Images quality in Pages

Has anyone else had trouble getting an image in pages to display in good quality?
Placing an image at the top of a page that is about 3x2 displays very blurry, especially when viewed in iwork online. Any help is greatly appreciated!!

JGcalifornia
If you notice my comment was addressed to dammittakethealias' comment.
Like I said, probably. You do know that reflections, 3D graphs and shadows all use transparency?
You don't have to set it to 72dpi it just does it in certain circumstances.
The quick solution would be to click on my blue name and send me some of the problem pages files and, I gather, the pdf files you have created from them.
Otherwise we can work our way through the possibilities.
1. What resolution are the originals?
2. What format/source are they from?
3. Have you rescaled them up, if so to what resolution?
4. How and what quality have you exported them to?
5. Have you used reduce file size?
Peter

Similar Messages

Image quality in Pages for iPad

Hello!
I'm editing a new book in Pages (OS X). It has several high quality images.
I need to edit the same file in Pages for iPad. I use iCloud, so the file will be synced.
I'm worried about the QUALITY of all my images. I'm affraid Pages for iPad will DECREASE the quality of my images; then, when re-opening the file in my iMac, I could have images with less resolution. Is this true? Could it happen or the quality will be PRESERVED?
Thank you!

Good question!
From my rough testing of round tripping a Document and checking the size in the Share Export Page option it looks as if it maintains the Origanal Document size. Even after it has been Editted on both an iPad and Desktop. Hope this helped
There is also the option to check the Document size under the Inspector, first Tab then the last Button (Info) I think you have to Save the Document first before "Show File Info" becomes active
Joseph

Poor Image Quality in Pages when Printing

I am having problems with Pages printing images poorly in my documents. The image is barely recognizable and the colors are distorted. It looks fine on the computer page before printing but does not print out well at all. If I save the file as a pdf and then print it through Acrobat, it works fine and the images look just like the ones in the computer. Since Pages and Acrobat are using the same printer and probably the same driver, I am assuming the problem is in Pages not recognizing the image properly.

Is it an HP printer? Is the image printed in negative? Does the image have shadows?
In that case, remove the shadows. Or use Adobe Reader, just like you do. It is one of the known work arounds for this problem.

Image quality in ePub exports from Pages

Something changed in ePub exports of images recently, or in iBooks' rendering of them. Now they are fuzzy when double-tapped and enlarged. Originally (at beginning of iBooks) they popped up looking quite crisp.
Oddly, I can still get crisp images with double-tap if I export an ePub file from Scrivener, and import it into iBooks—using the same images I'm used in Pages.
Does this make any sense? Have others noticed this change in image quality?

Just for the sake of clearness - InDesign 5.0 = InDesign CS3
InDesign CS5 = InDesign 7.0.x
I suppose you are talking about InDesign CS5 and not something older.

Web page image quality to printer

I have an Epson cx7800 which I have aligned and cleaned the heads.
The image quality of the print from my G5 iMac to the printer is sort of like a double image of the colored text (for instance, the word DVD will be printed twice, in a blurry fashion, in red and yellow). When I just copy a page from the printer, the quality is fine. It's just the images I'm getting from the Mac to the printer that are poor.
I get this same problem when I print a CD cover from iTunes.
Is there any way I can improve these images?
Thanks.

Suggest that you contact Epson by phone, email and/or check out their Epson cx7800 Troubleshooting Guide link for answers. Did the printer come with a manual?
You posted no system info. Therefore, I also suggest that you also cross-post in one of the "Printer Forums" of whichever OS you are using.
Good luck!

FM9: terrible image quality when saving a .fm page as .htm page...

Hello,
I have several framemaker pages I want to save as html pages.
The problem I have concerns the quality of images...
The images I import have a good quality but once I save the page as .htm, Framemaker automatically resizes it and duplicates the image under another name..
Framemaker may not be the best tool to produce html pages but I also need to produce a PDF version of these pages...:-/
I have tried to import .png files, .jpeg files but everytime the result is as bad as before in the .html version..
So far the only solution I have found is to use Dreamweaver to resize the images by hand but it may become a tedious work since I have a lot of images....
Do you have an idea how to obtain a good image quality result in .html?
Do you think I am not using the appropriate tool to do this?
Thank you very much in advance
Anna

Anna,
FM's html export is quite simplistic and lacks many controls.
If you need to get good html from FM, then consider using Omni Systems mif2go (see: http://www.omsys.com/dcl/mif2gopg.htm ). It can be set to use the original import files so no unintended conversions take place. Once you've configured the settings to your liking, it's a simple click and convert for production use. The evaluation version is fully functional and doesn't time out - it just does some random word shuffling so the output wouldn't be usable as a reliable reference.

Any ideas on keeping images on master pages consistently high quality display when exporting to pdf?

Any ideas on keeping images on master pages consistently high quality display when exporting to pdf?

Set up the Preflight panel so it checks image resolution. Ask your printer what the appropriate resolution is for your printing process, and set that in Preflight.

Why am I getting poor image quality on PowerPoint notes pages?

Hi,
I am using Acrobat Pro version 9, pre-Lion. I have upgraded to Lion, but have this problem before Lion.
When printing slides from a PowerPoint presentation, and choosing the standard "Save as Adobe PDF" option, the image quality on the output is perfect. If, however, I do the same thing but try to print the notes pages, the image gets pixelated.
I searched the Microsoft site for help, and all I could find is a recommendation to use PNG images in my PowerPoint, which I am indeed using.
Any ideas? Thanks....

Lion should not cause the blacks to print faded. The printer drivers used by Snow Leopard and Leopard are the same version as that used by Lion.
For starters I suggest you check that you have the latest version installed. This Apple KB article shows the MG6100 series has v10.51.2.0 as the latest version.
I also recommend you do a Nozzle test print. This can be executed from the MG6120 control panel or via the Printer Utilties window (via Print & Scan, select the printer and then open Options & Supplies and then select the Utilties tab).
If the nozzle test print is okay but the blacks still look faded when printing photos (note the printer has two black ink tanks - one for photos and one for text) then try a reset of the printing system. This will remove the MG6120 from the Print & Scan pane but not the supporting drivers. So you will only have to add the printer again.

Image quality and editing in pages

when i insert an image into an a4 doc and I'm viewing at 100% image quality is poor but fine if i zoom in? Also image editing such as saturation etc seems to revert on its own?

Hi Matti. Thanks for your work and help you are giving to me and others. I have printed off your info and will try and get my poor old brain round it!. So many people are having the same problem with iMovie it's amazing that the mac software dept has no don anything to rectify this bug and or problem. I have downloaded the software you state "Photo to Movie" but it does not seem to have the same things as iMovie with all the fancy transitions of images and music in the background, I have tried 4 images in this software and thay come up on full screen as 100% perfect, I still have to work out how to get them onto DVD with some kind of presentation. I want to start in the field of wedding photography and need some high end presentation software for digital wedding albums or Imaging with transitin affects, what would you recomend?. I am in spain so we are on PAL here, I think!. I have people over here in the Spanish Mac forums asking about the same problems, is it OK with you to translate some of yours and pass over to them in Spanish?. best regards. Kevin

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

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.

MIssing image quality warning!? (yellow triangle !)

so in photo 10, when adding low quality / low resolution images to my books or calendars, i used to get a yellow triangle warning me that the quality is not good enough. i also got the warning when enlarging a photo beyond a certain point.
since upgrading to iphoto 11, i can NEVER get this warning to show up?
even when i place obviously low quality / low resolution images, and i enlarge them, I don't see that icon?! no matter what i do, the icon doesn't come up!
has Apple removed this warning? does everyone have it except me? is it an option to turn on and off? this is driving me crazy!

I just spent a week creating my annual family calendar in iPhoto '11, didn't see the yellow low-quality image warning triangles from past iPhoto versions and assumed all the photos were decent enough to publish. Boy was I wrong. When I went to order the calendars, during the assembly process I kept getting low-quality image messages, but it only gave the name of the photo file and stopped processing at that page. It didn't show me what photo it was, so I had to figure out which image it was by using "spotlight" and entering the file name. What a pain in the ***.
Once I fixed the offending image, I had to start the entire order process over again, reconfirm payment and shipment information, only to keep getting a low-quality image error message again, and again, and again. It couldn't have saved all the poor-quality images messages for 1 message, so I could fix all the problematic images at once and only have to resubmit the order once. No, it only told me image by image, page by page, if there was a problem, causing me to have to resubmit my order 7 times. It took me 45 minutes to finally order my calendar. I am not happy. I've been ordering my calendars through iPhoto since 2008 and have never had this much difficulty with image-quality messages and order processing.
The photos that caused the error messages were those that other people had sent me that weren't very good quality, and that I had edited once placed in the calendar. Once I deleted the edited version and replaced with the original version, I didn't get an error message. If the image was just too poor quality to begin with and I couldn't use the edited version, then I replaced it altogether.
I just don't know if anyone else has had this much trouble with uploading and ordering their calendars. I hope Apple reinstates the low-quality image warning system that tells us BEFORE we try to place an order which images may have problems. Or at least just give us ONE error message after assembling the calendar that includes ALL the offending images (including the thumbnails, not just the file names), so we don't have to go back over and over and over again and have the ordering process be so incredibly frustrating.

Image quality warning - can I shrink the photos

I have a 8x10 photo book that I'm trying to build using some old images of mine. The resolution on the old images is 1024 x 768 so iPhoto gives me the image quality resolution if I try to print 1 or 2 photos on a single page. Since I don't want fuzz images when I print the page I'd like to reduce the size of the images so they be okay when I print. iPhoto doesn't give you the option to reduce the size of the image. Can I through another application do some sort of workaround to get the images smaller with some sort of background to workaround this?
I wish iPhoto had a little more flexibility in this area.
MacBook Pro Mac OS X (10.4.8)

iPhoto "books" require you image be 300 DPI (dots per inch).
Your Mac display is 72 dpi so your 1024X768 image would need to be made 4 times smaller in size. But this will still not get you 300 dpi and iPhoto will still display a warning no matter what.
GraphicConverter ($35) can change the dot per inch (it says ppi pixels per inch) in your image. It will also reduce it is size by a factor of 4 (very small image).
If you have the original images it would be better to scan them again and set the file to become 300 dpi. More work but larger prints in your book.

How to export a fireworks file to flash while retaining image quality?

I created a banner for our website using fireworks cs3. Part of the banner has aimation (basically a slide show of 6 photos). I've tried to export the files by saving the frams to files, but when I do this, the image quality really gets bad. When I try to change the export settings and change the dither, everything but the last frame looks better and the last frame looks like a yellow color is splattered all over it....I've tried just saving the file as an .swf file but when I do so, the file doesn't work when I insert it into my web page, it doesn't work. Is there a better way to do this? Can I export as something else then import into flash and still retain my image quality? Thanks for any input and help!

How are you inserting the file?
Flash objects need to be placed in an object tag...as described here: http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/415/tn_4150.html

Image quality problem when Printing Booklet to PDF

Hi!
I've searched the entire web trying to find a working solution for my problem but I wasn't able to find anything...
I've created a A5 vertical page document in InDesign CS6, filled with High-Quality photographs. I now want to print it as a booklet (to a PDF file) so I can save it and print it in a professional establishment.
The problem is, when I do this, the image quality turns out terrible...
I've checked my Print Settings and I can't find anything wrong...
Setup - A4 horizontally, and Graphics - Images - Send Data - is set to All.
Is there anything else I can do/try? What can I be doing wrong?
Here is an image of my print settings:
When I export the document normally to PDF the image quality is fine, but it doesn't have the booklet layout which I need, it just exports single A5 pages one after the other. If I try to print this pdf as a booklet in Adobe Reader the same thing happens to the images, they loose quality.
Please help!!
Thanks : )

Hi! Thank you for your quick and helpful answer.
There's definetly something wrong with the PDF printer properties... It was on standard default, as you said... but it still didn't work when I changed it to press quality (also tried high-quality print), changed the dpi's and other few settings on the advanced preferences
My solution was to download a free-trial of a professional pdf editor/creator (Soda PDF) and print it to that program... but, of course, this is not a long-term solution...
I'll try and see if I can find any help in changing the settings to get the best quality in printing of the adobe acrobat program.
Thanks!
p.s: I think I meant to say "graphic press" when I wrote professional establishment, I'm not sure how you say it in English.

Images quality in Pages

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for