Trouble with image quality upon transfer in CS5

when dragging a high resolution JPEG image onto the canvas (958 px by 480 px) I'm working on, this message appears:
"the target document has a different depth than the source document. this may result in lower than expected quality..."
does that mean the quality of the image i'm using will be compromised? how do i prevent that from happening?
Thanks!

i found that converting it to a smart object before dragging doesn't compromise the quality as much. is there another way around this?
Is Photoshop > Preferences > General > Place or Drag Raster Images as Smart Objects checked?
what is Camera Raw?
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/extend.html
http://forums.adobe.com/community/cameraraw

Similar Messages

Trouble with image size

Hello everyone, I'm having some trouble with image sizes.
I created a 977x5000 px image at 72 PX/inch resolution with text for use on a weebly website.
When created the image looks like a small vertical bar(maybe around 50x500px) with a massive left and right photoshop background(not the image background). so if I drag the bottom slider to the left or right the image will completely disappear. I can CTR and + to get it to the correct size so I can actually read the text. I can still go very far left and right with bottom slider. The problem comes in when I save it to a PNG or other file it still shows up as a bar.
Is there any way to fix this so it saves it as the correct viewing size? that way when I open the image it's an actual 977x5000 instead of looking like a 50x500
I'm on Windows 7, my display settings are at 100% and I'm using Photoshop CC 2014

You do not understand what is going on at all. First an image file's PX/inch resolution setting is meaningless when it come to the Web and displays all that is meaningful is pixels. For displays are run at one resolution usually their native manufactured Pixel resolution so your image will be displayed at 96DPI on Desktop Displays and a 300+DPI on Phones and around 250DPI on tablets. Your image height is also to large to fit on any display. The Display I think that displays the most pixels is the IBM T221 22.2" LCD 16:10 aspect ratio 3840px by 2400px. at 204DPI. Rotating that display to portrait it can display an image with a height of 3840px your image height is larger 5000. Your image has an aspect ratio in the neighborhood of 1:5 an image 50x500 has an aspect ratio of 1:10 a far cry from 1:5 your image is much wider then 1:10.
IBM T220/T221 LCD monitors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Most common display resolutions in the first half of 2014
Acronym
Aspect ratio
Width (px)
Height (px)
% of Steam users
% of web users
SVGA
4:3
800
600
00.08
00.64
WSVGA
~17:10
1024
600
00.17
01.59
XGA
4:3
1024
768
02.85
09.84
XGA+
4:3
1152
864
00.34
00.85
WXGA
16:9
1280
720
00.93
01.65
WXGA
5:3
1280
768
00.52
01.09
WXGA
16:10
1280
800
02.44
08.90
SXGA– (UVGA)
4:3
1280
960
00.35
00.48
SXGA
5:4
1280
1024
07.05
05.74
HD
~16:9
1360
768
03.00
02.43
HD
~16:9
1366
768
24.53
26.64
SXGA+
4:3
1400
1050
00.10
n/a
WXGA+
16:10
1440
900
05.74
05.95
HD+
16:9
1600
900
07.76
04.99
UXGA
4:3
1600
1200
00.30
n/a
WSXGA+
16:10
1680
1050
06.27
02.96
FHD
16:9
1920
1080
32.91
08.64
WUXGA
16:10
1920
1200
02.11
00.95
QWXGA
16:9
2048
1152
00.08
n/a
WQHD
16:9
2560
1440
00.93
00.58
WQXGA
16:10
2560
1600
00.13
n/a
3:4
768
1024
n/a
05.31
16:9
1093
614
n/a
00.64
16:9
1536
864
n/a
00.70
Other
01.41
09.42

Having trouble with image processor...help please!

HI there...First off I just bought a new iMac and haven't a clue what I'm doing so my problem could be related to that. While I'm waiting for Adobe to transfer over my platform I downloaded the trial of CS5 Extended to get me started. I'm having trouble with the image processor...I choose file/scripts/image processor...the dialog box comes up and I choose use open files and then try and choose the folder I want to save them in. I choose my folder and hit run and it keeps telling me specify folder destination. I can't for the life of me figure this out...what am I doing wrong? It always worked fine for me on my PC and CS3. I can't handle saving each image individually in the new folder...
Thanks!!

I haven't renamed anything as far as I know. I made a new folder when I hit Folder option and it's highlighted as well as the path shows up in the processor box. Just when I choose run it tells me to specify a folder. The only thing I can think of is that maybe something messed up b/c I'm copied the files and folders over from my PC but it let me save as on the mac. Also the folder I'm choosing to put them in is on the Mac harddrive. IDK...

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

Having trouble with sound quality

I have had this iPod Touch 2nd Generation for almost 2 years now, and I'm starting to have some troubles with it. The headphone sound quality is now starting to deteriorate. Unless the headphones are plugged in a specific way, either one bud goes out, or the sound quality goes down, as there is a lot of static and crackling, and I've had experiences with it actually shocking my ears while I'm listening.
I have tried a new pair of headphones, and this does nothing.
My iPod is obviously beyond the manufacturer's warranty, and it's up-to-date with the latest update. Is there anything I can do?

Sounds like your headphone jack may need replacing.
Check out the new remodeled MacOSG website! 24-hour Apple-related news & support.
 MacOSG: An Apple User Group  iTunes: MacOSG Podcast  Follow us on Twitter: MacOSG

Poor Image quality upon PDF export

hi,
issue: images lose quality when viewed in PDFs
i've searched/read these and other forums for the past few days and have tried just about every suggestion out there in order to get better quality images in my PDFs and nothing works.. it's as if everyone is talking some theory without actually testing/proving what they're saying.
are pdfs inherently bad at handling raster images?
i have a few 800x1200 px renders (tiffs/jpgs) that i'd like to include in a PDF.. i'm using A4 landscape orientation because when viewed at full size on a 24" monitor, it's the size i'd like it to be (i'm not concerned with printing this pdf.. monitor only)
the images when view full size in the pdf are a bit smaller than viewing the original images full size however, the quality is a lot worse.
honestly, i'll try or retry your suggestions but at this point, i'm more/less looking for an explanation as to why this happens because from what i can tell, it's going to happen no matter what
gracias

PeterBreis0807 wrote:
Not sure what you are expecting.
well, i'm certainly expecting better quality than what i'm getting..
The jpg is contrasty and it is lower resolution than you need, but you did say that above. Which means I am not looking at what you are looking at.
The color space is srgb and the conversion from the tiff would have reduced the quality a little or a lot depending on your settings.
it doesn't matter if i use the original tiff or the jpg.. for all intents and purposes, let's forget i even have the tiff.. the jpg should look the same in the pdf (imo)
Did you print to pdf or Export? If you exported, did you use "Best" as your setting.
i've done all sort of methods.. but yeah, always at highest quality if said method allows such settings..
It has lost some contrast and is a little blurry. It looks to my eye like the degradation you get from setting the jpeg quality a little low.
well, no.. it has gone from something that is in focus to something that is out of focus.. if i open the jpg in photoshop and do a 'save as' jpg with the quality set to 3 (with 12 being best), i will get similar results as putting the jpg in a pdf.. (albeit, a different type of quality loss but just as bad)
you've seen the comparison but just in case someone else wants to look, check here:
http://homepage.mac.com/jeffhammond/Sites/imgs/origVSpdf.jpg
that's a screenshot showing the jpg on the right and the pdf output on the left (both viewed in preview)..
it's unacceptable.. but like i said earlier, i think this is an inherent aspect of pdfs and i'd settle for a decent explanation as to why it happens..
OSX has some very smart frameworks built in, which do make bitmaps displayed on screen in Cocoa apps look better than they should. Not exactly helpful if you simply want to see it unenhanced.
but still, if that's the case, why isn't osx doing the same thing to the pdf.. (and also, i highly doubt the actual quality of the image is being shown in the pdf but when i view the jpg, i'm being shown an enhanced view to the point of making an out-of-focus image being an in focus image.
jeff

Controlled test shows imovie 08 import is problem with image quality

Friends,
Like many others I thought that I had noticed a quality difference between imovie 08 and imovie 06. So I did a controlled test:
I imported the same video into imovie 08 and imovie 06. I made two separate movies out of the video in 08 and two separate movies out of the video in 06. I then exported one of the 06 movies into 08 and one of the 08 movies into 06. I then burned all four movies to dvd.
The resulting burns were the following:
1. imported into 06, burned through 06
2. imported into 06, exported to 08 and burned through 08
3. imported into 08 and burned through 08
4. imported into 08, exported to 06 and burned through 06.
The result:
The movies imported into 06 were clearly superior in image quality to those imported into 08. I couldn't tell a difference between the 06 imports burned through 08 and 06. I also couldn't detect a difference between movies imported into 08 and burned in 06 and 08.
What is it about 08 import that causes quality degradation? I couldn't find any quality preferences to change.
I suppose this post isn't much different from the others along this line but I couldn't find any that did this type of controlled test.
Applecare had no idea why there was this difference.
Steve

I think I've solved my problem with a Google Search. I came across a free slide show generator
(contributions requested) that shows much higher quality slide shows than either iPhoto or Aperture 3.
You click on a folder of jpegs and it almost immediately generates thumbnails and within a few seconds
I can be viewing a full screen, tack sharp, slideshow of all of the files in the folder. Much sharper than
I'm used to seeing.
I think I'll keep the Aperture 3 and use if for the purpose it's intended for in the future. I'll also redo the
image preview files to the small size it started with and then I'll copy all of the files I'm interested in from
iPhoto into a separate folder on another disk. I'll use Aperture to catalog and to perform image manipulations
on but I won't try to use it as an iPhoto replacement. I don't think I'll be using iPhoto much as an image
viewer in the future either after I finish moving my favorite pictures to the Phoenix Slides folder.
The name of the free program is Phoenix Slides. It's free to download and try, free to keep (though I
think you'd want to pay the small amount requested) and fast. My pictures have never looked so good
before.
http://blyt.net/phxslides/
Message was edited by: Jimbo2001

Trouble with RED Log and Transfer in FCP6

Hi there,
I am cutting my first RED feature and am having an issue getting all my footage into FCP 6. I decided to go with the RED Quicktime files and am Log and transferring them in as we speak. Most of the footage was able to be dropped right in with no problem what so ever but I am on the last 1TB hard drive and it won't mount the folders to transfer the footage except one. One folder when in fine but the rest won't even mount. I tried importing each .RDC folder in on its own but I get an error:
WARNING
"A008c001_0212LV001.R3D" contains unsupported media or has an invalid directory structure. Please choose a folder whose directory structure matches supported media.
Obviously these files are put together the same way as the other couple hundred files but these ones are giving me trouble. Has anyone else ran into this problem and how do I get the footage in.
By the way I can open the .R3D files in Red alert without any problem
Thanks,
~Jake

A while has passed, unfortunately. I've been working my way through this mess, as well.
When you get the "unsupported media or has an invalid directory structure" message it usually indicates that a catalog-like file is missing. The same now happens with P2 transfer.
Check for an ".rsx" file within the RDC folder. Log and Transfer may not be happy if this file is missing. Sometimes it gets missed when the media is being consolidated across drives.
** What I'm having trouble with now is that Log and Transfer repeatedly fails to load a selected directory --- except on the umpteenth attempt. You know, the one where I'm beyond the point that most normal people are up the Bell Tower sniping at the citizenry.
jPo
Message was edited by: JP Owens

Help! I'm having trouble with images on my web page.

I'm trying to create a page with a bunch of my photos but I need the photos broken up into groups so I can discuss the different groups. So I simply cut and paste the photo area several times BUT now when I click on any picture in any group it only does a slideshow for the last group of photos.
I guess I could simply break the single page into multiple pages but that is so inconvenient in iWeb since it doesn't let you cut and paste template pages! Apple needs to seriously fix this shortcoming. How can you not allow cutting and pasting of pages??
Here's the page I'm having trouble with:
http://photo.braintransplants.com/Site/Astronomy.html
Thanks!
PowerBook G4 17 (A1085) 1.5 GHz / 1.5 GB RAM / 128 MB VRAM / 80 GB HD Mac OS X (10.4.2)

You probably realise by now that you're attempting to do things with iWeb which it just wasn't intended to do. Cutting and pasting the photo grid area just won't work as you want it to. To work within iWeb's limitations might i suggest that you use the 'nesting' approach described in several posts here already. Use a single representative image on your main page for each of the situations you want to cover, and link each of these to an appropriate Photo page which has 'Include page in navigation menu' unchecked.
You could add a link on each of the Photo pages which returns to your main descriptive page.

Trouble With Exporting Quality with iMovie HD

Hi,
Im a first time user of iMovie HD and was having trouble with the qqaulity of my footage when im exporting or sharing it out to quicktime in a dv file.
When i connect my camera to a TV and watch the footage it seems a lot clearer in comparison to when i 'share' it out of iMovie HD. It seems to lose a lot of its quality. Does anyone have any suggestions? I obviously want to get the best quality i can, can anyone help???

Don't worry, it's a bit on illusion!
The quality that you see in iMovie is not representative of the quality you will see on your TV from the final DVD. This shoulkd be almost indistinguishable from what you see on your TV from the camera.
This is intentional, in that the quality is reduced (as far as what you see is concerned) in order to save 'extra labour' in the Mac's processor.

Trouble with image sizes....

I have a freelance job where I am creating a few simple animations for a digital menu board for a Dairy Queen. I am having trouble with the size of my stage translating to the proper size on the LCD monitor. Is there a trick for making the conversion? The stage is huge and in writing is way bigger but still comes up smaller when viewed on the monitor. The monitor we are using is 768 x 1366 (or 15.5” x 27.5”) and my stage is 5100px x 7688px ( or 70"x106"). So you would think the flash file would be huge but it is too small by about 4in?!?!
--Matt--

those aspect ratios are different. to fill the screen, you will need to make a descision to leave space at the top/bottom, crop your stage width or distort your stage.
you can publish for 100%x100% and use the scaleMode property of the stage to select your option.

Cms for flash gallery with image quality control

Halo.
I'm looking for a non-commercial solution / tutorial (AS3, MySQL, PHP, XML) that would point me in the right directon to control the quality of uploaded images.
Do you know any?
Regards.

What is the definition of image quality in this context?

Trouble with image restore on dreamweaver cs3

I am a GoLiver trying to learn Dreamweaver. I am having a problem with image restore on the rollover. Here is the url
http://www.allthegills.com/meadowcroftweb
Not sure where I went wrong.
Thanks for any help.

The onmouse over and out need to go in your href tag. You have them in your img tag. Should look like this
<a href="index.html" onmouseout="MM_swapImgRestore()" onmouseover="MM_swapImage('index','','images/img_over.gif',1)"><img src="images/img.gif" alt="whatever" name="index" /></a>

Problem with image quality on screen in PS CS5

I just installed PhotoShop CS5 and opened up some images to edit. The first image I opened came up as completely black. I tried zooming in and out, but the display still looked all black. I opened up another image and I could see the image clearly if I was at 25%, 50% or 100%. If I was on any other zoom size I would get a very bad looking image like it had a very coarse screen over it. I opened another image that had the ugly screen patterns no matter what zoom size I was using. Does this have to do with any setting default? Do I have a problem with file conversions? We have one person in our design group that can run in 64bit mode. I am running in 32 bit mode. One of the images I opened was one that he edited in 64 bit mode.
Help this is frustrating. Any ideas on what to do?

Thanks,
I tried turning off OpenGL and that didn't help.
Are you talking about looking for a new video driver from the Manufacturer of the video card I am using? If so do I just look for the newest driver, or should I be looking for something else.
Also, here are my computer stats:
Windows Vista Business
2 GB RAM
About 8 GB available out of 62 GB
Video card: ATI Mobility Radeon X1400

Replace text with image using Applescript in InDesign CS5

Hi to everyone, i'm looking for some suggestions to resolve my problem.
I've to replace some strings with jpeg images stored on my pc
Here is the code to replace two strings with the new ones.
tell application "Adobe InDesign CS5"
          set myDocument to active document
          set myPage to page 1 of myDocument
          set stringsToReplace to {"111", "222"}
repeat with iterator from 1 to (count stringsToReplace)
       set find text preferences to nothing
       set change text preferences to nothing
       set myFoundItems to nothing
       set element to item iterator of stringsToReplace
      if element is "111" then
           set find what of find text preferences to "111"
           set change to of change text preferences to "ONE"
           set myFoundItems to change text
           display dialog ("Found : " & (count myFoundItems) & " occurences of " & element)
      else if element is "222" then
           set find what of find text preferences to "222"
           set change to of change text preferences to "TWO"
           set myFoundItems to change text
           display dialog ("Found : " & (count myFoundItems) & " occurences of " & element)
      end if
          end repeat
set find text preferences to nothing
set change text preferences to nothing
end tell
Can you hel me?
Thanks in advance.

Hello, I have a couple of questions for you… How come you have strings in text frames… Would you not be better off using labels for this…? ( thats how I would do this ). Off the top of my head I think you will need to remove any text content from the frame to be able to change it's content type… only then will you be able to place a graphic… How are you associating your strings with the required image files… Do you have this in some extenal file Excel or FMP.

Trouble with image quality upon transfer in CS5

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for