UK Print Image Quality

Hi their I know the US has a really great print quality to their books but over here in the UK we have a different company for the iphoto books, where by you have to adjust every picture to the adobe RGB space or risk having every picture print really dark. Is it the same with the aperture books? This was going back a few years mind you, but it would be great to finally be able to simply make a photo book product without all the photoshop hassle and messing with around with colour spaces! Any input or experiences with the EU printing would be really helpful. Thanks Darrell

I have had both a soft and hard cover book from Aperture 2 produced of a local wedding and the results were excellent.

Similar Messages

Poor Image Quality when Printing PDF from Office 07 using Acrobat 9 Pro Ext

Hi there,
Hoping to figure out why my images (jpegs, gifs, pngs, etc) seem to print in very poor quality when printing from Powerpoint and Word 2007?
When I actually print out the pdf onto paper, the images seem fine. The image quality is also good in Word and Excel
I did not have this problem using Office 2003 products.
Is this a common problem? I realize that the problem maybe Office related but any help or information appreciated.
Thanks

If the images' file format is PNG or TIFF you could play with the compression settings available in Acrobat's Preferences.
Edit > Preferences > select the Category "Convert to PDF".
In the"Converting To PDF" pane, select PNG or TIFF.
Then, click on the Edit Settings" button.
For either image format you could try one of the Lossless compression routines.
Be well...

Image quality problem when Printing Booklet to PDF

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

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

Web page image quality to printer

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

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

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 HD Image Quality Decline When Printing Back to Tape?

HD Final Cut Express
Does HD footage quality decline when sent back to tape, i.e. does it get compressed?
Currently, it appears that HD footage burned using iDVD does deminish the image quality.

Hi(Bonjour)!
There is a difference between HDV footage and HDV footage converted to standard definition (SD) for burning a DVD (not an HD nor blue-ray DVD).
When you print to tape a HDV content from FCE HD to your HD camcorder, there isn't degradation (altough your media was converted to Apple Intermediate Codec for wotking in FCE HD and re-encoding to be printed on tape. Re-encoding always means degradation, but you cannot see it with naked eyes.)
When you burn a DVD in iDVD (version 6, current), all your footage is converted to MPEG material in Standard definition (720X480 pixels). since iDVD doesn't support high definition DVD.
In a near future, iDVD (iLife 7 or 8 or...?)(or another application like Roxio TOAST) could support HI-DEF DVD (if you own a HI-DEF DVD burner, to play in a HI-DEF DVD player hooked to a HDTV...).
At this time, your superb HDV content will be monitored in HI-DEF.
Now you can print to tape and monitor on HDTV from your camcorder to see it in full resolution (HD).
Michel Boissonneault

Poor Image Quality in Pages when Printing

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

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

NOT happy with image quality of Lightroom 1.1

Sure, LR now launches faster and the interface looks a bit nicer. And the more capable sharpening controls and the clarity slider which mimics contrast enhancement with USM are nice additions, but has anyone else notice what happened to the image quality?
First, while formerly LR and ACR struck a great balance between detail and noise suppressionerring on the side of maintaining detail even at the expense of slightly higher noise levelsit appears the goal for the redesign has been to minimize the appearance of noise at all costs. It just so happens that yesterday afternoon, I'd shot some available light candids (up to ISO 800) of the staff at a local health care facility and was intent on using them as a trial run on Lightroom 1.1. Well, the difference in image quality jumped right out at me: there was no granular noise at all remaining, even in the ISO 800 shots, but neither was there any fine detail. I use a Canon 5D, and while I'm accustomed to slightly higher levels of chroma noise, images up to ISO 1600 in even the worse lighting are always full of fine detail. Fine structures like strands of hair and eye lashes have now lost their delicacy, and have instead become coarse, unnaturally painterly analogs. Looking into shadow areas, I can see the results of what seems to be luminance noise smearing at work, obliterating noise and detail along with it. I never used Raw Shooter because I'm a Mac user (2x2GHz G5 w/2GB RAM and 250GB HD), but if this is the result of incorporating Pixmantic's technology, the result is not a positive one from my standpoint. The images I shot yesterday are to be cropped to 4:5 proportions, then printed 20" x 25", at which size the processing artifacts and lack of fine detail in these LR1.1 conversions becomes even more apparent. I've even tried turning off all image processing options: Clarity, Sharpening and NR (neither of which I ever use in RAW conversion, anyway)... It simply seems this noise smearing is part of the baseline RAW processing, and it really, really bites. Am I missing something? Is there some way to actually turn off this processing that looks uncomfortably like the "watercolor" noise reduction that Kodak and Panasonic use for their compact digicams. Yuck!
Secondly, is there a way to get back the suppression of hot and stuck pixels that LR used to perform? Now, my high ISO files are riddled with them, the same as they would be when converted with Aperture or Canon's DPP. Default suppression of hot and stuck pixels was a major advantage of LR/ACR, and contributed in no small bit to my adoption of LR as my standard tool for RAW conversion due to the amount of high ISO, low light photography I do. What's even worse, is that the random-color speckles are now smudged into the image along with all the other noise data that's being smoothed out, resulting in images that looks more like impressionist paintings than photographs.
I thought about reinstalling LR1.0 and just continuing to use that, but if LR1.1 is an indication of the direction Adobe is going to take in the development of the software, I really don't see the point of continuing to use the softwareparticularly when I had a few existing problems with LR1.0 that were never resolved, such as crashing during the import of photos from a memory card and progressively slower preview rendering as the size of my library increased. So, I'm probably going to go back to using Aperture, which is itself not free of IQ foibles, but certainly looks much more attractive now in comparison to LR1.1.
Anybody notice the same things with IQ? Anybody got any suggestions of how to get more natural-looking conversions before I remove LR and go back to Aperture?

Jeff,
I mean no disrespect. But I would like to see samples of 1.1 compared to 1.0 of the same image (ISO 400, and/or 800), because I do not want to convert my library to a catalog until I know whether or not I like the image quality. Why is it so hard to get one good sample. That is all I am asking. I would just rather not jump through hoops to go back to 1.0 if I do not like 1.1....That is all
And yes, after well over 400 printed articles I can tell what an image will look like in print when I view it 1:1.... I can tell if the eyelashes or pores on someones face, the detail in a rug, or wood grain will be detailed on the off set printed page if I look at the image at 1:1 and see smudging...this means to me that the most detail possible is NOT going to translate to the page. If however I CAN see detail in those types of areas, clearly (ie no smudging), than I know that I will see those fine details on the page. If these fine details were not important than we would all still be shooting with 3 and 4 mp cameras. Those fine details that are only visible to our eyes at a 1:1 preview on screen, are important on the printed page.
Oh, and I am not chest thumping. You can check my history here, I do not have a history of that type of activity. I am simply asking to see samples before I update....
I am very discriminating Pro, not some over testing, too much time on my hands, complaining , over paid amateur who only has time to complain that their test chart is out of focus. Or that they can measure toooo much noise at ISO what ever, instead of actually making photos. I actually make my living taking photos. And my clients have come to expect a certain level of quality from me. They comment all the time how much higher quality my images are than some of the other photogs they use. And I am still shooting a D60, where as these others are shooting 5d's and D2X's.
Jeff, I am not against you or Adobe. Matter of fact, I LOVE LR. It has changed my work flow in a very positive direction. I think it is wonderful. I just want one sample.... I am asking nicely: Please with sugar on top :)
If you can't give me a sample, than please at least reassure me that it will be easy to go back to 1.0 for the time being. Is it as easy as uninstalling 1.1, reinstalling 1.0 and recovering my DB from a current backup? If so, than fine, I will go this route........... If not, than I am hoping for a sample.
Thank you very kindly Jeff for engaging in this lively conversation. I do appreciate your comments and participation on this forum. And please note that none of this is said with attitude or malice. I know that some times a writers intent or emotional state is easy to misinterpret in a forum like this. So please know that I am calm and not angry, just curious about image quality.
Ok. I will shut up now. Thanks again

How to prevent degradation of image quality when pasting for collage?

I am trying to do a collage (of family heirloom old pharmacy jars and bottles) from – eventually – about a dozen separate images in Photoshop CS6. (A variety of sizes, resolutions, qualities and file types will go into the collage, but I wish to retain the image quality of each component at its original level or very close to the original level, even those in some cases the original quality is marginal.)
I have set up in Photoshop a “background document” at 300 dpi of the right dimensions to paste into my InDesign document (5.1 X 3.6 cm)
I have tried >six approaches, all of which have resulted in a degradation of the subsequently pasted-in image (not just slight, but very obvious).
Clearly I’m missing something fundamental about image quality and handling images so that degradation is minimised or eliminated.
(1) (1) Using an internet video as a guide – using Mini Bridge to open all the images in PS6 as tabs along the top of the workpage. Then dragging the first one into the base document. It comes across huge – ie I only see a small fraction of the image. Any attempt to Edit/Transform/Scale (to 14% of the pasted image, which in this case is a jpg of 3170 x 1541 at 1789 dpi, 4.5 x 2.2 cm) results in an image that looks horribly degraded compared with what I pasted (open in another window).
(2) (2) Same thing happens if I have each image as a new layer on top of the base document.
(3) (3) I tried changing the image that I had put into Layer 2 into a Smart Object and then resized it. No further ahead – it still looks horrible.
(4) using a different image [an 800 dpi JPG 3580 x 1715 Pixels, print size (from dpi) 11.4 x 5.4 cm which despite those parameters is of barely acceptable quality] I have tried (a) changing the resolution to 300 dpi, (b) keeping the number of pixels the same (which results in a dpi of over 3000 but doesn't fix the problem; (c) changing the dimensions to a length of 3 cm [about right for the collage] .... but no matter what I do, by the time the image is positioned correctly on the layer, the image quality has gone from barely acceptable to absolutely horrible. That usually happens during the final resizing (whether by numbers or shift-dragging the corners of the image).
Grateful for any step-by-step strategy as to how best to accomplish the end – by whatever means. (Or even in a different program!). Basically, even though I've used images for many years in many contexts, I have never fundamentally understood image size or resolution to avoid getting into such messes. Also, I'm on a very steep learning curve with Photoshop, InDesign and Illustrator all at the same time - these all seem to handle images differently, which doesn't help. [Not to mention MS Publisher, which I'm locked into for certain other things...]

For the individual images, don't worry about the ppi or as you call it dpi (ppi is the correct term BTW) only worry about the pixel dimensions. If the pixel dimensions gets too low, it will look horrible as there is not enough data to work with.
Therefore the final document that will house all the other images must be large enough in pixel dimensions to handle the smaller images at a high enough dimension that they will look good.
That being said, if you can load your images in as smart objects as any scaling that takes place samples the original sized document. Making it possible to scale it down to a size that is barely visible and then reset the size back to where it was and have no loss of data.
Where the ppi will come into play is when you are ready to print the final document, that is when the ppi will tell the printer at what size to print the document on the page.
If your collage will span more than one page, you may want to do this in InDesign. All images are linked to their respective container (similar process as smart object in theory) Though I beleive smart objects are embedded which is debatable.
In both InDesign and Illustrator, scaling the image in the document affects the ppi of the image, scaling down would increase the ppi whereas scaling upward would decrease the ppi as the number of pixels (the pixel dimension) has not changed.
With photoshop, you have a choice, when scaling the entire document, you have the option to resample the image, doing so affects the pixel dimension and in that instance would degrade the image when scaling downward and bluring the image when scaling up. As photoshop is removing pixels when scaling down and guessing the neighbor pixels should be when scaling upward.
But, when resampling is off, the pixel dimensions do not change and therefore there is no degration or bluring.
Why this happens has to do with simple math.
inches x ppi = pixels
Knowing any two of the above forumula will give you the third.
When resampling is enabled, the pixels can change and when it is disabled, it is fixed so only the other two values can change.

Disappointing Image Quality

I've just received two of my four 8.5"x11" hardcover books by FedEx today and I'm disappointed with the quality of the printed images given that my source photos are all from a 6mp DSLR shot at the camera's best jpeg setting.
The books are adequate for the intended purpose--family snapshots in book form as Christmas gifts, but no one is going to be impressed by the quality of the photos.
My question: iPhoto offers a "folio" layout that seems to be designed for photographers to highlight their work. I would like to use this for some of my landscape and wildlife photos, but not if the photos are going to print at the same quality I've seen with the books I just received. Is there any way to specify that a higher printer resolution should be used? If the Apple software can't handle this, I'd appreciate any alternative suggestions of services that can print at higher quality.
Mac Book Pro 1.83 GHz

As a Digital Press Operator scanning this forum with interest, I feel it is important to distinguish between poor quality printing, as opposed to limitations of the process. One thing to bear in mind, is the resolution of the actual press being used. The Digital presses used in this sort of small run on-demand printing generally print with a screen ruling of 175 lines per inch. Because of the technical issues involved in getting ink on the printed page to produce a full colour image, different screen angles are used for each colour. This produces a definite half-tone pattern in images that is more noticeable the lower the screen ruling that was used to print with. Just as you cannot realistically compare the results from a photo quality inkjet printer (even at 1440 dpi) with that of a traditional photographic process, you cannot compare a printing press with an inkjet. Other things to bear in mind are printing stock and the inherent variances within the actual digital press and process (not to mention operator) - it cannot be compared with a traditional printing press, and it is also wrong to compare a wet ink digital process with a toner based digital process.
At the end of the day one needs to understand and appreciate the limitations of the various processes involved. Also bear in mind that iPhoto is a consumer product, aimed at average consumers. The short run digital press is not aimed at the art reproduction market. If you are a discerning user it is all a case of using the right tool for the right job. Unfortunately it is not always realistic to use the correct tools, so we need to accept, and live with the limitations of the processes we do use.
Mac Mini Mac OS X (10.4.5)

How to get Safari printing images in proper resolution?

I have problems printing high resolution images from a web page.
Example: When printing a 300 dpi image that measures 5 x 6 inches Safari rescales this image to a resolution of about 282 dpi which results in a slightly larger image. The web page contains CSS definitions with the correct image size. It is suspicious that the printed images always seem to be rescaled by 6.348%. I tried different CSS definitions and page structures with the same result.
When the CSS definition for the image size is increased by 6.348% the resolution and image size fits the original values and dimensions.
What about this magical 6.348%?
The problem is verified on 10.4.11 and 10.5 with Safari 3.0.1 on different machines with all kind of images in every resolution you can think of, with different printer drivers (but I do not think this is relevant) - all images are rescaled by this magic factor. I tried all kind of printer settings, took a look at the Library plists related to printing ... Please help me.
It is weird that Safari offers ICC support for color proof matches but is not able to print an image with its correct resolution/dimensions. Firefox for example does not touch the image resolution, why the heck Safari does?

Hi Ned,
Website builders are using maximum 75 DPI images. These are to small i quality for other use when you are looking for quality images. The reason for using images in small size like 75 DPI is to prevent that the website is getting to big in size, an for using them on the internet they are good enough for best viewing.
QuickTimeKirk is right to get better images from a website. If the developer is NOT offering a downloadble better quality you have to do it with the on they offer.
Dimaxum

HT201335 Airplay Mirror Poor Image Quality on CBS app - help?

Airplay mirror from iMac/iPad to HD TV w/Apple TV has a Poor Image Quality when watching network shows via for example the CBS.com site or the CBS app. The image looks dark, not HD at all. My internet speed/performance is obviously not the issue because Hulu, Netflix etc all come in great using Apple TV ~ sorry, not all that savvy in this department, is the poor picture down to it just being a mirror of the iMac or iPad or is there a setting or something I am missing?

You should use the Acrobat extra menu in word 2010: then edit Preferences and choose Conversion settings : High quality print
Hope it helps

Image quality warning - can I shrink the photos

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

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

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 takes a hit in Word PDF conversion despite Compression being Off (Acrobat 9)

When converting a Word doc to PDF, the image quality for embedded pictures seems to be taking a hit. In the resultant PDF, the large pictures have jagged edges, even though when I increase the size in the Word doc the picture looks smooth and high quality.
Under preferences I've changed the Conversion Settings>Images to have Downsampling off for Color/Grayscale/Monochrome images, and also set Compression to Off. I've also tried setting Compression to Automatic (JPEG) with Maximum quality for Color/Grayscale. Both Compression Off and Maximum quality seem to have almost the same image quality, even though Compression Off doubles the size of the file. Neither has quality quite at the level it is in the Word doc.
Is there some way to have the image quality for pictures in the PDF equal what it looks like in Word? Are there any more settings I should be aware of?
I have Acrobat 9 Pro Extended and Office 2007 on Vista 64.

What's the original file format of the images you're inserting into Word, and are they at 100% scale?
We've seen issues with scaled high-res images (like header logos) which printed to PDF perfectly with a GIF or JPEG image, but failed dismally with a PNG even though the image resolution was identical and on-screen view was the same. Word has a quirky way of handling image data sent to the print spool compared to what's shown on-screen.

UK Print Image Quality

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for