[Pro] Loss of psd quality

I imported some very high quality images into FW, and used them as a background graphic and rollovers. I used psd format because I read on the forum that it was better quality than jpeg or png.
When they get into FW, they lose some quality, and when I preview the page in my browser, they lose even more quality. Why is this?


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

If they are being very downsized by Freeway you might do better by making
your own downsized copy as psd or tiff and using that.
I usually see a need to sharpen after downsizing.
Otherwise - what jpg compression is the default/item specific setting set
to? You can change this.
hope this helps

regards
Brian

Amanda said recently:

I imported some very high quality images into FW, and used them as a
background graphic and rollovers. I used psd format because I read on the
forum that it was better quality than jpeg or png.
When they get into FW, they lose some quality, and when I preview the page in
my browser, they lose even more quality. Why is this?


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

On 4 Mar 2009, 5:18 pm, Bin-Ra wrote:

If they are being very downsized by Freeway you might do better by making
your own downsized copy as psd or tiff and using that.
I usually see a need to sharpen after downsizing.
Otherwise - what jpg compression is the default/item specific setting set
to? You can change this.
hope this helps

regards
Brian

I’m not downsizing at all. It’s the same size in both photoshop and freeway.

I tried using tiff and jpeg, but they ruin quality as well. (plus, I can’t use transparency with jpeg)


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

HI Amanda
if you are importing a psd and using the inbuilt Freeway graphic system. Then you will need to choose the graphic type and compression method you would like. Just click on the graphic in question, Then looking in the inspector (if this isnt open, just choose it from either: window/inspector or just by clicking on the inspector icon on the far top right icon in the tool bar. Then click on the third icon across the top of this palette (item output settings). This will then reveal the file type and compression / quality slider, from there you will be able to fine tune your image quality

all the best Max


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

On 4 Mar 2009, 5:32 pm, Amanda wrote:

I’m not downsizing at all. It’s the same size in both photoshop and freeway.

Downsizing meaning making 72 DPI from an original 300 DPI PSD file. It’s a bit confusing that you really see on screen your PSD file the same ‘size’ in FW as in the browser. But magic happens in the export, that’s the beauty with FW. You can import any PSD file, zoom in or move it to the left or right in it’s graphic box to get it OK, add some nice filters and let FW export the JPEG for the web. The original PSD stays untouched, ready for later adjustments.
Hope this helps.


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Yes, it’s already 72 ppi when I import it into FW. I understand the basics of pixel quality and such. There doesn’t seem to be any reason at all for the loss of quality.


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Sorry, was not aware of your level of knowledge.
If you do not want FW to touch your file, choose ‘pass through’ in the dialogue window (or something like that, have my FW in Dutch) and FW does not alter that particular image. That way you can produce in Photoshop your own optimized JPEG for web and use them in a FW website.


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

If you’re seeing a loss of quality it because FW will export a JPG at
75% compressing the image slightly. (preferences default.)

Why not adjust to say 85% quality in the inspector palette. Play
around with the settings that convert the file on export. Or “pass
through” the file if it has already been optimised in photoshop >
export for web.

On 6 Mar 2009, at 16:23, Amanda wrote:

Yes, it’s already 72 ppi when I import it into FW. I understand the
basics of pixel quality and such. There doesn’t seem to be any
reason at all for the loss of quality.

David Owen :: Freeway Friendly Web hosting and Domains ::

http://www.ineedwebhosting.co.uk :: http://www.ineedwebhosting.co.uk/blog


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Hello, my question is also about image quality and this topic is still fairly fresh, so I decided to ask in this thread. I hope it’s the right thing to do.

After reading the suggestions, I’ve decided to import correctly sized and sharpened Tiff images and let FW convert to Jpeg. If I set quality to 100% it definitely looks better than having FW re-jpeg my jpeg! However, so far I’ve found the images need to be close to 100% quality to look as good as the optimized jpegs I normally use for the web. Is there somewhere that I can see the final output file sizes (Kb) so I can see if they are as small as I think they need to be?

I tried importing my jpegs as PassThrough, but that causes more problems than I want to deal with and seems more complicated than letting FW do the conversion.

Thanks!

Richard


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

If you have re-sized your images to the 72dpi (opps sorry Keith 72ppi)
to appear at the correct final web size. You don’t need Freeway to
squeeze them much further.

You can see the files sizes if you look in the site palette > show
files sizes (bottom of screen)

But I would question why are are re-sizing them in the first place as
Freeway will convert them for you and do all the hard work for you.
The are some odd occasions where Photoshop will do a slightly better
job at image conversion, but on the whole Freeway is fine for this
process. Just play around with the settings like gif, jpeg and as a
last resort use PNG set to millions of colours as this can create
larger file sizes.

David

On 26 Mar 2009, at 13:47, riccc123 wrote:

After reading the suggestions, I’ve decided to import correctly
sized and sharpened Tiff images and let FW convert to Jpeg. If I set
quality to 100% it definitely looks better than having FW re-jpeg my
jpeg! However, so far I’ve found the images need to be close to 100%
quality to look as good as the optimized jpegs I normally use for
the web. Is there somewhere that I can see the final output file
sizes (Kb) so I can see if they are as small as I think they need to
be?

David Owen :: Freeway Friendly Web hosting and Domains ::

http://www.ineedwebhosting.co.uk :: http://www.ineedwebhosting.co.uk/blog
:: http://www.PrintlineAdvertising.co.uk


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Yes you can. Every time you publish the site (locally) you’ll find all the material that Freeway outputs in the Site map. Look for a map called Recourses. There may be more than one, depending how you have set up your site.


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Hi Richard
In the Site Pallet in Page view from the cog in the bottom left - choose
show file sizes and then you have an immediate feedback.
hope this helps

regards
Brian

riccc123 said recently:

Hello, my question is also about image quality and this topic is still fairly
fresh, so I decided to ask in this thread. I hope it’s the right thing to do.

After reading the suggestions, I’ve decided to import correctly sized and
sharpened Tiff images and let FW convert to Jpeg. If I set quality to 100% it
definitely looks better than having FW re-jpeg my jpeg! However, so far I’ve
found the images need to be close to 100% quality to look as good as the
optimized jpegs I normally use for the web. Is there somewhere that I can see
the final output file sizes (Kb) so I can see if they are as small as I think
they need to be?

I tried importing my jpegs as PassThrough, but that causes more problems than
I want to deal with and seems more complicated than letting FW do the
conversion.

Thanks!

Richard


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Thanks for all the great info. I’m saving the images at final size because I find images look softer if they’re reduced much after sharpening. My site is meant to show off my retouching, so maximum image quality for the file size is important to me. Maybe FW handle this downsizing better than other apps?

Also, I’m saving my original layered psd’s as flat tiffs (tiff so I know they’re flat). Not sure how FW handles layered files, but in any case I have some before and after images layered into single psd files, so I need to separate them for FW no matter what.

At 100% quality they are larger than my own jpeg web optimized files (but do seem to be slightly better in quality), so I’ll need to try some at slightly lower quality settings.

Finally, I noticed that some files shift 1 pixel up or down in size in one or both directions. Not sure why. This explains why I had trouble when I experimented with Pass Through and got a lot of “X’s”.

Thanks again for any further suggestions!

Richard


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Try control-E (or drag and drop) to import the layered photoshop file
into a picture box and see if this is OK for you.

On 26 Mar 2009, at 15:00, riccc123 wrote:

Not sure how FW handles layered files,

David Owen :: Freeway Friendly Web hosting and Domains ::

http://www.ineedwebhosting.co.uk :: http://www.ineedwebhosting.co.uk/blog
:: http://www.PrintlineAdvertising.co.uk


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

On Mar 26, 2009, at 8:07 AM, David Owen wrote:

Try control-E (or drag and drop) to import the layered photoshop file

I believe this should be Command+E.

Richard

Richard Houston
Architectural Art
http://www.richardhoustonart.com


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Sometime around 26/3/09 (at 09:47 -0400) riccc123 said:

so far I’ve found the images need to be close to 100% quality to
look as good as the optimized jpegs I normally use for the web.

The problem is likely to be due to the difference in what compression
settings mean in different programs. Photoshop’s compression/quality
percentage scale is not the same as Freeway’s, which is not the same
as Graphic Converter’s, which is not the same as Preview’s, which
is… well, you get the picture.

Photoshop errs on the side of quality, so 50% from Photoshop will
often look slightly better than 50% from a different app. It will be
a larger file too, so don’t think that it is just ‘better at making
JPEGs’. :slight_smile:

The only real way to compare JPEG compression across different apps
is to make two files that are the same size (without embedded custom
icons as that muddies the waters) and compare those. If you note the
compression settings used for each then you can make better snap
decisions - but really, the ideal way to choose is by looking at the
final output.

k


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

thatkeith wrote:

The only real way to compare JPEG compression across different apps
is to make two files that are the same size (without embedded custom
icons as that muddies the waters) and compare those. If you note the
compression settings used for each then you can make better snap
decisions - but really, the ideal way to choose is by looking at the
final output.

k

I agree, although I don’t see a way to have FW output at a particular file size. I did a quick test and see that even dropping the FW quality slider just to 95% gives a considerably smaller file than 100%, and that 90% gets the size and quality close to what I get from Photoshop’s SFW at 60-70%. FW’s default 75% looks like it might be closer to Photoshop’s 50%?

Thanks.

Richard


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

What’s really funny is that setting a JPEG at 100% quality can make it
larger than the original, if the original was a JPEG at say, 50%
quality. And the result won’t ever look better than the original,
naturally. You’ll just have a larger file.

Walter

On Mar 26, 2009, at 2:31 PM, riccc123 wrote:

I did a quick test and see that even dropping the FW quality slider
just to 95% gives a considerably smaller file than 100%, and that
90% gets the size and quality close to what I get from Photoshop’s
SFW at 60-70%.


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

waltd wrote:

What’s really funny is that setting a JPEG at 100% quality can make it
larger than the original, if the original was a JPEG at say, 50%
quality. And the result won’t ever look better than the original,
naturally. You’ll just have a larger file.

Walter

Yes, jpegging a jpeg is always a bad idea. Once I understood that that is what FW does by default with jpegs it was clear that sending it jpegs is about the worst thing you can do for both quality and file size.

Richard


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Sometime around 26/3/09 (at 14:31 -0400) riccc123 said:

I don’t see a way to have FW output at a particular file size.

What you can do is turn on the Graphics Preview option in the View
menu. That tells Freeway to take the time to render graphics as
they’ll be output. This means that you get to see how things will
really look in the final output (although there are a few hiccups
here) AND that you’ll see the size reported in the Inspector for
anything you select. So tweaking the Quality slider will show you
both the output quality in situ AND show you the size in thousands of
bytes.

Ker-ping! Pretty useful - although it isn’t something I’d leave on
all the time.

k


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options