[Pro] This is a first -unique - Pro Bugged here?

Freeway
1

I have re-checked and double checked, re-edited and re saved for web a number of images at 800px by 550px approx. They are Jpegs, being imported into Graphics thumbnail boxes on a blank Black page in FW. the Thumbnail Boxes are 150px max. Yet, the images are only filling up a third of the box? In other words appearing at 40 or 60 pixels on the longest size. I tried various images and they all do the same apart from the very first one that I imported, which is no different from the rest really.

So I decided to create a fresh graphics box with the same dimensions and imported the same image. Everything worked fine, as it should have done.

Conclusion: It seems that duplicating the graphics box several times (which I did frequently in express) and importing the images into the duplicated versions has a tinsy winsy Bug?

Any thoughts on this please?

regards chris

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

2

Remember that if you duplicate a box like this then any settings that you have applied to the box will also be duplicated.

So if you imported an image into box one moved, scaled the image etc and then duplicated that box then any image subsequently imported will be scaled etc. the same as the first.

D

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

3

On 12 Dec 2010, at 12:29, Chris Watts wrote:

I have re-checked and double checked, re-edited and re saved for web a number of images at 800px by 550px approx. They are Jpegs, being imported into Graphics thumbnail boxes on a blank Black page in FW. the Thumbnail Boxes are 150px max. Yet, the images are only filling up a third of the box?

Try this: draw a Graphics box on the page to the size you want. Hit Apple-E (shortcut to choose a picture dialog) then when the picture is in there, hit Apple-Alt-Shift-F (Fit picture to box in proportion). It may look hugely fuzzy, in which case, double-click the image and, in the resulting dialog, choose the ‘Resample Image’ button. Then hit Apple-Shift-D to fit the box to the image and remove any waste space where the box wasn’t the same proportion as the image.

Of course, make sure you don’t make the box a lot bigger than the image (in pixels) or you’ll end up with a pixellated image if you’ve enlarged it by putting it in a box that’s bigger than the image.

best wishes,

Paul Bradforth

Buy my eBooks at:
http://www.paulbradforth.com/books/

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

4

Ok, thankyou both - will digest. It makes sense so will experiment. thankyou.

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

5

Actually then what you said Dave impies that when I fit image to box with scale and trim (which is naturally always down) then duplicating is pointless if the images are all of different pixel dimensions. Because the co-ordinates that were applied in graphics box 1 were carried over and will affect the next box, Weird really, I would have thought, naturally, that simply the box dimensions would be carried over only. And when you imported next image the previous sttings would have been overidden so that the scale and trim would start afresh from virgin co-ordinates rather than referencin previous co-ordinates from the previous scale and trim - rather complicated isn’t it?

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

6

Actually this is ridiculous. FW just is not working properly.

Firstly my images were 3000px longestsize, I saved for web at 2mb with 800 px dimensions. I then imported into graphics box that is 500 px longest size and it comes in the size of a peanut!!

I never had this problem in Express. It is stupid. Plus Iam trying to stack, ie, when you rollover the thumbnail the larger image changes, this is no problem I can do that. I even accessed the contextual menu and clicked on "edit in Photoshop’ I only checked the images quality and pixel status, but when I returned back to my graphics box all the darn images in the stack disappeared completely. I think Pro is buggy here, maybe because I am on tiger? I really do not know.

I tried your method Paul, I simply never needed to use the resample. But the fit picture to box did work, then I imported the next one and we are back to square one with the peanut. I should not have to do this really.

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

7

Ok, the re-sample is working on other images where for some reason it is needed. (thankyou Paul) But Theoretically this should not be needed. I re-sampled and sized in Photoshop and placed the new jpeg files in my media folder. with more pixel info than is needed.

Maybe FW is not sourcing the images in the media folder but remembers previous settings and sources the settings, instead of the actual image. A Bizarre theory with no proof I know.

I know in hand coding that one NEEDS obviously to make thumbnail images and also actual size images.

Hey what do I know, I am new to this. Just guessing, my brain works in overdrive most of the time, I only accept complexities if it needs to be complex, Mmm, but yep, I am not a programmer. Just waffling as I am thinking. You don’t mind do you?

Kind regards
Chris.

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

8

Ok paul and dave thankyou for your help. It does work, and hope you forgive me for waffling. It’s a bit like sitting next to your colleague and waffling away your moans as he tries to explain things. My colleagues still like me though.

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

9

Some not too technical comments from what I believe Freeway does, which may help:

  1. Freeway resamples and performs a very good optimisation job on each image you import

  2. Freeway analyses the size of the original so an image saved a 300 ppi will initially appear at a different size to one saved at 72 ppi.

  3. You can use pass through images saved to the exact size you want them to appear.

  4. In the opposite case to yours, where images com from a source of all equal sizes, the scaling on duplication is a great timesaver.

  5. If you hit Command (Apple key) and T, you can transform both image box and image in a number of ways to get precise fit, angle, etc.

  6. Resampling reflects what you see on screen more closely to what will be output - it is not necessarily the same as the image file actually uploaded.

Colin

On 12 Dec 2010, at 13:34, Chris Watts wrote:

Ok, the re-sample is working on other images where for some reason it is needed. (thankyou Paul) But Theoretically this should not be needed. I re-sampled and sized in Photoshop and placed the new jpeg files in my media folder. with more pixel info than is needed.

Maybe FW is not sourcing the images in the media folder but remembers previous settings and sources the settings, instead of the actual image. A Bizarre theory with no proof I know.

I know in hand coding that one NEEDS obviously to make thumbnail images and also actual size images.

Hey what do I know, I am new to this. Just guessing, my brain works in overdrive most of the time, I only accept complexities if it needs to be complex, Mmm, but yep, I am not a programmer. Just waffling as I am thinking. You don’t mind do you?

Kind regards
Chris.

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

10

Colin I really appreciate your input here, I was beginning to wonder about the interpolation method used by FW to re-sample. But you said “Resampling reflects what you see on screen more closely to what will be output - it is not necessarily the same as the image file actually uploaded.”

This is important to me, and point number 4 is what I was beginning to suspect. thankyou.

Point number 2: ‘Freeway analyses the size of the original so an image saved a 300 ppi will initially appear at a different size to one saved at 72 ppi.’ I have been sizing all my images to 72ppi in CS3. I think this contributed to the confusion in FW. I will leave them all at their original 360ppi and let FW do whatever it wants to do.

thankyou Colin. Oh I don’t mind the technical stuff by the way, pour it out…
happy Christmas. Not forgetting Dave and Paul of course.

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

11

On 12 Dec 2010, at 14:14, Chris Watts wrote:

Point number 2: ‘Freeway analyses the size of the original so an image saved a 300 ppi will initially appear at a different size to one saved at 72 ppi.’ I have been sizing all my images to 72ppi in CS3. I think this contributed to the confusion in FW. I will leave them all at their original 360ppi and let FW do whatever it wants to do.

Chris, I’m sure you probably know this already, but it’s worth mentioning anyway: there isn’t any resolution on the Web. Pixel size is all that matters. So if you have a picture that measures 600x450px, that’s the size it will appear in the site, regardless of whether it was saved with a resolution of 300, 600 or 72ppi. Some handy reading here: Say No to 72 dpi

What is confusing though is that some software, Freeway and RapidWeaver among them, will display pictures in Edit mode at the wrong size if they are NOT 72ppi. So, although resolution is just a printing thing and is meaningless online, it’s still a good idea to make all your web images at 72ppi, to avoid confusing the software when it comes to display them.

best wishes,

Paul Bradforth

Buy my eBooks at:
http://www.paulbradforth.com/books/

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

12

I have been sizing all my images to 72ppi in CS3. I think this contributed to the confusion in FW. I will leave them all at their original 360ppi and let FW do whatever it wants to do.

If you are doing this and Saving for Web in PS then importing into FW then you are jpegging a jpeg ie double compression and losing picture information in the process because jpeg compression is a lossy method.

Far better to keep your images in PS psd format and let FW jpeg once OR import your saved for web file as a pass-through with no FW compression.

D

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

13

Yes, paul. I know I only mentioned that because I just thought that weird as it sounds FW might be doing something extra to my 72ppi image so I suggested leaving it at 360pp (print size) so if FW does anything it can’t do anything extra weird.

======“So if you have a picture that measures 600x450px, that’s the size it will appear in the site” ======BUT this was my original problem, FW messed it up and did indeed NOT display it at the correct size. So I will do HTML boxes because I can not trust FW in certain instances. I need the control I suppose and take the control away from FW.

The Irony of all this? Hand coding the attribute is so much less complicated.
Regards
Chris

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

14

On 12 Dec 2010, 1:50 pm, DeltaDave wrote:

If you are doing this and Saving for Web in PS then importing into FW then you are jpegging a jpeg ie double compression and losing picture information in the process because jpeg compression is a lossy method.

D

Hi Dave, Aagh, Mmm, I see jpegging a jpeg. I am still thinking ‘PSD’ to ‘Save for Web’ and totally oblivious to a third interrogation by the ‘Freeway Bureau’. Instead I am getting ‘PSD’ to ‘Save for Web’ to ‘Mess with it more Freeway’. that explains a little more. Trouble was I had been importing a couple of times the PSD directly (yesterday tried it out) but was getting awful results, thought it was the programme so switched back to the very old fashioned method.

Ok thankyou dave.

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

15

On 12 Dec 2010, at 14:54, Chris Watts wrote:

BUT this was my original problem, FW messed it up and did indeed NOT display it at the correct size. So I will do HTML boxes because I can not trust FW in certain instances. I need the control I suppose and take the control away from FW.

Freeway should, and usually does, display images at the correct size. If it isn’t doing that for you, then something is wrong at your end; this is not a problem inherent in Freeway. Better to solve the problem than use HTML boxes. That requires a ‘pass-through’ image that you’ll have very little control over at all, compared with the rich control that a Graphic box will give you. If you make an HTML box with an image in it, and a Graphic box with the same image in it, side by side, then select the HTML box and go to the ‘Item>Actions’ pallette, pull it down and see what’s available, then do the same thing but this time with the Graphic box selected, you’ll see what I mean.

Also, you can put almost any format into a Graphic box, from .psd to Illustrator, and have Freeway output a filetype of your choice, at a quality of your choice. So, use a .psd, say, then have it output a JPEG at a quality that you can adjust with a slider and, if you have Graphics Preview turned on, you can watch the quality improve/decrease and stop when it’s right.

The Irony of all this? Hand coding the attribute is so much less complicated.

I remember making a page of thumbnails for a site once; there were about sixty of them and they all had to be identical, and they all had to have an action applied. I made one, tarted it up with drop shadows and Polaroid-style thick white border, applied the action, then duplicated it five times across the page with one click, selected the row of images, and duplicated that row twelve times down the page to make sixty. Total time elapsed: about forty seconds. Hand code that!

best wishes,

Paul Bradforth

Buy my eBooks at:
http://www.paulbradforth.com/books/

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

16

. Total time elapsed: about forty seconds. Hand code that!

Ok got your point…

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