I have learned that pass-through images should be in the exact size.
Imagine a responsive layout with inflow items. A 100% width header photo with 980px width x 300px height in the standard media width tab, that shrinks at every smaller breakpoint - which must to do so a real pass-through.
I wonder now, how to get the image for retina screens ready?
The double size would be 1960px, but when I use it, the whole layout crushes. I am sure I miss something.
ahm - honestly unsure but I suppose, that you would load the image as is 980px wide (by 72dpi) and then check the box HighRes (Hochauflösend) and let Freeway do the rest which should end up in a published image @x2 version with 1960px (36dpi)?
Forgot to mention, that there is a tiny action for those using photoshop:
The compression indeed depends on the image itself (IMO) and the point it starts to get nasty. Usually I start at the point “high” which is the quality 60 in Photoshop - but very rare higher. From there I switch to 30. Now it depends - as I said - how it behaves: Still OK → go, not so OK → 40 - and so on.
There is even some help in net:
Give it a go. In worst case it doesn’t spare much - but is indicating, that you already did the best you can.
Thomas is quite right about how jpeg compression works, in that, it is image dependant.
It’s really quite basic. It simply looks at a pixel and the ones next to it and decides if instead of having them all individual, it can replace, for example 5 similar red pixels in a row, by ‘5xr’. The higher the compression (lower quality) the more cavalier it is in considering pixels to be the same. That’s all it does.
It would be nice if a future version of FW7, could choose from a range of image files, which one is the best for the current viewport dimensions. This is how Juicebox now works and I have to say, it works quite well … of course, it only works in FW as an embedded gallery. When making a Juicebox gallery, it will produce 3 versions + a thumb for each image. The user can set the pixel dimensions for each version as they please.
It harks back to earlier days of the internet (mid-90s) when an imaging company built a server based image viewing system, which would build the appropriate jpegs ‘on the fly’ … from a high resolution tiff! You could have a 300mb tiff on the server and it would load a 100% zoom as fast as a modern browser will load a retina jpeg. Clever stuff … but too clever for its own good.
Yes Grant, I agree the method you describe is used in WordPress too for instance.
I dont work with PS, so the action is useless.
But I`ll try https://imageoptim.com a small program to compress files. I am not sure yet though, if the output will be ok for us in FW.
You don’t really need any tools other than those you already have on your Mac.
PS does a great job of making web jpegs because it applies sharpening extremely well as part of the process (whether you want it or not).
You can achieve much the same on your Mac using any app that uses Apple’s ‘Core Image’ tools. That means all of Apple’s apps, plus a great many others, Pixelmator for example. These will all do a good job of automatically sharpening your jpeg. If you want to improve the results, then the image adjust tools will let you do quite a lot.
If you’re fussy, then for Apple’s own tools, you would have to use Aperture, which will give you the added ‘edge sharpening’ tool, but honestly, you don’t need it.
I’m assuming that you understand that every time you ‘re-jpeg a jpeg’ you are seriously degrading its quality. Obviously the more compression you use to start with, the worse it will look after any subsequent compression. So, if you’re interested in achieving the best results, you should make your jpeg from a tiff or raw, then leave it at that. N.B. Every time you look at an image in a browser, it is being ‘interpolated’ either up or down (unless it can be displayed at 100% in the browser window). This interpolation is in many regards, the same process as making a jpeg.
Yes it means that you don’t need to prepare your image for the web (ensure the resolution is correct, the colour mode is set to RGB, and the file is a web-friendly format like JPG, GIF or PNG). Freeway will happily import most image file types allowing you to repurpose images from a print project (for example) and will silently and quickly convert these into web-friendly formats when you next publish or preview the page.
You can, if you’d rather, still import passthrough images and Freeway won’t do any work to the images at all which is ideal if you’ve spent precious time perfecting your files in Photoshop (for example) and don’t want the application to make another copy of your file.
Regards,
Tim.
On 19 Nov 2014, at 15:17, grantsymon wrote:
Whilst look on the Softpress site for something else this afternoon, I noticed this. Anyone know what it means?
In your File import dialog, if you scroll all the way to the bottom of the left-most list (volumes and favorites), you will see Photos as an option. I see Aperture in the list of options when I click on that, and Loading Aperture images… for a while, followed by every single image in my library, one collection at a time. The same for iPhoto, if I used that.
Walter
On Nov 19, 2014, at 6:24 PM, grantsymon email@hidden wrote:
“You can import images from the most popular image editing applications right into Freeway, saving you a ton of time from Save for Web.”
It appears to use Apple’s Media Browser, which is good and bad. Good because it’s so easy, bad because it only uses the preview jpeg from whatever app you’re using.
(Dave, I only mentioned those two apps because they’re widely used. I realise they’re only of interest to enthusiastic amateur/pro photographers)
