Why are some images being exported to Assets folder?

On my desktop I have the structure of an Assets folder and within that a Images folder.  When I export to HTML it puts a few of the images in the Assets folder.  They are ones that are hyperlinked from a smaller image so that when they click on the smaller image the larger jpg opens in a new window.  I have security on the Assets folder on the server so I don't want these to go in there.  I am having to manually move them into the Images folder and then update the links in the HTML files.  Is there a way to make them go into the Images folder like all the rest of the images are automatically doing when I export?  By the way I don't want them to be a Lightbox slideshow.  They are large images so I want them in a window so the person viewing them can move around in the browser to view the image if they have a smaller monitor.

Using Acrobat DC and the acrobat arrow tool. By right clicking on an image a submenu pops up. One of the items in that list is "Edit Image".  Ordinarily or historically this would then open the image in Photoshop as a temp file. Edits could be made and saved and the image would be auto updated back into the PDF.  In DC when selecting edit image, the document goes into a edit mode and the entire file gets converted into RGB color.  From here one could again right click on the same image and get the option to edit using another program, (like photoshop).  When returning back to document mode, the RGB conversion remains.
I determine the files are converted to RGB by using the inspector tool in Acrobat as well as looking at the colorspace in Photoshop
I determined the files were CMYK by building them that way and again verifying using Pitstop inspector.
Following screen grabs show image before / and after selecting "Edit Image"

Similar Messages

  • Why are my images being pixelated when using free transform?

    HI.
    I am pretty comfortbale with PS but stil learning more of the finer details.  I can't find an answer for this on any help topics or threads.
    I often bring several images into a document or workflow and it seems that when I reduce an image that's too big for the canvas, it looses it's quality as soon as I break out the transform tool and becomes very pixelated.  Any thoughts?
    Thanks very much

    Thanks for both of your suggestions.  My images are at 100ppi resolution and I am viewing the documents at about 150% the entire time.  My image interpolation is set for bicubit (best for smooth gradient).
    I've tried to reproduce the problem in different ways before replying here and think I've narrowed it down a bit.  It seems that when I use the File->Place way to insert an image into an existing document, I don't run into this pixelation or image degredation issue.  It's only when I drag an image from one document to another using tabbed document introduced in CS4 (I'm using CS5 btw).
    If I have document 1 open and drag an image (or layer) from document 2 into document 1, then resize that image in document 1, I get a loss of quality.  Not sure if that helps anyone else.  Also not sure why this is hapenning as the ability to drag layers back and forth is pretty handy and I'd rather not give it up.

  • Why are some images at a shopping web site not displaying?

    images at JCPenny don't display when I'm shopping a particular item, click on it and the details come up. The photo of the item won't display, just the details. The small block icon at the top and bottom of where the photo would be is visible but the entire area where the item photo should display is blank.
    I'm using Firefox 8.0.1

    If images are missing then check that you aren't blocking images from some domains.
    *You can inspect and manage all permissions on the about:permissions page, via the location bar.
    *Check the permissions for the domain in the current tab in "Tools > Page Info > Permissions"
    *Check that images are enabled: Tools > Options > Content: [X] Load images automatically
    *Check the exceptions in "Tools > Options > Content: Load Images > Exceptions"
    *Check the "Tools > Page Info > Media" tab for blocked images (scroll through all the images with the cursor Down key).
    If an image in the list is grayed and there is a check-mark in the box "<i>Block Images from...</i>" then remove that mark to unblock the images from that domain.
    Make sure that you do not block third-party images permissions.default.images
    *http://kb.mozillazine.org/Images_or_animations_do_not_load
    There are also extensions (Tools > Add-ons > Extensions) and security software (firewall, anti-virus) that can block images.

  • Why are some images imported as "IMG_9999.jpg" and others as "_MG_9999.jpg"?

    When importing a bunch of pictures from a Canon 5D MKIII, some of the images have a "IMG_9999.jpg" filename, and others in the same batch have a "_MG_9999.jpg" filename (the leading "I" is an underbar).  Is there a reason or fix for this other than manually creating the names?

    Color space setting.  See https://www.google.com/search?q=img+vs+_mg&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari .
    Note these names are supplied by the camera and not by Aperture.
    Aperture allows you to change the file names of Originals on import or after.  I change mine to something useful to me on import.  Search forum for "File Naming Convention".
    (Sent from my magic glass.)

  • Why are some of my still images (jpeg) Ok in my timeline, but skewed ofter output?

    why are some of my still images (jpeg) Ok in my timeline, but skewed ofter output?

    Skewed? Left or right? Could you post a screenshot? What format is your timeline? What is the frame size of the JPEG?

  • Why are some jpg images scrambled when they appear in my screen saver?   The same images look fine in Preview and Finder.  Some images appear scrambled in the screen saver 'preview' window and the actual screen saver. Other jpg images look fine.

    Why are some jpg images scrambled when they appear in my screen saver?   The same images look fine in Preview and Finder.  Some images appear scrambled in the screen saver 'preview' window and the actual screen saver. Other jpg images look fine.

    The desktop image is fine, taken from the exact same pool of jpg photos.  However, as soon as the slide show screen saver comes on, the images are scrambled.  What is it about the apple screen saver algorithm that scrambles the pics?

  • Why are some (but not all) of my Muse slideshow widget images rotated differently than when I edited them in Photoshop CC?

    I have a few dozen photographs embedded in the slideshow widget. Most of them appear exactly as I edited them in Photoshop, but several appear rotated clockwise 90 or 180 degrees. Does anyone know why this is happening, and ideally, how I can correct this problem? Thank you.

    Please share the site url , also refer to this post and check if this helps :
    Why are some of my images importing upside down?
    Secondly , if you change the fill type then does that makes difference ?
    Thanks,
    Sanjit

  • Disc Burner. Why are some files not readable or writeable?

    Hello,
    I am trying to backup my friends computer files on a beige G3 (233 MHz). I am burning about 6 DVDs of AIF music files. Most of the files are about 30 - 40 Megs in size. Often I receive error messages on particular files that read:
    "The operation cannot be completed because some data cannot be read or written.
    (Error code - 36)"
    Followed by the choices: "Stop" or "Continue".
    I have a bad feeling that my startup disk is too small but I am not sure.
    Most of the files work fine. However some of the files cause disc burner to not be able to use them in the disc image before I burn. Why would this be?
    Here are the specifications:
    Computer: beige G3 with two hard drives (one SCSI and one ATA hard drive) and a Pioneer DVR-110D DVD writer which is Apple supported (Apple system profiler indicates Apple supported on this DVD writer). My blank DVD disks are Sony Vermatim DVD-R (1 - 16x speed support). Although I think my beige G3 only writes them at about 2 or 4x.
    I am using OS 10.1.5. My startup disk which has OS 10.1.5 in it is a 4 GIG SCSI disk. Is this big enough for a startup disk (for creating 4.5 GIG DVDs)? My files are on the second hard drive which is a 40 GIG ATA disk.
    I have a bad feeling that my OSX startup drive is too small for disk burning - it is only 4 GIGs in total and OSX Disc burner (Disc copy) is first making a disk image on my startup volume before it burns it. Perhaps that disk image is too large for the startup volume. Is there any way I could ask OSX to put this disk image on the second larger hard drive instead (not the startup drive?).
    Here is my process (I hope I am doing this right - I am new at this):
    1. I first insert a blank DVD-R
    2. A message pops up asking my if I would like to create a blank disc image for this disk (I think this is the typical Disk Copy utility window. I say "yes" and give it a name and choose the "DVD-R or DVD-RAM" option. (I am not sure if there are other important settings to choose here or better settings to use but I guessed the other options that seemed obvious. A blank disk image is created with an icon that looks like a DVD disk.
    3. Then I drag my chosen files to this blank disc image. It takes about 30 minutes to copy over. Thats when I receive the error message that some files couldn't be "read or written". The other files work fine but it would be nice if they all worked.
    Why would some files not be readable or writeable?
    4. Then I choose file/burn in the top menu and the DVD is created. This takes another 20 - 30 minutes. At the very end of the process another message pops up saying:
    "Sorry the operation could not be completed because an unexpected error occured (error code -28)" Followed by an "OK" button.
    However all the files that made it onto the final DVD are fine - its just that its not all of the ones I originally chose in the first step when dragging to create the disk image.
    Am I doing this the right way?
    Why are some files not "readable or writeable" as it indicates in the error message?
    Is my 4 GIG startup disk too small for this? or are the music files possibly corrupt? or could there be some other possible problem?
    Thanks

    To follow up, I have some good news. After following your advice Kappy, it now works very well Thanks! Instead of using the 4 GIG volume for the OS, I am now using an 8 GIG partition on an 80 GIG drive. So now the OS has some room to operate. No disk errors occured on my first DVD
    Now there was one problem. The second DVD burned gave me an error. I am not sure why but I am going to guess that because I had to installed the OS onto an 8 GIG partition maybe the OS needs to be rebooted in between disk burns because although 8 GIGs is certainly greater than the 4 GIGs I gave it last time, it still isn't a lot of space - maybe just enough to do one DVD at a time. Thats only a guess. So I rebooted to see if that clears the system out ready for the next DVD and I am trying to burn the second DVD again. If I remember I will report back. In any case, yes, this seems to be working. I hope this second DVD burns well too.
    Thanks Kappy

  • Why are some 100% Accurate Rips not matched by iTunes Match?

    Why are some 100% Accurate Rips not matched by iTunes Match?
    Is there an Apple Support employee that can address this question?
    The phenomenom occurs for over 500 of my tracks spread out among 100+ albums.
    Certain tracks simply do not match to the iTunes library, despite being 100% Accurate bit-for-bit Rips. For reference, I use dBpoweramp for ripping, which checks CRC.
    As an example, take Aerosmith's "Get a Grip" album; Tracks 2 and 5 will not Match to iTunes, despite perfect integrity in the ripping process.
    Upon looking further into those particular tracks, I notice a discrepency between the "track length" reported on the iTunes store page, and my accurate rips for those tracks [track 2 & 5 on iTunes: 4:09 & 6:19, respectively; track 2 & 5 direct accurate rip from physical CD: 4:10 & 6:07, respectively].
    So clearly, with track 5, there is a major discrepency, 12 seconds difference, which leads me to think the iTunes release of this album and retail release of the CD I physically own are quite different.
    Well there, I guess I've solved the "reason" for the undesired functionality, but it certainly doesn't solve the issue at hand.
    A major aspect of the iTunes Match product is To Match, so that, in part, bit-rate upgrades can take place, and also to provide management and format uniformity.  I do realize that there is no guarantee iTunes has every album one could own, and entirely un-matched, and thereby Uploaded, Albums are a significant upside feature of iTunes Match; however, 1+ tracks on each of a significant quantity of albums, which iTunes carries, not matching to iTunes creates heterogeneous-format albums, and significantly more library management.
    If there is a workaround for this issue it would significantly improve the user experience for iTunes Match.  A user shouldn't have many hetereogeneous-format albums when iTunes carries/sells those albums, and the user has perfect quality rips from their physical CD.

    https://discussions.apple.com/community/itunes/search.jspa?peopleEnabled=true&us erID=&containerType=14&container=2882&spotlight=false&q=why%20are%20some%20songs %20on%20an%20album%20not%20matched%3F%20*

  • Why are some CA's now issuing SHA2 root certs?

    If the signatures in root certs are not used for anything and have no security value since it requires no verification since it already lives in the trust store then why are some CA's now giving the option to sign a root with SHA2?

    On 9/27/2014 3:33 AM, "Paul Adare [MVP]" wrote:
    On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 23:27:26 +0000, user5309 wrote:
    I figured it had something to do with the SHA1 deprecation policy but I was under the impression that root certs were exempt from the policy. See the link below :
    http://blogs.technet.com/b/pki/archive/2013/11/12/sha1-deprecation-policy.aspx
    See Amerks response to Ramo's question:
    "The SHA1 deprecation policy does not impact SHA1 root certificates, because Windows relies on other means to validate root certificates besides the signature.  But all root CAs are expected to switch to use SHA2 to sign any subordinate CA certificates,
    CRLs, etc"
    While root certs themselves are exempt from this policy, that doesn't mean
    that it isn't a good practice from a security perspective to start using
    SHA2 for root certs. Since there is a valid reason that SHA1 is being
    deprecated it simply makes sense, where possible, to move to SHA2, even if
    there is no technological requirement to do so.
    Another example of this is that currently, the SHA1 deprecation policy only
    applies to certs that chain to a root that participates in Microsoft's
    Trusted Root program, however, a lot of my customers are being proactive
    and switching their internal PKIs over to SHA2 as well.
    Thanks Paul - I suppose I'm just looking for a reason from a vulnerability perspective on why roots need to be signed with SHA2. If they already live in the trusted root store they are trusted by their identity not by the hash function making it irrelevant.
    From an attackers perspective, if they had access to the host systems trust store, there's no need to try to forge a root cert in the store they could just replace it with one of their own for the same effect. Although I'm still unclear on what they
    could accomplish by doing this.

  • TS2755 Why are SMS messages being undelivered?

    Why are SMS messages being undelivered?

    some detail?  to you - from you?  to another i message user?   the pad is not a phone, and will only message to other i message users.

  • Why are some of the loops in GB 'greyed

    Why are some of the loops in GB 'greyed out' " I'm specifically interested in 'slide guitar' for example and cant find a reason why there's no access. My iMAC was bought in April 2010??

    Court Kizer wrote:
    Would you please stop spamming every single apple garageband discussion forum with your website. It doesn't have the answers on how to force the loops to download.
    You're using the forums to spam your site in almost every single thread, and wasting users time.
    Have to disagree with you there, Court Kizer. The Bullets&Bones site is, in many ways, where I really learned how to use GarageBand.
    Take a look at the list in the Top Users box on the right. Those points are awarded by people who got their answers from the advice posted.

  • Why are some of the forums locked?

    Why are some of the forums locked?  Could it be because the number of complains for service (the lack of), scams by stores - employees, placating that happens just to make a sale or general MISINFORMATION and a total disregard for their customers would question some of Verizon's tactics?
    Morally, ethically and legally questionable actions by employees with little to no accountability sounds about right?
    What say you Verizon Customers?

    Could be varied reasons. The thread is outdated, the question was answered, there are off topic attacks, there are personal attacks on forum members, there could be spam posts, or off topic posts, cross posting over and over and the list could go on.
    Hope that answers your question?

  • Why are some of the file folders on my desktop showing up with a shaded color?

    Why are some of the folders on my desktop showing up with a different folder color, a dark shad of blue, opposed to the default blue color?
    I've searched and searched but all I can find are posts on how to change the color of your folder. I am concerned that maybe, I accidentally shared it or have done something I am not aware of. (Mac Mini, 2.3 i7, 1TB, 16GB RAM running OS X Yosemite 10.10.2)

    I don't know how many photos you're trying to post on one page but if you put too many PCs using Internet Explorer may have problems loading the page.  I prefer to keep the number down to less than 50 and have more than one page which will be indicated by the page links at the top of the thumbnails:
    These smaller pages will load faster and in more browsers.
    OT

  • Why are some of the new app free for some ppl and paid for some

    why are some of the new app free for some ppl and paid for some?

    People that purchase the iPhone 5s, and the 5c get Pages, Keynote, and Numbers for iOS for free.  Also, any purchases of the new iPad models.
    More info here: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT5913
    HTH

Maybe you are looking for