Professional Web Applications Themes

Reply to Thread

Post a reply to the thread: OK, Here we go again saving jpg's

Your Message

Click here to log in


Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces)

You may choose an icon for your message from this list

Topic Review (Newest First)

  • July 10th, 07:54 AM

    Re: OK, Here we go again saving jpg's


    I've merged your two topics so folks won't be posting in both
  • July 9th, 04:53 PM

    Re: OK, Here we go again saving jpg's

    Heh, yeah. I posted a link to this thread in that one. Some folks said they didn't see a difference. I didn't bother scrutinizing the actual images, I was just going off the fact that he said it looked different in PS. <shrug>
  • July 9th, 04:43 PM
    dave milbut

    Re: OK, Here we go again saving jpg's

    tony, great minds think alike! see the other thread! :)
  • July 9th, 04:04 PM
    dave milbut

    Re: OK, Here we go again saving jpg's

    Being a true hacker is a worthy goal.

    Right said carl.

    Check your color settings

    I was going to suggest that. Cookieman, I'd say rerun adobe gamma from your control panel. What you're experiencing may be related to the color setting in photoshop being way brighter than in any other (non-color managed) app on your system, including the web browser. Get that closer to your not cm'd apps and you should get better results from ps.

    Start from scratch (in adobe gamma), use the wizard, and save the profile as a new name - don't overwrite one of the preset settings.

  • July 9th, 02:48 PM
    Kelli Aylesworth

    Re: OK, Here we go again saving jpg's

    This might not help, but I was having a problem similar to that a while back, but I wasn't noticing the color problem until I printed. Then I'd compare and could see a difference.

    Check your color settings. I can't remember what mine are and I can't open PhotoShop right now to check, but Bludvl on here posted what I use a couple of weeks ago. He helped me out with it and I haven't had any color problems since. Try searching that name (Hope I spelled it right!) and see if you can find it.
  • July 9th, 02:01 PM
    John Woram

    Re: OK, Here we go again saving jpg's

    FWIW, I downloaded the PSD and JPG files here, then reduced the PSD to the same dimensions as the JPG for side-by-side comparison. Of course the PSD is better, but the JPG really isn't bad either.
  • July 9th, 05:50 AM

    Re: OK, Here we go again saving jpg's


    First, don't let Ol' Whozit get your goat. She's one of the more colorful posters and while I don't always agree with her demeanor, she knows a thing or two about a thing or two.

    Now to your problem.

    But how come my files that look pretty acceptable (to me at least) as
    psd files look so hmmmm....what is a non-profane way of describing it...."manure-ey"
    when saved as a jpg.

    The issue you describe appears to be a color management issue. The FIRST clue is that they look okay in photoshop but they don't when saved as a JPG (non color managed).

    While JPG supports the embedding of a color profile, few programs read them AFAIK, so functionally, it's non-color managed. So what do you do?

    Three routes:

    1. Turn color management OFF in photoshop when working with images that are to be viewed in non color managed apps.

    2. Use a Web Color Space when working with images that are to be viewed in non color managed apps.

    3. Get your color management right (recommended).

    I used to have the same problem many moons ago. I always thought that color management was too damn difficult to understand without someone over my shoulder explaining what was happening. If you are SERIOUS about solving this puzzle, do this:

    1. Calibrate your monitor (use Adobe Gamma) <>

    2. Take 15 minutes and read Ian Lyons' most excellent information on color management. <>

    What you are seeing is that photoshop is interpreting colors based on a Profile that tells it how to treat color numbers.

    Until your monitor is calibrated and you know what color space to work in (if at all), then you will A) continue to have problems, or B) be very lucky.

  • July 9th, 05:34 AM
    Warren S. Sarle

    Re: OK, Here we go again saving jpg's

    You are using a very low quality setting for the .jpg image. I saved your .psd file as a quality 12 .jpg, and the result is barely distinguishable from the .psd image.

    I also think the image is oversharpened, but that's a matter of taste.
  • July 9th, 04:23 AM
    Ol' Whozit

    Re: OK, Here we go again saving jpg's

    Well, Gregg,
    Makes no difference HOW you post it, it's still a crappy image, and NO amount of PS magic will make that better...
    BUT, working with the image as presented, here are a couple things to consider...

    First, what is the resolution of your original image. 72 dpi works for web monitor resolution on Macs. 96 dpi for "the real world" of PCs.

    Second, try checking the histograms of your image (Ctrl+L) to see where your values fall. Adjust to taste...If, perchance, you don't know what Levels and Histograms are, RTFM (Read the FINE Manual) or hit F1, select SEARCH, and check out "Levels"...

    Third, get over yourself. Your post does not EVEN put anyone "on the ceiling," (ESPECIALLY me!) due to your lack of etymolgical ineptitude; and the CORRECT phrase is "later, gator" you ignoramous...sheesh! Not only can you misuse the term "hacker," you can't even get colloquial phrases right...

    As for "puckering up," I think you know where you can plant that kiss...
  • July 9th, 04:01 AM
    Tina Hayes

    Re: OK, Here we go again saving jpg's

    I don't see much wrong with it. It is a bit desaturated though.

    Any time you reduce the physical dimentions you'll need to bring things up a bit.

    Try this combo:
    1) Auto Levels
    2) Auto Contrast
    3) Unsharp Mask
    4) Save for web 50%

    On another note, are you using AOL or any of that 'turbo boost your connection' software?

    AOL caches and compresses images on thier own server often causing it's users to see less than perfect images.

    Same thing with those software things that claim to 'increase your speed', they compress the hell out of graphics on websites, making them not so nice to look at.

    Just a thought........
  • July 9th, 03:53 AM
    Ol' Whozit

    Re: OK, Here we go again saving jpg's

    "The guy went on at great length to expound about what a hacker is in his mind, to the point of proving to anyone that his "hacker" and my "hacker" had nothing in common"

    Try ANY dictionary definition, foo. You will then see how RARE and OBTUSE 'your' definition of "hacker" is.

    Defamitory? I doubt it. What universe you exist in (Life is for those that KNOW how to use it) has long proven your definition to be obtuse and obfuscating.

    Get over yourself, and learn how to ask for help without sounding like a pathetic wanna be.

    Check with your local health care provider to deal with your "sadness" over Forum posts that sadden you.

    The Lounge HAS no topic, on or off.
  • July 9th, 03:20 AM
    cookieman kpointthree

    Re: OK, Here we go again saving jpg's

    I don't think I was defamatory at all, actually I am still unnerved by the way people in the age of email/internet correspondence, when presented with taking a comment or a subject any number of ways will almost always take it in the most negative way and respond in a very hateful and malicious way.

    It made me sad for the concept of communication more than anything. I defamed no one. My original comments in the first post were very self deprecating. I am surprised that people who actually lived before the "jargon dictionary" replaced webster's have absolutely no idea what somenone over the age of 30 might refer to asa a "hacker".

    The guy went on at great length to expound about what a hacker is in his mind, to the point of proving to anyone that his "hacker" and my "hacker" had nothing in common, and then having ranted for that long did not even take the time to say maybe I meant something else prior to posting his message, which was extremely defamatory and utterly lacking in humor (worse yet).

    I am sorry for having to go back and forth so long over something off topic but it was very offensive and aimed directly at me.

  • July 9th, 03:11 AM

    Re: OK, Here we go again saving jpg's

    For me, hacker meant nothing--it's generally misused like that. I felt sorry for the way it had been read by the first poster. I'm interested in JPEGs, and would have enjoyed following a good exchange. The problem, however, was that it was presented as an essay, instead of as a question, making it difficult to find a starting point.

    It's interesting to experiment with JPEG quality, to see what amount of sacrifice we will accept for file size. For Web use, I'd generally favor file size over quality--unless I'm showing product details. In many cases, a 16-color GIF will be smaller and sharper.

    The original poster has duplicated this thread, with a longer, defamatory, introductory story.
  • July 9th, 02:39 AM

    Re: OK, Here we go again saving jpg's

    Ol'Whozit, you totally misunderstood what he was saying.He was making fun of himself. He was only trying to explain how much of a novice is.
    Webster's Random House Dictionary has several definitions for hacker.
    For example: a person who engages in an activity without talent or skill.

    Welcome to the forum Gregg.

    Way to go Dennis.

  • July 9th, 02:12 AM
    cookieman kpointthree

    OK, Here we go again saving jpg's

    I am going to re-post this question so as to "psycho proof" it. If olwhosit needs my receipt for the program he is welcome to see it.

    I will change one word since to him that is grounds for being rude and I don't know when his next zoloft fix is.

    OK, I admit to being a NOVICE in the old sense of the word. (Untrained, unmethodical, clueless in general). But how come my files that look pretty acceptable (to me at least) as psd files look so hmmmm....what is a non-profane way of describing it...."manure-ey" when saved as a jpg. I have experimented with higher quality settings, tried working around the whole "save for web" optimizer, used higher dpi res., still....manure.

    The best I can come up with is to lighten the bejeezus out of the image and set the saturation levels to the moon. There has to be a more sophisticated approach. (please say there is and what it is.)

    Please follow this link on an empty stomach. Any other pro-to-novice sage advice is appreciated, please be gentle!

    I put the jpg here and the psd is in that directory as well with a psd extension, howver, when I try to navigate to it, I get a broken quicktime icon. Any other method to post it is appreciated. Can I just zip it and you can retrieve that-away?

    Anyhow, i put the full sized jpg here as well with no background or drop shadow.


    Actual image as it appears on our homepage:

    Being a NOVICE has many drawbacks...

    I also put it up as a bmp just to see how it looked in that format and there is virtually no diff. between bmp and jpg.



    Please olwhosit, pucker up and give me a li' shug...where the sun don't shine... Later, bator

    A hacker to me was always a guy who went out golfing once a month who may as well use a piano leg as his golf club. Sorry for anyone who had to be peeled from the ceiling as a result of encountering the word "hacker" in a context I did not intend.
  • July 9th, 02:04 AM
    dennis johnson

    Re: OK, Here we go again saving jpg's

    I don't see anything in particular wrong with the JPG, c-man, although the selection used to clean up the background could have been cleaner. The saturation is a shade high, but for the subject matter, it looks ok to me.

    Can you be more specific as to what you were aiming for?
    What is the link to the PSD file?
  • July 9th, 01:40 AM
    cookieman kpointthree

    Re: OK, Here we go again saving jpg's

    thanks for not reading my post. I didn't steal anything, brainiac.

  • July 9th, 12:37 AM

    Re: OK, Here we go again saving jpg's

    hacker n. [originally, someone who makes furniture with an axe] 1. A person
    who enjoys exploring the details of programmable systems and how to stretch
    their capabilities, as opposed to most users, who prefer to learn only
    the minimum necessary. 2. One who programs enthusiastically (even obsessively)
    or who enjoys programming rather than just theorizing about programming.
    3. A person capable of appreciating hack value. 4. A person who is good
    at programming quickly. 5. An expert at a particular program, or one who
    frequently does work using it or on it; as in `a Unix hacker'. (Definitions
    1 through 5 are correlated, and people who fit them congregate.) 6. An
    expert or enthusiast of any kind. One might be an astronomy hacker, for
    example. 7. One who enjoys the intellectual challenge of creatively overcoming
    or cirventing limitations. 8. [deprecated] A malicious meddler who
    tries to discover sensitive information by poking around. Hence `password
    hacker', `network hacker'. The correct term for this sense is cracker.

    The Jargon Dictionary <>
  • July 9th, 12:10 AM
    Ol' Whozit

    Re: OK, Here we go again saving jpg's

    "Being a hacker has many drawbacks... "

    Yeah, dude, like having no one with any sense of intelligence, who PAID honest, hard earned dollars (took me 4 months to save up for PS6...) for software being willing to share any information with a hacker...sorry, but if you're so damn smart to crack and steal registered software apps, you should be smart enough to go find help out there in the Web.

    Thanks, though. Tickles the ens out of me knowing I have the solution to your problem!

    Thieving hacker/cracker s. Nice to see you're not as talented as YOU think you are...

    "old school" definition my behind. Hackers aren't clueless, never have been. Hackers are just that. Those who "hack" apps to access them without following proper procedure or payment. Where the heck YOU came up with the definition of "untrained" and "clueless" is beyond comprehension. One of the key traits of hackers is the word "proficient"...Your definition is so rare as to be almost non-existant.

    PS: part of the reason your .jpeg looks so crappy is the arrangement itself is crappy. The colors of the ribbon and the cellophane clash horribly with the balloon, and the whole thing is so cluttered looking, NO amount of PS adjustments will help it.

    PPS: Have a nice day.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139