Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

18

In short, Facebook is converting your image to the JPEG/JPG format (Join Photographic Experts Group). There seems to be no current way to upload images to use as a profile picture or to your photo album which Facebook will not convert to JPEG. ...a commonly used method of lossy compression for digital photography (image). The degree of compression can ...


9

If you need to scale images up at the ratio you're describing, it's practically necessary to work with vector images rather than raster images. The main difference is that raster images are made up of pixels, discrete dots of a fixed size, whereas vector images are described by geometric paths. The essential point is that vector images can be scaled up ...


8

From how-to.wikia: PNG files are lossless compressed bitmaped images. While they are compressed, they can still attain large file sizes depending on the type of image data saved. Similar to GIF files, they are best suited for images with large areas of solid colours and defined boundaries (such as logos). They also support transparencies and 24 ...


8

Choice of the best compression method depends on your image content. If you're trying to save image with a lots of colors and smooth transitions between them, your choice would rather be JPEG. Otherwise, if you've got some lineart, text, image with a couple of colors you should try PNG instead. Specific compression scheme, parameters, color reduction etc. ...


6

Here are some options: Use another format other than JPEG (PNG or GIF); the results in terms of both file size and image quality will depend on the content of your image; each is better at certain kinds of content Make the image smaller in terms of pixels - this will have a very significant effect and should definitely be considered if you have control ...


6

Here is an article on exactly your problem. Been having this problem as well. Hope this helps! Facebook uses a low quality jpg compression so any solid colors end up looking heavily pixelated. Solution is to add images at double the size with noise.


6

Common sizes for desktop are 800x600, 1024x768, 1280x1024 and 1600x1200 HD usually means 1080p nowadays so that is 1920 x 1080. Also, see this previous question And this Google Browser size diagram may help


5

Having the same problem with a white text on a solid red background. My solution was to replace the solid red by a gradient of to reds. Afterwards I also added a Noise filter (or grain filter (7) in the filter gallery) in Photoshop. The improvement was very noticeable and the result was perfect. In attachment you can see the original and the finished result. ...


5

I would take a different approach to this, because the task is like wishing for the moon. There's no unicorn filter in Photoshop yet. (And I'm surprised nobody has so far pointed out that Photoshop's pixel limit for a PSD is 30,000 in either dimension, so 86,400 would only be achievable by slicing the image into separate files and enlarging those.) The ...


5

As you probably know, the viewing distance of two feet is ludicrous. If people were going to view whatever this is from two feet, it wouldn't need to be 34 feet tall. When people get up close to something that big, they're used to seeing image issues. From a reasonable distance (20 plus feet?), Scott has the right idea. Depending on the photo, the ...


5

If you don't want your screen shot to be blurry, open the screen shot in PhotoShop, then go to image size, increase the size x2 in each dimension, and then choose 'nearest neighbor' as the interpolation option. The end result will be an image 4 times larger but the pixels will remain aliased and you won't get the blurring.


5

When saving images as .jpeg you always lose information. The dialog basically asks you how much information you would like to lose in favor of smaller size on disk (1 = most loss, 100 = least loss). There is no way to tell what you originally selected and the only use would be to have a history of your workflow because this loss is irrecoverably applied to ...


5

For something like this with lots of text, you can greatly reduce the file size of a PDF saved in Photoshop by making sure that the text is exported as vector. The reason your text is not being exported as vector is because you've got some of Photoshop's "Faux Styles" applied to your text. Any time you have one of these (Faux Bold, Faux Italic, Small Caps), ...


4

Converting to a smart object won't change the quality when the image is reduced, it will only allow you to resize the image afterwards back to normal without loss of quality. Convert to smart object anyway, as it's good practice. Go to Settings -> General Change 'Image Interpolation' to 'Bicubic sharper' see if that helps maintain some detail.


4

I don't work for Google so I can't speak to their method of sizing & compressing the images, but your image is very noisy which means that any modifications will significantly alter the sharpness of the textures you're using. Noting that their guidelines warn that your graphic "will be downsized to mini or micro", and even in a desktop browser the art ...


4

I honestly wouldn't worry about colour accuracy for web. Every person in the planet will see the site in a different shade (so to say). One thing is using web safe colours, that will actually make a difference if you have, for example, overlapping layers (like a non-transparent image on the same colour background). But a website will be seen in anything from ...


4

Off the bat.. Place image in Adobe Illustrator Use the Live Trace feature to convert the photo to vectors Scale all you want. It's best to import the photo as large as possible to get as much detail as possible with Live Trace. And Live Trace tends to work better if photos are not exceptionally intricate. But it's a possible solution. Sticking with ...


4

It seems like you're noticing an RGB colour management issue. PNGs saved from Photoshop can't have ICC Colour Profiles attached (the PNG format supports it, but PNGs with profiles are very rare). If you'd like what's shown in the Windows photo viewer to match Photoshop, then you'll need to set up Photoshop in a way that it doesn't colour manage RGB images. ...


4

Essentially, you have to draw or re-draw your small icon. Ideally you work from a vector based version that you scale down and then tweak the details on pixel-level, but scaling down a rastered version will work, too. Your scaling results will be better, if you scale exactly 50%, 25%, 12.5%, etc, because photoshop has to blur less between pixels. ...


4

This really is too broad. But broad recommendations can be given for a broad problem ... Resolution considerations In general terms 300ppi for print 72 for web More every day for mobile and tablet (the highest right now is 433ppi, I believe). The catch is that your resolution is output size. If you can guess the final crop and dimensions and intended ...


4

800 pixels by 800 pixels and need to convert them in Photoshop to 72 ppi for web use (at the same size: 800px by 800px). There's no conversion to do. If they're 800 pixels by 800 pixels, that's it, they're the size you need. However, 300ppi at 800px by 800px is like a 2.3" by 2.3" picture, so are you sure the files are currently at 800pixels by ...


4

I would recommend you don't use the maximum size allowed, and instead go for something a bit smaller instead. Depending on how complex your image is, a bigger size will definitely require a loss in quality. Your true limit in this case is the 127Kb. My reasoning is: You should aim for the maximum quality you can get without passing that weight. So if you ...


4

if you try to open your icon and save it as jpeg you might get a reduction of quality because of the jpeg compression. Assuming the original format is GIF, if you open and save it again as GIF there should not be any loss of quality, unless you reduce the amount of colors (when saving) that were in the original file. Inside Photoshop there should be no ...


4

What I see in the image, which I think is what you're asking about, is some posterization. Whenever you deploy very smooth gradients you can run into this issue if the display doesn't have the bit-depth or color gamut to render the gradients smoothly. Ironically, perhaps, blur not only doesn't help, it can make the situation worse. Working in Photoshop on a ...


3

An alternative to Illustrator's livetrace could be a halftone-like effect. The Size By Luminance script for Illustrator (look at the colour circle examples at the bottom) takes pixelated raster images and turns them into stylised, potentially full-colour halftone-like vector images that will then be scalable without looking accidentally pixelised. If the ...


3

First, you have to use a software product which has good algorithms for resizing, or the result will be blurry or blocky. Don't use Paint or similar. If you want a free software application, use IrfanView or GIMP, there are also professional applications. In the resize dialogue, choose the better algorithms, even if they are marked as "slow", this is OK for ...


3

To say it short: No. Images in jpg format are not vector based images. Vector based images can be resized without to lose quality. Bitmap images contains colored pixed. If you try to double the size one pixel has to grow to 4 pixel with the same color. Result: If you want the image 3 times bigger you will see the original pixels in your image. It depends ...


3

As stated you cannot increase the size of a .jpeg without loosing quality but there is a margin of tolerance that you can increase the size of a .jpeg before it is noticeable. Take my hero for instance (original file): If I import this image into Photoshop and go to Image > Image Size (Shortcut Ctrl+Alt+I for PC.) Change pixels to percent You ...


3

You can use Gimp to open the JPEGs and save them with less quality. See in Make JPGs smaller. You can make your jpegs smaller without changing the pixel width of the image. In the JPEG Save Dialog, you can opt for GIMP defaults which reduce the size quite a bit, without hurting the visual quality in a way that you can detect. This would be ...


3

I think what you're referring to is the pixel density and not the resolution (even though they're related). The pixel density can be measured by counting the number of pixels in one inch. Whereas a screen resolution is the number of pixels that a screen can fit in each dimention (horizontal and vertical). On devices with high pixel density, the browser ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible