confused over quality of image
- Thread starter debraguk
- Start date
craftygeek
New Member
I'm assuming that you mean a difference between your design & the website...if this is the case then it will be down to the jpg compression that you applied when exporting the image.
Also - it would be better to have the image as a background for the div in the CSS instead of an image within a div.
Also - it would be better to have the image as a background for the div in the CSS instead of an image within a div.
Yep crafty has it right. Check your compression settings. With images like photographs, these best setting will be jpg.
Rule of thumb, if an image is purely a design element, it should always be added through css. Only use image tags for image content (e.g. a photo album)
Rule of thumb, if an image is purely a design element, it should always be added through css. Only use image tags for image content (e.g. a photo album)
craftygeek
New Member
I'll add one more comment...I tend to find that when saving graphic layout elements for web use, that a jpg compression of 60% normally works well - sometimes depending on the image, I might need to lessen the compression to 70-80%, but that doesn't happen often & is really only the case where the are subtle gradients/tone changes.
There are also cases where you can get away with more - I recently had some that I pushed to 45% compression & I was still happy with the image quality for the purpose of those images....its something that you need to judge on an image by image basis.
There are also cases where you can get away with more - I recently had some that I pushed to 45% compression & I was still happy with the image quality for the purpose of those images....its something that you need to judge on an image by image basis.