Whenever you view at a zoom level other than 100%, there isn’t a one-to-one relationship between image pixels and screen pixels. If you are zooming to 33%, two thirds of the pixels have to be omitted (or combined with existing pixels) for display, for example. Thus, if you have a series of 2 pixel wide lines, some of them will look bold, others will look skinny, and some will not display at all. For critical judgments of image quality, always use 100% or 200% zoom.
Once a project is out of Photoshop, though, I can zoom in and out to variety of levels using the Picture viewer that is built in to Windows XP and there is not any hint of distortion at any sizing of zooming in or out. Looks picture perfect at any level.
The Windows XP Picture and Fax Viewer isn’t an editor, so it need not even attempt to display pixels accurately; it only has to make the picture look nice on the screen, so it probably interpolates at any zoom level using a lot of smoothing. That would not be helpful in an image editing program.
The zoom in and out clarity of the image is so accurate with Windows XP Picture and Fax viewer, that I can imagine there is a process involved very similar to resizing an image to larger or smaller than the original. As with the right click picture resizer Power Toy from Microsoft site.
To have that nice of quality would be loads helpful with my image editing. I work on a large scale with digital artistry that can be managed as good sized prints as well. To stand back and see overall effect of what is being done, and in process, as with painting at a real canvas, a lot essential.
I can’t see well the image as a whole, of what I’ve done, with accuracy until moved out of Photoshop.
The Windows XP Picture and Fax Viewer isn’t an editor, so it need not even attempt to display pixels accurately; it only has to make the picture look nice on the screen, so it probably interpolates at any zoom level using a lot of smoothing. That would not be helpful in an image editing program.
exactly right mike. but that said, i find the pic & fax viewer probably the most useful addition to windows since wordpad! quick and good quality previews, limited explorer like functionality (open with, send to, etc.) zoom and rotate. just don’t use it to save anything. 🙂
ps. wish i could get it to work with adobe bridge!
The aim of photo editing is not to provide yourself and others with an image to photo edit.
It is to be experienced with what is available for viewing, and mostly as viewed with pc monitor methods, with some printing done, and both with what should be easy select of sizing within bounds of maximum size provided for.
Clear resolution adjustment of different zoom-in and zoom-out that respects the pixels of the original size of an image, I still need. As is not just deliberately "attempted" with Windows Picture and Fax Viewer,it excells above what Photoshop currently has.
When working at details of an 8×10 at full scale or larger, the clarity of accurate resolution of pixels is appropriate.
When applying adustments and filters to the picture as a whole, an accurate way of seeing what you are doing is highly essential to very high quality work being achieved.
If I find a solution anytime soon, I’ll post it here.
Tom
(One easy way to see the problem clearly, create an 8×10 canvas, color fill it, apply an "overlay" option of pattern fill with "Artist Textures" like canvas and berber. Look at it with fit screen size, and other size levels. Save it and look at it with Windows Picture and fax viewer, as well as emailed at different sizes as displayed in the email. When working with fine ink lines image creation and a lot more, the viewing sizes of Photoshop are a mess at most levels beyond the original size. And useless as image editing beyond forcing a position of guesswork.)
When working at details of an 8×10 at full scale or larger, the clarity of accurate resolution of pixels is appropriate.
which is exactly why you don’t want something that’s doing what pic & fax viewer is doing. you want to see real pixels, not unidentified interopolations.
The clarity of accurate resolutions of an 8×10 viewed in Photoshop is accurately viewed at "Accurate Pixels." Wanting that is not the problem. That is already had.
With browsing online today, a site promoting what is called Flair Plugin. In describing interface of the preview window for that plugin is said: "The interface features a dynamic realtime preview which automatically decreases resolution in order to maintain a responsive preview image."
If I could have those words applied to the main view of image being worked on at whatever size needing to look at within Photoshop, the matter would likely have found a solution.
A plugin (or upgrade) that more than maximizes identity of pixels (while fully accounted of pixels with adjustments and filters and effects applied), even though resolution is decreased for viewing it. Windows Picture and Fax viewer is doing that maximizing of identity of pixels mightily well. No reason Photoshop should not have some method for that as well.
Is essential.
Tom
I can see that. If it were toggleable, say with a keystroke, i doubt there’d be much user objection. there’s a link to the feature request section at the top of the forum.
It doesn’t need to be toggleable. Photoshop image viewed at 33% and 50% for example, is Photoshop’s reduced resolution in action, giving you in very real effect their "preview" at different sizes of what "Actual Pixels" looks like at other sizes.
Photoshop’s is a mess.
As to advising not to save anything from the Picture and Fax viewer, (as with copying an image to another folder), the copying from there is making a duplicate of the image file, and making not one editorial decision in the process.
Tom
copying is one thing and doesn’t involve modifying the file at all, but you can also scale and rotate in P&F viewer. save away though if you wish.
Rotating any image in any program has a potential recalculation compensation with turning the horizontal number of pixels to vertical. I’ve never had any problem with any program that provides for rotating.
As for rescaling, Photoshop has a problem within the viewing area as monitoring what you work on, as described. As well as image resizing that has prompted other choices as preferred; commercial "Genuine Fractals" coming out more on top in a recent poll than Photoshop’s built in resizer.
For convienience of emailing and image posting with smaller scale desired, the Image Resizer right-click method, a free XP Power Toy from Microsoft (if not already familiar) does a very respectable job of not messing with originality and quality of original size image.
<
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppow ertoys.mspx>
Tom
that’s true. i prefer to use ps and save for web when emailing or posting. thanks for the link though.
I routinely spend a lot of hours with digital artwork, and with use of photographs involved.
If something already exists that I am not locating due to not using the magic words in browser to find it, a zoom in and zoom out plugin or add-on that cleans the display resolution of images viewed at smaller percentages to see an 8×10 or larger as a whole in Photoshop, it really is a lot a essential.
(As for compensations with recalculations in rotating, I had set in mind an offset in alighnment as why the Picture and Fax Viewer notifies of potential for alteration of image, and asks whether wanting to continue. But there is no offset in alignment. So I do not know what possible risk there is in any rotation of image method. I can’t imagine any at all. Maybe Gates was thinking of some offset thing too. I don’t know. Maybe just is letting you know your image is going to be seen sideways, and wants your approval.)
Tom
