I'm running Vista Ultimate RTM on a high end system. I just loaded 60-odd
JPG images taken with a Nikon D40 DSLR onto my PC and viewed them through
WPG. Given this was a brand new camera and these were the first images I had
shot, I was horrified with their quality and initially assumed my camera was
faulty. The images were terribly over-saturated, unsharp and noisy. I then
opened the images for editing in Microsoft Digital Image Suite. Lo and
behold, the images are sharp and properly saturated.

While I'm relieved that my camera is performing correctly, what on earth is
going on with WPG to cause such appalling display characteristics?

Incidentally, I saw similarly poor results when I viewed the images in the
new Slide Show viewer.

Anyone else seen similar results? Is there a fix?

Regards,

Simon

Just a guess here that it might be that WMP is reducing the quality because
it is assuming you do not own the images and it must not give you a full
quality delivery of any product that you do not own. This is something that
I suspect WMP is doing for other images, such as album art, so why not your
camera images?

Dale

"Simon Cobb" <Simon Cobb@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news87B1CA7-C835-4B32-81DE-B8D81AA08C53@microsoft.com...
> I'm running Vista Ultimate RTM on a high end system. I just loaded 60-odd
> JPG images taken with a Nikon D40 DSLR onto my PC and viewed them through
> WPG. Given this was a brand new camera and these were the first images I
> had
> shot, I was horrified with their quality and initially assumed my camera
> was
> faulty. The images were terribly over-saturated, unsharp and noisy. I
> then
> opened the images for editing in Microsoft Digital Image Suite. Lo and
> behold, the images are sharp and properly saturated.
>
> While I'm relieved that my camera is performing correctly, what on earth
> is
> going on with WPG to cause such appalling display characteristics?
>
> Incidentally, I saw similarly poor results when I viewed the images in the
> new Slide Show viewer.
>
> Anyone else seen similar results? Is there a fix?
>
> Regards,
>
> Simon

Yes - I am seeing poor display quality too! SHAME on Microsoft for not
catching this - it's the heart and soul of their new Vista OS and MUST be
fixed.

Basically, the jpgs that are displayed in the Photo Gallery do not show
accurate color. I've taken some beautiful photos of my family in Florida
using my Canon EOS 20d and 50mm f1.4 lens. I loaded them into Vista's photo
gallery and noticed that the hair was splotchy and the skin tone had a green
cast. I then clicked the "Open in other program" buttom at the top left of
WPG and opened in Quicktime Picture Viewer, Adobe Photoshop, IE 7, Firefox 2
and Nero Picture Show - and they ALL show the image PERFECTLY. The hair is
clean - not splotchy in the shaded areas and the skin tone is warm with no
green cast. You can try this test at home using any image - just open the
same image in another program and you'll see what I'm saying.

Here is a link to the test photo:

http://www.jurick.net/archive/galler...t/IMG_4353.jpg

When viewing in Vista WPG, notice the girls hair on the right, then open the
image in another program and you'll see a dramatic difference. The image is
tagged with an sRGB profile.

I REALLY look forward to hearing from Microsoft on this - as I'm sure there
will be plenty of other color aware photographers that will be sorely
disspointed with the heart of Vista.

Thank you!

-Michael

"Simon Cobb" wrote:

> I'm running Vista Ultimate RTM on a high end system. I just loaded 60-odd
> JPG images taken with a Nikon D40 DSLR onto my PC and viewed them through
> WPG. Given this was a brand new camera and these were the first images I had
> shot, I was horrified with their quality and initially assumed my camera was
> faulty. The images were terribly over-saturated, unsharp and noisy. I then
> opened the images for editing in Microsoft Digital Image Suite. Lo and
> behold, the images are sharp and properly saturated.
>
> While I'm relieved that my camera is performing correctly, what on earth is
> going on with WPG to cause such appalling display characteristics?
>
> Incidentally, I saw similarly poor results when I viewed the images in the
> new Slide Show viewer.
>
> Anyone else seen similar results? Is there a fix?
>
> Regards,
>
> Simon

wow...I never thought of that...I actually returned a camera because I was so
disappointed at the quality of the pictures!!

"Michael J" wrote:

> Yes - I am seeing poor display quality too! SHAME on Microsoft for not
> catching this - it's the heart and soul of their new Vista OS and MUST be
> fixed.
>
> Basically, the jpgs that are displayed in the Photo Gallery do not show
> accurate color. I've taken some beautiful photos of my family in Florida
> using my Canon EOS 20d and 50mm f1.4 lens. I loaded them into Vista's photo
> gallery and noticed that the hair was splotchy and the skin tone had a green
> cast. I then clicked the "Open in other program" buttom at the top left of
> WPG and opened in Quicktime Picture Viewer, Adobe Photoshop, IE 7, Firefox 2
> and Nero Picture Show - and they ALL show the image PERFECTLY. The hair is
> clean - not splotchy in the shaded areas and the skin tone is warm with no
> green cast. You can try this test at home using any image - just open the
> same image in another program and you'll see what I'm saying.
>
> Here is a link to the test photo:
>
> http://www.jurick.net/archive/galler...t/IMG_4353.jpg
>
> When viewing in Vista WPG, notice the girls hair on the right, then open the
> image in another program and you'll see a dramatic difference. The image is
> tagged with an sRGB profile.
>
> I REALLY look forward to hearing from Microsoft on this - as I'm sure there
> will be plenty of other color aware photographers that will be sorely
> disspointed with the heart of Vista.
>
> Thank you!
>
> -Michael
>
> "Simon Cobb" wrote:
>
> > I'm running Vista Ultimate RTM on a high end system. I just loaded 60-odd
> > JPG images taken with a Nikon D40 DSLR onto my PC and viewed them through
> > WPG. Given this was a brand new camera and these were the first images I had
> > shot, I was horrified with their quality and initially assumed my camera was
> > faulty. The images were terribly over-saturated, unsharp and noisy. I then
> > opened the images for editing in Microsoft Digital Image Suite. Lo and
> > behold, the images are sharp and properly saturated.
> >
> > While I'm relieved that my camera is performing correctly, what on earth is
> > going on with WPG to cause such appalling display characteristics?
> >
> > Incidentally, I saw similarly poor results when I viewed the images in the
> > new Slide Show viewer.
> >
> > Anyone else seen similar results? Is there a fix?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Simon

I think that when Photo Gallery goes into SlideShow mode (click the big
square button at center bottom) it drops down to a very low resolution to
display the images. This has obvious problems. If you double click an image
whilst in the thumbnail mode it keeps your current resolution, and thus does
a much better job of viewing images, at least for me anyway.

I think that the SlideShow mode is designed for viewing images on a device
like a TV, using a '10 foot interface' (as MS like to call it). It's not
designed to be used sat at the desktop (a '2 foot interface').

Oh, and I agree, it sucks.

--
</Slugsie>
"Simon Cobb" <Simon Cobb@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news87B1CA7-C835-4B32-81DE-B8D81AA08C53@microsoft.com...
> I'm running Vista Ultimate RTM on a high end system. I just loaded 60-odd
> JPG images taken with a Nikon D40 DSLR onto my PC and viewed them through
> WPG. Given this was a brand new camera and these were the first images I
> had
> shot, I was horrified with their quality and initially assumed my camera
> was
> faulty. The images were terribly over-saturated, unsharp and noisy. I
> then
> opened the images for editing in Microsoft Digital Image Suite. Lo and
> behold, the images are sharp and properly saturated.
>
> While I'm relieved that my camera is performing correctly, what on earth
> is
> going on with WPG to cause such appalling display characteristics?
>
> Incidentally, I saw similarly poor results when I viewed the images in the
> new Slide Show viewer.
>
> Anyone else seen similar results? Is there a fix?
>
> Regards,
>
> Simon

That might be true, but I want to be clear that the photo gallery view
(non-slideshow mode) does indeed display a poorer quality when simply viewing
an image - and more importantly when making color corrections to an image
within photo gallery. If you don't have accurate color to begin with, then
you will be changing the color - to try to correct something that is already
corrected - further skewing the color from the source (your fine digital
camera, for instance).

Can anyone else confirm that they are seeing this? I've included the test
image again here:

http://www.jurick.net/archive/galler...t/IMG_4353.jpg
>
> When viewing in Vista WPG, notice the girls hair on the right, then open the
> image in another program and you'll see a dramatic difference. The image is
> tagged with an sRGB profile.

"Slugsie" wrote:

> I think that when Photo Gallery goes into SlideShow mode (click the big
> square button at center bottom) it drops down to a very low resolution to
> display the images. This has obvious problems. If you double click an image
> whilst in the thumbnail mode it keeps your current resolution, and thus does
> a much better job of viewing images, at least for me anyway.
>
> I think that the SlideShow mode is designed for viewing images on a device
> like a TV, using a '10 foot interface' (as MS like to call it). It's not
> designed to be used sat at the desktop (a '2 foot interface').
>
> Oh, and I agree, it sucks.
>
> --
> </Slugsie>
> "Simon Cobb" <Simon Cobb@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news87B1CA7-C835-4B32-81DE-B8D81AA08C53@microsoft.com...
> > I'm running Vista Ultimate RTM on a high end system. I just loaded 60-odd
> > JPG images taken with a Nikon D40 DSLR onto my PC and viewed them through
> > WPG. Given this was a brand new camera and these were the first images I
> > had
> > shot, I was horrified with their quality and initially assumed my camera
> > was
> > faulty. The images were terribly over-saturated, unsharp and noisy. I
> > then
> > opened the images for editing in Microsoft Digital Image Suite. Lo and
> > behold, the images are sharp and properly saturated.
> >
> > While I'm relieved that my camera is performing correctly, what on earth
> > is
> > going on with WPG to cause such appalling display characteristics?
> >
> > Incidentally, I saw similarly poor results when I viewed the images in the
> > new Slide Show viewer.
> >
> > Anyone else seen similar results? Is there a fix?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Simon
>
>

I'm running nVidia 7900GS with new Ben Q 24" monitor. I agree with your
assumption that:

> I'm no expert on these things, but it looks like Photo Gallery is
> (internally at least) dropping the colour depth, thus loosing details where
> colours are similar tones/contrast etc.

This is especially true when looking at the hair in the test image.

Also, if it were a driver problem, it would affect the other applications
too. It doesnt. Photoshop, Paint and browsers all display the image
perfectly.

I suspect the new Windows Color System WCS is the culprit. I've done some
reading and you can find some very interesting things regarding the way WCS
handles images at this page :

http://blogs.msdn.com/color_blog/default.aspx

Download the test image they have provided here and see how Vista Photo
Gallery handles the image compared to other applications.

Again, this is an issue that clearly must be resolved as soon as possible
before the world of digital photographers gets wind of this problem. Are
there any Microsoft developers of the Vista Photo Gallery that can read this
board to run the side x side tests that we have done?

"Slugsie" wrote:

> OK, I viewed your image, and at first I couldn't see a problem. I overlaid
> an MS Paint and a PaintShop Pro X window and it all looked OK. I took a
> screen grab (attached) and was just about to upload it saying it all looked
> perfect, when I looked at the *screen grab* in Photo Gallery, and it looked
> awful. Once I knew what I was looking for I could then see the problem
> fairly easily.
>
> I'm no expert on these things, but it looks like Photo Gallery is
> (internally at least) dropping the colour depth, thus loosing details where
> colours are similar tones/contrast etc. This could also potentially be a
> driver problem too.
>
> What is your hardware? I have an nVidia 7600GS AGP, latest beta drivers.
> Monitor is a Dell 2407fpw using the driver from Windows Update.
>
> --
> </Slugsie>
> "Michael J" <MichaelJ@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> newsE8E1EFA-03CB-4E38-8473-635A4F410B5F@microsoft.com...
> > That might be true, but I want to be clear that the photo gallery view
> > (non-slideshow mode) does indeed display a poorer quality when simply
> > viewing
> > an image - and more importantly when making color corrections to an image
> > within photo gallery. If you don't have accurate color to begin with, then
> > you will be changing the color - to try to correct something that is
> > already
> > corrected - further skewing the color from the source (your fine digital
> > camera, for instance).
> >
> > Can anyone else confirm that they are seeing this? I've included the test
> > image again here:
> >
> > http://www.jurick.net/archive/galler...t/IMG_4353.jpg
> >>
> >> When viewing in Vista WPG, notice the girls hair on the right, then open
> >> the
> >> image in another program and you'll see a dramatic difference. The image
> >> is
> >> tagged with an sRGB profile.
> >
> > "Slugsie" wrote:
> >
> >> I think that when Photo Gallery goes into SlideShow mode (click the big
> >> square button at center bottom) it drops down to a very low resolution to
> >> display the images. This has obvious problems. If you double click an
> >> image
> >> whilst in the thumbnail mode it keeps your current resolution, and thus
> >> does
> >> a much better job of viewing images, at least for me anyway.
> >>
> >> I think that the SlideShow mode is designed for viewing images on a
> >> device
> >> like a TV, using a '10 foot interface' (as MS like to call it). It's not
> >> designed to be used sat at the desktop (a '2 foot interface').
> >>
> >> Oh, and I agree, it sucks.
> >>
> >> --
> >> </Slugsie>
> >> "Simon Cobb" <Simon Cobb@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news87B1CA7-C835-4B32-81DE-B8D81AA08C53@microsoft.com...
> >> > I'm running Vista Ultimate RTM on a high end system. I just loaded
> >> > 60-odd
> >> > JPG images taken with a Nikon D40 DSLR onto my PC and viewed them
> >> > through
> >> > WPG. Given this was a brand new camera and these were the first images
> >> > I
> >> > had
> >> > shot, I was horrified with their quality and initially assumed my
> >> > camera
> >> > was
> >> > faulty. The images were terribly over-saturated, unsharp and noisy. I
> >> > then
> >> > opened the images for editing in Microsoft Digital Image Suite. Lo and
> >> > behold, the images are sharp and properly saturated.
> >> >
> >> > While I'm relieved that my camera is performing correctly, what on
> >> > earth
> >> > is
> >> > going on with WPG to cause such appalling display characteristics?
> >> >
> >> > Incidentally, I saw similarly poor results when I viewed the images in
> >> > the
> >> > new Slide Show viewer.
> >> >
> >> > Anyone else seen similar results? Is there a fix?
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> >
> >> > Simon
> >>
> >>
>

Hello all!

Yes, ive noticed this "bug" as well with my Vista Ultimate OEM. I tried
searching any solution but yet to find anything useful...

First all, im no photography expert (altho i do take a picture with my
Pentax Optio4MX ), but any picture i downloaded or screenshots or any of
any kind (JPG, GIF, BMP tested so far) will have distorted colour in Window
Picture Viewer

Here's what i mean:
http://img369.imageshack.us/img369/189/errorla7.jpg

The picture above of Vancouver was a BMP (again, same problem with JPG and
GIF as well), and as u can see, in the folder view (on the right), it is
bright, just as it is in Paint (on the center), BUT using Windows Picture
Viewer (on the left) it is dark and the colour has been extremely
washed/highlighted.....

i wish Microsoft can quickly fix this


Any more ideas to fix this?

Thank you in advance

"Michael J" wrote:

> I'm running nVidia 7900GS with new Ben Q 24" monitor. I agree with your
> assumption that:
>
> > I'm no expert on these things, but it looks like Photo Gallery is
> > (internally at least) dropping the colour depth, thus loosing details where
> > colours are similar tones/contrast etc.
>
> This is especially true when looking at the hair in the test image.
>
> Also, if it were a driver problem, it would affect the other applications
> too. It doesnt. Photoshop, Paint and browsers all display the image
> perfectly.
>
> I suspect the new Windows Color System WCS is the culprit. I've done some
> reading and you can find some very interesting things regarding the way WCS
> handles images at this page :
>
> http://blogs.msdn.com/color_blog/default.aspx
>
> Download the test image they have provided here and see how Vista Photo
> Gallery handles the image compared to other applications.
>
> Again, this is an issue that clearly must be resolved as soon as possible
> before the world of digital photographers gets wind of this problem. Are
> there any Microsoft developers of the Vista Photo Gallery that can read this
> board to run the side x side tests that we have done?
>
> "Slugsie" wrote:
>
> > OK, I viewed your image, and at first I couldn't see a problem. I overlaid
> > an MS Paint and a PaintShop Pro X window and it all looked OK. I took a
> > screen grab (attached) and was just about to upload it saying it all looked
> > perfect, when I looked at the *screen grab* in Photo Gallery, and it looked
> > awful. Once I knew what I was looking for I could then see the problem
> > fairly easily.
> >
> > I'm no expert on these things, but it looks like Photo Gallery is
> > (internally at least) dropping the colour depth, thus loosing details where
> > colours are similar tones/contrast etc. This could also potentially be a
> > driver problem too.
> >
> > What is your hardware? I have an nVidia 7600GS AGP, latest beta drivers.
> > Monitor is a Dell 2407fpw using the driver from Windows Update.
> >
> > --
> > </Slugsie>
> > "Michael J" <MichaelJ@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > newsE8E1EFA-03CB-4E38-8473-635A4F410B5F@microsoft.com...
> > > That might be true, but I want to be clear that the photo gallery view
> > > (non-slideshow mode) does indeed display a poorer quality when simply
> > > viewing
> > > an image - and more importantly when making color corrections to an image
> > > within photo gallery. If you don't have accurate color to begin with, then
> > > you will be changing the color - to try to correct something that is
> > > already
> > > corrected - further skewing the color from the source (your fine digital
> > > camera, for instance).
> > >
> > > Can anyone else confirm that they are seeing this? I've included the test
> > > image again here:
> > >
> > > http://www.jurick.net/archive/galler...t/IMG_4353.jpg
> > >>
> > >> When viewing in Vista WPG, notice the girls hair on the right, then open
> > >> the
> > >> image in another program and you'll see a dramatic difference. The image
> > >> is
> > >> tagged with an sRGB profile.
> > >
> > > "Slugsie" wrote:
> > >
> > >> I think that when Photo Gallery goes into SlideShow mode (click the big
> > >> square button at center bottom) it drops down to a very low resolution to
> > >> display the images. This has obvious problems. If you double click an
> > >> image
> > >> whilst in the thumbnail mode it keeps your current resolution, and thus
> > >> does
> > >> a much better job of viewing images, at least for me anyway.
> > >>
> > >> I think that the SlideShow mode is designed for viewing images on a
> > >> device
> > >> like a TV, using a '10 foot interface' (as MS like to call it). It's not
> > >> designed to be used sat at the desktop (a '2 foot interface').
> > >>
> > >> Oh, and I agree, it sucks.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> </Slugsie>
> > >> "Simon Cobb" <Simon Cobb@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > >> news87B1CA7-C835-4B32-81DE-B8D81AA08C53@microsoft.com...
> > >> > I'm running Vista Ultimate RTM on a high end system. I just loaded
> > >> > 60-odd
> > >> > JPG images taken with a Nikon D40 DSLR onto my PC and viewed them
> > >> > through
> > >> > WPG. Given this was a brand new camera and these were the first images
> > >> > I
> > >> > had
> > >> > shot, I was horrified with their quality and initially assumed my
> > >> > camera
> > >> > was
> > >> > faulty. The images were terribly over-saturated, unsharp and noisy. I
> > >> > then
> > >> > opened the images for editing in Microsoft Digital Image Suite. Lo and
> > >> > behold, the images are sharp and properly saturated.
> > >> >
> > >> > While I'm relieved that my camera is performing correctly, what on
> > >> > earth
> > >> > is
> > >> > going on with WPG to cause such appalling display characteristics?
> > >> >
> > >> > Incidentally, I saw similarly poor results when I viewed the images in
> > >> > the
> > >> > new Slide Show viewer.
> > >> >
> > >> > Anyone else seen similar results? Is there a fix?
> > >> >
> > >> > Regards,
> > >> >
> > >> > Simon
> > >>
> > >>
> >

DARN!! i uploaded the wrong picture... i will upload another one at home....
sorry, guys... im at the office now...

Ah yes, and i forgot to mention, and since i couldnt find the edit button,
here goes:

My system:
AMD X2 3800+
2Gb RAM
2x7900GT on SLI using Forceware 97.46
Samsung 205BW
Vista Ultimate OEM

Thanks!

There you go, guys... sorry about the triple posting...

Original Pic:
http://img369.imageshack.us/img369/189/errorla7.jpg

as wallapaper/WPG/Paint:
http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/6475/errorvt6.jpg

See what i mean? Anybody can correct this so far?

Microsoft should fix this ASAP as WPG is the program i used to use all the
time with XP

Thank you............

"Redbeaver" wrote:

> DARN!! i uploaded the wrong picture... i will upload another one at home....
> sorry, guys... im at the office now...
>
> Ah yes, and i forgot to mention, and since i couldnt find the edit button,
> here goes:
>
> My system:
> AMD X2 3800+
> 2Gb RAM
> 2x7900GT on SLI using Forceware 97.46
> Samsung 205BW
> Vista Ultimate OEM
>
> Thanks!