Gallery Image Quality

Hi, I must be doing something wrong as the images in the gallery of my web site seem to be really low quality ( http://samcorban.co.uk/Site/Gallery/Pages/NewcastleAtNight.html#0 ).
They have all come from the Aperture project file in the media browser, so are not small converts to start with. I can't find any settings for image quality within iweb.
Can anyone help? (I'm new to Mac - so may be doing something obvious wrong here)
Cheers,
Sam

If you're using the Aperture previews they will not be as large as the original file that was imported. IT depends on what size was set for the previews when the photos are imported. That may be part of the problem. Export those files from Aperture as full sized image files and use those in the gallery. See if that will improve their quality.
OT

Similar Messages

  • 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.

  • Cms for flash gallery with image quality control

    Halo.
    I'm looking for a non-commercial solution / tutorial (AS3, MySQL, PHP, XML) that would point me in the right directon to control the quality of uploaded images.
    Do you know any?
    Regards.

    What is the definition of image quality in this context?

  • IPhoto vs Aperture uploaded image quality to Mobile Me

    I realize this may have been discussed, but by my tests the exact same album loaded up to Mobile Me gallery via iPhoto looks better than Aperture...how can this be? I searched for topics about image quality and Mobile Me and found many complaints but little in the way of solutions. While, for me, this seems to be a solution, it is sad that my "pro" app is doing a worse job than a "consumer" app, not to mention the additional importing needed to use iPhoto. And this is v7.1.5 of iPhoto. Anyone have any other solutions for image quality involving Aperture and Mobile Me galleries? Thanks.

    So the album finished uploading and the difference is amazing! I was very hesitant to send a link to my client after Aperture had uploaded the album...the images were that soft. But the iPhoto, while still a touch soft look 10X's better. Same album...just different programs used to upload to Mobile Me gallery. I'm not sure what is going on with Aperture, but Apple really needs to figure it out.

  • Poor image quality when publishing to .mac

    This is very frustrating.
    I buy a high resolution, high quality, royalty-free image. I resize it and crop it in my image editing program and save it as a maximum size .jpg.
    I preview the image in Apple preview, and also drag the image into my web browser and it looks crisp and sharp.
    I put the image on my iWeb page and publish to .mac. I check my site and the image looks horrible! It looks as though it got compressed again on the lowest setting.
    Something very weird is happening to some people. I've read other discussion on this but they are all unresolved.
    I'm a graphic designer and I've used dreamweaver and published to other servers. I know about image quality and optimization. I'm doing the same steps and procedures I've always done to optimize images and I've never had this problem except when I publish to .mac.
    There is a very weird and serious issue going on and I hope someone can resolve this or has an answer.
    Why would an image look crisp and sharp when I view it in my image editing program or in Apple preview, but when publish to .mac it gets re-compressed?
    This may sound silly but do you think Apple is doing this randomly and automatically to users to save server space on .mac? Maybe they think people wont notice or care?
    I am very upset and frustrated and I can't think of any other reason why this is happening.
    Any advice is helpful. Thanks!

    James,
    Thank you very much for your help.
    Here is what I did. I used Apple grab and took a screen shot of my iWeb page where the low res graphic was in position.
    I used this as a "template" for cropping my original image in my image editing program to the exact size I needed.
    I cropped my original image to the size of my "grab" template, deleted the template layer and saved the sharp image as a maximum file size .jpg and placed it into my iWeb page, with "use original size". It fit perfectly in my layout and looked sharp and crisp.
    Now, I published my site and checked the image.
    You were correct! The image came out crisp and sharp, no more quality loss.
    To test your theory, I went back to iWeb and placed an iWeb mask around the same image and re-published it.
    Sure enough! The same image that was once sharp had terrible image loss.
    So I guess you're right, adding any effects to an image creates the image loss.
    Well, this is a terrible shame because I really like some of the border effects. For example, in a photo gallery, you can use an effect such as a slight page curl with drop shadow that appears only for the thumbnail image but the when you click on the image full size, there is no page curl, just the pure image.
    If I create this slight page curl effect and drop shadow in my image editing program, then both my thumbnail and full size image will have this effect.
    Not only that, but in order to get the thumbnail image to lay over my background color, I would have to re-create the page curl effect and place it on a border of the same background color as my page layout. When someone clicks on my thumbnail they will now get the full size image with the page curl effect and a slight border of the page color.
    Also creating this effect in my image editing program will make it more time consuming when I want to change layout styles, because when I create the page curl / drop shadow in my image editing program, I have to change the background color around each image to match the new background color I'm using for my page. Doing this for 20 images every time I want to change my design is allot of work.
    If this is what I have to do, then I have no choice. But at least I would like my thumbnail to have the effect but NOT my full size image.
    How do I do this so only my iWeb thumbnail image has this effect without iWeb forcing it to a PNG and loosing quality?
    Thanks I appreciate you help!

  • Mobileme Gallery download quality

    I am making a slideshow from photos my son took on vacation. He has published them on his Mobileme Gallery.
    When I download the photos, they are compressed & I get the photos in a zipped folder which I import to iPhoto.
    Has the picture quality reduced so the resulting slideshow will not be as good as if he sends me the photos some other way such as in iDisk?

    Has the picture quality reduced so the resulting slideshow will not be as good as if he sends me the photos some other way such as in iDisk?
    Not entirely. There are two settings that can be used when creating a gallery:
    Click to view full sizev
    The Actual size will essentially be the same as if he sent them some other way. It might have some jpeg compression applied but should not affect image quality.
    OT

  • Gallery image

    hi guys,
    i'm trying for long time a gallery image to be my own galley
    , in order to make a good personal portfoflio,,if someone can
    advise me a good free website for tutorials?
    thanks
    audrey

    If you're using the Aperture previews they will not be as large as the original file that was imported. IT depends on what size was set for the previews when the photos are imported. That may be part of the problem. Export those files from Aperture as full sized image files and use those in the gallery. See if that will improve their quality.
    OT

  • Homepage and iPhoto upload image quality

    When I use the 'homepage' option within iPhoto 5 to create an online gallery the images look brilliant using Safari on my iMac G5, however when viewed by PC users with IE6 the images seem to be quite dark.
    Can I do anything with either of these applications to correct this, or do I have to manually adjust the Gamma in ImageReady for each individual photo?..
    Any help greatly appreciated
    Thanks in advance ..

    Nick:
    What are the sizes of the images you're starting with? If you're not adverse to manually uploading the image files in a folder into the Pictures folder on your iDisk and building the web page thru Safari you can fine tune your images like i do. I use the Share->Export->Web Page (actually I've added the BetterHTMLExport plugin to iPhoto for much better control over image quality) and then upload the folder of images that are created on your desktop. I give the containing folder a significant name so it's easy to find with Safari in the Homepage section.
    With BetterHTMLExport there's an option to export the images only to a folder you create on the desktop. That speeds up the process a bit.
    Hope this has been of some help. Good luck.
    OT

  • Firefox mage quality and resolution was superb when I used XP and Vista. Now that I have Windows 7, however (with the Firefox 3.6.3 version), the image quality and resolution is poor. Please help me!

    I am using the Firefox 3.6.3 version with my new Windows 7 operating system. When I used all the previous Firefox versions in my XP and Vista operating systems, image quality and resolution was excellent! However, now that I have upgraded to Windows 7 and Firefox 3.6.3, the image quality and resolution is poor (unacceptable for downloading purposes).
    == This happened ==
    Every time Firefox opened
    == I first activated my new computer and installed the Firefox 3.6.3.

    All my images are pixelated in firefox 3.6.3
    http://www.dcgdcreative.com
    Not only on my site but on most sites I view.
    The issue is not solved by resetting the zoom text view (ctrl+0)
    The issue is not resolved by starting in safemode with add-ons disabled
    The problem seems to only affect .jpeg files and only on Windows 7 on my desktop; as I have viewed several sites using windows XP with my laptop, no issues.
    I had the same issue with IE8 and was able to fix the problem with by setting up the compatibility view for all sites. Issue fixed no problems at all. But nothing similar for firefox?
    Whats the deal?

  • I want to make a copy of slide show create from my own photographs and with a an audio track behind them. I have carefully followed the iDVD tutorials and burnt the result to a disc but image quality is very poor. What is wrong?

    I want to make a DVD of a slide-show with an audio track behind the photographs. I have carefully followed the iDVD video tutorials but the result is far from satisfactory. The quality of the images on the resulting DVD are blurred and indistict although the original photographs are of a very high quality. Where am I going wrong? Would I have better results from a different program than the inbuilt iDVD and if so so what programs have others found to be better? I should be grateful for some expert guidance.

    Hey Falcopebo,
    Thanks for using Apple Support Communities.
    Looks like you have image quality issues when using iDVD to burn.
    iDVD 7.0: Burned DVD has interlacing, pixelation, or image quality issues
    http://support.apple.com/kb/ht4078
    A standard DVD made by iDVD is made to the standard DVD resolution of 720 X 480, which is smaller than most HDTVs and monitors. When expanded to fit the entire screen or monitor, the image will distort slightly due to upscaling to fit the screen or monitor.
    Have a nice day,
    Mario

  • HT1338 What is the best online storage for photos. Specifically one that allows the original image quality to be downloaded should your hard storage goes belly up

    What is the best online storage for photos. Specifically one that allows the original image quality to be downloaded should your hard storage goes belly up

    I'd put them on an external hard drive(s) and burn them to a DVD as well (at least 2 - 3 copies on different drives/media); I prefer having control and a local solution instead of relying on a server and the possibility of someone (who shouldn't be)  downloading my work.

  • NOT happy with image quality of Lightroom 1.1

    Sure, LR now launches faster and the interface looks a bit nicer. And the more capable sharpening controls and the clarity slider which mimics contrast enhancement with USM are nice additions, but has anyone else notice what happened to the image quality?
    First, while formerly LR and ACR struck a great balance between detail and noise suppressionerring on the side of maintaining detail even at the expense of slightly higher noise levelsit appears the goal for the redesign has been to minimize the appearance of noise at all costs. It just so happens that yesterday afternoon, I'd shot some available light candids (up to ISO 800) of the staff at a local health care facility and was intent on using them as a trial run on Lightroom 1.1. Well, the difference in image quality jumped right out at me: there was no granular noise at all remaining, even in the ISO 800 shots, but neither was there any fine detail. I use a Canon 5D, and while I'm accustomed to slightly higher levels of chroma noise, images up to ISO 1600 in even the worse lighting are always full of fine detail. Fine structures like strands of hair and eye lashes have now lost their delicacy, and have instead become coarse, unnaturally painterly analogs. Looking into shadow areas, I can see the results of what seems to be luminance noise smearing at work, obliterating noise and detail along with it. I never used Raw Shooter because I'm a Mac user (2x2GHz G5 w/2GB RAM and 250GB HD), but if this is the result of incorporating Pixmantic's technology, the result is not a positive one from my standpoint. The images I shot yesterday are to be cropped to 4:5 proportions, then printed 20" x 25", at which size the processing artifacts and lack of fine detail in these LR1.1 conversions becomes even more apparent. I've even tried turning off all image processing options: Clarity, Sharpening and NR (neither of which I ever use in RAW conversion, anyway)... It simply seems this noise smearing is part of the baseline RAW processing, and it really, really bites. Am I missing something? Is there some way to actually turn off this processing that looks uncomfortably like the "watercolor" noise reduction that Kodak and Panasonic use for their compact digicams. Yuck!
    Secondly, is there a way to get back the suppression of hot and stuck pixels that LR used to perform? Now, my high ISO files are riddled with them, the same as they would be when converted with Aperture or Canon's DPP. Default suppression of hot and stuck pixels was a major advantage of LR/ACR, and contributed in no small bit to my adoption of LR as my standard tool for RAW conversion due to the amount of high ISO, low light photography I do. What's even worse, is that the random-color speckles are now smudged into the image along with all the other noise data that's being smoothed out, resulting in images that looks more like impressionist paintings than photographs.
    I thought about reinstalling LR1.0 and just continuing to use that, but if LR1.1 is an indication of the direction Adobe is going to take in the development of the software, I really don't see the point of continuing to use the softwareparticularly when I had a few existing problems with LR1.0 that were never resolved, such as crashing during the import of photos from a memory card and progressively slower preview rendering as the size of my library increased. So, I'm probably going to go back to using Aperture, which is itself not free of IQ foibles, but certainly looks much more attractive now in comparison to LR1.1.
    Anybody notice the same things with IQ? Anybody got any suggestions of how to get more natural-looking conversions before I remove LR and go back to Aperture?

    Jeff,
    I mean no disrespect. But I would like to see samples of 1.1 compared to 1.0 of the same image (ISO 400, and/or 800), because I do not want to convert my library to a catalog until I know whether or not I like the image quality. Why is it so hard to get one good sample. That is all I am asking. I would just rather not jump through hoops to go back to 1.0 if I do not like 1.1....That is all
    And yes, after well over 400 printed articles I can tell what an image will look like in print when I view it 1:1.... I can tell if the eyelashes or pores on someones face, the detail in a rug, or wood grain will be detailed on the off set printed page if I look at the image at 1:1 and see smudging...this means to me that the most detail possible is NOT going to translate to the page. If however I CAN see detail in those types of areas, clearly (ie no smudging), than I know that I will see those fine details on the page. If these fine details were not important than we would all still be shooting with 3 and 4 mp cameras. Those fine details that are only visible to our eyes at a 1:1 preview on screen, are important on the printed page.
    Oh, and I am not chest thumping. You can check my history here, I do not have a history of that type of activity. I am simply asking to see samples before I update....
    I am very discriminating Pro, not some over testing, too much time on my hands, complaining , over paid amateur who only has time to complain that their test chart is out of focus. Or that they can measure toooo much noise at ISO what ever, instead of actually making photos. I actually make my living taking photos. And my clients have come to expect a certain level of quality from me. They comment all the time how much higher quality my images are than some of the other photogs they use. And I am still shooting a D60, where as these others are shooting 5d's and D2X's.
    Jeff, I am not against you or Adobe. Matter of fact, I LOVE LR. It has changed my work flow in a very positive direction. I think it is wonderful. I just want one sample.... I am asking nicely: Please with sugar on top :)
    If you can't give me a sample, than please at least reassure me that it will be easy to go back to 1.0 for the time being. Is it as easy as uninstalling 1.1, reinstalling 1.0 and recovering my DB from a current backup? If so, than fine, I will go this route........... If not, than I am hoping for a sample.
    Thank you very kindly Jeff for engaging in this lively conversation. I do appreciate your comments and participation on this forum. And please note that none of this is said with attitude or malice. I know that some times a writers intent or emotional state is easy to misinterpret in a forum like this. So please know that I am calm and not angry, just curious about image quality.
    Ok. I will shut up now. Thanks again

  • Secondary Display image quality is poor (at 1:1) in Library module

    I'm not a frequent user of the Secondary Display feature, so I can't say state whether this particular issue is new in 2.3RC or if it also was seen in a previous version. I submitted a bug report since I searched but did not find any previous mention of this sort of thing. Anyone else notice this?
    Here's my problem: When I'm using LR's Develop module and activate the Secondary Display (SD) window, the SD images for all zoom ratios seem identical in quality (sharpness. color) to the images seen in the main screen--as expected. However when I switch over to Library module and use 1:1 zoom, the SD image becomes relatively degraded (i.e., quite blurry/pixelated) compared to the main window. When SD is set at the lower zoom ratios (still in Library module) its quality seems fine--i.e., more or less indistinguishable from the main screen. It's only when SD is used at 1:1 in the Library module that it appears "buggy".
    I'm using a Mac Power PC G4, OSX 10.4.11.
    Phil
    P.S. I should mention that the image quality at 1:1 zoom in Library Module's Secondary Display is not only worse than the main Library screen, it's also significantly worse (less sharp) than seen in the Develop module--and that's certainly not unexpected.

    >Gordon McKinney:What happens is the second display doesn't render a 1:1 for optimal sharpness.
    For me it isn't just sharpness. I can make a change that is fairly radical and have it show up immediately in the main monitor--both in the navigation panel and in the main display panel. The image on the 2nd monitor remains unchanged.
    If I then use the history panel to move back to the previous state and then re-select the final state the image on the secondary display
    usually, not always gets updated. Sometimes it takes a 2nd or a third cycle from previous to latest history state. This 'missed update' in the 2nd monitor doesn't happen 100% of the time, but it does happen quite often.
    LR 2.3RC, Vista Ultimate x64, 8GB DRAM, nVidia 9800 GTX+ with latest drivers.

  • Adobe Premiere Elements 11 - HOW DO I KEEP THE IMAGE QUALITY WHEN I RENDER?

    I'm using Adobe Premiere Elements 11, on a Windows 8 PC and when I "render" still pictures, some videos and simple effects -- they lose quality and get grainy --
    HOW DO I KEEP THE IMAGE QUALITY WHEN I RENDER?

    Molnar are you receiving that error during the download or install process?  Also which operating system are you using?

  • 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.

Maybe you are looking for