Question about sizeing in Photoshop

[FastNOC]

I'm getting a little frustrated and I'm sure it's my fault

I'm doing some work on a client site, we upgraded his site to manage retina for mac users.

But I'm starting to find something strange.

I assumed i could create graphics in either the normal size, or the 200% version. Then just reduce or increase the size depending on how I start.

now, I am using vector for things like buttons etc, but my thought was, well ok, I can create things at the double size, then save for the web (png). then go back, save the same way, but reduce the output to 50% size. that should give me identical pics in both sizes.

what I'm finding out is that's not exactly how it works. It's like there's a calculation error, and I get things sized at half pixels, fuzzy edges etc.

is there a trick, or a recommended procedure to design for retina based graphics?

 

[iDad]

If you could show us a sample, that would sure help. Because retina display shouldn't have anything to do with the way your processing your images. never heard of that problem before?

 

[FastNOC]

If you could show us a sample, that would sure help. Because retina display shouldn't have anything to do with the way your processing your images. never heard of that problem before?

I'll put something up when I get back to the office.

But it's not 'retina' that's causing a problem. it's the sizing required for retina that made me realize Photoshop isn't resizing the way it should.

 

[Tom Mann]

Fast, when you get back to the office and post more info, be sure to post both the "before" and "after" resizing versions of the file.

In the absence of the example files, if I had to take a wild guess, it would be that you thought you were dealing with true vector shapes, but at some point along the way they had been rasterized and you resized the rasterized version.

A separate additional possible problem is that while one can down-rez a rasterized image with almost no visual impression of softness, it has to be done using the correct resampling mode. I always use "bicubic" for this, certainly not "bicubic-softer", and not even "automatic". In PS CS6, I find I don't usually have to do anything more. However, in CS5 and earlier, people always re-sharpened the image a bit after down-rez'ing.

Any of the above ideas sound like they might pertain to your situation?

Tom M

 

[FastNOC]

Fast, when you get back to the office and post more info, be sure to post both the "before" and "after" resizing versions of the file.

In the absence of the example files, if I had to take a wild guess, it would be that you thought you were dealing with true vector shapes, but at some point along the way they had been rasterized and you resized the rasterized version.

A separate additional possible problem is that while one can down-rez a rasterized image with almost no visual impression of softness, it has to be done using the correct resampling mode. I always use "bicubic" for this, certainly not "bicubic-softer", and not even "automatic". In PS CS6, I find I don't usually have to do anything more. However, in CS5 and earlier, people always re-sharpened the image a bit after down-rez'ing.

Any of the above ideas sound like they might pertain to your situation?

Tom M

yup.. it just dawned on me, I rasterized the shapes. dangit.

Ok thank you for one, that's perfect for an explanation, but it bring sup something I've been frustrated about for a while and maybe you can help.

I'm a newbie in PS. I can muddle my way through but it's akin to hunt and peck on a keyboard for a newbie.

Between CS5 and CS6 there was a change in the way shapes are managed. But i'm stuck now with a problem. i don't want to rasterize my shapes, but if I don't, none of the styles I apply to them show. i HAVE to rasterize them to style them.

Can you help me underrstand why and how I could change that? that would probably fix 90% of my problems with buttons