Share for Review: Image Quality
Can we have an option where Share > Share for Review has a high-quality view as opposed to the low-res preview (see file attached- Review (left) and Original (right)) please?
Anonymous
shared this idea
Share for Review is to quickly share a design that is still a work-in-progress with the Reviewer(s) for quick feedback. Since the review opens in a browser for the reviewer, it has to load quickly even on slow networks, that’s why the image quality has been kept low deliberately so that the page loads quickly without long wait times. Using high-res views will slow down the loading of pages in the browser considerably, marring the experience.
Hope this helps.
—
Adobe InDesign team
-
Ted Hendershot commented
The compression is too much. This feature is too useful and valuable to have problems this serious. I have to post "Please be aware, images will appear low resolution due to the shortcomings of this review tool. They will be high resolution in the final draft." on every single SfR link. Illustrator looks better than this, so it can't just be loading times. We need a switch we can hit to go from rapid internal review to higher-quality client preview. It doesn't have to be full quality, but this level of compression is absolutely fatal to using this tool for many kinds of client reviews. (And I know Adobe doesn't want to be producing software that its users have to apologize for!)
-
Maurice Williams
commented
I definitely appreciate prioritizing performance over visual fidelity. I've never seen a preview take longer than 2 seconds to resolve.
Having said that, I would gladly wait 5 times that length of time even just for medium res of images. InDesign is known for precision, and I feel Adobe has missed the mark of what designers need to provide to clients. Allow the user to choose hi-res via a button and find out what's important :)
-
Dean Morrison
commented
It should be up to the user to determine the quality of images. I understand the desire to keep file sizes small for web views but there is also a balance where you can have decent quality images that are small. At he moment the compression that is being used is a bit extreme. The selling point for Adobe to make this possible is if the user decides they want higher quality images in the review the file size is bigger and thus they use more storage and may have to upgrade their storage equaling more money for Adobe.
-
Markus Quintus
commented
Well same here.
I just tested this feature for inhouse stakeholder.
The first thing said: How shall i check if those images are the right ones if i barrely can identify them. Just send me a high res PDF or use Screensharing
This is what we want to avoid