Publishing photos to website

I have inserted a photo into Web Designer 9 Premium and it looks fine, really sharp. But as soon as I publish it, it becomes blurry. I cannot find anything in the settings to indicate why this is happening - I thought I may have set it to convert to low resolution on publishing, but it doesn't seem to be. I would be grateful for any ideas on why this may be happening.
Thanks

Hires photos which are often manually re sized to fit your design layout are optimized to 96dpi on export..
WD9Premium also creates 192dpi version on export which is used when the browser detects a retina compatible display (tablets etc)
Desktop browsers use 96dpi.

Can you post the URL to your site?

resolution affects print size, not screen size
http://www.photoshopessentials.com/e...solution-myth/

if its exported to jpg look at the jpg compression setting in th export box (third tab, options)
if it has lots of solid red in it that's a big no no for xara
can't really advise correctly without seeing it

By default, the compression is set to 85 which is about 15% compression in the later versions. This should be fine unless you have large areas of solid color in which case PNG is the better format.

Sometimes it is best to use the Optimize all Images (Utilities menu), then using the Photo Tool, increase the Sharpness/Blur setting to about 10%.

Thanks everyone for your posts.

I have published my website to www.samwinterson.com. As you can see, if you click on the photo it links to the original photo which is really sharp, but I can't get the little version to look like that.

I'm sure I'm missing something really obvious

Looks perfectly fine to me and is a expected.
What you see in Designer before export is the unoptimised resized version of the original which if you look at the status bar will be somewhere around 1945dpi.
When you publish, the software will optimise this at 96dpi and 192dpi for retina compatible devices (name prefixed with @2x)

you have grouped the photo with the frame
i'd only soft group it so the image and the frame are exported separately
that way the frame cld be a png and the photo can be jpg
you could sharpen the photo using the photo tools
even at 95% compression it will remain small
btw you should set a max pixel size for the big photo, at 2,5mb it's way too large for a website

Thanks for the tips

Sam - Cute photo. But, I don't think you need the larger version, even though it does showcase your beautiful eyes and winning smile. :)

Because the screen resolution is limited, 96 pixels per one inch of width, you are never going to get the amount of detail in a small image that you can in a larger image. You could compromise and make the small image about 150% larger and skip the 2400 pixel larger photo which is 2 1/3 MB and adds to the download time for your page.

And you don't need the e-mail link on the page since you have a contact page. But you could add an e-mail link to the contact page for people who don't like forms.

Also, perhaps these are intentional, but I see two things with your menu:

1. The menu button jumps slightly when you mouseover, which may be that the mouseover and and mouseoff buttons are not in the same exact position. All appear to move, except the button for the active page. Except on the Home page, none jump.

2. The CV button is uppercase for mouseoff and mixed case for the mouseover.

And:

You may want to add a blank line before the last paragraph "I enjoy rock climbing..."

The text on each page appears to be exported as an image. Unless you are using special fonts, there should be no reason to group and export as an image as this will increase page size and load time.

As well as the suggestions above I would also use jotform for your form, they can be customised and there is not advert with the form, which makes it look far more professional, it is there in the design gallery as a widget.

Hi All
Thanks for all your comments and tips. You have been really helpful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Frank

if it has lots of solid red in it that's a big no no for xara

---

This is much less true of recent versions of the software. We don't sub-sample chrominance information anymore (4:4:4 instead of the JPEG default of 4:2:0), which results in larger files but with much better colour handling. The issue used to be particularly visible with high-frequency information (like text), you can see for attached image that this is no longer an issue (don't trust the thumbnail though, that seem to be encoded with chroma sub-sampling).

Attachment 97725

Normal compression.

Yes, don't trust the forum thumbnails, they are compressed with the (forum) server's installation of imagemagick.
Click to see the full size.

Red is much better in JPG exported from DPX than it used to be.
Thanks for the explanation, Luke :)