Bad quality in Web Gallery

I published a web gallery from iPhoto 08 but the pictures are compressed so much and the quality is poor. The original files comes from EOS 1Ds Mark III but looks like something from a compact camera 1995. I have lot of space left in my gallery. Do you know how to optimize this?
You can se the pics at www.knyp.dk
Best Regards.

Similar Messages

Loosing Quality in Web Gallery

Hello,
When I publish photos with the iPhoto to Web Gallery I noticed that the photos lose cuality, it reduces the file size and of course the quality of the picture. Only with the pictures, the videos keep the same size.
What should I do to keep the same quality of the original photo in the web gallery?
Thanks.

Welcome to the Apple Discussions. There's really not a lot you can do. Each photo in a web gallery is, as you found out, reduced in dimension and has some jpg compression added, about equivalent to a quality level of 7 of 12 in Photoshop, for faster file transfer and display. You could manually replace each photo in the gallery on the iDisk with a full sized version. But that would be very time consuming as each photo in a gallery has its own folder several different sizes of that same file. The large file does not carry the original file name but is named web.jpg. So you would have to rename each file web.jpg and place it in the correct folder for that web gallery. Lots of room for error.
TIP: For insurance against the iPhoto database corruption that many users have experienced I recommend making a backup copy of the Library6.iPhoto database file and keep it current. If problems crop up where iPhoto suddenly can't see any photos or thinks there are no photos in the library, replacing the working Library6.iPhoto file with the backup will often get the library back. By keeping it current I mean backup after each import and/or any serious editing or work on books, slideshows, calendars, cards, etc. That insures that if a problem pops up and you do need to replace the database file, you'll retain all those efforts. It doesn't take long to make the backup and it's good insurance.
I've created an Automator workflow application (requires Tiger), iPhoto dB File Backup, that will copy the selected Library6.iPhoto file from your iPhoto Library folder to the Pictures folder, replacing any previous version of it. It's compatible with iPhoto 08 libraries and Leopard. iPhoto does not have to be closed to run the application, just idle. You can download it at Toad's Cellar. Be sure to read the Read Me pdf file.

Bad quality of web images X1 Carbon 2015

All images (especially the small ones) and icons from internet and some applications have very bad quality as if they had very low resolution. For example, all avatars on Facebook look really bad, I can hardly recognize people. The same holds for all logos and banners with text images. I understand that the images get distorted because of extremely high resolution of the display (2560x1440) - by the way normal text and all Windows images have excellent clarity - however I can hardly beleive that a 2000 EUR machine is not able to provide appropriate image quality even for simle internet surfing! Is that a fact you have to accept when having 2560x1440 or is it somehow possible to get normal image quality? (Otherwise I'll return the laptop).

Here is a screen shot of how it looks like when you open private modus in IE.
At the top you see the blue block [InPrivate] in excellent quality and at the bottom you see how the same thing is displayed when it's an image. Actually both should look the same.

Image quality bad in Web Gallery

I used the .Mac web gallery feature for the first time yesterday with images that I had edited in Lightroom and then exported to iPhoto for upload, I chose the jpeg compression at highest quality (they were RAW files taken with my Canon 40D) and saved as sRGB optimized for the web. The thumbnails look fine, but the images look absolutely horrible full screen...focus looks blurry and artifacts in some of the shots. Granted, I'm viewing on my 24" screen and it does look better on my other half's 13" MacBook, but still...the image quality should not suffer like this. I can't believe Apple would release a product the renders such poor quality photos.
Is there something that I'm missing here? Is anyone else noticing this with their web galleries?

Dave:
You can replace the 800 x 600 files with your full sized image files. But it would be a manual operation. Each photo in an web gallery has it's own folder with several versions of the file in it. They are located in the iDisk/Sites/Web/_gallery folder. The file titled web.jpg is used for the slideshow. If you replace it with the original file that's been renamed web.jpg, it will be the one used to display in the slideshow.
HOWEVER, the full sized image file takes a very long time to load when playing the slideshow. If you do that you should use an image resizing application like Resize! to reduce the file size by selecting a higher jpeg compression ( lower quality level) while keeping the pixel dimensions the same. With a 60% quality level and keeping the pixel dimensions the same I reduced a 2816 x 2112 pixel, 2.11 MB image file to 695 KB. The 2.1 MB file took 6 seconds to load, the 695 took 2 seconds and the iPhoto produced file were nearly instantaneous. Resizing down wot 1200 x 900 at 60% reduced the size down to 132 KB, much more manageable for loading and rendering online.
So you would have to test to see what pixel dimension and quality level would work best for you. But keep in mind that you'd have to manually change each file, rename it to web.jpg and copy up to the iDisk.
Do you Twango?
TIP: For insurance against the iPhoto database corruption that many users have experienced I recommend making a backup copy of the Library6.iPhoto database file and keep it current. If problems crop up where iPhoto suddenly can't see any photos or thinks there are no photos in the library, replacing the working Library6.iPhoto file with the backup will often get the library back. By keeping it current I mean backup after each import and/or any serious editing or work on books, slideshows, calendars, cards, etc. That insures that if a problem pops up and you do need to replace the database file, you'll retain all those efforts. It doesn't take long to make the backup and it's good insurance.
I've created an Automator workflow application (requires Tiger), iPhoto dB File Backup, that will copy the selected Library6.iPhoto file from your iPhoto Library folder to the Pictures folder, replacing any previous version of it. It's compatible with iPhoto 08 libraries and Leopard. iPhoto does not have to be closed to run the application, just idle. You can download it at Toad's Cellar. Be sure to read the Read Me pdf file.

How to improve AP2.0 Web Gallery Quality/Functionality for photographers

Hi,
I'm a pro photographer.
I thought AP2.0 plus a (dot)mac account would offer an easy way for my clients to proof images in password protected web galleries and to download images as well. The resulting functionality is poor in my opinion. Is there anything I can do within Aperture or (dot)mac to improve the following problems?
1) Why is the image quality of the web gallery slide show so poor? No sensible client would accept looking at proof images of this low quality. Even flickr is better.
2) Why is there only one download file size, i.e. the original size? In other words, the original file is almost always too large for most web client purchases. Why can't the client choose a smaller version. Even flickr is better, offering several download sizes all based on the original upload.
3) Since the export functionality within Aperture allows for numerous choices of dpi and pixel ratio to export images, why is this same functionality not there for publishing web galleries?
It seems obvious that photographers would want to publish web galleries with exactly the same control that we can export images to disk or flickr. Even within the Apple Mail application we have choices of quality and pixel dimension for the attachments.
What am I missing? Please help.

When you create a Web Gallery in AP2, there is a set up prefernce to let viewers download an Optimized, Actual Size or Optimized and Master Image. (You can only pick one per gallery it seems.)
However, I think the gallery design is rather clunky, too many design options are left open to the viewer, and not the photgrapher. I prefer the web pages and web journals for customer proofing using the image number. They email me their choices, and then using Aperture, I can order prints based on their selection. Not the simplist way, but I would not want clients downloading my images, anyway, as you suggest. Why would they buy a print if they can just download a jpg themselves?

Low quality images in web gallery from Output Module

So when I create a web gallery slideshow using the output module I get SUPER-low quality images, like big jagged, pixellated lines in place of any diagonal line in the pictures. However, only photos in the portrait orientation are affected by this problem. Landscape-oriented photos look perfectly normal, just smaller.
My first thought was that maybe the images were low quality in the web gallery preview but wouldn't be in the actual saved file, but alas I saved the index.html file and when I preview it in my web browser I get the same result with the portrait-oriented photos.
Any idea how to fix this? Other than only using landscape photos in my gallery of course!
Thanks!

The same problem here. I've noticed it just yesterday, but my Safari rendering is affected the same way.
I don't think it has anything to do with the recent updates. I reinstalled my MacOS X Leopard day ago and all the images (jpg, gif) have been somehow in lower quality ever since that moment. Even before I installed all new updates today.
The strangest think is, that it wasn't like this before the reinstallation. I used the same media, and I have, indeed, the same machine.
I'm hopeless. Have you already found some solution? Or anybody? Would be great...
Martin

Low quality web gallery photos??

I have used the web gallery feature successfully for smaller albums of around 30 pictures. The quality of the photos stayed high in these cases(1.2 MB).
But I tried to load an album of much larger size (171) and the quality of the photos was reduced dramatically (256 kb a photo). Is there a size limit for web gallery?
Is there a setting I need to change?

emh14:
Welcome to the Apple Discussions. It seems that the larger the number of uploads for a single gallery the more jpg compression is applied to the files. Apple may be doing that in order to facilitate faster uploads on those larger galleries and, as AC mentioned, keep the servers as fast as possible. I don't know of any number limit as I've always keep mine low, like 45-50, per gallery.
You might ask ask Apple via this page: http://www.apple.com/feedback/iphoto.html.
Do you Twango?
TIP: For insurance against the iPhoto database corruption that many users have experienced I recommend making a backup copy of the Library6.iPhoto database file and keep it current. If problems crop up where iPhoto suddenly can't see any photos or thinks there are no photos in the library, replacing the working Library6.iPhoto file with the backup will often get the library back. By keeping it current I mean backup after each import and/or any serious editing or work on books, slideshows, calendars, cards, etc. That insures that if a problem pops up and you do need to replace the database file, you'll retain all those efforts. It doesn't take long to make the backup and it's good insurance.
I've created an Automator workflow application (requires Tiger), iPhoto dB File Backup, that will copy the selected Library6.iPhoto file from your iPhoto Library folder to the Pictures folder, replacing any previous version of it. It's compatible with iPhoto 08 libraries. iPhoto does not have to be closed to run the application, just idle. You can download it at Toad's Cellar. Be sure to read the Read Me pdf file.

Quality of photos downloaded from web gallery

If someone downloads a photo from my web gallery, what quality is the photo? When you share a photo through email it asks you if you want to send it "Actual Size", "Large (higher quality), Medium, etc. Also, is the quality of a photo downloaded in a web gallery the same as a photo downloaded from my iWeb website?

If you select the option to let others download photos from the web gallery they will be downloading the full sized, pixel-wise, image. However, there will have been some jpg compression on the file. iPhoto does that so as to speed up uploading time and not fill up the iDisk as fast. The amount of compression is 9 on a scale of 1 to 12 where 12 is the highest quality. This was determined by saving the same file with Photoshop to different quality levels and comparing.
I was hardpressed to see any degradation in image until I compared them side by side at about 200% magnification. Exposure histograms for each image were the same.
Do you Twango?
TIP: For insurance against the iPhoto database corruption that many users have experienced I recommend making a backup copy of the Library6.iPhoto database file and keep it current. If problems crop up where iPhoto suddenly can't see any photos or thinks there are no photos in the library, replacing the working Library6.iPhoto file with the backup will often get the library back. By keeping it current I mean backup after each import and/or any serious editing or work on books, slideshows, calendars, cards, etc. That insures that if a problem pops up and you do need to replace the database file, you'll retain all those efforts. It doesn't take long to make the backup and it's good insurance.
I've written an Automator workflow application (requires Tiger), iPhoto dB File Backup, that will copy the selected Library6.iPhoto file from your iPhoto Library folder to the Pictures folder, replacing any previous version of it. It's compatible with iPhoto 08 libraries. You can download it at Toad's Cellar. Be sure to read the Read Me pdf file.

Photoshop CS3 web gallery bugs(?); vanishing metadata, bad sort order

Running OS 1.5.4 on 24" Imac, I'm attempting to generate a "horizontal slideshow" from bridge-selected files in Photoshop CS3.
[Sounded like the problem in this post: http://www.adobeforums.com/webx/.59b5a9fe/2 but on re-reading I've decided it's different so I'm giving it it's own thread, with more detail...]
Here's my experience:
1) Description and title show up for a second on the first slide, then revert to just the blank template on that and all subsequent slides (title: [blank] description: [blank]....
Hitting "refresh" produces the descriptive metadata for a tantalizing moment, then it' s back to the blank template for this and all subsequent slides. It does this both for Safari and Firefox.
You can view this behavior in a slideshow at http://oasisdesign.net/projects/earthtoilet/
If it asks for a password, use---
user:earthling
pass: draf1 )
"preserve all metadata" is checked.
I've tried all combinations of checking/ unchecking "title, description, filename" for labeling...also, making slideshows with just one or two slides to reduce the chance that it's a weird character issue of the type some other folks have experienced...
2) additionally, the web gallery is not respecting the manual sort order in Bridge, which is the source of the files. The help files say the slideshow should follow the manual sort order in Bridge.
3) Finally, metadata entered in bridge metadata tab sometimes vanishes, sometimes metadata entered in file info wouldn't show in the metadata tab.
Thanks for your help!!
Art
BTW, here's the related issues I found:
http://www.adobeforums.com/webx/.59b5a9fe/2
...After some investigation, I found that the descriptions were disappearing only for photos that had a Return / Line Break in the description. If you go back and make sure all of your descriptions are a single line, it works fine....
=Don't have line breaks, nor "and" nor &...
http://www.adobeforums.com/webx/.3bff9de1/0
http://www.adobeforums.com/webx/.3bd62ec3/0

OK...here's the hack I used to get around what I'm now totally convinced are program bugs and shortcomings relative to advertised functionality, for anyone else who has to deal with this, followed by my (suggested fixes to Adobe)...
1) Sort everything the way you want in bridge.
2) Make meta descriptions w/o weird characters (a warning here would be helpful)
3) Use "batch rename," with "copy to another folder" to give the images totally plain vanilla, DOS-style file names (001.jpg, 002.jpg...). This solves most filename issues and the works around web gallery's failure to recognize bridge sort order in one go. Note that you can irrevocably screw up the names of all your original files if you're not very careful to COPY at this step.
([a] make the bridge sort work directly, as advertised, por favor. [b] add an error message or warning about file names such as 006-(2).jpg causing malfunction. A compassionate, low-effort short-term patch for Mac users of web gallery, especially since bridge generates that particular sort name itself invisibly and automatically if you move a file with the same name into a folder)
4) Use "white on black" instead of bug-ridden "horizontal slideshow" (horizontal slideshow should be fixed or deleted from the next version...multiple slideshow options would be awesome, as they advance automatically at the max rate the user's bandwidth allows, a very attractive feature)
5) Restrict all images to the same height so users can click *in the same spot* to advance the 200 images with less carpal tunnel (the advance arrow should *always* be in the same spot, for every web gallery, IMHO)
Web galleries are a fantastic tool for sharing information easily...I hope to see some evolution in those great automatic updates someday...

Is there a way to create my own web gallery template for bridge?

Is there a way to create my own web gallery template for bridge?
I want to add custom data that is not in any of the templates.
Pretty much, I'd like to create one from scratch...

This was discontinuted in CS5 howerver you could migrate that plugin to CS5. I don`t know if you can do this with CS6.
To my knowledge they only provided a revised Contact sheet II script for CS6. In my opinion a very bad idea because they should have put all efforts and resources to enhance the Output Module PDF contact sheet that has far more options.
Still not using web galleries but the goal for web gallery was also to use this in the Adobe Output Module, maybe that provides you the options you want?

A workaround for Aperture users to use .Mac Web Gallery

As a user who recently switched to Aperture - I was hugely disappointed seeing some amazing new photo-related features in iLife '08 not available for Aperture users. Let alone the cash for purchasing software suites, I can't convince myself switching back to iPhoto for a single feature. So I googled and searched around...
Some pre-requisite for the workaround: You must have iLife '08, Aperture and .Mac installed.
_*Solution 1*_
Create an album in Aperture that contains the images you want to upload to your .Mac Web Gallery. In iPhoto '08, create an empty library, then File > Show Aperture Library, choose the album and import images from there.
The downside of this is the images are your Versions in preview quality.
_*Solution 2*_
Export Versions from Aperture and import the images to iPhoto and perform the upload.
_*Solution 3*_
For users building websites in iWeb, I have seen threads that one could use the media browser in iLife suite to perform similar result but it also limits to the preview quality of Aperture.
I would have to say even the workaround is hugely disappointed but I can't see any other solutions at the moment. I couldn't recall my last ocassion on having such disappointment for Apple's software development.

Apple really needs to rev. Aperture so it sends photos directly to the new .Mac Web Galleries.
Everyone needs to go here:
http://www.apple.com/feedback/aperture.html
And voice there opinion there to get this added to Aperture.
Thanks, Scott K.

Photos in Web gallery too dark

Hello,
I just updated to the new iLife.
I tried the new Web Gallery function and the photos are too dark compared to the view in iPhoto.
Same happens with galleries in iWeb.
What's wrong?
JO

There is a color problem when publishing pictures from iPhoto 06 and 08 (as well as when e-mailing a picture).
The problem being that the images are published with their original color profile, whatever that is. Further, if profile is missing in the image in iPhoto, the profile will be missing in the output. (BUT iPhoto displays correctly in case there is an EXIF tag specifying sRGB).
The result is that colors will not be displayed correctly on the WEB (or in e-mail clients), more or less depending on OS platform. This applies both to images and their thumbnails.
Compare the iPhoto album http://www.tomasjonsson.eu/IPhotoTests/
with an album with correct colors http://www.tomasjonsson.eu/PictureSite/Albums/Pages/PreAndPostProcessed.html
In Safari, only IMG_9465 and IMG_5182 will show a difference - since those are the only images without a color profile. However, in other MS-Windows browsers, most images will be displayed incorrectly.
Note! Most digital cameras produce images without at color profile but with an EXIF tag. In iPhoto:Preferences:Advanced choose Embed ColorSync profile, which will add a profile corresponding the EXIF tag. However, the images that you have already imported will not be fixed.
Note to Apple: Show EXIF colors space and embedded color profile in Info pane. Add command - ASSIGN profile. And in export dialog - add option Color Space.
HOW IT SHOULD BE
Images on the web (and in general also e-mails) should be published in sRGB color space (otherwise they will not be displayed correctly in browsers on the MS-Windows platforms, with the exception of Safari, viewing images with a color profile)
Images should have a color profile, in particular the sRGB images (otherwise they will not be displayed correctly on the MacOS platforms. Maybe close to correct if you have calibrated your monitor to PC-gamma)
Actually all images should have a color profile, period. If the image does not have a color profile, it is just a pile of randomly colored pixels - to be interpreted freely by any displaying device, which they do.
For a demonstration of profiles and WEB see: http://www.gballard.net/psd/golive_pageprofile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html
However, DO NOT follow this guys advice of omitting the color profile for WEB publishing because of overhead. The overhead is less than 1% of a high quality image. (I measured 0.5 - 2.5 kByte)
WORKAROUND
After exporting from iPhoto - use Photoshop and CONVERT TO PROFILE all images to sRGB color space. Save file with color profile.
Note, make sure that images without original profile are treated correctly (most often they are sRGB, check the EXIF tag with Preview application)
Note, apply also conversion to thumbnails.
Tomas Jonsson, Genicore Embedded Technology AB

No .Mac Web Gallery visible in iWeb

I published a gallery with 3 albums in it and can see them in Safari. However, when I try to use Insert/.Mac Web Gallery, there is noting available to insert. How do I make the Gallery visible to iWeb. Also the .jpg files are low quality. Is there some way of publishing higher quality .jpg to the iGallery?
I'm now trying to use the Gallery since I have not been successful with publishing my web site onto .Mac with ~200 photos. There are also .avi files. Not sure if this is causing the trouble with publishing.

UPDATE:
It does appear as though it's an issue of security. If the Web Gallery is password protected, it won't show up in iWeb. I removed the password protection in iPhoto, and it showed up and I'm able to add it to iWeb. Now, it's not behaving quite like I thought it would, but that's another issue.

A few Web Gallery Questions

1) I have an Event with 49 photos I'm trying to upload to the Web Gallery. It seems it will upload only one & then stop. I see nothing that says pending or indicates it's still uploading. I've tried a few times with the same results
2) The one picture it does upload, uploads at the same high res quality in the event. Is there a simple way to upload resized pictures like 800x600. Especially if I'm not concerned with viewers downloading for reprint

Do you mind posting up what your solution was? I'm curious.

Web gallery file size...do I have this straight?

I've read through the posts so far. I'm new to LR (waiting for my package to arrive, so still using the trial).
I set up a collection of 57 photos. Most were raw, the largest being 167,866 KB. (kinda large) I tried to upload from LR (thinking maybe it doesn't work in the trial version as I kept getting errors of one kind or another?) and found the total of the files was over 176,000,000 KB. Hmmm. So, I went back into PhotoShop CS3 (after another program that usually will batch convert files didn't work) and saved each with 800 ppi maximum on a side, and saved them all for the web. (That took a little time, but not too bad.) Then I had to import the new .jpg folder, and re-edit each photo to maximize their exposure and such.
Must I do that every time I want to post a web gallery? In other words, I'll have to keep the original (larger) files, and make a smaller set for web plublishing, and convert everything to a .jpg file as well? (I suppose there's no sense in filling my server with photos that are much larger than necessary, but it seems like a lot of extra work.)
Also notice, if I have to start again (it is taking a long time, but then it's my first attempt), the collection I've saved has all the Identity plates and information I've typed in going back to Lightroom defaults, and the order of the photos goes back to random (after I've meticulously tried to put them in order). Hoping this is just because I'm using the trial again, but no way to know until the box comes in a few days (I hope).
The feature that caused me to make this purchase is the ability to do these galleries. I've been looking at templates, modifying them, and working on doing this, for quite some time now. When I saw it's just part of LR...WOW! I did get excited! What a useful and wanted feature!!!
It's more than one question, I know, but I've so many more! Will the learning every become adequate to do what I dream? (This last question is rhetorical, by the way.)
OMGoodness! I thought I saved the gallery in the Collections...clicked on it, and no pics, nothing I did (for the second time) seems to be anywhere. I have a LONG way to go in learning to use this tool correctly! Arghhhh! ... Last revision...went back into the folder, and everything is there. Wow! Guess I don't need it in a Collection. Awesome!

These files were scanned. I'm sorry, I forgot that. They're old pics. Some were in .jpg format, but most were in .psd format. I converted them to smaller files in the Save for Web Device in Photoshop. My next gallery will be shots from my Nikon D200, and I checked...the files are about the same size as yours. These scanned files were considerably bigger as the film was pretty old. Did quite a few of them previously to last night, and used a dpi (or is it ppi) of higher than 300 I did the last ones in. File size varied from 1,201 KB to 16.765 KB. (That bigger one was a 5X8 school shot.)
Will it normally send the files to the web full size and then just use the dimensions specified in the program? I have to check how much space I have on the server, but I do have another gallery I want to make, and I found a great plugin (here on the forum) to add mp3 music to the gallery. (I know, more space, but love it!) I figured 800 pixels on the longest side would be plenty adequate for viewing, and the gallery parameters are smaller, so that's fine.
One thing I don't understand, it asked me to place the files in "photos," but I don't think it uploaded a folder of "photos" to the web. However, it's obvious the files went. I was afraid if I used the export, I was going to have to upload the folder with my photo files to the server, but I think it handled that. I hope I get a user manual with my boxed product. It can't come soon enough! LOL
By the way, I successfully posted the gallery tonight. It's really great, and my son loved it. I am SO thrilled with this program!!!

Bad quality in Web Gallery

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for