I have been creating custom pages with Web Photo Gallery for some time now, and when comparing them to the custom html pages Fotostation puts out, the Photoshop CS thumbnails & 400 pixels images look like they have gone through a slight ‘soften’ filter. Has anyone else seen this? The images look softer than they do when opened directly in PS CS. Why would this happen? Is there any way around it? thanks -eric
Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!
Thumbnails, yes. I agree. Do you see the blurring on the preview images? second page images, about 400 pixels wide… they are much softer & lack depth. -eric
Nope, no blurring on the second-page image is noticeable here; but I’m not at my Mac right now. This Windows box I’m using now has a lousy monitor, though.
On the other hand, the web browser might have something to do with how the images look. I’ll download the previews this evening and view them in Photoshop.
I have had the same complaint about Web Gallery. In order for me the get the sharpness I want I have had to do each photo individually which is not always practical. If I "save for web" not only are they sharp but they are also small. If I do Web Gallery, they are not as sharp and they are also much larger. The adjustment to quality is not nearly as good as saving them to web.
Try batch sizing the images to the size you need on the web running an action that downsamples, sharpens and uses Save for Web. Then choose to not resize the previews when building everything in Web Gallery. This should give you the smaller files and sharper images you’re after
Paul, these suggestions would work, except that we are processing more than 1,000 per day, creating custom web pages for each image twice. It would be way too much work and take too long for this to be an effective, efficient means of creating the pages. thanks -eric
I’m at the Mac right now, and I’ve downloaded both of the preview images of the Britney Spears image.
First, the one on the Photoshop CS link is 260 x 400 pixels (104,000 pixels total). The one from the Fotostation link is 326 x 500 (163,000 pixels). Therefore, the former one has been downsampled considerably more aggresively than the latter. That makes a big difference, of course.
Secondly, it is immediately evident that the second one (downsampled in Fotostation) has been subjected to some serious sharpening, this is more readily apparent viewing both images at 200%. The Fotostation shows considerable sharpening artifacts that are not present on the one generated by Photoshop. You would have to include some degree of sharpening in your Photoshop action to get similar results.
Lastly, the Photoshop preview looks a lot better, as I had opined before.
Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.
Related Discussion Topics
Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections
