freeway sometimes “does something” to graphics when you place them.
I know it’s been explained in the forum before and I believe it has
something to do with how the image is placed.
The quickest easiset workaround is to go in through ftp and overwrite
the image with the original.
On Mar 7, 2011, at 1:31 PM, Julie Maxwell Allen wrote:
Good Afternoon,
I know that this has been asked before. I can not seem to find the
right thread.
I have a few logos on my site. I have been told (which confirms
what I thought) on them being a bit fuzzy.
I want to confirm what you think to fix this.
resize the picture and make it a pass through? and set it as a gif?
or any other suggestions?
Julie, my rule of thumb (although I do break it from time to time)is:
If it’s flat colours and/or transparent background - gif or png
If it’s continuous tone (photographic) - jpeg
If it’s continuous tone but needs transparency - png set to millions
of colours
I stand to be corrected by someone…
Trev
On 7 Mar 2011, at 21:31, Julie Maxwell Allen wrote:
Good Afternoon,
I know that this has been asked before. I can not seem to find the
right thread.
I have a few logos on my site. I have been told (which confirms what
I thought) on them being a bit fuzzy.
I want to confirm what you think to fix this.
resize the picture and make it a pass through? and set it as a gif?
or any other suggestions?
J
On Mar 7, 2011, at 4:59 PM, Trevor Reaveley wrote:
Julie, my rule of thumb (although I do break it from time to time)is:
If it’s flat colours and/or transparent background - gif or png
If it’s continuous tone (photographic) - jpeg
If it’s continuous tone but needs transparency - png set to millions of colours
I stand to be corrected by someone…
Trev
On 7 Mar 2011, at 21:31, Julie Maxwell Allen wrote:
Good Afternoon,
I know that this has been asked before. I can not seem to find the right thread.
I have a few logos on my site. I have been told (which confirms what I thought) on them being a bit fuzzy.
I want to confirm what you think to fix this.
resize the picture and make it a pass through? and set it as a gif?
or any other suggestions?
One other trick to consider is to cut out any text from inside a continuous photo, and place it as a GIF either over the base photo or sliced into it. Freeway makes this very easy, you just select the type layer, make sure it’s set to Not Combine, and then change its output mode to GIF. Leave the underlying photo as JPEG.
So if you have a page like this one: http://www.apple.com/ you might set the crisp-edged type in a GIF box, and then put the photo of the hand and pad in a JPEG underneath that.
Apple has done something entirely else here, they put the hand and pad in a transparent PNG. But then they also have some onload animation going on there, so they know what they need for their site, and they probably have a completely different page that they show to the Windows-using folk who occasionally drop by.
What if the graphic / logo is mainly text like a few of my logos?
J
On Mar 7, 2011, at 5:55 PM, waltd wrote:
Trev, this is a good set of rules to follow.
One other trick to consider is to cut out any text from inside a continuous photo, and place it as a GIF either over the base photo or sliced into it. Freeway makes this very easy, you just select the type layer, make sure it’s set to Not Combine, and then change its output mode to GIF. Leave the underlying photo as JPEG.
So if you have a page like this one: http://www.apple.com/ you might set the crisp-edged type in a GIF box, and then put the photo of the hand and pad in a JPEG underneath that.
Apple has done something entirely else here, they put the hand and pad in a transparent PNG. But then they also have some onload animation going on there, so they know what they need for their site, and they probably have a completely different page that they show to the Windows-using folk who occasionally drop by.
Then it should be served up as GIF, or if it’s sharp edges AND soft color gradients, 24-bit PNG. JPEG really really really destroys sharp edges. Sure you can get it to work, if you’re willing to amp the “quality” setting up to 90 or 95 (and live with the slower download time) then you can use it for type. But it’s entirely optimized for showing natural (read fractal) scenes really well, and it entirely sucks at anything else.
Good call Walter, I’d never thought of that. Thanks
Trev
On 7 Mar 2011, at 22:55, waltd wrote:
Trev, this is a good set of rules to follow.
One other trick to consider is to cut out any text from inside a
continuous photo, and place it as a GIF either over the base photo
or sliced into it. Freeway makes this very easy, you just select the
type layer, make sure it’s set to Not Combine, and then change its
output mode to GIF. Leave the underlying photo as JPEG.
So if you have a page like this one: http://www.apple.com/ you might
set the crisp-edged type in a GIF box, and then put the photo of the
hand and pad in a JPEG underneath that.
Apple has done something entirely else here, they put the hand and
pad in a transparent PNG. But then they also have some onload
animation going on there, so they know what they need for their
site, and they probably have a completely different page that they
show to the Windows-using folk who occasionally drop by.
In that case Julie, I would probably go for gif with png as a backup
if any text starts to dither - like me (although I haven’t had a look
at your logos so can’t be 100% sure).
Trev
On 7 Mar 2011, at 22:58, Julie Maxwell Allen wrote:
What if the graphic / logo is mainly text like a few of my logos?
so save them from PSD as a gif and set the inspector for png?
THank you!
J
On Mar 7, 2011, at 6:11 PM, Trevor Reaveley wrote:
In that case Julie, I would probably go for gif with png as a backup if any text starts to dither - like me (although I haven’t had a look at your logos so can’t be 100% sure).
Trev
On 7 Mar 2011, at 22:58, Julie Maxwell Allen wrote:
What if the graphic / logo is mainly text like a few of my logos?
Julie, I think the only way you can make them look better is to have
them in a white box. As it stands there are too many colours on there
which are tonally similar to the brown that they’re getting lost.
So for my tuppence (although null and void if they’re on a white bg):
butterfly - png (transparent)
BSSR - gif
Grassroots - png
Slisz - png
First Door - jpg
Trev
On 8 Mar 2011, at 07:34, DeltaDave wrote:
Mr Slisz aint gonna work against a dark background because of the
drop shadows
are those the settings you recommend for the inspector settings?
J
On Mar 8, 2011, at 3:15 AM, Trevor Reaveley wrote:
Julie, I think the only way you can make them look better is to have them in a white box. As it stands there are too many colours on there which are tonally similar to the brown that they’re getting lost.
So for my tuppence (although null and void if they’re on a white bg):
butterfly - png (transparent)
BSSR - gif
Grassroots - png
Slisz - png
First Door - jpg
Trev
On 8 Mar 2011, at 07:34, DeltaDave wrote:
Mr Slisz aint gonna work against a dark background because of the drop shadows
Hi Julie, sorry been out and about working all day, but yes, in the
inspector panel.
Trev
On 8 Mar 2011, at 14:26, Julie Maxwell Allen wrote:
are those the settings you recommend for the inspector settings?
J
On Mar 8, 2011, at 3:15 AM, Trevor Reaveley wrote:
Julie, I think the only way you can make them look better is to
have them in a white box. As it stands there are too many colours
on there which are tonally similar to the brown that they’re
getting lost.
So for my tuppence (although null and void if they’re on a white bg):
butterfly - png (transparent)
BSSR - gif
Grassroots - png
Slisz - png
First Door - jpg