Macbook Pro Users/Scrap Previews?

[Kat]

Anyone using a macbook pro to scrap on? My screen is 4k, totally awesome right? lol... wellllll, my scrap kit previews and pages are SO TINY. I connect to a non 4k 27 inch monitor and they are a bit better on there.

I use Adobe bridge and I take the preview from each kit and change it to the the folder view (replacing the blue folder with the kit preview). I can "enlarge" the thumbnail view with a slider but the stay super small (think 100x100 size). This part is the same on both monitors.

Then my pages which I size on average to 800x800 on the macbook pro screen... well geez... they are just a bit larger than a quarter of the screen. You can't see a thing basically.

I think this has come up recently because the monitors are improving but as scrapbookers we are keeping our sizes in the 600x600 to 1000x1000 range on average. On my older screens, it was fine. This also is an issue because I am getting older and my eyes are NOT getting better. I do not wear my glasses at all (and should) but even with them, it's still tiny.

I am just looking for solutions. Maybe there is a setting in bridge to make them larger? Maybe I should try enlarging previews in Photoshop? (not even sure that would work or if a designer would mind). I can post screenshots if needed, I just wasn't sure it would show what I am trying to say, or if I even make sense. lol.

 

[zakirahzakaria]

I get what you mean. I have the new MacBook Air and was shocked when I was first resizing my layouts to 800x800. I had to double check to make sure the size is indeed 800x800. They look so tiny on the screen! I wish I have a solution to share with you, but I guess I'm just here for solidarity lol.

 

[Kat]

I wish I have a solution to share with you, but I guess I'm just here for solidarity lol.

. Thank you! Solidarity is always good. Hopefully someone will have some ideas but if not, I'm still working on ways to make it better.

 

[rach3975]

Sorry, I don't have any solutions either! I've heard this complaint from other scrappers, too. It's one of the main reasons I went with a 2K monitor instead of a 4K monitor when I bought one this summer.

 

[agoodwin]

I have a brand new MBA (my MBP’s screen completely broke a couple mos ago ) and I’ve noticed that everything I try to view looks grainy and poor quality. Glad I finally know why ‍

 

[SeattleSheri]

Just out of curiosity, what exactly do you need from the preview that you can't get from looking at 800px version? I think most people just look within the folder to see what's included after doing a cursory review of the preview if they need more info.

An alternative would be to save all of the previews in a single folder and view them that way, but I personally don't think the effort involved in that method outweighs the time investment of just looking in the folders. Even if the previews are small, you can usually get a general idea of what's included, especially if you've previously used the product or have gone through it after initial download.

The folder images that designers include are only between 600-800px, so there isn't such you can do to make it higher quality. I have seen some designers save larger versions, but it's the exception.

 

[gonewiththewind]

@SeattleSheri I don't think @Kat "wants" a bigger preview. She just wants to be able to view the existing previews on a 4K monitor. As a PC gal, I'm no expert, but I've heard complaints about blurriness in viewing, and I don't know that there is a solution out there. Maybe you know of one?

 

[SeattleSheri]

@SeattleSheri I don't think @Kat "wants" a bigger preview. She just wants to be able to view the existing previews on a 4K monitor. As a PC gal, I'm no expert, but I've heard complaints about blurriness in viewing, and I don't know that there is a solution out there. Maybe you know of one?

I guess what I'm struggling to understand is why would a kit preview be any different than other images on the screen that are similar in size? There is only so much you can do with a 600-800px image. I don't think there is any work around other than playing with the screen resolution to find something that works for the user.

 

[rach3975]

I guess what I'm struggling to understand is why would a kit preview be any different than other images on the screen that are similar in size? There is only so much you can do with a 600-800px image. I don't think there is any work around other than playing with the screen resolution to find something that works for the user.

It's not limited to previews--it's an issue with everything saved at the 600 or 800 pixel size. I think what's really being asked is why the digital scrapbooking industry is sticking with such a small size as its standard (for previews and gallery images) when newer technology is making such a small size obsolete.

ETA: I accidentally phrased this wrong. I don't think Kat was asking all designers and sites to change, I just think that's the only solution to the problem. Like I said, I purposely bought a monitor that wasn't 4K this summer because I rely on my previews a lot and was worried I'd have issues with the better monitor.

 

[gonewiththewind]

OK, here's what I read before about the Retina Display:

Retina has four times more pixels than standard screens. If you have a 400 x 300 image (120,000 pixels), you’d need to use an 800 x 600 alternative (480,000 pixels) to render it well on a high-density display.

If your image would normally be 200 pixels wide by 100 pixels tall (200px by 100px), you need to create a new version of that image that is exactly twice the size of its original. In this case, you’d need to create an image 400 pixels wide by 200 pixels tall (400px by 200px).​

Now, I don't know if there's some other settings that can be changed to not use Retina Display, but maybe that's an option? And with that, I will exit this thread and go back to my PC world. LOL

 

[SeattleSheri]

It's not limited to previews--it's an issue with everything saved at the 600 or 800 pixel size. I think what's really being asked is why the digital scrapbooking industry is sticking with such a small size as its standard (for previews and gallery images) when newer technology is making such a small size obsolete.

Thank you Rachel! That is exactly what I was getting at! There is only so much you can do with smaller pixel dimensions. I wish there was some magic sauce, but I really don't think there is. For me, it hasn't been an issue, because I'm normally a one-kit-wonder, so I'm not frequently perusing kit previews!

 

[Kat]

I tried to do some screenshots to share. (These are all taken from Bridge where my main problem is) They might show something sorta accurate. I am doing thumbnails so if you want to see them you can just click.
1. 2. 3. 4.

1: An example of my non 4k 27 inch monitor. This is my largest folder view option in Bridge 2022. It views as about a 200x200 image on this monitor and 100x100 (or less) on my macbook pro 4k monitor.
2. This is on the macbook pro 4k monitor. When you hit space bar in bridge, it gives you a full size version. This is at 800px and views closer to 300 px.
3. This is the PSD version enlarged to full size. This is 3600 px and fills the 4k screen. You can actually see it (which I love).
4. This shows an example of what I do for my folders. I replace the blue folder with the largest kit preview which is on average 600 px. In finder view on the machine OR folder view in Bridge it never really lets them get bigger than around 100px. I like this because at a glance I can see the colors of the kit. When you have hundreds and hundreds of kits, it gets hard to scroll through the blue folders with a partial name and know exactly what they are. The problem is I can barely see them.

Okay I'll post this and go back and read the new comments more thoroughly.

 

[Kat]

It's one of the main reasons I went with a 2K monitor instead of a 4K monitor when I bought one this summer.

I'm a photographer so I needed the 4k high quality resolution. But honestly, now the new machines have 5k, and there will be a catch up I think on regular monitors and other machines and eventually (probably not long from now) the 4k or higher monitors will be the primary option for us.

I have a brand new MBA (my MBP’s screen completely broke a couple mos ago ) and I’ve noticed that everything I try to view looks grainy and poor quality. Glad I finally know why ‍

YESSSS... when I first got started with this, all my layouts were blurry and I was so confused. It was really annoying. I ended up finding a photoshop action that was for saving layouts. The steps it took fixed that for the most part on my end. If you need more info about the action set, let me know. I customized mine for the file sizes I use most but it was very easy to customize.

 

[Kat]

Just out of curiosity, what exactly do you need from the preview that you can't get from looking at 800px version? An alternative would be to save all of the previews in a single folder and view them that way.

Well, what I need is to see them! I just can't see them. It's not a blurry issue (I don't usually wear my glasses and should but that doesn't change anything with this.). I agree timewise moving previews isn't ideal and not sure that would solve the issue anyway b/c it's size not location. I will say what started this thought is a photography group where someone said the highest resolution of the image 6400px would not print the size image her client wanted (larger than a 30x24) and the photo lab said to "increase the resolution to 10,000 px) and I was like what? You can't do that. But if a museum quality archival photo lab says you can, I thought maybe I am missing something stupid obvious. Any enlargements I've made pixelate but advancements in photoshop 2022 maybe? or another method?

It's not limited to previews--it's an issue with everything saved at the 600 or 800 pixel size. I think what's really being asked is why the digital scrapbooking industry is sticking with such a small size as its standard (for previews and gallery images) when newer technology is making such a small size obsolete. ETA: I accidentally phrased this wrong. I don't think Kat was asking all designers and sites to change, I just think that's the only solution to the problem. Like I said, I purposely bought a monitor that wasn't 4K this summer because I rely on my previews a lot and was worried I'd have issues with the better monitor.

I do think it's everything but it's most noticeable for me with my scrapbooking stuff. My art classes are similar But you are right, I am not asking all designers to change, but I am seeking options, something I have missed, maybe a setting or a way to enlarge without losing quality (assuming designers don't mind that if it worked).

With that said, this problem will continue and worsen as more monitors get larger. Mine non 4k is considered one of the "smaller ones" now. I do think having full size previews at 3600px would be awesome or even 1300 px but I also think that would create another issue making folders and download sizes even bigger. If others are like me, I have I think somewhere along 2 tb of scrap stuff. That's after I cleaned up and got rid of old freebies and kits I didn't use. So in a way you aren't wrong by saying why is the scrapbooking community still working with such small images but I think the answer would be due to space issues in general. Not everyone has the issue so what can those of us with the issue do differently and maybe even what options are available for the scrapbook community as a whole down the line. I started in 2007. The community has certainly grown to a degree with the changing times and working to find a happy medium IMO between size and space.

 

[SeattleSheri]

Ok, I think I understand your issue more, but I'm not working on a monitor as large as yours. You may have already tried this based on your post above, but just in case ... in finder, what happens when you adjust the size of the preview and the spacing in your preview options? View > Show Preview Options (or by hitting Command J)

You can also use the slider at the bottom of the preview to control the size. This is what mine looks like at the settings above.

And here's what it looks like if I maximize the size:

You may also want to try different screen resolution options in your monitor's settings. I found this method to work on my work monitor (PC) where I have a very large monitor.

 

[Kat]

Ok, I think I understand your issue more. What happens when you adjust the size of the preview and the spacing in your preview options? View > Show Preview Options (or by hitting Command J)

View attachment 484457

You can also use the slider at the bottom of the preview to control the size. This is what mine looks like at the settings above.

View attachment 484458

And here's what it looks like if I maximize the size:
View attachment 484459

Yes, I do all of those things when working in finder. I enabled a slider for the icon size at the bottom right of the finder window and have some other custom settings. Some previews for example the MPM ones (which are 800px)... do pretty well... but not all previews enlarge well. I am working in Bridge though not finder for these searches. Bridge has sliders to enlarge too but they stay pretty small if they change at all. I use bridge 2022 (on the subscription plan) and open this program on my macbook pro screen while I open photoshop/lightroom on my 27 inch screen, then I pull elements and such from the other screen. Elements enlarge fairly well under most circumstances. I've done adjustments to the settings to make it the best view for my needs, but this is one area I haven't been able to figure out. All of my screenshots above are from bridge. I'll edit the post to mention that.

 

[SeattleSheri]

@Kat I hope you find something that works! I have Adobe Bridge, but don't use it. Just for fun I went in there and I see what you mean! Yikes! Hopefully Adobe adds better viewing options at some point!

 

[Kat]

@Kat I hope you find something that works! I have Adobe Bridge, but don't use it. Just for fun I went in there and I see what you mean! Yikes! Hopefully Adobe adds better viewing options at some point!

in all fairness, bridge works perfectly on everything else for me.... I use it often to scroll through photos I keep in folders, thousands of them. It's only the small size, they are processing them like they are... small. There has to be a solution out there, fingers crossed.

 

[bestcee]

It's not limited to previews--it's an issue with everything saved at the 600 or 800 pixel size. I think what's really being asked is why the digital scrapbooking industry is sticking with such a small size as its standard (for previews and gallery images) when newer technology is making such a small size obsolete.

I also think that would create another issue making folders and download sizes even bigger

Yep. I remember downloading from a site back in 2013 that would put everything in teeny tiny folders (size wise) because if it was too big, it would often be a struggle for some countries internet service. So folders had like 4 papers max and kits were divided into 8-10 folders instead of 3-4. I'm grateful for fast and speedy internet. But I also remember when Justine (@bellbird ) asked what we do when we wait for downloads. I haven't had to do that since dial up, or when I visited my cousin in Canada and he was still on a metered service.

I know that online galleries take a lot of space and making the images larger means needing more space or deleting old images. It can also pull on the site speed when it's loading all the graphics. I'm sure that eventually previews will get bigger, at least a bit, but I think the global part of digital scrapbooking makes it helpful to keep sizes smaller right now.

 

[bellbird]

But I also remember when Justine (@bellbird ) asked what we do when we wait for downloads. I haven't had to do that since dial up, or when I visited my cousin in Canada and he was still on a metered service.

oh man the last week has been so super slow -we had all kinds of problems and even DH's dad rang to say his internet/computer is not loading photos, and the gallery was just showing me grey boxes at one point; we have the same provider and yes, we all tried 'turn it off and back on again' ;-)