Degraded Text Image Quality with Reader 9

I upgraded to Adobe Reader 9, which I use to open an online daily publication. However, with Reader 9, print quality of this publication (an online newspaper) is now severely degraded, to the point where I have to enlarge the image to about 400% in order to make it legible. Before contacting the publication, (whom, I'm sure, will say it isn't their problem), I am posting the question here to find out if anyone else is experiencing this same issue and, if so, is it something which can be fixed?

Unfortunately, it's a subscription-only publication, vailable only by online ID and password

Similar Messages

Save metadata in LR - degrade JPEG image quality?

Hi:
Does anyone know whether using the 'save metadata' feature in LR to save changed metadata to a JPEG file will result in a resaving of the entire file and/or otherwise degrade the JPEG image quality?
If it does not degrade the image quality, how does this feature work?
Many thanks for the help

Each pixel remains unchanged in this process.
I was under the impression that any re-saving of a jpeg image results in a slight loss of quality, regardless of whether there have been changes to the image
This is true for other editors, such as Photoshop or Photoshop Elements, but it is not true for Lightroom because, as explained, LR does things differently than other software.

Image quality with the Canon 5Dmark 2 vs.. The 5Dmark3?

I use Leica lenses on a canon body with an adapter. Is the image quality with the Canon 5Dmark 2 vs.the 5Dmark3 similar? Any reason to get one vs. the other? I like the idea, that I can change the viewfinder screens on the Mk 2. Any overwhelming improvement of the 5Dmark 3 that would warrant consideration? Thanks to those who have used both camera bodies.
Solved!
Go to Solution.

The primary advantage of a Mk3 over the Mk2 is the AF. More points and it can focus with f/8. If your Leica lens is manual focus then you wouldn't care about it. The 5D3 has a little of an advantage in the ISO but not a huge factor. Other than that I'd say IQ is the same.

Poor image quality with save for web

It doesn't matter whether i'm exporting from Ai or Ps or whether it's CS6 or CC. I have changed the raster settings in Ai and i've also tried all optimization options with all different export file types (jpg, png, gif) at all different quality settings. It doesn't matter if I start with an ai, eps, pdf, png... the export result is always poor quality.
I have tried exporting at 300ppi and that does fix the quality issue and bloats the file size, but this way (the export route) is so time consuming since you have to resize your artwork each time as well as the artboard so that it doesn't cut off pixels. Save for web never used to have these quality issues and it also never used to cut off pixels around the edges. These workarounds prove very time consuming and produce file sizes that are not ideal.
When i first noticed this issue I was using Mavericks with CS6 and since am using Yosemite and Creative Cloud.
Steps to reproduce:
1. Create any bitmap or vector graphic in Ai or Ps, It doesn't matter whether you convert text to outlines or not
2. Save for web
3. View image in any application or browser to see poor quality and pixel trimming. Others running the same version and system are not having this issue, but I have checked many forums and found many others that do have this same issue but can't seem to find a solution.
Results:stair stepping, degradation, pixel trimming, general poor image quality
Expected results: Previously the save for web feature allowed for a decent quality image

I thought of that too so I tested on another machine with retina display and the file i saved on my machine looked bad on my machine and on the other comparable machine/display. So I sent them the original vector ai file and watched while they saved it the exact same way on their machine and the file looked fine on both of our machines/displays.
All of the settings they used appeared the same as what I used but with different results. I don't recall changing anything but does anyone know if there is some setting that could have been changed that is causing this issue?

How to prevent degradation of image quality when pasting for collage?

I am trying to do a collage (of family heirloom old pharmacy jars and bottles) from – eventually – about a dozen separate images in Photoshop CS6. (A variety of sizes, resolutions, qualities and file types will go into the collage, but I wish to retain the image quality of each component at its original level or very close to the original level, even those in some cases the original quality is marginal.)
I have set up in Photoshop a “background document” at 300 dpi of the right dimensions to paste into my InDesign document (5.1 X 3.6 cm)
I have tried >six approaches, all of which have resulted in a degradation of the subsequently pasted-in image (not just slight, but very obvious).
Clearly I’m missing something fundamental about image quality and handling images so that degradation is minimised or eliminated.
(1) (1) Using an internet video as a guide – using Mini Bridge to open all the images in PS6 as tabs along the top of the workpage. Then dragging the first one into the base document. It comes across huge – ie I only see a small fraction of the image. Any attempt to Edit/Transform/Scale (to 14% of the pasted image, which in this case is a jpg of 3170 x 1541 at 1789 dpi, 4.5 x 2.2 cm) results in an image that looks horribly degraded compared with what I pasted (open in another window).
(2) (2) Same thing happens if I have each image as a new layer on top of the base document.
(3) (3) I tried changing the image that I had put into Layer 2 into a Smart Object and then resized it. No further ahead – it still looks horrible.
(4) using a different image [an 800 dpi JPG 3580 x 1715 Pixels, print size (from dpi) 11.4 x 5.4 cm which despite those parameters is of barely acceptable quality] I have tried (a) changing the resolution to 300 dpi, (b) keeping the number of pixels the same (which results in a dpi of over 3000 but doesn't fix the problem; (c) changing the dimensions to a length of 3 cm [about right for the collage] .... but no matter what I do, by the time the image is positioned correctly on the layer, the image quality has gone from barely acceptable to absolutely horrible. That usually happens during the final resizing (whether by numbers or shift-dragging the corners of the image).
Grateful for any step-by-step strategy as to how best to accomplish the end – by whatever means. (Or even in a different program!). Basically, even though I've used images for many years in many contexts, I have never fundamentally understood image size or resolution to avoid getting into such messes. Also, I'm on a very steep learning curve with Photoshop, InDesign and Illustrator all at the same time - these all seem to handle images differently, which doesn't help. [Not to mention MS Publisher, which I'm locked into for certain other things...]

For the individual images, don't worry about the ppi or as you call it dpi (ppi is the correct term BTW) only worry about the pixel dimensions. If the pixel dimensions gets too low, it will look horrible as there is not enough data to work with.
Therefore the final document that will house all the other images must be large enough in pixel dimensions to handle the smaller images at a high enough dimension that they will look good.
That being said, if you can load your images in as smart objects as any scaling that takes place samples the original sized document. Making it possible to scale it down to a size that is barely visible and then reset the size back to where it was and have no loss of data.
Where the ppi will come into play is when you are ready to print the final document, that is when the ppi will tell the printer at what size to print the document on the page.
If your collage will span more than one page, you may want to do this in InDesign. All images are linked to their respective container (similar process as smart object in theory) Though I beleive smart objects are embedded which is debatable.
In both InDesign and Illustrator, scaling the image in the document affects the ppi of the image, scaling down would increase the ppi whereas scaling upward would decrease the ppi as the number of pixels (the pixel dimension) has not changed.
With photoshop, you have a choice, when scaling the entire document, you have the option to resample the image, doing so affects the pixel dimension and in that instance would degrade the image when scaling downward and bluring the image when scaling up. As photoshop is removing pixels when scaling down and guessing the neighbor pixels should be when scaling upward.
But, when resampling is off, the pixel dimensions do not change and therefore there is no degration or bluring.
Why this happens has to do with simple math.
inches x ppi = pixels
Knowing any two of the above forumula will give you the third.
When resampling is enabled, the pixels can change and when it is disabled, it is fixed so only the other two values can change.

10.6.2: Bad image quality with SIPS

I used to convert my PDF documents with SIPS like this:
/usr/bin/sips --setProperty format jpeg --setProperty formatOptions high -z 400 200 sourcefilename.pdf --out targetfilename.jpg
This results in a very bad image quality after updating to 10.6.2 (the text contained in the source pdf file is nearly unreadable in the resulting image, especially when using the -z attribute for downsizing).
I could reconstruct this behaviour with several machines today: when using 10.6.1 the quality is fine, but after the update to 10.6.2 the resulting image quality is unacceptable.
Any ideas? Or could this be a bug? The man page for sips does not contain any information about new parameters and the image quality for other target formats (tif, png, ...) seems to be ok.

That picture looks like it was taken in a dimly lit room.
You could try using night mode but you will need a very steady hand.
Most basic phone cameras just cannot produce good pictures indoors when not in brightly lit areas. LED flashes just cannot do a good enough job when compared to real cameras.
Megapixels don't equal quality, it's the lens and flash that make the biggest difference.

InDesignCC. How to keep image quality with exporting Interactive PDF?

Hello everyone, I'm using InDesign CC, I'm exporting a PDF that has PNG images, the problem is that I'm loosing the sharpness and the pureness in the images after exporting the file into PDF Interactive... the Settings I'm using for Image Handling are Compression: Automatic , JPEG Quality: Maximum, Resolution PPI: 300..
The file size is "Letter" with web Intent (792px x 612px) the images I'm using are big and have great quality, can anyone tell me how I export into PDF interactive without loosig images quality? I want to keep this pureness and sharpness in the images
Thanks in advance

It depends on the image. Best way for us to advise you is to open your image, then go to Image > Image Size and upload a screen capture of the Image Size box with the readings.
What you might have working against you is not enough pixels. Upsampling may just make it blurred. But we will see.
300 ppi is also not carved in stone, you may get away with 200 ppi depending on where you are sending it for printing.
And lastly, if you are paying a commercial printer to do this, it's best to consult with them and see what they can do.

Image quality with ATV 3rd gen

Hi. I have a 2nd gen ATV and am very happy with it. I use it to stream movies from my iTunes library on my Mac, and occasionally from Netflix. I recently bought the 3rd gen ATV. Over the weekend I used the 3rd gen ATV to stream portions of some movies from my iTunes library to see if I would notice a difference in image quality on my 47" LDC TV. Some were better (the 1080i HD ones) than with the 2nd gen ATV, most looked about the same, but it surprised me that a few looked worse.
I don't know how to describe the ones that looked worse. It's not an issue of pixelation. I believe Hollywood produces films on 35mm or 70mm format, whereas TV and home movies often are on lower quality 8mm or 16mm format. With the 3rd gen ATV, the movies that I thought looked worse seemed to have the appearance of lower quality 8mm / 16mm movies, rather than of higher quality 35mm / 70 mm movies. The characters and images on the screen looked more plastic somehow, with less depth. Any yes, I am talking about 2D images, not 3D. The movies in question were purchased from the iTunes store in SD format. They look better on my 2nd gen ATV than they do on my 3rd gen ATV.
Has anyone else had this experience? Is there a setting I am missing somewhere on the 3rd gen ATV that might cause this affect? Thank you

SD movies need to be scaled to fill your screen.
If your TV has a 1080 screen and your Apple TV is set to output at 1080, then your Apple TV does all the scaling.
Your Apple TV 2 has a maximum output of 720, therefore your TV had to do some of the scaling.
If your TV is significantly better than the Apple TV at scaling, this may account for what you say.

Image quality with fbi/fbida

Hey everyone, I'm trying doing all my work from the console right now (links2 awesome!) and after a lot of work (with still more to go since I don't have the permissions set up yet for fbi to use as a normal user) I finally got fbi to work... but the image quality isn't as good as I was expecting. I'm not trying to bash fbi here since it's running from the framebuffer but I'm wondering if there's anyway to make the quality better (I'm talking misplaced color and other large displacements). I've looked at man fbi and tried some of the settings there but I just want to know if there's anything I can do to improve quality... if not I can live with it no problem, but it would be nice to know.

Fixed it... apparently the framebuffer uses something from the Xorg.conf (I don't know if that would be the case if I didn't have Xorg installed... actually it isn't my desktop doesn't have Xorg and it worked fine) when you have X installed and I just had to change the driver from radeon to vesa!

Balance Image Quality with Small File Size

I need to first express that I'm a fully self-taught Flash designer. No one has ever sat down and tried to explain to me the DOs and DONTs about Flash. I have followed tutorials, books, and anything else I can get my hands on, but never a person. People of Flash seem to be very hard to find, in my personal experience.
I am the most comfortable with Photoshop, knowing very little about Illustrator or Fireworks.
That said, I have been asked to create a 45KB (yikes!) max file, rotating 3 .jpg images I created from other .jpgs given to me. The images are usually large, so I am given room to compress them for a 300px x 250 px stage.
However, these images are always my biggest culprit for my huge file size. I'll import them in, making them into Graphic Symbols, but nothing seems to prevent the enourmous file size.
When given the raw images, I would throw them into Photoshop, make the files the correct 300x250 size. Then I have tried: saving the image at the best resolution in .jpg and .png form, and then I tried saving the images as low-as-I-could-stomach quality. I hardly see a difference with file size when they are imported into Flash and used.
I was told to use Fireworks's Optimize function, which I did, but it made my .swf even bigger!
When I have my Flash piece all set up/animted as I want, but I need to replace the bitmap(.jpg/.png) photos, I will:
right click on the bitmap to get properties, "upload" the new image to be used, adjust the Quality, having "Allow smoothing" unclicked.
I understand I should make as much of the graphics in Flash as I can, instead of Import, but I am primarily given photographs to use.
Seeing what my previous peers have done is mind-puzzling, but they are not around, so I cannot ask them for their advice. Their files are under 45KB and look sharp and amazing:
http://creative.freedominteractive.com/clients/atep/banners2/
http://creative.freedominteractive.com/clients/fountainvalleyschool/banners/
http://creative.freedominteractive.com/clients/BranchGymnastics/
I am hoping someone can help me get my .jpg files under control. Thank you in advance for your help.

You're certainly on the right track by sizing and optimizing the photos in Photoshop. Are you using optimize for web or save as? Jpgs are your best bet, I find the a 40 quality is just about the point the quality starts badly degrading. In Flash, the only other things you didn't mention is the frame rate and JPEG compression setting in publish settings. Frame rate has a bigger impact on file size than the additional compression. Also, are you using keyframes for teed ing or the AS tween class? This I don't know for sure if it affects file size, but it just seems that motion Tweens with keyframes would add to the size. How far away from the target are you?

High degradation of image quality dropping SnapzPro mov file into iMovie HD 6.03

I'm using the older version of iMovie HD 6.03 because it is much easier to work with in syncing audio to images.
I'm making a music video shot on my Nikon. The AVI files look alright, but when I drop a movie file captured with
SnapzPro, the quality degrades terribly, really unusable. The Ambrosia folks tell me there is an automatic conversion
from the mov file to DV taking place which doesn't happen in later versions of iMovie. I really prefer the interface on
the older version and am seasoned with it. Is there a way to bring in the mov file without degrading it?

Is your goal to create a DVD? PAL or NTSC? Then capture with Snapz Pro at the resolution Karsten told you (that's the first two he mentioned.)
If your goal is larger definition than a DVD, then capture in one of the two last resolutions Karsten mentioned.
If you only want computer screen viewing, then I recommend a 720p project in iMovie and a 1280x720 pixel capture.
If you only want to burn a Bluray disc and watch on a HD-TV, then I recommend an 1080i project and a 1920x1080 capture.

Image quality with PDF gallery pages

Hello,
I'm a bit disappointed in the quality of the artwork in the PDFs that I create with Bridge output. They're very pixelated. My original artwork is just vector EPS files. Why can't Bridge create vector output in the PDFs? I chose the highest quality in the settings there.
Thanks,
Peter

Why can't Bridge create vector output in the PDFs?
It seems an old problem:
also check this older thread and some other links in that thread. Maybe even drop a feature request.

Poor Image Quality -- Design View & Published Content (CP8)

If I prepare a high-quality image, picture perfect, sharp, sized to let's say 500 x 500 px in Photoshop (max JPG quality setting) and then dump into Captivate, I find that Captivate significantly degrades the image quality. It changes the sharpness of the image and destroys exposure settings like colour saturation and hue. Even if I publish to an LMS with 24-bit, no compression, it still looks degraded.
Is there any way to improve image quality?

I am on PC, not on Mac and have used this feature all the time since (not totally sure) version 5. Maybe it is a Mac bug?
This is a screenshot, I imported a Photoshop file 'IconsTips' and choose to import Layers as images, you'll see the folder with 6 images.

CFImage Functions and DPI / Image Quality.

I am doing some work that involves taking images supplied from a product called Fotoweb and putting them into PDF files using cfdocument.
We are noticing a degradation in image quality that seems to be coldfusion related.
In the code below I am reading in an image @ 300DPI from the Fotoweb product. It is definately 300dpi. I am then writing the image back to a file without any manipulation and it becomes 96DPI.

<cfset theImage=ImageRead(aUrlToGetImageFrom)>

<cfset ImageWrite(theImage,aFileToWriteTo,"1.0")>
In production we want to be able to resize the image to 5"x7" at 300DPI in a pdf. However as soon as coldfusion gets involved we get bumped down to 96dpi.The image quality is very important as these pdfs will ultimately be printed.
Is there anyway of telling CF to keep the image at 300dpi.
Thanks in advance
Nick

You comparison method is seriously flawed. For 1 image to be at 72 DPI (a software supplied setting) & the other to be at 180 DPI it means that one image has been enlarged (180 divided by 72) 2.5 times more than the other to view it on screen. Zoom in on the good image until it's 2.5 times larger & see how it looks.
Next thing you need to know is that camera technique becomes more important as pixel count increases. an 18 Mpixel image will have an 80% increase in softness over the 10 Mpixel camera from identical camera shake. To make any accurate form of comparison you will need to eleminate the possibility of introducing camera shake into the test. You will also need very similar lighting & the subject must also be stationary for all test shots. (IE that eye (or the person it's attached to) may have moved during one shot but not the othern
"A skill is developed through constant practice with a passion to improve, not bought."

Screen protectors and image quality

I have a screen protector on my 3G and thinking about getting one for my iPhone 4. How you guys liking them so far? I am worried about it degrading the image quality of the new high res screen.
Tom

I've had every iPhone since it came out & I've never used a screen protector. I've never once ever had even the slightest tiny little scratch. That's not to say though that the screen on the ip4 will have the same luck bc I know it's not the same plus, in addition, I know the back is glass also & it's exposed due to the design of the bumper, which is my personal choice at this time.
I do wonder what the future will hold in reference to the other companies design for the new phone like Ncase, Griffith, Frogz, etc.??? They may come up with the clear plastic type snap on cases on different colors or variations of smoke colored to clear plastic. This way we can still see the phone, especially if you prefer the white if they ever start selling them, & it will be protected at the same time. Only problem is with those cases is u have to keep the touch pad exposed for use & you would still need a screen protector if this model does indeed scratch. Better than nothing though. I still wonder if it will scratch. I am HORRIBLE at putting on those screen protectors. No matter what I do I get bubbles etc. Used a credit card & started one end very slowly & it comes out looking ********. I KNOW that I NEVER had ANY scratched on my ip3Gs & the glass is the same as the iPad.

Degraded Text Image Quality with Reader 9

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for