I don't know if it's just because I'm zooming in or? It never happened on my old laptop but with the better screen res...
Viewed at 100%, I see no "pixelation" or any other distortion of any kind whatsoever.
Only a 100% view (1:1) shows you your true image. At smaller percentage views, pixels have to be discarded; at greater percentages pixels have to be made up (invented) by the software.
With the Retina screen you're bound to see very strange things, unless you're using the latest and greatest versions of Photoshop and of your video card, and utilizing the Retina features of the software.
JPEG is a lousy, lossy format for maintaining image quality. Every single time you open or create and save a JPEG, the image quality deteriorates, no exceptions. Even at the highest quality of compression.
To take a very low resolution JPEG, like you did, and subject it to such a massive enlargement is to ask for demand trouble. Not only are you also magnifying all the JPEG compression artifacts, but you are "inventing" an inordinate amount of pixels.
If you have to enlarge your images often, start with an image file that has NEVER been a JPEG.
Photoshop performed superbly in your case. That is a remarkably fine enlargement, especially considering the miserly JPEG you started from. Rejoice!
On another topic, it's an abysmally poor idea to use your e-mail address as your user ID on any public forum—unless you love to receive spam.
I worked on the raw format image (6000x4000) and used Lightroom from which I exported the jpeg format as there's no option to export as PNG for web. Ordinarily I export as .tif files for print and usually save from photoshop as png for web after resizing.
Thanks for pointing out the use of email addy. I hadn't thought to change from default settings!
I worked on the raw format image (6000x4000) and used Lightroom from which I exported the jpeg format as there's no option to export as PNG for web…
Really? ?? !! Lightroom doesn't save/export PNGs? I tried that wretched application and thoroughly hated it, but I didn't use it long enough to realize that pathetic shortcoming.
If Adobe had a Photoshop offer for even $1 less than the current Photography deal but without Lr, I would try it; but I just hate the idea of paying even one penny per month for the useless addition of Lr.
pngs can be exported by Lr with help of a plugin, but I agree it should be built in.
It definitely should be built in, what's the plugin / how do I get that? Is it another cost?
I actually really like lightroom a lot! With LR5 as well they have the radial filter which you can invert so it's super handy for adjusting exposures in certain sections. I mainly use photoshop for cosmetic retouching but it's pretty time consuming to load the images etc. Do you know of a plugin for this?
Have they finally incorporated proper Soft Proofing? Or are you still printing blindly from Lr short of switching to Photoshop for that?
Have they abandoned the gosh-darned libraries paradigm?
Is the UI any better than in previous versions?
what's the plugin / how do I get that? Is it another cost?
To export pngs using Lightroom:
* Download and install 'Image Magick' (free "by golly").
* Download and install 'Exportant' plugin (free "by me": Rob Cole).
* Insert ('Main' and) 'ImageMagick' post-process actions.
* Choose "png conversion parameters" (e.g. -format png..).
then just export a tiff (or jpeg) and it will be converted to png.
I actually really like lightroom a lot! With LR5 as well they have the radial filter which you can invert so it's super handy for adjusting exposures in certain sections.
I mainly use photoshop for cosmetic retouching but it's pretty time consuming to load the images etc. Do you know of a plugin for this?
A plugin for cosmetic retouching? for Photoshop?, or Lightroom? - not sure what you mean..