Photoshop CC Image Quality

Since I’ve updated to the new Photoshop CC the quality of the image changes drastically when layers are flattened and or exported as Save for the Web. See images below. I am baffled by this issue, please help.
Layers not flat
Flat
Save For Web Export (flattened or layered appear same)

What I’m trying to say is that the quality of the image, when flattened, is what I want to see when it’s a layered image and at preview when I’m in Save for Web. I don’t want to put a ton of work into something that will look completely different when finished and all of the layer effects have been flattened. Is this a new setting in CC?

Similar Messages

  • Poor Image Quality In FCE With Photoshop Imports

    I'm using scans created in Photoshop in my current FCE project, and am extremely disappointed with the image quality. All scans are 72 pixels/inch, 720x534 pixels (changed to 720x480 for import), sharpened with Unsharp Mask. In Photoshop, they look terrific. Imported into FCE and viewed in the viewer, they look terrific. When dropped onto the canvas to add to the timeline, suddenly they look like crap. The sharpness is gone, the edges are pixelated, and most are rendered unusable. What happened? Can I fix it? Thanks in advance.
    Dual 2 GHz PowerPC G5   Mac OS X (10.4.5)   FCE 1.0.1

    Really!? I'm surprised, as those numbers come from the Apple Pro Training Series book on FCE. But ok, I'll redo my images at 720x540. I should still make a version at 720x480 for import, to avoid "squeezing" the image, right? Should I avoid sharpening the image at all, or just cut back on the amount (or does this depend on the image)? When you say "the canvas is a reduced display output," do you mean that this reflects the compression that occurs with the DV format? Thanks, Tom, for your help.
    Dual 2 GHz PowerPC G5   Mac OS X (10.4.5)  

  • 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.

  • Image quality lost through editing with Photoshop?

    I find a number of professionals using Lightroom as their primary photo editor. 
    I did a search on Lightroom vs Photoshop.  I found the following listed as the first reason for choosing Lightroom: 1.  Nondestructive Editing.  Nothing is actually changed (by Lightroom) in an image until it is exported.  This means you can make an adjustment, change it again and again, but no quality is lost as it would be with Photoshp.  This is reported in Outdoor Photographer.
    My impression is there is no lost of image quality in Photoshop if you are working on a layer copy of the Background.  Photoshop tries to prevent degradation of the original image by requiring it be copied  or otherwise freed before the background can be changed.
    Image quality can be lost in downstream layers through processes such as changing image size. 
    Is my statement correct about loss of image quality and the 'analyst' from Outdoor Photographer misstating things?

    Hi Vince.
    I am just learning my way around Photoshp.  I have spent 18 months learning how to start and to stop it.
    Good point. But if we peg the learning curve of Ps at 10, Lr comes in around 2 or 3. Like learning to drive a car as opposed to learning to fly a jet.
    Smart Objects would make PS more re-editable.
    True, but still no match for Lr or Ps RAW.
    I have never before seens a comment that extensive work on an image in PS would deteriorate the quality of the image.
    Extensive work will do what the user asks it to do. In the first 18 months I had Ps, I asked it to do lots of things that I now realize deteriorated my images. Forever.
    Regarding LR, I have created for me a workflow that requires PS.
    So did everyone before Lr came out. And yet, Ps users by the thousands, if not millions, have adopted Lr. Many if not most with a greater time investment in Ps than 18 months. I dropped my Ps centric flo the moment I realized what Lr could do. I had been using Ps pretty heavily for about 5 years by that time.
    I feel LR works best for experienced photographers who are shoooting a lot of pictures.
    While it's true that experienced photographers might realize more benifit, maybe not. It works great for everyone.
    That person has good images, images that need little editing, to start the output process.
    This is not true in the sense that the majority of Lr users are mediocre photographers at best. For the simple fact that most photographers (even "pros") are mediocre at best. And Lr was conceived with these folks in mind. It has the true "pro" stuff, but in an amateur friendly environment. Judging by the images and questions posted on photo and Lr forums, there are many, many, low level photographers using it.
    I am an inexperienced photographer shooting just a few pictures.  So I put a lot of effort into getting a good print from my mediocre shots.
    You obviously care about your images. Care more when you are shooting them. This is boiler plate advice. Time spent mastering your camera will pay off better dividends than learning to fix bad photos. This was true before the digital age, and it's just as true now. Ultimately, no matter how hard you massage it in Ps, Lr, or any other app, the quality of your final image will be a function of the quality of the original pixels you captured with you camera.
    So far as masks and all the rest, Lr has an Local Area Adjustment Brush which does just that. You paint the mask, complete with any number or combination of adjustments, with a brush. The mask and the adjustments to it can be easily changed later. A good spot removal tool. A great red eye tool.
    File size isn't a huge factor these days, but it still counts. Instead of layers and the pixel data for each of them as in Ps, Lr has the pixel data once, and a sidecar file with the adjustments settings in a much smaller file. Not a big deal for storage, but when rendering, maybe a bigger deal. Lr also pre-renders previews at various sizes (you can program this, plus how long it keeps them). I could go on and on (and I have).
    Bottom line, it's a great tool for anyone who takes photos. For the price, it's a no brainer for $150. If you have the $150. Not true for many of us these days.
    Anyway, Vince,  I hope you don't think I'm picking on you. I answered you in detail because you made such good points. And the answers might be of general interest.
    Peace,
    Lee

  • Photoshop slice tool and Save for Web image quality. Will it affect prints?

    I want to slice a large photo into multiple smaller (4x6) printable photos to arrange in a 12x12 inch scrapbook binder pocket (made of of 4x6 pockets). I need to order separate 4x6s online so tiling in the print options is not what I need.
    The slow way I know to do this involves cropping and saving each section (maybe even recording this action to do batch processing). However, another way is to use the slice tool to quickly divide up the sections then "Save for Web...". I can adjust some parameters, but I'm afraid there are other automatic adjustments that I don't want. For example, all images are converted to 96 dpi instead of the original 300 dpi. The number of pixels remains the same so I don't think there will be problems printing the picture.
    My question is: does the Save for Web function reduce image quality in any way when printing (it is obviously intended to be used to optimize images for websites)? Are there settings in "Save for Web" that would optimize for high quality prints? Is there a better way to tile an image?
    I have not yet compared any prints.
    W7
    CS6

    If you understand that something will do something you do not want like convert to 96 DPI as long as it does not resample you can always convert back to 300 DPI. If you want 6 4x6 to form a 12x12 you must start with an square 1:1 aspect ratio image. That you resample to 12"x 12" at 300 dpi if you want 6 4x6 300 dpi images.
    If the original images vary in size and aspect ratio you need to crop them square or add two borders to make them square.   The rest is easy to do with an action.
    The square crop or border can be automated with a little scripting.  If crop  a center crop would be the route to go. My crafting actions package contains  more the a dozen scripts to be used within action. One is a plug-in script that would make center cropping a snap two steps menu File>Automat>AspectsRatioSelection followed menu Image>Crop.  Add a menu Image>Size set side to 12" and resolution 300 DPI and you have your  starting 12"x12" 300 dpi image.
    Flatten the image make your first 4"x6" selection copy past to add it as a layer. Select the background select the next 4x6 area copy and paste repeat that process till you have added the 6 4"X6" layers. Then delete the background, Select all, target all layers and use layer>Align layers to selection>Top edge then repeat align to left edge. the Image>Trim you have your 6 4x6 in a stack.   You can the use Adobe Photoshop Script Export Layer to file.   All automated in an action however the last step Export layers to files is interactive for its not a plug-in script. So if you batch it you keen to hang around to interact with the last step for each image.
    You could also write you own export script that would not need human intervention to use instead of Adobe interactive script.
    Crafting Actions Package UPDATED Aug 10, 2014 Added Conditional Action steps to Action Palette Tips.
    Contains
    Action Actions Palette Tips.txt
    Action Creation Guidelines.txt
    Action Dealing with Image Size.txt
    Action Enhanced via Scripted Photoshop Functions.txt
    CraftedActions.atn Sample Action set includes an example Watermarking action
    Sample Actions.txt Photoshop CraftedActions set saved as a text file.
    More then a dozen Scripts for use in actions
    Example
    Download

  • Does Photoshop Express change image quality of original file?

    I use Photoshop Express (currently version is 3.4196) on my iPhone 5s to work on 24 megapixel files from my Nikon D7100 DSLR.
    Does anyone know if saving the file reduces the image quality? what is the equivalent JPEG level to the Desktop Photoshop?
    Tal

    Hello
    We are currently having a beta for Measurement Studio. This is a public beta where we let customers evaluate beta software versions of the next release of Measurement Studio. If you can go to the beta site ( http://ni.com/beta ) and sign up for the Measurement Studio beta, you can evaluate this behavior in the newer CWGraph control and see if it provides you the desired behavior.
    The main reason you are seeing problems like this is that the ControlImage function selects 600 dpi to draw the image out, since this is a standard number that works with most printers.The 7.1 controls will now provide a ControlImageEx function that lets you select the dpi for the image. The standard for most screens is 96 dpi.
    Please email the beta coo
    rdinator( [email protected] ) once you have signed up.
    I hope this helps
    Bilal Durrani
    NI
    Bilal Durrani
    NI

  • The image quality suddenly downgraded in Photoshop

    Hello guys,
    today when I'm editing my file as usual, suddenly I found out that the image quality are downgraded inside photoshop
    but it become smooth and normal again when I try to blow up the image. The saved image have no trouble as well.
    When I'm using general preview size, it will be like this
    When I blow up the detail, it become smooth again like this
    I'm not sure if I accidentially clicked any button, could anyone help with this please? big thanks!!!

    this is windows system and I've checked the image processor box
    The text is not rendered into pixels either,
    the below is the screen capture:

  • Adobe Photoshop CS3 Image Processor not converting files to sRGB Profile

    I have been experiencing a problem with Photoshop CS3 Image Processor no longer converting profiles to sRGB.   It converts all of the files from Camera Raw to JPEG, but not sRGB as well.  I used to be able to batch convert an entire folder of RAW images to JPEG, sRGB through the Image Processor.
    My Photoshop CS3 Working Space is Adobe RGB (1998).  I need to convert an entire folder of images selected in Bridge to sRGB working space in order to publish a photo album from one of the on-line publishing companies.  I can open each individual Camera Raw file in Photoshop and convert each to JPEG, sRGB, but this takes a tremendous amount of time.
    The following procedure has worked for me in the past, but for some reason no longer works:
    I select the images in the desired Bridge CS3 folder.  Upper tool bar, "Tools" > "Photoshop" > "Image Processor".  In Image Processor:
    Section 1 - ""Process files from Bridge only (11)"  Whether or not I place a checkmark by "Open first image to apply settings", it makes no difference in the outcome.
    Section 2:  "Save in same location"
    Section 3 - "Checkmark by "Save as JPEG, quality 12".  Also a checkmark by "Convert Profile to sRGB"
    Section 4 - Checkmark by "Include ICC Profile"
    I replaced my iMac one month ago and reinstalled Photoshop CS3, but this Image Processor problem had been occurring even with my old computer.
    Not sure if you need this information:
    I'm currently on Mac OS X Version 10.6.4
    Processor:  2.93 Ghz Intel Core i7
    Memory:  8 GB 1333 Mhz DDR3
    I don't know if it's related,  Photoshop CS3 on my old computer was running in Rosetta.  I don't know if it's running in Rosetta now, the name does not appear when Photoshop boots up.  How do I get it to run in Rosetta again?

    Heh heh heh.  It's always true that we find the answer just after making public our problems, which in turn we did after trying to find the problems ourselves for hours.
    Thanks for following up with the answer.
    -Noel

  • 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.

  • I've been sent a scan of a document as an attachment. Clicking on it, I get the message, "Pixel aspect ration correction is for preview purposes only. Turn it off for maximum image quality." What is pixel aspect ration and how do I turn it off?

    I've been sent a scan of a document as an attachment. Clicking on it, I get the message, "Pixel aspect ration correction is for preview purposes only. Turn it off for maximum image quality." What is pixel aspect ration and how do I turn it off?

    It's "aspect ratio", not aspect "ration". 
    It's what determines whether you have square pixels ("normal") or, if rectangular pixels, what the aspect ratio (width : length)  of that rectangle is.
    It's explained in the Help files.  I cannot go into more detail because you have neglected to provide information about your platform and exact version of Photoshop.
    Example in next post

  • Image quality issues in PS - word to PDF

    Hi,
    I am having major image quality issues when trying to make my word document a clean, clear PDF. Images become distorted. Borders for tables and text that are equal px size look like they are different sizes throughout the document.
    I have searched the internet, read help, and tried many different things:
    Word 2007 - Changed image %, image size, export options, adjusted px for borders, used different styles
    Acrobat 9 Pro - Changed import settings, import options, print options, tried press quality, high quality, etc.
    Photoshop CS4 - Changed ppx, file format, compression options
    What can I do to get a clean, clear PDF file with the images and borders preserved?
    Thank you.

    In converting a MS Office file to PDF, Photoshop cannot help in any way and will likely cause more harm as it may rasterize vector data. Expect your ideal answer in the Acrobat forum.

  • Image quality in Preview is extremely low

    Hello,
    I just recently switched to Mac from PC. Since using this Mac, I have had some issues with image quality. At first I thought it was just Photoshop, but I realized that the standard OS preview is also having display issues.
    Basically, if I open an image in preview or in Photoshop to edit, the quality is low, but when I go to "save for web" and view it in the preview box, it looks perfectly normal. Website images look normal, and everything else that is vector looks normal. It's only pictures that are having this issue.
    I have no idea what would cause preview images and photoshop files to look like this.
    Here is a link to a picture of the problem. The left side is what the image looks like in Photoshop (and Preview) and the right side is the "save for web" box showing it looks normal.
    Thanks in advance for any help or guidance someone may be able to offer.
    http://www.soshanna.com/images.png

    "...The left side is what the image looks like in Photoshop (and Preview) and the right side is the "save for web" box showing it looks normal."
    Just the opposite on my Mac.

  • !! Exporting SWF file in PDF reduces image quality.

    Hello,
    I have a file with many multi-state picture frames and buttons for them. I export it in pieces in SWF format, then I put the SWF's back in the document as a new layer and export as interactive PDF. Finally everything worked fine, except that PDF opens in a larger then normal zoom and when zooming in on pictures the quality is very poor I am guessing 72ppi at the intended zoom. I check the SWF file and see that its image quality is good when zoomed, so the problem is with the way the PDF has exported the SWF.
    notes: I made sure the settings were to export at 300ppi and high image quality. When I take a single multi-state frame with its associated button and export to SWF then PDF the image quality is maintained.... however I have over 150 image frames, so I rather not export them individually. Please, please reply... any suggestions will be gratefully excepted.

    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.

  • How to prevent PDF presets to alter image quality

    In experimenting with various PDF presets, I noticed that with grayscale images in Photoshop, saving as PDFs using different presets, alters image quality, specifically the contrast. 
    Therefore, it seems like saving an image in the "wrong" PDF preset could undo a lot of prepress work. Is there a better way/format?
    To get a crude idea: there is an 8.7% decrease in the percent black between 10% and 50% values (the range) on a step wedge between the original in Photoshop and the HighQuality PDF, which showed the same values, and the PDF/X-1a, which compressed the range by 4 percentage points (approximately a 8.7% decrease). 
    A visual, and idiosyncratic, assessment of four versions of the same image  (Photoshop grayscale, High Qualtiy PDF, PDF/X-1a, and PDF/X-3), which included a step wedge and color ramp, would rank the fidelity to the original from best, HighQuality, to worst, PDF/X-1a. 
    The same grayscale image in Photoshop CS6 was distilled (File > Print > Adobe PDF) to PDFs using unmodified PDF presets in Acrobat XI distiller.
    The following composit screen shot (all four images on the screen, screen print, reorganizing them, then reducing the image to a 120 dpi at 4.2" wide (including text) gives some idea of the differences, but a lot got lost getting it here. 
    Walton

    I do a lot of work with print-on-demand books (design and formatting), and I am active on the CreateSpace (the p-o-d division of Amazon.com). Although CS will accept work in virtually any PDF preset or origin (doPDF, cutePDF, etc.), PDF/X-1a is the recommended format, and for other companies it is the only accepted preset.
    Here is the dumb question:
    On the monitor (as the screen shot shows) the four images (PS, HQ PDF, PDF/X-1a, PDF/X-4) appear quite different: i.e. my video/monitor system is representing the images differently.
    A screen shot of all four images on the screen at the same time, then with the info window open in Photoshop, I assessed their CMYK values in the exact same places on each image (lining the images up, using the measure tool and  guidelines, measuring at high magnification); here (the color original followed by the original grayscalse conversion) are the black values (C00 M00 Y00 K1-100):
    The images display differently, and those displays measure differently.
    When I view the PDF images, they appear differently, but if i measure them (Output Preview set to Dot Gain 20%) the K values are the same. 
    When the same image is prepared using different PDF presets (a previous set of test using different images and looking for something different) they will print (printed in a black & white book by CreateSpace) differently.
    How can one predict how a grayscale image will print? How can one prepare it and safely convert it to PDF?
    Walton

  • Poor image quality? Why do Jpeg's look so bad?

    If anyone has tips on how to improve the image quality of jpeg's in acrobat.com I'd really like to hear them. I've edited the images in Photoshop (CS4), exported them as jpeg's, and inserted them into my acrobat.com presentation. They look horrible, and there are many artifacts. If I insert the same image into Powerpoint, they look considerably better, but I'd prefer not to have to use it. Is there an image quality setting that I'm missing?
    Thanks for any help,
    Rob

    Hi Rob,
    Thanks for posting - and sorry you're having trouble. It sounds as though the image's quality is suffering because it's being down-sized upon insertion. In Presentations, any images larger than 1024 on a side are resized to fit within a 1024 bounds (we do this to optimize performance - important for a web application).
    Here are some tips from one of our fine engineers:
    For the best looking images, pre-scale your images to fit the size of the presentation before you upload them; for reference, the slide canvas is 720 pixels wide and 540 pixels tall. Any image larger than those dimensions is larger than it needs to be on the client so you and your audience are downloading more data than they will ever see. If you resize your images to fit the size it will appear on the screen, you will have a better looking image.
    The choice of image format makes a difference at this scale as well. For image with smooth transitions like photographs of landscapes, jpeg is a good format. For computer generated diagrams like charts, or images with lots of details like text, PNG is a better format.
    It is important that the image be scaled to the appropriate size before uploading because the server will recompress any image it needs to scale using JPEG compression. So if you are uploading a PNG image with transparency, you will loose any transparency effect if the image is large enough to require scaling on the server.
    I hope this is helpful, Rob. Please let us know if you have any further questions.
    Best regards,
    Rebecca

Maybe you are looking for