• Global community
    • Language:
      • Deutsch
      • English
      • Español
      • Français
      • Português
  • 日本語コミュニティ
    Dedicated community for Japanese speakers
  • 한국 커뮤니티
    Dedicated community for Korean speakers
Exit
4

Pixelated image when using in a template

Community Beginner ,
Jan 30, 2024 Jan 30, 2024

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi everyone!

I can't understand my problem.

I have a new template 10800x1080 to create a carousel on instagram.

I want to put a photo on the first 1080x1080 square.

I saved my photo in 1080x476 and in 7361x3246 to compare how they are imported on my template.

First of all, they are resized smaller when I import them, even if I disable "Resize when import".

If I resize the photos to 1080px they are more pixelated than the original photo.

I can't resize any of the 2 pictures at 1080px without pixelating them and I don't understand why...

Do you have any explanation ? Is there something I'm doing wrong ?

I share my screenshots of :

- my 10800x1080 template when I import my 2 photos

- my original 1080px photo

- my original 7361px photo

- how it looks when I resize to 1080px my 1080px photo on the template

- how it looks when I resize to 1080px my 7361px photo on the template

 

I hope you have a solution because I really don't understand...

Thank you for helping me !

 

Maxime

TOPICS
Windows

Views

323

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines

correct answers 1 Correct answer

Community Expert , Jan 31, 2024 Jan 31, 2024

I'm still not sure what the problem is.

 

Of course an image downsampled from 7361 pixels wide, down to 1080 pixels wide, will by necessity be more pixelated. That's just the number of pixels.

 

The question is - does one downsampling method produce better results than another downsampling method? The answer to that can be yes, depending on the type of image. In Photoshop you have a choice of several resampling algorithms. They will all be more or less suitable for different situations.

 

In Lig

...

Votes

Translate

Translate
Adobe
Community Expert ,
Jan 30, 2024 Jan 30, 2024

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

What do you mean when you say import? Do you mean Place? Embedded or linked? There is no "import" function in Photoshop (not for this purpose anyway). Or do you just drag it in?

 

Either way, be aware that this creates a smart object. Smart objects obey some special rules, one of them is that they honor physical dimensions as defined by the ppi number. They do not honor pixel dimensions. In short, you may get unwanted scaling unless you keep a close check on all ppi numbers (they all need to be the same).

 

It can also happen under some circumstances (depending on the GPU and driver) that smart objects don't render optimally on screen until rasterized. That executes the actual resizing. Before rasterizing it's just a virtual representation

 

A much safer way is to resize to pixel size first, then simply copy/paste. You know you need 1080 pixels, so resize to that first.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Beginner ,
Jan 30, 2024 Jan 30, 2024

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

In french it is "Importer et incorporer", I guess it's Embedded. I tried this and also drag and drop.

 

Both my photo and my template are in 240ppp.

 

If I save (from Lightroom) my photo in 1080px it is very pixelated. Is there a file format that doesn't reduce this quality from Lightroom so I can copy/paste it in Photoshop without pixelated my photo ?

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Jan 31, 2024 Jan 31, 2024

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I'm still not sure what the problem is.

 

Of course an image downsampled from 7361 pixels wide, down to 1080 pixels wide, will by necessity be more pixelated. That's just the number of pixels.

 

The question is - does one downsampling method produce better results than another downsampling method? The answer to that can be yes, depending on the type of image. In Photoshop you have a choice of several resampling algorithms. They will all be more or less suitable for different situations.

 

In Lightroom there is no choice. I don't know what resampling algorithm is used (most likely it's dynamically adapted to image content, like many other things in the Camera Raw processing engine).

 

But it's still important to remember that a downsized smart object has not yet been finally resampled. It's just a reduced size preview. There may be subtle changes when rasterizing. I would still recommend copy/paste instead of Place - especially since you already know the final size, you don't need repeated scaling.

 

Oh, and - I would recommend that you view at 100% when assessing the result. 100% means 1 image pixel = 1 physical screen pixel. Your screenshots are zoomed much further in to an odd ratio, which can itself introduce artifacts on screen.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Jan 31, 2024 Jan 31, 2024

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Could you please post screenshots of the offending results taken at View > 100% with the pertinent Panels (Toolbar, Layers, Options Bar, …) visible? 

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Beginner ,
Feb 03, 2024 Feb 03, 2024

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

100%Photo.png100%Template.png100%Template_Resized.pngTemplate_Zoomed_in.png

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Beginner ,
Feb 03, 2024 Feb 03, 2024

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

100%Photo_1080.png100%Template_1080px_copy_paste.pngTemplate_Zoomed_in_1080px.png

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Feb 03, 2024 Feb 03, 2024

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Abambo_0-1706962533722.png

Check the zoom indication. If you have 100%, one pixel on screen shows one pixel in the image. At 200%, there are 4 pixels on screen for one pixel in the image, at 400% there are 16 screen pixels for one image pixel. You see that as pixelated, even if the picture is not.

 

That's normal:

Abambo_1-1706962830042.png

Hair seen at 400%.

Abambo_2-1706962883255.png

About the same seen at 100%.

ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Feb 03, 2024 Feb 03, 2024

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

At View > 100% I notice no problem. 

Naturally you will get pixelation when you view a pixel image at almost 400%. 

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Feb 03, 2024 Feb 03, 2024

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Yes - zooming to greater than 100% you are going to see the image pixels. 100% means 1 screen pixel used to display 1 image pixel. 400% means 16 screen pixels used to display 1 image pixel - hence the image pixel structure is visible. That level of zoom is designed to examine and edit individual image pixels.

 

Dave

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Beginner ,
Feb 05, 2024 Feb 05, 2024

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Ok so now I understand.

If want to keep that level of quality, I have to avoid rescaling my photo. So I need to create a template with the same height that my different photos in full size.

 

Thanks guys!

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Feb 05, 2024 Feb 05, 2024

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Well, if this is going on the internet, you can't have 7000 pixel + images. You have to resize to keep load times reasonable. If your image takes a minute to load, you've lost all viewers about 58 seconds ago.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Feb 07, 2024 Feb 07, 2024

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

LATEST

Also a 7000 pixel wide image will be downscaled by a browser to fit on the screen. At that point you have no control over the scaling algorithm used as it will be browser dependent.
Accept that you cannot downscale and keep all image information. Then choose a scaling algorithm that makes the best job of your images for that downscale.

 

Dave

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines