Photoshop, Why letter for Image become blurry ?

Hi, does anyone can help. I have made slider image for my site with adobe photoshop. I set the DPI 200 when saving to JPG, beacuse for site I thing doesn't need very big image, but whe i upload to my site its become little bit blurry. I have tried to set higher DPI but the result still blurry, espesialy in the letter. see the result here www.fandelafx.co.( every letter in the image slider )
Is that something wrong when I process the image in the photoshop ? please advice..

For the Web DPI is meaningless all that matters are the number of Pixels and how good they are. Displays drivers do not use an images DPI setting for anything. They just display pixels on the display connected to the computer. Displays have a single pixel size their resolution is fixed. So you web image will look different on various displays. The size and resolution will differ between devices. Create you images for displays to fit within some pixel area. If you create Large print images with fine details they will degrade and loose details when re-sized to fit on displays. Create image for the web that will look good with the limited number of pixels most display have. Do not create image that will only fit on full 5k displays create images that will look good on devices with limited pixels like 800x600

Similar Messages

When i import my AutoCad PDF into photoshop my lines and text become blurry. How do i fix this

When i import my AutoCad PDF into photoshop my lines and text become blurry. How do i fix this?
Is it resizing as I import it or maybe a printer thing?

It is rasterizing the PDF at the resolution you tell it to, unless it's an image only PDF - then the image will be opened as-is.

Why do images become blurry after resizing in lightroom?

Please help.
I do not know why the images are becoming blurry after resizing them in lightroom and exporting them?
Any advice?
Thanks.

What pixel dimensions are you resizing them down to and what quality setting and sharpening settings are you specifying in the Export panel?

Why do my images look blurry when opened in photoshop?

Hi! i was just wondering if i could get some help with a problem i've been getting since yesterday.
Before yesterday morning, my photoshop was working just fine but then yesterday morning when i opened this image.
It would look like this
instead of it looking like the first image above, the thing though is when i export the image from photoshop as a png, jpeg or any other it looks normal again like this.
This is the first time this has ever happened so i'm not really sure about what to do.
I'm using photoshop cs6 and i've also uninstall and reinstall photoshop about 2 times now but it doesn't fix it
so if anyone can help me that would be great.
Thanks.

ssprengel wrote:
The screenshots you’ve posted look very similar to me, but they are all composed of tiny dots not a continuous-tone image.
Yes. They don't make any sense to me either. Are we supposed to be looking at a blank dark gray rectangle, or has the upload process failed the OP ?

Why do my pictures become blurry after exporting from lightroom 5?

My pictures become somewhat blurry or not as sharp after I export them from lightroom 5. PLEASE HELP!!!

If you are looking at your exported pictures in preview.app than that is the culprit. It uses an extremely poor downscaling algorithm for displaying large images and will make every large image, no matter how sharp originally, display blurry. In preview you can hit command-0 (that's a zero) to make the image display 1:1 to see the actual detail. Make sure you have it's preferences in the images panel set to "Define 100% scale as 1 image pixel equals 1 screen pixel". I think in older Mac OS X versions, it was called something like ignore image dpi for display or so but I don't remember. You can also make sure to downscale (with correct output sharpening in the export panel) upon export from Lightroom. If the exported image is smaller than the display, Preview should display 1:1 by default upon opening.

Why do my images become very desaturated and the exposure changes every time I paste them to a blank page? The originals are so vibrant and warm by comparison.

Hi,
For work I always paste 3 images of varying sizes onto the same page in photoshop. This wasn't an issue and always looked great when I did it in ps5, but since upgrading to ps6 they always paste flat, desaturated and underexposed. Put side-by-side with the original they look terrible.
This is something I desperately need to resolve as I show this small collection to my customers and potential customers.
I've changed my color settings in an attempt to sort this out, but this has made absolutely no difference.
Thanks in advance
Kimberly

RGB is not a color space, it's a color model. Color spaces are sRGB, Adobe RGB, ProPhoto RGB etc.
Since you're apparently not familiar with these concepts, you should work consistently in sRGB, which displays roughly right in all scenarios even in the absence of color management.
The default color space out of Lightroom (if you haven't changed it) is ProPhoto, which can quickly get you into trouble unless you know what you're doing. Change it to sRGB in Lr Preferences > External editing.
Don't change Photoshop color settings! That will quickly get you into an even bigger mess than you are now. Reset it to default settings and don't touch them again until you know more. What you need to change is Lightroom "Edit in Photoshop" color space.

Why do my images go blurry when I export from InDesign to interactive PDF?

I am trying to export an InDesign file to an interactive PDF, but my images are going blurry.
Everything else is fine.
Can anyone help?

In the export dialog options, please reset the jpeg quality and resolutions to higher levels, and see the output results have improved. But be prepared to accept heavy pdf file size.

Why does the image go blurry when I export my file to jpeg from Illustrator CS6?

Hi,
I have created an image on illusrator CS6 and am ready to save it.
I have saved it as a pdf format and the image stays as a sharp vector image and not blurry at all.
But I also want to keep the image as a jpeg. So when I go to export the image from illustrator CS6 as a jpeg, the end result comes out blurry and not sharp anymore, but more jagged on the edges of the image.
Is there anything I can do to keep my file as a jpeg with it staying as a sharp crisp image?

The image above is a screenshot of the ai.file
Above - second image is the screenshot of my export settings
the 3rd image above is a close up zoomed in part of the image - the edges are jagged and blurry

Still image becomes blurry when played in iMovie 10.0.7

I am attempting to use still images in an iMovie 10.0.7 presentation. I have defeated the Ken Burns effect. The clear image drops out of focus when I press play and pops back into focus when the clip ends. Is there a fix for this?
Thanks.

That's a feature, lowering qualiyt while editing; on final export you'll notice a much better quality ....

Why do linked images become embedded?

I start a file, place a linked image into the file, save it and close it. When I reopen the file the image has become embedded. It happens whether I save as an .ai file or an EPS file.

When saving, be sure 'Include Linked Files' is not checked if you want to keep them as links.

Aperture, Photoshop, and Apple's possible direction for Image Editing

All,
After using Aperture now for several days, and reading many different forum topics, in particular this one which speaks of desired enhancements to Aperture:
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=253594&tstart=0
there is one thing that really sticks out on my mind. While all of us photographers have slightly different specifics to our workflow, in general they are very similar. And with respect to Aperture, there is one huge area where most of us seem to be hitting the brick wall: image adjustments, and by extension, image file management. Let me explain what I mean.
I think it is a fair generalization to say that the vast majority of serious digital photographers are using Photoshop (or some other image editing app, but I'm just going to refer to Photoshop for convenience) for post-processing of some kind. In using Aperture, and figuring out how to fit it into workflow, we've got this situation of how to move from organization and image library management to the full gamut of image adjusting functionality (photoshop) and back again to library management. The need to use photoshop then exposes the issue of how files are stored on the filesystem, etc. Stay with me here...
I have found myself thinking, and it is pretty clearly demonstrated in the forum topic mentioned above where folks are making suggestions for improvements to Aperture, that there's this barrel people are over in knowing whether Photoshop and Aperture should live in the workflow together, or whether Aperture should (or is intended to) replace Photoshop in the workflow. This got me to thinking about the fundamental question -- what is the intent, i.e. the vision for Aperture? Is it meant to replace Photoshop, or restated, is Aperture meant to be the app in which all image adjustments are to be made, OR is Aperture meant to just ease workflow, and is it intended not to be the primary app for image adjustments, but rather integrate with the primary image adjustment app?
The reason I bring this up is that the answer to this question makes all the difference in what enhancement requests and what people should expect from Aperture now, and in future versions. If Aperture is the primary place for image adjustment, then its obvious that there are some very significant additions that need to take place to Aperture, and likewise, the issue of putting images on the filesystem becomes much less important. However, if Aperture is a workflow-easer, then such image adjustment improvements are minimally important if at all, and filesystem / Photoshop / PSD file integration becomes paramount.
I know what Aperture does, what features it provides, etc. But I can't help but realize that its not really that clear (or I just don't understand yet) what the full scope of Aperture now and in the future is intended to be, and the forum topics are pretty decent documentation of the fact that the user base at this point is fairly cloudy on that too.
I can't help thinking that in the midst of the Apple pro line of tools, where we have tools that edit: video, audio, DVD creation, text effects, and now digital photography workflow, that there's one glaring hole: static image editing, i.e. a direct Photoshop competitor. I went through the Aperture video demos before Aperture shipped, and watched these photo pros talk incessantly about how "now there's an app that addresses how I work -- Aperture". That's great, but Apple has to know the role that Photoshop plays in present photography workflow -- for those pros too. So I'm sitting here thinking to myself, why would Apple roll out such a product with some clear workflow hurdles to common Photoshop usage.
Ok, here's the punchline: does anyone else here have a sneaking suspicion that Apple is not to far off from releasing their own image editing application that's a direct Photoshop competitor? I mean come on, Final Cut Pro, Motion, Sountrack, and by extension of the CEO to Pixar, Renderman. How can you not have a static image adjustment application entering the scene at some point?
I'm curious what others think. I'm just trying to make sense of how to fit the neat stuff I see in Aperture into a workflow that doesn't play very nicely with Aperture at some points (because I'm using Photoshop).
Brad
Powerbook G4-1.33GHz-17" / Powermac G4-1.4GHz Mac OS X (10.4.2) PB: 1GB RAM, Radeon 9600-64MB / PM: 1.25GB RAM, Radeon 9000Pro-128MB

So Apple adds curves adjustments,
we'll need noise reduction, greater sharpening
capability, etc., etc., and then when we have all
those features, surely we'll need masking and select
capability to perform those adjustments selectively,
etc. Where does it end?
Actually that could be a good cut-off point - add a few more/better 'global' adjustments but leave all mask, selection and layer based tasks to external editors. Personally, I used to swear by curves, but haven't really touched them in PS for a year since shooting more RAW and learning how to use the shadow/highlight adjustment properly. Sometimes for overall colour for JPEGs, but that bit can be done just as well in levels.
My workflow isn't particularly typical, but here goes.
Type of photography - stitched panoramas as a professional, plus general snapshots/nature/landscape as hobby. Single user with no network storage.
Currently I use a very organised folder structure in the Finder, along with aliases in DragThing docks for easy access to final stitched files, all with their own unique ID. RAW conversions are done in ACR/PSCS2, or Bibble if I'm in a hurry on the laptop. About 40% of the panos are shot in RAW, 40% are bracketed JPEG and the remaining 20% are 'single' JPEG. The panoramas go through quite a lot of post-processing in PS using a whole series of actions and AppleScripts.
I'm expecting my workflow to look something like this:
1) Download directly into Aperture, possibly with added help from Automator/Applescript when it comes to proper date-based names.
2) Divide download into a new album for each panorama.
2a) If it is a people pano there will be quite a lot of duplicate shots for each panohead position - make a stack for each position and choose picks - this bit will speed things up enormously by itself. Reorder stacks to fit correct order of images going around the scene.
3) Export to TIFF (sometimes JPEG) and stitch using PTMac (sometimes Realviz Stitcher). Oh, and any people who think Aperture is limited, buggy and bad value should go and look at Stitcher - it costs the same, has a far more limited feature set, is on version 5 and by comparison makes Aperture look bug-free.
4) Bring stitched panorama into Photoshop to adjust seams through layers if needed, flatten, final tone adjustments (usually using shadow/highlight), possibly some colour tweaks, sharpen. For bracketed shots I will blend together the three exposures at this point using a custom action - this kind of thing is unlikely ever to make it to Aperture.
5) Bring final print-ready file into Aperture for cataloguing/backup.
5a) If file is too big for Aperture, make a smaller version for cataloguing and store original file in Finder. This gives me a good file for 90% of purposes, with the huge file available with a bit more work.
Too big? I've found that Aperture gets sluggish with files over 18-20,000 pixels wide, and chokes totally somewhere between 25,000 and 32,000 pixels wide - 'image format unsupported'.
To summarise - organise and convert in Aperture, stitch in specialist software, do PS-specific stuff then bring final image back in to join the source images.
Ian

Why is the small text blurry on photoshop?

why is the small text blurry on photoshop? i am **** a very small advert for a newspaper! and the text is printing blurry and when zoomed in is appearing all blurry? how do i stop this i only have photoshop and indesign

c.pfaffenbichler schrieb:
If a vector is intact, no flattening has been done. I don't talk about PDF layers, they are a complete different thing. When flattening is done no form or text survives as live vector or live text.
The pdf is X-1, so there are no Layers or transparencies in it, but the text is searchable still.
So I guess you are correct in that no flattening has happened, rather Photohop embedded two images in the pdf and clipped the one with the type.
Exaclty, whe a pDF X1 or 3 is created transparency is flattened and here it can come to unwanted rasterizing of vectors.
How will you create the correct boxes for bleed and crop in Photoshop?
For a newspaper add those will probably be irrelevant as bleed is hardly necessary.
Not at all, it is much easier to assamble files in a greater layout if all boxes are correct.
You know it good enough that this is not the right tool for that task?
Indesign is definitely the preferable tool for the task at hand, but claiming Photoshop cannot output type except pixelated was not proper.
I think in a forum we should not support the use of wrong tools but we have to show the best way to do things correct.
And there are also problems which cannot avoided with higher knowledge like coloured black (not in this ad). Yes, you an me we are capable to shift around the known problems with ads created in Photoshop, but others don't know these problems and will crash.

Why are my images created in Photshop cs6 blurry when insterted into Premiere Pro

I create beuatiful still images in photoshop CS 6 to use in my videos. They are high resoultion raw files that are reized to 16x9 ratio. Once I put them into Premiere Pro they are still fine. When I place them in my timeline and press play on my sequence they instally become blurry.
Please advise?

There could be a few things at play here. But if, as you say, your images go blurry only when you press play, you might take a look at your playback resolution settings. I'm not sure how the most current release works (I haven't installed it due to the several new bugs posted here), however in recent versions there is a separate quality setting for the program monitor when the video is stopped vs. when it is playing back.

My images look blurry when I export or publish my site from Muse. Why and how do I fix it?

My images look blurry, jagged, pixelated and low quality when I publish or export my site from Muse. Is there any way to avoid or fix this problem?

The primary cause of blurring images is the less than Photoshop-quality image downsampling algorithm currently used in Muse (that was compounded in early betas due to a bug in the JPEG compression library we were using at that time). Due to work we've done for Beta 7 to improve image encoding performance we now have the infrastructure in place to enable us to take a much better image resampler/resizer (after Beta 7), so this source of blurring will be addressed.
The other source of blurring is unique to opaque images containing line art or otherwise containing hard edges and large areas of solid color. When an image is opaque Muse will encode it as JPEG (if it's altered in Muse is a way that requires re-encoding). For line art this will introduce JPEG compression artifacts that can be noticeable depending on your eye and the specific image involved.
There are (at least) to ways to avoid these JPEG compression artifacts:
Resize your image before placing and avoid applying any effects (rounded corners, drop shadow, etc.) or doing any cropping or resizing in Muse. If the image is unaltered your original JPEG, PNG or GIF will be passed through unaltered.*
Put at least one pixel of transparency in your original image. (It could be a single 99% opaque pixel.) This will force Muse to encode as PNG. PNG compression is lossless and thus doesn't introduce any compression artifacts. However, an average PNG can be 5 times the size of a JPEG for the same image, so there is an impact to webpage download performance.
*For PSD files Muse has to encode the original PSD data into some web-friendly image format. If an image is resized in Photoshop and placed Muse won't resize/resample the image data, but it will encode it as JPEG or PNG depending on whether it contains transparency.

DrawImage takes long time for images created with Photoshop

Hello,
I created a simple program to resize images using the drawImage method and it works very well for images except images which have either been created or modified with Photoshop 8.
The main block of my code is
public static BufferedImage scale( BufferedImage image,
                                      int targetWidth, int targetHeight) {
   int type = (image.getTransparency() == Transparency.OPAQUE) ?
                    BufferedImage.TYPE_INT_RGB :
                    BufferedImage.TYPE_INT_RGB;
   BufferedImage ret = (BufferedImage) image;
   BufferedImage temp = new BufferedImage(targetWidth, targetHeight, type);
   Graphics2D g2 = temp.createGraphics();
   g2.setRenderingHint
         RenderingHints.KEY_INTERPOLATION,
         RenderingHints.VALUE_INTERPOLATION_BICUBIC
   g2.drawImage(ret, 0, 0, targetWidth, targetHeight, null);
   g2.dispose();
   ret = temp;
   return ret;
}The program is a little longer, but this is the gist of it.
When I run a jpg through this program (without Photoshop modifications) , I get the following trace results (when I trace each line of the code) telling me how long each step took in milliseconds:
Temp BufferedImage: 16
createGraphics: 78
drawimage: 31
dispose: 0
However, the same image saved in Photoshop (no modifications except saving in Photohop ) gave me the following results:
Temp BufferedImage: 16
createGraphics: 78
drawimage: 27250
dispose: 0
The difference is shocking. It took the drawImage process 27 seconds to resize the file in comparison to 0.78 seconds!
My questions:
1. Why does it take so much longer for the drawImage to process the file when the file is saved in Photoshop?
2. Are there any code improvements which will speed up the image drawing?
Thanks for your help,
-Rogier

You saved the file in PNG format. The default PNGImagReader in core java has a habit of occasionally returning TYPE_CUSTOM buffered images. Photoshop 8 probably saves the png file in such a way that TYPE_CUSTOM pops up more.
And when you draw a TYPE_CUSTOM buffered image onto a graphics context it almost always takes an unbearably long time.
So a quick fix would be to load the file with the Toolkit instead, and then scale that image.
Image img = Toolkit.getDefaultToolkit().createImage(/*the file*/);
new ImageIcon(img);
//send off image to be scaled A more elaborate fix involves specifying your own type of BufferedImage you want the PNGImageReader to use
ImageInputStream in = ImageIO.createImageInputStream(/*file*/);
ImageReader reader = ImageIO.getImageReaders(in).next();
reader.setInput(in,true,true);
ImageTypeSpecifier sourceImageType = reader.getImageTypes(0).next();
ImageReadParam readParam = reader.getDefaultReadParam();
//to implement
configureReadParam(sourceImageType, readParam);
BufferedImage img = reader.read(0,readParam);
//clean up
reader.dispose();
in.close(); The thing that needs to be implemented is the method I called configureReadParam. In this method you would check the color space, color model, and BufferedImage type of the supplied ImageTypeSpecifier and set a new ImageTypeSpecifier if need be. The method would essentially boil down to a series of if statements
1) If the image type specifier already uses a non-custom BufferedImage, then all is well and we don't need to do anything to the readParam
2) If the ColorSpace is gray then we create a new ImageTypeSpecifier based on a TYPE_BYTE_GRAY BufferedImage.
3) If the ColorSpace is gray, but the color model includes alpha, then we need to do the above and also call seSourceBands on the readParam to discard the alpha channel.
3) If the ColorSpace is RGB and the color model includes alpha, then we create a new ImageTypeSpecifier based on an ARGB BufferedImage.
4) If the ColorSpace if RGB and the color model doesn't include alpha, then we create a new ImageTypeSpecifier based on TYPE_3BYTE_BGR
5) If the ColorSpace is not Gray or RGB, then we do nothing to the readParam and ColorConvertOp the resulting image to an RGB image.
If this looks absolutely daunting to you, then go with the Toolkit approach mentioned first.

Photoshop, Why letter for Image become blurry ?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for