M Cerutti

Gisela M Cerutti

  • 15 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
No employee of Adobe will bring us a reply and a deadline for resolution? We try to productivity problems with this failure.
Photo of Eric Chan

Eric Chan, Camera Raw Engineer

  • 599 Posts
  • 100 Reply Likes
The delta between public builds is typically "weeks" because in addition to the final dot releases (roughly once every 13 weeks) there are the public Release Candidate (RC) builds which fall in between those.
Photo of Greg Priestley

Greg Priestley

  • 5 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
The only public builds I've ever seen Adobe publically release before are the release candidates and final releases. The RC's are generally 3-5 weeks before the final releases. Given we are 4 weeks in with LR5, the RC at earliest would be at least another 4 weeks away based on the historical timelines. Hardly "weeks" - I call that "months", especially from when the "weeks" comment was first made. Very very very disappointed in Adobe for leaving us high and dry.
Photo of Eric Chan

Eric Chan, Camera Raw Engineer

  • 599 Posts
  • 100 Reply Likes
Your point is well taken, Greg. I am trying to move things along as quickly as I can, but please understand this is not my decision alone and I can't promise anything in terms of timeframe.
Photo of Greg Priestley

Greg Priestley

  • 5 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Eric, I appreciate that, but it seems like all the feedback is falling on deaf ears at Adobe. How do customers get to talk to the people who make the decisions?

The lack of a clear statement as to when is the most frustrating part. Everyone speculating doesn't help. But I've got 10's of thousands of images that were affected (astroimaging timelapses). It is a major time waste for me to try and work around for something the product should do (and used to do!). If a clear statement from Adobe was "It will be fixed in 2 weeks" then I would wait. If a clear statement from Adobe was "Next release on usual timeframe" then I either need to work on other projects for the next few months, or save out all my metadata for images and re-import 10's of thousands of them back into LR4, and then re-export them all out again with a working version. But in the mean time we all sit in limbo land parsing forums looking for a light at the end of pain and suffering that has been inflicted upon us.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 337 Reply Likes
Is there a way to bootstrap export filters (post-process actions) into web module, or exports initiated programmatically via plugin, i.e. using LrExportSession object. If so, then it would be possible to better work-around for the mean while.
Photo of Gisela M Cerutti

Gisela M Cerutti

  • 15 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Will it work if I just use plugin "LR / Mogrify 2" just to resize? Thus the bug does not occur?
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 337 Reply Likes
Yes - just resizing using Lr/Mogrify (and NOT Lr) will fix the problem with noise reduction and dev-module sharpening, but not output sharpening - granted, you can enter a little sharpening for output too. Such has been rolled into a turn-key plugin: Lr50 Export AutoFix which has the advantage of auto-detect / pass-through in case fix is not needed, and auto-fix in case fix is needed.
Photo of Gisela M Cerutti

Gisela M Cerutti

  • 15 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
But I can only use the "LR / Mogrify 2" without problems, right?
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 337 Reply Likes
I recommend Lr50 Export AutoFix to minimize the potential for problems.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 343 Reply Likes
BEWARE: There is a bug in the latest version of ImageMagick's mogrify (6.8.6) - images are coming out untagged, so export as sRGB unless you have an older version (6.7.3 is ok).
Photo of Gisela M Cerutti

Gisela M Cerutti

  • 15 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
So when I use mogrify export only with sRGB color space?
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 343 Reply Likes
Recommended solution: use an older version of ImageMagick (which includes mogrify utility) if possible. e.g. 6.7.3.

Links:
* Source code: http://www.imagemagick.org/download/w...
(not sure where the mac equivalents are).
* Binary installers: http://mhonarc.veidrodis.com/image_ma...

If not possible, then yes: export with sRGB color space - this is not a perfect solution (because untagged images may not be handled exactly the same as true (and properly tagged) sRGB images), thus the recomendation above, but it's better than nothing (e.g. better than AdobeRGB, at least until this bug is fixed).

NOTE: Authors of ImageMagick are aware of this problem and may have fixed the problem in latest beta release (source code only) - fixed binary release should be available soon.

Note2: another option is to manually assign an icc profile after exporting. Note: do not convert profile, just assign the correct one (as exported) - e.g. Photoshop or NX2 can do this.

Another option is to use Lr50 Export AutoFix in non-mogrify mode (i.e. without mogrify), at least for now...
Photo of Piotr Rojewski

Piotr Rojewski

  • 5 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Still no noise reduction in jpeg export with resizing to 1200! v5.2 Need help here!
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 343 Reply Likes
Are you sure you're using Lr5.2RC, and not Lr5.0? (v5.2 has not been released yet).
Photo of Piotr Rojewski

Piotr Rojewski

  • 5 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Yep, Youre right it is 5.0 ver. :)
Photo of Eric Chan

Eric Chan, Camera Raw Engineer

  • 600 Posts
  • 102 Reply Likes
Hi Piotr,

What camera model are you using?
Photo of Piotr Rojewski

Piotr Rojewski

  • 5 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Hi Eric,
I'm using 5D mark III
Photo of Eric Chan

Eric Chan, Camera Raw Engineer

  • 600 Posts
  • 102 Reply Likes
Hi Piotr,

Can you please provide me with an example 5D3 image where the NR isn't correctly being applied on export? You can send it to madmanchan2000@yahoo.com (dropbox, yousendit.com, etc.). I would like to run this file through one of our internal tools to check what may be going wrong here.

Thanks,
Eric
Photo of Piotr Rojewski

Piotr Rojewski

  • 5 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Sure ,sent.
Photo of Piotr Rojewski

Piotr Rojewski

  • 5 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Yep, Youre right it is 5.0 ver. :)
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 343 Reply Likes
Oops ;-}
Photo of Eric Chan

Eric Chan, Camera Raw Engineer

  • 600 Posts
  • 102 Reply Likes
Ah, that would explain it. 5.0 had the bug. It's fixed in the Release Candidate of Lr 5.2 (and of course the final version of Lr 5.2 will also have the fix). That'll be out very soon.
Photo of Gisela M Cerutti

Gisela M Cerutti

  • 15 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
When the patch is released? The upgrade from Adobe LR will automatically by Adobe Creative Cloud?
Photo of mdshirajum

mdshirajum

  • 5 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
This issue is still present in release 5.2!!!! See the pictures edited using 5.2.

Couldn't you fix this small thing in last 3 months!!!
Photo of Eric Chan

Eric Chan, Camera Raw Engineer

  • 600 Posts
  • 102 Reply Likes
Are you referring to the sharpening or the noise reduction, or both? It's not clear to me what you're demonstrating with the above two example images. Can you please clarify?
Photo of Steve Sprengel

Steve Sprengel, Champion

  • 2306 Posts
  • 231 Reply Likes
I have a question about the sample images, just above: they appear rather small, in the 400x600 range. Are the attached images cropped screen-shots of photos viewed at 100% zoom or are they reduced down to a small size before the screen-captures were taken? If they underlying image was not at 100% then the Develop module sharpening is an estimate and can be off.

As far as the LR 5.0 bug not being fixed, it was only a problem if the images were resized down to 1/3 of their original size or smaller, and it was also a problem with output-sharpening not being applied since these appear to be exported at 100% and with no output sharpening, then what you're seeing isn't the 5.0 bug.
Photo of mdshirajum

mdshirajum

  • 5 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
sorry if i was rude! Mistakes are acceptable, but I am a bit frustrated to see that they are taking SOOOOOOO long to fix this simple problem!
Photo of Gisela M Cerutti

Gisela M Cerutti

  • 15 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I think the same.
Photo of mdshirajum

mdshirajum

  • 5 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
and to add on that, pls don't bring "We're all humans, doing our best" in this forum. This is a forum related to a business product. We pay for the product, we DESERVE the service. Are they going to refund us cause it's not performing as it should? If not, then pls KEEP your emotion with you!
Photo of Son Nguyen

Son Nguyen

  • 60 Posts
  • 11 Reply Likes
Nobody has this problem with 5.2 and you're the only one. Before screaming your lung out, shouldn't you check to see if you do something wrong? And more over the original bug was applied to image that is exported 1/3rd smaller.
Photo of Gisela M Cerutti

Gisela M Cerutti

  • 15 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Regrettably correction has not yet been released. When the customers of Adobe Creative Cloud will have an update for Adobe Lightroom?
Photo of Steve Sprengel

Steve Sprengel, Champion

  • 2247 Posts
  • 225 Reply Likes
Are you saying you don't have the LR 5.2 update, yet, or that the output-sharpening bug in LR 5 hasn't been fixed in LR 5.2?

The recent post, here, is about something else, because the pictures were being exported at 1:1 and the LR 5.0 bug was for images exported at 1/3 the size with output sharpening enabled.

What problem are you talking about? There could be something new.
Photo of Gisela M Cerutti

Gisela M Cerutti

  • 15 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Exporting images with a size smaller than 1/3 of the picture. This has been fixed?
Photo of Eric Chan

Eric Chan, Camera Raw Engineer

  • 599 Posts
  • 100 Reply Likes
Yes, this problem is fixed in 5.2. To get the update, just run Lr 5 and you should be notified about a 5.2 update being available.

As to the issue mdshirajum listed, this appears to be __unrelated__ to the bug being discussed in this thread. In fact, I am pretty sure based on the description given so far that this isn't a bug at all.