Image size native vs placed

[wsyneswhirld]

I have a jpg image that is 1033 pixels wide. When placed on a Muse page it is 574 pixels wide at 100%. The text and images are quite small.

Any solutions?

[fotoroeder]

Yes, show us something - a link - a .muse -  a screenshot - whatever.

PLEASE be aware, if you start with a website now with Muse, this is no good idea as Muse is under EOL since 2018, will never get developed any further, might lead to issues sooner or later with your OS, browser compatibility and so on. May I recommend anything like sparkleapp, nicepage or similar nocode-webtool?

With your "issue" (which is 100% no issue at all), you may be much better with another tool - please don`t feel offended, …

But of course you may follow my beginning advice to share some screenshot or a .muse with us to find a solution for your question.

Kind Regards,

Uwe

[wsyneswhirld]

Uwe - appreciate the quick reply and no offense taken. 😉

I am looking at alternatives to Muse. I am aware of Sparkle but not Nicepage-thanks for that suggestion. My handful of Muse sites are not critical to fix immediately if they "break".

This sizing issue is on one page of an existing site. Attached are two screenshots. The first as placed in Muse at 100% - width 574; the second is the original in Photoshop at 100% view - width 1033. It is actually a .png, not a .jpg. I had previously had the same result with a .jpg.

Thank you.Placed in Muse - 100% width 574Photoshop original - 100% width 1033

[fotoroeder]

When I understand it right, you do not use web fonts? Your text seems to be taken as an image in this case and so it shrinks as soon as the browser window gets smaller. Dor 574 you should place text and image in a vertical stack instead of a graphic order like you did. Like this you can change the textsize to your needs.

See you in another 12h as I have to leave now.

Kind Regards,

Uwe

[wsyneswhirld]

Thanks much, Uwe, for willingness to inquire more.

As you allude to, the ideal way for this page to work is to build it with the website tool. But this originated when someone presented it to me in a three page pdf so that it could be included as a Facebook post. But as you know, Facebook only allows jpg, png or gif attachments on their pages. So I exported the three pdf pages as jpg or png files and joined them vertically in Photoshop and attached it in the Facebook post. It was tiny! So I placed it in Muse and then linked from the Facebook post to that page. It was more readable but still much smaller than the original size. I am perplexed because all other images from Photoshop or the web that I have placed in Muse have seemed to always retain their pixel size.

[Nancy OShea]

How wide is the image's parent container in pixels?  That's the maximum width of your image.

It's physically impossible to fit 10 kilos of sand into a 1 kilo sack. Therefore, something has to give. 

[wsyneswhirld]

Thank you for addressing this. I am not familiar with "parent container". The image measures 1033 pixels wide; its placement in Muse at 100% is 574 pixels wide.

[Nancy OShea]

Let me put it another way.  Your picture resides inside a box.  And the size of the box determines the maximum size of your image.  For bigger images you would need a bigger box.

https://helpx.adobe.com/muse/using/create-responsive-sites.html

[fotoroeder]

Please reduce your site to just one page (or create a new site with just one page - copy and paste the issued element with all its breakpoints - rightclick helps) with your issue and we will have a look. The terminology of Nancy won`t help here for you as Muse uses different vocabulary - there´s no such thing like a parent container although it is a parent container - if you know what I mean.

Share that file here via CC or dropbox or similar filesharing.

Kind Regards,

Uwe

[wsyneswhirld · Accepted solution]

I'd like to thank both Nancy and Uwe.

I used the rectangular frame tool to make a box the full width of the page (920) with a length of 3268. This accommodated the size of the .png image proportionately (1033x3672) and THEN I placed the .png. It filled the page perfectly and while the resolution looked poor in design, it published perfectly.