I’m having trouble with Freeway producing high-quality images. I’ve checked Freewaytalk but not found a solution to what appears to be my issue, and as far as I can tell, this is a problem with Freeway itself.
The problem is that Freeway seems to create rather poor quality images. I’m not talking about jpg compression or color profiles here, but rather the fact that, if I let Freeway generate images for me, they end up jagged and harsh looking, no matter what settings I apply in the Inspector. Importing as a pass-through image from Photoshop works perfectly, but isn’t one of Freeway’s advantages supposed to be that it saves me time by allowing me to bypass the Photoshop steps?
As it stands now, I find what Freeway produces to be unacceptable and so, for mission critical sites, I have to go through the PSD rigamarole. Any idea what is going on here and how I can remedy the situation? Thanks!
Perhaps a pass through photoshop image and a Freeway created image
alongside to compare?
David Owen ::
Freeway Friendly Web Hosting and Domains
On 23 Oct 2010, at 4:19 pm, derekzinger wrote:
I’m having trouble with Freeway producing high-quality images. I’ve
checked Freewaytalk but not found a solution to what appears to be
my issue, and as far as I can tell, this is a problem with Freeway
itself.
The problem is that Freeway seems to create rather poor quality
images. I’m not talking about jpg compression or color profiles
here, but rather the fact that, if I let Freeway generate images
for me, they end up jagged and harsh looking, no matter what
settings I apply in the Inspector. Importing as a pass-through
image from Photoshop works perfectly, but isn’t one of Freeway’s
advantages supposed to be that it saves me time by allowing me to
bypass the Photoshop steps?
As it stands now, I find what Freeway produces to be unacceptable
and so, for mission critical sites, I have to go through the PSD
rigamarole. Any idea what is going on here and how I can remedy the
situation? Thanks!
i been watching the list for awhile. lemme see if i got this one right …
if you are viewing them in freeway format, yes, they are poor, bad, terrible. but … fear not ! no worries. they will plumb up nicely when you “publish”.
On Oct 23, 2010, at 8:19 AM, derekzinger wrote:
I’m having trouble with Freeway producing high-quality images. I’ve checked Freewaytalk but not found a solution to what appears to be my issue, and as far as I can tell, this is a problem with Freeway itself.
The problem is that Freeway seems to create rather poor quality images. I’m not talking about jpg compression or color profiles here, but rather the fact that, if I let Freeway generate images for me, they end up jagged and harsh looking, no matter what settings I apply in the Inspector. Importing as a pass-through image from Photoshop works perfectly, but isn’t one of Freeway’s advantages supposed to be that it saves me time by allowing me to bypass the Photoshop steps?
As it stands now, I find what Freeway produces to be unacceptable and so, for mission critical sites, I have to go through the PSD rigamarole. Any idea what is going on here and how I can remedy the situation? Thanks!
One thing to look out for is that the original image file is not too large prior to importing into freeway. Freeway I’ve found is not too happy when having to deal with large image files.
Best of all is to use pass through, were you have optimised the image in another program before hand. At 72dpi of course.
Also make sure you have a suitable quality setting.
i been watching the list for awhile. lemme see if i got this one right … - if you are viewing them in freeway format, yes, they are poor, bad, terrible. but … fear not ! no worries. they will plumb up nicely when you “publish”.
Reminds me when I used to use Quark and had a few people ask me the same thing. Now in Quark the images looked terrible until you printed it or made a PDF of it. In Freeway however the policy of “garbage in, garbage out” applies so as Seoras suggested it’s easier to use another program and then import it as a Pass-Through because if they look bad in Freeway they will look bad in the web browser.
While we are here, does Freeway even output sRGB images when using export?
Perhaps a good idea would be to expand on the export options if people don’t own “other” software.
The top one was created by dragging and dropping an original jpg into FW and letting it do the generating. I chose png 24 for its lack of distortion, so we could discard jpg artifacts as the cause, but the difference in quality is the same across all formats, as far as I know.
The bottom image was created by resampling in Photoshop, saving for web as a 24-bit png and importing into FW as a pass-through image.
Compare the two, and you’ll see that the bottom image is better-quality. Look especially at the jagged “wrinkles” in Tarzan’s arms, and Jane’s oddly GIFfy face in the top image. It’s not glaring, but it’s there, and for me significant enough to warrant me creating all my images in Photoshop
What size was the file you dragged into Freeway? and what were the quality setting(s). Perhaps this might be something to consider and play around with.
And have you found any difference when using jpeg instead of png ? I rarely use png for images, sticking with jpeg with er a problem.
In most cases (circa 98%) I’ll import directly to freeway as I’m forever tweaking the image size, but if its very image specific I might note the final size and then create in photoshop, re import as pass through.
If I recall from a pevious thread, Photoshop interprets/interpolates differently from Freeway.
No problem on the name confusion! See my comments below.
And have you found any difference when using jpeg instead of png ? I rarely use png for images, sticking with jpeg with er a problem.
jpg or png doesn’t matter. The resulting difference in quality is the same. I chose png 24 because there is none of the distortion you get with jpgs, and we could thus focus strictly on the differences between FW and PS.
In most cases (circa 98%) I’ll import directly to freeway as I’m forever tweaking the image size, but if its very image specific I might note the final size and then create in photoshop, re import as pass through.
That 98% is what I’m after! But I can’t seem to get the image quality I want (see top image on the test page). Photoshop produces significantly higher quality images, but I’m missing out on one of Freeway’s bigger advantages if I have to do all my image work in PS.
If I recall from a pevious thread, Photoshop interprets/interpolates differently from Freeway.
That may well be the case. Can anybody confirm that this is the cause of the lower quality images?
There is no real need to use a png (which creates a larger file size than jpeg) unless you want to preserve transparency.
Also a jpeg (which is compressed already) will suffer when compressed again whether output as a png or jpeg.
Better to start with a lossless file format such as psd or tiff if you are going to process again in FW.
The answer really is that if your original file format is of lossless type then FW will tweak it quite happily but if you compress an already compressed file then it will suffer.
In 90+% of cases FW will produce a perfectly acceptable file output taking into account the time that you save not having to tweak your image in an external editor every time that you change a layout and alter an image size on the page.
Remember that half your audience are using shitty uncalibrated PC monitors and will never notice any difference and that for mission critical images once your layout is completed then you can always use the Pshop optimised pass through option.
I appreciate the feedback. Interesting idea about using a non-lossy format. I’ve reimported the top image, this time from a psd file (1277x851 pixels, by the way, in case that’s important) instead of a jpg. Alas, the difference is quality is still noticeable. The updated page is here: http://homepage.mac.com/flyvebaad/test_sites/image_quality/index.html
Regarding image formats, I understand that a png is usually overkill, but on the test page I wanted to eliminate jpg artifacts as a cause of the lower quality. Thus the pngs.
Looking more closely at the two images, it almost seems that there is an issue with anti-aliasing. However, anti-aliasing is turned on in the Inspector palette for the FW-generated image. So how come it appears so garbled?
I’ve switched on Graphics Preview in the View menu, and as I toggle Anti-aliasing on and off in the Inspector for the FW-generated image, I notice no difference.
I’m beginning to suspect faulty anti-aliasing, in which case I think a feature request/bug report may be in order.
My understanding of anti-aliasing is that it works on the junction between your image and whatever is behind it on the page - not on areas within the image itself. But I could be wrong.
Also I would be interested in seeing your original psd
Ah, now that you mention it, that may indeed be what anti-aliasing is referring to. Still, resampling/resizing an image normally involves some sort of smoothing of the pixels within the image, and FW’s smoothing doesn’t seem to be working particularly well for me.
Try taking your original image and resize it in pshop as a file much closer to the size that you will be using on the FW page and at 72ppi before importing into FW.
This might be a longer way but I create my files in PS at 72ppi to the size it will be in in my FW page. Then I use PS’s save for web option and save most images as jpegs and anything with a graphic like a logo as a gif or a png where I need the transparency.
I find this to work well as I usually design the site comps in PS before I actually start laying it out on FW. That way I have all the dimensions ready on hand. Plus if you use a grid to lay your site out you will have an accurate dimension of your image width based on your grid structure.
I find this to work well as I usually design the site comps in PS before I actually start laying it out on FW.
Which, for me, is an essential part of the process before building any site with an authentic box-model style approach. No RPL action for me. Grids, great mention, and saving images using Save For Web instead of “Save As…”
I would think Photoshop will (should) always do better job at image
resizing sampling than Freeway. Likewise Freeway does a better job at
building a website.
If you want to go the extra mile we use Photoshop’s “save to web” to
get the best image quality vs. file size (file size being the leading
factor closely cross checked by image quality)
I do find Freeways images sometimes lacking, but on the whole
sufficient.
David Owen :: Freeway Friendly Web Hosting and Domains :: http://
On 24 Oct 2010, at 1:59 am, derekzinger wrote:
Still, resampling/resizing an image normally involves some sort of
smoothing of the pixels within the image, and FW’s smoothing
doesn’t seem to be working particularly well for me
