A screen shot at 100% view would help. But let’s get a little more information.
- What is the native resolution of the image, in pixels per inch?
- How much have you scaled it down?
- Have you printed it or are you just judging by its on-screen appearance?
- Have you tried viewing in high quality (View > Display Performance > High Quality Display)?
When an image in placed in InDesign a low resolution proxy is created and saved with the file. This low resolution image is what is used for display unless you use High Quality Display. In hat case the image is shown at its full resolution. This usually causes a lag in performance, since the image (and all other images) is read from disk in its entirely and, if it uses Layers, needs to have a flattened preview generated. My guess is it is this low resolution preview you see and InDesign is doing a poor job of downsampling it.
Try opening the image in Photoshop and either resampling there (and saving a copy) or changing its native resolution in Image > Image Size. Turn off Resampling and enter a higher PPI value.
What is the "Effective resolution" in PPI of the placed images in InDesign?
Have you tried printing a sample to see what the quality is like? (For a desk-top printer use the InDesign Adobe PDF presets and select "High Quality Print".
Effective PPI is 2919 x 3405.
I have tried printing. Print quality is poor and to be honest we don't print out many. The newsletter is converted to PDF and emailed out.
Thanks for your assistance
Those figures are the image dimensions - what is the effective resolution?
By the way, did you upscale the images in Photoshop to (for example) 2919 x 3405, if so what size was the original image.
An image that's 2919 x 3405px at 300PPI would be optimised to print at a size of around 10" x 11"
Derek, those very well could be the effective resolution values -- it looks like the images are being scaled down to approximately 10% of their original size, and using Fit to Frame is distorting them badly which is evident in the screen shot.
Contrary to what Scott said earlier, even the High Quality Display is a jpeg proxy, not the actual image pixels, so the only place to judge the image quality is in the output. When you scale down this much a lot of information is thrown away and you will lose details. How do the images look (besides being distorted by uneven scaling) in an exported PDF/X-4? If printing a proof on your desktop printer directly from InDesign, make sure you set the Send Data field to All.
Your images are no doubt being severely downsampled and compressed when you export -- the effective resolution is almost 8 times the trigger threshold for downsampling, and depending on your export settings you may be adding a lot more artifacts with heavy jpeg compression.
You really should be adjusting the image size first in your image editor.
Thanks for that.
I have tried 2 things:
1. As I mentioned I was just popping the images into a text box, so I placed them into a proper photo frame (I think it improved things a little).
2. I compressed the images, one I compressed to 35% and the other to 45%. I used the Pixillon Image Convertor.
Images are still poor.
Does anyone have any other ideas?
Thankful for any suggestions.
- What is the original image type and color space?
- Do you need to convert them?
- How are you importing them?
- You images are not symmetrical scaled, but they should have the same scale factor in x and y dimension. This adds another decrease in quality beside terrible scale effects.
- I would recommend not to print out from InDesign. Export first to PDF, then print from Acrobat the PDF file.
- What are the PDF settings when you export the file. Place a screen shoot of the Compression Section.
- Create a PDF only via exporting, not via Printing to PDF!
Thanks for your assistance
1. Jpeg & RGB.
2. No but by compressing them I seem to have converted them to png. This didn't affect quality at all though.So I have reverted to the orignal large jpeg sizes.
4. I will look into this.
6. Printing is not really an issue. It is how they look in PDF. eg:
7. Already doing. Should I turn the pics into pdf's first perhaps?
I was also wondering which Fitting option I should take in this instance? Obviously Fit Content to Frame is terrible but none of the others clear up my issue so it is hard to gauge which option would be the best for me in this instance. Any ideas?
I think I may have to work on how I scale the photos down. What would be the best approach here?
ATM I go to place, then I just adjust with the selection tool (placing them in a frame didn't seem to help). Then I go to Object - Fitting and choose one of the options there. Maybe I should do it in another way?
You should always use one of the proportional fitting options to avoid distortion. This may mean you need to change the shape of the image frame you use to accommodate the shape of the image, or crop the image to accommodate the frame shape. That's a fact of life.
I'm beginning to think that some or all of the problem might be in the original jpeg compression, and I doubt that Pixillion Image Convertor is a good choice for downsampling (which is NOT the same thing as compressing). Can you post one of these photos someplace for us to look at?
Thanks so much for your help. I believe that I have it as good as it gets now.
1. I scaled in Photoshop - made a difference.
2. As I place the image, instead of "Fitting content proportionally'' thru the object menu, I right-clicked on the image and selected "fitting content proportionally" thru this menu instead. For some very strange reason, this seemed to make a large different.
3. When exporting to pdf I made sure the resolution was 300 - thanks WIlli!
Although the images still don't look perfect if you view them in an A4 size in the pdf doc, when you zoom in on the image you can see that the resolution is perfect. Shame but I think that's it for me.
THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR ALL YOUR HELP