I am new to this. I am using Photoshop 7 and I usually set the res. to 800x600. However, when I try to put it on my desktop the image appears blurry. My screen is 800x600. How can I fix this? I'd like to know before I start uploading images. thanks!
yeah. wierd, huh? But, I have looked at the images after I have uploaded and they look fine. Can't quite figure it out. I thought that maybe tbhockey was right about the monitor or video card...but, now I can download them from this site and they look clear.
...strange things happen...
I look at your pictures. All are fine.
Try to load them with another program (PaintShopPro, ACDSee, ...) to see if the problem comes from Photoshop or from your monitor.
yes - I can't figure it out. it's driving me crazy. I never really noticed until my husband said, "It looks blurry." And then I noticed that it was blurry...and now, I can't stand it! Like I said though - if I download them from the site - crystal clear! Everything else is clear on my monitor as well. Just the desktops that I load from my saved files. I've checked my monitor size (because you can change the size of everything) - it's the same when I change it! It's the weirdest thing!
Maybe you've to check your graphic card (to low memory). Can you describe it?
(I remember the graphic card on my first computer was 1Mb... I had many problems with it)
yups My first pentium-1 100hmz had some ploblems using high-detaild wallpapers.
To use a picture as a wallpaper, windows (or another program) converts your picture in to a BMP file and puts it in the windows directory. maybe the program you use to set walpapers got some problem converting to BMP. try a other program maybe this solves the problem.
And check your files and their size again. It wouldn't be the first time that someone try's to set a thumpnail (almost same filename or exactly the same in a other directory) as wallpaper.
I use irfanview to set wallpapers .....freeware...http://www.irfanview.com/
Greasle: if Windows (or another) converts the JPG picture into a BMP picture before putting it in the desktop, then it's Windows (or ...) who works bad. That's why I want to know the features of the graphic card: maybe it's an old one and it forces Windows (or ...) to compress the picture to preserve memory for other applications...
now that definatly sounds like a possibility. i dont understand why it would convert the picture to BMP...i realize that a bitmap contains more (nearly perfect) information, but it is impossible to get more information out an image than what is there. So why convert the Jpg to Bitmap? Plus your left with wasted space... Perhaps im missing the point completely and it just NEEDS to covert it to a bitmap in order to use as a background, but that brings me back to the begining...can someone break my cycle of confussion? (if it wasn't for Microsofts insane ways of programing, i suppose i wouldn't have has this confussion, along with many other billions of windows users =)
The whole purpose of a .jpg is compression. If the computer were to read from a .jpg file it would have to uncompress it every time the monitor refreshed which would create lag in older computers. Plus there has to be a standard... why does Caedes (other than decreased file size) use .jpgs instead of say: .tifs. When windows first introduced the option for a background image, .bmp was the market standard.
The compression is just for file storage. For example, If I take a picture on my 2 mg pixel camera, it saves as jpg and has a size of roughly 1 mb. If I open it in photoshop and turn the compression to almost nothing and resave the file, it becomes 4 - 5 mb. It has the same number of pixels and each pixel has the same information, it's just not compressed as much. The problem is that images that are compressed too much lose quality that can sometimes not be restored.
Another possible solution that I did not see discussed is the number of colors you are using. If your desktop is set to 256 colors, a lot of quality images appear fuzzy. but that would affect everything, including the photoshop image and the ones you are getting from the site. Oh well.
aight, i think i get what ur saying CrazyIvan...But am i right in saying, each time you lessen the quality of a picture, you cannot bring it (assuming u saved it) any higher. If u did it would ONLY increase the file size right? I believe thats what u were saying but u confused me at the end when u said "The problem is that images that are compressed too much lose quality that can sometimes not be restored." i dont think it's confined to TOO MUCH, isn't it any compression?
I am speaking of noticeable change. Sure some quality will be lost with mild compression, but it won't be noticeable to the human eye when viewed at 100%.