Image size reduction is doing new and unwelcome things to my PNGs

I've recently upgraded to Photoshop 6 from 5.5. My work involves taking large (1500-3000 pixels square) and reducing them to 256 or below. Upon upgrading to Photoshop 6 I started to notice that the images were looking a little harsher and less blended at the small sizes. I've attached a comparison of the image once it's been resized down to 192x in both programs. The original image can be found here: Image. As you can see, there is definitely a different style of blending going on that leads to a higher contrast at the borders between colors and lines.
These images are used in a game, and the new CS6 images look worse on the iphone than the old ones. Does anyone recognize what's going on here and how to either fix or mitigate the issue? Any help or insight is much appreciated.

Hi,
How are you reducing the image size, i.e. Image>Image Size?
If your using Image>Image Size, what method under Resample Image is choosen?

Similar Messages

  • Image size reduction without losing resolution

    I am creating marketing materials and product labels for my company using Elements 9. I am not a Photoshop expert but I have a reasonable knowledge of the program. I need to resize certain assets such as logos and paste them onto various documents. The problem I am having is that no matter what method I use to resize, they always lose resolution and appear pixelated and/or blurry in the final printed version.
    Normally I receive the assets in a hi-res image. It could be a jpeg or bitmap or any other number of format. I will open it in Elements, select it and remove the background via the Magic Wand>Layer Via Cut, and delete the background layer.
    From there, I have tried everything from the simple select, grab the corner and manually drag inwards method, to using Image>Resize>Image Size and filling in the fields. When I performed the latter, I typed in 300dpi, made sure Constrain Proportions was turned on, checked Resample, and selected Bicubic Sharper, and entered the size in inches. Then I copy/paste into the document, and it looks fine. I save, which normally opens up Reader and I print from there. The printed image looks great except for any logos I resized, which look awful. I also tried printing from within Elements, but it won't do it without giving me a message first saying that the document will print at less than 200dpi, which is obviously not desirable.
    One I paste the image onto the document, the Image Size>Resize becomes unusable because I can't seem to select just the logo - even with the bounding box clearly visable around the logo, resizing causes the entire document to be affected.
    I have tried many combinations of selecting/deselecting every option I can find, including Alias/Anti-Alias (which for some reason sometimes doesn't seem selectable at all). I've scoured forums and tutorials for help on this, and have tried every method I could find. In the end, nothing has worked. There has got to be a way to do this. Our 30 day trial is almost over and we went ahead and purchased the program without knowing whether we could resolve this issue - if we can't, it will be pretty much useless to us. Please help me so I can tell my boss he didn't just waste company money on this program!
    In short, my question is, what is the correct (or best) method for reducing image size? Please be detailed - and thank you! 

    Thanks for the reply Jon, but unfortunately I ended up with the same result as MTSTUNER said (using the Crop Tool).
    MTSTUNER, that definitely helped. The problem must have been in pasting, which as you said brings a "non-smart" image over. I was even able to resize a bit on the new document without losing any clarity whatsoever. Very helpful - THANK YOU!

  • Image Size reduction and gain resolution... Help?

    I have searched the forums and seen plenty of talk of Image Size and resolutions but havent stumbled upon what I need.
    Hopefully someone will be nice enough to help me or to link me to help?
    I have a large photo (3456x2304) but it is at 72ppi.
    I am trying to use it as a very small image (200px or so) but I need it at 300ppi.
    I keep going into Image Size and reducing its dimensions to the size I need and marking 300dpi.
    Problem is when it resizes it gets horribly pixelated!!!
    I cant figure out how to use the image size and/or crop tool in order to reduce the dimensions and not lose quality.
    Best work around I have found is to reduce it to about 750px 72ppi and then in illustrator contract the image to the actual print size while gaining resolution...
    Any help would be greatly appreciated.

    There is a relationship between image size and ppi (resolution)  that can not be changed.  Here is an example from the web titled "understanding resolution".
    Let's say you have an image that is 9 inches wide and 6 inches high with a resolution of 240 pixels/ per inch (8.9mb file).  If you change one of the values the other two will change (resample image turned off).  In this example if you changed the width to 6 inches the height would become 4 inches and the resolution would become 360 ppi.
    So if you are taking a large image and reducing the size the ppi has to go up.  There are the same number of pixels in the picture, they are compressed into a smaller space.  The article says this is because a digital image has no absolute size or resolution.  All it has is a certain number of pixels in each dimension.
    Hope this helps.

  • Optimize JPG image size reduction by reduced compression quality vs. reduced pixels?

    I have many images of slides scanned at high res (4800 DPI, maximum pixels 5214x3592).   Although I will be saving these as lossless TIFs, I also wish to make JPGs from them that I wish to be just less than 5 MB in file size.  Aside from cropping, I know I can achieve such a reduction of JPG file size by a combination of saving to lower quality JPG compression or reducing image size.  My question is, what is theoretically or practically better, achieving this mostly by reducing image total pixels or by reducing  JPG compression quality.  Thank you

    Thank you Doug.  The comments on extensive uniform blue sky vs. marked variation in color seem well taken, I'll keep this method of choosing in mind.  My goal is to create a JPG family photo archive of the highest quality images that I can make for future use by non-technical descendants (thus it will supplement the TIF archive that holds the best quality versions of the same images but that may not be usable to novices).  As I cannot anticipate exactly how the JPGs will be used, I just want them to be the best possible, while still being of a size that can be uploaded to, say, Costco (5 MB size limit) for making enlargements. 
    In general, I am often left curious as to how exactly Photoshop carries out its algorithms and how different factors influence the outcome.  So often, one read "just try different techniques and see what looks the best".  But I am always left wondering, what is the theory behind this and has it been systematically studied and worked out and published.  In so many disciplines, such as medicine, the methods of optimization has been evaluated, systematized, and fully described.  I have not yet explored what may be found in technical journals, but I'm sure much of this good stuff must be available somewhere. It would be nice to have a "How Things Work" that actually explains what Photoshop is doing under the hood.
    Thanks again.

  • Image size reduction

    HI
    my camera creates gi -huge files from it's 12mb sensor.
    In photoshop to reduce the size its flow is reduce the size and re sample and then sharpen.  I have 60 + images to do for a web site. I could create an  action but fireworks has it's batch option, Does this re interpolate and sharpen and is it as good or better than Photoshop?
    thanks
    Ian

    What are the pixel dimensions of these images? download a few to the desktop using image Capture (in your applications folder) and report the pixel dimensions of the originals
    Basically the answer is going to be that iPhoto makes no changes of any sort to the original - it makes a bit for bit copy - so we need more information to figure out what is going on - it is NOT iPhoto reducing the image size
    LN

  • Transparent edge bug in image size reduction using bicubic

    I'm using Photoshop CS6 (64-bit) and ACR 7.1, all patched to the latest version today (13 June), and running Windows 7 64-bit. When I reduce the image size of an originally smart object using bicubic, the edges will be somewhat transparent, creating an ugly border around the image.
    Step 1: Open a raw file. ACR 7.1 will pop up. The raw file is a CR2 file produced by Canon EOS 7D. Workflow option: sRGB, 16 bit, 3888x2592.
    Step 2: Press shift+click the Open button to open it as smart object.
    Step 3. Right click the layer and choose rasterize layer. When you zoom the image, there is nothing wrong in the edges.
    Step 4: Resize the image (CTRL+ALT+I) for example to 300x200 using Bicubic resampling (bicubic auto, whatever).
    The edges (outermost 1 pixel) will be transparent! See attached image.
    This doesn't happen:
    * in photoshop cs5
    * if I use bilinear or other resampling
    * if I import the file from ACR to PS as a normal bitmap (not using shift+click)
    Anyone know what's going on here? My workflow involves opening files from Camera Raw as smart object, so if there is any workaround until the next patch I will be very glad.

    >> Are you sure?
    Yeah. I'm sorry, but why do you think I would write it if I didn't try it? I tried bilinear and nearest neighbor and they all work fine.
    And well considering the algorithms average neighboring pixels, with a naive implementation a transparent edge is expected i guess, but I expect photoshop cs6 to be just a little bit smarter than that.

  • Photo image : size reduction software

    HI !
    I want to reduce sizes of photo images i.e. jpeg, gif files of few GB's into less than 100KB. Need free / paid software compatible to MAC OS X 10.6.8.

    Do you really mean image files of a few Gigabites? I doubt there are many apps that can handle that size of an image file and the machine would have to have many GBs of memory to even consider using it? Was that a type and you mean a few MBs?
    Going from 2 GB down to 100 KB or less is nearly impossible and still get a decent image.  This is an 4.3 MB file compressed to 100 KB with no reduction in the image (pixels) size.
    This is the original file:
    Click on them to see what they look like full sized.  The edited version is showing pixelation in the sky and other areas.
    This was done with iResize at 15% quality (jpeg compression) level. It was the only file resize I had that would get it down below 300 KB.  Even Photoshop CS3 couldn't get it down below 230 KB.

  • Image size too big after drag and drop from iphoto

    I capture around 30 images/day with a point and shoot digital camera (5 MB/image). These images are used as content for about 10 documents/day that I create in Pages. After importing them into the computer I convert to grayscale and resize (via batch processing) in photoshop, so that each image is about 2x2.67 inches, 300ppi, and drop into iphoto. This is the size/resolution that i want them to be when i import them into the pages documents I am creating. When i drag them into pages though they resize to 72 ppi, as if the default is that the document will be seen on the screen and not printed. I then have to resize them again from within pages, which is a pain. Does anybody know what I am doing wrong?
    Thank you.

    You'll get best help on a question like that on Adobe's InDesign forum.

  • How to find out image size (in pixels) of jpg and gif files

    this seems to work, though i doubt that it would very time:
                   Image img = Toolkit.getDefaultToolkit().getImage("car.jpg");
                   int w = img.getWidth(null);
                   int h = img.getHeight(null);
                   while(w <= 0 || h <= 0)
                      try{Thread.sleep(10);}catch(InterruptedException ix){}
                      w = img.getWidth(null);
                      h = img.getHeight(null);
                   JOptionPane.showMessageDialog
                      null,
                      filenames[i] + ": " + w + "x" + h,
                      "ImgSize",
                      JOptionPane.INFORMATION_MESSAGE
                   );please suggest a better solution.
    thanks

    >
    We've a requirement that we need to find out the size of a java object at run time, is there a direct java API to get the size of a composite object in memory?
    Here is my requirement: We are adding string objects (which is an xml string of considerable size) into a List. After reaching certain size limit (lets say 5MB) of the list i need to put this data into DB as a CLOB. So every time I add a string object to the list, I need to see if the total size of the list exceeds the limit and if yes, flush the results into DB.
    I am not sure if java has a direct API for this, if not what is the beast way to do it, it s critical requirement for us.
    It would be really great if someone could help us out.
    >
    Could you explain your actual requirement a little more fully.
    1. Is each individual string a separate XML string? Or is it just a fragment? Why would you just concatenate them together into a CLOB? That won't produce valid XML and it won't let you easily separate the pieces again later. So provide a simple example showing some strings and how you need to manipulate them.
    2. Are you using these xml strings in Java at all? Or are you just loading them into the database?
    For example if you are just loading them into the database you don't need to create a list. Just create a CLOB in Java and append each string to the CLOB. Before you append each one you can check to see if the new string will put you over your length limit. If it will then you write the CLOB to the database, empty the CLOB and start appending again to the new clob instance.
    If you explain what you are really trying to do we might be able to suggest some better ways to do it.

  • Image size is dismatch in jsp and jpg which java made

    this is my java code to create image:
    image = new BufferedImage(500, 300, 1);
    then generate jpg file
    my jsp content:
    <img border=0 height=300 src="../../images/W30_2_0010.jpg" width=500>
    but the image show on browser is smaller than the size I set in jsp
    Why?

    Sorry...I made a mistake
    It is no problem between them.

  • Reducing JPEG image size - jaggies in InDesign CC and Photoshop CC

    I have a high-res jpeg, 600ppi, 11 inches by 6.603 inches. The image is 4.21 MB, so there's plenty of data.
    I need to make it smaller to go into an InDesign document for print. I've been noticing this issue for awhile with CC. Recently I downsized a JPEG of line art in Photoshop for a poster, and it looked just awful.
    When I reduce the size to 300ppi, and 4" wide, bicubic sharper, I'm noticing that diagonals especially look really jaggy. The smaller I go, the worse the jaggies are. This is counterintuitive, because I'm reducing the size of the image.
    I have the Display Performance set to high-quality, with Allow Object-Level Display settings checked.
    When I place the CMYK reduced-size JPEG onto the page, the diagonals look jaggy. I thought it was a monitor issue, and that is contributing to it, but when I print out the page on my printer, the diagonals are still kind of jaggy. I tried placing a TIFF, and oh, my, that was twice as bad. I tried placing a PDF. Ugh.
    I've tried reducing the image to the exact size in Photoshop so I don't have to scale it in ID, then placing the image, and still jaggies.
    I've tried taking that image and dragging it from Bridge into the ID File. Still jaggies.
    I did print the image out directly from Photoshop at the smaller size, and it looks perfect.
    What could be happening? Is there a way to fix it? I'm working on a bunch of print work with some really nice photos in them (for a couple of real estate clients), and I'm afraid when the collateral gets printed, it's going to look like crap.

    Recently I downsized a JPEG of line art in Photoshop for a poster, and it looked just awful.
    When I reduce the size to 300ppi, and 4" wide,
    If it's really line art (no gray values) then 300ppi isn't enough. Line art needs to be closer to the output resolution (800-1200 ppi), and shouldn't be saved as JPEG.

  • Wrong image size with a Nikon D70 and another issue

    Hi everyone!
    I'm a photography student and I switched a few weeks ago. I've been using Adobe Lightroom under Windows for months, now I'm trying Aperture.
    I own a Nikon D70, which is a 6 Mpix camera. The resolution of the pictures should be 3008x2000 pixels. With Aperture they are 3024x1998... It's *neither the good ratio neither the native resolution* of the camera.
    What should I do?
    Also, although I set up my camera in MTP mode, it *won't work in tethering mode*. It came back from the Nikon service center with a Nikon D70s firmware, but it should work as well, right?
    Thank you for your help!

    Strange! I had tried with the camera in PTP mode a few days ago, it wasn't working. Trying again now and it works! I must have done something wrong. Thank you anyway!
    Then I tried again the Search tool, I didn't noticed the date range restriction on the first time, now I can see a few threads about that "problem". Although I'm really not satisfied with this "issue", it seems to be this way by design and not a bug.
    Thank you everyone for your help!
    (may I delete this thread since it has no interest for other people?)

  • 2 new and strange things when sending attachments

    Hello,
    I can't isolate what caused any change but suddenly on my computer at my office, when I try to add an attachment, with no body copy, it will not show. I am forced to type at least 1 letter in the body for the attachment to appear when I upload it, then I remove the typed letter.
    Coincidentally, if I add an attachment to an existing body of copy, the attachment only shows up at the end of the letter. Previously, I could insert an attachment where ever I placed the cursor. No more.
    More oddly, this does not happen at all on my home computer which has the same OS System and mail.
    Have I accidentally hit a preference and changed my email? Please let me know if this sounds familiar. Or please inform me how to rebuild my mail settings.
    Thank you.
    Al

    I just printed your front panel on a HP Color Laserjet 4500 and got an accurate printout. My Deskjet 932 ink jet do okay except for the colors. So much is dependent on the printer and it's driver. If it's a low res ink jet and you've got a high res screen, then compromises have to made in translating that high resolution image to a low resolution output. There are printer options (standard, postscript, bitmap) that you can experiment with and I'm sure your printer has settings that can be adjusted as well. You could also look for an updated printer dirver or try a different printer.

  • Image size and resolution....just when I thought I understood!

    I couldn't find this question anywhere else, but I can't be the only one who's come across this:
    I have an image in a folder...finder/explorer tells me that it's 638px X 479px, and 234KB.
    I open it in Photoshop and go to Image Size. PS says it is indeed 638x479pixels, but that it's 5.4" x 4.06" at 300pp and the "pixel dimensions" add up to 895KB?
    (Then, when I place it in InDesign, at 100%, it measures around 2.1" x 1.6"? What's going on? If I input those dimensions into the Image Size dialogue box in PS, without resampling, it would have to be 750.25ppi. Obviously it's not.)
    How big is this file really? Which program do I trust...windows explorer or photoshop?

    The ppi resolution is simply a number stored with the file to indicate how large to display the image. The height and width in pixels are part of the image data itself. So the pixel dimensions are always the number to trust.
    You can open an image in Photoshop and in Image Size change the resolution (ppi) and if you don't check Resample Image the actual image data don't change at all, only the number stating the pixels per inch.
    The reason the Pixel Dimensions size in KB is different in Photoshop vs. Explorer is that the file is likely a Jpeg, which is compressed. When Photoshop calculates pixel dimensions, it does this based on an uncompressed file (each pixel=3 bytes for an 8-bit RGB image.) When Jpeg compression is used, a pixel can be much less than 3 bytes, and the actual number varies depending on the image quality and how detailed the image is.
    To see this, save your image as an uncompressed Tiff format and the size will very closely match the pixel dimensions. But if saved as a Jpeg, it will be smaller but still the same height and width and the same ppi.
    If you are using CS3, it automatically uses a form of lossless compression if saving in PSD format with "Maximize Compatibility" disabled. So in this case the file size will also be smaller than the pixel dimensions number, but if saved in Tiff, it will match that number instead.

  • Relation between image size, resolution and pixels

    I would like to increase the size of image by using PSE9.
    For sample existing image had: width (W) 6.073", height (H) 7.683", resolution 300, pixels W 1822, H 2305.
    A situation) when I changed the image to W 8, H10 and click on RESAMPLE the resolution on changed but number of pixels increase to W 2400  and
       H 3036
    B situation) Image size W 8, H 10 and NO ACTIVATED RESAMPLE. Now resolution reduced to 227 and number of pixel NO CHANGED from original
       W 1822, H 2305
    In my understanding if image blow up the number of pixels will be same as original and only the distance between pixels will be increase. So, resolution should
    be dropped.
    Now the question: How in sample A increase number of pixels? From where they come?
    More realistic looks sample B.
    Now other way: I used crop - make original image smaller. So, the number of pixels should degrees and resolution NO CHANGED. But PSE 9 shown number of pixels same and resolution increased.
    Is it right?
    What is wrong or right in above explanation?
    Can visible find the difference between samples A & B on computers monitor? I tried blow up sample B by 10 times and still no differences on screen,It is because resolution of monitor to low?

    A. Resample means elements adds pixels to the existng pixels to increase image size
        and\or resolution and subtracts pixels to downsize. Usually resampling to make an image
        smaller is okay, but resampling to make an image bigger can result in loss of quality.
        Of course that doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, just something to keep in mind.
    B. Leaving the resample box unchecked, elements only changes resolution (print size)
        and doesn't change the actual number of pixels (harm the image) so the image will
        be and look the same on your monitor.
    Usually a resampled image will be of lower quality than a non resampled image because
    elements has to make pixels to upsize and subtract pixels to downsize.
    Elements uses the resampling method choosen in the image size dialog to determine how,
    with one of the bicubic choices being the best for photos.
    Elements, as far as i know, uses the standard bicubic mehod for the resampling with the crop tool.
    A more detailed explanation:
    http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/331/331327.html
    MTSTUNER

Maybe you are looking for