Image Size Slider? better in iP5?

In iPhoto 5 the image size slider on the lower right of iPhoto worked really well. I could scroll from a lot of previews up to 9 in 3 columns, 4 pics in 2 colums, 2 pics in one column, and 1 fullsize pic.
The iPhoto 6 slider seems not to be that good. on my version it jumps from about 12 preview pics to 1. With nothing inbetween. Is there anyway I can change that back? Is this behaviour normal?
thanks,
stefan.

Squigles:
When you use the scroll wheel on the mighty mouse, to move up and down through your photo collection, it's not fluid it's gone all jumpy and buggy.
Go into iPhoto's preferences and turn off animated scrolling in the Appearance pane. That may be what you're seeing.
EDIT:Nope, that only affects the scrolling when you click on the scroll column at the right. I'm using a Pilotmouse Optical with a scroll wheel so may be getting different responses to the scroll wheel than you are. My scrolls are smooth.

Similar Messages

  • Since downloading the 2013 Keynote upgrade, the slide image size on handouts with 3 slides per page option is very small. Is there a way to make the slide size larger while still keeping 3 slides per page   lines?

    With the new Keynote upgrade (version 6.1), the slide image size on handouts is very small, which makes it difficult to read slide content when compiling lecture notes for students. Is there a way to make the slide size larger while still keeping to a format of 3 slides per page with lines?

    A number of posts have reported the same issue, two workarounds:
    1
    check the paper handling options or equivalent in your print dialogue box and set to scale to fit
    2 
    in the Keynote option, in the dropdown menu in the Print section, select Individual Slides
    then choose Layout, and set the number of pages, when printed you will have multiple pages on a single sheet.

  • My screen opened, and with every click the page (letters/images) got bigger. I can not get it to return to normal image size. I have to use the slide bar to read across the page. What do i do to correct it back to normal size???

    Question
    My screen opened, and with every click the page (letters/images) got bigger. I can not get it to return to normal image size. I have to use the slide bar to read across the page. What do i do to correct it back to normal size???

    Hi jholzworth,
    It sounds like you might have accidentally hit the zoom button. Try hitting ''CTRL + 0'' to return it to normal size. Just so you are aware, ''CTRL'' and ''+'' will zoom in and ''CTRL'' and ''-'' will zoom out.
    Hopefully this helps!

  • Email-to facilitate emailing a photo by gmail or AOL, I reduce the file size.  Is it better to reduce the image size or increase the jpg compression?

    To facilitate emailing a photo by gmail or AOL and avoid overwhelming the recipient's screen, I reduce the file size.  Is it better to reduce the image size or increase the jpg compression?  I have been making a duplicate image of 35 MB and reducing the image size to 8"x12" at 72 resolution giving a file size of 1.4 MB.  Then I SAVE AS a jpg of medium compression giving a  file size of about 111 KB.  Overkill?

    Go to File>save for web.
    I usually make the long side 800 px
    At the bottom of the dialog, check "constrain proportions."
    At the top, select JPEG in the dropdown for the file format.
    All the work is done for you! 72px/in is ok for web work. 240-300px/in is the recommended range for printing.

  • 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.

  • I'm trying to get the image to print correct size.  i've tried center image, fit to media image,  and they all come out the same size...smaller than the size in "image size".  is this an Epson problem or Photoshop problem.  Thanks!

    I just got a new printer...Epson R3000...but have had this problem before.  It's probably a simple fix, but I can't figure it out.  I'm asking for printing on 8.5 x 11 and the image comes out 6.5 x 9.5 every time.  Help please!  And thanks!

    The Epson site stated that the R3000 printer can print borderless however the quality will suffer in the expanded print area. Borderless is not supported on some heavy paper.  To me the means your better off limiting you images size to the standard print area. There will be magins about 1/8" on the four  sides so the print area on 8.5"x11" paper is 8.26" x 10.76"....
    Take note of the print size set by the epson driver it may change depending on the paper type set. Note my first epson 4800 setup where I set 8.5" x 11" sheet paper from tray into the printer setting the driver set a smaller size for the paper which was reflected into the Photoshop Print preview. It shows paper is 8.499" x 10.999 with a small unprintable area across the top....
    Paper
    Use paper under normal conditions:
    Temperature: 59 to 77 °F (15 to 25 °C)
    Humidity: 40 to 60% RH
    Note:
    Since the quality of any particular brand or type of paper may be changed by the manufacturer at any time, Epson cannot guarantee the quality of any non-Epson brand or type of paper. Always test a sample of paper stock before purchasing large quantities or printing large jobs.
    Single-sheets
    Size
    A4 (8.3 × 11.7 inches)
    A6 (4.1 × 5.8 inches)
    Letter (8.5 × 11 inches)
    Legal (8.5 × 14 inches)
    4 × 6 inches
    5 × 7 inches
    8 × 10 inches
    11 × 14 inches
    12 × 12 inches
    Half Letter (5.5 × 8.5 inches)
    B (11 × 17 inches)
    A3 (11.7 × 16.5 inches)
    Super B (13 × 19 inches)
    Paper types
    Plain paper
    Special papers distributed by Epson
    Thickness
    0.003 to 0.004 inch (0.08 to 0.11 mm) in the sheet feeder
    0.012 to 0.051 inch (0.3 to 1.3 mm) in the manual feed tray
    Weight
    17 lb (64 g/m2) to 24 lb (90 g/m2)
    Printable Area
    Note:
    When printing borderless, quality may decline in the expanded printable area. Borderless printing is not supported with poster board.
    Sheets
    Top: 0.12 inch (3 mm) minimum
    Left: 0.12 inch (3 mm) minimum
    Right: 0.12 inch (3 mm) minimum
    Bottom: 0.12 inch (3 mm) minimum
    Roll Paper
    Standard margins
    Borderless printing margins
    CD/DVDs
    Caution:
    Avoid printing in the clear plastic areas of your discs to prevent staining the disc with ink.

  • IPhone app image size and resolution?

    The icon and image creation guidelines specify all of the custom icons and images that I need to create for my app in two sizes: one for the iPhone 3 screen (and earlier) at 163 pixels per inch; and one for the iPhone 4 screen at 326 pixels per inch. While this guideline specifies the image sizes in pixels, I am unable to find any reference to the required resolution in pixels per inch. Should I save the images at 163 and 326 pixels per inch respectively?

      As I said it makes no difference to viewing, all things being equal, only to downloading the resultant image if needed for printing.
    If you were concerned with print quality you would probably save on maximum image quality -12 in resizing - but up to 90% - save for web - would make hardly a noticeable difference, except for file size.
    You can reduce image quality to optimize file size using the slider in save for web and by looking at the before and after preview.
    If using jpeg, it’s also possible to select progressive, which loads from top to bottom, without the user waiting for the full image to load.
    There really is no point in using 1000 dpi which only blows the pixel dimensions way beyond even the best HD monitor, capable of displaying 1920 x 1080p
    　 

  • Image size limit in Lr 5.3-64 and Ps CC-64

    What is image size limit in Lightroom 5.3 - 64 bit And Ps CC - 64 bit?

    I believe the maximum image size in Lightroom is 64kpixels X 64kpixels.
    I don't know what it is for Photoshop, but I'll bet that Google thing can find out.

  • Image size vs zip for reducing

    I am not looking forward to open up files/mouse up to image size/type up the required 800x600 a million times, and I just discovered control/compress . My camera has, in the 2 sizes of the smallest set of  JPEG, the larger @ 2784x1856 is a 728 KB which gets zipped to 712 KB. Being mathematically challenged,  I can only tell that a little size is lost with respect to the 800x600 that I am allowed to by the recipient, from the fact that I can manually compress to 800x600 and get a better 1.2 MB.
    In the next larger JPEG, the same 2784 X 1856  is a 2.6 MB which is zipped to 2.5, and I need to check the image size in pixel, VERY IMPORTANT for the recipient. It probably will be  about double than the smaller, but would the pixels exceed too much the 800 x 600, should I give up compress altogether, and do it manually? And by the way, how do I open a zip file? And above all, can it be used for pict?

    Thank you PZ.
    I particularly liked the part of your answer where you said viable wait time will  "depend on your target audience and their connection speed."
    I have a custom cabinet shop.
    A big part of my customer base finds me from a google search and fortunately for me,  when they are about to embark on a kitchen remodel they are very motivated to learn everything they can.
    I understand now that all referenced images are downloaded,
    What about linked pages?
    If I parse the images out to several pages would this enhance overall download speed?
    That last question is probably premature.
    I should first research the link you provided.
    Thanks again.
    Jarvis

  • Image size versus dimension

    I am just trying to get my head around image size versus dimension and an answer to my following question may solve it once and for all!    I save a jpg say at 1000 pixels wide and at 100 ppi at file quality 10.  But if I save the same file at 1000 pixels wide and again at 100 ppi but this time at quality 5 - what is happening to the file?   I have the same number of pixels in the photo but what is the quality slider actually doing?
    Many thanks
    Sue

    21st century or not, if you are talking about file integrity, nothing beats an EPS. Although as stated previously, EPS has definitely fallen out of popularity, partly I think due to cross-platform issues -- i.e., PC's inability to deal with them (talk about archaic) and partly due to hosting applications current ability to accept native files. EPSs are totally encapsulated, totally lossless, and totally impervious to hosting software interference -- which TIFFs, JPEGs, nor PSDs can boast. Basically, WYSIWYG.
    And yes, there actually are instances where you DO just re-save files -- usually in an attempt to clean up corrupt or problematic files -- but not just for the sake of re-saving. I agree, nobody does that. I was just making a point.
    I'm not advocating JPEGs and by no means do I advocate the constant re-saving of them. But I will not discount them as fodder or relegate them strictly to the internet! They are simply another tool in the toolbox. I do agree with you that saving as JPEG should be the last step in the production process. In addition, a full-bodied backup should be kept in reserve (be it TIFF, PSD, or heaven forbid, EPS).
    My original point was to address Sue's question of "Image versus Dimension" in JPEG format. My point with you is that JPEGs definitely have a place and some advantages when a balance of quality versus file size/storage space is an issue. It is ridiculous to simply discount JPEG to the web. Although I would not use it for a high-end brochure or an annual report, I wouldn't hesitate for a second to use JPEG for newsprint, high-end copying and some direct imaging. It is a sound format if applied properly based on the end usage. But by no means is it an end-all format. And, I think I work in the same world as you.

  • Image size locks system

    When I select Image and them image size the cursor changed to a double square and I can't do anything  .... why is that?

    BOILERPLATE TEXT:
    Note that this is boilerplate text.
    If you give complete and detailed information about your setup and the issue at hand,
    such as your platform (Mac or Win),
    exact versions of your OS, of Photoshop (not just "CS6", but something like CS6v.13.0.6) and of Bridge,
    your settings in Photoshop > Preference > Performance
    the type of file you were working on,
    machine specs, such as total installed RAM, scratch file HDs, total available HD space, video card specs, including total VRAM installed,
    what troubleshooting steps you have taken so far,
    what error message(s) you receive,
    if having issues opening raw files also the exact camera make and model that generated them,
    if you're having printing issues, indicate the exact make and model of your printer, paper size, image dimensions in pixels (so many pixels wide by so many pixels high). if going through a RIP, specify that too.
    etc.,
    someone may be able to help you (not necessarily this poster, who is not a Windows user).
    a screen shot of your settings or of the image could be very helpful too.
    Please read this FAQ for advice on how to ask your questions correctly for quicker and better answers:
    http://forums.adobe.com/thread/419981?tstart=0
    Thanks!

  • Lightroom 2.5 Image Size When Printing

    I have searched and tried several approaches, but cannot get LR to adjust an image size correctly when printing. 
    For example, I have a Lab Test Page tif image that has a document size of 23" W x 29" H and a resolution of 180 ppi.
    I can use CSR 4 Image/Image Size to change this to 8" W x 10.5" H and a resolution of 320 ppi using resampling. The reduced image prints correctly in CSR 4 on 8.5" x 11" paper and results in .25" margins top and bottom. The same thing happens in LR 2.5 with the size reduced image.
    However, if I try to print the original image using LR 2.5 to automatically resize the image it does not work correctly. I have tried all sorts of combinations of settings to get it to reduce the image (as is done in CSR 4) and print with .25" top/bottom margins without success. The image fails to resize correctly.
    Is this a bug, a feature??, or operator error? Can anyone tell how to make LR 2.5 automatically resize so it prints correctly? I have tested this on other computers with the same results.
    Thanks
     

    Go to print module.
    Select Print to jpg.
    Set the resolution at 180 ppi.
    Other output settings, sharpening, paper profile as required.
    Set the margin sizes as required.
    Set the cell size to the size of the image
    Set the Custom File Dimensions to the size of the paper...29" x 23" in this case.
    You can drag the Cell size and the various borders around until you get exactly the lay out on paper you require. Then when finished hit print to file, name the file and the job is done.
    If you want to print a a different size, with a different resolution, on different sized paper, with different borders all this can be done in the print module and it is WYSIWYG so no guess work (or calculations) involved. Using LR rather than PS for this also has the advantage of using much better algorithms for upsizing images than PS and applying output sharpening for the specific media type you intend to print to, all using the RAW data

  • Images sizes are incorrect in CS6

    I was working on some images I had previously worked on in LR2. Cropped them to 11 x 14. Exported as DNG and resized to 11 x 14. Opened PS6 Beta and It showed them as approxiamtely 8 x 10???  Went back into LR2 and reset crop to origianl size (shot ona DNikon D300). Exported as original size and opened PS6. Now the size is approximately 9 x 14????
    I wnat 11 x 14.
    What is going on?
    Thanks
    Lee

    Ok, let me go over step by step what happens.
    1) Open file in LR2. Image shot on D300. Size is orignial size.
    2) Crop image to 11 x 14
    3) Export to folder Export actions set to resize to 11 x 14, DNG format. Should make no change but just in case. at 300 dpi the file size it 10.2 MB now.
    4) Open DNG image in PS6.0 on my iMac. Data below image is Adobe RGB, (1998) 16 bit, 2338 by 2975 (7.0MPP) 300DPI
    5) Click on Open image with no editing done.
    6) Select Iamge Size from toolbar at top. Image size is 2338 pixels by 2975 pixels. Document size is Width =  7.793 inches  Height = 9.917 inches Resolution = 300 Pixels/inch. Canvas size is the same. What happened to 11 x 14?
    7) Now go to the iMac desktop and copy DNG image to flash drive and move to Windows machine with CS5.0 open in PS 5.0.
    8) Now click on Open image with no editing as in PS 6
    9)  Same results.
    When I set crop to 11 x 14 it shows I do a full frame crop, nothing left out.
    So PS shows the iamge size (and canvas) size as 7.793 x 9.917 inches (my close to 8 x 10).
    Why does it not show 11 x 14? Aslo, if the image size is 7.793 by 9.917, why does a crop set to 11x14 outline the image precisely with nothing cropped out?

  • The New  PS CC Images / Size implementation

    Anyone else a little disconcerted by the new setup of 'Image/size' menu?
    Its lost one whole parameter that used to be there by default... Now you have to go find it by click on the drop down and selecting inches.... If I recall it used to show:
    height Pixels
      width pixels
    Height inches
      width inches
    Overall there appears to be MORE information available and more functions one can exercise than the old format.  I guess I'll grow to like it better than the old layout.... but first time out... I missed the old setup.
    How do others feel abou it?

    For reference, this is what the prior version's Image Size dialog showed:
    As I mostly think and work in pixels, I haven't missed the old dialog at all.
    My advice would be to change your default resampling method (via the Preference settings) from Automatic to Bicubic.  Also, if you upsample with the new function, be sure and try the Detail Preserving upsampling scheme.  It's the cat's meow.
    -Noel

  • What are correct Image sizes?

    I've created a slideshow using Ken Burns effect, but some of the images don't seem to fit edge to edge left to right. The problem is that I have images where the subjects are on the left and right, but when viewed in the slideshow all I can see is the middle of the image and the subject is cut off. I can manually slide the image left or right, but I need the whole image to be displayed. I have moved the size slider all the way to the left, but it still doesn't show the whole image left to right.
    Is there a rule of thumb for image dimensions for slideshows so that the WHOLE image gets displayed - there doesn't seem to be any way to resize images in iPhoto apart from cropping which isn't the same thing?
    I'm trying to make a looping slideshow to burn to DVD that will be viewed on a standard HDTV ie. the DVD will autorun when inserted into a DVD player and will then keep looping until manually stopped.
    Any help much appreciated!
    Thx

    Thx Terence.. I've tried this and while it does help the left to right edge issue somewhat, the top and bottom of the images are now being cut off - lot's of disappearing heads and legs etc. with just the middle of the body showing - and no way of resizing the image so that the whole image is shown!
    What I need is the WHOLE image to display as it should - given that there is a trade off of black or white background where the image doesn't cover. Eg. in a portrait image where there is blank space to left and right or landscape with blank space top and bottom. It seems to be that the image is expanded to fit in some way by checking the 'scale photos to fit screen' box - not ideal really. Which brings me back to my original question of what are the correct image dimensions, so that the whole image gets displayed for viewing on a HDTV (16:9)?
    Thx again for your time..

Maybe you are looking for