Does anyone knows how to change the view in CS6 so that it is as sharp as my emailprogram?
Your images should look good in Photoshop when the zoom is 100%, 50%, 25%, 12.5%, etc.
If you want them sharp (but often very ragged or jaggy) at other zoom levels then disable 'Use Graphics Processor' in Photoshop's 'Preferences > Performance'. Images opened after making that change will probably look as they do in the email app, but you'll lose the performance boost of the GPU.
Thank you for answering, but I don't think that's the solution.
Maybe the email program sharpens it by showing? I don't know, work on a Mac.
Then CS6 should be showing the real image and the email isn't correct.
Could you please do a screen grab showing both so that we can see the difference, and try to determine whether what you're seeing is expected or abnormal?
Use the little camera icon above the edit box to upload photos on this forum.
No app can show the real image except when zoom is 100%. Apps use different methods to interpolate an image when the zoom is not 100%. It is possible that your email app does a nice bicubic interpolation that includes a level of sharpening that you like.
As Noel said, screenshots would be greatly appreciated.
It would have been more helpful to see them in context. Are both images downsized? When you say "from my email", so you mean the image is displayed in an eMail window as shown, or that you saved it to disk and then opened the file?
As has been discussed, it would not be out of the norm for Photoshop to be displaying an image that's zoomed-out in a manner that smoothes the image some. You can even get two different behaviors out of Photoshop by disabling or enabling the use of the GPU to prepare the display. The smoother, GPU-based resampling is normally considered "higher quality".
Bottom line: Judge image sharpness by examining the image at 100%.
There is evidence that the actual image, distinct from the displayed image in each app, already contains sharpening artifacts, but I do see that the email screenshot is considerably sharper than the Photoshop screenshot.
However, your screenshots being at different zoom levels and those levels not being declared makes them unhelpful.
Perhaps the email app uses a fixed selection of optimal zoom levels such as 100%, 50%, 25%, 12.5%, etc.
The Photoshop display is at a slightly lesser zoom level than the email display. It might have been as sharp as the email display if it had been at the same zoom as the email display. Maybe the email is at 100% and Photoshop is at 97%, or email at 50% and Photoshop at 48%, or whatever.
The image has been saved in a jpeg. Then I send the picture and if I look at the picture in the emailwindow then you have a sharper version compare to the same picture that you see in a photoshop window or worse in a bridge window.
When I open my preferences, performance then I have 3561 MB RAM available. It says that the ideal range is between 1959-2564 MB and Photoshop uses 2457 MB (69%)
Maybe there is a connection between the available RAM and the blurry look of the pictures?
You've completely missed the point of my last message: your two screenshots are at different and undeclared zoom levels so no conclusion can be drawn from a camparison of them.
Your available RAM will have absolutely nothing to do with the different sharpness of the displayed images.
Not to belabor things, but you appear to be publishing your images in a color space named "80cd 5900K 2,20", which sounds like a wide gamut monitor profile.
Note, for example, that the thumbnails above appear a very different color than when you click on them.
You may want to consider changing your workflow so that you save your images for sharing/publication in the sRGB IEC61966-2.1 color space.
The "80cd5900K2,20"; those are the values which I use for calibration. The colourspace I work in is adobeRGB, but I'll change them into sRGB if I post a photo here.
I'm wondering why the first 2 photo's seem to have another colour compare to the 2 who'm I send later.
The only difference is that I changed the zoomsize?
The forum software has created 450 pixels wide previews of your attached images. Those previews have no embedded colour profile and browsers display them as if they have an sRGB profile.
The first pair of attached images were JPEG with your display profile embedded. The second pair were PNG with your display profile embedded.
The forum software, when creating the preview images, correctly converted pixel values from the embedded profile to sRGB when processing the JPEGs but it incorrectly ignored the embedded profile when processing the PNGs, hence the wrongly-coloured second pair of previews.
Did you capture these images from your screen then paste them into Photoshop? That would explain the images being tagged with your monitor profile.
Something you might consider doing is checking the boxes in the Color Settings that warn you if pasting or opening an image that's got a different color profile than your preferred working space. That way you'll know what profile you're about to be using (and can even choose to convert it as needed).
As long as you're aware of the color space you're using to send your images in, and know what to expect, it's not a problem, and it may be that publishing your images in Adobe RGB 1998 might even give your viewers some advantages.
But, as you've seen here with the forum software, publishing to "unknown" viewers in something other than the sRGB color space can lead to unexpected behavior. sRGB isn't a perfect panacea of goodness, though; one can cause plenty of problems with that as well (since color-management worldwide is sometimes hit or miss - miostly miss). The sRGB profile just seems to be about the best compromize for internet publication. Some even suggest leaving out the profile altogether, though I don't personally subscribe to that school of thought.
Interesting that the forum software doesn't know how to react to the profile embedded in a PNG.
That's exactly what I did, jpeg and png.
I'm considering changing the adobeRGB to sRGB.
I've learned to use otherwise, but most people use sRGB and if the difference is that big by not changing then I prefere sRGB.
Do you advise any colorsettings: coated FOGRA 27 etc.?