IWeb and image quality of Photoshop jpegs

i am constructing a website consisting of my photography... with color shots i am noticing a dramatic 'flattening' of the vivid nature of my shots in iWeb as opposed to how they appear on photoshop... i believe i have followed the photoshop process properly... so there would be an image now at 72 ppi about 6 inches by four inches as a jpeg looking pretty vivid in photoshop on my screen. when i bring this over, via iPhoto, into iWeb image quality is lost... of note as well though is that this image does not look to hot in iPhoto as well... not sure then what forum this question belongs in... any quidance at all is appreciated.

hi Tomas... thanks for your response... i did drag a photo from my finder directly into iweb and within the iweb program it looked great but as soon as i published i lost saturation... odd... so i can avoid iphoto now, which is great, but something is happening in the process still... i have turned off the iweb image optimization and played with tiffs and jpegs within photoshop to try to get the final image to come out as intended... if you have any other suggestion please let me know... thanks again for your post... i will check out your link.

Similar Messages

There is a major color shift in my artwork image from the photoshop jpeg to dreamweaver - it gets 'g

There is a major color shift in my artwork image from the photoshop jpeg to dreamweaver - it gets 'grayed out', loses color contrast. I checked in Bridge and the color settings are synchronized. The image in photoshop is just like what i get from my Nikon D90 camera. The grayed out image has also been noted by two of my professional printer co. which i use but one of my printers - Modern Postcard - the images in photoshop are perfect. I just need to know what causes the color shift and how to control/manage it, thank you, Kathyrn

I have noted color shifts as well and have come to a few observations.
When you are making a .JPG file and you are trying to make a color in that file be the same color as your website's background, you're going to get a lot of failures. Photoshop will add color information in an ICC file in the meta information in the file if you like. That tends to produce actual colors, but they do not fit a web gamut.
The way I generally deal with images that need high quality is that I use the Save for Web and Other Devices exclusively, either ticking on or off the ICC profile for JPEG files and working with what works best. Saving a JPEG with as much information as is possible is usually the best choice but, since JPEG is a "lossy" compression scheme, you are always going to get some issues.
Additionally, the web browser in question will have control over what is displayed as well.
So try playing with the ICC profile in Photoshop's Save for Web And Other Devices and see if you can't get things a little more reliable.

Very Poor Image Quality In Viewer, JPEG Artifacts

I upgraded to Aperture 3 some time ago, and purchased a new Mac Pro specifically for this application. I am an amature/ sometime professional photographer and I have been using Aperture since Version 1. This weekend I finally had some time to sit down with Aperture 3 for some serious work with my scanned film images. These are large TIF masters scanned in with my Nikon CoolScan 9000. Some are medium format black & white Tri-X Pan images, others are 35mm, also black & white Tri-X Pan. Everything scanned in on the Nikon is at the maximum resolution for the master, on the theory that I can always bump it down later if that's necessary.
I am noticing vastly lower image quality in the viewer then with Aperture 2. Specifically, I am seeing massive JPEG artifacts in the viewer image then I have ever seen before. The images also render darker in the viewer then before. These artifacts do not appear when I export my images (say as JPEGS for posting to a web page), or when I print them. The quality of the exported and print images seem just fine and the exported JPEGS are completely free of the artifacts I am seeing in the viewer.
I have tried rebuilding the previews several times, experimenting with different quality settings. I have experimented with different proof profile settings. My printer is an Epson Stylus Photo R1800 and I have tried various paper settings for it as well as other proof profile settings such as the Adobe and Apple RGB settings and the generic grey profiles. Every time I change a setting I have forced a rebuild of the previews to no detectable effect. Nothing I do seems to have any effect whatsoever on the image quality in the viewer which remains relentlessly the same as it always was.
This poor viewer image quality is making it very difficult to work in Aperture 3. I suspect there is a setting somewhere like an easter egg in this new Aperture I haven't found yet but it is becoming very frustraiting and I could use a pointer because, again, nothing I have tried has changed the image quality in the viewer in any way I can detect and the photos look perfectly awful there...darker and loaded with JPEG artifacts. Things export and print just fine, but I need to see what I am going to get in the viewer or I can't do my work.

I interpret this as ... Eventually you should be looking at the Master with the Version changes applied. I'm assuming at this point, you aren't looking at the Preview. Since you don't need Previews to view and edit your images.
Yeah...that's sort of what I gleaned from that text. I was experimenting with the preview settings because I couldn't see any other way to fix the problem. What I'm hearing now is that the problem has no fix. If you scan in black & white film negatives (or anything else that's monochrome I suppose) with the color space set as gray scale you are asking for trouble. The sense I get from the text Gomez Addams referred me to is the behavior in that case is unpredictable, and furthermore film photographers aren't the customer base Apple is trying to cultivate with this product.
Aperture is designed to work with images from digital cameras which use an RGB color space...
Okay...fine. I have several digital cameras I occasionally use for professional work and I am here to tell you Aperture is an absolute blessing for that work. I do shoots every now and then for a local community newspaper and I would not want to live without this product. I remember back when I was a teenager in the 70s being up all night in the darkroom to get an assignment I'd had to cover right before deadline, and then go to my day job the next morning without any sleep. This is much better. And even with the personal art photography it is good to be able to just scan things in and make adjustments in the computer. You can do so much more. I would not want to go back.
But I reckon I need to find something I can rely on for my film work, or at least my black & white film work because as I read this Apple is not supporting film photography with this product and black & white film photography in particular and some of us still use film. No...scanning in my Tri-X negatives in the CoolScan as color produces weird results and anyway Photoshop and GIMP for goodness sakes seem to handle grayscale files just fine. Plus, I've already got thousands of those negatives scanned, I am not rescanning all that in RGB just to satisfy Aperture. The color slide film scans don't seem to be a problem, but that's now. I think I'm being told not to count on That always being the case either.
Aperture is designed to work with images from digital cameras...
Okay...fine...film is old technology after all, Nikon isn't even making their film scanners anymore...check the prices on the few still new-in-the-box ones left out there. My CoolScan 9000 is selling for twice on the second-hand market what I paid for it new and new it wasn't cheap. And yet it's not economically viable for Nikon to continue making them. Film is dying. But I still like working with film and film cameras and I reckon I'll keep doing that until I can't get any more of it and my stash of Tri-X Pan bulk rolls runs out.
Thank you all very much for your help. I think I see what I need to do now.

IPhoto is changing resolution and image quality

I am currently and for the first time using iPhoto 6 to produce a book - a feature within the application. I have edited my images in Photoshop, some have not needed to be so they have simply been saved as either high-res JPGS or TIFFS. On importing them into iPhoto selected images are downsizing and stating that they are not big enough to print - this I know is not true as they are adequatley large enough for printing to A0 minimum at 300 dpi. There are also a select few that are changing in image quality - the colours are looking either bleached out or over-exposed and they have lost their original quality. When opening the exact files in Photoshop they are correctly exposed, perfect colours, sizes etc. If I am to try and 'retouch' them within iPhoto I can resume some of their quality but it seems through the transition into importing inot the application they are being corrupted.
Can anyone assist me as its driving me mad!!!
Thanks

What is the color space of the photos in photoshop?
In iPhoto Preferences, Advanced, do you have it set to add ColorSync Profile?
BTW, the 72 ppi (pixels per inch) is irrelevant. iPhoto defaults to reporting 72 ppi because that is a typical screen resolution. What's important is the total pixel dimensions of the image, and whether that size gives you an adequate dpi (dots per inch) when printed at the designated print size. So, while the image looks great on-screen in photoshop, that doesn't mean that it will be adequate for printing in a book. But you are right - you shouldn't see a significant shift in color when importing into iPhoto.
Regards.

Resaving pdfs and image quality

I have clients submit ads as pdfs but sometimes I need to recreate the pdf because the client forgot to include all printer marks, or I need to convert a spot to process, or whatever. The way I do it is to create a new InDesign CS3 file, place the pdf file into it, and export to pdf using my preset. My question is does importing a pdf file into ID and then exporting back into pdf affect image quality, even slightly assuming the compression settings are the same in the export to pdf' dialog box - mainly all compression set to none?
Thanks.
-Mark

New Bie:
Many of the adjustments you want to make can be done to the PDF within Acrobat if you have the Acrobat Professional version.
Such as: convert colors, add printers marks and change Page Box sizes.
You'll find these tools under the "Advanced" menu > "Print Production"
And also under the "Document" menu > Crop Pages > Change Page Size

Editing and image quality in Lightroom

Hello all,
I am a new Lightroom user (Lightroom 5) and I've watched several tutorial videos and I've had a lot of fun playing around with the program. I've noticed that Lightroom is said to be "non-destructive" when it comes to editing. Apparently, you can do all the editing you want to an image (i.e. adjusting exposure, cropping, etc.) and there is no loss of image quality as you edit. Is this correct?
I would hate to think that my tinkering around with the editing tools results in loss of image quality each time I change something. ("Hmm, I like that exposure. Now let me adjust shadows. No....that doesn't look right when I do that. I'll just change the exposure a bit more...."! I intend to put photos onto an image hosting site and present them, so I want the quality to be the best it can be!
I appreciate any help anyone can offer.
Cheers,
Tom

I am a new Lightroom user (Lightroom 5) and I've watched several tutorial videos and I've had a lot of fun playing around with the program. I've noticed that Lightroom is said to be "non-destructive" when it comes to editing. Apparently, you can do all the editing you want to an image (i.e. adjusting exposure, cropping, etc.) and there is no loss of image quality as you edit. Is this correct?
I know of no image editing software that causes loss of image quality when you make an edit. Editing steps simply cause a change to the image based on the edit you perform, not a loss of quality. This is true of Lightroom and every other image editor that I know of.
If you choose to save (or in Lightroom do an export) as a JPG, then there is a loss of image quality each time you perform a save as a JPG. If you need to have a JPG of your edited photo for some reason, then this loss of image quality is unavoidable, but in most cases you won't even notice. Thus, in Lightroom, creating a JPG from the edited photo is the LAST step in the process, thereby minimizing the image quality loss.

Screen protectors and image quality

I have a screen protector on my 3G and thinking about getting one for my iPhone 4. How you guys liking them so far? I am worried about it degrading the image quality of the new high res screen.
Tom

I've had every iPhone since it came out & I've never used a screen protector. I've never once ever had even the slightest tiny little scratch. That's not to say though that the screen on the ip4 will have the same luck bc I know it's not the same plus, in addition, I know the back is glass also & it's exposed due to the design of the bumper, which is my personal choice at this time.
I do wonder what the future will hold in reference to the other companies design for the new phone like Ncase, Griffith, Frogz, etc.??? They may come up with the clear plastic type snap on cases on different colors or variations of smoke colored to clear plastic. This way we can still see the phone, especially if you prefer the white if they ever start selling them, & it will be protected at the same time. Only problem is with those cases is u have to keep the touch pad exposed for use & you would still need a screen protector if this model does indeed scratch. Better than nothing though. I still wonder if it will scratch. I am HORRIBLE at putting on those screen protectors. No matter what I do I get bubbles etc. Used a credit card & started one end very slowly & it comes out looking ********. I KNOW that I NEVER had ANY scratched on my ip3Gs & the glass is the same as the iPad.

Aperture 1.5.3 and iWeb - poor image quality and shuffled Media browser

Hi, I have two questions:
1. I used to use iPhoto 6 together with iWeb 1.1.2, but have since upgraded to Aperture. My Aperture library previews show up nicely in iWeb's media browser, but the quality of the thumbs on the photopage I create, and fullsize images in iWeb's slideshow look really bad and pixelated compared to when I used the exact same images from my iPhoto 6 Library. How can this be? I have set the preview size in Aperture to 1280 x 1280 and quality to 5. Does that have something to do with the poor quality?
2. The Media browser in iWeb completely ignores the dates on the images from the Aperture library, resulting in the images being shuffled completely, making it hard to find the images I want to use. How can that be? Why doesn't it work like when I used iWeb with my iPhoto library?
Powerbook G4 1.5 Ghz, 15", 1,5Gb RAM, Radeon 9700 (128 Mb) Mac OS X (10.4.9) New interal Seagate 5400.10 160Gb hardrive + new internal dual layer dvd-burner
Powerbook G4 1.5 Ghz, 15", 1,5Gb RAM, Radeon 9700 (128 Mb) Mac OS X (10.4.9) New interal Seagate 5400.10 160Gb hardrive + new internal dual layer dvd-burner

Am I the only one experiencing this?

Incorrect image size and low quality file (Photoshop CC trial ver. on Macbook Pro Retina)

At first, I set 500x500 size
but in workplace, it show smaller than 500x500 (maybe 250x250?)
I check on "image > image size" it still show me 500x500 pixels
Save for web
After that, i got a 500x500 file but It resize from smaller to 500x500 , so... i got a low quality file.
what's wrong?
(sorry for bad english skill but i really want your help)
Ps. it also incorrect when i set resolution as 300dpi

Pixel is not a measurement unit of length per se.
If a screen has more pixels per unit of length an image (when displayed as one image pixel per one screen pixel) would appear smaller than on a screen with lower resolution.
To make sure could you please post an image that is 500px x 500px (according to Image > Image Size) but seems to be too small to you?

Flash Export and Image Quality

When I place Illustrator CSx eps files in my keynote presentations and then export to flash it really chews up the images. You would think vector images would fair the best but the lines are very jagged making the presentation look very ugly.
Does anyone have any tips on improving this? I've tried PNG,jpg, etc.. the images I'm using are line art (e.g. diagrams) but it doesn't seem to help using other file formats.
I don't understand why there is no compression control available for flash export....
Mark

edit your image in photoshop and experiment with various settings/size. there's no magic high quality small file size setting.
it's a trade-off. the higher the quality and the greater the image dimensions, the greater the file size. you have to decide where those are acceptable.

Can accurate measurements be made and images scaled in Photoshop CS4 Extended - Student Version

I draw and amend plan based images (similar to Ordnance Survey plans) and need to be able to work in detail using accurate measurements to create a 2D representation of a building or other feature and their surroundings to a particular scale. Ideally I want to take this further to use the base plans as a means of generating a 3D image.
I currently have Photoshop Elements 6 which does not allow me to either measure distances/line lengths or work to a defined scale. Am I correct in understanding that Photoshop CS4 Extended - Student Version would overcome this technical deficiency?
Thanks, KJ

Get the trial and play with the vanishing point filter. It allows you to draw planes in perspective, scale, clone to the drawn perspectives, measure distances between points and define a distance which is used as a baseline to measure out all the other perspective lines.

Printing and Image Quality

Hello,
I was wondering if there is a place that I could find out how to use the printing functionality of the Java API other than the tutorials here on sun. We've got some printable objects in our program, but when we try to take the screenshots and print them out, the quality is very shoddy. What I want to be able to do is to get almost exactly what the image on the screen is and be able to print it with as good of quality as is on the computer screen. Are there any good tutorials out there, (or example good or bits of advice) that might help me do this? Thank you very much, and happy new year!

While that is quite useful, the problem is that I need to resize the component I'm trying to fit, and in some cases edit the image before printing, so that the image gets somewhat distorted. Right now we've just been using getImageableX() and getImageableWidth() and those methods to draw the component onto the thing we are going to print. Is there a better way to deal with resizing?

DPI and image quality in programs like Windows Photo Viewer

I'll keep this as short as possible. About 6 years ago I bought a Panasonic Lumix DMC-F28 digital camera (not DSLR). It claims 10 MP. After that my daughter bought a Canon Rebel (don;t know the model) which has 12 MP. I would compare her pics with mine by looking at them in Windows Photo Viewer. Hers always looked a lot fuzzier than mine. Especially true if you zoomed in. And I gave her a hard time, saying she had bought a knock off.
I just purcahsed a Rebel T5i with the usual kit 18/55 lens. I took a picture with both the new and the old camera. Guess what? Given the same subject with the same lighting, the Panasonic still produces much clearer pictures in Windows Photo Viewer than the Canon. The only difference I see is that the Canon states the DPI as 72 and the Panasonic as 180. OF course, the Canon image has a lot more pixels.
I know that DPI matters only when a picture is printed. But is it possible that the DPI property in the image file is telling Windows Photo Viewer how to present the image? I hope so. Otherwise I lucked out with my Panasonic and got the best camera in the world, or a Canon is not so great after all.
Do I need to apologize to my daughter? See attached images.
These images are opened in MS Paint and cropped to bring out the eye and hair detail.
Panasonic Image
Canon Image

You comparison method is seriously flawed. For 1 image to be at 72 DPI (a software supplied setting) & the other to be at 180 DPI it means that one image has been enlarged (180 divided by 72) 2.5 times more than the other to view it on screen. Zoom in on the good image until it's 2.5 times larger & see how it looks.
Next thing you need to know is that camera technique becomes more important as pixel count increases. an 18 Mpixel image will have an 80% increase in softness over the 10 Mpixel camera from identical camera shake. To make any accurate form of comparison you will need to eleminate the possibility of introducing camera shake into the test. You will also need very similar lighting & the subject must also be stationary for all test shots. (IE that eye (or the person it's attached to) may have moved during one shot but not the othern
"A skill is developed through constant practice with a passion to improve, not bought."

KVM and image quality

Anyone know whether a KVM switch will cause image degradation?
if so, where does the degradation come from?
ray

I've got a Belkin KVM that has 2 USB ports, 1 SVGA port, and both an audio in and audio output port.
It works great. But, there are very noticeable wavy lines on the screen if you look at a flat gray screen (like during startup).
You can see the lines if you look closely while at the desktop. But, it is much harder to see then. It is very noticeable during the startup process though.
I believe this is due to signal degradation from the longer cable.
It's not bad enough to annoy me. But, it does stress the eyes a bit (like a very low refresh rate does).
Overall, I don't notice it visually. But, I feel it in my eyes.

Mixing CSS colors and image files from Photoshop for web

Hello,
I recently encountered a web production color issue and wanted to collaborate with other web producers to either inform or to see if there isn't a better work-around....
A web site design has a particular color palette and some elements are converted to HTML/CSS colors (rgb hex values) and other elements must be saved as images--both with the same exact color appearance. We graphics professionals know that generally all images should have the color profile indicated (embedded, tagged) in the image file (e.g., sRGB, Adobe RGB or whatever) in our color-managed workflow so that the color numbers have meaning. For web, I've always used sRGB (the web standard) and tagged the images with the sRGB color profile.
Historically, this probably hasn't mattered because no web browser cared about the image profiles anyway. However, recently, some browsers have started to implement color-management. This is good for pictures and such, but poses a problem for web graphic elements: the images are rendered in the color-managed sRGB, yet the CSS is still rendered outside of color-management (the so-called monitor or "device" profile?). Therefore, if a web page design's color palette is to be honored, the HTML/CSS hex colors must appear the same as the matching hex colors embedded in the images. However, modern browsers now render the colors in the color-profile-tagged/embedded images differently, so the colors on the rendered pages no longer match!
My work around has been to NOT tag (embed) the web-element image files with any color profile and thus cause the modern browsers to do what they used to: render the images without a color profile just like they render HTML/CSS hex colors. Perhaps in the future, there will be an HTML specification to inform the web browser to render all colors (HTML/CSS/images) in a particular color profile. (In my cursory testing, I've found that current Safari and Chrome for Windows 7 do alter the tagged-image appearances, yet Safari in iOS does not.)
Have other web producers run in to this issue and are there more eloquent work-arounds?

Hi,
This might help
Serving Static Content on WebLogic and GlassFish | cdivilly
Regards,
Jari

IWeb and image quality of Photoshop jpegs

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for