images looks different in Dreamweaver

[crayoncrayon]

Hi, this is my first time here, hope you can help me!
I've noticed that my images look different when I incorporate them into Dreamweaver. E.g. parts of my image have smooth blurry/smudgey effects, and this image is optimized to a jpg using Fireworks. However when I use it in Dreamweaver, the blurry areas no longer 'blend' together, and instead have edges around the color areas.
Does Dreamweaver 'edit' images and change their properites? If so, how do I disable this?
thanks a lot in advance!
Crayon

 

[crayoncrayon]

sorry folks.... seems like the problem isn't with DreamWeaver. It's with Fireworks. When I preview the image using Fireworks, it's a smooth image, but when I save it, it turns into this ugly lined image. Any ideas on why it's not saving like the previewed image?

 

[viol8ion]

Is this a Gif that you are saving? Is there a transparent edge? You may need to increase the number of colors, or choose JPG to get smoother blending. Gifs are great for solid colors with no gradations, JPG is preferred for photos and graphics that have blended colors. When in doubt, deny all terms and defnitions.

http://www.wuli.com

 

[crayoncrayon]

Both the original and optimized image is in jpg format, I tried to preview it as a gif, and it looked even worse. Somehow the image seems to lose quality when it goes through Fireworks. I even tried saving as a bmp file, and even though it turned out ridiculously big, the image still had those bumpy lines.
I tried this in Adobe Elements, and if I save the file as a regular jpg, it's fine. But if I use the function "save as web.." then the same thing happens with the lines. Does the 'web' option have anything to do with what kind of resolution it's saved under?
Thanks!
Crayon

 

[vyskocil]

crayoncrayon,
You may have found the answer. I do not use fireworks but a different paint program but my experience has been when a web option or web optimizing feature is avalable for a .jpg what it does is reduce the number of colors used thereby reducing the file size for quicker loading into a browser. Try using the reg .jpg. If available in fireworks you should be able to count colors used and control the file size by reducing the numbers of colors a little at a time. this actually blends close colors but does degrade quality. see how far you can go before it looks too bad to publish.

 

[crayoncrayon]

hmm... I think that might be the problem.
Thanks for your help viol8ion and vyskocil !
Crayon

 

[viol8ion]

crayon,

vyskoil is correct, when you do a save for web, the image is compressed more than normal. You do have the option in Fireworks (what vs are you using?) to tweak the amount of compression.

Whenever working with web graphics you have to make a decision between the best quality image and the fastest loading image.. you can have one or the other.. or a compromise somewhere in between. When in doubt, deny all terms and defnitions.

http://www.wuli.com

 

[CTekMedia]

If you are trying to get a feathered edge effect try this:

Create the image in Fireworks. Set the canvas color the same as the background the image will be placed on in DW.

Go to File>Export Preview in Fireworks.

Set the image to be a .gif

Set Palette to: WebSnap Adaptive

Set Transparency to: Index Transparency

Depending on the situation (graphic effect) this can work. Sometimes, as stated above, you'll need to use a good quality .jpg - it depends on the graphic and the background.

Experiment and you will find a method that works for each situation.

Peace

http://www.bluetone.biz

BT

 

[crayoncrayon]

Thank you all SO much for your replies, my quest for a perfect image file is not looking as bleak

vio8tion: when you talk about compression, are you refering to the 'quality' slide bar, or is it a completely seperate thing? I fiddle around with all the formats, quality, webpalet, no. of colors, etc... but not matter how big the file ends up being (with the preview looking good), the saved image just ends up with color sections. I hope you mean that there is a seperate setting for the compression.... I'm using Fireworks4, could you tell me where I can change the compression? thankyou!

bluetone: that was going to be another question for me, as I see websites with those nice 'soften' looks, I'm going to try your method, thanks!

(I can't believe I already took an image optimizing course before this... makes me wonder where my money went

Crayon

 

[crayoncrayon]

Hi me again, just wanted to give you guy a look at my problem, I've set up a temporary page with the image that I'm having trouble with. Please take a look of you have time, coz it's hard to describe the blurry effect that I'm trying to make:-

http://www.wilandind.com/crayon.html

Thanks everyone!
Crayon

 

[deecee]

they both look fine excuse me can i have some more

 

[Cheech]

I agree with deecee they look ok to me. What browser etc are you viewing it through? The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made.
Groucho Marx (1895-1977)

 

[viol8ion]

They both look fine to me. A lot may have to do with your monitor. I can't imagine the browser would make any difference, but anything is possible, I suppose. I can barely see any appreciable difference.

And yes, the 'quality' slide bar changes the amount of image compression to make the image file smaller or larger. When in doubt, deny all terms and defnitions.

http://www.wuli.com

 

[CTekMedia]

The both look fine to me also. Very smooth. Peace

http://www.bluetone.biz

BT

 

[crayoncrayon]

wow, this comes to a surprise to me! so perhaps it's my browser then... I'm using Internet Explorer 6.0, and I'm seeing the first image a lot smoother than the 2nd one.
I also tried Netscape just now, and now both images have those unsightly sections and not the smooth effect.
This is all so weird to me!
Thanks for all your help , I think I'll stick to using Adobe then....

 

[vyskocil]

not only do both look fine, when I check the properties the orig, (the one that looks good to you), is actually a smaller file. 1803 bytes compared to 1912 bytes for your optimized version. I would just use the orig and forget about trying to optimize that one.