I'll bet your Mac has a low bit depth set. In OS X, that's System
Preferences>Displays>Colors>Millions. In OS 9 or less, open the Color
(or is it Displays?) control panel.
Tom Nelson
Tom Nelson Photography

In article <9a1f8a4.0409230550.7eb1bcb2@posting.google.com>, dave
blacker <dbl4ck3r@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I'm just  re-learning PS on a Mac, and I've noticed something rather
> strange with images I created on a PC (in TIFF). When I go to 'actual
> pixels', the image is really coarse: the smallest details are made up
> of blocks of pixels, not single pixels.
>
> The image looks as though it's been zoomed *way over* 100%, which it
> hasn't.
>
> Just why am I losing so much image detail this way? Are TIFFS saved on
> a PC incompatible with Macs?

In article <20040923095920.03406.00000868@mb-m25.aol.com>,
tacitr@aol.com (Tacit) wrote:
 
>
> No. A TIFF is a TIFF is a TIFF; it's identical on Macs, PCs, Suns, Amigas,
> mainframes, you name it.
>

Yes and no: while a single specification covers all the standard
options, there are some characteristics typical of certain platforms.
For example the sequential arrangement of samples differs between Mac
and DOS/Windows versions (I don't remember exactly how, but it's
something like top-to-bottom-by-rows _vs_ left-to-right-by columns) --
although most professional graphics applications, Photoshop certainly
included, can recognize and deal appropriately with either platform's
'idiom'.

> What happens when you look at actual pixels on a PC? It should be 100%
> pixel-for-pixel identical to the same image viewed at "actual pixels" on a
> Mac.
>
> If you have an image that's not the same on both, email it to me off-list;
> I'd
> love to take a look at it.

Ditto.

--
Odysseus

In article <20040923095920.03406.00000868@mb-m25.aol.com>,
tacitr@aol.com (Tacit) wrote:
 
>
> No. A TIFF is a TIFF is a TIFF; it's identical on Macs, PCs, Suns, Amigas,
> mainframes, you name it.
>

Yes and no: while a single specification covers all the standard
options, there are some characteristics typical of certain platforms.
For example the sequential arrangement of samples differs between Mac
and DOS/Windows versions (I don't remember exactly how, but it's
something like top-to-bottom-by-rows _vs_ left-to-right-by columns) --
although most professional graphics applications, Photoshop certainly
included, can recognize and deal appropriately with either platform's
'idiom'.

> What happens when you look at actual pixels on a PC? It should be 100%
> pixel-for-pixel identical to the same image viewed at "actual pixels" on a
> Mac.
>
> If you have an image that's not the same on both, email it to me off-list;
> I'd
> love to take a look at it.

Ditto.

--
Odysseus

I'll bet your Mac has a low bit depth set. In OS X, that's System
Preferences>Displays>Colors>Millions. In OS 9 or less, open the Color
(or is it Displays?) control panel.
Tom Nelson
Tom Nelson Photography

In article <9a1f8a4.0409230550.7eb1bcb2@posting.google.com>, dave
blacker <dbl4ck3r@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I'm just  re-learning PS on a Mac, and I've noticed something rather
> strange with images I created on a PC (in TIFF). When I go to 'actual
> pixels', the image is really coarse: the smallest details are made up
> of blocks of pixels, not single pixels.
>
> The image looks as though it's been zoomed *way over* 100%, which it
> hasn't.
>
> Just why am I losing so much image detail this way? Are TIFFS saved on
> a PC incompatible with Macs?

Win default screen res 96DPI    (can be set up to 120DPI)
Mac screen res 72DPI

Cheers, Jason  (remove ... to reply)
Video & Gaming: http://gadgetaus.com

>Just why am I losing so much image detail this way? Are TIFFS saved on
>a PC incompatible with Macs?

No. A TIFF is a TIFF is a TIFF; it's identical on Macs, PCs, Suns, Amigas,
mainframes, you name it.

What happens when you look at actual pixels on a PC? It should be 100%
pixel-for-pixel identical to the same image viewed at "actual pixels" on a M
ac.

If you have an image that's not the same on both, email it to me off-list; I
'd
love to take a look at it.

--
Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html