Forwarded images are much smaller than the original

Something new has happened. After 10 years of Mail I am just experiencing this phenomenon. When I forward an email with pictures or illustrations attached, the forwarded images are about 75% the size of the original. In many instances that takes the readability away. Does anyone have an idea how I can fix this or what causes it? Thanks.

What size is set in the New Message widow in Mail?
Uploaded with plasq's Skitch!
Regards
TD

Similar Messages

  • Copied folder smaller than the original one

    Hi, when I copy my folder of Logic song material (size approx. 4,55 GB, located on the desk) to an external Harddisk (WD ´my book´, I guess Fat32, brandnew and not formatted under OS X) or via my inhouse network (on a windows PC with NTFS), the copied folder is smaller than the original one - approx. 4,2 or 4,3 GB then.
    Is that normal or are files lost during the copying? I need help with this urgently, because I have to do the backup.
    My system: PowerMac G5 Dual, 2,5 GHz, 3 GB RAM, Tiger (newest version), nothing special.
    Thank you für your help,
    PE

    Philip
    Is that normal or are files lost during the copying? I need help with this urgently, because I have to do the backup.Copying can certainly reduce the space taken, because fragmentation is reduced.
    If you want a one off count of your folder, you can do this:
    Open the Terminal (from /Applications/Utilities) and type
    cdNow type a space, and then drag the folder you are interested in to the Terminal window. It will fill in the path automatically, so you will see something like
    cd /Users/jdoe/Documentsfor example. Now type a return, and then copy and paste the following, as one line, into the Terminal window:
    <pre>echo "`find . -type f \! -name ".*" | wc -l` files and `find . -type d | wc -l` folders"</pre>Now press return, and wait!
    As an indication, for my Home folder it takes about 35 seconds on a 600MHz iBook (slow drives in these laptops) to tell me I have 16631 files and 3920 folders. The command does not count dotfiles, such as ".DS_Store", deliberately, so there may be small discrepancies.

  • Why is the version file smaller than the original file, although I didn't make changes in the file? And why is the keywords don't exporting with original files?

    Hi! Why is the version file smaller than the original file, although I didn't make changes in the file? And why is the keywords don't exporting with original files?

    Wild guess: you're using the the wrong export settings. You'll need to tell us more before we can help you - like the export settings you're usng, the size and format of the originals etc.

  • Why is my "Combined PDF" file size smaller than the original files?

    Hello!
    I am trying to combine two individual PDF files into a single PDF. Each file is 32mb, however when I use acrobat to combine them, the newly created "combined" file is only 19mb. I believe I've taken the necessary steps to ensure no degradation is happening (i.e. selecting Large File Size in the options panel), but I am still puzzled as to how two files can be put together as one and be smaller than the two separate files with out any compression. What am I missing?
    Thanks in advance!

    When you combine a file it does a "Save As" operation.  This re-writes all of the PDF object in the single file and is supposed to clean up the file, whereas the single files may have had multiple saves which when you look at the internals of the PDF file simply add on to the end of the file.  In other words you get a more cleanly written and optimized file that is also saved for Fast Web View.

  • Why is the sparse bundle so much smaller than the backed up computer...can I be confident all files are backed up?

    Hey gang,
    iphoto folder became big so I have moved it to an external drive. I made sure the external disk is not excluded from timemachine backup in tm preferences. Backup seemed to take forever (it actually said "preparing for backup" the whole time with a spinning progress bar) ie 24 hours and still the same pogress bar.
    i stopped the process as i had no confidence anything was actually happening
    When i open up time machine, an earlier version of my imac is there, but the external drive is kind of greyed and i cannot access it.
    When  I check the sparse bundle size, it is under 200 gb, when my imac is around 600 gb, 900 with the external drive.
    Why is the sparse bundle so small relative to the imac? are there hidden data files outside of the sparse bundle? when checking the preferences, it states total included is 921 gb...yet that is not reflected in the sparse bundle size.
    I want to be sure iphoto is actually backed up before deleting it from my imac.
    thanks anyone!

    marten berkman wrote:
    I am wondering whether the "processing" progress bar was due to the time capsule freeing up space for the additional data on the new external drive. When I cancelled it, available space on the tc incresed from 200 to 500 gb.
    Yes, quite possibly.  Especially on Leopard and Snow Leopard, that process on network backups is excruciatingly repetitive and slow.    It's improved greatly in Lion and later, but still isn't exactly quick.
    The backup complete, i checked the contents of the backed up version of the external drive, and the iphoto folder was the same size as original, so I have confidence that iphoto is backed up. Now I could delete the iphoto from the imac, freeing up tons of space.
    Yay! 
    Still curious why the imac sparsebundle is only 160gb, while my macbook pro sparsebundle is about 700 gb...as though they are inversely named from the computers they back up.
    Oh, I didn't realize you had two Macs backing-up to the TC.  Which one is the external HD connected to? 
    Unless you've specifically excluded things, after the initial backup, the sparse bundle should be nearly the size of the data it's backing-up (TM does exclude some things like system work files, most caches and logs, and trash, so the backups are a few GBs smaller).  As you do more backups, of course, it will grow.
    So please clarify how much data is on each drive, Mac, and sparse bundle.
    Also, the 2tb time capsule has 258 gb of 1.8 tb available....am I to suppose that there is hidden backup data not in the sparse bundles?
    Sparse bundles are odd critters.  They don't automatically shrink when things are deleted from them.  Instead, the vacated space is used for new files until it's full, then it begins to grow again.  Time Machine will "compact" them when necessary, to reclaim the empty space, but doesn't take the time to do it unless it's out of room.
    You can do that manually if you want, per the pink box in Time Machine - Frequently Asked Question #12. 
    Message was edited by: Pondini

  • For some reason all of my forwards, and my printing come out significantly smaller than the original. Any idea how to get this back to printing the size of my screen and forwarding the size of the original mail I've received? Thanks.

    Hi. I am not technically proficient. I have somehow hit something that is making my email forwards and text to the printer way smaller than what is appearing on my screen. I have looked into everything I can think of in settings and outlook express. If you have any ideas, I would greatly appreciate them. I assume that one click and I'll be back to "normal", but can't figure out which darned click that would be.  Thanks.

    Have you checked Outlook's font preferences?  You can change to size under General Preferences>Fonts.  You can also change font sizes by using ⌘shift+

  • Why is the saved JPG file much bigger than the original JPG file??

    I used Image Processor in Bridge CS5 to open a jpeg, apply sharpening action and save as  a jpeg.  The bit size, color space and pixel dimensions are identical. However, when I save at Quality 12 I get a Jpeg file that is nearly DOUBLE the size of the original jpeg  Only if I drop it to Quality 10 do I get a file that approximates, but doesn't equal, the original jpeg. 
    1) Isn't 12 the same as saying 100% and as such the file size should be the about the same?
    2) why would it increase so much?  Example about 6 mb to about 12mb???
    Does this sound right? I am sure I am doing the steps and setting the parameters correctly. The action simply applies unsharp mask:
    I can set the quality to 10 and get an approximate equivalent file size...but I want the higher quality of a 100%/12 setting.
    WHAT AM I MISSING???
    Thanks  - Kevin

    WHAT AM I MISSING???
    The simple fact that JPEG is always a fully re-compressing format. Your newly created files bear no relationship to the original ones - no binary data structures are retained; the compression algorithm is always applied fresh upon the fully decoded original image and if you use different settings, the result is different. Moreover, since the initial compression artifacts become "valid pixels" once decoded, the successive compression has no way of knowing that they actually are "bad pixels" and those fine disturbances agfain result in different compression patterns. That is, after alll, why consecutive saves to JPEG will always degrade quality even at the best settings...
    Mylenium

  • Why is the Log Area size much smaller than the log volume

    I have been following up on an Early Watch report that has been generated for our production SCM 5.0 system running liveCache 7.6.02 Build 14.  The alert says "The LOG volumes size in your system is too small. Recommendation: Configure LOG Volumes to at least 2 GB".  There are two interesting things about this.
    1) I have spent the last couple of days reading all the OSS Notes, and MaxDB documentation I could find, and this does not seem to be documented as a recommendation anywhere.  Does this seem like a realistic recommendation without taking into account the level of change actifity?
    2)  There is a single log volume allocated with size 2,097,160 KB.  In production LC10 and DBMGUI report this to be correct size under volume details, but only list the total log area size as 1,706,328 (81% of the volume size).  We have a non-production environment with exactly the same size log volume, but it reports that the log area size is 2,032,008 KB (97% of the volume).  What leads to these different amounts of wasted space, and is there any way of getting the database to start using it?
    Thanks,
    Mark

    Hi Natalia,
    I did read 869267, several times.  It does not answer my questions which is why I posted here.
    DBMGUI version = 7.6.00.25
    DBMCLI commands for PL1 (Production)
    > xinstinfo PL1
    IndepData           : /sapdb/data
    IndepPrograms       : /sapdb/programs
    InstallationPath    : /sapdb/PL1/db
    Kernelversion       : KERNEL    7.6.02   BUILD 014-123-152-175
    Rundirectory        : /sapdb/data/wrk/PL1
    > dbmcli -d PL1 -u control,control
    dbmcli on PL1>db_state
    OK
    State
    ONLINE
    dbmcli on PL1>info log
    OK
    END    
    Name                            | Value
    Log Mirrored                    = NO
    Log Writing                     = ON
    Log Automatic Overwrite         = OFF
    Max. Size (KB)                  = 1706328
    Backup Segment Size (KB)        = 699048
    Used Size (KB)                  = 104640
    Used Size (%)                   = 6
    Not Saved (KB)                  = 104640
    Not Saved (%)                   = 6
    Log Since Last Data Backup (KB) = 0
    Savepoints                      = 5210
    Checkpoints                     = 0
    Physical Reads                  = 2469115
    Physical Writes                 = 15655616
    Queue Size (KB)                 = 48000
    Queue Overflows                 = 646
    Group Commits                   = 98205
    Waits for Logwriter             = 10957511
    Max. Waits                      = 10
    Average Waits                   = 0
    OMS Log Used Pages              = 0
    OMS Min. Free Pages             = 0
    dbmcli on PL1>param_getvolsall
    OK
    LOG_MIRRORED                     NO
    MAXLOGVOLUMES                    2
    MAXDATAVOLUMES                   14
    LOG_VOLUME_NAME_001              262145     F  /sapdb/PL1/saplog/DISKL001
    DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0001            524289     F  /sapdb/PL1/sapdata/DISKD0001
    DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0002            524289     F  /sapdb/PL1/sapdata/DISKD0002
    DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0003            524289     F  /sapdb/PL1/sapdata/DISKD0003
    DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0004            524289     F  /sapdb/PL1/sapdata/DISKD0004
    DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0005            524289     F  /sapdb/PL1/sapdata/DISKD0005
    DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0006            524289     F  /sapdb/PL1/sapdata/DISKD0006
    DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0007            524289     F  /sapdb/PL1/sapdata/DISKD0007
    DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0008            524289     F  /sapdb/PL1/sapdata/DISKD0008
    DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0009            1048577    F  /sapdb/PL1/sapdata/DISKD0009
    DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0010            1048577    F  /sapdb/PL1/sapdata/DISKD0010
    DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0011            1048577    F  /sapdb/PL1/sapdata/DISKD0011
    DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0012            1048577    F  /sapdb/PL1/sapdata/DISKD0012
    dbmcli on PL1>param_directget MAXCPU
    OK
    MAXCPU  12
    dbmcli on PL1>param_directget MAX_LOG_QUEUE_COUNT
    OK
    MAX_LOG_QUEUE_COUNT     0
    dbmcli on PL1>param_directget LOG_IO_QUEUE
    OK
    LOG_IO_QUEUE    6000
    > xinstinfo SL1
    IndepData           : /sapdb/data
    IndepPrograms       : /sapdb/programs
    InstallationPath    : /sapdb/SL1/db
    Kernelversion       : KERNEL    7.6.02   BUILD 014-123-152-175
    Rundirectory        : /sapdb/data/wrk/SL1
    dbmcli on SL1>db_state
    OK
    State
    ONLINE
    dbmcli on SL1>info log
    OK
    END    
    Name                            | Value
    Log Mirrored                    = NO
    Log Writing                     = ON
    Log Automatic Overwrite         = OFF
    Max. Size (KB)                  = 2032008
    Backup Segment Size (KB)        = 699048
    Used Size (KB)                  = 3824
    Used Size (%)                   = 0
    Not Saved (KB)                  = 3824
    Not Saved (%)                   = 0
    Log Since Last Data Backup (KB) = 0
    Savepoints                      = 1256
    Checkpoints                     = 0
    Physical Reads                  = 2178269
    Physical Writes                 = 4969914
    Queue Size (KB)                 = 16000
    Queue Overflows                 = 21201
    Group Commits                   = 643
    Waits for Logwriter             = 751336
    Max. Waits                      = 4
    Average Waits                   = 0
    OMS Log Used Pages              = 0
    OMS Min. Free Pages             = 0
    dbmcli on SL1>param_getvolsall
    OK
    LOG_MIRRORED                     NO
    MAXLOGVOLUMES                    2
    MAXDATAVOLUMES                   10
    LOG_VOLUME_NAME_001              262145     F  /sapdb/SL1/saplog/DISKL001
    DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0001            262145     F  /sapdb/SL1/sapdata1/DISKD0001
    DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0002            262145     F  /sapdb/SL1/sapdata2/DISKD0002
    DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0003            1048577    F  /sapdb/SL1/sapdata3/DISKD0003
    DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0004            1048577    F  /sapdb/SL1/sapdata4/DISKD0004
    DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0005            783501     F  /sapdb/SL1/sapdata1/DISKD0005
    DATA_VOLUME_NAME_0006            783501     F  /sapdb/SL1/sapdata2/DISKD0006
    dbmcli on SL1>param_directget MAXCPU
    OK
    MAXCPU  4
    dbmcli on SL1>param_directget MAX_LOG_QUEUE_COUNT
    OK
    MAX_LOG_QUEUE_COUNT     0
    dbmcli on SL1>param_directget LOG_IO_QUEUE
    OK
    LOG_IO_QUEUE    2000
    Thanks for the explaination of the reserved space for the Log Queue pages.  This does explain why there is the difference between the two.  I think we probably have our log segment size too large.  As you can see we do get occasional log queue overflows.  Do you suggest we increase the size of our log IO queue higher, and allocate more log volume space to compensate?
    select * from SYSINFO.LOGSTATISTICS (on PL1)
    1706328;334176;19;334176;19;1879;20305192;64109066;7806480;182151514;12;48000
    DBMGUI Log Area Usage
    Total Size: 2048.01 MB
    Free Log Area: 1330.38 MB
    Used Log Area: 335.96 MB
    Unsaved Log Area: 335.96
    Log since Last Data Backup: 0.00 MB
    Thanks,
    Mark

  • The exported mbox is way smaller than the original?

    Hi,
    I have a local mail account where the mbox comes in at 1,5GB. When I use the export to mbox function the resulting mbox is only 850MB. I have used the "permanently purge deleted mails" option but that didn't change anything about thos 1,5GB. Should I be concerned that half my mails are missing from my new backup?
    Thanks a lot.

    You might have accidentally "zoomed" the site (zoom works both to make the font larger and smaller). Try resetting the zoom level first before moving into the font settings. You can do that by pressing '''Ctrl+0''' (''that's a zero'') when you're on the problem site.
    This article has more information: [https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/how-do-i-use-zoom How do I use Zoom? | How to | Firefox Help]
    Any luck?

  • AdobeAcrobatPro: Downloaded pdf's are much smaller than scanned ones. How to get scanned ones to be fewer px and not lose quality?

    I have several accounts which post .pdf's to be downloaded. These are good quality and are small (kb) files.
    I find when I scan paper documents, they have huge pixelation... and as I make them smaller, they lose readability.
    I've tried to scan at 72px-300px. I've tried to save as .jpg which was then added to a .docx. I've tried to simply save as .pdf all from photoshop.
    Is there a way to get the quality of a downloaded .pdf document and it's low pixelation when starting from a paper document which must be scanned?
    I have a Canon CanoScan Lide 100. and I'm using Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 as well as Adobe Acrobat Pro.

    Generally, if you want best quality you don't start with a scan. It's just a HUGE picture.
    But you can try the "text recognition" feature of Acrobat ("OCR"). Be sure to experiment with the settings, they have huge effects on the result.
    For OCR to work you need good quality scans of good quality originals using common fonts in an expected way (e.g. a page from a magazine).

  • NetStream.bytesTotal is much smaller than the video

    I have a video player running online, which sends error messages when the player loops on movie complete.
    I am listening to the NetStatusEvent NetStream.Play.Stop to know that the video has completed playing.
    I have a video which is more than 2,000,000 bytes, and the NetStream.bytesTotal in the error range between 2,000 and 5,000 bytes.
    It looks like the users with this error are using Flash Player 11.1 and Windows 7.

    Well, it does not fit the port.  When I had the TV installed, the guy told me I would need HDMI later, and he installed it connected and it has been hanging there unused. 
    The cord says HDMI on it and it looks like this:
    http://www.howtogeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/image260.png
    Can I use a converter like this?
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000FUVNX8/ref=ox_sc_act_title_3?ie=UTF8&m=A2XN AOBSW0CZDL
    Do I also need a digital audio cord?  (I do not know how I can plug it in because my TV is mounted to the wall and I don't even know if there is an output for it.)
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003C2YE7I/ref=ox_sc_act_title_2?ie=UTF8&m=A20H 555M9MROEP
    Thanks for your help!

  • Adding datafile that is smaller than the original

    Hi,
    I was thinking of adding a new datafile to my existing two. The existing datafiles are set at maximum size 20Gb each. At the present moment the datafiles are already at 90% usage.
    Could I know if I could add another datafile with maxextent of 5Gb instead of 20Gb? Would there be any problems?
    Thanks!
    Flintz

    There's no reason you have to have your datafiles the same size, although most dbas probably do just for consistancy.

  • .movs are much brighter than Self contained export after Compression

    Hey there, I have a very interesting problem....
    My .movs after using compressor are much brighter than the original self contained file from FCP.
    My workflow is as follows
    1. I make one export from final cut 6 as a self contained pro res movie file
    2. I open the self contained file in compressor and add a h264 setting for both a .mov and a wmv
    After the encoding process is done my wmv is very close to the original sequence in FCP, however my .mov is much brighter
    I have tried adjusting the brightness and contrast within Compressor settings, but I find I' m losing color. The original footage is HDV and we are capturing it as Pro Res.
    Does this sound familiar to anyone? Or any suggestions?

    After a day of tedious test work I have discovered a few things....
    There is a display setting within QT preferences that says 'Enable FCP' this corrects the situation as WMV and .MOVS use different color settings and therefore a discrepancy in gamma. However this is only a solution within that computer, as it is merely a display option.
    There is a gamma filter within compressor that gives us the best results for a blanket compressor setting that allows us change all .movs that go to our clients.
    This does not give identical results between WMV and MOV but a very close comparison.
    Will they ever be identical? or is it a fundamental difference between codecs and platforms?

  • Existing emails I receive with images, when forwarding the images appear much smaller?

    I rec multiple emails w/ attached images.  When I try and forward that email to include those same size attachments, they send but are much smaller than original.  I need the attachments to stay the same size?

    MacBook Pros don't have a "Classic" operating system.  It would help to know your Mac OS X version, as then we can ask a moderator move your thread to a place where more people can help.  Go to Apple menu -> About This Mac to find your Mac OS X version.

  • The images become dimmer than the original ones

    I am using "Camera Raw 4.5" and my camera is D60.
    When I just open the raw file in photoshop, the image shown in the preview window is much dimmer than the original. After saved as jpg, the image is also dimmer than the original (just the preview one).
    However, when I directly convert the raw format to jpg format, the image is sharpe. This is what I said the original one.
    Thanks.

    You may find that the quick preview (the one you see when you first look at the photos in Bridge, and the one you see in Windows Explorer) is how you expect. This is because raw files contain small jpeg images created by the camera, which are used for previewing the raw image capture.
    Your problem is a common one, and it isn't really a problem as such. What you are seeing is the raw conversion achieved using the software's default settings. You need to change the default settings.
    If you install the DNG Profiles, located here:
    http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/DNG_Profiles
    you can change the camera calibration profile to something better like Adobe Standard. You can then save the setting as Camera Raw Defaults. From then on, all previews and default conversions will be made using these settings.
    If you've set non-standard Picture Controls in your camera, you can pick one of the 'Camera X' profiles instead, to approximate the look. But, arguably, Picture Controls are designed for JPEG shooters, and the desired effect is better obtained through use of Camera Raw's sliders.

Maybe you are looking for